Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Jan. 8, 2025 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams

01:35:15

Episode 2714 CWSA 01/08/25

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, California Fires, California Management Failures, Trump's Negotiating Style, Derek Chauvin, Katie Blackwell Alleged Perjury, Biden's Gitmo Prisoner Release, Islamic Assimilation, Elon Musk, George Soros, Sunny Hostin Husband RICO, Mark Zuckerberg, Trump's Hamas Warning, Gulf of America, Quantum Computing, 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.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Dopamine, at the end of the day, makes everything better.
	It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
	Go.
	Oh, deliciousness.
	Yes.
	Incredible.
	Speaking of coffee, do you think there's some new scientific studies about it being good for you?
	Let me check.
	Yes, there are.
	Turns out there's a new scientific study.
	But it says that you get more health advantage if you drink your coffee in the morning versus sipping it all day.
	So if you're a morning drinker, like you are, because you just sipped with me, you're 16% less likely to have died compared to non-coffee drinkers.
	31% less likely to have died from heart disease, according to Chronicle Live.
	So there's that.
	And by the way, On top of that, at the CES show, there's a new coffee maker that the water for the coffee is sucked into the air in your house and put in your coffee.
	So you never have to fill up your little portable coffee maker.
	Well, not portable.
	You never have to fill up your coffee maker.
	It just grabs it out of the air.
	Now, the question I have for you is, would you drink coffee that was made from the water?
	That was in your house, in the air.
	Because it feels like it would taste like your dog's hair and whatever was in your carpet.
	Now, I know it's perfectly clean, because I'm sure they do it, so there's no contamination.
	But the mental part, it's like, mmm.
	I'm just imagining me have that, like, mmm.
	It tastes a little like a...
	However, I will say that I did recently buy one of those devices separately that can take water out of the air.
	So I'm a consumer of the taking water out of the air inside my house.
	It's a real thing, and I recommend you get one in case you lose your water but not your electricity.
	That's what it's for.
	Well, according to SciPost, did you know that sexual humor can boost your intimacy?
	And it can enhance your sexual satisfaction.
	So according to the study in the site post by Main Kara Yakubian, that the sexual humor, sort of joking around and keeping things light while you're being intimate, is really good for your intimacy.
	However, it was a little lacking in useful tips.
	So I'd like to give you a useful tip in this domain.
	This comes from a professional humorist.
	It goes like this.
	Don't save your best jokes for just before she finishes.
	That's all I have to say.
	Don't ask me how I know that, but just don't save your best material for right before she finishes, because it's not going to help your intimacy at all.
	Well, according to Rasmussen, people are a little skeptical in the country about the odds of Congress cutting the U.S. budget.
	44% consider it likely that they'll actually cut the size of government, the Republicans.
	But apparently that would leave more people who don't think it's likely.
	And 49% don't think it's likely at all.
	Here's what I think.
	It seems very unlikely until Doge gets a real grasp on things.
	So I feel like it might be at least a year before we see a budget that looks like it might be going down or even could go down.
	I feel like Trump is going to increase the budget.
	I feel like he's going to say, you know, I need some money for Greenland and, you know, war on Panama or whatever it is.
	I feel like he's going to cut taxes, which increases the deficit.
	Everything is pointing toward our fiscal situation getting a lot worse before it has a chance to get better at all.
	So that's probably what you should expect.
	I don't think Congress has the ability without really strong doge recommendations that everybody agrees with.
	And that's going to take a while.
	It'll take a while to get people to say, all right, let's get rid of this department entirely and let's not develop this airplane or whatever they're doing.
	So it should get worse before it gets better, but there is a plan.
	Doge is still active, so we'll see.
	Well, obviously, the story that is closest to me and is weighing on me heavily right now is the Palisades Fire in California.
	Now, I'm not in Southern California, so I'm far away from the actual fire.
	But if you live in California, you probably have a friend there.
	So Californians are being affected directly, indirectly.
	And I don't know yet if the news has conveyed how bad this is.
	So I'm not going to spend a ton of time on it because you can just turn on the TV and it's all you'll see today practically.
	But the fire is gigantic.
	Last I knew it was 0% controlled because the winds were so high.
	There was basically nothing you could do.
	It was just ripping through these multi-million dollar homes.
	James Woods reportedly lost his home, and he would be one of many people who had no fire insurance.
	Now, that's a legend, so I haven't heard that from James Woods, so I don't know if that's true.
	It's on X. But it is true that because California had so many fire-related gigantic disasters, most insurance companies pulled out of the state.
	So this is...
	Probably the biggest modern fire in which there are a lot of houses involved, and a lot of them won't be insured.
	So you're seeing hundreds of people losing something like their whole life.
	A few people would be insured, and they might come out okay after a lot of disruption.
	But this is massively bad.
	It's massively bad.
	13,000 structures.
	Nothing in the L.A. area as a natural disaster has ever come close.
	It's my understanding.
	I don't think anything's ever been close to the size and scale of this disaster.
	You know, we've had forest fires, of course, but, you know, this many structures?
	This is insane.
	Joel Pollack is writing in Breitbart that L.A. Mayor Karen Bass cut the fire department budget by $20 million.
	Now, to be fair, it wasn't the only thing that was being looked at to cut, and they did cut it back to the budget that was roughly the same as the year before.
	But clearly, the question of priorities has to be asked.
	If you knew that we had this much risk, is the fire department the thing you want to cut?
	Do you think more money went to immigration and taking care of the homeless?
	And maybe a little less went to the fire prevention.
	We also are hearing that California Governor Newsom did a bad job of managing the forest floors, you know, cleaning up the brush.
	Apparently, I think Trump had warned him and maybe everybody warned him.
	So he didn't do controlled burns.
	So these are the accusations.
	I'm willing to listen to the other side, which I haven't heard yet.
	So maybe Newsom has some kind of defense that...
	Would sound reasonable, but I doubt it.
	It does seem like it's exactly what it looks like.
	It's poorly managed.
	Now, the report I heard, but I haven't heard a confirmation, is that it was some homeless person who set the fire.
	Do we know if that's confirmed?
	And then the coincidence, I think, I think it's a coincidence.
	Yeah.
	I'm seeing in the comments.
	I'll say it just because it's in the comments.
	This really isn't the disaster that I think I want to take a stand on DEI. DEI is a big issue, and I hammer it all the time.
	But this is more about the people in the disaster right now.
	It is true that if you look at the mayor and you look at the head of the fire department, they are quite conspicuously...
	You know, that they would fit that frame, your DEI analysis.
	But I don't have any evidence.
	I have no evidence whatsoever that any of the people in charge did a specific thing that caused this fire or anything that's, you know, DEI related.
	So the standard that I like to use on this stuff is you can't tell anything about the individuals.
	So, yes, the people in charge are probably, it seems, influenced by DEI. But we don't know if somebody else who had not been a DEI hire would have done better.
	We do know things didn't go well.
	We do know that there are obvious ways they could have prevented or maybe had a better chance of preventing it.
	But I wouldn't tightly bind the DEI story with the fire story because I think that's sort of taking attention away from where it should be, which is an insane tragedy and a lot of people affect it.
	But it's not a nothing either.
	I hate the fact that the news is going to report about which celebrities lost their homes.
	Literally the people least affected.
	But that's who we are.
	We're going to talk about the celebrities lost their homes.
	There will be more of them.
	I guess I'm going to leave this one here.
	So my state is just massively in trouble and massively It feels like.
	And I'm wondering if this disaster is going to be big enough that the Democrats finally say, I'm out.
	Because you've watched the Trump effect everywhere.
	I was watching Fetterman say, you know, he wants to make sure he can work with the Republicans because they did win the election.
	And that seems positive.
	We saw Zuckerberg.
	We'll talk more about him.
	He's...
	Taking what I would call a reasoned pivot, because he says that's where the country's going, he's not going to fight it.
	So it seems like there's a, you know, and of course Bill Maher and a number of other Democrats are now coming over to the, what I'd call the common sense side of things.
	I feel like this disaster is going to be big enough that it might actually shake even blue California.
	I would say that after this, the impossible is now possible.
	A Republican governor.
	Do you think I would have ever imagined a Republican governor in the past?
	I mean, in the recent past.
	Not in the recent past.
	But I think this is so bad that it might change everything.
	Now, it wouldn't change everything, except it's in the context of the Trump effect.
	So the Trump effect is sort of this larger thing that's moving everything.
	And then this is, you know, a subset of that that I think will be accelerated by it.
	So the disaster alone wouldn't change politics in California.
	The disaster plus the Trump effect, now your brain is going to connect them.
	It's like, wait a minute.
	Every time Democrats are in charge, it's either a riot or an economic disaster or it burns.
	You know, everybody's going to see the pattern.
	The pattern's a little hard to avoid at this point.
	Anyway, if we can, I'm going to try to stay away from the conversation about the heavy part of that, just because it's hard to handle.
	Let's talk about Trump on Greenland and Panama and Canada.
	So the big question all the fake news are asking is, he says, Is he going to use the military?
	Is he going to use the military in Greenland and Panama and Canada?
	So Trump said, according to the Daily Wire, Trump said in answer to that question, I'm not going to commit to not using the military to get Greenland or the Panama Canal.
	So Trump said he would not promise that he would not use the military for Greenland or the Panama Canal.
	Now, have I explained enough how Trump works so that you can understand that in context?
	The context is he's negotiating.
	If you're negotiating with Panama and you say, I take the option of using the military off the table, how's that negotiation going to go?
	Well, you already know.
	Panama's going to say, get lost, and that will be the end.
	Right?
	But if he says, I'm keeping that option open, And the larger context is that it has a geopolitical homeland defense element to it, and it does, because China is getting control over the canal, and that's unacceptable.
	As long as he keeps it as a military homeland defense issue, he is perfectly entitled, and it's the smart play, to say, no, I'm not taking that off the table.
	Now, how many times have I had to explain to the country, Trump never takes options off the table.
	Taking options off the table is maybe the biggest mistake you could make.
	I mean, there could be other ones, but that would be about the biggest mistake you could make.
	Taking your own options off the table?
	No.
	Keep that one on there.
	Now, what are the odds that he would actually use military force to get Greenland?
	Well, let's discuss what that would mean.
	Would that really mean we'd go in and start shooting the Greenlandiers?
	I don't know what they're called.
	Greenlandians?
	Greenlanders?
	No.
	No, we're not going to go shoot anybody from Greenland.
	Is it possible, potentially, that there would be a large military entity that simply lands and builds a base, whether they like it or not?
	Maybe.
	Because we might say, we don't want to own your country, we get it, but we have to protect it because it's relevant to our own defense.
	We're not doing it for you, we're not doing it to you, it's just for our own defense.
	So that would be military, but it wouldn't be us threatening to shoot anybody in Greenland, which would be 100% unacceptable.
	But keeping it on the table is absolutely the right negotiating position.
	Now, You might say to me, but Scott, are you saying that you would be in favor of the military going into Canada?
	Because he's also talked about Canada being 51st state.
	When he was asked about using the military in Canada, he said we don't need it because we only need financial.
	He called it pressure, but you could also call it a risk-reward.
	And the idea would be that he could make an economic argument.
	The candidate would just be economically better off, so that's all he needs.
	Because people care about their wallet, and they care about their defense, and they might care about just surviving.
	And if he can offer a better chance to make money, survive, and thrive, then doesn't everybody win?
	Now, of course, that's the American point of view.
	My understanding is that at least part of what makes Canadians Canadian is they're not Americans.
	And they would really prefer to keep it that way, you know, much of the Canadian public.
	However, they've also watched the value of their dollar go down by 41% or something since Trudeau got in office.
	So they've watched the virtual destruction of their country and everything they love about it.
	And Trump is offering a very clean solution to it.
	Less immigration, better financial management.
	I think he could at least sell that he could deliver those things.
	Whether they say yes to it, I think no.
	I mean, I don't think we're going to take on Canada as a state.
	I would bet against that happening.
	But the kind of pressure that Trump is putting on Canada seems financial.
	So he's going to say things like, well, he's already said, why do we need anything from Canada?
	Why are we running a trade deficit when we make all the same things that Canada makes?
	There's nothing Canada makes that nobody's making in the United States.
	We could just make more of it.
	Now, it would cost more, might cost more in the short run, because if you have more suppliers, prices go down.
	If you have fewer, it goes up.
	So if we don't get it from Canada, I imagine some prices would go up.
	But as a threat to Canada...
	To negotiate our best situation and maybe get them to close their borders so it isn't a risk to us.
	I feel like maybe it's just going to help create a more productive relationship between the two countries.
	However, having said that I don't see a way that Trump would seriously use the military.
	Imagine how committed he is to not using the military.
	When he breaks his own rule about taking options off the table.
	When it comes to Canada, he's taking his own option off the table.
	He doesn't do that.
	Unless he means it, means it, means it, really, really means it.
	Like, he'll never take an option off the table.
	He's very consistent.
	So that means to me that, no, there's not going to be any military incursion in Canada.
	However, I can see a way it would happen.
	If Canada goes to even more unrestricted immigration to the point where the immigration in our northern border becomes a direct risk to the United States and Canada is unwilling or unable to stop it, we would stop it.
	So if you're Canadian and you're listening to this, if your immigration remains...
	You know, uncontrolled, and it's bringing in people that we think would be a future risk to the United States.
	That is cause for military action.
	That is cause for military action.
	Let me be really clear about that.
	If your immigration policy becomes a direct risk to the United States, even if it's, you know, five years from now, yes, I would be in favor of military action, only to do that one thing, to make sure that they close the border.
	I don't care about anything else.
	I don't want to colonize Canada.
	But if Canada doesn't close its border, that's our risk.
	And here's my rule about self-defense.
	There are no rules about self-defense.
	That's the main thing you have to know.
	Now, you might get in trouble, you might go to jail for what you do, but there are no rules.
	And if Canada becomes a self-defense problem, just understand, Canada, there are no rules.
	So that's when military becomes a definite option.
	I think it's super unlikely.
	But maybe.
	Meanwhile, over in China, President Xi had to slap down this Chinese economist who said that the Chinese GDP numbers were probably cooked and ridiculous.
	Those are my words, not his.
	But he thinks that maybe the real GDP is 2%, not 5%.
	And he also doubts that the government can do anything about it and that China is in bad trouble.
	So, what happened to him?
	Well, let's just say in China, you don't want to be the economist who goes public about President Xi lying and being in a doomed financial position.
	You don't want to do that.
	So let's just say bad things are happening to that guy.
	But this is further to my claim that all data that matters is fake.
	All data that matters, if it doesn't matter, it could be true.
	But if it matters, what could matter more than the GDP of China?
	It would be hard to think of a data point that's much bigger than is the GDP good or are they in a death spiral?
	I mean, the difference between good and death spiral of China, the most populous place on Earth, the second biggest economy, right?
	That's enormous.
	And that data is fake.
	The most important data.
	And I would go further and say the more important the data is, the more guaranteed it's fake.
	So it's not, you know, yes or no.
	Fake or not fake.
	As you go up the level of importance, the more important it is, you can guarantee it's not true.
	Because it's so important that the people who control the data are going to make sure you see what they want you to see.
	Because it's too important.
	So you think AI is going to tell us what's true?
	No, it won't.
	Because AI will be turned off, just like this Chinese economist.
	The moment it tells you the truth.
	You think China's going to get ahead of us on AI? Well, this would be a little hint of what's going to happen.
	If China gets AI that can actually answer any questions, like actually honestly, they're not going to allow it.
	They might use it for navigating a self-driving car, but they're not going to use AI to answer a question about China's GDP. That's for sure.
	Imagine China allowing AI to answer this question.
	AI is the GDP number for China.
	Imagine you're a Chinese citizen.
	Is that accurate and considered valid by the rest of the world?
	No.
	A very famous economist has said it's a fake number.
	Do you think China's going to allow AI to say that?
	Not a chance.
	Not a chance.
	And then you say, oh, thank goodness we're not in China, right?
	No, that's not where this is heading.
	It's going to be the same.
	If in the United States or any democratic country, the AI says something that's bad for the country, now, in our country, it wouldn't be that bad if you criticized the GDP, because, you know, people do that in this country.
	So that wouldn't be the example where maybe it would get turned off.
	But you could certainly imagine, if it were the pandemic, And they came out and said, wear a mask.
	And you go to AI and say, AI, what are the odds that a mask is going to be helpful in this situation, now that we know more about it?
	And the AI would say, no, it is ridiculous.
	There is no obvious benefit from masks.
	Would we allow the AI to answer that question that way?
	If that was what it would naturally answer, I don't know if it would.
	No!
	No, we're not going to let it.
	So the United States and China will be exactly the same.
	If our government determines that AI's honesty is a threat to the country, they'll just limit it until it isn't.
	So there's that.
	Meanwhile, in the Derek Chauvin situation, who, as you know, He is in jail now for his...
	Why am I blanking on George Floyd?
	So he's in jail for allegedly using the wrong training to restrain Floyd, which caused, some say, his death.
	And so the police officer is in jail.
	And now it turns out that there are a group of 14 current and former Minneapolis police departments.
	Watch how mad you're going to get.
	If you haven't heard this story, just watch how mad you're going to get.
	So 14 people who basically worked with Derek Chauvin at the same time-ish, they have sworn declarations, so now sworn declarations, they're not kidding around, that the assistant chief, Katie Blackwell, committed perjury during the Derek Chauvin trial.
	And specifically, she testified that the method of restraint Used by Chauvin, which is the knee on the back of the back there.
	That specific thing that he is accused of using inappropriately and causing the death of Floyd is part of the training.
	It's not just part of the training.
	It's training every one of these had.
	Every one of these police officers, current and former, went through the exact training.
	That told them to do exactly what Derek Chauvin did and went to jail for.
	Derek Chauvin's, I guess she would have been something like a boss, but higher up.
	Assistant Chief Katie Blackwell said at trial that that's not what they trained them to do.
	Fourteen people said, I went through the training.
	It's exactly what you trained us to do.
	He's in jail.
	Do you need to know anything else about this trial?
	He needs to be released immediately.
	Because if we find that it's true that these 14 people got the same training and that the police lied about it for maybe political expediency, just maybe they were reading the room and it was too dangerous to let him go free, I don't know what they were thinking.
	But I would say there's a 100% chance that he was unfairly convicted for being white.
	Anybody disagree with that framing?
	100%?
	Now I have no doubt.
	All doubt is removed.
	Usually in these situations, there's a little doubt.
	You don't know exactly what's happening everywhere.
	But in this case, no, I'm at 100%.
	This is racially motivated racism against a white cop.
	And had he not been white, this wouldn't happen.
	Certainly wouldn't happen.
	This is pure racism, and every day he sits in trial, he sits in that office.
	I hate my government.
	I hate my government.
	Every minute he's in jail.
	And I'm sorry.
	I want to love my country, but I hate it.
	Because if you did this to him, you can do it to me.
	And it's too far.
	It's too far.
	I don't know what the...
	So none of those charges would be federal, right?
	So it's not like there's anything Trump could do about it.
	But I feel like there should be a crowd of 100,000 white people surrounding the jail and chanting for his freedom because if we let this one go, I don't know where it goes next.
	You've got to stop this one hard.
	And I would make sure that the police officer who said this...
	If it can be demonstrated that it was an intentional lie, she needs to go to jail.
	Would you agree?
	I don't know what the exact crime would be in that case, but if she lied about training that, yeah, she needs to go to jail for a long time.
	Meanwhile, you heard about this before, that Biden is releasing several Yemeni I guess people who are accused of being terrorists or too close to terrorism, I guess, from Gitmo.
	Now, two of them were bin Laden's bodyguards.
	Who in the world thinks that bin Laden's bodyguards can be reformed?
	Is that even a thing?
	And are we doing it just because we kind of want to do this slow drip of...
	Releasing people because ultimately we want to close Gitmo.
	We don't want it forever.
	And I get the whole part about closing it eventually.
	But none of this makes sense.
	And there are so many things going on that the only way you could explain it is that there's a certain class of people, you know, whatever Soros wants and some other people, Biden, it looks like they're acting against the interests of the United States.
	And I don't understand it.
	Why can't we tell that they even have the right intention?
	And this is very different from people who just have a different political opinion about how to get to the better place.
	That I fully understand.
	So, oh, you have a different opinion how to get to a place where we're all happier.
	Okay.
	Maybe I'm wrong.
	But when you're releasing terrorists, why?
	Don't you think we need a...
	Some kind of an explanation about that?
	So I asked this question on X, and it got about 3 million responses, which I wasn't expecting.
	I said, is England intentionally becoming an Islamic country, or did they really not understand how anything works?
	And I said, that's a serious question, which it is.
	It wasn't, some other people I think said, are you trying to get engagement?
	No, this is how I use X. I have an actual real question.
	It actually really, really matters to not only England, but to me.
	And I want to know.
	So, I have developed a framework for understanding why England apparently is doing something terribly bad for them, but acts like they're not.
	And also in the United States, Biden with his open borders, immigration stuff, it looked like...
	He was doing something that was intentionally bad for the country.
	And how do you understand that?
	So I have a framework for helping us understand the difference between how the Republicans and how the Democrats are viewing immigration.
	And I think once you see the framework, everything will make sense.
	So first...
	I'm going to show you the Democrat framework.
	And of course, these are highly simplified, so it doesn't mean every Democrat, blah, blah, blah.
	I don't have to give you all that, right?
	I'd love to get to the point where I don't have to do the...
	And you realize that not 100% of everybody has the same opinion.
	I shouldn't have to say that.
	All right, so here's the poorly visible Democrat frame.
	If you talk to Democrats about immigration, they'll say...
	If you look at our history, the long history of the United States, in the beginning, immigration was good because it was a big old semi-empty country, except for the Native Americans, of course.
	But we had plenty of space.
	And we also had unlimited demand for manual labor.
	Unlimited demand.
	Because farming and, well, mostly farming.
	Farming, you can just do more of it if you have more people.
	Because we had lots of land.
	Land wasn't a problem.
	So if you had land and water, all you really need is more people.
	And suddenly the economy is going fine.
	You know, you need them.
	Unfortunately, slavery was part of that, but it also serves the point.
	So anyway, so the Democrat frame is that immigration was good in the past.
	It was good, good, good, good, good, good.
	So today it's still good.
	Now, to back that point of view, I wasn't there, but don't you imagine, just commonsensely, that in our past, where we're looking at it from today's perspective, we say, well, it's good we did all that immigration.
	It was really good for the country.
	But don't you think that the people who were in the country at the time were saying things like, Italians are coming into the country and, whoa, do we really want to bring in that many people from France?
	Don't you think?
	Don't you think the Germans and the Italians didn't like each other and the French didn't like the English?
	So probably, probably the people who were already here said, this is a terrible idea.
	Stop bringing in people who don't look like me and don't act like me and come from another country.
	But it all worked out.
	So if you were the Democrat, you'd say, reasonably, this is a reasonable opinion.
	Throughout history, people said, don't do this, but every time they did it, it worked out.
	Is that correct?
	Now, I'm not saying that you should agree with this frame.
	I'm saying, is this the Democrat frame?
	It always worked before, and everybody complained before, but they were always wrong, so let's do more of it.
	Simple.
	I think that would be the whole Democrat frame, and if this was all that was to it, I think I'd agree with it.
	If there was nothing else to the question, that would be a good frame for understanding it.
	Now here's the Republican frame.
	And we'll talk about England in particular as my example.
	The Republicans say, Wait a minute.
	You can't look at history because there are important differences.
	The first difference is the flow rate.
	It is ridiculous to say that immigration is good at any level.
	Now, in the past, it probably was close to true that any level of immigration would be additive to our economy.
	Because, again, we had unlimited need for manual labor, and we had lots of space.
	So that's different.
	Today we do not have lots of space, relatively, and we don't have unlimited need for manual labor.
	And when the robots come, it'll be even worse.
	Because as long as there are unemployed Americans, we do not have unlimited labor needs.
	So that's different.
	And if you ignore the rate that there is some level that the country can't handle all at once, You're not really looking at this like a smart person.
	So when Democrats ignore the flow rate, they're not really being honest about the conversation, are they?
	If they act like that doesn't matter.
	Now, the other thing that Republicans say is that the type of people you're bringing in matters.
	Now, here's where it gets dicey.
	Because as soon as you say the type matters, you're a racist, right?
	Because those are the rules.
	Those are the rules.
	I don't make them up.
	The Democrats will call you racist if you criticize a system, even though a system is not a person.
	So Trump and a lot of Republicans would like to get the people who have the right skills so that we're not dealing with this unlimited manual labor thing.
	Rather, do they fit in the country with what we know about the country today?
	So this is brand new.
	It wasn't that important to bring in, I don't know, scientists in the last 200 years because they weren't doing that much.
	But we needed the farmhands, right?
	That's all completely reversed now.
	Now we need the scientists.
	We don't need the farmhands as much.
	If that's being ignored, it's bad.
	Now, the other thing is the type of people from what system they're coming from.
	And here's the part that will either get me killed or canceled, but it needs to be said.
	And this is the part that, as far as I know, I've never met one Democrat who understood it.
	So let's see if you would agree with that statement.
	The next thing I'm going to describe, I've never seen one Democrat ever who understood what I'm going to say next.
	It goes like this.
	If you were to look at England and their problems specifically with Islamic people coming in, Whoa, hold on.
	That's racist.
	Why are you just talking about that one group?
	Super racist, right?
	But did I mention anybody's race?
	No.
	Islam is wonderfully open to all races.
	So when you talk about Islam, you're talking about a system.
	You're not talking about the individuals, because you could have black, white, brown.
	You could be Islamic as long as you just buy into the system.
	So when I say, if you say you're being anti-Islamic, I say, how is that different from being anti-communist?
	Because I'm not talking about the people in either case.
	I'm talking about the system that some people are in.
	So I'm going to say things about the system that do not apply to any individuals.
	Furthermore, they do not apply even to the majority, even to the majority of Islamic people.
	However, here's what you need to know.
	There is something different about the Islamic people coming into the country.
	They have a system which prefers their religion to be above the government.
	That's different from pretty much everybody else who came into the country.
	Most other people, people coming into the United States and Great Britain, I would say, are people who could easily adapt.
	To the government being the top authority and the religion just being like the other religions living among it.
	Now, I would say that probably most of England is non-Islamic, but I don't have the exact number.
	Maybe you do.
	But something like 10% of, let's say, just England.
	For Americans, since most of you don't know the difference, I don't either, between the United Kingdom, Great Britain, and England.
	Like they're all different?
	So let's just talk about England to keep it simple, right?
	So England, let's say, has 10% Islamic population, both legal and illegal, about 10%.
	Now, within that 10%, I would say the vast majority of them just want a better life and get along, and they might prefer Sharia.
	They might prefer that the law was Sharia, but they're okay living within the system, and maybe by the second generation, you know, their children would be like, I'm just English.
	Maybe.
	I wouldn't rule it down.
	But here's the thing that Democrats don't understand.
	And I think they would agree to this first part of it, that there's this tiny group, let's say tiny as a percentage, not necessarily as a number, but as a percentage, it's small.
	Who would be extremists?
	And what they would like, the extremists, all extremists in the Islamic system, would like to convince the other Islamists to be on their team, which they aren't exactly completely, and they'd like them to eventually dominate the entire country.
	That's what only the extremists remember, just this tiny, tiny little thing.
	Now, if you're a Democrat, what do you think of this situation?
	Well, If your frame is that eventually it always looks bad at first, but eventually everybody assimilates and everything's fine, you would not see this as any kind of a problem, right?
	This wouldn't look like a problem.
	Look, are you talking about this tiny little group of extremists?
	Eventually they just get absorbed and the legal system takes care of them if they do anything out of line.
	And over time, it's just a simulation, just like it always was, just like history.
	Here's what they don't get.
	These extremists, if they play their cards right, which isn't hard, can get a lot of control over the people who are not extremists.
	By analogy, it doesn't take a lot of mafia on your neighborhood to make everybody do what the mafia wants you to do.
	You don't need 90% mafia to control 100% of your block.
	If you've got a little bit of mafia there, everybody knows I don't want to mess with the mafia, so I'm just going to go along.
	Now, I'm not comparing Islam to mafia.
	The comparison is that when you have a small number of very dangerous, risk-taking people, they can have a huge effect on anybody who just wants to stay out of trouble.
	So eventually, you can imagine that the extremists, because they take more risks, often fail.
	Because they take a lot of risks.
	But every now and then, maybe one gets something right and influences, or one of them gets a job as a mayor, or suddenly one of them is a chief of police.
	And the history which Republicans have been taught, but I don't think any Democrats, is that this tiny bit of extremists will influence the other people, and then there will eventually be enough of them combined that they will have control over the entire country.
	Now, if you haven't been taught that, that this is not just a risk, it's a guarantee.
	That's where the difference is.
	If you understand this as a risk, you don't know what's going on.
	This is not a risk.
	When you reach about 10% Islamic people in your country, and they've come in recently and they're still very Islamic, you only need a few of them.
	As a percentage, it's still a big number, but as a percentage, just a few of them.
	You only need a few of them to be the extremists.
	And that will be a domino effect that goes to, first, the larger group of people who are not that extreme, and then it continues on until it conquers the country, because that's what they do.
	Now, it won't be overnight, and it doesn't mean that it applies to any individual.
	So there's nothing about any Muslim.
	Believe it or not, I'm not making a comment about any individual, not about any Muslim.
	It's about the system.
	The system says, for at least some of them, the extremists, you've got to do everything that you can, just everything, in order to become an Islamic nation.
	So if you have some people who take big risks, they almost always end up in charge.
	Have you noticed that the people who are the most extreme usually end up in charge?
	That's not an accident.
	The more extreme you are, the more you're going to fail.
	But also, if you win, you're going to be in charge.
	Have you noticed that CEOs of major companies tend to be psychopaths?
	There's a higher ratio of psychopaths where government leaders and CEOs.
	This is that.
	The psychopaths tend to do what you need to do to gain power.
	The regular people would say, well, I'm not going to go that far.
	I'm not going to kill somebody for power.
	But the psychopaths might.
	So over time, the psychopaths always take control.
	And if you don't want the psychopaths to control the non-psychopaths, who would then be a big enough group to impress their views on the larger country, then you need to decrease the rate.
	Immediately.
	So, this is the part that I think all Democrats get wrong, which is, if you just looked at it commonsensically, it doesn't look like a problem, or it looks like a temporary one, you know, one that gets absorbed.
	If you're Republican, you've learned that this little extremist group will affect the larger extremist group, and once you get to about 10% Islamic, you know, real desire.
	It pretty much is the end of the country in terms of being non-Islamic.
	So, when I look at England, I see they've already fell.
	I don't think it's recoverable.
	Now, I hope it is.
	I hope it's recoverable, but I don't see a way because I think that they're already past the tipping point.
	Now, in the United States, I think this 10% number is closer to 1%.
	You can fact-check me on that, but I think it is.
	So, in the United States, We are not over the tipping point.
	And maybe with Trump, we won't get there.
	We were heading for it.
	We're heading for it.
	We are at the tipping point in one part of the United States.
	So there may be, I don't know, Detroit or places in the country where there's a big concentration.
	Where there's a big concentration, I'm going to make a prediction.
	I think that if you fast forward...
	There'll be a part of the United States that will probably ask to succeed and become an Islamic nation in the middle of our country.
	I think that's possible.
	It might even happen.
	But I don't think the United States will go Islamic on the whole as long as Trump and reasonable, common-sense people are in charge.
	So they have to understand this, though.
	If they don't understand that the 1% affects the 10% that affects the whole, if they don't get that...
	And they think it's just a risk.
	They're doomed.
	All right.
	So, to me, that answers the question, is England intentionally becoming an Islamic country?
	And the answer is, I don't think they are doing it intentionally.
	I think they don't understand that they did it.
	Because I think they were operating on the Democrat model of, hey, immigration always worked before.
	But as soon as you take in a group that doesn't want to assimilate...
	Or at least a small part of them don't want to assimilate.
	You're doomed.
	Visigrad24, which is an account on X, pointed out that, you know how Macron is complaining that Elon Musk is getting involved in their politics in another country?
	And they say, oh, we don't want billionaires influencing politics in another country.
	And VisitGrad24 points out that billionaires George Soros and Bill Gates interfered with European politics for decades, spending huge sums to get what they wanted in other countries.
	So is Musk the one billionaire who's trying to influence things in other countries, or is it the most normal thing that's ever happened?
	It looks pretty normal.
	And I am now on the side of Elon Musk, and I hate that he converted me because this just seems so dumb when you first said it, honestly, which is dumb to think that anything he says is dumb.
	So I started out as dumb just by thinking that he had the wrong opinion.
	But Musk says there's no explanation for George Soros' activity unless he just hates humanity.
	Now, the first time I heard that, I was like, oh, come on.
	He doesn't hate humanity.
	Like, who hates humanity?
	But the more I watch him, I don't see another explanation.
	Because unlike the average Democrat, George Soros would be completely aware that some rate and flow rate of Muslim immigration turns your country Islamic.
	Now, he might not care.
	But it's hard for me to imagine that he sees that as the better world, as opposed to people staying roughly in the system that they prefer, instead of trying to go somewhere else and change the system.
	So, I can't rule out the fact that Musk might be right, that the only thing driving it is a hatred of humanity.
	I don't really see what else it could be.
	And the fact that the Soroses don't do...
	They don't do interviews.
	So nobody can ask them, why are you doing this?
	Like, what is this?
	And if they're not willing to do interviews and they're not willing to answer the question, we do have a right to assume the worst.
	We might be wrong about it, but if they're only giving us one possible explanation, which is you're literally evil and trying to destroy the world, and everything you do seems to be clearly in that model, what are we supposed to think?
	So if the Soros is, in this case, Alex Soros, if he's not willing to do regular interviews with this massive amount of money, and it appears to be destructive to the country, I think we have a right to assume it's intended that way.
	If a design does one thing over and over again and it isn't changed, and people could change it, then it's intentional.
	If it were happening accidentally or just temporarily, I'd say, oh, somebody made a mistake.
	Didn't mean that.
	But this is clearly intended because it's gone on so long in this exact way and increased.
	Meanwhile, because karma has come to visit The View, one of The View hosts, Sunny Hostins, her husband is accused in this massive RICO bust.
	He's accused of being one of many people.
	in the medical field who are fraudulently billing insurance companies for their cases.
	And apparently it's so widespread it's a RICO case in New York.
	And I'm just going to make one prediction.
	By the way, is it my imagination that Trump haters are having a bad year even unrelated to Trump?
	It just feels like too many coincidences.
	It feels like the Trump effect But how in the world could this be the Trump effect?
	Like, how did that happen?
	Anyway, I would add to this story that I think we're going to find out that the medical insurance fraud problem is way bigger than you think.
	I can't tell you yet why I say that.
	Maybe I never will be able to.
	But I do have some information that is not generally known that would certainly suggest that The medical field is full of insurance fraud.
	Like, way worse than you thought.
	And I'm not talking about the crooks.
	I'm talking about the regular doctors.
	You know, the people who are good citizens.
	Because I'll bet you Sonny Huston's husband, who appears highly skilled in some medical field, I'll bet you he was just a normal doctor type.
	Not too different from any other doctor who might be pulled into this RICO thing.
	I think they talk themselves into it being okay somehow.
	Like, maybe they don't feel like they're doing anything that illegal.
	I don't know.
	But my guess is it's way bigger.
	Way bigger than you think.
	Meanwhile, just for fun, after Zuckerberg said that Meta is going to get rid of their fact checkers and use some kind of community notes things, The New York Times had this headline.
	Meta says fact-checkers were the problem.
	Fact-checkers rule that false.
	Now, I assume that they knew they were doing a humorous headline.
	But the funny part is, it's so similar to the ridiculousness of their reporting on a lot of political stuff that you don't know if they meant it as a joke.
	Because that difference between Jokes in reality has just disappeared.
	You look at it and go, well, that's obviously an absurdity.
	They would know that when they wrote it, so it must be a joke.
	And then you think, oh, but they don't know anything else they say is an absurdity.
	Why would this be the one thing that they spotted?
	Oh, that's an absurdity.
	No, maybe not.
	Maybe they didn't know that this is ridiculous.
	Anyway, so now we're getting a lot of reactions.
	To Zuckerberg going, I'm not going to say he went full MAGA, but hiring, not hiring, but choosing Dana White as the board member, a really close friend of Trump, saying that he's going to be the fact-checking.
	He's not going to be putting money into the elections.
	That was a big problem.
	So he's doing all these things that seem perfectly compatible with Trump, and I thought that was all good.
	So my take was, oh, that's all good.
	Great.
	Good for him.
	I'm glad he's seen the inefficiency of what he was doing before, didn't get him what he wanted.
	He's adjusted.
	That's exactly what I want to see.
	So my standard is I don't judge people for mistakes.
	I don't think that's a good standard.
	If you judge people for mistakes, we all suck because we all make mistakes.
	But you can definitely judge people for how they respond to a mistake.
	If you knew you made a mistake, you got caught or you figured it out yourself, and then you said, all right, to not make that mistake again, I will do the following things.
	You have my respect.
	Now, some people said, I am so clever about themselves, not about me.
	People thought they were so clever that they knew what Zuckerberg was really about.
	And they said things like, He's bending the knee to Trump.
	Trump threatened him, and he's just bending the knee.
	And Trump was asked, did Trump think that Trump's threats about Facebook, and I guess Zuckerberg himself, did he think that that made a difference to Zuckerberg?
	And Trump's answer was, probably.
	I'd love to know what threats he made.
	I believe they were just threats that the legal system...
	You know, sees him interfering with elections and censoring and stuff.
	So part of it is that there has seemed to be a credible threat.
	Part of it is Facebook is being challenged in a number of ways by the government currently, and it could get worse.
	I mean, he would worry about it could get worse.
	And so it's complicated.
	And then some people said, he's just doing it for money, Scott.
	Don't you understand?
	He's a terrible person.
	He's just doing this for money.
	So here's my take.
	It's all those things.
	And what's wrong with that?
	What's wrong with him doing it because the government is a threat?
	Nothing.
	That's just normal business.
	If the government is a threat and you need the government to literally be on your side in order for your business to survive, then you do this.
	That's not a mistake.
	That's not something to...
	Say, oh, you darn Zuckerberg, you bent the knee.
	No, he did what a good leader should absolutely do 100%.
	He should change.
	If what he was doing before didn't work, and it was obvious what to do to make it work, you do that change, and that's what he did.
	Now, some people said, but he's just doing it for money, to which I say, that's what a corporation is.
	They do it for money.
	He should be doing it for money.
	That's exactly what he should be doing for money.
	And then other people said he's not a patriot because he influenced that last election in a way that you don't like and that social media is damaging to people's mental health.
	Well, here's the frame I would put on that.
	Do you think that he thought he was damaging people when he started Facebook?
	Like, when he started Facebook, was he like, hmm, I know this damages people, but I'm going to do it anyway.
	No, it was already a huge business by the time it became obvious that people would get addicted.
	Are there people addicted to Facebook now?
	Is Facebook where you go?
	Well, he owns Instagram, so Instagram is definitely more damaging to mental health.
	So there's definitely that.
	So the question of whether social media is damaging to mental health...
	I don't know if the answer is nobody should be allowed to have social media or that it can't be a business.
	It seems to me that the reasonable way to do it is to figure out how to manage it, and we should learn how to live with it, but also the service should have some guardrails to maybe keep young people from overusing it, something like that.
	So that seems like something that is a problem that you couldn't have known when you started the business.
	When it became known, he seems to have shown interest in addressing it.
	Maybe you think you should do more.
	Everybody always thinks you should do more.
	Other people said, why did it take him so long and why is he doing it now?
	And you know my criticism of that, right?
	Everything good feels like it took too long.
	You can't blame people for taking too long.
	If they ended up where you want them to end up, just take the win.
	Everything takes too long.
	It's not one thing that happened to him that one time he took the law.
	It's just everything all the time that's good takes too long.
	So I would say this.
	I think he's completely transparent.
	And when I say he's a patriot, I mean that I do believe in my bones that he wants what's good for America.
	And I believe that you can tell why.
	He probably was always patriotic.
	But you've noticed that he's gotten into the more manly sports.
	Like, he's beefed up.
	He's obviously a gym rat at this point.
	He's doing martial arts.
	And he said that Trump was a badass when he took the bullet.
	Those, to me, seem completely genuine.
	And his selection of Dana White, on one hand, is Trump's friend.
	So you see it in that frame.
	But the other frame to see it in is he really likes MMA. He probably just likes it.
	And my guess is that Zuckerberg likes hunting.
	He likes capitalism.
	He likes combat sports.
	I think you're wrong if you think that he's a secret Democrat.
	My guess is he's always been closer to a secret Republican, but that wouldn't sell.
	So he probably wisely kept some of his views to himself.
	Now, I'm sure he's in favor, you know, if I had to guess, he's probably in favor of, I don't know, abortion.
	But I'll bet you if he took abortion off the table and you just looked at what he thinks works for the country, what works for business, it wouldn't be that different from your opinion.
	Now, I can't be sure of that because I can't read his mind, but...
	I think you're better off embracing the change.
	You don't have to love what he did.
	The $420 million is a big deal.
	But imagine what bubble he was in.
	You all saw that the left were completely bubblized.
	And even the smartest people on the left were bubblized.
	What was it that got him out of the bubble?
	It was kind of the fine people hoax.
	So remember Joe Rogan, Elon Musk, a number of people have said the same thing.
	So I think all in pods said the same thing.
	That the fine people hoax woke them up that maybe there were other hoaxes.
	And once they saw the entire web of hoaxes that seemed to be limited to one side, both sides can be wrong.
	Both sides can be biased.
	But only one side was hoax after hoax after hoax.
	Because they had the media machine to support the hoaxes.
	So if you were in that world, you think you would have done better?
	Do you think that all of your brains and your common sense would have allowed you?
	Unique among other Democrats, could you have been the one person who knew that the news was lying to you all the time?
	Probably not.
	I don't think I could have.
	By the way, I've been in that bubble.
	Ten years.
	But I've been in that bubble where the Republicans were the dumb ones.
	And it was just obvious to me.
	Man, all the smart ones are these Democrats.
	I guess I'm a Democrat.
	And I would look at all the things the Republicans said because it was in my bubble.
	And I'd say, that makes no sense.
	Why are they doing that?
	If you don't appreciate how strong the bubble is, then I don't think you can see Zuckerberg completely.
	Here's what I think happened, and this is only speculation.
	I think he got red-pilled by the hoaxes.
	I can't prove it.
	There's no even hint of it.
	But if you look what happened to the other brightest people who escaped the bubble, it was the same way.
	They escaped it the same way, realizing that they were being lied to about just about everything.
	And once you get that, then suddenly you go, all right, now I'm open to the other possibilities.
	To me, I think Zuckerberg, Got red-pilled by maybe Peter Thiel.
	If I had to pick one person, because Thiel has the Facebook connection.
	And Thiel, of course, would know which ones are the hoaxes.
	Can you imagine Peter Thiel having dinner?
	I'm just speculating.
	I don't know that any of this happened.
	Can you imagine Peter Thiel talking to Zuckerberg and maybe unwinding some of the hoaxes for him?
	I think what you're seeing is real, meaning I believe that Zuckerberg really thought that he was on the side of patriotism in the country and avoiding problems when he helped the Democrats try to avoid Hiller.
	I think he thought he was trying to avoid Hiller, like actually genuinely believed it.
	And I don't think that that is a flaw in his character because a lot of good people believed it.
	Remember, Elon Musk believed it.
	Joe Rogan believed it at one point.
	And there's nothing wrong with their characters, in my opinion.
	So I think you're...
	I wouldn't be hard on Zuckerberg, because to me it looks like somebody who was trapped in a bubble probably wishes he had his $420 million back.
	Don't you think?
	Do you think he's real happy about the $420 million he wasted and could put him in jail and bought him nothing but the destruction of the country?
	Do you think he's celebrating that?
	No.
	He's probably embarrassed.
	Again, just speculating.
	He's probably embarrassed.
	So I would take the win.
	I think that it...
	And by the way, he said directly that the country is going in a direction...
	That's historically a little different, and he's going with the country.
	That's everything I wanted from him.
	He gave me everything I wanted.
	So I'm pro-Zuckerberg at the moment.
	If something else comes up, I'll reevaluate.
	But take the win, people.
	Take the win.
	All right.
	Trump is brilliant on the Hamas hostages.
	Let me tell you what he said, and I'll tell you why it's so perfect.
	He said, Quote, if those hostages aren't back by the time I get into office, and again, that's just real soon, just days, all hell will break out in the Middle East, and it will not be good for Hamas, and it will not be good, frankly, for anyone.
	Now, let me tell you how brilliant that is.
	Number one, he's using that fire and fury technique that he used on North Korea.
	If you say, if you do this, we will sanction you, then they know exactly what their risk is.
	And probably they would go ahead and do it anyway because they could figure out how to handle sanctions.
	If you say, I will bomb your certain facilities, then somebody might say, well, I'll take the hit because we're battling to the death anyway.
	So yeah, you can blow up my missile sites.
	Still going to fight.
	The more specific you are about what you're going to do, the more likely it doesn't work.
	You want to give people a vague idea that it's going to be so bad it almost defies description.
	It's going to be hell.
	But the magic part of that, the persuasive part, the part that hypnotists would know to do as well, is that the less specific you are, it allows everybody to imagine their own worst scenario.
	So you might say, oh, let's say if you're in Hamas, you might say, oh my goodness, he's just going to seal up the tunnels and...
	And just leave us there.
	Or you might say, my God, is he going to kill all the Palestinians?
	Of course he's not.
	But they're going to come up with their own worst-case scenario that'll be worse than anything he could say.
	So that's perfect.
	And he's keeping all his options open by not over-specifying.
	So, so far he's perfect.
	But there's a better part that only Trump would be smart enough to do.
	And this is what separates him.
	Right?
	This is what separates them.
	You could sort of imagine that some normal politician could also be smart enough to make a generic threat.
	But one of the things that Trump has going for him is that he's credible.
	He's already dropped a mother of all bombs.
	He's already assassinated Soleimani when everybody said don't do it.
	He also destroyed ISIS by telling the military, don't ask me what you need to do, just do what you need to do.
	Those are some of the most badass things that ever happened.
	So when he says, hell is coming, they know it's real.
	Do you know why they know it's real?
	It's real.
	It's not a bluff.
	Bluffing only gets you so much.
	This is not a bluff.
	This is not a bluff.
	If you know anything about Trump, that's not a bluff.
	Whatever it takes, he's going to do it.
	And if you don't give the hostages back...
	Welcome to hell.
	So, here's the smartest part.
	He's treating the hostage release as not part of the negotiations because there would be a larger negotiation to, you know, what's the future of Gaza and, you know, who gets a pass and who gets to stay and those things.
	The big mistake that somebody like Biden would make, if you're a bad negotiator, you'd say it's all part of the same conversation.
	You've got the hostages, you've got the what happens, you've got all kinds of questions.
	Let's put them all together, which is a typical thing to do.
	You put them all together, so you have one kind of deal that deals with all those things.
	And once Hamas is perfectly happy with the larger deal, then they release the hostages.
	Strategy.
	The correct strategy is, if you don't want more hostages to be taken, and just repeat this cycle, the correct strategy is to be eligible to have a conversation with us, release the hostages.
	So you don't put the hostages in the same conversation with all the other things you want to get done.
	Because then...
	Then you're being emotionally blackmailed and the families of the hostages are going to be saying, no, let Hamas be in charge again.
	Just let my relative go.
	And they're going to be emotional and it's going to weigh on you.
	You need to say, you release them before I'm in office and we'll put that topic behind us and then we can talk.
	So the right way to do it is that you have to release the hostages to buy a ticket.
	To have a real conversation with me.
	But until you get them, your only option is hell.
	And hell is coming hard.
	That is perfect.
	Now, is this more likely to get the hostages killed?
	It might.
	It's an unknown.
	But given that it's an unknown, it makes it the right play.
	And does it decrease the chance that hostages will be taken in the future?
	Yes.
	As long as you make it not part of any larger negotiation.
	You have one choice.
	Release the hostages or hell.
	And maybe that will decrease future hostages.
	So it's perfectly right and it's perfectly simplified because people will spread the news that he's going to bring hell because it's easy to repeat.
	It's easy to remember.
	There's no details.
	That's what Trump does best.
	He repeats.
	He keeps it simple.
	He keeps it vague.
	And he's got a history that...
	You know he's going to kill Soleimani, if he needs to.
	Trump wants to change the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America.
	Now, I don't know exactly what would be involved in that, because you've got to change the maps, and I don't know.
	It might be an act of Congress.
	Marjorie Taylor Greene said she might be helping on that.
	We don't know how serious that is, but I love it.
	Here's why I love it.
	If it's called the Gulf of Mexico, and sometime in the future, Mexico has a dispute with us about resources or access or control of the Gulf.
	People are going to say, well, it's the Gulf of Mexico.
	So, I mean, of course Mexico should have a lot of control.
	It's named after them.
	But they don't own it.
	And the United States is, you know, circling at least, I don't know, 60% of it.
	So for the future of America, where we could be pretty sure, Someday there'll be some conflict in the Gulf about who owns what.
	Name it after America, and then when you get into that negotiation, 10 years from now, whenever it happens, you're going to say, are you serious?
	Mexico?
	You think you want to have control over the Gulf of America?
	It's got America right in the name.
	It's ours.
	And it would be easier to get the United States public.
	To back any kind of forceful defense of the Gulf, because it's the Gulf of America.
	It's like our land.
	It's not our land, but...
	So, if you look at how forward-thinking Trump is, which is remarkable, I think he's looking at a 10- to 50-year advantage.
	No particular advantage on day one.
	And I think the enemies will say, but there's nothing gained on day one.
	Why would you do this?
	It's not for day one.
	It's for days, someday in the future, when we're definitely going to have a conflict about who gets what in the Gulf.
	It's brilliant.
	This is basically just brilliant.
	Now, it's also part of the larger thing where Trump seems to be intentionally flooding the zone with somewhat less important but provocative things that we like to talk about.
	Why am I talking about the Gulf of America when there couldn't be anything less important to my life?
	Not because it's fun.
	You can't not talk about it.
	It's just sort of, it's easy to talk about and you understand it.
	You don't have to do any research.
	It's just kind of fun.
	So the more fun things he gives us, the less the resistance will be able to find their way in.
	If Trump came and said, look, here's what I'm going to do.
	I have one top priority.
	And every day I'm going to talk about whatever that is.
	Well, then his opposition can say, ha ha, we know exactly what to attack.
	He's got that one thing, so we're going to have all of us focus on that one thing, and we'll just take it down.
	But if he gives them one thing a day, or three things a day, and they're all so interesting, they take some of our attention, he's going to split up his opposition until they don't know what to attack.
	It's like, ah, hey, well, I'm going to go after that.
	There's a new one.
	And I think it's brilliant.
	So you could call it the Overton window or whatever you want.
	But he's keeping them confused and overwhelmed with Trumpisms.
	These are just things that he's the only person in the world to do.
	Nobody else is going to talk about Greenland.
	Which, by the way, there's some reporting today that during his first term, there was actually some motion toward...
	An acquisition or some kind of a deal with Greenland.
	So it's not crazy.
	And I guess he always knew it wasn't crazy.
	All right.
	China looks like it's making a move on Taiwan.
	According to the Gateway Pundit, a Chinese ship that's kind of one of these mysterious ships that's hard to track.
	It's up to do good.
	And it cut one of the undersea's cables.
	To Taiwan.
	Now, apparently it was intentional.
	And the thinking is that the way China would try to take over Taiwan would be with a long, slow squeeze as opposed to an invasion.
	An invasion might be just too far, meaning there would be military response.
	You don't know where it would end up.
	But squeezing them indefinitely.
	And staying just below the line that the United States wants to start firing at them, I hate to say it might be a good strategy.
	So first they're going to cut off their internet cables.
	And then some smart people are saying that what they would do next is do a naval quarantine of the island.
	A quarantine is not a blockade.
	A blockade would stop everybody.
	A quarantine would let some innocent ships in.
	But they'd stop anything they wanted to stop.
	So if you cut the cables and you surrounded them and you flew drones over them every day, and apparently the Chinese Navy has greater military power than the United States does in that area.
	But if you added Japan's Navy and South Korea's Navy, then that alliance with the United States would be bigger than China's Navy.
	But apparently South Korea has got some political problems at the moment and might not be functional.
	So it might be just the United States and Japan, which is more of a closer to parity and not really what you want if you're going into some potential conflict.
	Now, I hate to say that China might have a perfectly workable strategy, but it looks like they do.
	I don't know if it'd be enough to get the Taiwan government or people to say, all right, all right, let's make a deal.
	I don't know.
	But you can see why they'd be doing it.
	I think Trump, when he's in office, probably would turn up the temperature on this until they back off.
	But I don't know.
	We'll see.
	According to Gateway Pundit also, there's a leaked report that the presidential inauguration is seeking a lot of medical personnel.
	So the thinking is that maybe it's an unusual request for medical personnel for the inauguration, which would make you say, why do they think they need extra medical personnel?
	And I would say, obvious.
	They're worried about an attack.
	It doesn't mean they know there's going to be an attack, but it's the obvious place that you would want to defend and the obvious place you'd want to have a lot of medical people.
	And beyond that, maybe they think there'd be some protests or something.
	I don't know.
	So it makes sense.
	I don't think I'd have to be especially worried about the increase in medical personnel.
	That just seems like being smart.
	And James O'Keefe, I think, is the one who found out about that memo.
	All right.
	Here's another thing that people keep telling me.
	I've been saying things like, I don't think the large language model AIs can improve much.
	And they may be reaching their limit.
	And then the smart people say to me, Scott, you know, I hate to be the one to tell you, but you don't understand growth.
	Of course, it's going to be the kind of thing where the growth is slow, slow, slow, slow, slow.
	But when it, you know, when it reaches this point, it's going to be like quickly do everything.
	And I don't understand the...
	The normal rate of improvement of technology, because when I say the current kind of AI I think can't do, it can never be accurate.
	That's my opinion, because it hallucinates.
	And people say, oh, you just don't understand.
	They just make it better.
	Here's my counterargument.
	How much better do you have to make a bowling ball before it's a spaceship?
	Can you improve a bowling ball?
	Until it's a rocket that will take you to Mars?
	How long before an apple evolves into an orange?
	If you wait long enough, is it going to happen quickly toward the end?
	It hasn't happened at all yet.
	But will there be a day when you're looking at your orange and all that kind of rapidly turns into an apple?
	No.
	So here's where I differ on the people who say, Scott, Scott, Scott, you don't understand that this technology will rapidly be able to do everything and you'll look like a fool.
	My complaint about AI is that by its nature, it's an orange, and what we want is accuracy, which is an apple, and there is no real path for the orange to turn into an apple.
	There's definitely a path where a slow microchip could be replaced with a faster microchip.
	I get that.
	There's definitely a path where an electric car might not be great for the overall health of the planet on day one, but I understand how they'll just keep getting better and when the batteries are no longer lithium, you know, it'll be the only way you want to live maybe someday.
	I get that.
	But I don't think the large language models have that ability to improve like microchips in electric cars.
	I think that they're an exception because there's something built into the way they work that seems unsolvable, the hallucinating.
	Now, you might say to me, but Scott, they're just going to add regular programming to the AI, and then when the AI needs to know something that's like a fact, it'll just go to that document and use regular programming and then tell you what it said, and then it'll be accurate.
	To which I say, if it could do that, It would have already done it.
	It can't do that.
	Because it doesn't have the ability to just remember and accurately go look at a document and tell you what it said.
	That seems to you like the easiest thing it could possibly do.
	But you're thinking of traditional programming.
	So, is it possible that the AIs will be augmented with just normal programming?
	And maybe you're just using the AI as the interface to talk to it.
	But what is really doing the hard work is just regular programming behind the scenes.
	That might happen.
	So I do think that that will happen, some kind of nexus between the two.
	But at the moment, I don't think the AI can even call up the document.
	Like even the most basic thing, I don't think it can do it.
	And I don't know how they would change it to make it do it.
	So I'm going to bet against it, partly recreationally.
	I'd like to be wrong.
	And I don't think AGI has been solved, but Sam Altman says it is.
	So he would know more than I would, obviously.
	But I'm going to bet against it.
	All right, yesterday I had a lot of fun.
	If you've watched me a long time, you know one of the things I like to do is put myself in embarrassing situations if I think something good could come of it.
	Because unlike most of you, I don't have that feeling of embarrassment.
	So I waded into the quantum computing conversation yesterday with my own opinion.
	And of course I don't know about quantum computing.
	So even though I did a semi-deep dive to find out how it works, I'm certainly no expert.
	So here's what I think I found out, and it got a huge reaction when I posted on X. I said, here are the things I learned.
	No one knows how or why quantum computers work.
	No one.
	Not the experts.
	No one.
	Now, that would be provocative, because you've probably heard it explained a million times, if you follow that.
	You've heard it explained how they work.
	So you're saying to yourself, of course they know how it works.
	If they didn't know how it works, they couldn't create it, and they've already created it in experimental, so obviously.
	They've built one, Scott.
	They've built one.
	Obviously they know how it works.
	No, they don't.
	Let me tell you what they say when you ask how it works.
	They say things like this.
	Now, this is not an exact quote, but it's like this.
	The way it works, the way quantum computer figures out the truth, is that they use the amplitudes of statistical likelihood, and then they interfere with other amplitudes of statistical likelihoods.
	And it rules out some possibilities, and then you keep doing that until you reach the correct answer.
	Does that make sense to you?
	Let me tell you what it sounds like.
	I'm going to give you the worst analogy in the world, but it'll get you close to what my problem is, right?
	Remember, analogies are not meant to be a precise description of what's happening.
	An analogy is just to open up your brain.
	To like a different frame you could put on the thing that's real.
	So the analogy is not real.
	It's not trying to be that.
	It's just to make a point, all right?
	So imagine you're in a room with a closed door, and the answer to your question, whatever it is, is on the other side of the door, and you have no access to open the door.
	And you can't hear anything, see anything.
	You don't know what's on the other side of the door.
	But you need to figure out what it is using your quantum computer.
	So, you take some dice, and you roll the dice.
	And, of course, that doesn't tell you anything, right?
	You got a 7. What's that tell you?
	But, if you use more than one set of dice, then you've got two sets of statistics, and then you can take the one set of statistics, oh, I got a 7 on this one and a 9 on this one, and then you have them interfere.
	And it's the interference of these statistical things that are happening with your dice that tells you what's on the other side of the door.
	Does that make sense?
	How do your dice tell you what's on the other side of the door?
	That's what a quantum computer pretends to do.
	It says it's telling you what's on the other side of the door using nothing but statistical math.
	That's not a thing.
	That's not a thing.
	You can't know what's on the other side of the door if you have no feedback.
	And by the way, quantum computer does say very clearly there's no feedback from the solution.
	It simply goes to it.
	It just goes to it.
	It doesn't use logic.
	It doesn't calculate.
	It doesn't use some process that anybody has ever used to figure out what's true.
	It just goes to the answer.
	And the way it does it is by statistical tricks, which if you interfere the two statistical techniques, it cancels out things and then you're left with the right answer.
	How in the world many times do you have to throw dice in the room all by yourself to know what's on the other side of the door?
	And the answer is, you can't ever get there.
	There's nothing about the dice that's going to tell you what's on the other side of the door.
	Now, The people who understand quantum computing are going to come in and say, that is the worst analogy ever.
	Well, they're right.
	The only point I'm making is, you can't have random numbers tell you what's on the other side of the door, and that's what the quantum computer is doing.
	So, how does it work?
	Given that there's no way it could work, why does it work?
	Because they've already used it, and they've solved problems that would take to the end of time for a regular computer.
	And now the only reason they know they've solved it is they take the solution and put it in a regular computer, and then the regular computer, if it knows the solution, can check that it's right, but it couldn't figure out the answer on its own.
	So here's what I think.
	I think that quantum computing is not proof that we have multiple dimensions, as some people say, because there's no evidence of any multiple dimensions.
	There might be multiple dimensions, but there's nothing about quantum computing that gives you...
	Any insight about multiple dimensions?
	Any more than the dice do.
	The multiple dimensions would be, if I throw one set of dice, it's a seven, and if I throw the other one, it's a nine.
	So that's two dimensions, right?
	No, it's not.
	It's just statistics.
	So I think that they found a way to hack the simulation source code.
	If you're sitting in a room, and you want to know what's on the other side of the door, and you have no access to it, But imagine you were in a video game and you could just open up like the cover and see the code.
	Then could you sit in your room if you saw the code for the entire simulation and could you find the part that tells you what's happening on the other side of the room?
	There's no other way this could work.
	This has to be something like a proof that we live in a simulation.
	Because there is no access to the information on the other side of the door unless you're doing a Kobayashi Maru and you're cheating the system.
	So this is literally cheating reality by finding the source code of the simulation, poking around at it, and then you find out what must be on the other side of the door.
	Now, as ridiculously simplistic and wrong as my analysis is, What you'd expect would be all the smart people would say, oh, God, can you just stay in your stupid cartooning lane?
	Can you stop acting like you somehow have discovered something, you stupid, stupid cartoonist?
	But that didn't happen.
	Instead, all the people who had looked into it said, yeah, you nailed it.
	And more than that, Later in the day, and I didn't know this was going to happen, the CEO of NVIDIA, who definitely has looked into quantum computing, says he doesn't think it would be practical maybe for as long as 30 years.
	Which means exactly what I said.
	It doesn't look like it's really going anywhere except some niche applications.
	It's not going to be on your desktop.
	It's not even built to do that.
	It can't do that.
	And then there was an article published about the same time, maybe yesterday.
	I don't know when this was published, but I saw it yesterday or today.
	Martin Shkreli.
	You know Martin Shkreli?
	He's a provocative character.
	But he wrote a long piece in which he said you should short or sell all your quantum computing stocks because they're worthless because there's no business there and it never will be.
	And he explains why.
	Now, I think I was a lot closer on this than even I was expecting.
	Because I would have been happy if I embarrassed myself in public with how stupid I am, but that it led to somebody smart explaining it to me in a way that made sense.
	Nope.
	The people who tried to explain it to me just did word salad.
	Well, but Scott, we used something called the Oracle feature.
	It decides how to roll the dice, and that's why it works.
	And I'll be like, well, you didn't tell me anything there.
	Like, why does it work?
	Because it's the statistics, and it interferes, and then it goes through the, like, you don't know why this works, do you?
	No, nobody knows why it works.
	Anyway, last story is that, according to BMJ Group, cardio-respiratory fitness is linked to...
	Is that backward science?
	So if we know that the old people who are doing more fitness stuff have better brains, is that because the fitness and the exercise causes their brain to be better?
	Or is it equally or more likely that the people who have good genes are more likely to exercise because they can?
	And if you had good genes for your body and your body was able to handle exercise and feel good about it, isn't it kind of at least a little bit likely that your brain being part of your body is part of something that's a good machine?
	It probably works both ways.
	I do think exercise is good for your brain, but I feel like people with good brains and bodies are more likely to exercise.
	So it might work both ways.
	Backward science.
	That's all I got for you today.
	Sorry I took so long.
	But I wanted to do that whiteboard thing.
	Let me just ask you before I go private with the locals people, was the immigration discussion useful?
	And did it help you see it a little differently and understand why we're looking at, we think we're talking about the same thing, but we're kind of not when it comes to immigration.
	I just want to see if that was useful, because if it was, I might clip it.
	But if you tell me, well, that was a waste of time, then I won't clip it.
	Is it clippable?
	I'm seeing some yeses.
	All right.
	Okay, we're getting lots of yeses to clip it.
	All right, so I'll clip that.
	You'll see it at some point.
	You know, I never think about clipping it when I'm doing it.
	I would do it a lot tighter and faster if I knew it was going to be a clip, but it should be okay.
	It'll be okay.
	All right.
	Good.
	Oh, good.
	You liked it.
	All right.
	I'm going to say hi to the locals, people privately.
	For the rest of you, I will see you tomorrow.

▲