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, DEI Ban Resistance, Jim Acosta, Oprah Free Will, Trump's WEF Address, PM Netanyahu Defends Elon, Mike Cernovich, Sam Altman, Reid Hoffman, JFK Files, DEI Personnel Firings, ICE Raids, Rent-Seeking Confusion, Panama Canal Origin Story, Democrat's Rate Problem, Trump Rebrands John Bolton, Alex Soros FT Interview, Open Society Bureaucratic Obscurity, George Soros, 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.
do you need a that's a terrible tattoo woo wooBERT Did you just disappear?
When I tapped my papers, did the picture just disappear?
Because it threw me out of the app.
How could everything go wrong?
How's that even possible?
All I did was this.
I won't do it again.
And I turned off the app?
This is so beyond...
This is so beyond possible.
I mean, we're into some statistical impossible situation here.
It can't be that all the apps died at the same time.
They couldn't all be broken at once.
Could they?
I know there's a massive incompetence problem, but that's pretty impressive.
Anyway, if you'd like to take your experience today up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brain, none of it makes sense today, does it?
The preamble doesn't make any sense because the starting assumption is that things went right.
So the preamble doesn't make sense.
Let's just do the simultaneously.
Let's just surrender.
Shall we surrender to the fact that everything's just going to go wrong today?
Just absolutely everything's going to go wrong.
Sip to that.
Sometimes it goes that way.
And then the E is slap happy.
It's up 172% since I told you about it.
Anyway, alright, let's talk about some of the news.
You ready for this?
Let's try for the fourth time in a row.
To push one freaking button.
Okay?
I'm going to use my finger, which I know is a human finger.
I'm positive I'm still alive.
And I'm going to push the button, which I've pushed now five fucking times once it worked.
All right?
Careful.
Careful.
Push the icon.
Yes.
Yes.
I pushed the button and it did what it was supposed to.
First time today.
Alright.
Did you know there's a breakthrough in fusion?
Nobody cares.
General Atomics.
They figured out how to get 20% higher than the Greenwald limit.
The Greenwald limit, which you all know about, of course.
It's some kind of limit that the fusion people needed to get past, and they got past it.
It was considered.
Difficult or impossible.
But they did, and they've also figured out to stabilize the plasma.
Now, the thing with the fusion is it might be another 20 years of there's another breakthrough without actually anything breaking through.
But once it gets serious, it's all going to happen at once.
Now, isn't it weird that fusion is coming, which would lower the cost of energy to zero over time?
At exactly the time we need cheap energy and relief from inflation.
Have you noticed that we have a number of timing things happening that are weird?
Meaning that, alright, we're heading toward doom with our debt and our expenses and nobody can live.
But at the same time, if fusion were a little bit faster, it would save us.
But it might just be late by 20 years.
I mean, if you look at the history of humankind, missing it by 20 years, that would be the slightest, slightest miss.
But we have other timing, too.
So, you know, the AI people at OpenAI think that we're on the verge of being able to solve all of our cancers and diseases, because AI will figure out some pattern recognition and figure out how to do it.
What about the people who have terminal cancer this year?
They might miss the cure for all cancers by a month.
Now, it's bad enough that you have to die from cancer at all.
But think how dumb you would feel if you died a month before all cancer is cured.
That's going to happen.
So somebody's family member is going to die a month.
Before all cancer is cured.
Now, I don't know if that's a year from now, but that's what the AI people say.
Could be a year from now.
Meanwhile, NASA is testing a nuclear propulsion to go to Mars in 45 days.
So, currently, it's six months.
I think that would lower from six months to 45 days.
That would be a pretty big deal.
And then, what else do you got?
Oh, I saw a quote from Naval Ravikant.
He was on Tim Ferriss' podcast.
And he said that people who don't homeschool, their lives suck.
And then he described why.
Totally right.
If anybody has had kids in the last, say, last 20 years, you know that the life of the parents is essentially destroyed by school.
Because the school...
It loads them up with homework so you can't have any quality time at night.
But you've got to get up and you've got this stress of getting them there and the traffic and everything's tense, tense getting the kids to school.
If you drive them especially, it's tense.
And it's just brutal.
But if you homeschool, you kind of make your own schedule and everything's fine and they perform better and they don't get damaged by the school.
If you're just a regular parent with children in school, you've got a tough life, and there's no reason for it.
There's no reason for it at all, because you can homeschool and you can solve all those problems.
Well, Mr. Beast, the gigantic YouTube star, says he wants to get some billionaires together and buy TikTok.
He's already talked to his billionaires, and he's pretty serious about it.
He says, we mean business.
You know, Having Mr. Beast and his advisors or his investors, having them own TikTok, that would be pretty good, as long as we can solve the privacy and the influence part of it.
So that's interesting.
President Trump has his Diet Coke button back in the Oval Office.
Have you seen it?
It's like this nice block of wood with one button on it to order a Diet Coke.
Except, I feel like he needs more buttons.
Don't you?
Like, I'd like to see a trap door button where I can invite in the top DEI director for every government organization.
So, what's your job?
I'm the DEI director.
Next.
What's your job?
Well, I'm the director of DEI. And a Diet Coke, please.
Beep.
And then you get it mixed up and you want a Diet Coke.
And, you know, next thing you know, next thing you know, next thing you know, next thing you know, Rubio's going through the trap door.
Oh, sorry.
I meant to get the Diet Coke button.
My bad.
All right.
Well, according to Christopher Ruffo, who you know, was working very hard on getting rid of DEI. Ridiculousness in the corporate world and elsewhere.
And he says that the tech executives are telling him that in the Silicon Valley companies, they respect Trump's ban on DEI. They respect it.
And many feel relieved that they don't have to enforce it anymore.
They don't have to pretend.
So Rufo says resistance To DEI is basically dead.
Now, does that surprise you?
Are you surprised that DEI can die that easily?
I'm not.
Because I was well aware that the main promoters of DEI tended to be rich white guys who were just protecting themselves.
So as soon as somebody said, I will hurt you more if you do it than you don't do it, Then all the people who were only doing it to avoid getting hurt would say, wait, hold on, what did you say?
Oh, it's going to hurt me more to keep doing it.
Oh, then I won't do it.
There was never any intellectual agreement.
It was purely just a bunch of rich white guys covering their ass, pretending like they cared.
They didn't care.
They were just waiting for some good reason not to do it.
Trump gave it to them.
Meanwhile, this is funny.
The Daily Mail is reporting.
And I don't know if you can trust this story.
If this story were about Trump, I would tell you there's no way this is true.
But since it's about Jim Acosta, I'm going to recreationally pretend it's true.
Now, I think I've explained before that a recreational belief is one that doesn't really have a lot of credibility.
But it would be fun if it were true.
Certainly it would be fun.
Yeah, this is one of those.
So, as you know, Jim Acosta, his time slot was going to get moved from 10 a.m.
to midnight, which is widely interpreted as, you know, he's being minimized and CNN wants to, you know, maybe encourage him to leave on his own.
You know what I mean?
But the story from Daily Mail is that Jim Acosta is reportedly...
Considering leaving the network because of the shift to the bad time slot.
But the move comes as CNN is slashing 200 jobs.
Now, let me give some advice to Jim Acosta.
If he's telling people that he's considering leaving the network, that would be sort of negotiating, wouldn't you say?
He's sort of negotiating with management.
If you move my time slot, I might quit.
Well, let me give you some negotiating advice, Jim Acosta.
And this is free.
This is free.
There's no charge for this.
If your company is trying desperately to cut costs and they've already decided that you need to move to midnight, that's not really the time to start threatening them that you might quit.
That's exactly what they want.
Obviously they wanted to quit.
He must be one of the more highly paid people.
He's not helping the network at all.
And, you know, they showed it by moving him to midnight.
No, I wouldn't negotiate under those circumstances.
The good news is that sucking at your job finally matters again.
So there's that.
But don't worry about Jim Acosta.
He could always follow the path of Tucker Carlson who left Fox News and actually just got bigger.
He got bigger.
Or he could follow the model of Don Lemon who left his primetime show and now he's doing nothing?
I don't know.
I don't think Don Lemon worked it out.
Well, the Oscar nominations are out.
And the only thing that Oscar nominations for the best movie, the only thing it tells me is movies don't seem like a thing anymore, do they?
Doesn't it seem like just watching a movie doesn't feel like a thing I do anymore?
There isn't a single movie on the list I have even a little bit of interest in.
I try to watch, you know, you know my story.
I turn off any movie.
As soon as somebody's tied to a chair.
If your plot of your movie just absolutely requires somebody to be tied to a chair, you're just signaling you don't know how to write.
It can't be true that everybody always has to be tied to a chair, no matter what the movie's about.
It just can't be true that your plot requires it.
There's no way.
You can't tie them to a bed once.
Well, sometimes they'll tie them to a pole, I guess, if they want to get creative.
But no, as soon as somebody is tied to a chair, I'm out.
So I tried to watch a mini-series on Prime, Prime video called The Agency, about the CIA. Now, it's fiction, and characters were good, and I kind of liked the tone of it, and the writing seemed good.
I got through the first episode yesterday while I was working.
Second episode comes on.
And man tied to a chair.
And that's the last thought I'll ever watch of it.
I'm serious about this.
If you tie somebody to a chair, I'm not going to watch.
That's the end of my viewing for that.
You have to come up with something better than tying somebody to a chair.
It's 2025. You can do better.
Meanwhile, Oprah discovered that free will is not a thing.
She didn't say it that way.
What she said was, When she got on Ozempic, she understood thin people.
Now, I'm not saying she's thin, and she's not saying she's thin, but it gave her an insight, because once she got on Ozempic, apparently it changed her thoughts about food, because when your body is less craving, I guess your mind is relaxed as well.
So she realized...
That thin people don't obsess about food all the time, like she did.
You realize that's realizing that there's no free will, right?
So she realized that her brain was just different, and her chemistry was different, and whatever her brain and chemistry were designed to do, well, what they were doing was obsessing about food, and that made it difficult for her not to eat too much.
And then when she took Obzempic, she stopped obsessing about it, and then suddenly it was easy not to eat too much.
Well, this is what I've been telling people forever.
I discovered this with the kids having sleepovers in the house and having all their friends over.
And if I got pizza, I'd put the pizza down, and the kids, no matter how many of them there were, would appear to actually get a piece of pizza, because, you know, they were always busy doing something.
But they would arrive at the food in the exact order of their current weight.
And the first time I saw it, I thought, that looks like a coincidence.
That the skinniest people don't even walk toward the pizza.
They just keep doing what they're doing, like they're not even hungry.
And then the people who are a little heavier, right at the pizza.
Now, there's no way that the way they're thinking about food is the same.
Because it can't be a coincidence that the person who's got a few extra pounds is always the first one to the pizza.
But you can see it really obviously with kids.
So I can tell with certainty that some brains are different and it's not about anybody choosing to be overweight.
That's not what happens.
So there is no free will.
If you're an NPC and you'd like to argue this, let me tell you how.
The way you could argue in favor of free will existing...
Is you just replace words with your own personal definition.
So if you want to argue, here's what you'd say to maintain your illusion of free will.
You'd say something like, but I choose what I do.
That's free will?
No, that's just putting a different word for another word.
That's not anything.
Or somebody said to me in the comments, we have discipline when it is hard.
No, again, that's just a word.
You have discipline?
You mean you just replaced free will with discipline?
No, that's not anything.
That's just changing a word.
Or somebody else said that Scott can believe what he wishes because he has free will.
So I can do what I wish, which means I have free will, because you just changed the definition of free will to Believe in what I wish?
Yeah.
We're not going to get into this.
Well, today apparently Trump will be addressing the World Economic Forum by Zoom or something.
And the thing about the Trump era, the golden age, is that I would literally buy a ticket for that.
If you told me, Scott, you have to pay $10.
To watch a 10-minute video of Trump addressing the World Economic Forum.
We don't even know what he's going to say.
No idea what he's going to say.
Would you pay $10 to watch 10 minutes of Trump talking to the World Economic Forum?
Yes.
Yes, I would.
Would you pay $10 to watch one of the movies that recently was nominated for an Academy Award?
No.
What?
I'll pay for the part before somebody's tied to a chair.
You know what would be fun?
If there's somebody who, by some weird chance, if you've watched all of the movies that are nominated for Academy Award, can you tell me what percentage of them have somebody tied to a chair?
It could be.
It could be the answer's none.
I'll bet it's not.
But if the answer is none, maybe that's how you win an Academy Award.
It's like, okay, I'm writing it, and then he's tied to a chair.
Wait a minute.
What if he's not tied to a chair?
The next thing you know, you're nominated for the Academy Award.
Hey, he wasn't even tied to a chair.
Academy Award.
Anyway, CNN is devolving into a podcast.
So, reportedly, their CEO, Mark Thompson, he plans to do mass layoffs, as you know, but apparently, reportedly, I wasn't at the meeting, so again, I'll use the same standard.
If this story were about Trump, I would warn you it's probably not true, because there's no source.
Right?
It's just somebody was at a meeting.
Were they?
Were they at that meeting?
We don't know.
So, recreationally, just for fun, I've got to treat it like it's true.
And the story is that there was a meeting in which the CEO of CNN told Jake Tapper and Anderson Cooper that they ought to avoid prejudging Trump and stop talking about the past and all the lawfare stuff.
And, you know, calling him a felon and all that stuff and just talk about what the future looks like and what he's doing at the moment.
What do you think about that?
Well, it does look like there is some change.
It does look like the hosts of CNN are intentionally, and I give them credit for this, most of them seem to be finding some kind of middle ground.
However...
They're still doing the thing where they invite idiots on the show.
If they're inviting idiots on the show and they give them lots of time, it's the same CNN. So at the same time I'm reading this about they're not going to be full of TDS, I see a clip of Scott Jennings have to shut down a salute truther.
So they have one of these guests on who starts with saying that, well, Elon did that.
Ambiguous, raising his hand.
Oh my God, that was close.
I don't know if you noticed, but inadvertently, I allowed one of my hands to be higher than my waist.
And you can't do that when Trump's in office.
As soon as it gets up here, they're like, is that a Hiller?
No.
I was just reaching for something.
I was over there.
Hiller?
No.
I was just reaching for something.
I just wanted to turn on my lamp.
The lamp was a little...
No!
So you get a little jumpy.
But they had some guests I hadn't seen before, I don't know her name, who talked about Musk was overshadowing Trump.
And he was doing that arm salute.
Now...
What do you think the CEO of CNN was thinking when the guest came on and started talking about the fake news of the arms salute and the fake news that Musk is going to overshadow Trump in trying to drive a wedge?
That feels like exactly what the CEO said stop doing.
So, if the hosts stop doing it, but then they introduce somebody who does it, and they do that every day, which is exactly what's happening.
Nothing really helped.
Seems like it's all the same.
So, anyway, Scott Jennings calls it the salute truthers.
Which is pretty good.
Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel came to Elon Musk's defense about that fake salute thing.
And he said Elon Musk was being falsely smeared.
Elon is a great friend of Israel.
All true.
All true.
And I'm trying to figure out, how can I get Netanyahu to do this for me?
Can Netanyahu do this for me?
It would be great.
I'd like him to say that the ADL is not right when they smeared me.
That'd be great.
So, Bibi.
And that's the reason that I don't support Israel, because they don't support me.
But they do support Elon, so I can see why he would support them.
Otherwise, I just observe.
I'll just be an observer, but I can't be a supporter because they don't support me.
Gotta have reciprocity.
Without reciprocity, nothing works.
So a little reciprocity, and then we're in good shape.
The Sam Altman story is just getting more and more interesting.
So I was unaware until Mike Cernovich found Altman's old posts and started putting them on X. I didn't realize that Sam was not just anti-Trump, but he was really involved in being anti-Trump in 2016 and 2020, apparently.
So some of his posts, which I'd never seen then, because he was less prominent then, so there's no reason I would have noticed.
So this is actually a Sam Altman post back when it was Twitter on December 21st.
December in 2021.
So in 2021, so this is after Trump lost the re-election, Sam Ullman said, very few people realize just how much Reid Hoffman did and spent to stop Trump from getting re-elected. very few people realize just how much Reid Hoffman did It seems likely to me that Trump would still be in office without his efforts.
Thank you, Reid.
And then Paul Graham had said in 2016, so this was just a month or so before the 2016 election, in October, he said, "Few have done more than Sam Ullman to defeat Trump." So according to the people who know the most,
and are the insiders, Sam Altman was one of the primary people for defeating Trump in 2020. And one of the primary ones, with Reid Hoffman, tried to keep him out of office in 2016. Did you know that?
That's kind of interesting.
And Altman himself said, One of these, I think, responding to Paul Graham.
He said, I've spent all of my free time and done less work than I should have on various projects and a lot of money.
The various projects in the context of stopping Trump.
How many various projects was he involved in?
And how many of them were totally legitimate?
I don't know.
But now, more recently, especially because he's sort of trying to work with Trump, which is necessary for all the tech leaders who are going to have to work with him.
Now he said, I don't have his exact words, but Altman basically said that now he's had a chance to see Trump more objectively and he doesn't have his old views.
And he explained why he was so wrong before.
By calling himself an NPC. So a non-player character, somebody who doesn't think before they act, just goes along with the crowd.
Do you think that explains it?
Do you think that one of the smartest, most capable people in the entire country was an NPC and spent all of his time and all of his money without realizing they had been hypnotized by the television?
Now, your first instinct is there's no way, right?
Common sense.
Common sense says you can't be that smart and have acted that seemingly NPC-like for eight years, or whatever it was, and then suddenly you wake up, and now you see the error of your ways.
That doesn't seem real, does it?
Right, so all of your common sense says that...
That doesn't seem like a real change.
You must be pretending now, because it's less likely you were pretending then, because you put years of work, years of work, and massive amounts of money before, so that looked real.
And then suddenly you do one post where you're like, oh, sorry, I was an NPC, didn't mean it, and then we're supposed to believe it?
Here's the hard part.
That's normal.
That's completely normal.
If you think, there's no way that could be true, because you could be that smart and that dumb at the same time.
Yeah, you can.
Totally normal.
If you were to look at the IQs of all the people suffering from TDS, and you compared it to the IQs of the people not suffering from it, the sufferers are probably higher.
Because they're more likely to have gone to college where they got hypnotized.
So IQ is actually not opposite of being fooled.
High IQ and high likelihood of being fooled kind of travel together.
And we have seen genuine cases where people who had that much TDS, or at least were in the TDS world, were in fact deprogrammed.
I know because I deprogrammed some of them.
Or at least I was part of the process.
And the fine people hoax did in fact, no doubt about it, reprogram people who were brilliant.
And they didn't know they were acting like NPCs.
So the first filter I'm going to put on this is that this is entirely possible.
Now I can almost hear Mike Cernovich.
Yelling at me, you fucking idiot.
He's just pretending for money.
I agree with that.
I agree with that.
My current best take is that he might see that he wasn't entirely right before, but he's seemingly transactional.
He's got a fiduciary responsibility to the company.
If he didn't at least pretend to have become pro-Trump.
If he hadn't at least pretended, well, he wouldn't be doing his job.
He has billions of dollars personally at stake in keeping OpenAI a functioning, successful company.
So no, if somebody has billions of dollars at stake for having the right opinion, they're going to be on that opinion.
So, there's nothing about his current opinion that tells us Anything about what he's thinking.
You can't tell what he's thinking.
But if you want to say to yourself, I think the old Sam was the real one, I think that's reasonable.
But don't rule out that no matter how brilliant you are and how committed you are, you could realize later that you were hypnotized.
Because a lot of people did.
If we didn't have a whole bunch of people who said, honestly, and they don't say this about themselves, but they could.
They could say, but don't.
I'm really, really smart, and I was totally fooled by that.
But lots of people are essentially saying that.
So if lots of people who are as smart as Sam Altman are saying, I got totally fooled, and we believe them.
I believe Bill Ackman, for example.
I believe he was genuinely fooled, but he's also genuinely brilliant.
How do you explain that?
Because it's normal.
It's completely normal.
Being able to be free from persuasion is a specific skill.
It's not a general intelligence thing at all.
In fact, general intelligence works against you.
You're easier to fool.
Dumb people are harder to fool sometimes because they'll say, hey, you smarty pants, looks like you're trying to pull something on me.
Well, why do you say that?
I don't know.
I just don't trust you.
But what do you see that's tipping you off?
Don't need to see anything.
I just don't trust you.
And you're going to be right.
So the low IQ person who says, I just don't trust you, ends up being right.
And the smart person says, hmm, let's look at all the facts and the details by reading the New York Times, but I'll cross-check it with the CNN to make sure that one and the other, they both got it right.
Oh, it looks like they agree.
I guess that's true.
So now I'll act like Trump is Hitler.
Because the CNN, you know, being smart isn't helping you.
It just is a different skill than understanding persuasion so you see the mechanism.
You have to be able to see the machine.
If you can't see the mechanisms of the machine, the machine owns you.
But once you learn enough about how it's done, such as learning how a RUPAR is done, learning how incentives work, etc., once you realize how the machine works, Then it just sort of materializes in front of you.
And when a new hoax comes out, you go, oh, that just came out of that hoax machine.
And then you're immune.
But you've got to see it all.
Common sense doesn't get you anywhere on that topic.
So, and I didn't know that Reid Hoffman and Sam were so close and worked together on this.
But I don't know what's going on with Reid Hoffman.
Someday we'll find out, I think.
New York Times had an opinion piece today.
I think it was an opinion piece.
Hard to tell these days.
The title was How Labeling Cartels Terrorists Could Hurt the U.S. Economy.
All right.
How many of you knew that the biggest shareholder in the New York Times is also the richest man in Mexico?
And what they're talking about here...
Is that the cartels are embedded in all of the industries of Mexico.
It's not just the drug industry, but they're embedded with the agriculture and everything else.
So it could take down the whole economy in Mexico, not just the drug-selling part of the economy.
Now, to be fair, being the largest shareholder is only 17%.
And he doesn't have a controlling interest that still belongs with the family.
So the family is making all the decisions.
But I simply point out that wouldn't it have been nice to know that the biggest shareholder for the people who wrote this article is the richest guy in Mexico who, I'm guessing, has business interests that sort of have some cartel embedded with them.
So you never know.
You just have to be aware of who's who.
Apparently the ICE is going to call the non-residents aliens from now on.
Remember how that became like a dirty word?
Don't call them aliens.
They're just undocumented.
I've never been too worked up about what name we use for them.
I have to agree.
That alien sounds more like something you want to get rid of than undocumented does.
And the names matter.
So I don't love that aliens has been reintroduced, but I wouldn't mind if all the words are reintroduced, meaning that it just doesn't matter what you use.
That seems healthy.
You shouldn't get mad if somebody says aliens.
You shouldn't be happy if they call them non-documented.
If we're talking about the same thing, it's just words.
Well, my prediction on the JFK files, which, as you know, Mike Pompeo had talked Trump out of revealing all of them last time.
According to Mike Pompeo, there's nothing in there interesting anyway, but there are some secrets.
So nothing that we would learn that's big and shocking, but still a few secrets, even 60 years old.
Because he points out that if somebody was in their 20s then, they could still be alive in their 80s.
But he was just using that as an example.
He didn't say that's the reason.
He thinks 99% of it's already available and that what little there is left in the JFK file isn't really going to change anybody's mind about anything.
Here's what I think.
Given that we widely assume the government itself, was involved in killing JFK. The question I would ask is, do you think the government that killed JFK and then, you know, if it was, let's say, CIA-related or Dulles-related, do you think they would have left a memo on that?
Do you think there would have been a memo that you could find in the files?
As in...
Here's a memo.
Go kill JFK and make sure you keep this memo secret.
No, there's not going to be something in the file if our own government killed him.
If our own government killed JFK, which is exactly what it looks like happened, they're not going to keep the memo.
I mean, even in the wildest imagination that somebody ever wrote a memo and put that in writing, If they ever put it in writing, which is ridiculously unlikely, they certainly would have lost it by now, if you know what I mean.
Lost it?
Lost in the fire?
Misplaced?
So no, there isn't really any chance there's something in the JFK file.
Unless the JFK file says that the space aliens did it.
But what are you going to learn?
There couldn't possibly be any secrets in there.
Are these secrets about who did it?
There can't possibly be.
Anyway, so I'm going to hold my breath for that stuff.
As you know, the Trump administration is doing a lot of firing.
And the funniest part is the DEI professionals are trying to avoid being fired because all the DEI people are going to get fired by changing the name of their job.
So we're seeing some examples of the director of DEI quickly changing their names on the website to executive, you know, just generic executive.
But I watched one young black man who worked for the government, I forget which agency, he was sort of proudly crowing that he was moving from his job as a You know, a professional in charge of DEI to something that sounded exactly like DEI but used different words.
And he announced it in public.
At about the same time that the Trump administration was putting in a clarifying order that says, if all you do is change your name, we're going to fire you.
And so they asked people to turn people in who were just changing the names and still doing DEI. And like 10 minutes later, he updated his post on X from, hey everybody, I got this new job, to I've been laid off.
That's right.
He bragged about his new job, which was just different letters for his old job, at the same time that the word went out, fire anybody who changes jobs and keeps doing DEI but changes the name of the job.
So, got him.
Anyway, so there's lots of happening.
I guess the ice raids are happening now.
We're not seeing gigantic video and stuff.
So one of the things the ice people are apparently doing right, and obviously they would do this, is they're not announcing where they're going to attack so they don't have cameras.
So we're not seeing a lot of video of their picking up the people that were on the list of the bad people.
And that's good.
Oh, all new hires in the government got their offers rescinded.
Interesting.
Alright.
Apparently Trump has already sent 1,500 military troops down to the border.
I don't know if all 1,500 are there yet.
It started with 500, but it's targeting 1,500.
And they're reinforcing the wall and building outposts to help them monitor any illegal entries.
I thought I saw in a separate report that they had orders to shoot basically orders that they could use deadly force whenever it made sense.
Now, those are my words.
But is that confirmed?
That they have the Permission to fire at the border.
You know, if they need to.
You know, we're talking defensively.
Yeah.
Well, that's very Trumpian.
And probably a good idea.
Meanwhile, according to Just the News, Trump is announcing emergency price relief for cost of living crisis.
Now, that doesn't mean...
If this were a Democrat thing, it would mean that they put price gaps on things, but that's not what Republicans do, because it's dumb and it doesn't work.
I haven't done that since Nixon, and that didn't work out, so they learned a lesson.
But here's what he is doing.
So you decide if these actions will cause prices to come down.
He's ordering all federal agencies to untangle the American economy from Biden constraints.
Now, what are those constraints?
Well, he's going to eliminate climate policies that generally are going to increase the cost of everything, that make food and fuel costs go up.
So, in the short run, if companies get rid of their climate expenses, I think they would just bank it and just keep it as profit.
I don't think they would immediately lower the prices.
But they might.
So long-term, you should lower prices.
Short-term, the companies will just take an extra profit.
He wants to eliminate rent-seeking practices.
Now, that's not a phrase that most people know what it means.
Rent-seeking.
That's sort of a political insult that even I forget what it means.
I always see it and I go, can't you use real, regular, ordinary words?
There's something to...
Rent-seeking.
That has its own meaning.
So that's useless communication.
So my advice to the people communicating on the Trump team, don't use rent-seeking.
99% of the public has no idea what you're talking about.
They think it means rent.
It has nothing to do with the rent.
And he wants to, let's see.
Get rid of administrative expenses and driving up health care costs.
Lower housing costs and increase the housing supply.
Create employment opportunities for American workers.
Well, that rent-seeking, that phrase rent-seeking is doing a lot of work.
I think it means just people getting a job and some grifty kind of thing that didn't need to happen in the first place.
So, rent-seeking meaning trying to get paid as opposed to trying to make anything better.
Is that a good definition?
Rent-seeking would be just somebody says, well, if I become the head of DEI, I'll get a big paycheck.
As opposed to somebody saying, do we need a head of DEI? Why are we even doing that?
I think it's close to that.
Anyway.
So Trump is halting gain-of-function research, the kind that got us in trouble.
Gain-of-function on the viruses, he wants to halt that.
But I wonder about why do we call it gain-of-function?
Isn't it weaponization?
Or are we pretending that we're only seeking to understand how someone else could weaponize it so we can treat it?
Oh, here's the definition of rent-seeking.
Rent-seeking.
When an entity seeks to gain added wealth without any reciprocal contribution or productivity.
Okay.
So, my definition was not exactly right.
Not really.
So, I've got something on the screen that I can't make or go away, which means I can't see you.
I don't know if you can see me.
Really?
Come on.
There should be somewhere on this screen a little X or something to tell me how to turn this off.
Really?
Can you even see me?
I can't see your comments.
I've got a blank screen with one image that I clicked on and no indication of any kind of a way to turn it off so I can see you.
No, it wasn't that.
It wasn't that.
Clicking anywhere doesn't do it.
Oh my god, I'm going to have to get out of this to get back in just because I clicked on an image.
Holy hell.
Can't make it go.
Oh, okay.
It turns out that dragging it worked.
Another interface fail.
Well, I'm glad you could see me.
Anyway.
So gain of function sounds like weaponization to me.
Marco Rubio is off to Panama, getting started fast, but not just Panama.
He's going to El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, etc.
So he's going to talk to Panama.
I'm sure that won't go well in the first conversation, but there is a story about how the Panama Canal got started that I told in the man cave, but I'll tell now.
The story is, and this is wild, there's a YouTube video on it.
You can just go to YouTube and look for Panama Canal and French engineer.
So, before the United States got involved in the Panama Canal, I'll try to tell the story quickly.
The French were trying to build it in the same place.
But the French found out that every time they dug something, it rained, and then the mud just fell back in the...
In the trench.
So they just gave up.
So the French left, but there was one engineer who was a French engineer who decided to stay to see if he could get something going.
So one engineer, just one, decides to convince Panama, which at the time was not its own country.
It was an extension of Colombia.
So Colombia kind of extended, you know, along the little peninsula there, or along whatever that is.
And so he talks to the Panamanians, who are more like an area than a country.
He said, hey, the Colombians that own you are, like, ignoring you, and you're not getting your value for being part of the country.
You should be independent.
And the Panamanians are like, yeah, yeah, we should be independent.
How about that?
And then he says, if you make me your ambassador, now keep in mind, he's not Panamanian.
He's a French citizen.
And he convinced the Panamanians, if you make me your ambassador, I'll get you independence.
And they probably didn't think it was serious anyway, so they're like, sure.
Yeah, you're our ambassador.
Go get us some independence.
So he goes to Colombia and says, hey, Panama wants independence.
How about that?
And Columbia said, get out of here.
Because, of course, that's ridiculous.
So he goes back and then he goes to the United States.
And this is during Teddy Roosevelt's time.
Now, Teddy liked to take over some stuff.
So he was kind of expanding the empire.
So he was already mentally on the same page.
If we can grab something, we'll grab it.
As he had already done.
And somehow...
The French engineer convinces him that he's speaking for Panama and that they're going to go independent and it'd be really helpful if the American Navy was parked outside nearby and acted like they were in favor of this independence.
Now, Teddy, thinking maybe we could get some kind of very low-cost conquersome territory here.
So, the American Navy sits out there waiting.
Columbia knows about it.
And then the ambassador of Panama declares independence.
And the Colombians are like, hey, you can't.
Oh, maybe you can.
Well, we don't care about you that much.
Okay, you're independent.
So they gave their independence with no fighting because a French guy wanted to build a canal.
And he wanted America to be the builder of it.
With his help.
So then he says, all right, we got a deal.
So then the ambassador, who is the French engineer, he comes up with a, I guess it would be a treaty or a deal with the United States that the United States could have control of the Panama Canal in return for building it.
You know, they'd have to build it, but they'd have control of it.
So the Americans say, hey, that's great.
And they come and they sign the deal.
And then they pull up to, you know, take control of the canal.
And the Panamanians say, what are you doing here?
And the Americans say, well, you know, because of the deal.
We signed a deal, so Panama gave us this.
And the Panamanians said, what deal?
The only person who even knew about it was the ambassador, the ambassador who was not even Panamanian.
So not only did the French engineer...
He created a new country out of nothing.
But then he made a deal with the United States, the biggest thing that ever happened in Panama, on his own without telling Panama.
So the United States comes, realizes they don't really have any standing, but they have this big military.
So they just took the canal.
Because they knew that Panama couldn't stand up to the American military.
They knew that they had some cover story of this ridiculous deal with the Panamanian guy.
So it was just a Teddy Roosevelt situation.
He's like, I guess it's ours now.
And sure enough, it was.
And then the Panamanian engineer had some ideas how to build it that the French didn't like.
So his ideas about how to build it were adopted by the Americans because it looked like a good idea.
And it worked.
And they built the Panama Canal.
Now, have you ever heard that story?
I think it's true.
I mean, it was an extensive documentary on YouTube.
But I think it's true.
So, it's a wonderful story.
Again, if you don't think one person can change the world, well, there's a big example.
Now, the other context is that Teddy Roosevelt knew That for America to be the dominant maritime power, that we needed to connect our two oceans.
Because if you can't get assets from one side of the country to the other without going around, you know, South America, you're not really the naval power that you need to be.
So the Panama Canal had a lot to do with projecting American power, and that's why Teddy Roosevelt was okay to play a little fast and loose with that.
Anyway, I'm going to make an observation I've made before, but I'm going to give you some more details.
Have you noticed that Democrats have what I call a rate problem?
A rate problem.
Let me explain.
The general statement is that if something is good at a small scale, Democrats will say it must be good at a big scale.
And that never makes sense.
I mean, it might make sense for making money or something, but that's about it.
So they say, for example, if a low amount of immigration is good for the country, why wouldn't a high rate be good for the country?
And then the Republicans say, that's batshit crazy.
Those are completely different situations.
A low rate of immigration is sort of no problem, and maybe it's more plus than minus.
But a high rate, you're literally giving away your country and dying.
Those are not just doing more of a good thing.
So it's a rape problem.
The Democrats, for whatever reason, refuse to acknowledge that doing a good thing too much has any kind of negative.
Here's another one.
You don't want your police to be over-policing, do you?
Yeah.
You don't want the police to harm somebody, maybe be a little too tough on the citizens.
Nobody wants that.
So it's good.
If the police are maybe a little softer and more gentle in some situations.
But if that's good, why not get rid of police entirely?
Wouldn't that be even better?
It's a rape problem.
You don't just take some little good thing and then take it to the extreme and say it must be good.
Nobody really cares if an adult wants to transition.
Well, if it's good for adults, why wouldn't it be good for toddlers, say the Democrats?
Again, good for an adult to have enough freedom to make that kind of a choice in today's world?
I like it.
I could argue maybe they shouldn't or maybe they won't be happy, but it's not up to me.
I'm happy that they have the choice as adult citizens in a free country.
Yes, absolutely.
You do what you need to do.
I'll do what I need to do.
It's the best we can do.
But the rate, can we keep it with just the adults?
We're pretty sure.
Does it have to extend to children and dogs?
How about, it's good to help the unfortunate.
Most people would agree.
It's nice.
If you're going to help somebody who needs a little hand up, yeah, that's good.
So why don't we give all of our money to everybody else?
Well, wait a minute.
That's a rate problem.
It's only good if you keep it within balance.
If you open your doors and let everybody come in and take what they want, nothing works.
It's a rate problem.
If diversity is good, and I would agree, that having a company whose workforce kind of looks like the public.
That seems like a plus.
Everybody would be a little happier.
They'd feel a little safer.
They'd have a little more visibility about what the customers in general are looking for.
Because you've got people who touch every community.
Yeah, you can see how that would be a plus.
But if a little bit of diversity is good, why not just get rid of white men entirely?
Which is what it turned into.
It turned into, let's just get rid of white men.
Because if you do it a little bit, it's good.
Wouldn't it be good if he got rid of all of them?
It's a rape problem.
A little bit's fine.
A lot of it is the end of the country.
How about if criticizing a politician such as Trump, one that you might not agree with, if criticizing him pretty severely is good, because we have a competitive system, So both sides will get, you know, criticized.
And we like it, because that's how we settle things.
We argue a little bit.
So if a little bit of criticism of Trump is good, why not organize a coup against him?
Again, it's a rape problem.
It's a rape problem.
A little bit of criticism of Trump is good.
I would even argue that he's such a change agent that I would even agree with you that a lot of criticism is good.
But can we keep it there?
Does it have to be if criticism is good, a coup is good?
It's a rate problem.
Yeah, so here's another one.
If a store allows a little bit of shoplifting and the alternative is somebody in desperate need can't get the food or the diaper or something, we kind of think, oh, we don't like We definitely don't like shoplifting.
Nobody likes it.
But a little bit of it, you could argue the person who stole it got to stay alive, got to put a diaper on a baby.
But if it's good, if a little bit of it happens, why don't we just open the doors and make it legal to steal everything?
It's a rape problem.
Again, it's a rape problem.
It's the thing that they get wrong every time.
Anyway.
So John Bolton, as you know, lost his Secret Service protection under Trump, but he was awakened at 12 a.m.
to be told about it.
That part just seems like they were messing with him.
I suppose they needed to tell him as soon as they knew.
So, I mean, there's justification for it, to give him the most amount of time to adjust to it.
But it just feels like they're messing with him.
But during the press conference, Trump said some bad things about him.
He said he tried to blow up the Middle East.
And then here's what Trump said.
I thought he was a very dumb person, but I used him well because every time people saw me coming into a meeting with Bolton standing behind me, they thought that he'd attack them because he was a warmonger.
Now, how many of you remember?
That when Bolton was first added to Trump's team in the first term, do you remember what I said?
Because of course I didn't want a warmonger on his team.
But if you remember what I said, oh, this is perfect.
Because when Trump walks into a room with a warmonger, and then he's not as bad as a warmonger, he's going to look like the good cop.
So for negotiating purposes, it's kind of perfect to have one warmonger in the room.
Just so you're not that warbunker yourself.
So that's exactly what Trump said.
And I think everybody who understands negotiations, I think everybody understood it.
But now he says it directly.
And I do believe that this is not just an excuse.
If this were a normal politician, if Trump were normal, I would have said, oh, you made a big mistake with him and now you're trying to explain your big mistake.
I don't think so.
I think he knew that Bolton was a negotiating asset, and he was going to use him like that right from the start.
And only Trump would do that.
There's nobody else who would even have that idea.
But here's my take.
I love the fact that Trump is rebranding Bolton as the dumbest guy in America, at least on foreign policy.
Because if you're Iran, just think about this.
If you're Iran, and you were mad at him because you thought he was going to push America to bomb your country, and now he's been branded by the actual commander-in-chief as the dumbest guy in the country, would your adversary want to kill the dumbest guy on your side?
No.
No.
That would be the last thing.
You want to kill the smart ones.
I mean, if you're going to kill anybody.
If you're going to kill anybody at all, you pick out their smartest guy.
Remember when Trump put the hit on Solomon A? It's because Solomon A was their best guy.
Killing their best guy makes complete sense, if you're an adversary.
Killing their dumbest guy doesn't buy you a thing.
You'd rather they keep their dumbest guy, no matter how dumb it is.
So it's kind of funny that Trump both removed his security, his secret service, at the same time he made it completely unnecessary to kill him.
It's kind of perfect.
Only Trump.
All right, I'm going to take another victory lap on this next story, as one does.
So apparently Alex Soros gave an interview to the Financial Times.
Now, the first thing that should be noted is, wait a minute, Alex Soros gave an interview?
I've never seen him do that.
Because if he got interviewed, how would he explain what he's doing?
Like, it's not really possible to explain what he's doing in any way that sounds non-evil.
So I always thought he just avoided interviews because he couldn't possibly explain what they were doing.
But he does one, and then I immediately looked up...
Who owns the Financial Times?
And it turns out the Financial Times is owned by a Japanese holding company.
A Japanese holding company.
So, who would be the least confrontational media?
If you were going to pick, of all the world, who would be the least dangerous media?
I kind of think something owned by a Japanese holding company is not going to ask you the hard questions.
I feel like you're going to get the easy questions.
Am I wrong?
I mean, maybe I'm making some kind of stereotype that's unfair.
But are the Japanese news people, are they world famous for being extra aggressive?
Because I know the British are aggressive.
French press, pretty aggressive.
American press, very aggressive.
And none of them seem to be able to talk to Soros.
But the one owned by a Japanese holding company.
Well, so I don't think they asked him any tough questions.
But still, it made news.
So the first question is, is Alex Soros intentionally avoiding any serious news interviews?
I think the answer is yes, obviously.
Remember when Elon Musk said he wanted to talk to him and Soros said yes?
But I'll bet they can't schedule it.
Elon can probably make it any time.
But I'll bet Alex is busy.
Maybe we could do that later.
It's never going to happen.
I don't think ever Elon Musk and Alex Soros will sit in the same room alone.
I don't think it'll ever happen because he wouldn't put himself in that position.
But anyway, here's the interesting part.
This is being reported by the Washington Free Beacon.
So, according to Alex, his father, George, is angry that the money is going to, well, that his own organization has too many employees.
Rent seekers, you might say.
And so, apparently, George Soros said, quote, I didn't want to create an employment agency.
Now, that's what his son says, the dad said.
Meaning that he didn't want the non-profit Open Society to just be hiring people like crazy, but apparently they did.
He said that George was very upset by the massive number of employees and, quote, amount of bureaucracy at his liberal non-profit, the Open Society Foundations.
And furthermore, he says his only regret, this is what Alex, the younger one, says, He says his only regret since taking over is that he didn't slash the non-profit's workforce sooner.
Now, it gets more interesting.
Part of the interview, Alex Soros considers himself a Zionist, meaning that he's very pro-Israel and Israel's existence as a Jewish state.
Now, at the same time, his society, the open...
The Open Society has been funding millions of dollars to self-declared anti-Zionist organizations.
How do you square that?
He's massively funding anti-Israel organizations.
And it's not just an interpretation.
These are organizations who say it directly.
But that's the opposite of his view.
And this is not a random view.
Because he's Jewish.
Right?
So if you're actually Jewish, and you say in an interview, you know, I'm a Zionist, or worse that effect, but you're funding the exact opposite, the exact opposite, how do you explain it?
Do you remember who had the only explanation for this?
Me.
Here's my explanation.
I said George Sr. didn't know what was happening.
That he didn't know what was happening.
He didn't know where his money was going.
Do I win?
Am I the winner?
I said that George Sr. didn't know where the money was going.
What we know is he has too many people and too much bureaucracy, which does what?
It obscures to the owner what's happening, because even the owner can't penetrate the bureaucracy.
And even the younger Soros, He's apparently been funding things that are very much the opposite of one of his core beliefs.
How do you think he funds things that are the opposite of his core beliefs?
I say neither of them were active managers.
So my hypothesis was that neither of them knew what it was doing.
That somehow it had taken on its own bureaucratic life and that the bureaucracy was making the decisions Based on DEI and equity things, and that if you had put either of the Soros's in charge, it wouldn't look different.
So, you just bought 200 more radio stations?
Yeah.
So, I'm going to double down on my hypothesis that the Soros's are not aware of what the organization is doing.
And I think that's just true.
Because it never really made sense, anything we saw, unless it was accidental or somebody else was in charge.
Scott, why repeat lies?
Well, why don't you tell me what the lie is?
Could you give me any hint?
what do you think was the lie?
I told you what other people said.
Is that what you're calling repeating the lies?
I call it the news and the context that's important.
So you tell me, what lie did I just repeat?
Right.
Now that was a dumbass comment.
If you want to tell me what the content is, that you think I'm wrong about something, tell me.
Oh, that Soros is so dumb to not know his business?
He just proved it.
That's literally the story.
He just reported on his own that he didn't know what his business was doing because of the bureaucracy.
Yeah, do better in your comments.
Anyway, there's a study in something called The Conversation, Michael Pasek, who says that learning your political opponents don't actually hate you can reduce toxic polarization and anti-democratic attitudes.
Here's my problem.
Here's what I have no patience for.
I have no patience for a personal accusation in the context of factual statements.
I have every interest in being fact-checked.
That part I like.
So if I say something wrong, then it's wrong.
But to immediately assume that there's some kind of character flaw because you've got some bullshit idea about reality that I don't, fix yourself.
Just fix yourself.
Think about how to not be that person anymore.
Anyway, back to this.
So you've heard the stories of people who met MAGA supporters and were surprised to find out that they're awesome.
And you've heard this anecdote a whole bunch of times, right?
So how many times have you heard, oh, I had MAGA neighbors, but then they kept shoveling my driveway for me for free, and I realized I was wrong about them?
You've heard that a million times.
Have you ever heard it the other way?
Have you ever heard somebody who said, you know, I thought these Antifa people were all wrong, but then I met some, and they were pretty nice.
I never hear that.
It doesn't work both ways.
There's one side that was demonized by mental illness, TDS, and propaganda, and the other side just wants to be left alone.
They just want to be left alone.
If you put me in a room with a normal Democrat, do you think I have any problem with it?
Do you think that I have a negative opinion about just an ordinary Democrat?
Never.
It's never even occurred to me.
It doesn't even seem like a thing that you should think about.
Now, there are certainly the extremists who are causing the ordinary Democrats to...
You know, not be exactly the way you'd want them to be.
But I don't even hate the extremists.
I just would, you know, want to stay away from them because they'd hate me.
The only thing that would keep me out of the room with the leftist, lefty, progressive of all time is what they think of me.
It wouldn't keep me out of the room because of what I think of them.
Because what I think is people are all individuals.
No two are alike.
I'm not going to judge them.
Because everybody's individual.
If I said, hey, you're not like the other person, well, what kind of a standard is that?
Every person's different.
You can't be like other people.
So, no, I don't judge you.
So, let's see.
Thomas Massey says, seed oil lobbyist will be chief of staff at USDA. Somebody says, the oil seed processor association?
Really?
So that whole seed oil thing, I've never followed it closely.
So as you know, some number of people say the seed oils are among the worst things we're putting in our bodies.
And other people say, no it isn't.
I don't actually know which is true.
But I guess we'll find out.
Looks like it's going to come to a head.
You don't deserve me, right?
Right.
Anyway, I just don't know enough about seed oil.
I know there's...
I've heard the criticisms, but I don't know how to know what's true.
From wokeness to faith in God, okay?
All right.
These are the end of my prepared remarks.
And I went too long because it took a while to get going.
So I think this will be a reasonable time to end.
I'll talk to the locals' people privately later.
And we've got 1,200 people to watch, and we'll upload the show to the other platforms later.
