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, Mississippi Senator Bradford Blackmon, Karine Jean-Pierre, BMW Anti-Elon, AOC, Congressional Inside Trading, Norah O'Donnell, Ross Ulbricht Thanks Trump, Criminal Alien Arrests, Trump embraces AI, US Energy Production, Trump's LA Fire Visit, Governor Newsom, President Trump, David Sacks, TikTok Sovereign Wealth Fund, JFK Files, Trump's WEF Speech, Bank Of America, Conservative Debanking, OpenAI Operator, Government AI Control, AI Propaganda News Sources, Sam Altman, AI App Creation, J6 Reframe, American Tradition, AI Cancer Treatments, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
Wait, wait.
I'm getting some breaking news.
There's a new study.
It turns out, I'm not making this up, but there's a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
They found that caffeine consumption was associated with higher levels of testosterone and better erections.
Well, sippers, I salute you.
But if you'd like to join in, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass or a tank or a chalice inside a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Even a blood vessel, if you know what I mean.
Fill it with your favorite liquid, I like coffee, and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day.
Salute!
Is that what salute means?
Probably not.
Probably not.
It's a new meaning.
All right, well, you've probably heard the rumors by now, but people, they're just rumors that...
Barack Obama is about to have a mic drop moment?
A mic drop?
That's right.
If you're sitting at home, I'll give you a moment.
Yeah.
The rumor is there's going to be a mic drop moment.
That's all I have to say on that.
Anyway, according to Rasmussen, the Trump job performance is amazing.
So the latest is that as of Thursday, 56% of likely U.S. voters approved of Trump's job performance for the first week.
And guess what the overnight is?
The overnight is Trump at 59% approval.
Does that even seem possible?
Now, Rasmussen...
Gets a lot of criticism from the Democrats.
And part of the reason they get criticized is they're one of the most accurate pollsters.
And they generally have a better view of better results on Trump than, let's say, the average of the other pollsters.
But they're also closer.
So they're consistently more right about Trump-related stuff.
So this is incredible.
59% approval.
And I feel like...
I feel like the criticism has just turned into nothing.
You know, we'll talk about all the stuff Trump's doing, but I'm just not seeing pushback anywhere.
I mean, there's, you know, blah, blah, blah, but not really.
It's like the whole country just said, we don't have to pretend anymore.
Just let Dad do what Dad does, and we just don't need to pretend that we disagree with everything all the time automatically.
Unbelievably good.
So now you know how Trump's job performance is doing.
I would say that Trump and the Republicans are having, in my lifetime, maybe the best week they've ever had.
Would that be fair to say?
Would it be fair to say that in my entire lifetime, there's never been a better week for Republicans?
I think that's true.
I can't think of any time that they got more done, controlled the narrative.
Changed everything that needed to be changed.
You know, did 201. By now it's X more.
I mean, I've never seen anything like this.
So we know that Trump's doing well and the Trump effect is in force, but let's not forget there's another major political party.
And, you know, they could be doing good things too, but maybe getting overshadowed because of the news coverage.
So I wanted to check in just to make sure Democrats are also getting some stuff done.
And yes.
Turns out Democrats have, they're making some inroads.
Specifically, there's a Mississippi Democrat.
I think it's his first year on the job.
And he's introducing some legislation in Mississippi to make it illegal for men to masturbate.
Because he thinks masturbation should be limited to reproduction.
But he thinks that, according to the legislation, It would be okay if you wore a condom when you masturbated?
I don't think I'm making that up.
That's the way I read it.
I think this is real.
I'm not making any of this up.
That's right.
President Trump is reviving the economy, establishing America as the great superpower, putting 10,000 people on the border to close it for good.
But not to be outdone, a Democrat in Mississippi is trying to make it illegal to masturbate.
It would be, the first penalty would be $1,000.
I just want to know how they get the information.
Are you supposed to self-report?
Is it like the gift tax?
They just expect you to tell them?
So it's $1,000 for the first offense.
The second one would be $5,000.
And if you whack off three times, the third one would be $10,000.
And all I'm thinking is if I lived in Mississippi, I'd be sitting there thinking, all right, it's $10,000.
Maybe just twice.
Anyway.
That's real.
This is also real, according to Branchi, writing in Red State, that Corinne Jean-Pierre, the recent spokesperson for Biden, She's being profiled in Vanity Fair.
Now you say to yourself, okay, I mean, Vanity Fair does sort of high-profile, attractive-looking people.
She's an attractive person, and she's high-profile, so that makes sense.
And then I read on, she wrote the profile herself.
Okay, that's funny.
Did she write a glowing profile of herself for Vanity Fair?
It's actually called Vanity Fair.
If it weren't called Vanity, it wouldn't be so funny that she wrote it herself.
You know what I mean?
But it gets funnier.
Can anybody guess what she's blaming for her lack of success?
If you guessed racism...
If you guess racism is what she's blaming for a lack of a screaming success, you'd be right.
She says it's racism.
Yep, yep.
Imagine being alive and not being aware that for the past 40 years, 40 years, the best thing you could be is anything but a white man in terms of employment.
For 40 years.
It's been true, absolutely hard true.
For 40 years, that the worst thing you could possibly be is a white man in any kind of American job.
The best thing, what's the best thing you could be for the past 40 years?
Black, female, lesbian.
It's number one in the entire stacking of the ridiculousness that the Democrats brought us for the last 40 fucking years.
It's number one on the best thing you could possibly be.
For your career.
There's nothing higher than that.
But imagine being so fucking stupid you don't even know that.
You don't even know that everything was stacked in your direction.
That's amazing.
40 years it's been true.
And it hasn't been just a little bit true.
It's been the most true, obvious...
Documented.
Ask any single person who's been alive and been in a corporate world for 40 years.
It's the truest, true thing that has ever been true.
And she doesn't know it?
What kind of a weird imaginary world is that like?
So weird.
The Wall Street Journal has an article.
Now, I can't believe this is really being discussed.
Hold in your mind all the conversations we've had on this topic and then be amazed that it's a headline story today.
Today.
It's still a story, all right?
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that I guess there's maybe some changes that might be coming to the dietary guidelines in the United States from the government.
And there's a big debate whether drinking a little bit of alcohol is good for you.
It's 2025. By now, we're completely aware that unless the study is actually paid for by the alcohol business, they all say it's bad for you.
It's the most well-understood thing in science.
Of course, every drink is bad for you.
But because the alcohol industry still has some sketchy studies out there, they're like, well, look at my study.
I know you've got 10 studies, but look at my four studies.
And so they're still arguing whether a little bit of alcohol is actually good for your health.
Yeah, a little bit of poison is just what you need.
A little bit of poison.
Well, here's what they could have done to save some time.
They could have asked Scott.
And here's how that conversation would have gone.
The experts would say, Scott, is alcohol bad for people even in low doses?
We can't tell because the data is mixed.
And then here's what I would say.
Maybe you should check who funds the studies saying poison is good for you.
Then the experts would say, you are a genius.
Thank you for saving us so much money and time.
I'm pretty sure that's how it would go.
So, next time, guys, ladies, next time you have a question about whether alcohol is good for you, Big time saver.
Ask Scott.
Over in the UK, the UK being stupid again.
When was the last time you heard a story about the UK that wasn't about them being stupid?
I don't even remember one.
It's either they're lying or stupid or weasels.
Like every story about the UK. Is that a coincidence?
Or have they turned into lying, stupid weasels?
I mean...
You know, my instinct is it's just that's the news that is catching my attention.
They must be doing something right, right?
Is there anything that the UK is doing right?
But here's a story, just a small one, that the BMW, the UK, I guess, what would you call it?
The UK BMW Group.
BMW has decided to announce it that it's no longer going to post on X. Number one, why would you announce it?
What would be the point of announcing that?
Well, the only thing I can think of is that they're announcing it because they're protesting something that Elon Musk did.
Can you think of any other reason?
I can.
So BMW is protesting X. They're doing it at exactly the same time that I was trying to figure out what my next car will be, which has taken me a few years to figure out because I'm right on the fence between going electric, which seems like obviously the future, and staying gas as long as I can because gas stations are more plentiful.
So I was kind of on the fence, but I was thinking, you know, another BMW. That's what I've been driving for years.
Maybe.
Maybe one more.
And then I see this.
We're not the UK, so it's not the UK BMW. But I'm not cool with that.
I'm not cool with you being such buttholes that you have to announce you're doing it.
I wouldn't even care if they simply didn't do it.
If they simply didn't do it, I'd be like, I don't even know.
I don't care.
Not everybody has to do everything.
It doesn't matter if somebody's not doing something.
But announcing it?
Announcing it.
That's just being dicks.
I'm not going to drive the automobile of dicks, so I'm probably going to get a Tesla because BMW UK are just being dicks.
The cool thing about BMW is I like the brand.
The cars are very good, but I like the brand.
It felt right.
Sometimes your personality or something matches a brand.
But I don't want to be driving a dick car, so probably that'll push me into the...
Tesla, why?
That's my guess.
We'll see.
That's not a final decision.
AOC was on Jon Stewart's podcast, and they had great agreement and a good laugh over the question of Democrats being hypocrites by being in favor of insider trading.
Now, both Stewart and AOC say directly, it is insider trading, which is legal.
It's specifically legal if you're in Congress.
Now, I actually understand why they have that rule.
I don't know.
Has anybody explained to you why they have the rule that they can do insider trading?
I'm sure it's just self-interest, but the rationalization would be that you would be essentially prohibiting them from just normal investing.
Because sooner or later, something they normally invest in is going to look like they had insider information.
Next thing you know, they're going to get arrested for just making ordinary investments like every other American.
So I'm actually quite sympathetic to allowing them to do it.
But I think we should have more transparency.
I think this is one where instead of banning it, let's just know exactly who's doing what.
The midpoint, the only midpoint I can imagine, Is if they, and this might not be practical, if the Congress said to its members, don't invest in these topics because they're part of upcoming discussions.
So get there before the discussion and say, we're going to put a moratorium just on, let's say, these six companies just for a few months because that's when we're going to have more information than the public.
I don't know if there was a practical way to make that happen.
That'd be good.
Or, alternately, just tell the public which things the Congress is talking about, and then show us what people are investing in.
Full transparency.
And then when that person runs for election, their opponent says, well, here's the watchdog list.
Here's what they were talking about.
Here's what he invested in.
That could matter.
I could see voters saying, yeah, that actually does matter to me.
But...
AOC and Stewart both agree that what it does when Democrats are in favor of keeping it, which they are, that it makes them easy targets for Republicans to say, you hypocrites, look what you're doing.
And interestingly, it's just interesting they're calling out their own side for this huge error.
Now, I remember before Trump was president, if AOC and Jon Stewart were on a podcast, The one and only thing you would expect from that is dunking on Republicans.
And instead, they dunked on Democrats.
Hard.
They dunked hard on Democrats.
This is the Trump effect, is it not?
This is Democrats trying to figure out how to do something different from everything they've done.
And AOC, whatever you want to say about AOC. I fully accept all the criticisms as often valid.
But remember, I tell you that she is a unique character and that she can break frame sometimes.
The rest of them can't do it.
Fetterman can do it.
Fetterman can break frame.
Eric Adams, he can break frame.
AOC can break frame.
Now, that's not always good.
It doesn't mean they're great.
It doesn't mean you should vote for any of them because of that.
But it's rare.
And whenever anybody can break frame, I always pay attention.
So I'm going to pay attention to this one.
Meanwhile, CBS Evening News fired Nora O'Donnell, who has not been historically very favorable to President Trump.
Is this the Trump effect?
Yes.
Yes, it is.
Trump destroyed the reputation and therefore the entire business model of traditional news.
And they're in free fall and trying to figure out how to make it work.
But I'm going to put my MBA hat on for a minute.
And instead of looking at this as a political thing, I'm going to look at it, which it might be.
It might be that the network is trying to be a little less anti-Trump because they need to have access to the administration to make stories and stuff.
So it could be just normal politics overlapping business.
But there's a bigger business question.
I think that the days of hiring a gazillion-dollar host to just read the news is not a business model that can ever work again because they're competing against podcasters who are just killing it.
Here's what I'm going to make a prediction about the traditional news business.
I think they're going to morph into a syndication company.
And what I mean is...
That instead of being the people who essentially own the talent, I think they're going to become a platform for distribution and promotion, but that they'll work with essentially podcasters who are in charge of their own content.
So it's not for podcasters like me, because I'm almost entirely opinion-based, but there are podcasters who have real news experience.
I'll just pick one randomly, but I'm not anticipating that this one goes into that model, but just for example.
So somebody like Megyn Kelly has a huge audience and also has a lot of experience in the traditional news business.
If somebody like CBS said, hey, we've got a new model, we're just going to distribute people.
And you just have to do all the content.
That seems like that would be a good model, because that's how cartoons work, by the way.
The way the cartooning industry works, mostly, is that the cartoonists don't work for the newspaper.
Some of the political ones do, but the ones that are three-strip, four-panel kinds of things, they don't work for the newspaper.
They're part of a syndication group where there's a business that does all the...
So I think TV news is going to turn into a syndication model because nothing else will work.
They're not going to pay $10 million for a celebrity.
Why?
It would make more sense to pay $0 and say, we'll distribute you.
If you can get a big audience, we both make money.
So it's just positive from the first day.
That's what I think.
Ross Albrecht, as you know, the creator of the Silk Road, who was in jail for two life sentences plus 40 years, has been...
Was he pardoned or commuted?
I forget which word it is, but he's a free man now, and he did a little video directed at President Trump.
Now, this was really interesting, because clearly...
If you had your life saved by President Trump, as he did, Trump just saved his life for all practical purposes.
And you can't leave that alone.
You're going to have to acknowledge that that was a great thing for you.
And he does.
But you also don't want to be killed in 2025 by all the wokies who can't stand the fact that you thanked Trump.
So he picked his words so carefully that it reminds you how smart he is.
And how smart he is is really sort of the B story on this.
I don't think you all completely understand that he's not ordinary smart, Ross.
He's extra.
He's one of the special ones.
And so when he picks his words carefully, I like to pay attention to the exact words.
Here's what he said.
He said, I'm a free man now, so let it be known that Donald Trump is a man of his word.
Thank you so much, President Trump, for giving me this amazing blessing.
Now, look at his words.
I'm a free man now.
Let it be known that Trump is a man of his word.
Isn't that a great compliment?
It really is.
If you're Trump, this is like the best compliment you could ever get, that you're a man of your word.
Like, that is so just right.
But also, It's non-controversial, at least in terms of this specific thing.
Because if Trump said he would do it and then he did it, calling him as a man of his word, at least on this particular item, is exactly right.
So he didn't go too far and put himself at risk with the left part of the country.
But yet he delivered a compliment, which I say, one of the best ones I've ever heard.
And there's no arguing that.
If he said he'd do it and then he did it?
Yeah, man of his word.
That's worth something.
ICE has got a...
I don't want to say rounded up.
If you've watched any of the coverage, Tom Homan always corrects everybody who says that they're rounding up people.
He's like, no.
Very targeted enforcement of specific people.
We're not rounding up.
And that's a good correction.
So they got 538...
Criminal aliens, let's use the new modern word.
And in some cases, they got some people who were in the same room, exactly like you said they would.
Everybody's been warned.
They know if you're in the same room as the person they're looking for, you're in trouble.
So warning is all you can do.
I mean, you've got to do your job.
And I guess they're doing it.
And they're doing it hard.
So they got criminal gang members.
They got people with all kinds of bad crimes, sex offenders.
That's 538 people who aren't going to be offending again if they really go away and stay away.
Trump signed some kind of executive order, or he said he would approve power plants that are associated with AI data centers.
So if you didn't know...
AI requires so much processing.
You have to build a whole data center, and enormous ones, bigger than we've had historically, in order just to get to the next level of AI. But they use so much power that you would drain the grid.
I think we need about twice as much energy as we anticipate having under baseline.
So we've got to really ramp it up.
And Trump's take on this is, you know, you can do anything.
You can use natural gas.
That would be ideal.
It's better than coal.
But he's not going to limit what they can do.
They can build a nuclear power plant, gas, geothermal, whatever it takes.
Now, that feels to me like trying to win.
In other words, keeping America strong and powerful and having the right energy profile is everything you need to win.
I mean, it's the thing that feeds the military, the economy, everything.
So having Trump say, I'm taking the controls, at least the useless controls, I'm taking the useless controls off of the energy program in the United States, and then tying it to the AI stuff gives him a whole bunch of fans in the AI world, which is basically everybody who's paying attention, and makes us competitive.
Now, what's it do to the environment?
Not ideal.
Not ideal.
But I think it was Chamath from the All In Pod was saying that even if you wanted to build your own solar plant, because you want to be green, if you wanted to build your own giant solar facility to accompany your AI data center, you wouldn't be able to do it.
Because the approval would take so long that it just wouldn't be a practical project.
So Trump, This is a weird thing.
Trump, by removing the ridiculous obstacles, could make solar power finally reach its potential.
Because it's the environmentalists who tell you you have to do solar, and it's the environmentalists who tell you you can't.
That's what Chamath is kind of explaining.
You should see Chamath on the Tucker Carlson podcast.
I haven't finished it yet, but like I said, it's...
It's the most eye-opening, jaw-dropping, incredible set of useful points that you should understand.
It's really special.
So you've got to watch that.
So that's a big, big deal.
If you're looking for some optimism, the story about allowing any kind of power plant is not stupid, but...
You know, just normal power plants to be associated with AI and letting the tech giants sort of take control of how that functions?
Honestly, I can't think of anything that would be better for America right now.
I mean, it's just about...
I mean, that's just so good.
So good.
And it doesn't even look like the government you expect.
I kind of expect my government to be just stopping me from doing stuff.
And when you see somebody who's in the government, Trump, making it easier to do stuff, important stuff, like critically important existential stuff, you can't get more optimistic than this.
This is special.
It really is.
Speaking of that, Trump's going to visit the L.A. Fire Zone today.
So a few sub-stories to that.
Number one, did Biden ever?
I think he was already kind of done by the time of the fire.
But Trump's going to be there.
And Newsom said he's going to be greeting him at the tarmac, which suggests that Newsom is not invited to tour the actual fire areas.
So it sounds like...
Newsom wanted to insert himself, but the only place he could be sure it would be acceptable is greeting him at the airport.
Now, there could be a second reason for this.
You know, there's still some fires burning.
You know, there's always some smoldering embers and stuff.
So it could be that Newsom's hair gel presents too much of a risk.
You know, you don't want to put that much of a...
Oh, never mind.
It's not about his hair gel.
So Newsom's in an awkward situation.
People expect him to be the leader of the opposition to Trump at the same time he has to beg him for money.
So I wonder if he can separate those two things or if he feels like he'll just, you know, try to do both at the same time.
Mr. Trump, Mr. President, thank you so much for coming here.
We really need a lot of help.
$2.5 billion.
And by the way, you're a fascist.
What?
What?
Yeah, I said we're going to need a lot of help from the federal government.
Really appreciate that you came here.
It means a lot to us.
We need at least $10 billion, and you're Hitler.
Wait, what?
What?
How's that conversation go exactly?
I don't know.
Awkward.
The good news is that I know he's going to be talking to the right people.
And I won't say more about that, but I'll just say that one of the things that Trump does so well, and I've never seen anything like it, is that he has feelers among his base and on the ground like I've never seen.
Like, if somebody has a better idea about anything, it actually gets to him.
Like, it doesn't matter who it is.
Anybody who has a good idea is just a good idea.
And you can bubble it up through people who have bigger accounts.
And they say, oh, that is a good idea.
And then sooner or later, there's somebody on his staff who sees it.
And he actually hears about stuff.
Like, I've seen that play out a number of times.
And I think that's playing out again with his visit to LA. So we'll see how it goes.
I'll be vague for now.
But in terms of knowing that he's going to connect with the right people when he's there, done.
Done.
And that probably bubbled up from the right people.
And that's how you want your country to work.
Meanwhile, Trump signed an executive order on crypto, trying to make America the capital of crypto.
You know, David Sachs is in the administration, so he's behind that.
But he also is going to ban central bank digital currencies.
And he's going to evaluate the creation of a national digit asset stockpile.
So all that sounds forward-thinking and good.
I'm only comfortable with it because Saks is the main guy there.
The crypto stuff is things I don't have a deep understanding of.
Most people don't.
So I wouldn't be comfortable with something like this if I heard that it came from, I don't know, Don Jr., because he likes crypto.
I'm not making fun of Don Jr. I think he's great.
But the source matters, right?
If Trump just read an article and decided to do an EO on it, well, that would be trouble.
If it came from somebody who didn't really understand the space, that would be trouble.
But it's coming from Sachs.
Like, I feel comfortable.
Like, okay, if Sachs thinks this is a good idea, and of course everything is risk-reward.
Nobody can predict 100% what happens with anything.
But if it's the right risk-reward, I'm completely comfortable that Sachs has that under control.
And that's what a podcast does for you.
If you watch somebody on a popular podcast over a long period of time, and you see them talking on all kinds of different topics, especially this one, you get a real feel for whether somebody's playing a game, just trying to make some money, just trying to throw some grenades.
And Sachs is just common sense.
Times extraordinary understanding of things, times energy, times patriotism.
Right guy in the right place?
Perfectly.
Nicely done, Mr. Trump.
Trump is also talking about saving TikTok with a sovereign wealth fund.
Now, my understanding of a sovereign wealth fund would be when a country uses its own money...
To effectively make investments.
Why did America not have this already?
It's a pretty common thing.
It's a pretty common thing for other countries.
Saudi has one.
I think a lot of countries have one.
Why wouldn't we have one?
One of the things that Trump apparently is bringing to the process here is the understanding that America, if it acted If it acted in some ways, just some ways, like a private company, it could unlock investment potential like nobody's ever seen.
I'm borrowing a Trumpism like nobody's ever seen before.
And what I mean by that is because the U.S. government can make something work, that corporations maybe wouldn't have the power to make it work.
In other words, the U.S. can declare something legal.
It can also declare something illegal.
It can protect something that a private company couldn't protect.
So if you add the military power and the lawmaking power and the regulation creating and removing power to a financial model, it can do better than all other financial models.
And the example is TikTok.
TikTok would be the perfect introduction.
To a sovereign wealth fund.
So if you can imagine, let's say the sovereign wealth fund just owns, you know, Trump says 50%, and then you get a bunch of American, and I don't even know if they have to be American.
They could be Canadian or any friendly country.
They're the other investors.
But the important investor would be America, because America would say, now it's legal, so it turns an asset that's worth nothing into a trillion-dollar asset.
And Trump says that directly.
It's worth nothing if we say no to it, and I'm saying no to it.
It's worth a trillion dollars if we change it so it's appropriate in the United States, and I say yes to it.
So why don't I get half of that?
Now let me say it again.
It's worth nothing now, but I can make it worth a trillion dollars just simply by making it okay again to operate.
And if I can create a trillion dollars of value out of nothing, Why doesn't the United States get some of that?
And the answer is, I don't know.
The answer is, it's a good idea.
What's the pushback?
We'd get TikTok, so the users would be happy.
At the moment, the way it's organized, it's an unacceptable risk.
Trump can make that risk go way down by making an American product with an American algorithm.
It's all win.
It makes you think, why weren't we doing this before?
Now, TikTok happens to be the perfect example because it's the one where the government literally and the president alone can decide whether, well, not alone.
Congress should be helpful.
But he can make it worth a trillion dollars.
Take Greenland.
Would you invest in a mineral mining operation in Greenland if you knew it wasn't protected and China or Russia could come in and start a strong army of you and getting you in trouble?
That's a risk.
But suppose Trump says to Greenland, here's the deal.
I will remove all risk of invasion.
What's that worth to you?
Unlimited?
Everything?
Well, what would it cost if I were to just buy Greenland?
Oh, you couldn't afford it, Mr. President.
That'd be almost a trillion dollars.
Okay, so a trillion dollars if I buy it, but what if I don't buy it and also don't protect it?
What's that worth to you?
And the next thing you know, Trump makes a mining operation in Greenland.
Which wouldn't be economical because it's such a big investment and you don't know if you're going to get elbowed out by a foreign country.
And Trump will just make that risk go away.
Oh no, they're not going to touch you.
If you put a mining operation in Greenland and the U.S. puts it there and let's say they share some of their revenue with the locals more than they've ever had, quadruple the lifestyle of the locals and also protect them from any kind of foreign invasion.
And maybe if Denmark wants to have some Commonwealth kind of connection, let him have it for historical reasons but not any real control, I think this deal can get done.
I really think he can get this done.
We'll see.
But it's brilliant thinking, no matter what you think.
Trump also signed an executive order to start the process.
Which could take a long time to unleash the declassified documents on Kennedy and two Kennedys and Martin Luther King.
And Trump says everything will be revealed.
Now, I'm a little confused about something about this story.
You're the President of the United States, and you have been the President of the United States at least four other years.
The President is allowed...
In theory, to see 100% of all secrets.
I'm not wrong about that, am I? The president is allowed to see 100% of all secrets?
No exceptions?
I think that's what the system is.
And yet the president doesn't act like he knows what's in those files.
Now, it'd be one thing not to know the details, but Cash Battelle says he's seen them.
So Cash has looked at them.
And he's not giving us a hint what's in there, but says, yes, they should be released.
Do you think that Trump has not once talked to Kash Patel and said, all right, I don't have time to look through all these documents, but are there any big surprises in there?
Wouldn't Kash Patel be able to tell him, because Trump has the ultimate security clearance, yes, I look through, and when the public finds out that XYZ is true, That's going to be a big story.
I don't think Trump has heard that.
Because Trump's nature is that he's a tease.
If he knew what was in there, I think he would have teased us and said, wait till you find out what's in there.
That would be like a perfect Trumpism.
But he didn't do that.
He actually legitimately acts like he doesn't know what's in the files.
Now, I think there's nothing in there.
I think that if...
If you're expecting that the government files say the government killed the president, well, that's a little bit unrealistic because it would be exactly the same people who controlled the files as allegedly would have killed the president.
They didn't put it in a memo.
I don't think there's any memos.
You know, it was before email.
It's not like they're going to find the email or the history of...
Online searches or anything.
I don't think it's going to be anything.
I think all three of them are going to be a yawn.
It's going to be stuff we already knew and maybe some details that make you run down a rabbit hole, but you'll end up at the same place you started.
So I don't expect anything, and it's going to be a longer process than people want.
We're going to forget about it, and then someday there'll be a story that says, well, I guess we can't show you everything and we can't tell you why.
Mike Pompeo blocked it when Trump was first in office, and I understand that Trump just removed the security clearance for Mike Pompeo.
Ouch.
Not related, I think, but you never know.
All right, so Trump gave a video speech to the World Economic Forum.
If you're tapped into this stuff, you know the World Economic Forum is...
Let's see.
They're big on climate change.
That's one of their biggest, biggest things.
And they're big on ESG, which is sort of the corporate form of diversity and equity.
So that's what the ESG is for, is equity.
So they love DEI, and they love climate change.
So that's what the WEF is.
They're more than that, but...
Those are the big themes.
Trump goes on video, shits all over DEI, brags about getting rid of it, says there are two genders, and he calls the Green New Deal the Green New Scam, so he's canceling all that Green New Scam stuff and getting out of the Paris Accords.
Now, if that's the only thing that happened during his speech, you would say, who does that?
Who goes to this?
You know, famous, full of billionaires, CEOs, and heads of state, and just tells them that their core mission is harmful bullshit.
And he said it, he didn't use those words, but he said it as clearly as a person can say it.
I mean, he didn't leave any doubt.
And they sat there, and they just took it.
And then he said, because he knew the top bankers were there, And one of them was on stage.
They had a Bank of America.
Trump actually got in his grill in a live video exchange while the entire world was watching and told B of A, you better stop debanking conservatives.
And then he brought up Jamie Dimon, the other biggest banker in the country.
And Jamie, you too?
You better stop.
Debanking conservatives.
What do you think the bankers said in their statements and such afterwards?
We've never debanked any.
What are you talking about?
Debanking people.
We've never debanked any conservatives.
What kind of conservatives do you think we debanked?
Well, let me give you an example, courtesy of Mark Andreessen.
Trump's wife, his fucking wife, they debanked.
They debanked his fucking wife.
You assholes.
And she wasn't the only one.
You know, there are plenty of other examples.
General Flynn weighed in.
Are you kidding?
They debanked me.
They debanked all these people.
Then Eric Prince weighs in.
Are you kidding?
They debanked me.
They debanked my family.
They debanked everybody related to me.
And then they debanked his ex-fucking wife.
Simply because she had received some money as your normal divorce money.
And then the banker said, we've never done that.
And as Marc Andreessen points out accurately, huh, it's funny that there's so much debanking that's confirmed and yet no bank was involved.
That was just a great moment.
One thing I can tell you.
Is that unless those banks have started looking into all of their debanking past, there's going to be hell to pay.
I don't think they're going to get away with, we didn't do that.
Oh, the fake news will protect us.
I'm pretty sure MSNBC will say it never happened.
So we'll just say it never happened.
Not anymore, fuckers.
It's a new game.
Now you better do it, because we're watching.
We're pissed.
And you fucking did it.
I don't know which bank specifically.
Anyway, it's a new day.
So that was awesome.
Here's a gigantic event in the world.
OpenAI has introduced an agent they call Operator that on your commands...
We'll operate your web browser and anything that's signed in, basically.
And if it needs to do something for an account that you haven't signed in for, it'll notify you, hey, I signed in for this.
I've got to do the next step.
And it's been tested.
And you can just turn it loose and tell it what to do.
It'll go on your web browser.
It'll make appointments for you.
It'll organize things.
It'll get things.
Put them in whatever order you want.
Basically anything you would do, it'll do on your web browser.
Now, this is gigantic for somebody like me.
If you watch the pre-show, you've probably seen me go through this long manual process of publishing my cartoon every day.
Here's what I'll do in the very near future.
Hey, AI, publish today's cartoon.
I will first tell it where to get the comic, you know, which file.
I'll tell it where to put it and how I organize it.
But I'm only going to have to explain it once.
And then it will just publish it.
So I'm going to replace essentially the entire function of this syndication company that canceled me with one agent.
If I wanted to be back in newspapers, I don't.
I don't.
But if I wanted to...
That agent could contact the newspapers, send them samples, and negotiate a price for those few that would want to put Dilber back in the paper.
I'm not going to do that.
But it could do that.
It could actually do that.
It could finalize the deal.
It could set up the direct deposit to my checking account.
Now, is that scary?
Now, let's bang this amazing, amazing potential.
Into the other thing that you know about, which is there's no way the big AI companies don't have a backdoor for the CIA. There's no way national security would be okay with AI uncontrolled.
Of course it's controlled.
We've heard this also from Mark Andreessen, that the venture capitalists were told directly...
Don't fund any little AI companies.
We're only going to allow, we the government, are only going to allow a few, and we're going to have a backdoor for national security.
So if you knew that the CIA had a backdoor to your agent that knew all your passwords and could execute things on your behalf, including access to your bank account, I assume, you okay with that?
On one hand, it is so beyond, so beyond any risk that I would consider acceptable.
And then I put it in context.
The CIA can already do anything it wants to me.
It could take all my money.
It can spy on everything I can do.
It could pretend I did something I didn't do.
If the CIA wants to take anybody down, they didn't really need AI to do it.
It's just your mind can't separate the fact that you made it so easy.
So making it easy might make it worse, but it was already pretty easy.
Like if somebody in power wanted to look into you, all they had to do is tell somebody to look into you, and then the underling would do all the work.
So the person who made the decision doesn't really even have to do any work now.
So whether they use an agent, like a digital agent, or whether they use real agents, the people in charge were getting instantly everything they wanted all the time.
Anyway, you didn't really have any privacy.
But speaking of this, that open AI agent, Mike Cernovich, took a little deeper dive and found out that it has access to news sources.
So if you were to ask it to check the news or something like that, it could do it.
What news sources?
Let's see.
There's the Atlantic, which is known to be a Democrat propaganda entity.
Really, that's all it is.
It's not something that could ever make money.
And they're not trying to be anything else.
They are literally just a propaganda.
So that's one of them.
But they have four.
So they have four news sources.
So if the only one was the Atlantic, you'd say, oh, this is looking wrong because this is just a Republican-hating fake news source.
But it's not just the Atlantic, so don't worry.
It's also three others, including Axios.
Axios.
Wouldn't that be the same news entity that's anti-Trump and funded by OpenAI?
Yes, it is.
It's partially funded by OpenAI.
They have a working agreement with Axios, who is not too pro-Trump.
But don't worry.
Those are only two of the four.
The other ones, I'm sure, would be...
Oh.
The other ones are the AP, known to be one of the most...
Productive creators of fake news about Trump.
But you have Reuters.
Okay.
So these would be four of the ten worst things that you could pick as your news sources.
So Mike Cernovich calls this out on X, and Sam Altman responded almost immediately.
And Altman said, quote, that's a miss.
We will fix fast.
So Sam is saying that it's a mistake, that it was limited to those four, and that they'll fix that fast.
How many of you believe that that was a mistake?
Because it doesn't look like a mistake.
And as Mike Cernovich points out, in response to Sam's response to him, he said, quote, miss, where the error was on the side of Trump and conservatives, because as I learned from Google, Zuck and all regime media corrections over the decade, these errors, quote, always cut one way.
A fair system would have misses on either side.
And then Cerno points out that the tech businesses still don't hire Trump supporters.
Wow.
Yeah.
And then, so that's exactly the right question.
Now, I think Sam is probably accurate in saying that wasn't what he intended.
But I don't think that his employees were equally open-minded in what this should be.
So, yeah, there's a big problem that his organization is staffed with lefties.
Who, you know what kind of problems that is.
So, I mean, that's gigantic problems.
Anyway, Chris Sack, a famous tech investor guy, he was talking about using AI to code.
And I had tried the same thing he did.
So he also only had minimal programming experience from his past.
So, and recently...
He asked AI to write him some code for an app.
So he said, hey, AI, I've got an app.
Make me some code.
And the entire code for the app just appears.
But then he says, and I had the same experience, it's been a long time since I wrote any code.
What do I do with it?
Like, do I copy and paste it somewhere?
I had the same question because I was so long out of that game.
And the AI would tell them how to do it.
So the AI would say, yes, you want to download Python, put it on your computer.
If you have a Mac, you do it this way.
If it's Windows, you do it that way.
And then the prompt will be here, and then you do this with the prompt, and you put it into Python, and then here's how you execute it.
And he said, you know, my God, it was already so good that you could reduce your number of programmers.
But with the new operator agent, the one I just talked about, all that last part, which is what literally stopped me from making an app, because I tried to make one too.
I just couldn't figure out that last part because I was too distracted and busy.
But now I could just say to it, hey, AI, write me an app that does this or that.
Boom, it's done.
Literally, that's all it takes.
The app just appears.
All the code does.
And then that part where I didn't know what to do with the code, I just say, can you turn that into an app?
Boom.
It finds Python.
It puts it where it needs to.
It executes it.
And there's your app.
Unbelievable.
Unbelievable.
All right.
Here's what Axios is reporting.
Speaking of Axios.
Their headline said, Trump left Washington four years ago, touting a revolutionary new consensus on the threat posed by China.
He returned this week, seeming to downplay that threat, signaling a potential thaw in relations between the two countries.
Now, do you see the propaganda and brainwashing that's embedded in that?
Let me call it out.
When do you ever see the word tout?
Somebody is touting something.
Is that ever in a positive reference?
Do people tout things and then the story is going to be about how great that is?
Wow, it's great that they're touting.
No.
Touting is a subtle insult that you're saying something that's maybe not true.
It's built into a little skepticism.
He's touting.
The opinion is in the news.
That you just choose your words and the opinion comes embedded with the news.
So he's touting that there was a consensus about the threat of China, but now they're going to turn it into hypocrisy, because that's what the news does.
To make it a story, it has to be an inconsistency or an hypocrisy.
And the hypocrisy, they think, is that Trump was such a tough talker about China, but he says good things about Xi, and now he's talking about how we can work things out.
You know what's missing, right?
What's missing is this is exactly how Trump negotiates with foreign leaders every time, and he even explains it.
You don't have to guess.
He tells you, yes, I'm going to be very tough with Russia or China or whoever he's talking about, but I get along with the leader, and that's good for everybody, because then you can have that talk, and you can be as tough as you want.
Because they're not going to take it personally, because I like them personally.
That is everything you want from your president, in terms of negotiating.
That is everything I want.
I want him to be friendly enough with the leaders.
He gets every access conversation.
Nothing is no just because of who's involved.
And they get their, let's say, reputations benefited by that because it is a big benefit.
And then they are in a position where they've gotten something for free because it didn't cost any money for Trump to say, yeah, she's great.
That costs nothing.
And then what we get in return is a good, healthy negotiation in which both sides fully acknowledge and they're transparent about what they want and what they need to have and how things can work.
So Axios just tortures itself to turn this into some kind of touting and hypocrisy when it's the cleanest example you'll ever see of a top-end negotiator doing top-end negotiating exactly the way you'd want it to happen.
Thank you.
So Axios is one of the four sources for OpenAI.
Until Sam Altman fixes it, which he said he's going to do quickly.
There's a bounty hunter bill in Mississippi that would pay $1,000 to bounty hunters for each successful deportation of an illegal that they helped to facilitate.
So the bounty hunter doesn't have to deport them, just has to facilitate it.
Now, probably not the best idea.
I'm not going to get into the pros and cons, but it made me think that if I were a bounty hunter and this got passed, I would open a restaurant.
In Mississippi, and I just say I'm hiring.
Two-thirds of the people who walk into the restaurant to be dishwashers and line cooks are going to have questionable credentials.
You could just sit there in an office and have one after another come in and say, looks a little suspicious to me.
You didn't pass the E-Verify.
And then just turn it in and make $1,000 for every person you interview.
At least two-thirds of them.
I'm not recommending that.
I'm just saying.
I always think in terms of business models when I read the news.
Trump plans, according to Zero Hedge, Trump plans to bring as many as 10,000 troops to the border.
I think he's got 1,500 now.
But I like that.
When I heard it was 1,500, my first reaction was, hmm.
So in other words, barely anything.
Better than nothing.
A lot better than nothing.
You know, changes the tone of everything, sets a standard.
You know, it's all good.
But 1,500 didn't seem like enough.
10,000 is serious.
10,000 removes all questions.
If you're wondering if he's deadly serious about the border, yeah, 10,000 troops would get you there.
You don't have to wonder anymore.
So we don't know if that will happen, but that's the plan, allegedly.
All right, I would like to indulge you by reading something that I posted on X because it got a good response, and it's what you need to know.
I was challenged several months ago to do the best reframe I could on the January 6th prisoners.
And I've been thinking and thinking about this, and everything that I kind of came up with, I tried a number of things to reframe it properly.
And didn't really catch.
But I think I may have gotten it this time.
And I was reacting to a post by Jason Calacanis, who may be listening right now.
Jason, I hope you're listening.
From the All In Pod.
You know him from the All In Pod.
And he's a big investor in the tech world.
But he was giving Trump a report card for operating so far.
And on several...
On several items, he gave them a high grade.
It was just check or X, so it wasn't anything but yes or no.
But he gave them a yes on several things that you and I would agree on.
Very good.
I like that the common sense stuff is not being argued.
Just common sense.
But the January 6th stuff is really deeply in the political model.
That's not exactly a common sense thing.
And if you treat it like it's common sense, I think that's where you go wrong.
So I'm going to give you the reframe that I think works best, worded the way I think it works best, in case you want to use it.
So from a framing and communication and persuasion perspective, I think this is the best take that I've seen, certainly the best one I've done, but I think it's the best one I've seen, to explain why releasing what Jason referred to as the J6ers who beat cops.
So that was one of his Low grades for Trump.
Releasing or pardoning or commuting, whatever it is.
The sentences of J6ers who beat cops.
So that was the thing that triggered me to do a response.
So I'm just going to read it, and I want you to absorb it.
So I started out by saying, quote, J6ers who beat cops is a misleading frame, to put it politely.
I said there are people who already served more time than most people with similar offenses.
Anything extra is political imprisonment.
That's the right frame, but I'm just beginning.
So the start is that if they've served as much time as comparable violators of the law, even violent ones, even violent ones, if they served as much time in general, But their sentence would have gone much longer.
That much longer part is the political imprisonment part, and it's the only part that Trump forgave.
He forgave the political part of the sentence, not the part they've already served, because they did indeed hurt people in law enforcement.
Now, I'd like to also give you some extra context.
I agree with most of the country.
That if you do some violence to a police officer or a first responder of any kind, that should be a longer sentence.
Is everybody on board with that?
If the only thing you knew, there were no other circumstances, if you heard a police officer or a fireman or anybody in the first responder world, that hurts society.
That's not just the person who got hurt.
So once you throw in, my God, you know, are you making it impossible to have police if you're going to be hurting police and we're not going to punish you properly?
No.
That's a hard, hard line.
If you hurt somebody in that field of work, you're hurting me because I'm paying that person and I don't want to pay them to be on disability.
I mean, it's not about money.
It's about what's right.
It's about what works.
It's about common sense.
So yes, a longer sentence, all things being equal.
For that kind of thing makes sense.
But the next part is, are all things equal?
Is this just an ordinary, we've got evidence, you heard somebody, it's a police officer, or somebody acting in that capacity?
No.
Here's the extra context that I think makes it make sense for Trump.
I said that blame for the violence is not limited to the offenders.
And here I'm going to give the offenders one-third of the blame.
I said it was one-third because our election systems, by design, and that's important, by design, signaled to half the country that an election was stolen.
I agree they might be wrong.
So I'm not aware of proof that the election was stolen.
I'm not aware of proof.
But the election design flaw, the lack of transparency, combined with an odd Come from behind everywhere that mattered, that we watched in real time, and the violation of past bellwether patterns, meaning that in the past, if you lost in these particular areas, you definitely lost the whole country.
But if you won in these various, what is called a bellwether kind of area, it would be almost impossible to win all the bellwethers, or say 9 out of 10, and then lose the election.
Trump did.
He won most of the bellwethers and somehow lost an election, but not until the last-minute count.
Now, again, I have no proof that the election was stolen, but I don't think anybody reasonable would argue that it was signaling it was stolen.
I think all of you will agree.
Would you agree that it signaled it was stolen, even if it wasn't?
Now, whoever designed a system...
That you could very much predict in advance would eventually signal that it had been stolen and we wouldn't be able to know for sure because it's designed with not enough transparency that nobody can really know who won.
If you design something that guarantees you're going to have this exact problem where people are going to get worked up to the point of violence, if your system design guarantees it predictably, You take a little bit of the responsibility.
Not all of it.
Not all of it.
Because some of the blame, a lot of it, is on the person who actually swung the bat, you know, used the bear spray and all these terrible things.
But they're not alone in the responsibility if you built a system that guarantees it happens.
So you got that.
And I said, if the protesters were right, About the election being stolen?
And here's my opinion, and I bet that they were.
Given that every other American institution has been confirmed to be crooked, that means the protesters acted in, watch the careful wording, in the American tradition.
Here's what I started to say and backed off.
I started to say, you know, that's how the American Revolution started.
Somebody saw something that looked unfair.
And they act it.
It's how Americans do everything.
We look for trouble.
If we think we see it, we act.
If the trouble is really, really big, there's no limit to how we act.
Right?
That's an American tradition.
You could talk about violence, and nobody's going to say, I like violence.
I don't like violence.
But if you put Americans...
In a specific situation where they think they're recognizing great evil and great risk, it is an American tradition that they act.
And the protesters were in that position where they thought they saw something, obviously, that looked like a rigged election.
And they acted in the American tradition.
That doesn't make it legal.
Remember, the Revolutionary War wasn't legal.
It wasn't legal.
And people got hurt.
And now we celebrate it.
Why do we celebrate it?
Because when things were bad, Americans rose up and they acted.
And they didn't put a restriction on what those actions would be because the risk was big enough that they decided that that risk was worth it.
So if Americans act like Americans in the American tradition, Maybe they have to serve some jail time, depending on what they've done under that context.
Maybe.
But the context really, really, really matters.
And the pieces of shit in the media have been telling us forever that we could know, and that Trump knew, and everybody knew Trump knew, that the election was fair.
Let's get to that.
The other one-third blame for the violence is with Pelosi and Milley and whoever else turned down the right amount of security.
In other words, it was an inviting trap, intentional or otherwise.
If protesters saw no hope of getting into the Capitol, would they have acted violently to try to make it happen?
If the protesters had pulled up and, you know, a bunch of military people with military weapons, lots of them, like lots of them, Which is what Trump ordered.
He ordered lots of them.
He just didn't get it.
Do you think that the protesters would have said, huh, looks like I've got to fight my way through five layers of armed and trained killers who are heavily armed?
Maybe not.
Maybe not.
So if you're in charge of security and you don't put enough security in and you knew you didn't and you were asked to do it and you didn't do it anyway, You're one-third responsible for violence, because security is supposed to prevent violence, so that the bad guys come up and say, oh, it wouldn't make any sense to do any violence in this situation.
That'd be crazy, and we're not going to get into the building.
But if you think that punching a cop might somehow increase the success of your protest, I don't recommend it, by the way.
Don't punch any cops.
But if you think it might work, as bad as that is if it worked, you're going to try it.
If you think it's not going to work, you don't try it.
That's why security matters.
So I'm going to say one-third it's on the protesters who hurt cops.
Don't like that.
Very bad.
One-third on the security and one-third on the design of the election system, which is designed so you can't know who won.
Nobody can know on any federal election.
It's not knowable.
You can only know what they told you.
That's it.
That's all we know.
And you can know if you found proof, but you don't know if there's any proof you didn't find.
And that's where the idiots try to convince you.
You can tell if somebody's been hypnotized.
Let's say brainwashed.
Versus they've thought it through.
If somebody says, Scott, you have to say the election is fair.
No, I don't.
No, everybody knows it was fair.
That's not somebody who's thinking about anything.
Because if they were thinking about it, they would know that all of our institutions are corrupt.
Right?
Science has been lying to us on a lot of things.
Healthcare.
We went through the pandemic.
Need I say more?
Finance, of course, has been rigged at the top forever.
Government, completely corrupt in so many ways.
FBI, Department of Justice, law fairing.
We don't have any institutions that aren't corrupt, and we completely know it.
Are you telling me that in the context of everything being corrupt, we've got this non-transparent, potentially easily riggable system, and it's the only thing that wasn't rigged?
Oh, how lucky.
The only thing that matters the most is the only thing that was pure.
Maybe, but that would be the biggest surprise in the world.
If you've lived in the real world, do you think that the most important system and the one that you could rig, if you wanted to, and let's say you were the CIA, you think that's the one thing that's not rigged?
The one thing?
That's not a real opinion if you think that.
That's like just something to laugh at.
Oh, you think that's the one thing that even if we can't tell, they didn't rig it.
The United States is an election-rigging monster.
We've done it, what, 80 coups in other countries?
Which, by the way, might be good for America.
I'm not sure that the coups are a bad idea.
But the point is, we have all these very specific...
Methods for rigging elections in other countries, obviously.
You think none of that got turned inward?
What, because it would be wrong to do it?
We just watched the same group of people massively organize this censorship campaign by using every trick that they use against other countries they're trying to overthrow.
So we don't have to wonder if the very same cats...
Are doing things that they would do usually, ideally, only to other countries that we're trying to somehow control.
You think they wouldn't use it internally when we just watched them use the other tools internally?
Of course they would.
I don't have any proof it happened.
But if you think that that's somehow unlikely, you couldn't be dumber.
I mean, you couldn't be dumber than thinking it's unlikely.
Did it happen?
I don't know.
"No, I don't have any proof." Anyway, so then I said, this is where the NPCs claim everyone, including Trump, quote, "knew it was a fair election," And by the way, this is a writing trick.
If you know when you're writing something, there's going to be a specific disagreement, you want to slay the specific disagreement before it even comes out of their mouth.
So that's what I'm doing here.
So I'm calling them NPCs and saying, if you think you knew it, If you think you knew it was a fair election, know that is fucking stupid.
So I saved my F word for the point I want them to remember.
There is no way for any citizen to know who won any federal election unless the winner is outside the inner circle, like Trump, and he still wins all the swing states.
I'm not too worried that Trump's...
The current election was stolen by Trump because the person who has the least access to the gears of government at that time won overwhelmingly.
So that's not something that the bad guys would have done, and I don't think it's something that the Republicans could have pulled off on their own.
So that looks real, but not because I can tell the elections are well done, only because if this person won...
It means that they didn't have the means to stop them.
Because you know they wanted to.
All right.
So, a few more things.
There's an ex-CIA agent.
What's his name?
Daily Mail is reporting about this.
You've seen him in reels probably.
He's on social media a lot this week.
John Kiriakou.
So, he worked for the CIA for 14 years as an officer.
And he said that the agency, quote, actively seeks to hire people who have sociopathic tendencies, but avoids them if they have a full-blown disorder.
So apparently the ideal CIA agent or officer is somebody who's a little bit sociopath.
And that they're the ones who rise to the highest levels.
Now that makes complete sense.
When you hear about Pompeo.
Trying to organize a hit on Assange.
How many of you could organize somebody's murder?
Like, even if, you know, I could organize Bin Laden's murder.
Okay, that's easy.
I could organize the murder of, I don't know, a cartel hitman.
I mean, I can do that easily.
I mean, it wouldn't bother me, my conscience.
But it seems like the CIA would be in the business of sometimes getting rid of somebody who was a law-abiding person, but they're just in the way.
They're stopping some larger national ambition.
Now, I don't think it's legal to kill somebody like that, but I also think there's some flexibility, if you know what I mean.
So I do think you probably have to be a bit of a sociopath, and that would allow you to rise to the top.
But it might be the only thing that allows you to do the job.
Imagine if you were the head of the CIA and you were super woke and somebody comes and says, you know, I think we're going to have to kill this leader of this African country.
And you'd be like, whoa, whoa, whoa.
You're going to kill a black guy?
Well, no, it's not about being a black guy.
He's the leader of this African country.
He has really big problems.
We think we want to take him out.
You're going to kill a black guy?
No, I'm not going to allow that.
Have you killed an equal number of white guys?
Well, we're not really keeping track that way.
We're just trying to remove people who are a threat to our national interests.
Okay, but you can't kill the black guy first, right?
So you need a sociopath who just says, what's the reason we need to kill him?
All right.
Approved.
Someone, according to Futurism, a publication, Someone invented a fake therapist and got her quoted in tons of articles, including Newsweek.
So I guess there's some chat place where therapists and people talk, and one of them was just a fake one by somebody in some kind of sex product business.
They invented a fake one, and the fake one did so well that it was widely quoted in national media.
Now, I don't think the person who invented the fake one...
Necessarily had any therapist skills.
It was just somebody else pretending to be a therapist.
But just think about the fact that you can simply pretend to be a professional and the news will say, well, sounds good to us.
Sounds good.
Meanwhile, according to New Atlas publication, an affordable housing project was 3D printed in just 12 days.
So if you like walls that are hard to...
Change after they're done.
This 3D printing might be just the thing.
They have to finish it with humans using for the electrical and the plumbing and stuff, and that takes the longest time.
But it was just a three-unit terraced, multi-story thing in Eastern Ireland.
Now, I don't think this technology is quite there, but you can see it's going to be.
I would rather the 3D printer I made Lego-like blocks that I could just snap together, which exists, by the way.
There are concrete blocks that snap together like Legos now.
And so that if I needed to change an interior wall or even an exterior wall, I would know exactly how to do it because it's made of parts and I could just move them as long as I've got the wall that keeps the ceiling up.
What do you call that?
The load-bearing wall.
As long as you don't affect the load-bearing part of it, you should be able to play around with your interior space.
So I think that's where a 3D printer is getting it wrong, because as a homeowner, I've made lots of changes to my home after I moved in, and it would bug the heck out of me if there were no practical way to move a wall.
But maybe other people would be happy with it.
There is a new drug in testing, according to the American Chemical Society.
Now, you should know that if a drug works in the lab, there's very small chance it's going to work with a human.
If they do some testing on a mouse, and it works good on a mouse, there's still very little chance it's going to work on a human.
However, there are cases where the mouse can have a transplant.
Where an American organ is basically attached to the mouse.
And then they can see if the human organ dies or what happens with the treatment.
So if you can get all the way to making a human tumor die in a mouse, then you get very excited.
Now, usually when I see stuff like this, you hear, the new drug...
Makes your chemo 30% more effective, to which I say, but you're still on chemo, which has got a lot of side effects.
It's only 30%.
I'm not even sure that's even real.
I mean, that could just be data noise.
I don't know.
So usually there are just hundreds of these.
We've cured cancer things, but they don't work out in people.
This one looks a little different.
So it actually shrunk tumors in the mouse models, and these were human breast cancer tumors that they put in the mouse.
And the expert said it is very rare for a compound to shrink tumors in the mouse models of breast cancer, let alone completely eradicate those tumors with a single dose.
Completely eradicated.
The human tumors in the mouse, with one dose, no side effects.
Now you have my attention.
Now you've got my attention.
Now, the odds of it working in humans, again, I wouldn't get too excited because there's a very low transfer rate from animal models to humans.
If you see something completely remove a tumor with one dose, and it was designed to do it, it wasn't that they were just looking around for stuff.
They had a good idea that the mechanism would work.
That's why they tested it.
That's pretty exciting.
Now, here's the good news and the bad news.
If you have or get cancer in 2025, you have a race against the clock now, like has never existed before.
Because when I was a kid, these same stories were every day when I was 18 years old.
And not many of these came to fruition.
So every day there's some claim of this.
It doesn't work out.
But what's different is AI. If you overlay AI on top of this world, the experts in AI are saying you can end up curing basically all the cancers.
Because you can look at the DNA of the person.
You can check the specifics of the tumor.
And then the AI will tell you exactly the kind of shot to give you that makes those tumors go away.
Now, of course, there's some medical people who say, oh, don't let the tech brothers talk about science.
They're not scientists or they're not medical people.
And I get that.
But I do think that pattern recognition is going to be the big winning play.
And that's what AI does well.
So it could be.
There's no way to know.
We could be five years away from cancer just being an annoyance.
So if you've got cancer today, you've got a tough choice.
Because you can either do nothing and hope for the single compound that cures your thing, but it's going to take a few years to be available.
Or you can immediately get on the chemo and the brutal stuff that has side effects right away.
And when this compound becomes available, if it does, it's not guaranteed, then you would still always have what the side effects gave you, even if they cured your cancer.
Because the treatment can give you some pretty bad permanent damage.
So the decision about what to do if you've got cancer is completely new territory.
I think people are going to make some hard choices.
And you're going to see some people just not get treated.
And they're just going to say, you know what?
I'm going to play a long game.
I'm just going to roll the dice.
So you're going to see people's approach to it change as the technology is changing.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what I had for today.
I knew this ran a little bit long.
Thank you for staying, everybody who stayed.
I hope it was interesting.
And welcome to the Golden Age.
Everything's looking good.
I'm going to talk to the locals' people privately now.
