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, Jim Acosta, CNN Catherine Rampell, Scott Jennings, Elon Musk, Senator Fetterman, Pete Buttigieg 2028, AOC, President Trump, Karen Bass Outside Consultant, Rand Paul, COVID Origin Probe, NY Magazine Fake News, Costco DEI Discrimination, Anti-Cartel Letters of Marque, Mike Lee, DeepSeek AI Impact, OpenAI Whistleblower's Death, Grok 3, Jack Smith's Prosecutors, Tariffs vs Income Tax, 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.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice, a stein, a canteen, a jug, a flask, a vessel, and a kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens.
Now.
Spectacular.
Oh, it just keeps getting better.
Well, let's talk about the people who wasted money on research.
Number one, the Daily Mail is reporting that, according to new research, people who are attractive get paid 11% more.
As if my followers didn't know that already.
So I hope you're all enjoying your 11% extra pay because, let's face it, you are the sexiest, best-looking group of people on the entire planet.
So it was a little bit unfair, but I think they could have saved a little bit of time and money by just asking me, just ask Scott.
Hey, Scott, do you think attractive people make more money?
Yes.
Do you think people who are men who are taller make more money?
Yes.
You don't have to do that one either.
I know all the answers to these.
How about another one?
According to Cy Post, Vladimir Henry writes that anger might enhance creative performance.
Again, just ask me.
Really, you could just ask me.
Yes, anger generates more creative performance.
I'm getting a little mad at this right now.
And look how much better I'm doing.
Yeah, anger.
When I started the Dilbert comic, there was a direct correlation between how much something bothered me and how funny I could make it.
100% perfect correlation.
And in fact, I developed the humor concept that you can't make a joke about something that doesn't bother you.
You just can't do it.
You could try, but it would just be, oh, Sea belts.
Well, actually, sea belts are pretty good.
So just ask me next time.
All right.
According to the Daily Mail, this one sounds like I made it up, but I didn't make this up.
More than half of dating app users plan to abstain from masturbating this year.
But the article warns there could be all kinds of risks.
Apparently, it makes your penis and or your...
Clitoris shrink.
If you don't work it out, it'll shrink.
And it's good for your prostate if you're a guy.
It's good for your cardio.
I know a lot of people just replace their cardio routine with masturbating.
You just do it a little more aggressively.
It's all about the same.
However, I think that the real reason for the lack of masturbating...
It's that people don't look as good to each other as they used to.
How many of you have noticed that?
It's not just me, right?
Now, part of it is, I think, you know, I'm at a certain age where I don't have really contact with young people.
So I'm pretty much seeing people my age and, you know, 50 and over.
But it does seem like people are way less attractive in the general public.
If you want to see somebody attractive...
Let's say female.
You end up looking at some weird OnlyFans situation.
And then you're like, maybe yucked out by that.
So, yeah, I could totally see why people would just be less aroused.
Testosterone would be lower.
And I'm sure for the women, half of the men look like they're just women.
So, yeah, I can see why people would just be giving up.
According to the post-millennial...
Now, here's one of these things where you think it couldn't be true what people are claiming, and then you see this stat.
15% of women in federal prison were born men, so they're trans.
15% of women's prisons are biological males.
Now, it kind of makes sense.
Because biological males tend to be the ones who create the most crimes.
So if you've got enough trans, you're going to be filling your prisons with...
Because men are just more likely to commit crimes.
So yeah, 15%.
That's something that Trump is ending, right?
I think he's going to change that.
Imagine if he went through all the trouble of...
Going trans so you can get into a women's prison.
And then they put you back in a men's prison.
It would be like, you would feel so good about yourself, you're like, yes.
I beat the system.
Yeah, they can put me in prison, but they're going to have to put me in the women's prison because I put on a dress.
And then Trump's like, okay, take your dress to the men's prison.
That could work out entirely differently.
Well, CNN is getting rid of...
What's his name?
Jim Acosta.
So Jim Acosta is quitting, apparently, because they moved him to the midnight slot, which is what you do when you're trying to get somebody to quit on their own, because I think it's cheaper if they quit.
So that worked.
That plan worked.
So Acosta's out.
Now, he had been the dumbest guy.
I don't know if he's the dumbest.
Let's say he was the one who seemed least interested in the truth.
But they have this new dumb person, Catherine Rampell, who's on the panels with Scott Jennings and some other people.
And she's quite a piece of work.
It feels like CNN is just trying to put their business completely out of business.
Like, here's somebody you would only let on TV if you were trying to destroy your own business model.
I mean, just...
Incredible.
So she's sort of a shrieking, tedious, adult racist kind of a panelist.
And she went on a five-minute rant about how Elon Musk is clearly some kind of a racist Nazi because of all the little hints, all the little hints, including the fact that twice he's raised his hand above his waist.
Oh.
Well, I didn't know that.
Apparently twice one of his hands has been higher than his waist.
Whoa, I guess I'm going to have to rethink everything.
Here I thought he wasn't a Nazi, but now that I know his hand has gone up twice above his waist, I'm rethinking everything.
But, wait, there's more.
There's more.
So part of her evidence is that the actual Nazis, in Germany I guess, said it was a salute.
Oh no!
Oh no, the actual Nazis said it's a salute.
In other words, CNN is using Nazis as their source of truth.
Why would you use Nazis as your source of, as your fact-checkers?
Did they replace Daniel Dale?
I'd like to see Daniel Dale fact-check that.
Huh.
If the Nazis say it's a salute, it must be a salute.
It's not because the Nazis want to draw attention to themselves and act exactly like people that are more popular than they are.
No, it's not opportunistic at all.
Let me tell you the proper way to respond to that.
When somebody says, but the Nazis say it's a salute, what you want to do is, you would say, why do you think they think it's a Nazi salute?
It's because they watched CNN. Where else would they learn that that was a Nazi salute?
They didn't make it up on their own.
Do you think they go around all day long and every time somebody puts their arm in the air, they're like, yep, yep, there's another one.
Nazi salute.
No.
The reason they're targeting Elon Musk is because CNN told them it's a Nazi salute.
And then they look at the Nazis as the source.
No.
CNN, you're the source.
The Nazis never even would have thought about it, because there's not a single Nazi that thinks that touching your heart and saying, my heart goes out to you, is Sieg Heil.
Not one.
You can't find one Nazi that thinks that's the case.
But you can find Nazis that watch CNN, can't you?
And do you think they watched Fox News?
No.
They weren't watching Fox News, because Fox News said, this is ridiculous, it's obviously not a Nazi salute.
So where are they getting their information?
They're getting it from CNN. So CNN is the choice of news for the Nazis, which I think has to mean something, doesn't it?
I mean, connect the dots, right?
If the Nazis are getting their information from CNN, that would sort of suggest that CNN are Nazis, right?
I'm just seeing how stupid I could be.
Let's see if I can get a job on the panel.
Anyway.
And the fact that Netanyahu says absolutely he's not a Nazi, he's a big friend of Israel, he came and he toured the Holocaust sites, you'd think that would be enough.
I'd like to suggest a standard for knowing if somebody's a Nazi.
Now, you couldn't use this as an absolute, but I think if the head of Israel says in public, This is ridiculous.
He's a friend of Israel.
That should sort of settle it, don't you think?
Because who's better at spotting Nazis?
The actual head of Israel or a panelist on CNN? I don't know.
I think Israel's got that down.
Scott Jennings warned that she went so far that she might want to lawyer up because it was just such...
Such obvious defamation.
Now, I'm no expert on defamation, but suppose she did get sued for suggesting with her five minutes of evidence that Musk must be a Nazi.
Suppose he sued her.
What would be the defense?
She would have to either say she wasn't trying to suggest he's a Nazi, which of course was the entire point of her You know, entire thing.
That would be ridiculous.
Or she'd have to say, I'm too stupid to know it's not true.
So she'd actually have to, her defense would have to be that she says things that are not true and she knows it and didn't mean it.
Like, it would be a ridiculous defense because it's so obviously intentional and it's so obvious what her intention is.
I don't know.
I'm not sure if a lawsuit is worth that.
But then Abby Phillip, who's the host for that same panel, she's the CNN host, she gives Musk a hard time, I think separately, for saying that Germany needs to move past their guilt.
So here's how she reframed move past your guilt.
She says it's forgetting the Holocaust.
Did Elon Musk say we should forget the Holocaust?
Again, he literally just toured the Holocaust sites with Netanyahu.
Who else has done that?
Who's actually toured the Holocaust sites with Netanyahu?
That's as far as you can get from forgetting the Holocaust.
So, this is so disgustingly stupid and petty.
And weak.
That I'm going to guess that Abby Phillip will be the next one that CNN gets rid of.
Because their credibility is really tanking with that particular host.
I mean, that's just unforgivable, really.
Anyway, Jim Acosta's out, as I said.
He's quit CNN. But at least he has that Don Lemon career path ahead of him.
What?
No?
All right, I've got a question for you.
I'm going to make a generalization.
I don't think the generalization holds for every case, but it might.
It goes like this.
When a Fox News host leaves Fox News, they can get a big audience because they were a celebrity, say Tucker Carlson.
Now, Hannity is not planning to leave, but suppose he did.
If Hannity left Fox News tomorrow, don't you think he'd have a huge podcast?
You would, because he's a star.
How about Gottfeld?
He's not going anywhere because he's got two shows on Fox News.
But what if he did?
He would bring with him a gigantic audience because he's a star.
And you could go right down the line, Jesse Waters, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Stars, stars, stars.
But here's what I noticed this morning.
The stars make Fox News.
That's what makes it the better show.
They also have better producers.
I always say that.
Their production skills are just amazing.
So good.
But they have lots of stars.
And part of being good at producing is making sure you've selected people with personality and character and could be stars.
But it seems to me that the CNN hosts None of them have an audience if they were to leave.
I think they would all turn into Don Lemon.
And you would find that it was CNN that made them famous and successful.
I mean, if successful is the right word.
Whereas at Fox, the talent made the network.
At CNN, the network makes the talent well-known.
It seems opposite.
Is that a fair generalization?
Might be too far.
But, you know, there's so many obvious examples of it.
Anyway, MSNBC, Rachel Manow, says that they made a difficult decision for what she calls a news organization.
So she calls MSNBC, her employer, a news organization.
Okay.
And while she's lying about it being a news organization, she says she doesn't want them, that the network has decided not to air.
All of the Trump speeches, because of all the things he might say that are untrue.
And she said that in the context of claiming they're a news organization.
Now, if you were under-informed, you would think that they're pretending to be news, so they must be news.
But I don't even think that's the intention of it.
Do you?
I mean, if you look at the design of it, it doesn't look like it's designed to be news.
It looks like it's designed as propaganda.
That's supposed to look like it's also news.
Now, you could argue that maybe some other entities are the same, but it's the one that's most obviously not really news.
It's most obviously just some kind of intel-driven government, Democrat-driven propaganda machine that just happens to be slightly in the news domain.
Then over at The View, Senator Fetterman went on The View and just slapped him down on this lawfare stuff, according to Fox News.
He said the judicial system gets weaponized and targeted political enemies for political gain.
So he was saying that the New York charges all 34 felony counts, which is what the Democrats like to say.
Fetterman just swept away all 34 felony counts by saying...
Obviously just lawfare.
There's no way they would have taken anybody else to court for that.
Basically just shit on her head on live TV and walked away.
I'm just liking Fetterman.
Now, some people are saying, hey, maybe he'll turn into a Republican because he's got some skills that seem to go both ways.
But as he pointed out, he's got a number of policies that wouldn't be compatible.
With Republicans, so he's not going to change.
But my smartest Democrat friend, who I often mention, I've been wanting to catch up with him because I thought, surely by now, surely by now, a normal, smart person watching the news would realize that Trump is doing what the public wants him to do by quite a big majority.
He's the most popular he's ever been.
And things are happening that look good.
So I was expecting, oh, this is going to be good.
Next time I see him, oh my God, or hear from him, I'm going to have my victory lap.
And I won't even have to say a thing.
I won't even have to make my argument.
I'll be just like, told you.
See?
Instead, I got an email saying that he was planning ahead to the next race, and which Democrat...
And he gave a list of them.
Which Democrat did we think was going to be the best candidate?
And he said that once Trump is completely embarrassed and destroyed the country, that we'll be ready for Pete Buttigieg.
And I said, seriously?
Pete Buttigieg?
That would be your strongest guy?
That almost sounds like a joke.
I mean, really?
Of all the people in the world?
And then he said, but maybe he can't get elected because he's gay.
And then I said, well, how many Republicans were going to vote for him?
It wouldn't matter if he was gay or not gay.
No Republican's going to vote for him.
So aren't you saying that the Democrats are anti-gay?
I think he just called his own party anti-gay because all he has to do is get all the Democrat votes, right?
Aren't there more Democrats?
Oh, maybe that changed.
Actually, I don't know that.
I thought there were more Democrats than Republicans, but did that change?
Did it change this season?
Anyway, but when you see that other world and you get a peek at it, you think they really don't have anything.
Because if a smart, well-informed person on that side, and again, he's very smart.
If we were to compare IQs, I think he'd beat me.
But, wow.
Pete Buttigieg?
Really?
Forget about the gay part.
I've never talked to anybody who cared about that.
But how can he possibly win?
I don't know.
Maybe I'm wrong.
It could be that I'm the one who's being silly.
AOC was trying her best to come up with something that she could say that doesn't sound dumb about Trump.
But this is the best she came up with.
She said the norms are starting to embrace Trump.
The norms are embracing him?
Why would you form that sentence?
Let me fix that sentence.
Trump has popular policies.
Trump is doing popular things.
People like it.
That's the way you say that.
Here's the way you say it if you're just being weird.
The norms are embracing Trump.
That's sort of like saying the...
Car ran over somebody and the knife stabbed somebody and the gun killed somebody.
I really think it's the person doing the thing.
It's not the thing doing the person, is it?
Did the norms form into some kind of amorphous, gaseous entity?
And did it then embrace Trump?
Oh, the norms are embracing you.
No, it's just words.
What the hell?
The Democrats are so lost.
So lost.
It's just crazy.
The best they have is word salad, and I think the Nazis watch CNN, believe he's a Nazi.
So Trump gave a speech yesterday to a Republican group, and he was on the stage for most of the time with Mike Johnson and Steve Scalise.
And I just had a moment while I was watching that.
Do you realize that of those three, Scalise, Trump, and Johnson, two out of three Republican leaders have been shot?
Two out of three of the top Republican leaders have been shot.
I mean, my mind is boggled.
Like, really?
Shot.
Two out of three.
I don't even have a comment on that.
But that's the world we live in.
Thank God.
One of the things Trump did that is vexing if you're a supporter, as I am, but it's also so on point with what he does, he starts by teasing that...
He can't run for a third term, but maybe he can.
He needs to check that out.
Now, I think he's kidding, but whether he's kidding or not, you know that that's what the bad guys are going to pick up on, and they're going to be running around in a circle saying that you want a third term.
I think he does that intentionally, right?
Because he doesn't have the ability to be uninteresting.
Trump is genetically interesting.
Everything he does is a little bit interesting.
And so he's just giving a talk and he throws out the reddest of all red meat.
I might run for a third term.
Never leave office.
I think he's just trolling and keeping them talking about the least important thing that's not real in any way.
But, wow.
Trump said, he was talking about CNN at the same speech, and Trump says, "They say we had the greatest first week in presidential history.
Even CNN is saying, this guy is amazing.
I said, did CNN really say that?
But nobody watches, so nobody was able to confirm.
That's the Trumpiest thing that anybody ever said from Trump.
The Trumpiest thing is making fun of CNN. And then saying that CNN complimented him, but he can't confirm it because nobody watches CNN. Now, that is just genuinely funny.
All right, speaking of fake news, there's a story today that's either two separate stories or fake news, or it's too complicated for us to understand.
So I woke up to see that...
Trump has said the U.S. military just entered the great state of California, and according to Trump, under emergency powers, they turned on the water flowing abundantly from the Pacific Northwest and beyond.
The days of putting fake environmental argument over people are over.
Enjoy the water, California.
All right, so he's drawing a picture where all you had to do was send in the smart people to turn on the spigot, and then all of LA's.
California's water problems would be solved.
So California wouldn't do it because of some environmental things.
So we send somebody in to turn on the water, and we're all fixed now.
Now, does that sound true to you?
When you read that, do you say, yeah, there's nothing else I need to know about that story?
Did that just hit the bullseye for you?
All right, so here's a reporter for, I think it's the LA paper.
Saying that military did not enter California.
No, I think it was somebody from the water district or something.
That military did not enter California.
The federal government restarted federal water pumps after they were offline for maintenance for three days.
State water supplies in Southern California remain plentiful.
All right.
So Trump says there's not enough water.
California says water is plentiful.
Trump says he created a whole new flow of water.
The state says, no, they just turned on some things that were down for maintenance for three days, so basically nothing.
So was it nothing?
Or was it something?
And I still don't know.
But I will refer you to a long thread on California water situation from Joel Pollack.
You can see that in my feed, or you can see it on his feed, on X. And here's the situation.
The water situation in California is complicated.
It's complicated not only because there's a whole bunch of different aqueducts and sources and different things going to different places, but there's also a history.
So there's a history of what was and what they had to change and what was an environmental change and what was the natural situation with the weather when it rained and when it didn't.
And you kind of have to know it all to know what's true and what isn't.
I don't know it all.
What I do know is it's complicated enough that I have no idea what happened.
I don't think Trump gave California more water.
I don't think that happened.
But I'm just guessing because the story is too complicated.
So what will be interesting is to see how CNN and other places handle it.
Because if this just turns into two movies where Fox News says, Trump says Trump turned on all the water and everything's fixed.
And then CNN says nothing happened.
We're not really going to be well served as a public.
And I worry that that's going to happen.
One will say it happened and one will just say it didn't happen.
And then we'll just go to the next topic and we'll never know what happened.
And we'll just keep our individual views of that forever.
Maybe.
But let's talk about Karen Bass, the mayor of L.A., who's getting a lot of heat for her handling of the situation.
You know what she announced today?
That they would hire a consultant to help rebuild.
A consultant.
Do you know what that is?
Do you know what happens when the mayor says we're going to hire a consultant?
To make recommendations about our gazillion dollars that it will take to build things?
I don't know how to interpret that, except that it's a crime in progress.
My understanding of local governments, at least for the bigger cities, is that they're all corrupt, and they're corrupt in a specific way that's easy to do and is common to all local government, which is, once you're the one who's in charge of where the money goes, Or even hiring the person who decides where the money goes, that that's always a pay for play.
In other words, there's some kickback going to the mayor every time.
Now, it might not be obvious.
It could be indirect.
It could be something that she cares about, something else.
But in every case, I expect if the mayor appoints the consultant who's going to make these decisions, that's just a rigged political money-making process that has nothing to do with what's good for the public.
I thought that when Trump was going to put a special master in charge of making sure the money from the federal government didn't get wasted, I was hoping we would avoid exactly this.
Karen Bass deciding who her consultant would be.
There's nothing that's a bigger red signal.
Basically, that's saying they're not going to fix it.
That's saying they're going to steal it.
If you tell me I got a consultant to figure out how to do it, I just hear you stole it.
You're not even planning to do anything but steal it.
And there's a lot of money involved, so of course they're going to steal it if they can.
So I don't have a specific detailed accusation about Karen Bass.
It's my assumption that everybody in those jobs is stealing.
And they're doing it one way or another.
It's just the most normal thing in the world.
And it's why all of our cities are crap.
Because the people in charge are always stealing.
As far as I can tell.
Now, you're a consultant.
Well, a consultant for a business is very different than a consultant to a city.
If the mayor picks the consultant, that's just a gigantic signal for something bad.
If a company picks a consultant, well, it just depends how good the consultant is.
I mean, it's entirely just a, you know, did you get what you paid for?
But the city stuff is just all in the context of corruption, I think.
That's just my belief.
I don't have any proof of it, but I just assume it.
The reason I assume it is it's such an easy crime to get away with that over time, the people who want to do that crime are the people who are going to try the hardest for those jobs.
And they would succeed.
Anyway, Rand Paul's going to...
Investigate 14 agencies that had something to do with the COVID origin story.
So he thinks that that's a good time to find that out.
That COVID origin story is just so weird because I really thought everybody knew it was the lab from early on and now we're pretending like we're just learning it was the lab.
There's something I don't even understand about that.
I thought we all knew that for years.
Weird.
Meanwhile, New York Magazine did a, what we call a Rupar edit on their cover.
So I did a story about a gathering of young Republicans and conservatives, I guess, a bunch of partying conservatives.
And they commented that a photo that showed the crowd, at least a close-up of the crowd, didn't have any, they were all white.
So New York Magazine runs a photo and says, hmm, it seems like they're all white.
Their very own photo had several black attendees that they cropped out.
They literally cropped the black people out and then said there's no black people.
It gets better.
Guess who hosted the event?
It was hosted by C.J. Pearson.
It was a young black conservative.
The thing was hosted by a young, well-known black guy, and there were black people in attendance, of course.
So that's your media for you.
Meanwhile, Robbie Starbuck is saying that 19 attorney generals just sent a letter to Costco warning that DEI policies are illegal because it discriminates on race.
Nineteen attorney generals just went after Costco.
Is that enough?
What would happen if the other attorney generals weighed in on the other side and said, oh, that's not bad.
DEI is good.
Because that would be the blue states versus red state situation.
Well, here's what I think.
So the first thing I do is look up who is the CEO of Costco.
And it's a white guy.
It's a white guy.
Have I warned you about white guys?
White guys are pretty much the source of all DEI. Now, some of you are going to say, no, no, it's white women.
White women, because they're more white women in DEI jobs.
So you'd say it's white women.
To which I say, no, that's a trick by the white men.
That's just a white man trick.
They hire women for those jobs and minorities for those jobs, so that you'll think DEI is...
Caused by the women or the minorities who are in the DEI jobs.
No, it's the CEO. It's the CEO covering his big fat ass so that you think you can give him $12 million a year, which Costco does, and he's a good guy.
If you put any white man in that job, and they're going to say, wait a minute, let me see if I understand this.
If I just pretend I'm really big on DEI, you're going to give me $12 million a year?
Yes.
Suppose I didn't pretend that I liked DEI. Well, I know.
It'd be hard to say that you should be in that job because I'm pretty sure we like that stuff.
So the problem is always white men covering their ass.
As I've said before, I've been deeply discriminated against for gender and race in my career.
First at a bank, then at the phone company, and then in TV work.
Every time, a white man was behind it who was covering his own fat ass.
Every time.
So I've never been discriminated against by anybody except fucking white guys who are covering their ass.
So, 19 attorney generals just went after a fucking white guy covering his ass.
Let's see who wins.
I'm going to bet on the attorneys general.
Well, Mike Lee, based Mike Lee, has a...
Interesting idea to handle the cartels.
Have you ever heard of, there's a constitutional component, I guess, that allows something called letters of marque, spelled M-A-R-Q-U-E. And these haven't been used in 100 years or so, but what it was is when the U.S. government wanted to take care of something like, let's say, pirates.
They didn't like pirates.
They could hire their own pirates to kill the other pirates.
Or they could hire basically a private army.
They could give them authority to act on behalf of the United States just by being real bastards against something that we didn't like.
And the people who got the letter of Mark could keep the booty.
So if they took out a pirate, they could just keep it.
And that would be their profit.
So that's why people would say yes to it.
It hasn't been used in a long time, but Mike Lee is suggesting that what if we did use it against the cartels?
Suppose we said if you wanted to form a private militia, now it would have to be authorized, not on your own, right?
You would have to go to the government, and the government would have to issue an actual letter of mark, an official act, that would authorize you to take out the cartels and keep their money.
Do you think that there would be anybody willing to take that?
I mean, you know, I've never been a special forces person, but if I were retired special forces and I thought I could get a big payday and I wasn't afraid of that kind of stuff, I don't know.
I might be able to raise private militia.
I wouldn't do this until the normal way of doing business failed completely.
But it's kind of interesting.
I wouldn't rule it out.
I think it's too soon to try it because we should just do more normal stuff first.
But let's see.
All right.
Well, it's been 24 hours since that deep seek AI hit the world.
And yesterday, the open AI stock.
Actually, Nvidia stock dropped about 16%, 17%, which is really big because it's a trillions of dollar company.
And people thought, oh no, it's the end of the United States AI industry.
And I think I told you yesterday, not so fast.
It'll probably take a hit.
Because people are processing the news.
So if you're still processing the news of this ultra-cheap competitor in AI that comes out of China, it's actually open source.
It doesn't even cost anything.
So my caution was that it'll probably take a hit, but by the end of the year, the stock would probably recover and be ahead of it.
Now, it looks like it flattened out today.
So we may have already hit the bottom.
But here's what I predicted.
And you can already see it coming true.
What I predicted was is that the U.S. would start seeing issues with it.
And those issues would allow the government to have cover for degrading this as a product that can really be used.
So here's what I mean.
Question number one.
How would we know if it was trained on propaganda?
The source code is open, so you can see all the source code, but the source code doesn't tell you what it was trained on.
The data that it was trained on is not something we have access to.
So what if they just trained it on a bunch of pro-China propaganda, plus all the generic stuff in the world, so that it was essentially a brainwashing tool?
How would we know?
Well, the only way we'd know...
It's by asking questions that would get to that very point.
And it turns out people are asking that question.
And sure enough, Sir Joshua Hartley was asking some questions.
And if he asks us some questions about China that it doesn't want to answer, it actually starts to answer them and then erases them while you watch.
I can't talk about that.
So it does know some bad stuff about China, such as the Uyghurs, let's say.
And it will start to write it.
And then it will, whoops!
Which means that they've got some kind of safety valve on there that makes it change its mind.
I don't know if you could find that safety valve in the code.
Where else would it be?
So that's an open question.
So we've got the issue.
And then Joshua Hartley also asked if it used...
Or how it was created.
And it said that it was created with these NVIDIA GPUs.
Now that's DeepSeq itself saying it was created using these chips that it should not have legal access to.
So the question I have is, is that real?
Did China really allow it?
To say that it uses stolen technology?
Here's what I think is just a presumption.
What I think is that it could be that DeepSeek hallucinated the use of those chips.
Because that would be a good hallucination.
Because if it knows that there's no way it could be AI, unless it had some of those chips involved, Wouldn't it just make the connection on its own?
So let me say it more to the point.
More to the point.
If what DeepSeq knows is only what it was trained on, why in the world would China train it on secret data that says they stole some GPUs from NVIDIA or got them in some illicit way?
How in the world would DeepSeq Even have access to that to train on it.
So I wonder if it found that in its training, and China didn't know that it had to get rid of that, or did it just assume that there's no other way it could exist unless some NVIDIA GPUs were involved?
So you really can't tell if it really thought that or just assumed that.
So that's interesting.
So we don't know if it's a propaganda machine.
We can see evidence that it is hiding what we would think is the truth.
We don't know if it's hallucinating.
And it also should be noted that most people who use it in the long run will use the version that's connected to China.
So they can collect your personal information again.
A lot of the news about DeepSeq was that it's so exciting you could run it on a local computer, but the local one will never be as good as the one that's connected all the time.
So we're going to get all excited about the local one, which basically will be a toy, you know, just maybe another user interface.
But the real one, the one people would use if they just go to their browser because they don't want to figure out how to load it on their personal computer, will be connected.
So, again, it's a way for China to collect all kinds of information on its users.
So there's that.
And then we find out that there's this huge cyber attack on DeepSeek.
Now, who would do that?
Who would do a major cyber attack on DeepSeek?
Well, first of all, they'd have to have a lot of skill.
Let's say, could it be China?
Oh, no, it's China's product, so they wouldn't attack it.
Could it be Russia?
No.
It doesn't seem like something Russia would do.
Why would they?
Iran?
No.
Israel?
No.
Europe?
No.
They're barely in AI. So who would do such a thing?
I can only think of us.
If it's not the United States, it should be.
Because if it's true that our biggest AI companies are, and it looks like it's confirmed, Are going to be in bed with the CIA? The CIA can't let China destroy the AI industry in the United States.
There's probably no limit to what the CIA would do to make sure that the U.S. is dominant in AI. So the first thing the CIA would do, if they're doing their job, and if they're in bed with AI, is they would look to destroy DeepSeek.
So if I had to guess...
Who's doing a major cyber attack?
Probably us.
I mean, can you come up with a better idea?
Do you think the Sri Lankans just decided to go to war?
Like, who else would it be?
Africa?
What, Greenland?
Greenland decided to kind of assert itself?
I mean, honestly, who else would it be?
Now, I guess you could say, well, it could be individuals.
Really?
Maybe.
But why would the individuals want to take out this great free new product?
I don't know.
Sounds like us.
So, as you know, there's an accusation that the whistleblower for OpenAI was murdered.
Now, if it's true that controlling AI in the world is an existential most important thing for our country, and it might be.
It might be the most important thing.
Would the CIA kill an American citizen to guarantee American dominance?
Probably yes.
That doesn't mean they did.
But wouldn't that be sort of on point?
Killing one person to save the country?
Again, not saying that they did.
But I kind of feel like that's their job.
I hate to say it.
If they're trying to keep the country safe...
And the whistleblower would have taken down our most important AI asset.
It feels like we would have killed them.
We meaning somebody associated with our government.
And the same with DeepSeek.
So what I expect and what I predicted is that our government will try to degrade access to or even the product itself.
So I think we will...
Probably see a massive campaign to say it's too dangerous like TikTok or something.
And somehow it will be banned eventually.
Unless we just out-compete it, which is also possible.
We might just out-compete it.
So Grok 3 is launching this week, which is 10 times the computing power.
And pretty soon voice mode is coming so you can talk to Grok.
And Grok's got the, I think, the most impressive data center, which should give it...
Either now or soon, the most impressive AI. So I feel like even if AI is free, like you can get a freeze at DeepSeek, I'm still going to take the one that's better if it's, you know, say $20 a month.
I think I'm always going to want the one that's better.
So we'll see.
I think America is going to be way more competitive than we thought for 24 hours when that...
Free one dropped.
Deportations were up to 1,200 on Sunday.
And so I guess Trump wanted that number to get up.
It was only in the lower hundreds for a few days.
But only 600 people crossed illegally on Sunday.
That's a ridiculously low number.
Now, turns out that closing the border wasn't that hard, just like Trump said.
Wall Street Journal is reporting that the Trump Justice Department fired more than a dozen lawyers that were working with Jack Smith's two prosecutions of the president.
Now, I'm completely in favor of that.
I think that if you are a prosecutor and you willingly take an assignment that is clearly lawfare and the person you're trying to lawfare gets into office, you're fired.
You're very fired.
And that's the way it should be.
Because if you're going to cross that line and lawfare somebody because you can, when they get in power, they're going to fire your ass, and I'm so on board for that.
Because that's what we need.
That's good for the country.
It's good for the country that the bad guys know that there's a price, and the price is their jobs.
And if you want to think, oh, I'm just being a lawyer, just doing what I'm told, no, you better think about it next time.
You better think it through.
Because Trump's coming for you if you came for him, and I'm absolutely on board with that.
You've got to rebalance the power structure.
You've got to make sure there's a deterrent for bad behavior.
And Vinny is up to a half percent, yeah.
So I think that might have been a one-day scare.
A lot of people are trying to get into Nvidia at a good entry price.
So I think there was a ton of money on the sidelines thinking, well, I kind of want to own Nvidia, but it seems to just go up too much every day and I haven't bought it yet.
And then it looks like it's a good price.
All right.
So you might know that Scott Besant got confirmed.
So he's going to be the Treasury Secretary.
And he's helping Trump push the idea of tariffs as opposed to income tax.
Now, I wanted to run some numbers, so I used Perplexity AI, which got different numbers than Grok did, so I'll tell you both.
So I thought to myself, is that really something that could happen?
Like, how much do we collect in taxes?
Or how much is the budget, I guess?
How much is the budget?
And then...
How much would we have to charge in tariffs to replace all of our income tax?
And so I did a quick calculation, and it looks like if Trump put a 20% tariff on every single thing that comes into the country, it would be 5% to 10% of what we need to cover the budget.
20% tariff on every single import.
Every single one.
Would only be 5% to 10% of what we need to cover the current budget.
Now, the current budget is probably twice what it should be.
I'm not sure we can ever reduce that.
But let's say that goes down 30%.
Let's say Doge is just wildly successful.
You're still not even close.
So I don't really understand the whole tariff instead of income tax.
Is that really based on something real?
The numbers don't look like they could possibly add up.
But I would like to be corrected about that.
So if I'm wrong about that, you let me know.
The good news about tariffs is that it encourages local production because it would give, therefore, it would give some cost advantages to doing things locally.
So that's good.
But I don't think that that's enough of a boost to make it make sense.
What might make sense is tariffs at the same time as other things.
According to Ann Giarratelli for the Washington Examiner, there are two law enforcement officers who have said that the Mexican cartel has put a green light to open fire on U.S. federal enforcement at the border.
Do you believe that?
I'm not sure I could totally trust some law enforcement people who said they heard it.
So I don't know if they have good sources.
But do you believe the cartel just said it's war, just open fire?
We're going to have to wait and see.
It doesn't feel like the right play.
As much as you want to hate the cartels, they do act like a well-oiled machine, unfortunately.
And would it make sense for them to escalate before they had to?
Seems like they should try to avoid all contact with the U.S. military for as long as possible.
Because maybe then the American political system will talk us out of doing it.
So I don't know if I believe that.
But we're going to find out.
There were some shots exchanged.
Just yesterday, I think.
But that might have been a one-off.
We'll see.
Yeah.
Sound like BS? All right.
If you say it's BS, there's a lag in the comments, so you're going to have to tell me the topic so I know which one of my topics is BS. So, NVIDIA chips in the research paper, DeepSeq's engineers said they used the older chips, not the best ones, and 2,000 of them.
All right.
All right, so, ladies and gentlemen, that's what I had for today's topic.
Is there anything I missed?
I thought I'd zoom through it and get you back to work.
All right.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately for a few minutes.
Subscription.
The people who are behind the subscription paywall.
And I'm going to change all this soon.
Okay.
And we'll do the closing zip as soon as I've hit the will be private button.
It takes about 30 seconds.
If you're on YouTube or X or Rumble, thanks for joining.
