All Episodes
Feb. 4, 2025 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
01:50:02
Episode 2740 CWSA 02/04/25

Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/ God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: Politics, Pulitzer Prize System, Gaza Condoms Hoax, CA Water Spigot Hoax, 60 Minutes Editing Hoax, Elon Musk, Senator Chris Murphy, Salute Hoax, Jake Tapper, CNN Propaganda, 2025 Project, President Trump, Climate Model Hoaxes, Mexico Canada Borders, Marco Rubio, President Bukele, El Salvador Prison Offer, DOGE Squad Talent, Tesla AI, USAID Corruption, NGO Money Laundering, USAID Democrat Political Funding, Prairie Dogging, USAID Corruption Supporters, Confirmations Update, Common Sense Opposition, AOC, Bernie Sanders, DOGE MTG, NPR PBS Bias Hearing, FBI Purge, Sovereign Wealth Fund, ADHD, 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.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
That's what I like to see.
I'm ready.
Are you ready?
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.
But if you'd like to take it up to doge levels, you know what I mean?
All you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tanker tails, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any 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.
And it happens right now.
It's called a simultaneous sip.
Go.
So, so good.
There are two of them?
I don't think there are two of them.
Or are there?
Well, let's see what's new.
Josh Hawley, Republican, has introduced some legislation to make it illegal to use that new cheap AI from China called DeepSeek.
Now, I think it's been tabled, which means that it doesn't have much chance of coming to a vote.
But do you remember my prediction?
About DeepSeek.
And people said, oh no, China figured out a cheaper way to do things and everybody's going to use this and it's going to destroy the American AI industry.
Do you remember what I said?
I said, no.
Eventually there will be laws against it.
There will be regulations.
There will be tariffs.
There will be some damn thing that the U.S. government will have to protect our AI industry.
And the way we'll do it is make it somehow impractical or illegal to use the Chinese version.
And here we are.
Now, this particular effort might not pass, but you can see what's coming, right?
The government is not going to let you use a free Chinese AI. That's just not going to happen.
And if they did, it would be the dumbest thing that we ever did.
It would be the TikTok risk times a trillion.
I mean, this isn't a tough decision.
It will be illegal or impractical or kneecapped or something.
Or has to run on an American server.
By the way, did you see Trump the other day?
I guess it was yesterday.
He was in the Oval Office, and as he likes to do now, he was signing an executive order but chatting with reporters.
And then there were two visitors to his office who...
Makes you wonder why they were there at the same time.
They just came in to watch the event.
One of them was Larry Ellison, and the other was Rupert Murdoch.
Now, these are two people that Trump knows pretty well.
And Larry Ellison was also there not long ago.
So it seems like Larry Ellison, Larry Ellis, seems like he's in the White House a lot recently.
What do you think that's about?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say it could be that the reason Larry Ellis and Rupert Murdoch were there at the same time, I wonder if they're going to invest in TikTok.
Do you think that maybe they would be involved in that, or at least Ellis?
So I've got a feeling there's going to be an announcement soon about some American entity buying the TikTok assets, but not the algorithm.
So look for that.
And don't be surprised if you see some billionaires partner up to do that because it's expensive.
So Trump, apparently, he's suing the Pulitzer Prize board members for what he would consider giving a prize for the fake news that was reporting on the Russia collusion hoax.
So imagine...
Being the writers for the New York Times and you're writing about the Russia collusion like it's real, turns out none of it was real, but you missed the entire story.
Everything that mattered about the story was that it wasn't real.
That was the story.
So the people who got the Pulitzer Prize, I don't know how many people are involved, but New York Times got Pulitzer Prize, one of the writers at least, didn't get anything right.
And got a Pulitzer Prize.
So this seems a little extreme to go after the Pulitzer Prize committee.
But on the other hand, wouldn't you like to know how they made the decision?
Wouldn't you like to know if the decision was entirely based on the quality of the writing?
Or were there any other considerations, such as, well, let's get that Trump guy.
We'll give an award to the people going after him.
I don't know.
I'd be interested.
I'd be interested to know.
But one thing we can say for sure is that the Pulitzer Prize is worth nothing.
I've told you that before.
Quickly, I'll reiterate in case you don't know it.
Some time ago, many years ago, there was a nationally known reporter in my apartment doing an interview with me.
About Dilbert.
And happened to mention that his spouse was on the Pulitzer Prize Committee.
So she would be one of just a small group of people who would decide which books would win the Pulitzer Prize.
And do you know what the system is?
They only look at the things that people submit.
So you have to submit your own work.
If you don't submit it, it's not up for the consideration.
So they, first of all, are only looking at the people who submitted.
And then they just read the books and then they talk about which one they liked.
Why in the world is that a prestigious prize?
What is that little group of book readers, the best book readers of all time, and their taste should extend to the rest of the world?
It's a ridiculous prize.
You know, I do appreciate prizes where experts make the decisions.
Experts.
Or a prize where the entire public decides, oh, you're our favorite actor or actress.
I get that.
I mean, that's a pretty good prize if the entire group voted for it.
But if you won three out of five votes in a five-person committee, that means nothing.
Nothing.
You know that there are going to be virtue signaling and saying, oh, here's one about a...
A crippled black lesbian.
So this is the best book ever written.
You know it's like that, right?
So no, the Pulitzer Prize is a ridiculous thing.
Well, the U.S. Navy, according to the Daily Mail, the U.S. Navy has a big old laser weapon they're testing, and apparently they can just laser out of the sky a drone from five miles away.
Now, what used to be the problem with lasers...
Is that they would use up all their energy and then, you know, you'd have to recharge them.
How are you going to do that?
It's going to take a while.
So they'd be vulnerable during the recharging stage.
But this particular laser is apparently powered by the power of the ship.
And the article didn't say it, but I think that means the ship is powered by a small nuclear reactor, which means that it can kind of keep that weapon running the whole time.
I'm guessing the ship, maybe the ship has to slow down.
Maybe it doesn't.
I don't know.
Maybe it can do both.
Maybe it can navigate and also fire at the same time.
But at the least it can fire all day long.
So it can just keep firing.
It has infinite ammunition because it's just energy and it's creating the energy where it sits.
So that's kind of amazing.
Do you think we can get to the point where now I guess...
I think clouds are still a problem, right?
If you're using a laser weapon, can you zap through a cloud if you could identify where something was?
I don't know about that.
Maybe the laser can go through the cloud.
You just have to be able to identify where you're shooting by some other means.
But anyway, that can be one of the biggest changes in all of military history, moving from bows and arrows to guns to rockets.
The lasers.
We were always going to be with lasers.
It was always going to happen.
All right.
It's called the Helios system.
All right.
Let's talk about all of the hoaxes.
You ready for this?
You're not going to like it because not all the hoaxes are on one side.
That's just the way it is.
Sorry.
All right.
Do you remember the news that...
That the Doge people had found that there was a $50 million budget for condoms for Gaza?
Do you remember I said, that's not real.
And people said, oh, Scott, you don't understand.
You don't understand how bad it is.
That's real.
And I said, that's not real.
The closest that could be to real is that there is money allocated for reproductive health services.
And the news came out that there was money for reproductive health services.
Now, you could argue that we shouldn't be spending it.
But if you're going to give aid to Gaza and you say, what's the thing they need most?
Well, I would think somewhere in the top three or top five would be reproductive health.
And that's got to be right near the top of anybody's requirements.
So the big question would be aid or no aid.
If you're going to do the aid, you might as well do the things that people need the aid for, and that would include all manner of reproductive things.
Condoms would be very low on the list, but maybe.
It's better than unwanted pregnancies, I suppose, especially in that situation.
So I think Trump took the $50 million and took it up to $100 million, just because he's Trump, so he can.
Now, there was also a separate story that the Gaza was not Gaza as in Israel's fight with Gaza, but there's another place called Gaza in Africa.
Have you heard of this part?
So apparently there was some aid that may have also included reproductive health, which means it might have also included some condoms for a place called Gaza in Africa.
Now, I'm not sure if that's true or not.
But here's the thing.
There was never $50 million just for condoms for Gaza.
So if you thought that was 100% true, it wasn't 100% true.
But was it directionally true?
Yes-ish, meaning that if it's in the category of reproductive health and it's a lot of money and it was going to the Gazans, yeah.
I mean, it's directionally true, but it sounds pretty bad when you say it's just condoms.
So I don't mind when Trump exaggerates things that are directionally accurate, which is we should take a look at why we're giving anybody any money for anything.
That's okay with me.
Let's take a closer look.
Do you remember when Trump turned on the spigots and...
Created all that free water for California when we needed it the most.
Do you remember what I said?
I said, really?
Really?
He just said, open the spigot, and then all the problems were solved.
That doesn't sound real to me.
So I've been looking into it and looking into it, and then the next thing I found was...
That the water situation in California is way too complicated for anybody to understand and explain.
It's just too complicated.
But the best I can determine is that not all the water is connected.
So even if you turn the spigot in one part of the state, it doesn't mean that the firefighters in LA are getting any more water.
And indeed, apparently they did not.
But you're saying, well, that's okay.
As long as the farmers got more water.
There's no indication that any farmers got more water.
But that's okay.
As long as we don't run out of water for residents.
Because sometimes we have to manage our water in California.
We have to cut back.
So if at least solve that.
But there's no indication to solve that.
Where'd the water go?
And then there's some people saying that he made it worse.
Because he released some water from some dams that we might need later in the year when things get too dry.
And then other people who know even more say, no, this is before the snow melts.
Once the snow melts, those dams that were already nearly full would be overfilled and they would have to release the extra water anyway.
So all Trump did was release the extra water a few weeks early to basically nothing.
So, here's my challenge to you.
If you can find any evidence that Trump released some water to anybody who could use it, let me know.
Okay?
Because I'm not aware of any water that went to anybody.
But, does it make a great story?
It really does.
It's one of the best first CEO stories.
Do I mind that Trump is creating a Let's say a brand or reputation or I'm going to say legend.
I mean, at this point, I think Trump has already passed that in politics.
He's sort of operating in legend territory.
You can avoid the assassination attempts.
You avoid the jail.
You came back against all odds.
That's not politics, right?
That's legend.
There are only a few figures who have ever been in this category.
So, as a legend, he's much more effective, meaning that he can get stuff for me, and for you, and for Americans, that he wouldn't be able to do if he were a politician.
That would be the first term.
First term, politician.
Second term, legend.
The legend can get way more than a non-legend.
So, if embellishing his Early successes.
Solidifies his legend.
That's probably more good than bad.
But we still need to fix our water problem in California.
I'm pretty sure that's not fixed.
So, separate conversation.
Do you remember the story about Trump is suing 60 Minutes for editing the Kamala Harris interview?
And apparently the edits made her look smarter than she was.
And the 60 Minutes defense is it was ordinary editing.
It was editing, but it was the ordinary editing that they would do for anybody.
Now, I've heard this story and I've even talked about this story, but you know what I haven't seen and haven't talked about?
I haven't seen the edit.
So apparently the full transcript has been released so that...
People digging into it can see exactly what she really said and then compare it to the video.
CNN's take is that they've looked at the transcript and they've looked at the edit and it's just a normal edit.
So, do you believe that?
Do you believe CNN's take that it's a normal edit?
Let me tell you something that you wouldn't know unless you've been interviewed lots of times, like I have.
It is completely normal.
For entities to change what you said and put it in quotes.
Let me say that again.
It's completely normal.
I'm not saying it's good.
Good is separate.
We'll talk about whether it's a good.
It's completely normal for me to do an interview and for them to make up a quote, put quotation marks around it, and assign it to me.
Did you know that that's normal?
It's normal.
It's really weaselly, and almost always they get a quote wrong, meaning that when they make up their quote, it's not what you would have said, and it's not even something you'd agree with.
Unfortunately, that's normal.
Now, if the made-up quote is so bad, maybe you'd have some action, maybe you'd demand some correction or something.
But I hate to tell you how normal that is.
Now, there's another kind of normal at it.
Where they make you look smarter than you were.
But the reason they do that has more to do with being good TV. It's not as much about making you look good, although they do like you to look good because then other people will come on your show.
If you're a show where you depend on people coming on and saying what they think, you want to make them look good.
So that the next person you ask doesn't say, well, I saw what you did with the last one.
There's no way I'm going to go into that, you know, into that torture.
So you have to be good to your subjects in a fairly public way to stay in business.
So here's what would seem to you like a very inappropriate edit.
And you could argue it is inappropriate.
But I'm going to only tell you the context, how normal it is.
So let's say if what Kamala Harris did was stumble over a question, but maybe she circled back to it in another part of the interview.
This is not what happened.
I'm just giving you a for example.
So let's say the first time she maybe heard the question wrong or she used the word wrong or she stumbled over a word.
But then a minute later, she circled back because she knew she didn't give a good answer.
And then gave you a nice, tight answer.
Well, you could argue that showing both answers would be more true, because you could see that she messed up one answer, but then you'd see that she got a tight, nice answer when she thought about it for a moment.
It would be completely normal for the editors to take out the muffed-up answer because it makes a cleaner video.
Oh, this is what she thinks.
She said it once not so well.
She said it once well.
Let's show the one where she said it well.
Would that be...
Do you get sued for that?
Well, maybe.
Because in the context of a political race, can this person think and talk at the same time?
There's a real big question.
If it were a celebrity, just let's say any Hollywood celebrity, you would absolutely make that edit.
And it would be the right thing to do.
Because you just want the right...
You want them to look good.
You want the audience to like it.
You don't want them to see all the uh, uh, uh, uh, you know, tripping over their own words.
So yes, that would be an appropriate edit.
So where it gets interesting is that the only context where that kind of tightening up editing is inappropriate or at least questionable is the exact thing that they were doing.
Which is introducing the country to Kamala Harris in a tense situation.
Under that very specific situation, the public kind of needs to see the whole thing.
Because it's the stumbling over the words that that is the show.
That's the meat.
That's not the fluff that you cut off the top.
Oh, let's get rid of some fluff and get down to the meat.
No, the meat would be when she flubbed something.
Because that's exactly what everybody was looking for.
So I think the Trump people have an argument, but I think I'm going to side with 60 Minutes only on the sense that I don't think they can win if it went to court.
They might settle, and that would be a win in itself, but I don't think they can win in court because it's too close to normal.
Too close to normal.
It isn't.
Like I said, it's a special case, but...
I don't think it's enough of a special case to convince a jury.
Well, so Jake Tapper was talking to Democrat Chris Murphy, and Chris Murphy was listing all the terrible things about, I don't know, Elon Musk and Trump or whatever.
But one of the things in his list, Chris Murphy's list, was that Elon Musk gave a Nazi salute.
And I'm watching this, and I'm saying to myself, Is Jake Tapper going to let that go?
Is he going to let him say that Musk made a Nazi salute when we know that's not true, and Jake Tapper knows that's not true?
Is he going to let that stand?
To his credit, Jake Tapper said at the end, he let Chris Murphy finish, and he said just, you know, I'm paraphrasing, but he said something like, you know, just to clarify, The Trump campaign says that was not a Nazi salute, but we haven't heard from Elon Musk.
What?
You haven't heard from Elon Musk?
Because you think he's going to fucking confirm it was a Nazi salute?
Or you think there's some fucking possibility it was one?
You piece of shit.
You fucking piece of shit, Jake Tapper.
You know it wasn't intended.
You know it wasn't.
And the reason you don't have a quote from Elon Musk is because it's too fucking stupid to even consider answering it directly because nobody with a brain over IQ of 70 thinks that is real.
We all know it's a stupid fucking question.
It's a stupid fucking hoax.
It's like the fine people hoax.
It's despicable that you would even let that thing continue.
And it is a complete...
Complete embarrassment to CNN. Just a total embarrassment.
So remember the correct response to the did Elon give the Nazi salute?
The correct response is only a fucking idiot would think that.
Oh, but did you see what his arm did?
Yes.
And only a fucking idiot would think he gave a Nazi salute at that time in history.
Smartest guy we know, standing in front of a crowd, many crowds he's been in front of, he knows how that works.
And you think, you're so dumb, you think he gave an intentional Nazi fucking salute.
You're an idiot.
There's no other conversation to be had.
Oh, but his hand was definitely above his waist.
No, you're a fucking idiot.
End of story.
So then, Then right after that, because I like watching CNN and imagining that I'm telling people all the propaganda as it happens.
Like I have this fantasy that I'll get a hold of some college students or maybe some older high school kids in a class and say, I want to show you CNN or MSNBC. And I'm going to stop it every time it goes from news to propaganda.
Did it not stop?
Okay.
You see where he's acting as if there's some ambiguity about the Nazi salute?
That's not news.
That's propaganda, what you're watching.
All right, turn it on.
The next thing they do is they go to a package where somebody's trying to make the case, their correspondent, that what Trump is doing is exactly what the 2025 project said he would do, and all the smart news people have been warning you.
They've been telling you.
They've been telling you he's going to use that 2025 as his guideline, and now two-thirds of the things he's done are right in line with the document.
Two-thirds.
Yeah, two-thirds.
And so they smugly rest their fucking stupid faces like, got it.
We got them.
Two-thirds.
We told you.
Yeah, they denied it.
Those lying Republicans denied it, but two-thirds of what he did.
Two-thirds?
Look at my smug, stupid fucking face.
We got him.
Got him this time.
Any of you who have even been casually following the news, you know that when Trump said, you know, I haven't read it, that's not my document, you know that everybody said, That the document was mostly regular Republican stuff.
Right?
Don't all of you know that?
I'll bet everyone watching here knows.
I'll bet every one of you.
Every one of you probably knows that the document was always, mostly, ordinary Republican stuff.
And the argument was that there was some stuff in it that was, you know, a little more extreme than the ordinary Republican stuff.
And the argument from Trump was he hadn't seen it, so he's not buying into that stuff that maybe people think is a little beyond what Republicans typically do.
And so, what CNN discovered in their gotcha was exactly what the Republicans have been saying since the beginning.
Most of that document is normal stuff that, of course, we agree with.
The things that you're talking about, like a, I think it was a national ban on abortion, Trump is on record, repeatedly, saying he doesn't want it.
So that's just one example.
So they ended up proving exactly what Republicans claimed.
It's mostly normal stuff.
And then there's a bunch of it that Trump doesn't endorse, and he didn't do any of those things.
He didn't do any of those things.
That he didn't endorse that's in the document.
So they actually ran a piece that was pure propaganda in which their idiot viewers, who are just kept in the dark about any kind of context, believe that they saw a proof that the entire election, the Republicans were lying about the 2025 and the news was right all along.
Exactly the opposite happened.
Un-fucking-believable.
Anyway, according to the BBC in the news, the BBC, they say they're confident, according to their experts, their experts are confident that the LA fires were being made their experts are confident that the LA fires were being made worse by climate Let's see, how can you be confident about that?
Was it because one of your climate models said that LA would have a fire this year?
No.
No, there was no model that said that.
So if you don't have models that can predict what's going to happen in any one micro location, why would you say that your models are telling you that that was going to happen in that micro location?
Wait till you find out about climate models.
I know many of you watching this are skeptical about climate change and the climate models in particular, but wait till you find out.
You know, we're going to talk about USAID and finding out, you know, the deepest, darkest, most corrupt part of the government has been discovered.
And it probably blew your mind when you first started learning about USAID. Wait till you find out about the climate models.
It's the only thing I can say with complete certainty.
Oh, there will be a day.
Might not be that far away.
But someday, there's going to be a whistleblower.
And somebody who actually works on the models.
It's going to tell you how they do it.
And you're not going to like it.
And this is one that I can wait forever for.
Sometimes I'll make a prediction and it's like 20 years off.
And I'll be like, I can wait.
You can mock me for 20 years.
I'll just wait.
And there it is.
But yeah, wait until you find out about the models.
All right.
So the other things that are sort of fake news is there's no Panama deal.
Panama made an offer to get rid of the Chinese operators of the canal in two years when the deal was going to expire.
When that was reported by many people as a big success, I said, there's no deal.
That's an offer.
Until Trump says there's a deal.
You don't have a deal.
That's just an offer.
And so what did Trump say when he was asked about it?
He goes, we'll see.
We'll see.
It's not everything I want.
So Trump was still negotiating.
So no, we don't have a deal in Panama.
We have an offer.
The offer seems like a, I would say a good faith offer.
I hope so.
But Trump may say good faith or not good faith.
You know, our national interest requires something extra, maybe something faster, maybe something that involves, I don't know, could be something else.
So Trump being good at negotiating doesn't just say yes to the first offer.
He says, that's a good start.
What else can you give me?
Because you're not there yet.
So he knows how to do this.
So trust him.
He knows how to do it.
Likewise, the Mexico deal is not exactly a deal until Until a lot of other things are decided.
But it does appear that Mexico says they're going to put 10,000 people on the border.
And Canada may also not be the deal that we think it is.
Meaning that they may not be able to do the things that he said.
There was a whole bunch of offers that came out of Justin Trudeau's office.
He posted it on X. He was going to do things like...
Create task forces to work on fentanyl, put lots of bodies on the border, have a whole bunch of fentanyl-related legal efforts.
So it was a pretty long list, and it looked pretty serious, and it looked like kind of exactly what you'd want them to do.
And there was a budget attached and everything.
But apparently the Canadian government is in such disarray, with Trudeau having resigned but still in the job, that...
It's unclear whether they can budget and execute.
So they may have made a promise that they can't deliver or can't deliver right away or can't deliver until the government changes or they do something to pass a new budget.
So that might get a little lost in the bureaucracy.
We'll see.
But that's why both Mexico and Canada have 30 days.
Because they're not there yet.
The reason Trump put off the tariffs on Canada and Mexico for 30 days is because they were moving in the right direction.
Not because they were there.
If they were there, where Trump needed them to be, they wouldn't delay 30 days.
They would say, oh, okay, tariffs are off.
You gave me what I need.
But he also talks about tariffs being a source of income, and he loves them.
Maybe nothing makes them go away.
Now, on CNN, one of their dumbest panelists, I can't remember which one, the one who always does the over-talking of Scott Jennings, you know, whenever he talks, she goes, blah, blah, blah, and shakes her head like a bobblehead so that you can only look at her.
She said that Trump failed on Mexico and Canada.
And you would say, wait, what?
Both of them offered him at least some part of what he wanted.
And her argument on CNN was, no, all they offered was what they were going to do anyway.
So he didn't get anything.
What?
What reporting is that based on?
Now, I mention it because it's in the realm of something that could be true.
Meaning, I don't reject it automatically.
But what reporting is she seeing?
I've seen no reporting that says Canada was going to do all those things anyway, so all they did was tell you what they were going to do anyway.
I think, did she just make that up?
I don't even understand how that could be on TV. Because if it's true, then all the reporting would say that on CNN and MSNBC, and they'd say, ha ha, he got nothing.
But if only one person believes it was going to happen anyway, so nothing happened?
How do you keep that person on the air?
I mean, that's just making up stuff, isn't it?
But I'm open to be wrong.
I'm open to finding out there was something to that complaint.
I don't think so, but I'll be open-minded for a minute or two.
Anyway, according to the Gateway Pundit and other sources as well, There's a new survey, KPMG survey, that says half of Canadian businesses, 48% actually, are planning to move production or investments to the U.S. to stay competitive.
Let me put this in context.
So Trump says they would make a good state, but you say to yourself, oh, Scott, come on.
They're not going to go from a country to a state.
Like, nobody's going to do that.
I mean, it's so far away.
So far away from anything that's possible.
It's way outside the realm of possibility because they're a whole functioning country.
If you're a whole functioning country, you're not just going to give yourself up to be a subset of some other nation.
That's never going to happen.
Did I mention that half of the Canadian businesses are looking to...
Are looking to move to America.
If half of your businesses are looking to move to America, I'm going to whisper this in Biden fashion, because it needs a Biden whisper.
If half of your companies are considering moving out of your country, you're already not a country.
You're more like a Schrodinger's cat country.
You might be a country.
But there's just as good an argument that you're not one already because you can't even keep your businesses.
If half of your businesses are looking to get the hell out of your country and they have the ability to do so and they've already got plans and operations to move out of your country, you're already closer to a state than a nation.
Now, I'm not going to predict that Canada will become a state, but every time I think that things are a mile from possible, and then Trump keeps talking, and then something happens where I go, really?
Could this actually tip in the direction of actually happening?
We're watching Trump just change reality right in front of us.
Like, what is possible?
I'll tell you.
I have mixed emotions about this one.
My common sense, ha ha ha, I don't have any, tells me there's no way that Canada becomes a state.
Just no way.
But then I see stuff like that.
That half of the companies want to get out of there.
And then Trudeau's already resigned.
I don't know.
Maybe they're not as much of a country as they think they are.
Maybe it's closer than you think.
I'll still bet against it.
But Trump, you know, shaking the box that hard, it always works for him.
Trump goes in and shakes the entire box.
Well, we're going to make you a state.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Well, we're going to put a tariff on you.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Well, how about you just do a whole bunch of things you weren't doing to secure the border?
Okay.
Watching Trump shake that box until they will take absolutely any path that gets the box to stop shaking.
Because the thing they can't stand is they're shaking.
Oh, you've got to stop shaking this box.
Well, what are you going to do for me?
Well, I'm not going to do anything for you.
Shake, shake, shake, shake, shake, shake.
Hey, I can do a little for you.
Can you?
Shake, shake, shake, shake, shake, shake.
Oh, I can do a lot for you.
I can do a lot for you.
Shake, shake, shake, shake, shake.
I can do more than I've ever said I could ever do for anybody.
Shake, shake, shake, shake, shake, shake.
I can do more than anybody in the whole world has ever done for anybody.
Shake, shake, shake, shake, shake.
Okay.
It's fun to watch.
One of the things that Trump does better than anybody when it comes to persuasion is creating a clear difference between making him happy and making him unhappy.
Nobody does that better.
If you make me happy, oh man, I'm going to praise you, your career will look good, you're going to get votes, you're going to get funding, you'll be nationally loved.
But if I don't like you, I'm going to primary your ass.
I'm going to look at charges.
I'm going to sue you.
I'm going to basically take everything I have and put it against you.
I'm going to tariff you.
I'm going to put my military on your property.
There is no better technique.
The single best technique is to make the widest gap between giving him what he wants and not giving him what he wants.
Nobody does that better.
And that is real basic persuasion.
If you don't get that part right, you know who doesn't get that part right?
Somebody like Justin Trudeau.
Right?
Because he's the nice guy.
Oh, we're nice.
We're nice.
We're empathy.
We're nice.
Oh, oh, we're going to fight back hard.
We don't like that.
But we're nice.
We're nice on the other things.
We're nice.
Oh, be our friends.
Oh, we have a mild displeasure with that thing you're doing.
Oh, we don't like it.
There's no difference between Justin Trudeau being happy and being unhappy.
Like, you don't feel any incentive to give him what he wants, because he's a nice guy.
But you definitely feel an incentive to give Trump what he wants, because the difference between happy and unhappy Trump is a really big difference.
That's good stuff.
That's the leader you want.
Marco Rubio went to El Salvador and got a nice surprise.
So Bukele, head of El Salvador, who, as you know, cleaned up the gang problem in El Salvador by building gigantic prison systems and just locking up everybody with a tattoo.
I'm exaggerating, but only a little bit.
He pretty much locked up everybody with a face tattoo.
I'm sure they had other charges, but...
I'm also sure that the face tattoo was plenty enough.
So did that work?
Yes, because the gang members put face tattoos on.
I'm exaggerating about the face tattoos to make a point that he just made sure he got everybody.
And then he makes an offer to the U.S. through Rubio that if America has a bunch of criminals from other countries, That he can take some of the criminals and put them in their prison system, and they'll just charge us.
So he'll just charge a fee, so we'll have a cheaper solution that keeps them in prison, but not in our prisons.
And then, I suppose, when they get out, then it would be El Salvador's problem about what to do with them.
I guess they'd repatriate them.
I don't know.
They would have an option.
But that's a hell of a good offer, isn't it?
Yeah, every time you see Bukele's actions, they have a Trump-like quality to them, don't they?
Like, you don't see it coming, which is wonderful, because then you can't stop talking about him and thinking about him, because he did something that other people don't do.
And, you know, he made a big point that El Salvador's most important relationship is the United States.
Trading partner.
They use the U.S. dollar.
And he just wants to make it super clear that being friends with him is a good idea and being against him is a really bad idea.
Huh.
Huh.
Where do you learn that?
So being against him means that you're going to be locked up in prison.
Being for him means...
Getting some excellent suggestions like, hey, how about we take some of your excess prisoners?
You pay us.
We've got a prison system.
They'll fit right in.
That's what you need.
So he's the real deal, Bukele is, in terms of persuasion.
If there's anything else that goes wrong with him, I don't take responsibility.
The only thing I'll take responsibility for is saying, oh, he's got the full game.
He has the whole package.
So he does that thing where being his friend is a way better deal than not being his friend.
He gets all of it right.
Speaking of getting it right, the big story on the Doge, we'll talk about Doge, is that there are some young people who have key roles.
I don't know how many older people there are who also have key roles.
But the ones we're talking about are four 20-ish year old kids.
I'll call them kids because I'm old, who are literally geniuses.
And we're not talking about somebody who just did well on their SATs, right?
We all know somebody who did well on their SATs.
I know people who aced their SATs.
I know a guy who got one wrong on his SATs.
He was a server at my old restaurant, a young guy.
He got one wrong and he retook the SATs.
He retook them.
Because he got one wrong.
One.
One thing.
He retook it.
Got it all right.
Now, that's a really smart person.
And he's not anywhere in the same category as these four young people that Elon Musk hired.
They're the real deal.
It's one thing to be able to ace your SATs.
That's very impressive, by the way.
I couldn't do it.
I couldn't get anywhere near that.
But these guys, and they're all guys, they're in a whole different level.
I mean, you've heard some stories about what they've done already.
And so, of course, the Democrats who don't know how anything works are all concerned that these young, inexperienced people are looking at some of the most important things in the government and making decisions.
Now, they're not going to make final decisions, but they're like a super weapon.
They can drill through any impenetrable topic.
They will not be stopped by complexity.
They will not be stopped by, oh, this is hard.
They will not be stopped by anything.
That's what makes them who they are.
They just won't be stopped.
Now, here's the thing that I don't understand, but neither does anybody else.
And that's going to be my point.
If I said to you, I'm going to take this guy who got 100% of everything right on the SATs, and I'm going to hire him as my lawyer, could I predict how well he'll do?
Yes.
Yes, you could.
You would predict that he's not going to forget anything important.
He's going to take the best arguments.
He's going to put in the work.
Yeah, that'd be quite predictable.
But...
It would be predictable within the ordinary world, because there are ordinary lawyers who do good jobs, and you say, yeah, he's going to be one of those.
I predict he'll do a good job, and you'd be right.
You know what you can't predict?
Geniuses.
Geniuses.
And you can't predict the rate that they can do anything.
If you hand somebody a Rubik's Cube and they're an expert, they don't do it a little bit better than you did.
It's like they're a different animal.
It's like you're looking at a domain you know nothing about.
You can't look at these four geniuses and predict anything, anything, except they're going to get to the bottom of it.
I don't know how fast.
It might be faster and better than anything you've ever seen in your life.
They might be already building AI tools that didn't even exist just to solve a problem.
Right?
That's how smart they are.
We're talking about Isaac Newton level.
Like if he needs some calculus to solve a problem, you invent calculus.
Right?
That's what we're talking about.
These are not normal people.
So, just the fact that they're on our side.
Oh my God.
That's who you want on your side.
Of course, they've been doxxed because the Democrats have one play, which is, Huh, you're smarter than us?
Maybe we can kill you.
They got that one thing.
Huh, you're more capable than we are?
Perhaps we can change the laws so you can't do that anymore.
Huh, you're really, really good at what you do?
Hmm, maybe we need some DEI in there to stop that.
That's really all they have, is stopping good people from doing good things.
That's basically the Democrat Party.
Yeah, anyway.
Somebody named Dylan Patel was on a podcast talking about Elon Musk trying to catch up in the AI world.
So Elon Musk got, I guess you could call it a late start because he was early with funding OpenAI, but then he pulled out of that effort.
And when OpenAI burst on the scene, he tried to be a fast follower.
But to overtake them as quickly as possible with a better game.
And his game is so good that he's already built the world's largest AI cluster, 200,000 GPUs.
Those would be NVIDIA boxes.
And I didn't know this.
Apparently he bought a factory in Memphis and he upgraded the substation, tapped into a natural gas line and is burning gas to generate power.
Okay, that's impressive.
But now he's building his own natural gas plant next door, deploying Tesla mega packs for stable power and using industrial chillers for his water cooled chips.
So remember I told you that the thing you can't predict about the four geniuses is how fast they can do anything.
We don't understand.
It's like your dog trying to figure out why the light comes on when you enter the room.
The dog will never figure that out.
They just can't get there.
So when you say Elon Musk is starting behind on AI, it's Elon Musk.
Of course he's ahead already.
Of course he is.
Because he can do stuff that you can't do.
So there it is.
And he hires people who can do stuff that you can't do, too.
So, yeah, he's scaling up fast.
No doubt about it.
All right, let's talk about USAID. Now, on one hand, it's the hardest topic in the world to talk about unless somebody's already a little bit up to speed.
Like, what the hell is it?
So it's something that the...
It's part of the government, but it's a part of the government that works as a giant money laundering system for Democrats.
Now, that's not something I could have said with complete confidence until Doge got in there and found out, That it's a giant money laundering thing for Democrats.
Now, it's not the only thing it does.
So what makes it complicated is that it's a mix of maybe some things you like.
Maybe we funded some things in other countries and you say, you know, that made sense.
That helps us and it's also good for the other country.
But it seems like maybe most of it or at least way too much of it.
Was dedicated to absolutely corrupt behavior.
Just 100% corrupt.
And one of the things it could do is it could launder money through these NGOs.
These would be a non-government organization of which there are thousands.
So if you...
Let's see if I get this right.
So if you're a Democrat and you support funding of USAID... The USAID will give some money to, let's say, an NGO that's doing something you like.
And you say, oh, okay.
There's my tax money.
It went to an organization that has a name.
At least the name is Stuff I Like.
But then that organization has the ability to give some of their money to another NGO. What?
How can it do that?
Well, it can.
There's nothing illegal about that.
And then that NGO... Can give money to a campaign of the Democrat who is in favor of funding the USAID. Now, I think I got that right.
Now, you're going to say to me, they can't just donate the money that the government gave them back to a campaign.
No, not unless they launder it.
They have to launder it through these organizations so that by the time the organization donates to something that helps maybe to a PAC, Or to something that helps the campaign.
It looks like it was just ordinary, some kind of ordinary donation.
So it does seem at this point that it's a major money laundering thing.
And then you see people like Bill Kristol.
He's getting some money from it.
Some say the AOC was found by a process that was funded by the USAID where they were looking to find...
You know, young Democrats and turn them into high-level politicians.
She was part of a process.
It was like American Idol, where they interviewed lots of people and they said, hey, we could turn you into something.
So there are countless examples of what appear to be obvious corruption on top of what seemed to be obviously bad ideas for funding.
But where you see the bad ideas for funding, probably...
They're just, it's just a way to launder money into something that they really want to do.
So, now you might say to yourself, Scott, you don't need to get rid of it.
You could just get rid of the parts you don't like, like fire some managers, you know, do a reorg, get some real Republican leadership in there.
But 98% of them appear to be Democrats, which means that they're part of the resistance.
Which means, according to OMG, the O'Keefe Media Group, they just did an undercover sting, and they got one of the USAID employees to say on camera, it was a hidden camera, that they were going to try to basically burrow in and thwart everything that Trump wants and just wait him out.
Exactly what you thought was going to happen.
Because basically, the order could be given, and then it gets into the bureaucracy, and then the bureaucracy just slow walks it and says, oh, we can't do that, or it's not in the budget, or we don't have people, or it's not our top priority, or something.
So basically, the bureaucracy says, we're just going to thwart you.
Now, we only have one person on video, but there were reports, and Elon Musk confirmed, That that is apparently the dominant opinion.
The dominant opinion is that they're going to pretend that they're cooperating but thwart the administration.
So, what do you do in that situation?
Only one thing to do?
You've got to close the entire thing down.
And that's what Trump's going to do.
Just close the whole thing.
$50 billion, some say $38 billion, but it's many billions, of money that they're just going to say, we're going to tuck that function temporarily under Marco Rubio.
He's got somebody assigned to it.
So it's part of the State Department, whereas before it was sort of operating as doing stuff for the State Department, stuff for the Pentagon, and stuff for the CIA. But now it's going to be tucked under Rubio.
And he does understand that you can't just reform it.
Most of it's just going to have to go away.
So, if you didn't have people who understood that the only way to fix it is to break it, you wouldn't have leadership.
If you have leadership that's smart enough and ballsy enough to say, we're going to just cut this down to nothing, and the only things we're going to put back, because they will put things back, are when the screaming is so loud, And the argument is so good.
If you've got a good argument and there's a lot of energy, we're going to look at it.
And maybe that one function gets added back, but we'll keep it under the State Department, maybe not under USAID. So it's perfect leadership, what you're seeing.
It's messy.
It's violent.
I'm using that.
Hyperbolically, not violence, violence.
But it's violent in terms of the rhetoric, the firings, the death threats.
The Doge team I was talking about, they got doxxed.
They already got death threats.
But fortunately, the Trump DOJ has stepped in and said, you're going to jail if you do that again.
If we catch anybody making death threats against these Doge guys, you're going to jail.
Yeah, and then ActBlue, the group that collects money for the Democrats, somehow they were getting, they were part of the money laundering operation.
That's the allegation.
I don't know the details on that, but there's an allegation like that.
How are the Democrats taking the loss of USAID, which appears to be the beating heart of most of their corruption?
How are they taking it?
Well, oh, and then I should add that USAID was also the one, as Mike Benz does a great job of explaining, they funded external entities for the purpose of censoring US domestic people like me.
Not cool at all, USAID. So basically, USAID did everything you don't want to happen.
If it's something you didn't want and it was corrupt, somewhere in USAID it was happening.
So it's like this grab bag.
The way Elon described it was one of the best descriptions you'll ever hear of anything.
He said, it would be easy to think it's like an apple that's got a worm in it.
So if you get rid of the worm, you still have a pretty good apple.
And he says, no, it's a bowl of worms.
There's no apple.
That is one of the best visual.
Persuasive things you'll ever hear.
Because worms are, you can't not see them.
If I say a bowl of worms, you can see the bowl of worms.
And as soon as I say it's not an apple with one worm, it's a bowl of worms, you'll never forget that.
For the rest of your life, you'll remember that analogy.
That's good.
Now, that is good.
I like the fact that Elon, somehow, he's also become an expert in persuasion.
And I don't know to what extent he studies it or he's just picking it up by watching it done.
If the only thing he did was hang out with Trump, he would become incredible at persuasion.
You just have to watch what Trump does.
Watch the visual language.
Just watch it all.
And you'll learn.
There's an account on X called Aesthetica.
And this Aesthetica...
Whoever runs the account, I don't know who it is, apparently has some friends that are connected in the Democrat world, and they're panicking quite a bit about this USAID thing.
Now, isn't that interesting that most of you never even heard of a USAID, didn't even know what it was, but the Democrats are panicked?
Why would they be panicked over this thing you never heard of until recently?
Well, let me tell you why.
According to Estetica, Talked to a friend who has connections within the Democratic Party, and he said the level of panic over Trump and Elon shutting down USAID is unlike anything he's ever seen.
And it goes on.
A direct quote.
This is worse than 9-11 for Democrats.
Wow.
USAID is the primary vessel they use to achieve their political agenda.
USAID is and always has been the primary source of funding.
For their influence-peddling schemes and for their indirect source of income.
Indirect source of income.
Everybody you see going public, saying it's a terrible mistake, almost all of them are getting funded by USAID, but it's hard to tell because it might go through a few different stages before it gets to them.
Another text.
Based on the reactions from within the party, it seems to me that dismantling USAID is Trump's biggest political victory to date.
It was his enemy's golden goose.
Yup, it's their bank.
And indeed, it's a bigger bank than Soros.
You thought Soros was their bank.
He was their second biggest bank.
USAID was the big one.
Even including funding the Soros prosecutors.
USAID funded twice as much as Soros did for Soros prosecutors.
Just imagine that Soros has a multiplier so that he doesn't have to spend all of his money that USAID is sort of matching his donations, so to speak.
Wow.
And then it goes on.
He said initial plans by the Democrats is to have their people of USAID hide the partisan funding under unimpeachable initiatives.
So in other words, funding AIDS prevention.
And then people go, oh, I can't get rid of that.
So they will push back really hard on certain line items that on the face look like reasonable USAID expenditures.
So the thing you have to get rid of is the things that look the most like something you'd want to keep, because that's where they're going to hide the good stuff.
So that's where they'll hide their political spending, exactly what I said.
Now, how do you fix that?
If you know the insiders say they're going to try to hide their funding so that they can keep their influence budget intact.
You have to get rid of the whole thing.
There's no other way to play it.
You've got to get rid of the whole thing.
And that's what's going to happen.
Now, I do worry, and Mike Benz warns against this too, I do worry that we celebrate too soon.
Because every part of this octopus is going to be fighting.
Like, every arm is going to be...
And they're not started yet.
They haven't started yet.
But man, they're going to put up a fight.
Now, let's see who's against it.
Now, the beauty of the USAID thing, like nothing I've ever seen before, is that the people who are the most corrupt are the ones who are going to raise their head like prairie dogs and take the lead in saying it's a bad idea to close USAID. And you're going to be able to identify all of the bad guys, meaning the people who are either literally corrupt Or at least strong backers of a corrupt system.
So Joy Reid claims that Trump adding any oversight to USAID is equivalent to staging a coup.
Okay, there you go.
So Joy Reid and MSNBC are part of the corruption.
That's all you need to know.
Anybody who's taking the side of USAID, now that we know it's a bowl of worms, is a bowl of worms.
So all the worms in the bowl...
Are like, oh, oh, don't do it.
Don't do it.
I'm a good worm.
I'm a good worm.
No.
Joy Reid.
All right.
So you've made yourself obvious.
Jen Psaki, also on MSNBC, suggests that Musk targeting USAID because he was uncomfortable how the agency combated corruption.
Oh, yeah.
It's not the corruption of the agency.
It's that they combat corruption.
Yes.
What does that sound like?
It sounds like everything the Democrats ever say about everything.
Whatever you accuse them of, they go, well, it's not us.
That's exactly what you're doing.
That's what you're doing.
It's all they do.
Projections.
So, yes, Jen Psaki is part of the worms.
And then, was it Van Jones?
I think on CNN. Said that...
That Donald Trump is saying, by cutting U.S. aid for all these valuable services, that he's saying, basically, we don't care.
You go die.
That's the message from the United States government, according to Van Jones.
Do you think Van Jones gets any indirect funding from U.S. aid?
I don't know.
But that would be my assumption.
Or at least friends of his do, or, you know, important interests do.
So, Van Jones, we're adding you to the prairie dogs who raised their head and wanted to back USAID. See how useful this is.
This is the most useful thing you've ever seen.
I tell you all the time that if you know what happened, you don't know anything.
Because the what happened always has some context that's missing.
The narrative is always magical spinning anyway.
So if you only know what happened, in this case, several public figures said cutting USAID is a bad idea.
That's what happened.
You wouldn't know anything.
But if I told you who did it, well, now you know everything.
As soon as you know who the players are, well, now you know everything.
I'll go on.
Jamie Raskin is taking the lead.
Raskin is like the symbol of the worst parts of the Democrat, you know, lying, corrupt machine.
If he's involved, then anybody else who's taking his side?
Bowl of worms.
Bowl of worms.
AOC is taking a strong stand against cutting the U.S. aid?
Huh.
Huh.
Bowl of worms.
Anyway.
So, there's also a possibility that Congress, especially some Republicans, and this is something Mike Benz warns about, might not vote to close USAID. Because there's some conversation about whether Trump has the right to do what he's doing.
But I say it's within the executive branch, so yes he does.
But if Congress needs to vote on it, or if they just vote on it, They could override the president.
So they could vote to keep it open, for example, and then he'd have a problem.
But it wouldn't happen unless some Republicans voted to keep it open.
So, what's going to happen if some Republicans vote to keep it open, now that we know it's Ebola worms?
Well, it would certainly identify those Republicans as part of the corruption.
Do you agree?
That there is no way...
Any Republican can be in favor of keeping U.S. aid at this point, unless they're part of the corruption.
So what happens if they do?
What happens if they pop up and there's a few Republicans who say, oh, it's so important, we've got to keep it?
Well, you're going to have to do something about that, because this is way too big to just say, well, that's their opinion.
That's the way our system works.
We didn't get the votes.
All right, too bad.
Not on this one.
Way too big.
If some Republicans break ranks on this, Trump's going to have to finish them.
He's just going to have to put them into retirement or into jail.
Now, jail only if they broke some law, but pretty much all of them are breaking some law.
I wouldn't want to start with the person that looked for the crime, but probably in every case, everybody already knows the crime.
And they just have to pursue it if they feel like it.
So if you're a Republican and you're thinking of voting to keep USAID at this point, with as much as we know about it, you better plan for retirement.
Or at least lawyer up, because it's going to get real expensive.
And it would be the worst decision you ever made in your life.
So we hope that doesn't happen.
But it would reveal who on the Republican side is corrupt.
So we're just waiting for the little prairie dog heads to pop up so we can add them to the Raskin, AOC, MSNBC bowl of worms.
All right.
I know I'm going to get taken out of context for calling people worms.
Let me just be clear.
People are not worms.
Even the people I don't like are not worms.
It's just a good analogy.
So when I say they're in the bowl of worms, they're not worms.
They're people I deeply disagree with who may or may not be corrupt, but people are not worms.
All right.
Confirmation update.
So the ones we're waiting on to see if they get confirmed would be RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Cash Patel, Pam Boddy.
At the moment, the betting markets have all of them looking good.
Do you think the betting markets are an accurate representation?
I don't think so in this case.
Because I think that if any Republicans break ranks on any of these candidates, they'd be doing it for kind of personal corrupt reasons.
And I don't think the betting markets can identify people who have personal corrupt reasons.
So I worry that the betting market is in no way predictive.
We'll see.
All I can say is to remind people that if RFK Jr. gets voted down by some Republicans, again, those are some Republicans who better be planning to retire right away because life's going to get really hard after that.
This one we're not going to take like normal business.
Saving children from chronic illnesses?
I'm sorry, that's a little bit bigger than politics.
We're not going to treat it like politics.
You're just going to have to leave the public scene if you're going to vote against this.
You can't be any part of the public conversation again.
That's the end of your role in public, one way or the other.
No violence, of course.
Obviously, no violence.
But the pushback is going to be brutal, reputation-wise.
All right.
I saw a meme.
That I laughed about for, I think, 45 minutes straight.
I tried to get some work done, but I couldn't stop laughing about it.
And you've seen the meme where there's somebody nervously looking at two buttons, and they only have two buttons.
And the meme gets repurposed for lots of different topics, but it always makes me laugh.
But I saw one where it was the Democrats who only had two buttons, and one of the buttons is labeled...
Bring up eggs.
And the other one is labeled bring up Hitler.
Now, one of my favorite things in the realm of humor is when somebody summarizes something so well that the summary is hilarious.
This is a perfect summary.
The Democrats have so little left in the tank, like they don't have anything to run on.
They literally bring up eggs or Hitler, no matter what you're talking about.
Huh.
Eggs?
Eggs or...
Hitler or eggs?
Eggs or Hitler?
I can't decide.
Now that's funny.
And it's not too far off.
Greg Gottfeld on The Five yesterday was talking about how hard it's going to be for the Democrats to distinguish themselves from the party of common sense.
It's the ultimate high ground.
So Trump just owns common sense.
It's why he won.
It's the ultimate meet in the middle.
How about we just do the things that make sense and we can argue about the other things separately?
Common sense.
Now, in order to run against common sense, you're either going to have to make some weird argument that only you have common sense and they don't, but nobody's going to believe that, or you're going to have to argue that As Gottfeld said, if you're trying to find some distance between common sense and the Democrats, the Democrats are going to have to start embracing bestiality and voodoo sacrifice.
Because if you're trying to make some contrast with common sense, it's going to be a tough task.
Anyway, I would argue that all of the smart people are on the same side at this point.
The smart people who are not on the same side are corrupt.
Or hypnotized?
Now, some of them, like I always talk about my smartest Democrat fan, he is clearly just hypnotized.
He's clearly hypnotized.
Would you like a test to know if you're hypnotized?
All right.
Do you believe that Elon Musk gave a Nazi salute?
If you believe it, you're hypnotized.
Like, actually, literally hypnotized.
Because that's not something any reasonable person would believe.
That's so far outside the bounds of reasonable.
If you ever believed, if you ever believed that Trump said in public, knowingly and intentionally, those neo-Nazis are fine people, if you ever thought that really happened in the real world, you're easily hypnotized.
And you are hypnotized.
If you believe That Trump once said, maybe we should drink some bleach or inject some household disinfectants into our body.
If you think he ever said any of those things or anything like it, you're hypnotized.
Those are things that you are more associated with cognitive dissonance.
You don't really need an argument to learn that those things didn't happen.
Do you know why I said all those things didn't happen the moment?
The moment the rumor came up?
Because if you're not hypnotized, you don't even need to look at the details.
You just say, oh, no, he wouldn't give Nazi salute.
No, nobody's complimenting Nazis in public from the presidency.
That never happened.
No, nobody's suggesting ingesting household disinfectants.
You don't need to look at the details.
On the surface, those could only be believed.
By people who are literally, literally hypnotized.
Now, I don't mean that they sat in a chair and somebody did a hypnosis induction, but they're not operating in the real world.
They're operating in an imaginary world in their head.
And you can identify it by whether or not they embrace things like the fine people oaks and the Nazi salute.
As soon as you find somebody who is, it doesn't matter what their IQ is.
They're trapped because they can't use their IQ. Their IQ just gets turned off by the hypnosis.
So let me modify my statement.
I said that all the smart people are on one side, meaning that even if they don't like everything about Trump, they can recognize that what he's doing are exactly the things we need to have done, even if it's messy, and it will be messy.
And they know that cutting the government budget is not a want, it's a necessity.
We have to do it.
And they know that cutting it in a way that's painful to a lot of people is unfortunately 100% required.
There's no way around it.
So all the smart people who are not hypnotized are on the same side now.
So you have to add the not hypnotized.
Let me give you an example.
So here's AOC, just gave a little video in which she said, I swear I'm not making this up.
She was talking about Elon Musk.
And she said about Elon Musk, quote, he is one of the most unintelligent billionaires I've ever met or seen.
Then she added that Elon has a, quote, lack of intelligence and lack of expertise, and is, quote, morally vacant, but also just least knowledgeable about these systems that we really know of.
Okay, does that sound like a real person talking?
Do I need to give, like, the counter-argument about how Elon Musk actually is smart?
No.
You could just look at this and say, all right, either you're completely corrupt and you're just trying to save the USAID with a crazy argument, or you're hypnotized, or you're like my dog.
You know, I use this example a lot.
When I enter a room, the lights go on.
Sometimes I use my voice to use it with my digital assistant.
Sometimes I hit the switch on the wall.
Sometimes the lights are motion detected.
And my dog doesn't know why the lights come on when I enter rooms.
The only thing my dog knows is that when she wants me to give her a treat, which is every single time I walk past her, and I don't give her a treat, I must be stupid.
Least intelligent human I've ever met or seen.
My dog thinks my lack of intelligence and lack of expertise in giving dogs treats is morally vacant.
But also, I might be the least knowledgeable thing about the systems involving treats for my dog.
It's just so entertaining watching otherwise normal people go into complete retardation.
This is impressive.
Nicole Shanahan was on Comic Dave Smith's podcast and said there's some mystery about Bernie Sanders.
And she said, I quote, this is Nicole Shanahan, I asked myself, was Bernie a psyop all along?
Was he a deep state plant?
Now, she's just asking the question.
She's not saying that he is.
But the mystery...
Why does Bernie act the way he does?
Especially lately.
Like, what's behind it all?
Was he always being run by somebody else?
Is he still being run by somebody else and he's just a cutout for something?
Now, I don't know the answers to any of it, but here's what I think is funny.
That we've narrowed down what's wrong with Bernie to four possibilities.
We meaning all of us.
Four possibilities.
I don't know which it is.
One, Bernie is a deep state psyop and always was.
Two, he's an idiot with good intentions.
Three, he's an idiot with bad intentions.
Or four, he's a deep state psyop and also an idiot with bad intentions.
Those are the only possibilities.
You can completely rule out he's an honest broker with good ideas that are different from yours.
Yeah, there's something going on.
And whatever it is, it's bad.
So, four choices.
Well, I didn't know there's a DOGE subcommittee in Congress, but apparently Marjorie Taylor Greene is the House Chair of the DOGE committee and subcommittee, I guess.
And is going to invite in NPR's Catherine Mayer.
That's out of...
And PBS's Paula Kerger to testify about their bias.
Now, this is in the context of one of the PBS... Is it PBS or NPR? I forget.
Uri Berliner?
Which is he, NPR? I think he's NPR. He was suspended because he complained about the bias.
In his employer.
And now he's apparently now resigned.
But he said that his employer went from a liberal knee-jerk, went from being biased, you know, sort of liberal leaning, which, you know, we understand everybody's biased, so that's not the worst thing.
But it went from being just liberal to a knee-jerk activist scolds, and he couldn't handle that anymore.
Was that PBS or NPR? Those are being conflated in my mind.
Anyway, it doesn't matter because I'm sure it was the same at both places.
So we'll see what comes out of that.
There are more Doge updates coming.
There's something about the Department of Education that's going to be gutted or removed.
The EPA might have 1,000 employees.
It could be gone.
There's something about the NED, N-E-D. Probably going to hear three more things.
The best thing that Doge is doing, besides the good work they're doing, is that they're keeping that Overton window so rapid that the news can't use their main trick to brainwash the public.
The main trick of the news is repetition.
If they repeat something enough, their viewers think it must be true.
I mean, it couldn't be on the news every single night unless it's true.
Like, somebody would have, at some point, said, hey, this isn't true.
But if you're on CNN or MSNBC, they don't bring on the opposite voices that often.
So, although CNN does a real effort to do it, but it's always a minority voice.
As long as they don't have too many people too often talking on the other side, they can just keep hitting their hoaxes until you think they're true.
They can't do that and also pretend they're a news organization unless they cover all the new news.
Because you're not going to turn on MSNBC if they're talking about what happened last month.
You're looking for the new news.
So as long as Doge and Trump keep creating new news and it's like a fire hose, they have to spend time on it.
And so Trump and Musk are using up all their shelf space.
They only have so much time, and each show only has so much time, and they've got to cover the news.
There's nothing left for the endless repeating of the bullshit hoaxes.
So if you take away their endless repeating of bullshit hoaxes, it essentially neuters the entire monster because it's their main tool.
Their main tool is repetition of things that aren't true.
It's the main tool.
And the Overton window takes it away.
It's brilliant.
I've never seen anybody do it like that before, but it's brilliant.
So here's where we're getting close to the line of what is too far.
And I do not mind when the Trump administration gets close to the line of what's going too far.
Because often that's the only place that works.
Sometimes you've got to be close to the line of what's going too far, and that's exactly where you want to be.
And I would argue that in much of what's happening, getting real close to the line of going too far is right where I want them to be, but I don't want them to go too far.
So with that context, apparently the...
The Trump administration has gotten a hold of the names of all the FBI officials who worked on January 6th cases.
So they've all been identified.
I guess there were 5,000 or 6,000 of them.
And there were 2,400 cases.
Now, what the...
Yeah, there are 5,000 of them have been identified.
So here's the thing you need to know.
These are more the worker bees.
These are not the leadership.
So, the FBI officials who are working on a case are the people who would work on other cases, too.
And they would be very experienced, or they wouldn't be in those jobs.
So, if you lost 5,000 totally experienced people who were simply doing what their boss told them to do, that would feel like too far.
If their only crime was to go to work and do the assignment their boss told them.
Too far.
But apparently they're all going to be given the chance to fill out a questionnaire in which they'll ask them, what exactly did you do?
And my hope is that they look at each of them individually.
I think it would be a mistake, and obviously Trump knows it would be a mistake, to just fire them.
Because, again, they were not the decision makers.
But I do imagine...
That if the questionnaire is correctly stated, and let's say they're under oath to, I don't know if they'd be under oath, but it's at least a fireable offense if they lie on the document, I would think.
Government document.
So let's get them on record.
And if they ask the right questions, and they're not gotcha questions, I will not put up with any gotcha questions.
No fake questions on the questionnaire.
That's not good enough.
But if it identifies something like a strong bias, and I'm not sure how they would, then maybe in some cases those people got to go.
If 4,000 of them get fired, I'm not going to be delighted because I don't know that they really looked at them individually and found out something that was, you know, decision-making on their part.
But they might.
They might.
So this one is definitely right on the edge of too far.
The thing that makes me pull back is that they are going to look at them individually.
As long as you're looking at them individually and you tell us this needs to be transparent, you need to tell us what criteria you're using if any of them are fired.
And I got to know that the criteria is being evenly applied and it's a criteria that...
He passes the sniff test, right?
So remember what I say over and over again, which is if you supported Trump, you're part of the team.
And part of that team means that you need to be a guardrail wherever a guardrail needs to be put up.
Now, we do like that, you know, Doge and Trump have a wide operating berth, right?
You know, that they can operate without being constrained.
But that's even more important, why the supporters need to be the guardrail.
So let's make sure that we don't lose our own center on this.
Make sure that you're helpful.
Because if you're in the fight, and Trump's in the fight, Elon's in the fight, you could easily just accidentally lose sight of where that line is.
So let's make sure that doesn't happen.
So one of the ideas that Trump came up with is the Sovereign Wealth Fund.
And I realize that not everybody knows what that is.
That requires a little bit of explanation.
Interestingly, Joel Pollack's book, The Agenda, which came out in the summer, suggests this very thing, that the U.S. should have a sovereign wealth fund.
It's one of many suggestions in the book.
It's a book full of suggestions of what Trump could do in the beginning of his term.
And it was a great book.
You should see it.
So here's what a sovereign wealth fund is.
It's basically where a country can make investments, and then it just keeps it in the fund, and then the country has access to that fund for whatever they might need it for later, which could be more investments.
So the types of things that would be in this fund would be, for example, let's say if Trump gets his way with TikTok and he said, hey, the government of the United States should own half of it because if I don't approve its sale, it will be worth zero.
So if the government has to be involved to make it have value, we should keep part of the value.
So let's say that the government gets a bunch of shares of TikTok and the sale goes through and maybe Larry Elson or somebody buys it.
And then a few billion dollars worth of value just gets in stock, gets put in this fund.
Now we could sell it or we could ride it.
Because if we think it's going up and it's a good investment, well, we keep it.
Then here's another thing.
Suppose the special forces start making real progress against the cartels.
I'm told that one of the biggest things that the cartels do to fund their operation is gigantic pallets of cash, because obviously they don't want to write checks for their illegal business.
So they have to move gigantic shipments of physical cash.
Suppose the special forces go after the cartels and figure out where their giant bundles of cash are.
Well, who does that belong to?
Does it belong to Mexico?
Does it belong to whoever finds it?
Well, I would say it belongs to the United States government.
So we take their big piles of cash and just put it in the sovereign wealth fund.
And by the way, these are just examples.
I'm not saying that any of this would happen.
How about if there is a joint venture beyond TikTok that would never work unless the government was involved?
For example.
Let's say we wanted to create a mineral.
Here's a good example.
One of the things Trump wants to do is keep the mineral rights for rare earth minerals in Ukraine as sort of a payback for the military's support we give them in Ukraine.
Now, do you think that we could be safe in having a rare earth mineral mining operation in Ukraine?
Unless...
The U.S. government was part of protecting it in case, you know, Russia got aggressive.
Well, probably not.
You probably couldn't even have that business unless the U.S. government was going to protect it with the military.
So shouldn't the U.S. government get a share?
Get a little share of that?
Maybe it should.
Maybe half.
Right?
So you can imagine all these situations that only Trump could identify because he's the dealmaker.
Where he would say, you know what?
You'd better have something for the sovereign fund or else we're not going to do that thing.
Or you're not going to do that thing.
There's probably a whole bunch of those situations that Trump would see that other people just wouldn't even see.
I mean, the TikTok thing where he says we should get half of it, nobody else saw that.
The idea of taking control of the rare earth in Ukraine, nobody else saw that.
Or at least they didn't mention it.
So he is uniquely able to see, hey, why are we not making money from that thing?
And you need a sovereign fund to sort of organize all of our thoughts around it.
So then we understand it.
Oh, he found another thing for the sovereign fund.
Oh, the sovereign fund is up 20%.
Good job.
Now, keep in mind that the sovereign fund would be an asset owned by the government.
Our biggest problem is our debt.
If your debt stays the same, this would be wildly optimistic, but if our debt we could get under control and the asset started growing, at some point the asset could be big enough that we could use it to pay off part of the debt.
So the sovereign wealth fund is actually also a debt relief mechanism because it gives you that option.
You don't have to use it for that, but it gives you the option.
You could put a bunch of Bitcoin in it, and there's probably a bunch of other things you could do.
So, it's a good idea.
There's a study, according to SciPost, there's a study that the TikTok was better for Republicans than Democrats in this latest election.
So apparently there were more Democrats who saw pro-Trump stuff than there were Republicans.
Who saw pro-Democrat stuff?
So that's being defined as being better for Republicans.
Now, like all studies, it might be true, but there are a lot of things that I have questions for.
If the only thing you knew is who saw what, you don't really know anything.
It really matters what they saw.
If the Democrats saw more Trump stuff, But the stuff they saw was the silly stuff?
Like it's not the stuff that persuades anybody?
Well, then it doesn't matter how much they see.
They can see an infinite amount of non-persuasive stuff.
It wouldn't make any difference.
What matters is exactly what they see, and this doesn't capture that.
So remember when the Russians tried to interfere with their troll memes, and the news treated it like that was real and it mattered?
And then you looked at the actual memes, and they were just ridiculously bad.
They looked like a seventh grade school project.
I mean, really, they did.
Seriously, they looked like a seventh grade school project.
Now, anybody who knows anything about persuasion would look at those and say, oh, that's the same as zero.
It's zero.
It just rounds to zero.
There's not even the slightest possibility.
That those handful of Russian memes that they put $100,000 into could have possibly moved our election.
That is not possible.
All right.
So I wouldn't trust any survey of TikTok's influence because they leave out the influence.
They just count numbers and that's not how you do it.
All right.
I promised you that I would, some of you, that I'd give you some ADHD hacks.
I was listening, I was watching a big thread on X about it.
And you might know that ADHD is a, goes two ways.
One is that it can, you know, be really hard to get anything done because your mind is going a million miles an hour and you've got too many things in your mind.
But, Those same people have the ability to really deeply concentrate, but only on things they care about.
The difference seems to be that the ADHD people are searching for dopamine, and if they can't find any, their mind goes everywhere trying to look for it.
But those few things they really love give them dopamine hits when they spend time, so they can go deeper into a single topic.
The normal people because they're really getting the dopamine hit, but only if they like it.
Now, I didn't realize how bad my ADHD was until I saw the thread about an example of people with ADHD, which is you can't walk out the door without forgetting something because your brain is in too many places.
I can't walk out the door without forgetting something.
But I'm also a high-functioning professional.
So how could it be?
Obviously, I have pretty bad ADHD. How could that be when I'm also one of the most disciplined workers you've ever met?
Seven days a week, I'm always here unless I'm sick, right?
So, here's how.
I basically have a brain hack for every part of the ADHD that bothers me.
And I'll share you some of them.
It doesn't mean they'll work for you, but what it does mean...
You might be able to also come up with your own brain hacks.
Now, keep in mind I'm a hypnotist.
I'm a trained hypnotist.
And so I tinker with my own mind like a hypnotist would tinker with somebody else's mind.
So many of the things that a hypnotist could do to another person's mind, I can do to myself because I have the skills.
And so I've hacked my own brain to take care of a lot of the ADHD things, and you can too.
So let me give you some of the tricks.
Number one, when I'm leaving the house in the summer, if I just try to remember what I need, I will not do it.
So instead, I remember five, the number five.
And when I walk toward my exit, I think five.
And the reason I think it is because I've trained myself that whenever I see the exit, I think five in the summer.
Why five in the summer?
Because in the summer, you need your phone.
You need your key fob for your car.
You need, if you're a bald guy, you need a hat.
And you need sunscreen.
And in some cases, I like to bring my headphones.
Five.
You know, if I'm going to the gym, for example, I'd make sure I have my headphones.
So I walk to the door, I go, five.
Phone.
Oh, I forgot the key.
Then the second thing I do is I leave the things that I might forget really near the door so I don't have to walk upstairs ever.
Everything's right by the door.
So it's either in my car already, such as my sunglasses and my hat.
I keep my sunglasses because they're prescription.
I keep my sunglasses in the car because even if I'm not going to drive, I almost always walk past the car in the garage to leave my house, even if I'm just taking a walk.
So I've found a hack that I can leave the house without 15 trips.
And then I change the number in the winter because I don't need the sunscreen as much.
I probably should, but I don't.
And the hat, etc.
So that's one trick.
So you find a number that tells you the number of things you have to remember before you open that door.
And then if you do it enough, remember, repetition is persuasion.
You just have to repeat it, repeat it, repeat it, repeat it until you can't forget it.
That's the hymn of district.
All right, here's another one.
In the morning, one of the reasons I start at often 3.30 in the morning or 4 in the morning, just whenever I'm awake, is that my ADHD is by far at the lowest.
So the first several hours of the morning, I sit in complete darkness.
So I darken all the lights.
I have the drapes pulled.
And the only light is my screen of my computer and a little light I put on my keyboard so it's easier to see the keyboard.
And that's it.
And the reason I do that is that nobody's awake, or at least nobody that would be getting in my way.
The dog is asleep.
The noises are predictable.
There's not like daytime noises of, you know, there's no gardener doing anything or anything.
Phone isn't ringing.
I don't have anything else on my calendar.
And I'm doing something I want to do, which is I love looking at the news and then talking about it.
So getting rid of all your distractions is the other hack.
I also, if it's the afternoon and I want to do something like write a check, I can't do it.
Do you know why I can't write a check?
Because as hard as I try to concentrate, I can't get any dopamine from that task.
I just desperately don't want to be writing little things on a piece of paper in the year 2025. Desperately, I don't want to do it.
And so my brain won't let me do it.
So if I start writing a check, I take the whole checkbook and I leave it there, and I start ripping up the checks as I make mistakes.
And it's always the same.
I'll be like, all right, concentrate, concentrate.
Date.
What is the date?
Date is date.
Write the date.
All right.
Concentrate, concentrate.
I think I've got to go to the store today.
Oh, I just wrote my grocery list on the check.
Rip it up.
Try again.
And just over and over again.
Because I can't concentrate all the way through writing a number.
That's how bad it is.
If I'm writing, you know, $425, I can get to maybe the two, but by the five, I'm thinking about five other things.
I can't finish that.
Oh, I just lost my...
I just lost my thing here.
All right.
I think I've lost you so let's see if I can reenter this let's see if you can hear me and see me I'm back.
All right.
I think I'm back.
Your comments will catch up in a moment.
All right.
So what I do is I don't write checks.
I know I can't do it.
I have somebody else do it.
I just ask somebody else, if you want a check, you fill it out and I'll sign it.
So in 2025, I am so angered by anybody asking me for a little fucking piece of paper, I will not write a check.
I just say, you write it, I'll sign it.
Here's a check.
If it doesn't work out, I'll give you another one, but I'm not going to do that.
I'm never going to write on that little piece of fucking paper.
You write it, I'll sign it.
So you have to come up with a whole bunch of little hacks.
This is also the reason I can't write dates down correctly.
You've noticed that my comics are always misdated.
It's because I can't concentrate through all the way thinking through a date.
It's too boring.
So here's how I settle it in the afternoon.
A real good exercise routine.
So I do my exercise around, you know, lunchtime or noon-ish usually, not too far after.
And that settles my brain down because it gives me a dopamine thing that lasts a little while.
And then I can do some boring things.
The other thing I do is if I'm drawing, I have to be absolutely medicated and watching a TV show because if I draw Dilbert one more time, oh my God!
Do you know how many times I've drawn Dilbert's head?
It's a lot.
It's a lot.
So maybe tens of thousands of times.
So those are some of my tricks.
The other trick is chanting.
And I've told you this one.
If your ADHD is just out of control, you chant the thing you're trying to do, which is...
Look for the file, look for the file, look for the file.
What's that dog doing?
No, look for the file, look for the file.
Huh, these steps need a little bit.
No, look for the file, look for the file.
I should really vacuum this.
No, look for the file, look for the file, look for the file.
That actually works.
And I've taught that to a number of people, the chanting.
Sometimes it just gets so bad that if you're not chanting it, you can't even walk across the room.
So try that.
But here's the bigger thing.
The bigger thing is that you could probably hack your brain to find workarounds for each of the little ADHD things that are bothering you.
And that's my advice on ADHD. All right.
There's a biotech company that has now, I guess, a nasal spray that uses some molecular cousin of psilocybin, magic mushrooms.
That pretty much immediately helps people with hard-to-treat depression.
So they're in the middle of their clinical trial, but so far it seems to be almost magically effective.
So it's a small Ireland-based company, GH Research, and it's an inhaled version.
So imagine that.
Imagine if you could just go and give yourself a little nasal spray.
Or inhale it, however they inhale it.
Maybe they inhale it a different way.
And it just removes your depression.
But I also wonder, would it give you dopamine?
I would think that you couldn't remove your depression without some dopamine being in the mix, right?
So could it be possible that this removes your depression, but also your ADHD? Because if it gives you dopamine with just one inhale, maybe that's the dopamine I needed to write my check.
Maybe that's the dopamine I needed to concentrate on writing the date correctly.
Maybe.
So it could be that there's a cure for depression and ADHD at the same time.
Just speculating, trying to be optimistic.
That's my show for today.
I know it went way too long.
That's probably why I got cut off.
I'm going to say goodbye to everybody here.
So locals, I usually spend time with you, but I'm way over time.
So let's not milk it any further than we need to.
I'll see you tonight, locals, in the man cave.
Everybody else, thanks for joining.
Sorry I went long.
Hope it was worth it.
Bye on X and YouTube and Rumble and everywhere else.
Export Selection