Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazonhttps://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals:https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, CNN Harry Enten, Trump's Popularity, Propaganda Techniques Awareness, Narrative Creation Techniques, John Podhoretz, Constitutional Crisis Narrative, MSNBC Propaganda, Anti-DOGE Lawfare, Laura Loomer, Judge McConnell's Daughter, USAID Norwegian Refugee Council, New JFK Files, Mayor Adams, Anti-Trump Lawfare, 2024 CA Vote Counting, Fake Cancer Studies, Massive Government Corruption, OpenAI Purchase Bid, Government Corruption Supporters, Hamas Hostages Deadline, Ukraine Military Equipment Sales, John Kiriakou, Unknown Climate Model Creators, Legalizing Bribery, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, includingmicro-lessons on lots of useful topicsto build your talent stack, please seescottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
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 mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens right now You are now fortified and All right, if you are subscribing to the Dilbert comic, which never stopped.
Some of you think it did, but it didn't.
Dilbert is being recruited to work on Doge.
So, it's just going to be a one-week series.
He won't be there long because he always has to return to his other life.
But Dilbert is selected to work for Doge.
I don't know if you knew this, but in the Dilbert comic universe, although Dilbert is a put-upon cubicle employee, I always try to frame him as the best engineer in the world.
So, of course he'd be asked.
Of course he would.
All right.
Let's look and see if there's any science that they could have skipped and maybe save some money.
Let's see.
Eric Nolan's writing for SciPost.
The stronger men have more sex partners.
Stronger men have more sex partners.
I wonder how much they spent to find out that women like stronger men.
Because I didn't see it coming.
No, I did see it coming.
Next time, just ask me.
Scott, we're thinking about doing a study to see if tall men have more sex.
Don't need to.
They do.
Well, okay.
Well, what if we study to find out if tall, rich men have more sex?
Don't need to.
Don't need to.
They do.
Okay.
But we're still curious about tall, rich men who have all of their hair.
Yes, more sex.
Every time.
But what about...
Tall, rich men who go to the gym and really have a good physique.
Again, save your money.
This is why you come to me first.
Big money saver.
I'm like pre-Doge.
You don't even need Doge if you just come to me first.
That's all you need to do.
I'm just full of answers.
There's another study in the American Psychological Association.
I guess that's a publication.
They found out that satire is more damaging than boring criticism.
Hmm.
Who could they have asked to save some money on that study?
Oh, that's right.
Why don't you ask the cartoonist who writes satire all the time, like I'm doing right now, mocking their stupid-ass study?
Notice how my satire about their stupid-ass study is way more damning than a boring criticism.
Well, I'm not sure that was a high-priority study.
No, see?
Boring.
As soon as I lay the satire on, zing.
Zing.
Right to the heart.
Just ask me next time.
Satire.
It's good stuff.
Well, CNN is showing their numbers data guy, Harry Enten.
He shows that 70% of Americans say Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do if he got elected, especially the Doge stuff.
He was pretty clear about that.
But in addition, Trump's at new highs.
His popularity is at a new all-time high, including his entire first term.
And what could possibly be the reason behind his popularity?
Could it be that...
He picks the, I'm going to use the Scott Jennings frame, because this is a good one, that Trump picks the things that 80% of the country likes, and of course, 20 to 25% of the country is wrong about everything.
So it wouldn't matter what it was.
It's like, should we save the orphans?
Because the orphanage is on fire, and there's still plenty of time to get the orphans out.
Should we save them?
Well, yeah.
80% of the country would say, save those orphans.
What are you talking about?
Of course you would.
But 20% would say, hmm, what kind of orphans are we talking about?
Are they Republicans?
I don't know.
Not so fast.
Maybe they deserve it.
Now, I'm just making that up.
But the point is, 20% of the public is wrong about everything.
So if you have a topic that 80% of the public is on the same side, that's basically everyone.
Because the other 20% are not.
Thinkers.
Or serious.
Or understanding of their environment in any important way.
So you can ignore the last 20% as not even real.
No matter what the question is.
20%?
No.
You're not even in the right conversation, people.
So as long as Trump's doing the things that are super popular, you can mix in a few things that are maybe 50-50s and a couple of 40-60s.
And he's going to be golden.
But the other reason that he's popular is that people love action, and they love energy, and they love it even more when it's coming from a dominant male figure.
Why?
Because we're human.
We're just human.
If you're a guy, are you not impressed by a high-energy, powerful alpha male?
Of course you are.
Why do we watch football?
We watch football because it's just filled with these high-powered, high-energy alpha males.
It's what we like.
Do women like to...
Do they feel good about high-energy alpha males?
Yeah.
Who doesn't?
20%.
20% don't like that.
Because they don't like anything.
It's a different 20% every time.
But the other thing is, besides being high energy and high action, you know, just the pace of things is just purely impressive.
And the fact that we're paying him.
How much do you love the fact that we're paying Trump?
Well, actually, we're not.
I believe he's not taking a salary, right?
I don't remember if he said it this term, but I think it's automatic he's not taking it.
So we're not paying him, per se, except for, you know, it costs a lot for Secret Service, etc.
But we're getting a really good value because we're getting Elon Musk for free.
I mean, how often does that happen?
For free.
And so if you do that much stuff, you've got that much energy, you've got that much action, you've got that much alpha male stuff, you're working for free.
We're getting a bargain.
We love bargains, especially when they're uncovering all the bad.
But on top of all of that, I think the media brainwashing machine is broken.
I think Trump broke it.
It took a long time, and we all had to help.
But once you realize that the media is not trying to give you the news, that's really the secret.
If you think, well, they're trying to give you the straight news, but yeah, everybody makes a mistake.
If you're in that model, you have no idea what's going on.
No, the news is not trying to give you the news.
There may be some entities that are trying, but mostly your big entities, we know for sure they're not trying to give you the real news.
It's always a narrative.
Anyway, so here's something I love.
I love the fact that...
Calling out the brainwashing techniques that the news is using, you know, the little propaganda tricks.
It's become a parlor game.
Now, compare this to 2016. In 2016, we simply thought there were two opinions.
Well, there's the opinion on the left, and there's the opinion on the right.
And they're different.
We understand that.
That's why there's a left and the right.
Different opinions.
But over time, we learned...
That what we were observing wasn't just a difference of opinion.
What we learned was the news isn't real.
And once you realize the news isn't real, then you can start looking for the technique.
And have you noticed how delightful it is that...
I would say that people like Mike Cernovich, people like me, have been pointing out technique for years.
But somehow, collectively, and other people, of course, it's not just us, but collectively, the entire right-leaning part of the world has been educated on the tricks.
Let me give you an example.
So Caitlin Collins, CNN, she said recently, quote, we are three weeks into the second Trump presidency, three weeks, and tonight there are warnings that the U.S. is dangerously close to a constitutional crisis.
There are warnings.
Do you know what the warnings are?
Well, according to John Podritz, who apparently is up to speed on the propaganda tricks, he explains what the, quote, warnings are about the constitutional crisis.
So he goes, so this is how it works.
The New York Times does a story in which leftist professors say there's a constitutional crisis.
And six hours later, CNN does a story saying, there are warnings, which is technically true, because there were warnings right there in the New York Times.
But it's simply just an extension of a party ideological line from one media institution through another.
Now, that's a standard trick.
So first, the Democrats will plant a story with a friendly reporter, and then the rest of the press...
We'll treat it like it must be important and substantial because it's in the other press.
Well, if it's in the New York Times.
So watching John Poderitz call that out was very satisfying to me because the more you learn to spot this stuff, the better off we're going to be.
So it's just a sign of good health that we can call this out and laugh at it.
It gets better.
And I would even go so far as that we've gamified it.
So what John was doing was just pointing out how the propaganda architecture works.
But because it's on X, and X will give you follows and reposts, and if you wanted to, you could even monetize it.
So there's actually a reward.
So we've literally gamified.
The process of calling out the propaganda.
And it's fun.
And not only is it fun, you might get paid for it if you've monetized your account.
So, related to this, I saw a story in the Wall Street Journal that Steve Bannon's war room, and so this would include Steve Bannon and one of his co-hosts, I don't know how many co-hosts he has, but his co-host, Natalie Winters, they both...
Keep MSNBC on all day.
So MSNBC would be the opposite of their point of view.
And they keep it on all day.
Do you know why?
They don't really watch the conservative media that much.
They just keep MSNBC kind of locked on.
Because it's hilarious.
It's for the jokes.
It's so that you can make fun of them.
Because they're so ridiculous.
That I keep it on all day, too.
Now, actually, I usually flip through and I spend a lot of time.
I watch MSNBC for the laughs.
And that's not a joke.
It's not hyperbole.
Once you realize that they're not even trying to be any kind of a news network, once you realize its only intention is propaganda, then it gets fun.
And we're going to have a little fun with them in a little bit.
So, yeah, I watch them for the same reason.
To watch how the propaganda works and see what they're up to.
And I do watch MSNBC probably more than I watch conservative media.
I mean, I sample everything, but I'll bet I spend more time watching MSNBC because I'm just fascinated by the technique.
So, Joy Reid on MSNBC, I guess she said today, or it might have been yesterday, that...
The Doge employee named Big Balls, you know, that was his name online at one point, Big Balls, must be subpoenaed.
Now, why does subpoena have to have pina in it?
Because it feels like subpoena means whatever's below your pina, and what's below your pina is your big balls.
I don't know, is it just me?
And then I look at Joy Reid with her short hair.
You know, her shaved head.
And I think, why do you have to dress like the thing you're criticizing?
Do you remember when she had Trump hair?
She had a Trump haircut when she was criticizing Trump all day?
I thought, that's weird.
Why would you wear the hair of the thing you're criticizing?
Now she's spending all day criticizing big balls, and she's got her hair cut really short, so she looks like, you know, big balls left testicle.
You know, it's just sort of...
A testicle with a face on it.
And I'll tell you, I call this whole thing scrotum gate, because scrotum is a word you don't get to use enough.
Any chance I get to say scrotum in public, I'm going to take it.
I'm like, can I say scrotum on this podcast?
Scrotum?
Yeah, it's just a funny word.
So scrotum gate gets better.
So here's something I've noticed, and I want to see if you've noticed it too.
Do you notice that the people on CNN, just two of them in particular, Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid, have one thing in common that is the strangest thing to have in common.
They don't blink their eyes at the same time.
In other words, each of them has two eyes, and here would be a normal person blinking, if you're watching.
Blink, blink.
See both eyes blink?
Pretty much a normal person when they blink.
Both of them blink.
But have you ever watched either Rachel Maddow or Joy Reid when they're on camera?
Their eyes blink, but one at a time.
Like they're fighting off something.
And then Trump is like a dictator.
It's like 1939 Hitler.
Now, where does that come from?
If you find somebody who blinks separately with each eye, I wouldn't believe anything that comes out of their mouth because I don't even know what causes that.
What causes you to reflexively blink separately with each eye?
I don't know.
I'm not sure that's a tell for mental health or lying or what that is, but...
I don't see it anywhere else.
Have you ever seen that anywhere else and two of their major hosts do the same thing?
What's up with that?
Anyway, Ali Velshi, one of the MSNBC hosts, who's Canadian.
I didn't know he's Canadian, but he is.
He's Canadian.
It feels like that comment has more power to it than I meant.
If I say he's Canadian, suddenly your brain fills up with all these stereotypes.
Are you thinking, oh, he's a crazy communist?
Because, oh, he's like Trudeau.
I hate the fact that five years ago, if you said somebody's Canadian, you would have just automatically thought, oh, excellent.
I'd like to invite them over for coffee.
I like Canadians.
Canadians are the best.
But after a few more years of Trudeau, if you hear somebody's a Canadian, you're like, oh, I'm sorry.
Sorry about that.
How's it feel?
Are you okay?
Do you need any help?
Anyway, so Ali Velshi on MSNBC said that, quote, blacks will be impacted most by Trump's gutting of the bureaucracy.
Now, should we dig into that?
No, we don't give a shit.
I'm not saying we don't give a shit about black Americans.
I'm saying we don't give a shit about his opinion.
And is it true that people who are at the lowest end of the economic situation will have some greater impact based on what's happening now?
Well, I would say that's always the case.
If there's a war, people at the low end of the economic ladder...
Almost always get it worse.
If there's a depression, who gets it worse?
If there's a pandemic, who gets it worse?
So it is true, and we can't ignore it, that the people at the low end of the economic ladder are going to get everything worse whenever you make any big change.
But, to be fair, what Trump promised, maybe without saying it directly, is that we're going to take some pain.
To cut the government down to a sustainable level.
Because you know what would happen if we just kept doing what we were doing and didn't cut anything?
We would be out of business.
We would be broke.
The country would crumble.
Guess who gets hurt the most when the entire country crumbles?
The people at the low end of the economic ladder.
So, to me, just looking at this, it's more MSNB. MSNBC searching for their old way of business.
Hey, I've got an idea.
I don't know if anybody's thought of this before, but what if, no matter what Republicans do, we brand it as racist?
Has anybody tried that yet?
Oh, it's the only thing we've ever tried.
Well, what if we also make up some stuff?
Okay, okay.
But wait, that's also what we've been doing.
But what if...
We have everybody agree that it's true.
That's what you've been doing.
Okay, okay.
But what if we ignore the bad things that happen on the Democrat side?
Okay, that's actually what you've been doing.
So I love their inability to learn.
Meanwhile, there's the story that you're just going to need somebody smarter to explain the next part to you.
So how many judges now have ruled against some little thing that Doge is doing or Trump is doing?
Is it five or six?
I think there was another one today.
There were five yesterday.
So, you know, the lawfare is just coming wildly.
Now, Kyle Cheney was pointing out on X today that Judge Amy Berman Jackson, she's the fifth judge just yesterday.
Just in one day, just yesterday, five judges to block some aspect of what Trump is trying to get done with executive orders.
And here's what they're doing.
They're kind of blocking common sense.
As long as Trump stays in that 80-20 mode where he's getting rid of the penny and people are saying, yeah, yeah, get rid of the penny.
He's bringing back plastic straws.
And people are like, oh yeah, plastic straws.
And he's trying to end the war in Ukraine.
Oh yeah, let's end that war.
He's trying to cut the waste and fraud out of the government.
Oh yeah, we can all agree on that.
Let's get rid of the waste and fraud.
So as long as he stays in that 80%-ish mode, watching Democrats try to stop him from doing things that we all want, except for the 20%.
It's fun.
But in this context, Elon Musk just changed his own name on his profile and X to Harry Balls.
Balls spelled B-O-L-Z. Why?
Why not?
Why not?
Harry Balls.
Okay.
And then Musk and others are pointing out, That Trump isn't the only one who is considered, you know, ignoring a court order if the court order didn't seem like it was on point.
So, do you remember that Biden said, when the Supreme Court blocked his idea to pay off the student loans, he said, directly, Biden said, the Supreme Court tried to block me from relieving student debt, but they didn't stop me.
Blah, blah, blah.
I'm going to keep going.
So Biden said it directly.
The Supreme Court ruled against me, but I'm going to try to thwart their ruling by finding some clever workaround.
All right.
I mean, I'm open-minded that maybe it was a workaround.
I mean, if it literally doesn't go against the Supreme Court ruling and yet defeats, let's say, the intent of it, that might be legal.
So, I'm no expert.
I don't know.
But it's sketchy and seems inappropriate.
I mean, why would you try to get around a Supreme Court ruling?
That just feels like the wrong move if you're the leader of the country.
But, here's a Laura Loomer scoop.
Laura Loomer is the best at coming up with...
Did you know that...
Somebody's daughter is working for somebody else.
You know, the connections, the who's involved connections, she's really good at that.
So her scoop today is that Judge John McConnell, so that's a federal judge from Rhode Island who ordered Trump and Doge to unfreeze billions of dollars in federal grants that, you know, were things that Doge was trying to stop.
And did you know that this judge, according to Laura Loomer, As a daughter who currently works at the U.S. Department of Education as a senior policy advisor.
So the judge who doesn't want things such as, for example, the Department of Education to be closed, has a daughter who's got a job there.
Now, I think Elon Musk mentioned that it might be a fake job.
Does this sound like a real job?
Being a senior policy advisor at the U.S. Department of Education?
Not really.
It doesn't really sound like a real job to me.
Because don't you think you could get pretty good advice just by asking around?
Why would you even pay for that?
How much is the daughter getting paid to give advice to an entity that's never made a difference in anybody's lives?
At least in terms of the test scores.
It hasn't approved the test scores.
So, kind of good to know, the network of connections.
I love the fact that everything that's going on now with Doge is revealing the networks.
So now you can see who's connected.
You can see all the bad actors, because they all have to come out, because they're the only ones that are going to fight to protect the corruption.
Like, who else is going to argue in public?
In public?
Who else is going to argue in public to keep the corruption?
Only the benefactors.
Like, nobody else is going to make that argument.
That would be crazy, unless they're blackmailers.
So, here's some more cuts made by Doge.
Apparently, there was something called the Norwegian Refugee Council.
There's a Norwegian Refugee Council.
And they've announced...
That they're suspending their activities in almost 20 countries.
The Norwegian Refugee Council was working in 20 countries due to the USAID freeze imposed by Trump.
So USAID was paying the Norwegian Refugee Council to operate in 20 countries.
These sound like jokes, don't they?
Doesn't it sound like I just made that up?
The Norwegian Refugee Council had to close down.
Well, it gets worse.
Now that the Norwegian Refugee Council is closed, I feel like Doge is going to go after next maybe the Swedish Dingleberry Freedom Council.
Because if the Swedish Dingleberry Freedom Council doesn't get their USAID funding, how can they continue to bring their Dingleberry message to all the other countries?
Can you tell which one I made up?
Which one's not real?
The Norwegian Refugee Council or the Swedish Dingleberry Freedom Council?
Which one did I just make up?
It's called satire, folks.
Satire.
And if you were here at the beginning, you know that satire is far more damaging than regular boring criticisms that you'll see on other podcasts.
No.
Satire.
Boom.
Bringing it home.
Well, the JFK files may be fun.
Apparently, there were 2,400 undisclosed records that have now been disclosed, at least disclosed that they exist.
They're not disclosed in terms of their contents, but we expect it might be coming.
So, anybody want to place any bets on what we learned about the JFK assassination?
I'm going to put my money on nothing.
Nothing.
We're not going to learn anything.
Do you believe that the government of the United States may have been involved in assassinating a president and they left a memo about it?
There's a memo?
Oh, let's find the recordings where they were planning it.
No.
This is just a prediction.
Now, I could be wrong, which would be really fun.
I would love to be wrong.
I'd love to be wrong about this and about UFOs.
But I don't think there's any chance we're going to learn some shocking new thing about who killed Kennedy.
We might learn some shocking new things about how the government operates.
But I don't know if we're going to find out from the files who killed him.
And if we did, would you trust it?
Suppose deep down in the files, somewhere it said, We found out that it was Russia all along.
Would you believe that?
I wouldn't.
If it said, you know, we didn't want to tell the country, but it was really China.
China was behind it.
Would you believe that?
I wouldn't.
Suppose they said it was Israel.
Israel was behind it.
Well, that would be convenient, because people would be...
You know, sort of primed to believe that because that's one of the conspiracy theories you hear the most.
But would you believe it?
I might say to myself, well, that's convenient.
Kind of convenient to blame it on another country.
If you happen to be the ones that did it, wouldn't it be nice to have some other country to blame?
So even if it were true, I wouldn't believe it because I saw it in a memo that's been buried for 60 years or whatever.
How could we possibly learn anything that would be both believable and new?
I'm going to say nothing.
I think nothing's coming.
I really do.
Just nothing.
But it'll be fun.
Meanwhile, there's a report that Trump may have dispatched his special envoy, Steve Whitcoff, to Moscow.
That's based on looking at some jet action.
I guess there's a jet that he is known to be sometimes on, and maybe he's on it, and it's heading to Moscow.
So we'll wait for that.
I would expect that Trump and Putin, maybe through intermediaries, maybe not, probably are well along on negotiating.
I'll bet they're halfway there, at least.
And I think both of them want to find a solution.
But we'll talk more about Ukraine in a minute.
Meanwhile, apparently the Trump Department of Justice is dropping the charges, or recommending dropping them, which looks like it's going to work, dropping charges against Eric Adams, Mayor Adams of New York.
No relation.
So he was accused of taking illegal campaign contributions from Turkey.
And accepting $100,000 in travel and hotel perks in exchange for official acts.
Now, the things we know are that Turkey asked them when their building would be ready, and he asked the fire department, when's that building going to be ready?
Now, is that more than he would have done for any other constituent?
I hope not.
That should be exactly what he would do for every constituent.
If somebody has...
A big, expensive building, and they can't move into it in New York City, and there's a bureaucratic delay.
Is that not appropriate to talk to the mayor's office and say, hey, mayor's office, is there somebody you could talk to to get this going?
Because we'd like to bring a whole bunch of people in.
They're going to eat lunch.
They're going to spend money in your city.
Of course he should make that phone call.
Of course he should.
And then, later when he's traveling, The accusation is he got some of his travel upgraded.
Maybe a better hotel room, maybe a better seat on the plane.
Is that a crime?
Well, what do you think happens to public dignitaries no matter when they travel?
Do you think that somebody like Mayor Adams wouldn't get automatic upgrades no matter what he was doing?
And the fact that it happens in the context of somebody being happy with him doing his job as the mayor, exactly the job a mayor should do, make sure the bureaucracy is not stopping the economy, this is pretty weak stuff.
It looks like lawfare, and it happened very quickly after Mayor Adams became a critic of Biden's immigration policy, because he would be a really powerful voice, because he's a Democrat.
Running the biggest city that's the most impacted, it seemed like.
And he was dangerous, dangerous to the Biden administration because he was being honest about a real problem.
So in, I guess, dropping the charges, I think it's official by now that they've dropped them, the Trump administration would be signaling that he was a victim of lawfare.
And in their...
In their communication, they basically say that.
It's a little too sketchy that these weak charges came right after he became a critic of immigration.
It's a little too coincidental.
Now, apparently, he could still be charged in the future.
But at the moment, it looks like he'll at least have freedom to run for re-election if that's what he wants to do.
Now, how smart is it?
I assume that Trump was sort of behind it.
Even if he didn't say it directly, maybe the Department of Justice would be able to read the room and do it.
But how smart is it from Trump's perspective that this is happening?
It's perfect.
Because Trump has made the point that the charges against him were lawfare.
What could make that point better than letting a prominent Democrat Help him escape from his lawfare problems, too.
And both of them, being anti-immigration the way it's being done, or it wasn't being done, it looks like the same play.
It looks like lawfare was used against them because immigration was more important to the administration.
But it gets better because he also signed an unconditional pardon for former Illinois Governor Rod Blakovich.
Now, I don't know too much about the Blagovich story.
Some people say he was set up.
Some people, you know, obviously there are going to be two sides to the story.
But it also reinforces the idea that lawfare is being used against prominent politicians.
So now Trump has created a three-point argument.
Look what they did to me.
Look what they did to somebody on their own team just for disagreeing on just one topic.
Just one topic.
Immigration, that's it.
And then look what they did in the past to Blachowicz.
That really solidifies that lawfare argument when you can show three points.
And then in the context of it, we're watching all these, in my opinion, corrupt judges.
They act like they're corrupt.
I don't have proof of that.
They just act as corrupt people.
If you're just looking at the outcome of what they're doing, you've got to just shake your head and say, that doesn't look appropriate.
You don't have to be any kind of lawyer to know that what the judges are doing looks like a form of lawfare, right?
So not only has he made his lawfare argument about things that have happened in the past, but it's right in the middle.
Of a whole lawfare campaign against them in office.
It's very, very clever that they're making a big deal about these two cases of lawfare.
Very well done.
I'll tell you, no matter how many times I say this, it's worth saying again.
The Trump administration has really good advisors.
But I like to tell you, in every case, the boss gets all the credit.
Because the boss has to pick the advisors, and then the boss has to decide which advice to follow, which is, I would argue, the hard part.
So Trump gets all the credit, but I would be remiss if I didn't say, my God, he's getting good advice.
Musk said today on X that, I'm paraphrasing, but he basically said all the smart people are joining the Trump side of things.
And I think that's true.
I believe everybody smart is now drifting to his side.
Everybody smart.
And if you see somebody who has a high IQ, but they're not, they're still resisting, they're either getting paid, you know, it's just part of their work, and I can name lots of people who are clearly getting paid for their resistance, or they have TDS and it's literally a mental problem.
But of the people who don't have a mental problem and don't have an economic stake in being a critic, they pretty much, all the smart ones have come to the same side.
You want a good example of that?
Sam Altman says that Biden, just recently, Sam Altman just said that the Biden administration was sort of anti-business and he was happy to see him go.
And that the Trump administration is like a breath of fresh air for business, and that everybody in the Valley feels it.
Sam Altman, no matter what other problems you have about him, and we'll talk a little more about that, but whatever else you want to say, everybody agrees he's smart, and he doesn't seem to be crazy, right?
And nobody's paying him to be a Biden supporter.
Everybody's smart.
It's on the same side unless they have mental illness or they're being paid.
We really are at that point where I don't think there's an exception.
The reflexive people like Larry Summers and like that, I don't take them seriously because they're sort of deeply in the game.
But the people who are not in the game, all the smart ones are on the same side.
If you can find an exception, let me know.
I don't know of any.
There are people who are quiet, but that's different.
Anyway, as Trump just pointed out, California just finished counting the votes for 2024. What?
That's right.
Remember the 2024 election?
It seems like it was years ago, because we're moving at Trump's speed at the moment.
California just, just finished counting.
Now, they had declared the winners before because I guess they were sure it wouldn't change the result, but they were still counting.
What?
All right, so let me show a contrast between what made sense in 2020 and what makes sense today.
Do you remember 2020?
It was so long ago.
In 2020, if you questioned an American election result, you would be considered to be an election denier.
And possibly an insurrectionist.
So you might have been a Russian stooge or some kind of a traitor, but at the very least, you're an election denier.
Election deniers.
My God, just even having that opinion that our immaculate election systems could be in any way compromised?
What kind of a fool?
What kind of an insurrectionist, dangerous Russian puppet fool are you?
That's 2020. You want to fast forward to 2025 with me?
2025. Here's what that argument looks like today.
So after learning, as we have all learned, because we're following Doge, etc., so after learning that nearly every government agency is corrupt, Is that fair?
Am I going too far so far?
That we've learned that nearly, and maybe it's everyone, but we can say for sure, nearly every government organization is corrupt.
And fundamentally, not just a little bit, fundamentally.
I mean, FEMA's sending money for the immigration and then lying about it.
Apparently the people involved in that are getting fired today.
Thank you.
So once you've learned, Every major agency in the government, from Congress and then also outside the government, you've got your health care, God knows what.
By the way, did you see the study?
There was a study of 52 of the most landmark studies in cancer.
Landmark studies, meaning that everybody would look at these group of 52 studies.
And say, these are the ones that are, you know, credible and they will inform how we treat cancer.
52 of them.
So somebody tried to reproduce them.
How many of the 52 landmark healthcare studies do you think were reproducible?
11%.
89% were not real in the sense that they couldn't be reproduced.
89%.
That was driving our cancer decisions for years, if not decades.
It might have been decades.
Now, that's healthcare.
Healthcare is something you would expect would be the most free from that kind of effect.
But, in fact, it's completely marinating on it.
What about our, you know, what about finance?
You know, I could go on and on, right?
Everything looks corrupt.
So in 2025, after learning that nearly every government agency, and really every big entity everywhere, is mostly corrupt, believing that our elections are the one fair thing in that environment makes you a fucking idiot.
So let me say it again.
If you think our elections are not rigged, you're a fucking idiot.
In 2020, maybe it was a jump ball.
Maybe you had an argument, but the argument against it was seemingly winning in the public domain.
But let me say it again.
If you still think that everything in the country is corrupt, except our election systems, you're a fucking idiot.
You're a fucking idiot.
Now, that doesn't mean it is corrupt.
It just means if you believe it like it's a fact, you're a fucking idiot.
Now, do I have proof?
That it's corrupt?
Of course not.
That's not how anything works.
Do you know I didn't have proof that USAID was corrupt until five minutes ago?
I didn't have proof that FEMA was giving American money to immigrants until five minutes ago.
Right?
So, if today, knowing that, in fact, yesterday, Yesterday, I didn't know that 89% of cancer studies were fake.
Yesterday.
I didn't know that yesterday.
Well, that's a lie.
I didn't know that.
Actually, I did know that, but I knew that you didn't know it.
I've done a deeper dive than I've talked about so far.
Yeah, I knew that they were fake, or most of them.
I already knew that.
But most people didn't.
So today, in this context, When you're watching your president be law-fared by corrupt judges, do you remember when you thought, well, at least the judges in this country are usually pretty fair?
No, they're not.
No, the judges are so corrupt that they're literally shutting down the country over politics and trying to make it look like there's a law.
No, everything is corrupt.
The judges, the health care, the finance, the government, the Congress.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, USA, blah, blah, blah, blah, agencies, blah, blah, blah, the Treasury.
The Treasury wasn't even looking at the things they were spending money on.
The Social Security system didn't check multiple entries using the same Social Security number, the most basic thing you would check if you were trying to check.
Our systems are designed so you can be corrupt.
They're designed to be corrupt, and it's obvious from the design.
Nobody would build an election system like ours from scratch if what they were trying to do is have a credible, accurate system.
Nobody would build this one.
Not even close.
So, yeah, if you think that there's no chance that our elections are rigged, you're a fucking idiot.
You're just a fucking idiot.
There's just no way around that at this point.
Don't get me started on climate models.
All right, so if our elections are rigged, somebody who is an NPC is going to say, Scott, Scott, if you say the elections are rigged, watch me use satire here.
Satire, coming in hard.
Oh, Scott, oh, if you say the elections are rigged, how do you explain that Trump won in 2016?
And then how do you explain that he won again in 2024?
Scott, explain that.
Explain that.
Okay.
Too big to rig.
In 2016, the polls said he was definitely going to lose.
No rigging necessary.
Surprise!
The shy Trump supporters pulled it over the finish line.
In 2024, it literally was too big to rig.
It was just too big.
And we were watching too closely.
We knew exactly where to watch.
The observers were everywhere.
It might have been...
The closest thing to an accurate election we've had.
But of course, I assume there was a little bit of rigging going on.
So yes, you can win if you overwhelm the system.
So the way Trump overwhelmed the system with votes is the way he's overwhelming the fake media with so many stories that the media can't keep up.
So overwhelming is a strategy, and it works against corruption.
Because corruption is a little slow, and he can just overwhelm the corruption.
All right.
In other news, just because Elon Musk apparently isn't busy enough, he's making a bid for OpenAI.
So he put together some investors, and together they're making a bid to buy OpenAI for $97.4 billion.
Now, this gets a little complicated.
You might know that OpenAI was originally funded by Musk and even named it OpenAI because his intention was to make it a publicly available open source kind of AI to benefit the world.
At some point, Sam Altman and whoever else was aboard decided to turn it into a for-profit.
And team up with Microsoft and etc.
But they have not completed the transition from the non-profit to the profit model.
And apparently that is being valued at around $40 billion or something.
So while they're trying to work out the complexity and getting everybody happy with the fact that they can change from a non-profit to a profit, Which, again, is a little technical, and it's hard for me to explain the ins and outs of that.
But during that period where they're trying to make that decision, in comes a bid that would value it at way more than $40 billion, like almost, well, more than double.
So more than double.
Now, if you're on the board of directors of OpenAI, and you've got one offer for $40 billion, It's that Microsoft Sam Altman idea.
And then suddenly there's another one that comes in for more than twice as much.
Does the board have an obligation?
Well, they do have an obligation to stop what they're doing and consider it.
So considering it, I think, is built into being on the board.
I don't think they have a chance.
I don't think they have a choice of not at least voting on it and internally considering it, because that's what a board's supposed to do.
So now, either Altman's deal will have the problem of trying to decide, why doesn't Microsoft have to pay $97 billion?
Why would their investors, I don't know if it's all for Microsoft, but why would the investors, in one way, be paying $40 billion when there's somebody else who's going to pay more than twice that?
So it complicates things, and it's not clear what the entire goal is.
Because Musk has already created a whole competing AI that has the best data centers, at least, which gives you some thought that it might be the best AI at one point.
So why would he do this?
Well, some of it might be personal.
I don't know.
But he's got other investors involved, which suggests that it at least makes sense from a business perspective.
Otherwise, the others wouldn't be involved, I think.
This got really interesting.
Now, some of it looks personal, because the way Altman and Musk talk about each other is clearly personal.
And Musk calls Altman a liar, and Altman says that Musk must have some, I don't know, some problems from his childhood he's trying to work through.
So they both have this unflattering view of the other.
And it makes me wonder how much is personal.
But at the very least...
It's going to slow down open AI. So Musk is a competitor with his own AI, and he's just threw this big turd in the punch bowl.
So now they've got to figure out what to do with the punch bowl, which should slow them down a little bit, and maybe that's the second way to win.
Maybe one way to win is to buy it, and the second way to win is to slow it down.
And along with slowing it down, It might make it too expensive for their investors to get involved and might cause a whole fight over there.
So it could be that he's just causing some trouble for a competitor.
But I would think that he wouldn't do that alone, meaning that it probably makes sense from a business perspective that if they said yes and sold it, he could probably make something of that pretty quickly.
All right.
Maybe $97 billion is worth it just to get their technical staff.
You know, you remember Silicon Valley used to buy companies and then get rid of the product of the company and just keep the engineers because it was the cheapest way to buy engineers that were the best engineers.
So maybe the cheapest way to buy the best AI people is that you just overpay for the entire company and then you get the engineers.
I don't know.
Except I don't know if the engineers are working for the non-profits.
I'm not exactly sure how the structure is right now, so I can't get too much deeper.
Anyway, the thing I love about Doge, as I mentioned, is it reveals the whole network of the most corrupt people in the government.
So here are the names that are fighting the hardest to stop the reduction of waste.
Can you imagine being forced to be on the team that's favoring corruption and waste?
Because I think the entire public understands that Doge is getting rid of waste and corruption.
Now, the other team might have a whole different narrative of, oh, Musk is really trying to get power for himself, and he's...
He's really trying to make profits, so he's attacking the people who would be a problem for him and the government, blah, blah, blah.
But I think most Americans see Doge coming out every day and saying, look, we just saved you another $10 billion.
Look, just saved you another $100 billion.
Whoops, do you really want to be funding the Swedish dingleberry team?
No, we don't.
Whoops, saved you another billion.
So it seems like that's such a strong story.
And everybody is just normally...
We're all against corruption.
There's no pro-corruption except the ones who are benefiting from it.
So when you see these characters, you know that they're the worst of the worst.
The ones who are on the pro-corruption side of things.
So here's the people we see the most.
Schumer.
Adam Schiff.
Duh.
Elizabeth Warren.
Duh.
Jamie Raskin.
Now, Goldman and Maxine Waters join, of course.
Now, that's really a good indication.
If I told you that these same people were on the same side of any topic, what would you say?
Why would Schumer, Schiff, Warren, Raskin, and Goldman and Waters be on the same side?
Only when it's corrupt.
You wouldn't be able to bring together this group of people except for corruption to protect it.
So this would be a group that would argue in favor of, let's say, the 51 intel people and the laptop.
This would be the same group that would tell you that Russia collusion was real.
It's the same group that tells you that January 6th was an insurrection.
It's always the same group.
So once you realize that when this group of To me, it looks like they're obviously corrupt.
But you can draw your own conclusions.
But when you see this cast of characters, they're not really trying to be useful and helpful and honest.
They don't do that.
These are the designated liars.
The people who, the worst people, who will tell any lie.
And they'll tell it in public.
Even if they get debunked, they'll just keep telling it.
So they're the most shameless people.
And when you see them, you can know that whatever they're pushing is BS. Well, Trump has warned Hamas that the releasing of the prisoners, which had been already agreed, not all of them, but some subset, looked like Hamas was dragging their feet and they were asking for some more demands or they're complaining about Israel in some way.
So that's being slowed down.
Trump has warned that unless Hamas frees all the hostages held in Gaza by Saturday, when he says all the hostages, I think he means not just the ones that we agreed to release.
I think he means all the hostages.
He says, unless they're all freed by Saturday, that, quote, as far as I'm concerned, if all the hostages aren't returned by Saturday at 12 o'clock, I think it's an appropriate time.
You know, he just sort of randomly picks it.
I would say cancel it.
Cancel the deal that they have.
And all bets are off and let hell break out.
Now, this is what I love the most about Trump.
When he threatens somebody, he's not bluffing.
So they have to deal with the fact that it's not a bluff.
But he also didn't say exactly what he would do.
And I would argue that what he's doing is making it easy for Israel and the United States to never repopulate Gaza.
So by not accepting this, you know, weak, trickling little agreement and just putting the onus back on him completely, it's like, all right, either release them all or all bets are off.
All bets are off means you're never going back to Gaza.
Now, that's what I think they want anyway.
I think that's what Israel and probably Trump want, is that the Hamas part of the Gazans, which you can't really separate from the rest of the Gazans, at least not effectively, it'd be hard to know.
They're just not going back.
So I think the idea that they will ever resettle Gaza is kind of settled.
And if by Saturday at 12 o'clock all the...
Hostages are not back.
That's the end of any chance that Gaza will be resettled by the original, at least the recent residents.
I think this is his yes-no switch.
I think the yes-no switch is, do you want to have any chance, just any chance, of going back to Gaza?
You have until Saturday at 12 to decide.
If we don't have all the hostages back, That's dead forever.
It will never be an option.
Forever it will be done.
Now, Trump has already said that they're not going back.
But the way he says it is, it would take so long to clean it up, you don't want them to wait 10 years to go back.
Rather, they should have nice homes and nice place to live more immediately.
And so he's saying, if they're already in better homes 10 years from now, why would they leave?
Because they'll be in a better place.
And they might be there in a year as opposed to 10 years.
So that's a good argument where, you know, it's a carrot and a stick.
So the carrot is, hey, how about we put you in nice places fairly quickly?
The stick is, if we don't get all the hostages back by noon, you get nothing.
And maybe that includes not building nice houses now.
So here's what...
Here's what I think is going on.
I think the only way that the Gaza resident situation can be solved is if it gets reframed as a mental health problem.
If you took a whole bunch of people and you put them in Gaza and you brainwash them for years, that they're victims and they've got to go kill other people to make up for it.
Would you not be giving them PTSD and mental health problems?
So even if they were born with normal brains, if you just put them in one area and propagandize them and threaten them and you make them live in this bad situation and you just carpet bomb them with ideas about, it's the Jews, it's the Jews, Israel's the problem, would they not have mental health, PTSD, like genuine mental health problems, like actual health problems?
I say yes.
But we're not allowed to say that.
Because that would be sort of insulting and dismissive of thousands of years of Palestinian history.
But it's also true.
It's a mental health problem.
And you can't solve a mental health problem with a house, which is what we're trying to do.
How about we give you a house?
I have PTSD. But what about a nice house?
Still have PTSD. I still have mental health problems.
But what if it's a nice house in another country?
No?
How about a nice house sooner than it could have happened?
No.
No, the house is not the problem.
Your house is not going to fix my brain.
My brain is full of hate and PTSD, and it was PTSD before Gaza was attacked.
Before October 7th, it was PTSD. Imagine what it is now.
So here's the way.
I think you have to take a page from, I hate to say it, China.
They treat the Uyghurs like they're a virus.
I don't like that part because I don't like treating people like they're just carriers of a virus.
But it is the only thing that China thinks they can do because if they let Islam grow within China, It's not a compatible system.
So I'm not defending it because I'd love the Uyghurs to have a good life.
I'm just describing it.
So China has this, you could say, evil and cruel approach to it, but they don't have a better idea.
That's the problem.
What's the better idea?
Just let them spread Islam and have a problem down the road?
That's not a good idea.
So what could you do?
To reframe it as a mental health problem.
Well, you could start by saying, we'd love to resettle some Palestinians back in Gaza once it's rebuilt.
But it's going to take 10 years.
And during that 10 years, if anybody wants free mental health counseling, we'll provide it.
And if in the course of that mental health counseling, we determine that we've cured you, And you can see the full picture now.
You can see that sometimes Israel did some things you don't like, and maybe they really did.
But sometimes Hamas did some things you don't like, and maybe they really did.
And maybe everything's broken, and maybe it's not your fault, and maybe you don't need to go fix it.
Maybe you're a victim of the brainwashing, etc.
So the question would be, if you had hypnotists and therapists, and you said, here's the doorway.
To resettle where you wanted to live.
You've got to get through the therapists and the mental health professionals, and they have to certify that you're mentally healthy enough to live among a diverse group of people.
If you can't live in a diverse group of people, and it's because your brain won't let you, you're not ready.
So you're going to have to stay with all the other people who have the same problem because you're dangerous on the outside.
The reason we have mental institutions is because some people are just too dangerous to be on the street.
Now, do we say that those people are the bad guys?
Not really.
I mean, if you're fair about it, somebody who has extreme mental illness, if they're acting in a way you don't like...
It's hard for me to say it's their fault, except that the legal system has to hold them responsible to some degree.
But if we treat the refugees from Gaza as people who have been mentally damaged by their keepers, by Hamas, then you can treat them with compassion and you can give them a pathway to join the diverse real world.
But you also have now a perfectly good system for preventing the worst of them from ever leaving whatever area that they're contained in.
And that might be the only way to solve it.
Is it fair and does it show empathy for real human beings?
It does if you treat it like a mental problem.
It does.
Now, the trick would be that you don't want to, like, convert them to another religion.
A little too far.
But you might have to put some dents in what they believe about their current extreme version of their religion.
And you might need to bring in, you know, trained persuaders who are Islamic.
You know, ones who don't want war with anybody and have made it work to make peace.
And let the Islamic hypnotists and the Islamic therapists, if there are any, I assume there are, let them do the work.
And let them try to save the people that they can save.
But as long as you treat it as a military problem or a security problem, nobody's going home.
And nobody's going to be happy.
And there's no path.
But if you treat it as a mental problem, maybe.
Maybe some of them can be saved.
All right.
According to Tucker Carlson on his podcast, he says that he knows for sure And he's not guessing that this is a fact.
That Ukraine's military is selling up to half of U.S. arms to cartels and other bad players.
Half.
Half.
Does that sound real?
Tucker says, and he wants to be really clear, he's not speculating.
He says he knows it.
Like he's talked to the people involved.
Yeah, I know it.
Well, his contacts were a lot better than mine, so if he says that, I don't think he's lying.
Now, obviously, anybody could be wrong, but it doesn't sound like he's lying.
It sounds like he has some source that he trusts.
Doesn't mean you should trust it, but he has a source he trusts that told them, maybe more than one.
So, yeah, that's bad.
I'm trying to remember the name of the individual.
Can you put it in the comments?
I didn't know how to look him up just before I got on.
There's an ex-CIA person who has a book out, and he's been on a lot of podcasts.
He's all over social media.
He's kind of outing some of the practices of the CIA. Can you put his name in the comments?
Because some of you know who he is.
So he's got glasses.
He's been on a whole bunch of shows.
I think he's been on Sean Ryan's show, and he's been on Tucker's show, and a bunch of others.
So give me that name.
All right, I thought I'd see it by now.
If I see it go by, I'll say his name.
No, it's not Bucks.
No, it's not Mike Benz.
No, it's not one of our regular players.
It's somebody who's new.
So it, no.
Really?
Are you not watching the same?
It's not Bustamante, but that was a good guess, because he's also ex-CIA. Really?
How do you not know the name of this guy?
He's all over social media.
Not one of you knows the name?
Huh.
Yeah, all the names you're telling me are names that we all know, right?
If it's a name that we all know, it's the wrong name.
We know Scott Ritter.
We know Mike Benz.
It's not him.
It's not Ian Carroll.
Is it Elizondo?
I'm blown away.
Huh.
Weird.
Okay.
Well, anyway, if I find that, I'll tweet it or something.
But he had a story about going to Afghanistan when he was in the CIA. And he went to an area that probably used to be a food creation place, but it was all poppy fields.
And...
Boy, we don't follow directions too well.
I say it's not a name that's one of the common ones.
And the suggestion is Dan Bongino?
No, it's not Dan Bongino.
Stop guessing.
Stop it.
Stop it.
Anyway, so whoever it is, I apologize for not writing down your name, but you went to Afghanistan, saw the fields of poppies, and then asked, what's going on?
They used to be an exporter of food, but now Afghanistan is just growing these poppies.
And he was told...
Now, this is just his report.
That the reason that the U.S. is totally happy that Afghanistan is growing gigantic fields of poppies, which turns into, obviously, opioids, is because almost all of it is shipped to Iran and Russia.
And that the reason we do it is to weaken their society.
now I don't know if that's true somebody's saying John cure a cow Now, that at least fits the description of a name that you're not already all familiar with.
Is that right?
I'm not sure if it's him.
Maybe it might be Kirakow, if I'm saying it right.
Anyway, do you believe that version of it?
Do you believe that the U.S. There he is.
What's his name?
Yeah.
So here's what he looks like.
So here's the individual I'm talking about.
I'm hearing his name is John Kierakawa.
All right.
I think we're getting close.
Anyway, I apologize to you, John.
I'll get your name right.
So do you believe that?
Do you believe that the US is literally trying to destroy the social fabric of Russia and Iran by making sure that Afghanistan is sending unlimited amounts of opioids to them?
I don't know.
I'm going to put a pin in that one and say, an ex-CIA guy?
I'm not going to automatically...
I'm not going to automatically believe the person whose job was professional liar.
If your job has ever been professional liar, that's what CIA is, right?
You know, you have to put a pin in and say, I'll need a little more verification.
Not quite there.
But that's a scary one.
Apparently, the...
NOAA, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Association.
So they're the ones who are our main agency for climate change and weather and stuff.
And I guess Trump wants to cut their budget and maybe reduce their staff from 12,000 to 6,000.
Now, you know what I'm going to say.
If all of our climate change policies are driven by climate models, wouldn't it be weird if we could go years and years and years, and at least I, who watch the news and podcasts all the time, I've never seen anybody who was involved in making a climate model.
Who was asked questions about how you do it, and how reliable is it, and is your data good, and what assumptions do you put into that?
Doesn't that seem weird?
Let me say it again.
The climate models are driving trillions of dollars of expense, and they're very controversial in the sense of, you know, are they real or are they not real?
And yet, there's no news entity, no podcast.
Which has ever had somebody on say, okay, you make models.
Yours is one of the famous ones.
Tell us what assumptions went into it.
How many variables are involved?
Have you ever had to update it?
If you modified it, why did you think it was right before?
If it was right before, but then you added some new assumptions, and now you say it's right, well, you were just as confident before, before you adjusted it.
How can you be sure you're right?
Just think about all the questions that I would ask.
Yeah, we're getting a confirmation.
It's John Kiriakou.
So, sorry, John.
Anyway, so as long as the dog is not barking, and the dog is no climate model creators are ever on TV, or are ever asked the question, and they are the most important people.
Behind trillions of dollars of expense.
So instead we talk to the politicians.
Do you know what the politicians say?
Why would you ask me that question, you science denier?
And we're done here.
You tell me, can you come up with any reason that for years the news ignores the people who make the climate models?
Like there's not one of them who can talk in public to defend?
Trillions of dollars of policy?
That's the biggest dog that's ever not barked.
And how many of you didn't notice?
We act like whoever makes the models, that must be good and those must be accurate.
Now let's talk to the politicians.
No, you're making me think past the sale.
If I'm talking to the politician, I've already accepted that maybe the science was right.
But if you haven't accepted that the science is right, the climate model part, not the science in general, but just the climate models, you need to go back to that.
Let's find out if the models are right, and then we'll talk to the politicians.
But you've got to do the models first.
Nobody will do that.
Well, Trump signed some order, according to CNBC, that's going to pause enforcement of the foreign bribery ban.
So the United States made it illegal to bribe other countries for business reasons, even though the government itself bribes other countries to do coups all the time.
But it was illegal for Americans to do it, but not so illegal for other countries to do it.
So what would be the common sense way to handle that?
Okay, common sense.
All the other countries we're competing with are bribing.
Bribing is how you get anything done in some countries.
Too many of them, really.
We will be a weak, bad country if our economy fails.
And the only way to compete is by bribing people in other countries.
What would be the common sense way to handle that?
To allow bribing in other countries.
Now, I'm going to add one wrinkle.
I think it should be completely legal.
For our big companies to literally bribe.
But I would want them to have to reveal it to at least our intelligence operatives.
So, you know, you could say, well, there's a chance of leaking, but I don't think it's a big risk because it'd be legal.
You know, you'd be leaking that somebody did something that's completely legal.
But I don't think we want to publicize it.
I just think it needs to be revealed.
So there should be some, I'm going to call a half transparency, meaning that we guarantee that somebody who's important in the government knows what's happening.
So maybe it's not the intelligence people, maybe it's Congress.
Maybe there needs to be an updated list of all the bribes.
So if you've got the right, let's say, security clearance, and you just ask for it, maybe it's in a SCIF or something, you can say, oh, this company bribed this thing, this company bribed that.
I think we live in a world where, and this is speculation, so I'll take a better opinion on this if somebody has one.
I think it was necessary for America to strong-arm other countries for the past hundred years because it was the only way to control them.
But we might have reached the point where it just makes more sense to bribe the people we need to bribe and not run a coup because the coups have all kinds of, you know...
Hidden costs.
But what if you just bribe people to get into the country and stay there and make some money?
If we're at a point where bribing makes more sense than organizing a coup, then we should get rid of this prohibition about bribing.
All right.
So apparently, according to The Guardian, there was this U.S.-funded social network.
So meaning a fake social network of people who are attacking the critics of pesticides, which would include RFK Jr. And so apparently they had some kind of a private website where they would give the information of all the critics of pesticides so that you could better attack the critics of pesticides.
That's right.
Pesticides are quite popular.
I don't know what is or is not healthy about pesticides, but I can tell you that when I stopped eating all processed foods and wheat, it sure felt better.
All right.
So apparently that was at least financed by U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Did you know that you were financing a fake network of people to go after critics?
Of our poison food supply.
You are paying for somebody to criticize RFK Jr. and other people like me, because I'm also a critic of the pesticides.
So, can I go back to my earlier point?
If you believe in 2025 that our elections are not rigged, you're a fucking idiot.
Everything's rigged.
Nothing's real.
Black Lives Matter, totally artificial.
January 6th, Charlottesville, fake.
News, fake.
Yeah, the elections are the only thing that are real.
Sure.
But at least we're smarter in 2025. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what I want to talk about today.
I can feel the heavy equipment.
Outside my window.
I hope you can't hear that.
But I'm going to say hi to the locals people, the subscribers.
And subscribe to Dilbert if you want to see Dilbert joining the Doge project.
He joins Doge today.
He'll only be doing that for this week because he has to get back to his regular life.
All right.
People on X and YouTube and Rumble, thanks for joining.