Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Distorted Handgun Statistics, Overcoming Conspiracy Theories, Anti-White Discrimination, LA Fires Cleanup, Adam Carolla, Judges Block DOGE, Judicial Corruption, Governor Newsom, CA Anti-ICE Prisoner Bill, Chuck Schumer, Amaryllis Fox Kennedy, Reciprocal Tariffs, GOP vs DOGE Savings, GOP Debt Increase, John Bolton, Military DOGE, Federal Employee Buyouts, Federal Probationary Employees, DOGE, President Trump, Canada 51st State, Unilateral Military Reductions, DOGE Audits IRS, MSNBC USAID Coverage, USAID Regime Change Funding, Michael Shellenberger, Thomas Massie, Bill Burr, Chuck Schumer DOGE, Clay Travis, Anti-Masculinity Democrats, Elon Musk, Gaza Plans, Thought Reading Sensors, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topicsto build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
I don't think you can get any better than this, but...
If you want to try, you can take this experience up to, possibly, levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains.
And for that, all you need is a gupper, my girl, a glass of tanker, chelsis, dine, a canteen, a jug, 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 at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called Simultaneous Zip.
That's right.
Go.
Oh, that's so good.
So good.
All right, people.
Let's see what's in the news today besides Valentine's Day.
Everybody got big plans for Valentine's Day?
Yeah, me neither.
You know, it's not optimal to not be in a relationship.
But at the same time, it does save a lot of effort on Valentine's Day.
It's hard to get Valentine's Day wrong.
But given it's Valentine's Day, you might be interested that Gwyneth Paltrow's company, it's called Goop, that's the name of her company, Goop, they're selling a sex pillow, $200.
$200 for a sex pillow.
Now, I think the pillow is meant to give you extra control during sex with another person.
However...
There's no prohibition against having sex with the pillow itself if you don't have a partner.
So, partner, no partner, the pillow can fill in.
The only question I have is, how do you get the goop off the pillow?
Sorry, that whole thing was just a setup for that bad joke.
That's all it was.
Put it on your mind.
You can't sell a sex pillow and call your company goop and then let me just ignore that.
I'm not going to ignore that.
No.
No, that's a responsibility as a professional humorist.
I have to comment on that.
Well, there's a fascinating new study in SciPost.
Eric Nolan is writing.
You'll never guess this, but thanks to science, we know this now.
There's a study that suggests that the afterglow of sex can boost your relationship satisfaction for at least 24 hours while, and here's the surprising part, While sexual rejection creates negative effects for several days.
Huh.
Huh.
I wonder how many people they had to survey to get that answer.
Because if it was more than one guy, they worked a little too hard.
Just go to any guy.
Do you feel better about your partner after you've just had sex?
Yes.
How do you feel when your partner rejects you for sex?
Terrible.
And we're done here.
If you can find even one man who says, you know, I kind of like it when she rejects me for sex, and it's kind of creepy when we have good sex.
No, never happened.
Next time, just ask me.
I can save you a lot of time.
Well, according to the Federalist and John Lott Jr. is writing, He says that the FBI doesn't just have a transparency problem, they're actually distorting data.
Now, what kind of data would the FBI want to distort?
It's weird, isn't it?
Why would they distort data?
Well, here's an example.
The data about how many situations are solved by citizens who have guns.
Very political.
If it turns out that it's rare...
That a citizen could stop a crime or save any lives with their own personal handgun.
If it's rare, that would be maybe a strong argument for not having guns.
Some would say.
I wouldn't say that.
But if the number of people or the percentage of time that people with a handgun kept a crime or a murder from happening, if that was a big percentage, well, that would really change everything, wouldn't it?
Well, it turns out that the FBI was reporting That only about 4% of the time, the person with the handgun makes a difference.
The real number, according to whoever the CPRC is, is closer to 35% to 40%.
35% to 40% of the time, if somebody has a personal handgun, it stops a crime or prevents somebody from getting killed, except maybe the perp.
So, remember what I told you?
I told you something that is really hard for anybody to accept the first time they hear it.
And it goes like this.
All data that matters, and the matters part is important, all data that matters is fake.
And it has to be.
It's not an accident.
It's because the people who control the data always have an interest.
Always.
And so they just shave the data and change the assumptions and decide what source to use and which one not to use until they get the right answer.
It's always the foxes counting the chickens.
If you're going to have the foxes count the chickens, don't tell me that it's accurate.
Who trusts the foxes to count the chickens?
No.
It's never accurate.
The only stuff that's accurate is when nobody really cares one way or the other.
Then it might be accurate.
Even that's probably sketchy.
So, a perfect example of that.
Even the FBI faking data, or at least using the data they like.
Well, according to an Irish study, the Irish Examiner, Sean Murray is reporting that the methods that they tested to reduce people's belief in conspiracy theories have no effect.
Now, if I hear that a bunch of researchers Tried to deprogram people from their conspiracy theories and it didn't work.
You know, the first thing I think is, well, whose method did they use?
Was it a professional persuader who tried to talk people out of their conspiracy theories?
Or was it somebody who doesn't know how to do it?
If you put me in the study and said, all right, we're going to see if Scott specifically can talk people out of their conspiracy theories.
I think you'd find that I would do better than average, because it's something I've studied, right?
Specifically, I'm a trained hypnotist, and I write about and talk about and use persuasion all the time.
So, in theory, if it could be done at all, I'd be a little better at it than a person who doesn't practice.
But there's a bigger problem.
Did you see it?
What's the bigger problem when you're running a study?
To see if you can talk people out of believing conspiracy theories.
It's sort of a built-in problem.
It kind of assumes that the researchers know what is true and what isn't.
And you know what?
How do they know?
How do they know what's true?
Because if they had the wrong opinion, their own research showed that they wouldn't know it because you couldn't talk them out of it.
So if the researchers thought something was true that wasn't, Or something was untrue that was true, how would they know?
Since their own research showed you can't change anybody's mind if they're wrong about a conspiracy theory.
So it looks like nonsense to me.
Total nonsense.
Here's a few stories in a row that kind of make a picture.
So Fox News is reporting.
David Spector is writing.
There's a former Marvel executive.
You know, the Marvel superhero universe.
So the Marvel executive is suing Disney because he was allegedly denied a promotion for being an old white guy.
Now, here's the fun part.
The reason he knows he was denied a promotion for being an old white guy is they said, we can't promote you because you're an old white guy.
They told him directly.
So, lawsuit.
Now, Here's what black Americans have never understood about what you call, I don't know, reverse racism or just racism, I guess.
They don't believe that when white men are told they can't be promoted, and this has been true for decades, because remember, it was decades ago that I was told, in direct language, you're a white male, you cannot be promoted here.
And then I changed companies, and the next company told me the same thing.
Direct words.
No beating around the bush.
Said it just that directly.
This has been happening all over the country for decades.
And the white men just don't talk about it in public because if they do, you know what happens?
The black men call them mediocre.
Say, no, you're lying.
You didn't get the promotion because you're a mediocre white man.
That's what happened to me.
The black citizens poured into my comments and said, well...
No, you're lying.
They didn't tell you that directly.
You just are sore because you didn't get the promotion because you're a mediocre white man.
In other words, they were really racist.
Meanwhile, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey is suing Starbucks because they have some kind of a race and sex based Hiring practice, which would be, of course, illegal.
So now you've got Disney, which is actively discriminating against white men.
You've got Starbucks being sued for actively discriminating against white men.
And then you've got Goldman Sachs that just decided to scrap its policy that said it wouldn't help take a business public if they had an all-white board members.
So they said, you've got to have some diversity and you've got to have at least one woman on the board or we won't work with you.
Which is, of course, racial discrimination and gender discrimination.
And the good news is that they changed.
So they're not going to be that way.
But here's the bad news.
I'm not going to forget that.
If you think you can just change from discriminating against white men to not.
No, I'm not going to forget it.
You know, I don't have any business to do with Goldman Sachs, but fuck every one of you.
You can drop dead.
All right.
Adam Carolla is talking about the progress in cleaning up the L.A. fires.
Guess what the progress is in cleaning up the L.A. fires and getting rid of the debris and moving people back in?
Doesn't appear to be any, according to Adam Carolla.
Who's got a house there.
He says, remarkably, no progress has been made in the cleanup.
No, his actual words are, quote, zero attempt at cleaning.
Now over a month.
No cleanup attempt.
No official government website you can go to for any kind of timeline when the power is going to be on.
When can you get back to your place?
The answer is no GD idea.
Now let's compare that.
This is California's performance.
Now, let's compare that to Doge.
Doge is already spinning up a website in which they will be reporting everything they're doing.
It's all going to be there.
It's already up.
So, Doge consistently does the thing you expect and want them to do, and California seems to only be able to fail.
It's like we don't have...
As a state, we have no capability of doing anything.
And I think it's always the same problem.
I think it's the state just necessarily needs to inject corruption into every big move.
And cleaning up LA is a big move.
They probably are just holding out for diversity and getting their cronies the jobs and figuring out some way to monetize this for the government itself.
So I don't trust anything about the California government.
They have not earned any trust.
I assume that the reason it's not happening rapidly is just pure corruption.
It could be incompetence, but I bet it's corruption.
And the corruption is they're trying to figure out, okay, how are we going to make it look like it's not corruption in all it is?
I think that's probably what's slowing them down.
I have no trust whatsoever in my state government.
Well, here's a story that I seem to wake up to every single day.
It's like Groundhog Day.
Here's the story.
There's a federal judge who blocked something that Doge wants to do.
How many times has that story been in the headline?
How many times has some judge done that?
So, here's what it should say.
Presumed crooked judge blocks Doge progress.
Now, we don't know that they're all crooked.
It seems like it takes about a minute to figure out that somebody bought their appointment or their daughter or their wife is working on something with USAID or there's just some nefarious connection or they've got a history of being, you know, a rogue judge.
These are not normal judges.
And one of the things that Elon Musk says is if any judge anywhere...
Can stop anything that Doge does?
Doesn't matter where the judge is, anywhere in the country?
He says, you don't really have a government.
If any judge anywhere can stop, really, it'd be stopping Trump, the president.
And that's a good point.
How can we have a government when people who are not elected, you know, these appointed judges, I think mostly they're appointed, can stop anything from happening?
And they can just keep doing it all day long.
So somehow we have to figure out how to get freedom from the crooked judges.
Destroying their reputation seems like a good start.
But only if it is honestly destroyed.
As if they have a conflict of interest and they're not admitting to and not recusing themselves.
Yeah, you have to go after that pretty hard.
So I don't know what can be done.
But we can't run a country if corrupt judges can stop everything.
You just can't.
So I would love to hear an alternative.
You can't even impeach them because you need two-thirds and there's no way you're going to get that.
So I don't know.
Governor Newsom made what's being called an about-face, according to the New York Post.
So California governor, he's ready to veto a bill that's coming from his own party that would force the prison system in California to keep them from cooperating with ICE, the immigration people.
So there is a bill in California that says the prison system can't coordinate with the people who want to deport the non-documented immigrants.
But the good news is, Newsom's going to say no.
Now, is that because he's preparing to run for president and he's just trying to look like he's a little bit interested in the border?
That's what it looks like.
Because otherwise, I thought he was all in on spending $50 million to, you know, Trump-proof the state.
But if instead of Trump-proofing it is making it easier for the immigration people, I don't know.
Now, I have the voice of Mike Cernovich in my head reminding us not to say good things about Democrats who can't be trusted whatsoever, even if they get one right.
So don't be too excited.
If a Democrat gets one right, it doesn't mean anything.
You still can't have him in charge.
Well, of course, RFK Jr. got...
Fully nominated.
He got approved.
He got all the votes he needed.
It was tight.
But J.D. Vance made up the difference, and he's in.
What did Schumer say about that?
So Chuck Schumer goes in public.
Kelly Means pointed this out.
He goes in public and he says, just minutes before the vote for RFK Jr., Schumer said, The RFK wasn't qualified because he was never a pharmaceutical or insurance company executive, as the other former Health and Human Services secretaries were.
Did he really say that in public?
He said in public that the head of the chicken coop should be a fox?
Really?
We'd like to put a fox in charge of the chicken coop?
No.
No, maybe not.
Don't put the fox in charge.
Maybe somebody who's exactly the opposite of a pharmaceutical or insurance company executive, like RFK Jr. Yeah, how about the opposite of that?
Is there anything that Democrats can get right?
They actually are on record wanting somebody who would be the worst choice.
You know, even generically, somebody who's a pharma executive.
That's the problem, not the solution.
You can't tell the difference between the problem and the solution.
No, that's the problem, that they're too connected to pharma.
Weird.
All right.
Here's a thing I didn't know about.
Did you know that President Trump appointed RFK Jr.'s daughter-in-law to be part of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board?
Now, that's interesting because...
Amaryllis Fox Kennedy is her name, middle name Fox.
She's a former CIA officer.
She left in 2010 because she was disillusioned by the corruption within the CIA. Now, how much do you love the fact that somebody who is disillusioned by the corruption of the CIA is now on Trump's Presidential Intelligence Advisory Board?
I like it.
She must know where the bodies are buried.
I like it.
That's good news.
She wants massive intelligence reform.
Well, Trump's going to put on the reciprocal tariffs today.
I assume he's also doing some targeted ones, but it's a little unclear.
So the reciprocal tariffs are that if any company or any country is tariffing us, he will tariff them back.
In the same exact amount.
Now, I don't know if that really works.
Because usually they pick our, you know, tariffs are usually strategic to an industry where there's some imbalance in the industry.
So I don't know if that works.
But on paper, it makes sense.
And I think Dana Perino said this on The Five.
The whole tariff thing, we don't, as individuals, we probably don't know where it's going.
But it's going to be real fun to watch.
So that's kind of where I'm at.
I'm like, hmm, reciprocal tariffs.
And then I search my brain bank for whether that's a good idea or a bad idea.
And I end up with, I don't know.
I don't know.
You know, I know a little bit about economics and business.
I mean, that's my educational background.
But I don't know.
I have no idea where that ends up.
But I do like he's pushing the button.
I do like he's messing with it.
So something probably could come out of it.
One of the things that Trump does right, and just consistently right, is he'll shake the box when there's something that's not quite working.
Doesn't mean he knows how to solve it.
But shaking the box is usually the best first thing.
So this reciprocal tariffs, everybody gets a tariff, you're not exempt.
That's a pretty big box shake.
So it might turn into a bunch of little negotiations with countries that maybe give us some advantage.
Maybe not.
Maybe it's all we need.
Maybe just keep it simple.
You tariff us, we tariff you, end the story.
I don't know.
So I'm going to wait and see on this one.
Could be good.
Meanwhile, the House budget, now this is the budget that's been pushed forward by the House.
The Senate still has to weigh in.
But it's a $4.5 trillion budget.
And it extends the 2017 tax cuts for 10 years.
I like that part.
And it's going to be, let's say, but it also increases the debt ceiling by $4 trillion.
So does that mean that the debt is going to go up $4 trillion?
Or are they just thinking ahead?
And it might be, you know, $1 trillion per year, which would still be bad.
But it might get to $4 trillion.
So all this work with Doge, but at the same time, we're looking at raising the debt ceiling by $4 trillion.
Can anybody explain what's going on here?
Because I don't understand.
And again, I'm somebody who watches news every single day.
You know, I like dive into things pretty deeply.
I have no idea.
No idea what's going on here.
But it doesn't look good.
It says they would try to get their congressional committees to find at least $1.5 trillion in spending cuts.
Really?
Are those committees going to do something that Doge isn't doing?
How does any of this fit in with Doge?
Are the Doge numbers already baked into these estimates?
Or do they fix them later when the doge cuts become more transparent and we know what's going on?
This doesn't make sense.
It looks to me, and I'd love to be wrong, but it looks to me like Republicans are going to drive up the deficit and that they know it and that they've just all agreed to do it.
What world am I living in?
You know, the first time I brought this up, I got a little heated about it.
But I decided, let me back off a little bit.
I want to see what Elon says.
Because he's better at math than I am.
If Musk says, yeah, you know, the budget that they passed out of the house makes sense.
Because if you consider the doge cuts, everything's going to work out.
Maybe.
I would love to hear him say that.
But so far...
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Elon Musk has been silent on this, has he not?
I haven't seen a comment.
If Musk is silent about the budget that the Republicans have passed, that could only mean one thing.
Because Musk is not silent on anything that is big and matters.
And what would matter more than this?
I mean, if you're working on cost-cutting...
And then the Republicans are working on making it all a waste of time because they spent the money you saved.
This is what I think is going on.
I fear that Congress is so broken that when they hear that Musk can find a way to cut a trillion dollars out of the budget, instead of saying, yes, let's bank that reduction and that'll reduce our deficit.
Here's what I think.
I think our politicians, both Republican and Democrat, say, Oh, we just got another trillion dollars.
And then they go to spend it, which is the opposite, the opposite of what you should be doing.
But that's what it looks like.
It looks like they're taking the doge cuts as a way to spend money on other things in the same amount as the cuts.
Now, I'm just saying it looks like it.
I'm not saying that it is.
So can somebody in the government who's good at explaining stuff, could be J.D. Vance, Could be Elon Musk.
Could be, you know, Vivek, if he's dug into it enough.
I want somebody smart to give me a whiteboard and say, this is what we're going to spend.
This is what we're going to cut.
Here's how Doge works into it.
Here's your deficit for one year.
And then this is the deficit as it will go forward.
You need to tell us that.
Because, correct me if I'm wrong, if I don't understand it, As much time as I put into understanding things like this, and I have a background in this domain, if I can't understand it, there's no way that the average, barely interested person understands it.
So yeah, we need some help on this one, please.
So I'm going to give a little grace period, and I'm going to back off of my heated, cursing anger over this, because I might be wrong.
I might be wrong.
It's happened before.
So I'd love to find out I am.
Well, John Bolton is in the news.
I love the fact that once you know the players, then when they talk, everything makes sense.
But not until you know the players.
So John Bolton says that Trump is a Russian agent working for the Kremlin, or at least he acts like it.
He acts like a Russian agent working for the Kremlin, and maybe he is.
Would it surprise you to know that John Bolton used to be involved in USAID? There are no coincidences.
Bolton was part of USAID. Or he got funded by it, or somehow he was involved with it.
So, how many of you think that Trump is an agent of the Kremlin?
I don't think so.
Well, one of the things that Trump's getting done is that the military, in anticipation of Doge coming for them, are putting together their own list of things to cut.
Now, I don't trust it.
I don't trust it.
But it's interesting that they're trying to get ahead of it.
So apparently there's some weapon systems that even the military thinks they don't need.
You know, they might be outdated or whatever.
And so they're putting together a list of outdated drones and vehicles and things that you could cut billions of dollars to.
Now, I think it's a trick because they might want to be trying to head off Doge.
It's like, oh, Doge, yeah, you don't really need to dig into this.
We've already done the work for you.
Thanks for setting us on the right track.
We've already found $20 billion to cut out of the budget.
We're good.
But Doge...
Might find a lot more than $20 billion.
So I don't trust the military finding their own cuts because it's never worked before.
It's probably more of a trick than an actual good thing.
But we'll see.
So the Trump administration's buyout offer to get rid of government workers, I think they're hoping to get 100,000 people to sign up for the early package to leave their work.
But they got 75,000 so far.
I don't know if the window closed yet, but 75,000, that's pretty good.
If you're shooting for 100 and you get 75, that's really good.
Because how in the world could you estimate how many people will take an offer?
If you estimated it this well, you said 100 and you got 75, that's pretty impressive.
I don't know.
If you've never done this kind of work, Where you're estimating things that are impossible to estimate.
This is kind of impressive if you got within 25,000.
So that's good.
That's reported by Dylan Burroughs at RSBN. But the other thing the Trump administration is doing is getting rid of what they call the probationary employees.
So I guess if you get a job with the government, I don't know if this applies to the whole government.
But you're on a first-year probationary period.
So if you don't work out in the first year, then I guess it's easier to fire you.
So after the first year, there might be some protections that kick in, make it harder.
So they make sure that the first year, you've got plenty of time to find out if you're bad at your job, and they can get rid of you.
But the Trump administration will use that same fact to find the people who just joined.
And they're typically the easiest to fire for a variety of reasons.
Now, you might say to me, Scott, the reason they hired these people is because they needed them.
Yes, that's true.
And let me say again, the Doge process does assume that they will cut too much.
It's just built into the process.
It's not a mistake if they cut too much.
It's the process.
So the only way you can tell what really matters...
Just to get rid of it and see how loud the yelling is.
There is no other way.
If you think you can study it and then scientifically and surgically get rid of only the important stuff, you know, you're only removing the tumor, but the healthy skin around it is left intact.
That's not a thing.
That's not a thing.
Nobody can do that.
It's just not doable.
And no company would do that.
They would do exactly what Elon's doing.
They would cut too far and too fast.
And then when the yelling started, they'd say, whoa, whoa, what'd you say?
And they'd listen to it.
And if they had a good argument, they'd put it back.
Let me tell you what happened when I was working for Crocker National Bank in San Francisco.
And it was about the time that Wells Fargo was doing a takeover.
So Wells Fargo was going to take over that bank.
Now, it happened to be, just by luck, That was one of the times I got told that I could never be promoted because I'm a white male.
So I had just quit, just at the same time that Wells Fargo bought my former employer.
And what they told all the employees, because I stayed in touch, of course, what they told all the employees is, don't worry about losing your job, because we're going to look at each individual employee and each individual duplication of effort.
Because two banks, if you put...
Two banks together, you have all kinds of duplication.
So they said, don't worry.
If you're one of the good ones, you'll be still with a combined entity, but you'd only have to worry if you're bad at your job.
So that made it easy, because everybody thinks they're good at their job.
So nobody complained in advance too much, because they're like, oh, well, I'll be fine, because I'm good at my job.
So then the transaction goes through.
Do you know what the first thing Wells Fargo did after the transaction was complete?
They simply eliminated completely everybody working in the duplicate areas of the company they bought.
All of them.
They got rid of all of them.
And they just said, we already have people who do that, and we're the winning company.
We're the company that bought you.
You're the company that got bought.
The company that got bought, you just lost all of your duplicated stuff.
You're all unemployed, and we'll just keep all of our people.
So it was a complete lie.
It was a big lie.
Super lie.
But some of us were smart enough to know they're not going to be able to talk to every employee and sort out which ones to keep and then combine these two weird departments that aren't exactly the same.
Of course they're just going to fire the people in the acquired bank.
Of course they are, and sure enough.
Now, it didn't bother me because, like I said, I just left to another company.
But, yeah, there's only one way to do this.
You cut too far, you make drastic cuts, and then you adjust if you need to.
No other way to do it.
And it's also common to get rid of first-year employees.
That's not unusual.
Well, Trump has, again, He got outside of the box when he was talking about the military budget, and he suggested that the U.S., Russia, and China could possibly all agree to cut our mutual budgets by half.
Now, the first time you hear that, you just laugh at it.
You go, okay.
Nobody can convince their adversary to cut their budget by half, and you're certainly not going to convince.
China, who would like to become the dominant world power, militarily, economically, and every other way, you're not going to get them to cut their budget, right?
That's the same thing I thought when Trump said, let's make Canada a state.
And I said to myself, okay, that's not real.
He's just playing with them.
Maybe it's a negotiation.
Maybe he would like to do it, but clearly that's never going to happen.
But already, It looks like it's possible.
The candidate becoming a 51st state, I still wouldn't bet on it.
If I had to bet, I'd bet against it.
But watching it go from a ridiculous idea to, huh, how would that work?
I'm a little bit interested.
And then it turns out, I don't know how official this is, but I have it on good authority that if you're not looking at the politicians and you're talking to the public, There's a lot of openness in the Canadian public because Trump says there would be benefits for you.
I could lower your taxes, tariffs would go away, you'd be well protected.
And the Canadians are looking at their own government and saying, okay, under normal circumstances, this would just be insulting.
Under normal circumstances.
But they can see that their own government is so...
Toxic.
That whatever it took to get rid of their own government looks like a good deal.
Become a state?
Yeah.
If we can get rid of this government, because the government is destroying us.
So Trump took the Canada 51st state from the most ridiculous idea that maybe you've heard in 10 years to already it's, I don't know, maybe we should flesh this out a little bit.
What exactly would it look like?
Maybe we should suggest some kind of a poll in Canada to get some real numbers, see how close we are.
Now, to me, that's just mind-blowing.
It's just mind-blowing that that could go from crazy, ridiculous to maybe.
I don't know.
I wouldn't rule it down.
And so that's the context in which I give you Trump saying that you can reduce the military budget of the three big powers.
First impression?
Come on.
They're not going to do that.
That'd be ridiculous.
Here's my second impression.
Because I'm already up to my second impression.
If you wanted to do something really big, there's never been a better opportunity.
So I'm going to throw out just some ideas.
These are the bad ideas.
So nothing I say should be taken too seriously.
It's just to get your mental process.
Working at a different level.
The weird thing about Russia, China, and the United States that I think makes us all unique is not one of those countries would ever want to attack the mainland of one of the other countries.
China would never want to attack Russia or the United States.
The United States would never want to attack mainland Russia like with an invasion or something, or mainland China.
It would be crazy.
Now, has that ever been true in history?
I don't know that it has.
We have a situation where the only border is China and Russia, and I don't see any chance that either one of them wants to change that border.
That's not even a conversation.
So what happens if you've got three powers that coincidentally all have the same problems?
This is where it gets fun.
All three countries have the same problems.
One is demographic.
China's got a big demographic.
Lots of old people, not enough young people.
It's almost unsolvable.
It's like doom heading their way.
United States?
Much the same.
We've got that demographic problem.
Russia?
Demographic problem.
So we've got a bunch of countries that are going to have severe economic problems.
And you could argue that we all three already do.
It's harder for us to know exactly what's happening in Russia or China because the information is not reliable.
But there's good reason to think that they might have as much debt problems as we do, growth problems as we do.
We might be in a very similar situation.
The only thing you need is a common enemy.
What if you had a common enemy?
That's really the only way you can get adversaries on the same page, common enemy.
And you know how Trump started out with, when he talked to Putin, he said, yeah, we talked about the history of World War II, which was the cleanest example of Russia and the United States being on the same team for a while.
And it worked out.
Saved the world, in a sense.
So if we could find a way to be on the same team, there might be something here.
It might not be crazy.
So imagine if we could say this.
And again, these are not good ideas.
So when you jump on me and say, but you forgot this, you forgot that.
I know.
I know.
These are not good ideas.
It's just to sort of deepen the thought.
Suppose Trump said to the other big countries, how about this?
Forget about the United Nations.
Why don't the three of us agree that we'll never, under any circumstance, Invade or attack the homeland of the other.
Now, I think they would all say, yes, yes.
If there's any way we could make that happen, yes.
We will never attack the homeland.
All of our problems are about smaller countries.
There's Taiwan, there's Ukraine, there are other countries on the border of Russia, probably some other areas on the border of China.
And then the U.S. has its own interests, Greenland and Panama.
Maybe Canada.
And could it be that they could reach an agreement?
Now, this will scare you, but could it be that we'd reach an agreement where we'd say, all right, all of the remaining property disputes, let's just settle them right now.
Let's just say if Taiwan's your next-door neighbor and there's no doubt where it's going in the long run, why don't we just say, all right, Taiwan is yours.
No, not today.
Not today.
The very minimum we need to do is get the chip-making facilities out in Taiwan.
But suppose we said, why don't we make a 100-year plan, and that at the end of 100 years, Taiwan and China will be the same country.
Because in 100 years, there's going to be AI and changes and robots, and who knows if the chips will even be made there anymore, and everything will be different.
So nobody really worries about 100 years.
But suppose you just say to China, we don't want to fight you, but if you go in and get rid of our chip access, we have to.
So let's just take it off the table.
Let's just say, for 100 years, we absolutely will not fight over Taiwan.
And at the end of 100 years, you guys work it out.
I'm not saying that it gets absorbed, but you guys work it out in 100 years.
Now again, it's not a great idea.
It's not a great idea.
I'm just helping you think it through.
Then suppose we said, each of us have our own interests.
So why don't we just take care of our most local interests?
So we'd say, you guys don't fight with us over Greenland or Panama.
And China, maybe you should, you know, put a smaller footprint on South America.
Because Monroe document, you know, the Monroe doctrine, I mean, says, you know, this is sort of our domain over here.
But in return, we'll stay in a year business, as long as it doesn't go crazy in Taiwan too soon.
And then you say to Russia, all right, what's your biggest problem?
Now, here's the trust problem.
You think they're going to try to take over all their neighbors, and of course they might.
So could you say, how about if we can just at least solve Ukraine and agree not to move NATO any closer?
How about if we do that?
Could you get a deal on that?
Maybe.
Maybe.
You'd have to do something to make sure they didn't use, you know, their, let's say, their clever ways to take over the governments that they want to take over on their borders.
But I feel like if you made it zero risk of them being attacked by NATO, which you could do, I think you could get down to it.
If you get down to zero risk that NATO wants to attack you, then suddenly their need to control the other countries goes way down.
It goes way down.
So could you do some big deal where you just settle everything at the same time and some of them just have a long-term plan and others maybe don't need a long-term plan?
Now, then you say, look, we also have a common enemy.
I hate to put it in those terms, because I'm not talking about Islam in general, because there are plenty of moderate, excellent Islamic people.
But the radical version of Islam, which can spread if you let it, is a mutual risk to all three of the big countries.
So China, Russia, and the United States all have an interest in keeping the radicalized part of Islam controlled.
So you say to them, we work together to take care of that.
And we also do something to work together to worry about our demographic problem, perhaps.
Maybe something about our debt problems that are the same.
And the best way to get rid of your debt problems would be to reduce your military expending by half.
So as crazy as it is to imagine that we would negotiate with adversaries about cutting their budget for the military.
You know, and you'd expect both sides would cheat and they would hide their budget in secret places or it looked like they cut it, but they didn't.
You know, that would be a real problem.
But could you get to the point where China, Russia, and the United States feel like they're on the same team?
Meaning that if China destroyed the United States, they would lose their biggest customer, but they would also lose their ability to control external risks, such as radical Islam.
Could you find a way that we just feel like we're the three horsemen of the future, and that we do have a responsibility to keep the smaller countries operating, and make sure that we all have access to resources as needed in and make sure that we all have access to resources as needed in the And maybe the old United States that was very colonizing, And we like to control other countries.
As Mike Benz says, you know, if you don't control the small countries, you can't make pencils.
Because we don't make pencils in the United States.
Just one example.
So you have to sort of control other markets so you have access to the raw materials.
What if we didn't?
What if the world has changed and you don't need to overthrow a country?
Just have access to their minerals.
You just make an offer.
If China has a better offer, they get it.
If we have a better offer, we get it.
But maybe, we say, if it's in our universe over here, maybe you guys can't be part of that.
But there should be places where everybody can get everything.
You can get your raw materials for anything.
So, the question is, can Trump do something that big?
And I'll just remind you, That things that didn't seem possible before suddenly look a lot possible.
Now, I'll tell you what the bad guys are saying about Trump talking to Russia.
They're already saying, oh, he's a Russian puppet, you know, sort of the John Bolton thing.
They're already saying about Ukraine that if Trump decides that the current borders are what will be the final borders, And that NATO doesn't include Ukraine in the future, that would look like giving Russia everything they want, which would look like Putin winning, which would embolden him.
You don't want to embolden your adversary.
And I say, that's the wrong frame.
I don't care if Putin thinks he wants.
I only care what I want.
Why do I care what other people want?
I care what I want.
What I want is the Ukraine war to be over so that there's no argument about the border countries.
We're not sending you money.
Nobody's dying.
That's what I want.
If we decide that NATO will not include Ukraine, that's what I want.
I want that.
So why are we talking about what Putin wants?
Let's just get what we want.
Everybody who's talking about Putin winning and getting everything he wants, why do you even care what he wants other than negotiating?
But your happiness can be disconnected from his happiness.
I just want what I want.
I want to be out of this war and not pay for it.
I don't care about the rest.
Not really.
So, yeah, the first reframe is don't care what Putin feels he won or didn't win.
You only just...
Just get what you want as a taxpayer.
Anyway, I guess there's some fake news in the Wall Street Journal.
Somebody's suggesting that Vance means that under some conditions, the U.S. military would get involved in Ukraine.
What Vance did say was that all options are on the table, which we always say, right?
So I think that was taken out of context.
All options on the table is just what we always say.
Because it makes sense to always say it.
It doesn't mean we want to put military there.
That's not going to happen.
Anyway, according to the Daily Mail, Health and Human Resources spent $22.6 billion giving migrants cars, homes, and credit cards from 2020 to 2024. Cars, homes, and credit cards?
Now, I think what that means is help them get home loans.
Made it legal for them to own a car.
Maybe there's some financial help.
Stuff like that.
But it looks like they were putting America last, if you know what I mean.
But here's what I would caution you.
I think we've seen already that some of the early claims about who spent money on what have been so easily debunked.
For example, the condoms to Gaza were really condoms to Mozambique.
Now, I agree that we should cut it no matter where it was going, but the original report had even the wrong country, which is a pretty big deal.
And, you know, it goes from giving condoms to terrorists to helping reduce the spread of AIDS in a country that doesn't have the resources to help itself.
I mean, that's a pretty big difference to know where it was aimed at.
But again, I would be against that spending either way.
And let's see, we saw the Reuters story.
There was a story that Reuters was being paid by our government for massive information deception.
They used different words, but it was right on the invoice.
And people jumped to the assumption that we were paying.
To have Reuters brainwash people.
I think the real story was that Reuters was being paid, or some element with the name Reuters.
Somebody said it's a different company than Reuters, the news agency, but it might be the same parent company.
I'm not clear on that.
But I think the real story was they were being paid to study it.
Now, studying it's real different than doing it.
You would study it.
To try to reduce it happening.
That's the opposite of paying for somebody to do it.
Now, do I think we should have had huge expense to study that?
No.
The expense is still wrong and not really supportable in my personal opinion.
But I think you've seen enough examples now where the original reporting of how crazy it is about some expense Don't assume these are true.
I think you can assume the big picture.
There are crazy expenses that we can get rid of most of them.
That's true.
But when you see these really just too on the nose, like condoms to Gaza, to Hamas, that was way too much on the nose.
Like, you should have spotted that right away.
I think I did.
I think I called that out as a, you know, don't believe this one.
Just don't believe all the stories, but they might be useful for making the case.
But don't believe them.
Doge apparently has penetrated the IRS. I don't know how much money or corruption they're going to find in the IRS, but I'm very interested.
So I love the fact that the IRS is being audited.
We went from the IRS is going to audit you.
We've got 85,000 people to track you down.
All the way to, how about we audit the IRS? Yeah, how about that?
So that makes me happy.
I saw Jon Stewart on his podcast talking to Jen Psaki.
And he had a really interesting question, which suggested his own thought process.
And he asked her, does management at MSNBC tell you what to say?
Because she has a show on MSNBC. And she said, no.
No, they don't tell us what to say.
No.
No, we have independence.
So we just look at the news and decide what to say.
Now you might say, really?
And then every one of you decides on the same take.
So you all independently, just all by yourselves, came up with exactly the same take on every story.
Because they never vary.
They all have the same take on every story.
And even Jon Stewart wasn't buying it.
So I think he was willing to accept that leadership does not give them a memo every day, say, cover this this way.
And I think that's true.
But he pointed out that Roger Ailes also did not tell people what to write.
But they all kind of agree on Fox News, don't they?
There's not going to be anybody on Fox News who comes out against Doge.
Or against Trump being president?
And as Jon Stewart pointed out, you don't need to tell people what to do.
They know what their audience is.
They know what the other people are going to say.
They know what they can say to fit in where they work.
You don't need to tell them specifically.
They're just sort of working out with each other.
So even Jon Stewart...
He seemed to be suggesting, although he didn't say it directly, but his line of questioning suggested that he thinks that MSNBC is part of the problem, meaning that it's such obviously propaganda that you can't not notice it.
Can't not notice it.
So he was actually, without using the words, he was basically accusing them of being worthless propaganda, but politely.
And I wonder if Jen Psaki believed what she was saying, that they have independence, and just coincidentally all have the same opinion.
I don't know.
Anyway, let's check and see how did MSNBC cover the USAID story?
Well, if they were independent, I would expect they would cover it.
In all of its elements, they hit every variable, so you have a good understanding of both sides of that story, if they were real news.
Let me ask you, if you watch MSNBC, when they covered USAID, did they ever give you the Mike Benz version of the world?
You know, the one where USAID has never been a real charity?
It's always been only, only.
Not in addition to, but only a statecraft tool for overthrowing other countries or at least controlling them.
Do you think the MSNBC ever fully fleshed that out, even if they said it's not true?
Because how in the world do you have a story this big, the main headline story, and not mention what the other argument is?
I don't think they've ever mentioned it.
They're treating it like it's a bunch of charities, and people are going to die if you cut off their funding.
They already have some example of somebody who was cut off of oxygen and died.
I don't believe the story, but, you know.
So, no.
If MSNBC doesn't even cover not just the other side of the story, but the really, really important part of the story, they're not news.
So don't imagine that they are.
Well, Thomas Massey, Representative Massey, had Michael Schellenberger in to talk to some part of Congress.
And Michael Schellenberger says about that, he said that USAID, this is him not at the event, but talking about it on X later, he said USAID said it was a charitable group.
It wasn't.
It was a tool for regime change.
After 2016, it turned its guns inward.
In 2019, a front group it created fabricated the evidence used by the CIA and moles in the White House and House Democrats to impeach Trump.
That's treason.
Now, you could say, but that didn't happen.
You know, if you had some evidence that didn't.
But how does MSNBC not cover it?
Isn't it just screamingly obvious?
They're not going to have Michael Schellenberger on to question his thinking.
They're not going to have Mike Benz on to say, all right, we've got some different opinions, but we want people to hear yours so we can have somebody debunk it or something.
Nope.
They'll just act like there's only one opinion.
It's a charity.
And mean old Trump is cutting the charity and children will die.
Thomas Massey.
He said at the event, I think.
He said, maybe this was on X. No, it was at the event.
He said, USAID funded an organization that fabricated evidence which was used to impeach President Trump, which is what Schellenberger said.
And the deep state frequently funds regime change efforts abroad.
But when it uses taxpayer money to undermine our own government, isn't that treason?
So we have a member of our own government who's looking at a...
Part of our government that we know a lot more about this week than we did last month.
And he's saying, if you just look at what they did, just on the surface, they used taxpayer money to try to impeach an American president in a totally illegitimate effort, using the same tools that we use to run coups in other countries.
Isn't that treason?
And the answer is, hell yes!
Hell yes, it's treason.
This is not a debatable point.
How could it not be treason?
Of course it's treason.
It's the most treasonous thing you'll ever see in your life.
Meanwhile, Bill Burr, the comedian, he's got a podcast, and apparently he said he went off on billionaires, and he suggested that they were like rabid dogs who need to put down.
So he believes that the billionaires are the reason that there are poor people.
You know, I'm summarizing him.
These are my words, not his.
But he thinks that if the billionaires were not hoovering up all the money, then there would be money for other people.
How fucking dumb do you have to be to have that opinion?
That's really dumb.
Like, I'd love to say, oh, he's not looking into this context or something, but that's just dumb.
Now, he seems smart in general.
Because when he does his comedy, it's very clever, and so it suggests a high intellect.
But do you really think the billionaires stole the money?
Does he not know that Mark Zuckerberg wouldn't have any money if he hadn't created Facebook and created tens of thousands of jobs and a tool that's used around the world?
How much money would he have?
Do they think that Elon Musk would have any money at all?
If he hadn't created multiple startups that added value to the country, electric cars that nobody else could build a spaceship to Mars, he wouldn't have any money if he didn't do those things.
What, were the poor people going to do it on their own?
Let's see the poor people's rocket.
Oh, well, I guess mean old Elon Musk is hoovering up all the money for the poor people because they were going to build a rocket to Mars.
The poor people were.
And, you know, according to Bill Burr, now they got shut out.
So I guess they can't build their rocket to Mars now.
Old mean old Musk just sucked up all the money, basically stole it from the poor people.
And you could just go down the list.
Which billionaire did not create the wealth that the billionaire has a small part of?
And most of these billionaires don't even own the majority of their own companies.
You know, by the time investors get their part and stuff.
I don't know what percentage does Zuckerberg control of Facebook?
I think he has some kind of voting special shares or something, but it's less than half, isn't it?
So this is a complete lack of understanding how anything works, and yet he's unembarrassed to have a public opinion about it.
I went and checked what AI said was his net worth.
According to Perplexity, and these net worth numbers are always garbage because nobody really knows what anybody did with their money or what investments they made.
That's not public information.
But they estimated he's a net worth of $12 million.
He makes a million dollars per Netflix special.
Now, if he believes that wherever there's wealth that's out of line with the baseline, That that's an indication that somebody is stealing money from the poor.
How does he explain himself?
How does he explain that?
Does he not understand that when he does a special on Netflix, Netflix makes money and a bunch of people get employed to put on the event and then a bunch of people are happy that they watched it and they pay money and the economy improves because Bill Burr made You know, cumulatively $12 million.
How does he not get that?
Does he think he's also stealing?
And if he just keeps it up, he'll be a billionaire too, but he'll be a bad person?
How in the world do you come to the opinion that billionaires stole the poor people's money?
Now, maybe it happens in some country, but the only way it happens in this country is if you make some value that's way more than you're keeping.
All right.
So here's Chuck Schumer again being pathetic.
And again, I think about Jon Stewart, who said in public the other day on one of his shows, please, please stop sending Chuck Schumer out there.
Because every time they send Chuck Schumer, who's like their best guy right now, it's so embarrassing to be a Democrat because you're like, God, no.
Can you send anybody but Chuck Schumer?
No, not the supervillain lady.
No!
Not AOC. No!
No!
They just don't have anybody who isn't embarrassing at this point.
There's no embarrassing people, non-embarrassing people.
So this is what Chuck Schumer said about Doge.
He said, everyone knows there's waste in government.
Oh, okay.
So he's agreeing there's waste in government.
He goes, this should be cut.
But Doge is using a meat axe.
Doge is using a meat axe.
And I'm adding it to my list.
So my list is generic, empty, stupid shit that Democrats say about Trump and Musk.
All right, here's the list so far.
Trump is going to steal my democracy.
Doge is stealing my privacy.
Trump is forming a kleptocracy.
He's got dark and sinister motives.
It's a constitutional crisis.
Look at all the chaos.
It's chaos.
He's a co-president, Musk.
Musk is not elected.
Doge is a hostile takeover.
Trump is rewarding Putin.
And then Doge is used as a meat axe.
Do you know why Schumer doesn't want to use a meat axe?
Too masculine.
The Democrats don't like masculine stuff like a meat axe.
That's pretty masculine.
Maybe a teaspoon.
So I think Chuck would say, maybe not the meat axe.
How about a teaspoon?
And make sure your pinky is up.
Speaking of masculinity, I forgot to brag, so I don't want to lose that option today.
I told you the story about Clay Travis was at some event, he was on stage, and he made the point that the Democrats have a problem with the male vote because they don't have Now, your first thought is, it's not about the masculine role models.
It's about policy, right?
If men are moving to the Republicans, it's because they like the policies.
But it turns out that with young men, they're not much less liberal than they ever were.
That hasn't really changed.
So policy-wise, young men still like Democrat policies.
They're probably more pro-abortion than the average, etc.
But they're still moving Republican.
So the policies actually are not what's driving young men to start to lean right and heavily lean right.
It's probably the role model.
And I think Clay Travis is completely on point that when he asked, he actually said this, who is the most masculine Democrat right now in America?
Mayor Pete?
Mayor Pete.
Now, immediately the Democrat, Karen, who was on stage said, oh, is that an anti-gay thing?
To which I say, why would you even say that?
What kind of anti-gay question is that?
Because if Clay Travis doesn't mention the gay part at all, it's not part of it.
It's just that Mayor Pete doesn't jump out as...
A super masculine character.
Now, there are plenty of masculine gay guys, right?
I don't need to name names, but it has nothing to do with gay.
There are plenty of masculine gay guys.
Tons.
He just isn't one of them.
So they couldn't leave their frame.
Their little frame is, you're a sexist, you're a racist.
They just can't get out of it.
They're so locked in, it's all they can see.
So Clay did a good job of saying it has nothing to do with that.
I mean, Do you look at him and say he's masculine?
I mean, he had a better argument than that.
But the reason I bring this up is that I wanted to remind you and maybe get a fact check.
Around 2016, I started saying there seems to be two parties forming, and it's going to be the woman party and the man party.
Now, it doesn't mean there won't be both in each, but the dominant...
The dominant, let's say, policies and approach would be very female in the Democrat Party and very male in the Republican Party.
And the Republican Party would be masculine men and people who like masculine men.
And Democrats would be mostly women and people who are happy to follow the lead of women.
And that's exactly where we are.
I couldn't think of a masculine Democrat.
The closest I can get is Governor Newsom.
Newsom, at the very least, he's tall, slick hair, heterosexual, looks like he goes to the gym.
I would call him masculine.
Wouldn't you?
Is that fair?
I would call him masculine.
But I think he's too degraded as a candidate.
I don't think he has a chance of rising up.
He's going to have some skeletons.
I don't think he can make the move.
But yes, I would like to claim credit for seeing this trend years in advance.
So the reason I point it out is because I make predictions.
It's a big part of what I do.
If I get them wrong, you should remind me to say it publicly.
Which I'll be happy to do.
If I get it right, I'll probably remember to tell you.
And it's all part of trying to figure out who's good at predicting.
If I got it wrong, I think I'd tell you.
But got that one right.
All right.
People keep asking me, what would be the best way to persuade a liberal to become a conservative?
Or a Democrat to become a Republican?
Or an anti-Trumper to be a pro-Trumper?
And people always ask me that question.
And I always feel I don't have a good answer.
Because on one hand, I think maybe if I spent a lot of time with somebody, I might be able to move them a little bit.
But I've never had that experience.
I've never experienced changing anybody's mind while I'm talking to them.
I don't think words work.
Words don't really talk anybody out of anything most of the time, especially in politics when you're locked in.
Then I saw a suggestion from a user on X called Bill Hein Daytona.
And Bill says, I've recommended to my liberal friends to lift weights.
Testosterone goes a long way toward curing liberalism.
That's actually scientifically true.
If you increase the testosterone, at least in men, if you increase their testosterone, they do become more conservative.
They do become more Republican.
That's a fact.
So my new answer to the question, how do you persuade a liberal to become a conservative?
If it's a man, see if you can convince them to lift weights.
Or do what Zuckerberg did, you know, get into MMA fighting.
Or just do something that's going to build your testosterone.
And the rest will take care of itself.
Because I think the Democrats are largely the party of...
I can't do it by myself.
I need some help.
And the Republicans are largely, I can do it by myself.
Just get the government out of my way.
So how you feel about your own confidence and ability is completely determined if you'd be better off getting helped or better off getting the government out of your way.
And the testosterone is completely determinant of whether you feel confident and powerful to make things happen on your own.
So yes.
The more you can get people to lift weights, the more likely they're going to be pro-Trump.
That's absolutely true.
Scientifically, that's a very clean approach.
Elon Musk said something interesting.
Well, he always does.
But apparently he's had top-secret clearance for years.
I guess Biden gave it to him in 2022. We don't know why.
I assume it's because of SpaceX.
But here's what he said that is really interesting.
He said, I've had top-secret clearance for many years, and here's the fun part, and have clearances that themselves are classified.
What?
There's something higher than top-secret.
He's seen things that even people with the top security clearance in the government haven't seen, and not only did they not see it, they didn't even know there's a higher classification.
What?
What?
Do you know what that makes me think?
I don't believe that we've captured any alien technology.
I don't believe we have.
But when I hear this, I go, huh, suppose you had, just hypothetically, suppose you actually had an alien spacecraft with alien technology.
Who would you want to show it to, to see if there's any possibility of reverse engineering it?
Right?
There's one person in the world you would be most interested in showing it to, to see if he can reverse engineer it, and it's Elon Musk.
So, immediately when I hear that he has, you know, extra top secret clearances beyond clearances that ordinary people can't even have.
It's not about the Kennedy assassination, right?
It's not about, I don't know, just some normal secrets.
It's not about, oh, the CIA is doing this.
That would be normal clearance.
To have special extra deluxe clearance, that's got to be some good stuff.
We don't know what that domain is, but given that he's the space and technology guy, maybe they have a ship.
I don't think they do.
I think we have zero spaceships.
But wow, this made me wonder.
I had to question myself a little bit.
I'm going to stick with we don't have one.
Anyway, according to the UAE, Zero Hedge is reporting this, the UAE ambassador says the Arab world has no alternative to Trump's Gaza plan.
That's the plan where the United States takes control of Gaza, but...
Israel and other countries rebuild it, which is pretty surprising because you'd expect that the Arabs would come up with a plan that was also practical to compete.
Apparently not.
And the UAE ambassador says directly that removing all the Palestinians and then rebuilding it is probably the only thing that would work.
That's what I think.
He said it's difficult but inevitable that the Trump plan of removing all the Palestinians and rebuilding is the only way anything could go.
Now, that's exactly my opinion.
It's been exactly my opinion from the start.
There is one and only one way this can go.
They're going to clear all the people out of Gaza.
Now, can you confirm that I've been saying this the whole time?
Am I imagining that?
I've been saying the whole time.
The one and only way this will end is with all of Gaza being depopulated.
I want to see if I really said that loudly and clearly enough that anybody heard it.
All right, just confirmed.
Okay, so some of you heard me say that.
Well, so again, if you're looking for who predicts well, this was a pretty shocking prediction.
Because remember, I predicted that it would be depopulated.
And rebuilt, and that the Palestinians may not even be allowed back in, long before anybody even suggested that was a possibility.
So that's a win for me on that one.
Now, I know for some of you it drives you crazy when it looks like I'm bragging about what I got right.
But remember, I make predictions.
So if I don't tell you I got one right...
You know, you're losing half of the value.
You should know when I get one right and what domain it is, because maybe that's a domain I can guess better than other domains.
There are some domains I can't guess.
For example, I can never predict who anybody's going to pick for a vice president.
I have no visibility, experience, knowledge.
I can't do anything on those.
But stuff like this, you know, what is a logical plan?
You know, how can you get from here to there?
I'm pretty good at that.
Pretty good at that.
Anyway, Meta has some kind of breakthrough according to Tweaktown.
Tweaktown, that's really the name of a publication.
Apparently, they can strap some sensors on your head and they can successfully read 80% of your thoughts.
The 20% they can't read is still big enough that they can't do much with this technology.
But what happens if it keeps getting better?
What happens when the AI can predict what you're going to do before you know what you're going to do?
Because here's the joke.
We already know that.
So without AI and without these fancy sensors, we already know.
From brain imaging and lots of experiments, that the part of your brain that handles rational thought doesn't even activate until after the decision.
That's one of the most well-understood things for many decades.
Every once in a while, they retest it, and they're like, you know, sure enough, the rational part of your brain is a rationalizer.
It rationalizes the decision.
It doesn't make the decision.
What makes a decision is some combination of irrational impulses.
But then after it's made, your little rationalizer says, oh, it's because I could see the greater opportunity in that direction.
And maybe sometimes it's true, too.
But it's usually not why you made the decision.
So we're going to have a big problem with believing in free will once AI can tell you what you're going to do before you do it.
That will be the end of the free will argument, and that's coming.
You know, I've long predicted, if you like my other predictions, you'll like this one too.
I've long predicted that the belief in free will will be destroyed.
It's just a matter of time, because there's just like an obvious path until it happens, and AI is probably the last leg of the trip.
So that's ahead of you.
What all of you want to say is, but how can you say that unless you have free will?
And then I say, no, I had to.
But how did this other thing?
No, you had to.
But how did I choose this?
You had to.
But I thought I had choice.
Yeah, you had to think it.
It's always the same answer.
You had to.
You didn't have a choice.
All right, that's all I got for now, ladies and gentlemen.
This Valentine's Day is kicking off just great.
My neighbor's getting noisy, doing some construction.
So I'm going to say goodbye to the folks on YouTube and X and Rumble, and I'll talk to the locals people privately for a moment.
