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, Naval Ravikant, AI Opportunities, Duckweed Protein, Pete Hegseth, Drinking Bourbon Hoax, Mayor Adams Lawfare, DC Housing Market, David Hogg's PAC, Adam Schiff Emotional Theatrics, David Sacks, Ukraine Grift, USAID Hungary, PM Viktor Orban, Judicial vs Executive Branch, President Trumps Policy Popularity, MSNBC Propaganda, Crazy Eyes, Asylum System, CA Healthcare for Illegals, Bunker Busters for Israel, AI GPT-4, AI Grok 3, Intel AI Control, ChatGPT Whistleblower, Hockey Fights, Fort Know Gold Audit, DOGE Firings Correction, JD Vance, EU Censorship, US Energy First Policy, Nuclear Power Resurgence, Trump Putin Ukraine Peace Talk, CA Prostate Cancer Spike, Risk Management, 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.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the High Life of Human Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, because it is.
And 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, 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 hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now.
go well i don't know about you but what i really needed this weekend was a little less news you And thank goodness we got a little bit less news.
Trump's been kind of quiet.
I mean, he caused a little bit of trouble.
But Elon Musk says he's taken at least a day or two off because he's getting ready to launch the newest AI, Grok.
So things got...
Strangely quiet.
But yet, there's plenty to talk about.
Did you know that TMZ is reporting that Kanye West, I call him Ye, and his wife Bianca, they don't have a prenup agreement.
They don't have a prenuptial agreement.
So, good job, Ye.
At what point did he think this one's forever?
So that's Ye's situation.
And then if you were anywhere near social media yesterday on X, you'd know that allegedly, I'm not even sure this is confirmed yet, but allegedly Ashley St. Clair, who's a conservative-leaning, she's being called an influencer, but that feels a little dismissive.
Because I think she's more of a writer and has a bigger impact.
So I would call her a writer.
And she's claiming that she had a real-life affair, I guess, with Musk and had his baby five months ago.
And then allegedly there's some agreement about the raising of the baby that hasn't been finalized.
Ye didn't finalize his paperwork.
That looks like a problem, and it doesn't look like Elon finalized his paperwork, and it feels like a problem.
So this is my advice.
Don't get involved with anybody unless you've got a lawyer with you.
You should bring the lawyer on the first date, maybe the second date, too.
It's like, hi, my name's Bob, and this is my attorney.
He'll be negotiating the paperwork in case this comes to anything.
Will you or will you not be using birth control?
And we'd like a clause in there that would protect our client.
So that's what it looks like in the future.
I'll tell you one of the things that came out of the whatever's going on between Ashley and Elon, which is really none of our business, but it became public.
Was there ever a point you said to yourself, man, I'm so jealous of Elon.
He doesn't have to have a wife, and he doesn't need to have a girlfriend who's giving him trouble.
He can just create all these baby mamas.
As long as he can afford it, it's going to be great.
And now I'm thinking, how in the world could you survive with that many baby mamas who all just have just one thing they want to ask you today?
You know, you know what would be good is if I had a little bit extra money this month, do you think it ever stops?
You know, I wonder if he ever, like, he ever stops getting messages.
You know, you know, one of the kids is a little older.
It wouldn't be bad if, you know, we had an extra million.
I don't know how it's going, but I hope he's choosing his baby mamas well.
I think some of them are working out pretty well, actually.
Well, Naval Ravikant was a guest on All In Pod, and I loved one thing he said, because it just calms everybody down.
So I'm going to repeat it.
There's no indication, this is me paraphrasing, so not his words, but there's no indication that AI is going to reduce the number of jobs.
There's a lot of indication it will be a tremendous aid to people in jobs.
There's a lot of indication that some jobs, you know, entire slices of industries will change, but that is a normal thing.
There are entire industries that used to exist when I was a kid that don't exist now.
So industries coming and going, pretty normal.
But as Naval puts it, it's not so much that AI will cause you to get another job.
Because as he points out, job sort of indicates you have a boss and you have to apply for it.
But it could be that AI will create what Naval calls opportunities.
So you can say to yourself, hey, I don't know much about this or that, but if I use AI, I'll be as smart as anybody who does this or that.
So I'll become a person who provides whatever service or goods, and I'll use AI to figure out how to do it.
And it'll even do most of the work.
But it wouldn't do it on its own.
And you're probably always going to need a human to sign papers and work out weird little problems and negotiate things as you go.
So this is very much what I've been speculating for a while, that we can't predict AI, but it didn't look like it was going to take jobs.
So I've sort of been on this.
On this path for a while, but it's good to see Naval say it because, you know, he's smarter.
So it's good when smart people agree with you.
All right, here's something that probably is a nothing, but might be a really big thing.
Now, before I tell you, I would like to say what the NPCs will say.
You know, I do this as a service so they don't have to do it.
When I'm done, I want you to yell, That's soil and green.
I don't want to live in a tiny house.
Swimming is the best form of exercise, and you can't make me eat that, and I won't eat bugs.
All right?
Does that cover everything?
That's everything the obvious people say?
Okay.
Now that that's covered, you don't need to say those things.
Do you get it?
It's so you don't need to say them.
You could.
Yeah, and French press is the best way to make coffee.
Thank you.
Thank you for adding that.
That needed to be said.
Well, the story is that according to Ben Coxworth...
Really?
That's his last name?
Coxworth?
Wow.
Must have been tough in high school.
Coxworth?
Come on.
All right.
Okay.
Anyway, so there's this...
Kind of a weed that I guess grows in ponds.
It's not even a weed.
It's called duckweed.
It's more like a green slime that grows on stuff.
But apparently there's a version of it that's really nutritious.
And let's see, they call it water lentils.
So I think it's, you know, it's not a slime so much as it might be little chunks.
But it's sort of green and chunky and it can grow in a pond.
Apparently, it's a superfood.
It's got 35% carbs, 20% minerals, and up to 40% protein.
Now, that would be a tremendous amount of protein.
Now, you've probably heard me say way too many times, wouldn't it be good to have your own indoor farm?
But how in the world can you grow protein in an indoor farm?
I know you can grow lettuce and stuff like that.
That nobody wants to eat too much.
I mean, how much lettuce do you want to eat?
So I was always saying, indoor farms aren't going to work until you can make protein.
This is apparently something you can do in an indoor facility, and it's got protein like crazy, and you could add it to just about anything.
So...
So, maybe.
Maybe.
I'm not sure that this would work at small scale, because the indoor facility that they show pictured is a big industrial scale.
But I don't know.
So here are the advantages.
It grows really fast.
It doesn't need fertilizer.
It's got tons of nutrients.
And it doesn't need pesticides, doesn't need fertilizer.
And it doesn't compete with other crops for farmland.
It can be sustainably cultivated in shallow trays of clean water in greenhouses or vertical farms.
So, is this what I've been waiting for?
I don't know what it tastes like.
I suppose you can flavor it any way you want.
But if this seems like a small and boring little topic, I think we're going to have to get to the point where people are growing their own food.
Maybe in small co-ops.
Because all the problems with food, Are the middleman, the chemicals they put in it that you don't want them to put in it, the transportation, and the storage.
Those are all the problems.
Well, you can get rid of all those problems by growing your own food in your neighborhood if you could grow something with protein in it.
So maybe this is it.
Well, there's a new hoax.
Have you heard of the Pete Hegseth drinks whiskey in public?
While doing a presentation hoax?
So this hoax says that when P. Hegseth was giving a talk at whatever this was, at the big security event in Europe, that he reached where they always keep a glass of water.
You know, usually if you're a speaker, they make sure you've got a water you can drink.
And the thinking was that it was whiskey.
Now...
Here's one of the things that the Democrat hoaxes have in common.
They're so ridiculous.
They're so ridiculous.
Do you really think that P. Hegseth, who's been accused of drinking too much before he was nominated, do you think that he stood in front of a huge crowd in a televised event and then picked up a glass with a clearly, you know, Brown-looking liquid that wouldn't be water and then drank it in front of the group?
Does anybody think that could really happen in the real world?
It's just like the fine people hoax and the drinking bleach hoax.
You don't have to know anything to know it didn't happen.
That obviously didn't happen.
And it was just something about the way the light hit the water.
So no, there's no truth to the thought that he was drinking bourbon or something on stage.
So dumb.
Meanwhile, AOC is calling for the governor of New York to remove Mayor Adams, who of course is a Democrat, but the Democrats are mad at that Democrat because he's not so keen on immigration and he seems to be friendly with Trump and they think he worked on a deal with Trump, although he says there was no deal.
But the Trump administration does seem to be...
Trying to force the dropping of the charges against him.
The people who understand this field better than I do say it's completely inappropriate to drop the charges against him.
There's no legal reason to drop the charges.
I'm not sure there's no reason.
If it looks like lawfare, meaning that it's something that wouldn't normally be charged because it's such a small ball, I feel like that's all the reason you should need.
Do you need more reason than it's lawfare?
I feel like that's good enough.
Even if there's a technical violation, like he took some upgrades on a flight or something, I don't care.
I don't care at all.
I don't care if the next mayor does that either.
Not really.
If you were taking big cash payments, well, then we've got different conversation.
But a celebrity or a public figure who's traveling and gets upgraded, it's just the most normal thing in the world.
So anyway, it feels like lawfare to me.
But here's my point on this.
It looks like Trump found a new way to get rid of Democrats because Democrats automatically disagree with whatever Trump says is right.
So all Trump has to do is start agreeing with a Democrat about anything.
And the other Democrats will want to get rid of that person right away.
So AOC is trying to get rid of Mayor Adams because he's too friendly with Trump.
That seems to be...
And then they think there's some secret deal, which is not in evidence.
But here's what I think.
I think Trump should endorse Adam Schiff, just to test it out.
And say, yeah, Adam Schiff, we've had some...
Bad interactions in the past, but I gotta say, he's the very best Democrat there is.
I can't wait to work with him.
He's the guy that can really help us with MAGA. And next thing you know, they'd be asking for him to be impeached.
Because they just have to be whatever is the opposite of Trump.
So he can take out any Democrat he wants just by saying, you know, I like that one.
You know that Fetterman guy?
He's looking real good.
Next thing you know, Fetterman, removed from office.
Well, the Washington, D.C. real estate market is collapsing.
Everybody's trying to sell their house because they're all getting fired or they're afraid of getting fired or they're Democrats on their way out.
But as the account called Cynical Publius points out, and others have pointed out, among the top seven wealthiest counties in America, four of them are around Washington, D.C. So four out of seven of the wealthiest counties.
We're right around Washington, D.C. And Washington, D.C. doesn't make any kind of product.
So how are all these people making so much money?
It's because they're around the money.
If you put them around the money, they'll start forming NGOs and scams and grifts and everybody's got a PAC or a...
You know, some damn thing that needs to get funded.
And apparently there's almost no fiscal responsibility in Washington.
That's what Doge has taught us.
And if you have no fiscal responsibility, gigantic amounts of money, and no product being made except people persuading and grifting, that's what you get.
If you wait long enough, you've got one of the richest counties, or four and a seven of the richest counties, and you haven't done a damn thing that the country wants.
You've just taken the money.
That's what it looks like.
So we'll see if that era is coming to an end.
That might be a little optimistic.
And what about David Hogg, who's now one of the co-chairs of the Democratic Party?
How many of you thought to yourself, it seems to me that all the Democrat leaders are actually just crooks?
Like, demonstrably, obviously crooks.
You've heard about the Clinton Foundation.
You've heard about Hillary Clinton running the Russia collusion hoax.
You've heard about them doing the 51 laptop thing.
You've heard about Ukraine.
You've heard about USAID. You've heard about all the NGOs.
It feels like, and of course, in my opinion, nearly every mayor of every city is corrupt.
There might be some exceptions, but I feel like You almost have to be corrupt to be mayor in this country.
So, what happens when David Hogg comes out of nowhere and next thing you know, he's one of the heads of the DNC? Well, according to PJ Media, Matt Margolis and some other people talking about this, as soon as he got into that position, he used the mailing list.
That belongs to the DNC to raise money for his own political action committee.
And his own political action committee pays his $100,000 a year.
So he gets put as one of the heads of the DNC, the Democrat National Committee, and then almost right away uses their internal source to raise money for himself, literally for himself.
Now, it's for his PAC, which pays him.
So, you know, it feels like it's for himself.
So, that's exactly what we expected.
Now, I'm genuinely curious.
Genuinely curious.
Do all criminals become Democrats because they know they can get away with more?
Or does becoming a Democrat turn you into a criminal?
Because obviously I'm aware that there are Republicans who are grifters and corrupt, etc.
Obviously.
But we don't really hear about it much, do we?
It feels like it's an exception or something happened with some underling somewhere.
But it feels like every single Democrat is corrupt.
Like all the leaders.
And somewhat obviously.
To me it looks like, well, this is obvious.
I won't name names, but there's some people, just the way they act, they couldn't possibly be acting independently.
It's so obvious they're getting a paycheck of some kind, directly or indirectly, that just nobody would act like that, that nobody would act that dumb in public intentionally.
Anyway, speaking of acting dumb in public, I was watching Adam Schiff, who's got kind of a theatrical, let's say, interest.
I guess he wanted to be a script writer at one point.
And he was getting so theatrical when he was questioning somebody in one of these hearings that it was actually impressive.
He wasn't really even trying to make an argument on points because he was totally losing on whatever the argument was.
He was getting killed.
So he just kept ratcheting up the emotion.
And then you're saying, and then you're saying that you would give money under these conditions.
No, I'm not saying.
So you're saying it?
Well, no, it's the opposite.
I'm not.
Oh, so you're saying you would give money.
So under these conditions, you would throw the Constitution under the bus.
Is that right?
No, nothing like that.
So, all right, we've agreed you would throw the Constitution under the bus.
And the amount of emotion that was obviously theatrical and fake was kind of impressive.
So it made me think.
He's a terrible politician, but I'll bet he actually would be good in theater.
Like, legitimately, legitimately, he looks like he has the chops so he could be a professional actor.
Anyway, so he's got a future there.
Speaking of grift, here's what David Sachs says about Ukraine.
He says, with Americans becoming exhausted with forever wars in the Middle East, The, quote, democracy promotion grifters at USAID and NED and the rest of the NGOs needed a new cause.
Ukraine was perfect.
As the most corrupt country in Europe, it would allow them to expropriate billions.
Now, is that just the Republican narrative?
Because it's the one I see and it looks obvious to me.
Do you think Democrats understand that Ukraine was Part grift and part neocons wanting to destroy Russia?
Or do Democrats think that we were protecting this spunky little country because it should be part of NATO? Like, what do Democrats really think Ukraine was all about?
Do they really not have any access to the narratives that are coming out from the Republicans?
It feels like they just think, well, let's just give them infinite more money.
That should solve everything because Putin's a bad, bad man.
I'm not saying Putin's a good man.
I'm just saying probably this was a combination of people who looked for enormous grift opportunities and found them and people who wanted to destroy Russia, and it was an opportunistic way to do it.
So, no, it looks like a giant scam to us.
Meanwhile, Mario Noffel is reporting that Tucker Carlson had a conversation with the Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban.
Now, if you're not following closely, Romania is one of those countries that is sort of close to a Trump-like view of the world.
You know, a conservative, not buying into the mass immigration.
Kind of thing.
And so what would be the fate of Hungary that just wants to be an independent little country and supportive of the United States?
It would be a supportive country.
One would be, you know, happy to be, you know, working with us.
Well, because it's not exactly what the Democrats want or the liberal elite, as you might say.
So this is what Viktor Orban says is happening.
He goes, The fact is that the liberal elite of the West used the taxpayer money of the United States citizens to spread their ideology around the world and finance more than 60 NGOs, paid politicians, and media outlets in Hungary.
It was a plot against our sovereignty and independence.
This is exactly how we overthrow other countries.
We fund a whole bunch of stuff, non-government organizations, but really it's ways to influence things like the media and politicians.
It's a way to get a whole bunch of money and assets and intelligence people into somebody's country.
And Viktor Orban is completely aware of it.
He knows the whole plot.
He probably can name all 60 NGOs.
And he probably knows exactly which media outlets are being bought by the United States.
It's probably exactly what it looks like.
That the United States is actively trying to overthrow not an enemy.
This is the scary part.
Hungary is not an enemy.
So why are we trying to overthrow their government?
They're pretty much on our side.
And so that's probably exactly what it looks like.
All right.
As you know, it's getting confusing with all the crooked Democrat judges trying to stop Doge and Trump and the executive orders.
Now, there are too many to keep track of, but what you need to know is that the general setup is that Trump is using his executive authority largely to fire people, downsize, and move budgets around and stuff like that, cut budgets, move them around.
And the Democrats, Are finding one reason after another to, you know, oppose it all.
And they're using different judges.
And all the judges, or most of them, maybe it's just most, they seem to have an obvious conflict of interest.
You know, they've got a relative who's a, you know, a longtime Democrat fundraiser.
Basically, they all have some kind of dirty connections that make them corrupt-looking.
Now, I don't know if they're corrupt.
But they definitely have all the tells for being corrupt, and they seem to be acting in a way that almost certainly guarantees that the larger question of who gets to run the executive branch, is it the president, or does every little pissant judge anywhere in the federal system get to stop anything that happens if they don't like that president?
Because at the moment...
The courts, or at least these allegedly crooked judges, are seemingly running the executive branch by saying you can do this, you can't do this, you can only do it then.
And there's some thought that maybe this is actually going to be good for Trump.
And the thought goes like this, Give some or all of these to the Supreme Court and then let the Supreme Court decide the most critical issue.
Who gets to decide what happens in the executive branch?
Is it the president, especially when it comes to budget and staffing?
Is it the president?
Or is it all these little pissant courts all over the country?
Now, I feel like Trump would probably win that.
If they got to some generalized principle about who's in charge and who can stop you.
And at the moment, the only power left that the Democrats have, since they lost basically everything, is these lifetime appointed, I think they're lifetime, these appointed judges that are clearly just Democrat corrupt operatives.
So that's the last power they have.
So if this stuff gets to the Supreme Court, And it becomes a generalized question.
Who gets to decide what's happening in the executive branch?
I feel like the Supreme Court's going to lean toward Trump, you know, for all the obvious reasons.
So it could be that the last remaining tool that's, you know, part of the government anyway, or, you know, I guess part of the judicial, the last remaining tool Besides the Soros prosecutors, could be removed from the system.
Not removed, but at least ignored.
And maybe cast aside.
So that could be a really big deal that might actually be part of the Trump strategy, is to push every button until this gets to the Supreme Court, and then get some clarity.
And if the clarity goes Trump's way, then he can really get busy.
What we've seen so far may be just a preview because the courts are legitimately slowing him down.
What if that has stopped?
What if the courts stopped slowing him down?
I mean, who knows?
Anyway, that's going to get interesting.
So on CNN recently, Kaneko the Great points out that There was a Democrat strategist, they just had him on, and he was describing why Trump is popular today.
And he says that he joined the Democratic Party in 1989 because he wanted to fight NAFTA, he wanted to drain the swamp, and he wanted to make sure his tax dollars weren't being wasted or going to foreign wars.
So he's saying that basically in the 90s, a Democrat sounds like Donald Trump today.
So, he says, that's why we lose him, is we've let him steal our verbiage.
Now, there it is again.
They think it's the way he says it.
It's not the way he says it.
It's what he says.
People prefer his policies.
You can look at any poll, and then what's the most important stuff, and then look at what people think Trump can do.
It's not his verbiage.
It's not his choice of words.
It's so ridiculous.
But he does point out that even a lot of the ordinary Democrats would look at Trump and say, yeah, that's exactly what I wanted, all that stuff.
That's what I wanted, give or take abortion, of course.
But abortion is now more of a state issue.
Actually, it's entirely a state issue.
He says, that's why we keep losing to him.
We've quit talking about Americans keeping America safe and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And then he sums it up by saying that Trump is scary.
Now, here's the funny part.
The anti-Trumpers, they can't resist complimenting him because he keeps doing good stuff.
Like, they can't really be against him trying to save money.
You can't really be against that.
Or getting rid of fraud.
It's hard to be against it.
You know, fixing the border in days.
It's hard to hate that.
Stopping wars.
Looks like he's already going to stop the war in Ukraine one way or another.
It's hard to hate that too much.
So even when the Democrats talk about Trump, they've got to give him some props because it's stuff that they want to.
But then he ends with, he's scary.
Okay, how did that fit with all the stuff you said about he's a 90s Democrat?
If Trump is like a 90s Democrat, not 100%, of course, because abortion and some things are different.
But why is he scary?
He's scary just because he does exactly what you would do?
They just can't avoid throwing in an empty, generic insult?
It's just reflex.
I don't think there's any thought involved.
His entire good point he was making about Trump being right in the middle of where America wants the president to be, that was a solid point.
And then he ruins the whole thing by saying, and he's scary.
Well, did you give me any evidence of the scary part?
The scary part is he gives you exactly what the middle of America wants, and most people agree.
Oh, that's scary.
On the plus side, I do give CNN credit, because they put Scott Jennings on the air every day, it seems like, or five days a week.
And they allowed this strategist to say some things about Trump getting right, and they do have other people who sometimes say Trump gets some stuff right.
So, the news, of course, is biased.
There are news...
That's biased on the right.
There's news that's biased on the left.
But if you look at Fox News, let's just take the five, they make sure that they've got somebody there who will say the other side.
So there's at least always one person there who will argue the other point.
And then CNN is making sure they have somebody there arguing the other point.
But you know who doesn't do that?
MSNBC. So here's the mistake.
If you think MSNBC is like the others, it's not even close.
MSNBC, you could do an entire college course on propaganda, and all you'd have to do is turn it on for half an hour and then talk about it.
That could be the entire class.
All right, let's see what they said today.
Because MSNBC will never tell you that there's even an argument on the other side.
They won't even mention it.
Unless it's such a bad argument and it's misinterpreted.
It's usually misinterpreted if they talk about the other side.
So just watch that.
Watch how you know that some outlets are biased, but I don't mind the bias when it's explicit.
So if I turn on Fox News, of course they're pro-Trump.
Of course they are, but they don't hide it.
And they try to cover all the news, you know, so you get a little bit of both sides.
And CNN, same thing.
But MSNBC? Nope.
It's pure propaganda.
And once you learn that, then you can see all the technique.
I was thinking about doing that live sometime.
Just turning on MSNBC and just saying, click, okay, pause.
All right, that was propaganda.
Here's what they did.
All right, play.
Okay, pause.
Because I think every 10 seconds...
Like literally, every 10 seconds.
You could pause it and say, alright, here's what they just did.
And just show the trick.
I'm going to do that one of these days.
Anyway, one of the tricks that MSNBC did, this was spotted by Paul Bond.
This was good spotting.
Remember when Elon Musk had a little ex, his kid, and he was in the Oval Office?
The press was asking them questions.
And you thought to yourself, man, this is great, because it's both Trump and Musk, the two people that you'd want to ask questions to.
They're completely open to questions.
They're making the time.
They're answering as transparently as you'd want.
And wow, this is good.
A lot of questions getting answered.
MSNBC played it without the sound so that they could talk over it so that all you'd see is something that didn't look right.
Because if you just saw the video and you didn't know that they were doing a real good job of answering all of our questions, it would look like, wait a minute, there's somebody, that Musk guy, he doesn't appreciate the decorum and respect of the Oval Office.
He's not wearing a necktie and he's brought his kid in there.
And then you'd say to yourself, ah, it looks like he's trying to be the co-president.
Because, you know, Trump's sitting at a desk, but Musk is standing up and...
Getting all the attention and, oh, this is our co-president.
Pure propaganda to run the video and then just talk over it.
Pure propaganda.
Did CNN do that?
No.
Did Fox do that?
No.
No.
They can say things after it, but if you don't even play the video, it's just pure propaganda.
Anyway.
I saw a post by Paul Zippala, and he was mocking yet another MSNBC employee who did a little video about, I don't know, it doesn't matter, she was mad about renaming the Gulf of Mexico or something like that.
But she had the gigantic crazy eyes, and I hope I'm the one who's making this a thing, because as Paul pointed out, You know, she has crazy eyes.
And it was the craziest eyes I've ever seen.
It was just these gigantic saucers.
At first, I thought it was AI, because I didn't think, okay, nobody really has gigantic eyes like that.
But not only were the eyes gigantic, I'm not entirely sure, but it looked like she had her eyebrows removed from the normal place and placed about halfway up her forehead.
I've never seen eyebrows that far away from eyes.
And gigantic eyes, too.
And I really have a question.
Why do these giant-eyed people, the crazy eyes, why are they all on one side?
What is causing that crazy eye thing?
Now, what it looks like is that when the eyes go wide, they know they're imagining as opposed to talking about facts.
And they know that they have to open their eyes.
To sell what they're saying because it's so ridiculous.
Yeah.
If I told you that there was a UFO in my backyard, I'd open my eyes like this.
And there's a UFO in my backyard.
This isn't the case that I'm imagining.
It's not really there.
But if there were really a UFO in your backyard, you probably wouldn't do that with your eyes.
You say, you can't believe it.
There's a UFO in my backyard.
Yeah, I can show it to you.
Here's my picture.
The truth does not require those eyes.
Those eyes do accompany making stuff up.
So once you see it, you can't unsee it.
The big Adam Schiff eyes.
The AOC eyes.
The Elizabeth Warren eyes.
You see the pattern?
Adam Schiff, Elizabeth Warren, AOC. They all have crazy eyes.
Just watch them talk.
Anyway, I guess Trump just fired two dozen immigration judges, according to Politico.
That's a good start.
The immigration judges are the ones who are granting asylum to people.
Now, why are we not just dismantling the asylum system?
Wasn't that the whole problem?
The thing that allowed the Democrats to lie to the public forever is that they'd say, oh, we don't have many illegals coming across.
Because they would just call them illegal.
All they do is have judges say, okay, you're applying for asylum?
All right, good, now you're legal.
Because until we made a decision that the asylum sticks or it doesn't, they were legal.
Because they'd gone through our process to claim asylum.
Why is there no conversation about just getting rid of that?
Because there can't be that many people who legitimately need asylum.
You know, there must be some way to handle it without just having everybody who comes across the border apply for it.
So, I don't know.
Seems like that should be on the chopping block.
We just found out that the California Department of Finance revealed that the California taxpayers are spending $9.5 billion to provide health care to illegal aliens.
That's just the health care.
That would be a third of our deficit spending just for the health care.
If you added the other expenses, Pretty much the entire economic problem of California, which is pretty bad, is from immigration.
I think it's going to be two-thirds of it, and the rest is just poor management.
So yeah, we're a mess.
It's just, I don't know how history is ever going to deal with this.
The fact that California and other places, we opened our borders.
We invited unlimited people to come in to take our money.
Who invites unlimited people in to take your money?
Well, people who are not giving away their own money.
It's people who are giving away other people's money.
You wouldn't invite people to give in your own money.
Yeah.
So as long as you can make some money by having other people give away their money, I guess it's going to happen.
So that's pretty bad.
In other news, and part of the news is that this is in the news.
So the news is that it's news instead of a secret.
Apparently there's a massive shipment of 2,000-pound bombs from the U.S. to Israel.
Now, why would Israel suddenly need a massive shipment of gigantic bombs?
And these are ones that have been prevented.
I guess Biden had not allowed these.
So Trump is allowing gigantic shipments of very large bombs, Times of Israel is reporting.
Now, the reason I say the story is that it's a story, is, is this the sort of thing we would normally be aware of?
Or is this negotiating with Hamas?
Hey, Hamas, you know when we said that if you don't release all of the hostages?
That there would be hell to pay?
Well, they know what hell looks like now.
I assume, but I don't know, that these are specifically for crushing tunnels.
Because there's not much left.
You wouldn't need these bombs for blowing up buildings in Gaza, because they're already blown up.
The only thing left is all the tunnels.
I mean, I might be exaggerating a little, but basically, it's the tunnels.
So, is this a done deal that these are going to be used to clean out the tunnels, or is this part of the negotiating?
Because at the same time, I guess Saudi Arabia's got some Arab countries getting together to figure out what to do, and they're trying to figure out how to deal with Hamas, but also rebuild Gaza, which doesn't look very possible.
But the Trump effect is interesting, because he's making other countries step up.
Saudi is really stepping up.
They're hosting the people who make the most difference over there to have some serious conversations about how they can be the solution.
I don't know what they're going to come up with, but it probably helps negotiating with Hamas to know that Israel has already brought in the weapons of their complete destruction.
So I feel like...
Hamas is never going to deal or negotiate, not in any serious way.
So I feel like the next step will be massive bombs taking out tunnels.
And then we'll probably keep negotiating.
We'll take out a few tunnels and they'll say, now do you want to quit and release the hostages?
Nope.
All right, here's another tunnel.
Boom.
Will that result in the death of some of the...
Hostages?
It could.
Yeah, it could.
Well, so Trump causes some trouble by posting, I guess, the other day, he said this quote from Napoleon.
He who saves his country does not violate any law.
So that's Napoleon.
And then, what do you think people said about that?
Now, the context, apparently, is that these executive orders, Are for the benefit of the country, so there shouldn't be these courts calling them illegal, because if he's saving the country, that can't be illegal.
But of course it can be illegal, and it caused somebody like Adam Schiff, of course, to say that it was spoken like a true dictator.
So why does he do this?
Why would Trump, who is...
Biggest problem is that he's being accused of being like a dictator.
It's his biggest problem.
Why would he quote a dictator and embrace the dictator's philosophy in public?
What would be the reason for that?
Now, if it's the usual reason, it's just to distract the bad guys so they'll talk about that instead of talking about some way to actually defeat him.
So it could be a distraction.
It could be just for fun.
I don't know.
I don't think I would have done it, but we'll see how that turns out.
I wouldn't have advised it.
Meanwhile, ChatGPT4 is out, and Sam Altman says it does lots of great things, but it's also the best search engine.
It's the best search engine out there.
And so I said to myself, Now that we know what USAID really is, according to Mike Benz, it's basically just a front for CIA activity, and that all of those things we think are foreign aid are really just mechanisms to build resources and get our agents in and get influence over another country.
No matter what the charity is called, it's really only for that one purpose.
Now, that's what I believe is true.
But here's what ChatGPT for, which Sam Altman says is one of the best or one of the best search engines.
I think he says the best.
I asked, is USAID mostly a front for the CIA? Because if it's a good search engine, it's going to get the right answer, which I already know because Mike Benz has taught us this.
And here's what ChatGPT said.
It said, while USAID itself is not a CIA front, there is a documented history of its programs being exploited for intelligence and covert operations.
And this has led to skepticism.
Now, it gave examples that during sort of the Cold War, there were several examples where USAID was, in fact, a cover for some CIA activity.
But ChatGPT is acting like that stopped a long time ago.
Oh, yeah, there were a few notable exceptions in the news, but that was way back.
Oh, oh.
But the thing is, we only find out about these things 40 years after they happen.
So...
And then it said...
So that was his answer.
Nope, it's not a front for the CIA. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, the reason he's gone quiet today, allegedly quiet, we'll see if he can last, is that he's working on the next release of Grok 3, which he had claimed will be the most powerful AI in the world.
So apparently it's trained faster, better, more completely than anything else.
And he's going to be honing the product all weekend.
So it should be released tomorrow at 8 p.m.
Pacific time.
So we'll get a whole new AI. You know that case of, speaking of open AI, you know the case of the whistleblower who was found dead, and it was a very suspicious circumstance, and it was...
Ruled the suicide, but didn't have the tells of a suicide.
It looked very much like he got murdered, according to evidence in the, you know, basically on his body, etc.
And the family hired a private pathologist that said the gunshot anomalies and injuries are inconsistent with suicide.
And I guess the police ignored that, and they just closed the investigation, saying there's insufficient evidence of homicide.
Okay, let's connect some dots.
Now, I don't know what's going on, so this is just pure speculation.
But we do know, Mark Andreessen told us, that the intelligence community in the United States has said directly to the people who would invest in new startups, don't invest in too many AI startups.
Because we're going to make sure that just a few big ones dominate and we'll have connections into them, basically.
So in other words, we do know, and it's just common sense.
It's just common sense.
If AI is going to be as powerful as everybody thinks, then of course our intelligence people need to get control over it for their purposes.
Now, you might say, no, I don't want that.
And you might be right.
So I'm not saying what's right or wrong, but certainly the same people who thought they needed to control all of the media, if they thought they needed to control the news and they thought they needed to control social media, do you think they're not trying to control AI? Of course they are.
Of course they are.
But what's different?
From news and internet, is that we're all convinced that whoever has the best AI, whatever country, will dominate the economies of the future.
So our CIA and our intelligence people have, first of all, an interest because it's where people are going to get information.
So they want to control the information, just like they do in every other domain.
Including foreign countries, by the way.
So the effort is not just domestic.
So, of course, there is 100% chance that our intelligence people, and therefore effectively our military, thinks that a U.S. very robust, strong AI situation is best for the country.
So what would happen?
If the most vulnerable part of the entire industry, which is the copyright situation, what if that turned against the AI companies?
And in particular, OpenAI, which seems to be at least the most funded.
Well, that would give our intelligence community a reason to murder whoever was going to ruin the entire AI industry with some whistleblowing.
Because all it would take is one victory.
Over a copyright violation.
And then the floodgates would open, and then you would get other whistleblowers, and maybe our entire industry might be crippled.
Now, this is a problem that China presumably won't have, because they got the dictator situation going on.
So what would happen if America crippled its own AI for completely legitimate reasons?
Meaning that there were people who had legitimate...
Legal complaints.
And our justice system worked the way it's supposed to, took them seriously, and maybe put an injunction on AI and said, okay, you can't develop this until we settle this case.
And it's going to take three years to get it through the Supreme Court.
What would that do to American AI? It would destroy it.
And then we would fall behind and China and anybody else would take over.
And then that would put us at...
What we think would be a gigantic domestic threat.
So, putting it all together, you're the CIA or you're the intelligence community of the United States, and this whistleblower presents really an existential threat to the entire country.
Now, I'm not saying that's true.
I'm saying that you could easily imagine they would think it's true.
They use an existential threat to the entire country because it could take out our biggest AI companies and stall them, and then nothing happens, and we lose the biggest weapon that's ever been developed.
So, under these conditions and the suspiciousness of the case being called suicide, I think it's exactly what it looks like.
I think it's exactly what it looks like.
It looks like it's an inside job and somebody on what should be our team probably just killed him.
And it might be exactly what it looks like.
Because I'm trying to imagine the alternative.
I don't think there's an alternative where our intelligence community would just let this run through the courts.
It would be an existential risk and a really obvious one.
And one they'd have the ability to stop through, you know, the worst possible means.
So I certainly have complete empathy for the family.
And the fact that they, I don't think they'll ever have closure on this.
But you could sort of see how the dots connect.
I don't know.
So I'm not saying that's true.
But I don't know how it could go any other way.
I just don't know how there could be any other way this would have gone.
I think under every situation, the person who's this whistleblower with this claim, who had documents, could prove it with documents.
I think that person dies every time.
And, you know, you can't be happy about that.
Well, how many of you watched at least some clips from a U.S. A hockey team playing a Canadian team.
I don't pay attention to hockey, so is it some kind of playoff situation?
It's a playoff, right?
And is that what it is?
So give me a fact check.
I don't know why the U.S. team and the Canadian team were playing.
Is it just a normal league play?
They're in the same league?
Is that a thing?
All right.
Well, anyway.
So...
For some reason, it seemed like an important hockey game.
And I guess the American national anthem, when it was sung, the Canadians booed, which seemed quite disrespectful to the American team.
So the American team just decided that they were going to start three fights in the first, I don't know, nine seconds or something.
And, of course, everybody knows that hockey players fight a lot.
And it's a weird sport because the fighting is allowed up to a point.
The refs actually stand back.
So instead of breaking it up, they stand back and they let the fight play out.
Now, they must have some kind of internal rules where if the fighters go down, like if one drags the other one down to the ice, they break it up immediately.
But as long as they're both standing on their skates and they put their stick down, I don't think they can fight by hitting each other with their hockey stick.
That probably would be out of bounds.
But if the only thing they're doing is punching each other while they're standing, apparently the refs let that go as long as they want, as long as the people want to keep punching each other.
And I'm sure if the other teammates tried to get into it, the refs would stop it.
So it's such a weird little, not really even a sport rule, that you can punch each other all day long as long as you do it within these, You don't even need a reason.
If the reason was the national anthem, good enough.
But watching how theatrical it happened, and then watching what appeared to be nobody getting hurt whatsoever, it looked like they were throwing wild punches.
They started throwing punches when both of them had helmets on.
And they're like punching the helmets.
And then the helmets come off, and then there's a whole bunch of more punching.
But you really couldn't see anybody connect.
It looked like they could just do these fake punching all day long, because as long as they were sort of holding each other by the jersey, they seemed to be able to avoid the worst part of the punch.
And it reminded me of, do you remember when Jerry Springer was a huge phenomenon on TV? And after a while, there would be a fight every single episode.
So somebody who was on the panel up there on the stage with Jerry Springer would always, every single show, attack somebody who they didn't like who was also on stage.
And it would look wild, and the punches would be thrown and the slapping and the hair pulling.
But eventually they'd be pulled apart.
And I started thinking, wow.
You know, the first few times I saw it, I thought, wow, it's lucky nobody got hurt.
And then it would happen a thousand times in a row, like every single week.
And never did anybody get hospitalized.
I didn't even see a black eye.
So it was obvious to me at the time that the fights were staged.
But let's call it semi-staged.
Meaning that they didn't necessarily say, all right, you can only be on TV if you get in a fight, but we'll break it up, don't hurt each other.
I don't think they did that.
But I think that once it was obvious that fighting was going to be allowed, maybe they selected people who were a little bit more willing to do it.
Maybe there was subtle encouragement.
I think there was.
But I remember talking to people who didn't understand that the fighting was all staged.
And people would say, oh no, I think they're just mad at each other and there's just a lot of fighting.
And I would say, okay.
You believe that a thousand times in a row that somebody decided to take a swing at somebody on stage.
A thousand times in a row.
And a thousand times in a row without anybody ever getting seriously hurt.
Really?
That looks organic to you?
And that's when I realized how dumb the world was.
Because I was surrounded by adult people who voted who believed that was real, just organically happening.
And I would try to convince them, no, no, it's more like the old professional wrestling.
It's part of the show.
It's just entertainment.
No, it's not organic.
And people would mock me.
And they would say, of course it's organic.
What are you talking about?
And I thought, oh my God, we're in trouble.
If you can't tell that's fake.
So then I look at these fights in hockey.
These look like fake fights to me.
But again, I don't think anybody ever said to the hockey players, all right, remember, when you're fighting, make it really fake.
I just think they know that if they hospitalize another player, it's going to come back to them.
And so they try to make sure that, you know, maybe they graze a chin, you know, maybe somebody gets a little tweak in the ear, but mostly they're just punching the air and, you know, punching in the general direction of people.
With no sense that they're trying to hurt anybody.
But you know how impressed we get that Trump does things that other people say were impossible?
Well, here's what Trump did when it comes to hockey.
Because obviously Trump's comments are the reason that Canada and the US are acting aggressive towards each other.
Trump actually made me like hockey.
I loved watching those fights, even though they looked so staged, not staged, but they didn't look serious.
I mean, they weren't two people really trying to hurt each other.
So when I heard the playback of the booing, and you hear somebody booing the national anthem, it just automatically gets your juices going.
You're like, what?
What?
There has to be some response to this.
They booed the national anthem of our country.
And then you see the Americans just throw down their gloves and just go trying to punch the shit out of the Canadian player just because they're a Canadian player.
And the Canadian players having none of it and punching back just as hard or harder.
And it was so male.
I just sort of liked it.
I mean, I really liked it.
I genuinely enjoyed watching every one of the fights.
Every fake punch they threw because it fell right.
It just hit me exactly where I wanted to be hit, so to speak.
So I'm definitely going to be watching the next hockey game between Canada and the United States for the fights.
All right.
So apparently...
Doge might be auditing Fort Knox to see if they have really gold there.
Have you heard that rumor?
It's a conspiracy theory, I guess, that Fort Knox hasn't had any actual gold.
It's all been stolen or moved somewhere.
Well, Zero Hedge, the publication Zero Hedge, brought it up on X, and I think Elon Musk saw that comment.
And the next thing you know, it looks like...
Fort Knox is going to get audited.
Now, what do you think?
Do you think the gold is there?
It hasn't been audited in 50 years.
Do you think that in the United States, gold can sit in a secure facility for 50 years and nobody stole it?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I think Alex Jones was reporting that there seems...
Was it him?
Somebody was saying that there seems to be some...
Gold moving around the world and maybe a little hoarding and that China might be hoarding some gold.
And it makes me wonder if there is any preparation for paper money collapsing.
Could it be that China and the United States figure that if regular paper money goes to hell, which seems like it's heading that direction, that the only value will be gold?
And that at least we'll have that and there'll be some way to go forward?
I don't know.
Makes you wonder.
What's up?
But we'll find out if there's an audit.
According to People Matters, the Doge layoffs went a little too far with some nuclear weapons experts.
And they were fired by mistake and then rehired.
So, is it?
I don't know if they were weapons or just nuclear experts.
A little unclear on that.
But this is exactly the way the system's supposed to work.
Remember, the whole point of DOGE, sort of the DNA of the operating principle, is they're going to move fast.
They know they're going to break stuff.
And then when somebody points it out, they're going to fix it.
So move fast, break stuff fast, fix stuff fast.
Here it is.
They move fast.
They made some mistakes in the hiring.
People said, whoa, whoa, whoa, we can't replace these nuclear experts.
You're going to have to keep them.
And then they're rehired.
Now, I don't know if they've successfully rehired them, but the point is, this is exactly what I want to see.
I want to see they go too far, but they go fast.
They make mistakes.
They fix it.
Move on.
Perfect.
That's a perfect system.
It incorporates the fact that there will be mistakes and then it just deals with them.
All right.
I guess J.D. Vance gave a provocative speech at that European security conference, whatever it was called, and went at the Europeans for saying, why do you expect our help in America when you're opposing our most basic core values of free speech by trying to censor Americans?
I love that frame.
Why are we helping you if you're trying to stop the very thing that makes America America?
Free speech.
So, you know, you could do it to yourselves.
We don't recommend it.
But don't do it to us.
If you're trying to censor us and you're asking for us to defend you, no.
And I think that has to be a hard no.
I literally think if Europe is censoring the United States...
We should give them no defense whatsoever.
None.
I'm 100% on board with letting Europe fall to whoever wants to take them over.
Because if they can't give us that one thing, the one thing that they should just keep the fuck out of our business with what we say in America, absolutely not.
And I'm not joking about that.
I say zero defense for Europe as long as they're trying to censor us in the United States.
Zero.
No, there's no negotiating on that.
You need to get that stuff taken care of because no, hard no.
We're not going to do a fucking thing for you.
We could watch Russia just roll up Europe.
I'd be fine with it.
If that's the alternative, if that's the alternative, I'm fine with it.
Because you know what Putin doesn't do?
Putin doesn't try to censor us.
Does he?
Has Putin ever tried to censor the United States?
I don't believe so.
But if we get censored by Europe, and they do have a way to do that because they can get our multinational corporations in trouble, so not cool that you're just dead to me.
That's what I feel.
So good job, J.D. Vance.
He got really good grades for not just presenting America well, but doing it extra well and saying what needed to be said.
Palmer Luckey is on Sean Ryan's podcast, and he had some interesting things to say about manufacturing.
He said that Trump understands that if we don't manufacture in America, we're just everyone else's bitch.
So he talked about how China could just turn off the economy of the United States anytime it wants because we can't manufacture over here.
If we can't get the Chinese goods, we're basically dead.
So it is an enormous strategic risk to have your manufacturing outsourced.
And it looks like it's coming back.
I think we'll figure out how to get some of it back.
But yeah, I would agree with Palmer Luckey.
That if you can't manufacture in America, you don't really have a future.
I think that's fair to say.
You don't have a future if you can't manufacture locally.
If you're not following the account by Zion Lights, which is a person's first and last name, first name Zion, last name Lights, just like it sounds, like the lights you turn on.
She is one of our best...
Journalists slash experts on nuclear energy and follows US plus Europe.
And it's really sad to see that Germany phased out their nuclear.
Now, they had reasons, of course.
You know, they have people afraid of it and blah, blah, blah.
But apparently they didn't accomplish their goals for CO2, which they could have been a lot closer to if they kept their nuclear.
They're in a world of hurt.
And Great Britain is getting...
Great Britain is currently pro-nuclear at the government level, but the society is resisting it.
So there's a big pushback in Great Britain.
And here's what I think.
I think, again, this could be one of America's advantages over everybody except perhaps China.
Because China is just going gung-ho with every form of energy they can get.
Because they have unlimited need for energy.
So they're doing everything right.
Just energy first.
Boom, boom, boom.
And I think the United States is maybe finally at a place where we can just say, let's do what makes sense.
And we weren't there for decades.
For decades, we were like, no nuclear power will kill us all.
And we don't know what to do with the waste.
And all those problems were solved.
Those are all solved problems.
The safety, the waste, it's all solved.
The waste, you basically just keep on site.
That's a total solution.
So I think that the fact that Democrats, at least in leadership, Democrats and also leader Republicans and also the president are unambiguously pro-nuclear power, pro-nuclear power, is really, really a good sign.
You know, all of Silicon Valley is pro-nuclear power because they need it for AI and everything else.
So if you've got all your tech geniuses, your top Republicans and your top Democrats just fully on board with nuclear power, we're in much better shape than the countries that are not like that.
So France is looking strong.
They were early and smart on nuclear power, so they've got a good nuclear power system going there.
But in America, it's probably 10 to 20 years from being able to seriously say we made a difference in nuclear, but maybe faster if we do the small modular stuff.
We'll see.
Well, meanwhile, Zelensky over in Ukraine is calling for the formation of a European armed force.
Now, the idea is that since Trump is saying, well, we can't do everything in America, or we're doing too much, you need to take care of yourself, Europe, that Zelensky says they're going to need a European armed force.
Now, it would not replace NATO. It would augment it.
It would be to boost NATO's power, but also have their own independent military.
I guess independence is the wrong word, but a European military.
Now, does anybody care what Zelensky thinks Europe should do?
I don't even need to discuss whether this is a good idea or a bad idea.
It came from Zelensky.
I don't think anybody's listening to him anymore.
Indeed, it looks like Trump and Putin are planning to meet in Saudi.
We don't have a date yet, but they're going to meet in Saudi Arabia to discuss ending the war.
Do you know who they're not bringing?
They're not bringing Zelensky to the conversation about ending the war in Ukraine.
Do you know why they're not bringing Zelensky?
Why would you?
He's not relevant because he's going to do whatever we tell him to do in the end.
But they're also not bringing anybody from Europe.
So there'll be no European and no Ukrainian.
Just Trump and Putin deciding what a peace would look like.
And I think the implication is that if Trump comes up with a deal, Europe's just going to have to eat it.
So better hope it's a deal that Europe can live with.
And I have to admit, if this were a normal situation, you would want all the stakeholders to be involved.
You'd want everybody who had an interest to be weighing in.
But I go back to Jamie Dimon.
When Jamie Dimon was doing his rant that got recorded, he was being mad at his own employees and his own company for not stepping up, basically.
One of the things he talked about was somebody who couldn't get something done without 14 different departments approving it.
And he was just saying, you can't do that.
You can't run a great company.
Where if you want to do something, 14 different departments have to approve it.
And he said something like, give me the names of those 14 department heads and I'll fire them today.
Because they shouldn't be doing that.
They're not on the right side if there are 14 of them.
This is a similar situation.
And it's one of the things I like most about Trump is the business experience.
Do you think Trump doesn't know?
That if he brings even one extra person in, it fucks up the whole thing.
Of course he knows that.
What would happen if you brought two extra people to your negotiation?
It fucks it up twice as badly.
What if you brought three different countries that all have an interest?
Then it's triple fucked.
So Trump is doing the only thing that can work.
Jamie Dimon is telling you the only thing that can work is you can't bring in 14 people.
You just can't do it.
There's no way to get from here to there through 14 different interests.
You've got to find something that works for two key players, arguably the two important ones.
And then if you're going to get it done, you've got to shove it down the throats of the other people, even if it's not their perfect solution.
There's no other way to do it.
So if you think he's being a dictator and blah, blah, blah, well, no more than Jamie Dimon.
If somebody's got to be in charge and somebody's got to say this process can work, this other process where you have 14 people deciding what works, that could never work.
That can never work.
So if you want something to work, yeah, two people at a summit is how I'd do it.
That's exactly how I'd do it.
And I would definitely leave Zelensky home, no doubt about that.
Anyway, but also Saudi Arabia is hosting that Arab summit, as I said.
So I like the fact that Saudi is acting like a real ally.
Have you noticed that?
It feels like not all of our allies react like allies.
But there might be some exceptions.
You know, there could easily be some exceptions I don't know about.
But I do appreciate, I do appreciate that Saudi...
Seems somewhat consistently trying to make sure that America and Saudi Arabia have a strong ongoing connection and they're not sabotaging us while secretly trying to help us or vice versa.
So I know I'm speaking too soon and maybe they're doing things we don't like as well, but I kind of like the way it looks, the way it feels.
So good job, Saudi Arabia, so far.
And then according to San Francisco, University of California, San Francisco, did you know that there's an alarming rise in advanced prostate cancer in California?
So California, more than other states, but also the other states stopped reducing the cancer deaths and they've plateaued.
So the idea is that specific cancer, prostate cancer, has gotten worse.
In California.
Now, NPCs, would you like to blame the vaccination for that?
NPCs?
Remember, swimming is the best form of exercise.
French press is the best for coffee.
And that green stuff is Soylent Green.
Now, this started before the pandemic.
So before the pandemic, listen to me.
Before the pandemic, this trend started.
It seems related to, they say, it's related to less screening.
So the less screening, they say, is leading to worse outcomes.
I'm not entirely sure that makes a difference because I've seen studies that say that Great Britain doesn't do as much screening as we do for this specific cancer.
And their life expectancies are much different.
So there's a little conflicting data.
Some data says that this screening doesn't make a difference, but California is seeming to indicate it did.
I don't know.
I don't trust any news.
I don't trust any data.
Remember, all data is the fox counting the chickens, and you can never trust the fox to count the chickens.
But the only thing I wanted to point out is this is a case where it definitely happened before the pandemic and before the vaccinations.
So there might be some several unrelated reasons that the cancer rates are up that don't have to do with vaccinations and don't have to do with COVID. But also there could be some of that.
So I'm not ruling out that any of that's...
I'm not saying that the vaccinations do or do not cause a problem like that, but there do seem to be some other reasons.
So, just so you heard that.
Well, if you didn't know it, I posted on Locals yesterday and then I reposted on X a lesson on risk management.
Now, before you tell me what I'm going to tell you, just wait for me to say it first, okay?
Nobody cares about who got a vaccination during the pandemic.
It's old news, old story, but it's a really good lesson in risk management.
And I would argue that if you weren't good at risk management, you often said something like, and people said this to me in comment to my lesson, they said, Scott, the only thing I needed to know is that the government said it was a good idea and it was called experimental.
So therefore, that's all I needed to know.
And so I thought to myself, are there any examples where the government wanted you to do something that was good for you?
Because if everything the government recommends is bad for you, that's a pretty good reason.
If every time the government said, You should do this.
Was I always wrong?
Just always?
Then I guess you wouldn't need to know anything else.
You just say, oh, who's saying?
Oh, the government's saying it.
Or the government.
Okay, well, I'm not going to do that.
But then I thought to myself, how many things are there that the government says you should do that are good ideas?
Are there any?
I see you saying seatbelts and smallpox.
Well, doesn't the government say you probably shouldn't have asbestos in your house?
They say that, right?
Are they wrong?
Should you put some asbestos in your house?
How about the food pyramid?
The food pyramid used to be all wrong, and maybe it's a little wrong now, but would you do the opposite of the food pyramid?
Would you eat a bunch of processed foods and sugar foods as much as you wanted?
Because the government says you shouldn't?
So, I guess you have to ask yourself, what is the...
Say, the people who haven't seen my video, they still think they know how to do risk management.
So, I try to deal with those of you who really don't understand any risk management whatsoever.
Those of you who just said, The government said it's good for me, therefore it's bad.
Or related to that, Pfizer said it's good for me, therefore it's bad.
Or we use the word experimental.
They said it's experimental, and therefore, why would I take an experiment?
Those are not reasons.
If you thought that that was good risk management, that you were just looking at who said it, that doesn't really work.
How many of you don't know that that's not really any kind of standard that's part of reason?
That's like reading, you know, chicken entrails and trying to predict the future.
That's like a horoscope.
It's like flipping a coin.
It's not part of the reasoning.
It's not part of reason.
It's just irrational.
But sometimes...
Irrational reasons can get you to the right answer if it's a coin flip.
If there are only two possibilities, it's good for you or it's not, then any method you use is likely to have a 50% chance of working.
All right, I'm going to pray to the sun gods.
Well, you had a 50-50 chance of getting the right answer, no matter how ridiculous your reasoning was to get there.
So, here's what's happened.
I've just got tired of stupid people.
So the stupid people who are giving me stupid fucking reasons for why they did or did not get the shot, you just have to be...
You have to understand that you're stupid.
And just leave me alone.
So if you don't want to listen to my risk analysis, just leave me alone.
Because you're not part of any helpful anything.
You like to brag that you got one lucky thing right.
I'm not going to put up with it anymore.
So it's also good to find out who to block.
So I blockbill the people who said, oh, I just listened to the government and did the opposite.
All right.
Every once in a while, the government gets one right.
And the same people are now going to say, oh, Scott says you should do whatever the government says.
Because their reasoning is so bad that they have to distort what I say to disagree with it.
If you actually agreed with what, or if you had a reason, you'd give a reason.
But usually, oh, he's so dumb, he just believes whatever he's told.
The opposite of the risk management lesson I give you.
All right.
Yes, my...
My critics are experiencing severe cognitive dissonance.
Now, you can decide if I'm the one.
You can just listen to the video, and you would very quickly detect if I had cognitive dissonance.
Because I make a bunch of claims, and you can just look at them all.
It either fits together or doesn't.
And if you don't think it fits together...
Somebody says, my risk management was better than yours.
Well, not your reasoning.
Yeah, not your reasoning.
Just trying to help.
All right.
So again, nobody cares about the pandemic.
It's old news, but it might help you understand how risk management works.
For those of you who want to stick around on Locals, I'm going to say hi to you.
