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, Microsoft Quantum Computing, Kash Patel, Grok xAI, Lindsey Graham, President Trump, Ukraine War, DOGE Savings Refund, Stacey Abrams, Power Forward Communities, Anti-DOGE Republicans, Anti-Elon UK Royal Society, Insurrection Barbie, Democrat Power Center, Monarch Trump Manhattan Congestion, democrat vs republican Reframe, Watching the Enemy (MSNBC), Biden's Soros Employee Transition Teams, DC Federal Control, Mike Lee, Bowser Act, Mike Pence, Bear Poking Analogy, Federal Funding Illegals, MAHA Investigations List, RFK Jr., Mayor Bass Clever Technique, Counter-Drone Technology, Sniffer Drones, Racial Discrimination, 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.
The greatest reframe you've ever seen is coming at you today.
All right.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
If you'd like to experience a higher level of happiness than even before, well, all you need is a cup of mug or a glass of tank of shells, a stein, a canteen, jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
Dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it's going to happen right now.
Go.
Oh.
Satisfying.
So good.
Well, Microsoft has made a big and important announcement.
They've developed a quantum computing thing called the Majorana 1. It's the first quantum processing unit that's built on a topological core.
Whoa.
Whoa.
It's the first quantum processing unit built on a topological core.
Well, now everything makes sense.
Can we all admit we don't know a damn thing about quantum computing?
We don't know what difference it's going to make, except maybe your encryptions will all be at risk.
It's not going to replace your laptop computer or your phone, because it doesn't do sort of general computing.
Do we even care?
And it's always a few years away.
Like, the chip is not the thing that...
We got this magic chip in the news.
It's all abuzz.
But it's still years away.
The claim is that now those years of work are more...
It's a more clear and obvious path.
So we're definitely going to get to quantum computing.
And it's just...
It's only just years away.
It's just years away.
So at about the same time as Fusion, which, by the way, is years away.
It's just years away.
Any year now.
With the flying car.
So we'll get the flying car, the fusion, and the quantum computing, I think, exactly on the same day.
That's my prediction.
Well, today is show us the cash day.
Cash Patel will get his vote.
We'll see if he makes it to be the head of the FBI. And the question I have is, do you suppose that like the rest of the big administration Nominees.
That Cash will have some dramatic and notable first-day rules.
Do you think something big is going to happen in the next, say, 48 hours?
I'm assuming he gets the vote.
We think he's going to get through, right?
If he gets through, what does he have planned for the first day?
I'm going to make a prediction.
Aside from the normal firings, you know, it seems like there's always firings.
But I think he's going to announce an investigation into something that had not yet been investigated that we all wish had been investigated.
I'm going to predict there will be a crowd pleaser.
So at least one thing that Kash Patel says within the next seven days, assuming if he gets the vote.
Something he's going to say in the next seven days will make you go, whoa, I always wished that would happen, but I never thought it would.
So that's my prediction.
Meanwhile, Grok, the AI, from X is the number one downloaded app at the moment, and that's even, as Elon says, before the voice mode, the thing that allows you to just have a conversation with it.
That's before that's even in the app, but that's coming real soon.
And some other cool features.
So, will Elon Musk have the greatest AI? And will it remain the greatest AI? There's a pretty good argument that that's the way it's going to go.
Because if creating the best intelligent app requires creating the fastest and biggest and best infrastructure...
Who's better at creating the best and fastest and best infrastructure?
It's sort of nobody's.
It's not even the second place.
So in theory, if you're going to predict which AI becomes dominant and stays that way, it would be the one that's being supported by the person who can build a data center in an hour and a half.
That's not true.
But things that other people just can't do, infrastructure and manufacturing-wise.
So that's impressive.
Meanwhile, Lindsey Graham had a conversation with Zelensky, and Zelensky is happy about that.
He says, we greatly appreciate the bicameral and bipartisan support of the U.S. Congress.
It's funny that he's talking about Lindsey Graham, and he said bi twice.
Bicameral and bipartisan.
Is there any other?
I don't know.
He might have left that one.
But he says, The Ukrainian people are very, very happy about it and want to fight against what they call the Russian aggression.
And he says Senator Graham is being constructive, doing a lot to help peace closer.
And the way he's doing that is trying to make sure that we give them more money.
So Lindsey Graham is trying to make the world a safer place by giving your money to somebody else.
Has that worked before?
Is giving our money away the way we stay safe?
I don't know.
I'd like to see the data on that.
But this, of course, would be directly in conflict with President Trump's negotiating tactic, which is to put maximum pressure on both sides at the same time.
Now, the maximum pressure on Russia isn't going to look the same as the maximum pressure on Ukraine.
Because Zelensky is a different character than Putin, and...
We don't need to go into why that's true.
Trump stomping on Zelensky's credibility and him as a leader and essentially basically treating him like he's not the one in charge probably is exactly the right approach for Zelensky and for Ukraine at the moment.
Whereas if he did the same thing with Putin, it would make things worse.
Putin has real power and a real army, and nobody's pulling his puppet strings.
So with Putin, you've got to treat him like he's your peer.
He's awesome.
And at the same time, threaten him privately.
So what you should expect, if Trump is doing everything right, and so far it looks like he does, he would privately threaten Putin, but also privately, you know, there'd be a carrot as well as a stick.
The carrot would be...
You know, if you decide to be more like our ally than our adversary, that would be a good world for both of us.
Whatever that looks like.
So I think that's the carrot.
You know, China is your biggest threat in the long term.
So in the long term, you want to be on our side because we're natural allies.
By the way, I've been saying this for years, that Russia and the United States are, quote, natural allies.
And that's the thing that you can't fight against.
If somebody is a natural adversary, I would say, let's say, Al-Qaeda and Israel.
That's not going to get fixed.
Those are natural adversaries.
There's nothing you can do about that.
They're not going to make peace, right?
But in some cases, you just have more in common in the long term than with some groups and others.
And I think Russia is far more likely to be our adversary.
We're far more likely to be on the same side with some of the big issues than on the other side.
And it would be better for both of us.
Just being at war, even if it's like the silent secret, you know, covert war with Russia, is not buying us a lot.
So I understand that we don't want them to be economically dominant or control energy in Europe or any of that.
And I think we can make sure that doesn't happen.
So I do expect lots of pressure on both Ukraine and Putin if Trump's doing his job right, which I expect.
But what is Lindsey Graham doing?
It's like he's working against that.
Because even if you think Ukraine does deserve some funding, you know, just to survive while we do the negotiating, it's not really super good that he's going public with it and Zelensky's...
You know, happy that he's getting money at the same time that Trump's trying to pressure everybody to make something happen.
So I've got a lot of questions about Lindsey Graham's activity in this.
It doesn't look like it was designed to help.
I don't know what it was designed for.
As you know, there is a suggestion given to Elon Musk and Doge that maybe some of that Doge savings should be returned to voters.
Now, of course, that raises the question, Isn't the whole point to reduce our debt?
If you start returning it to voters, yeah, it might stimulate the economy and that might create some extra tax revenue, but that sort of thing typically doesn't create as much tax revenue as it costs.
So does it ever make sense that Doge gives any money back to the public, given that Paying off the debt would be the way to give money back to the public.
That would be the best thing for the public.
And the answer is, it kind of depends.
Because these big things like Doge are not just technical things or math.
It's not just true-false.
It's also about how people feel about it.
If people don't feel good about the Doge thing, and maybe they don't understand it, and they're reading the wrong news sources and stuff, then they might try to kill it.
And maybe there's an administration after these four years that really needs to, you know, finish the job.
And let's say it's J.D. Vance or anybody with that leaning.
You don't want the public to turn on the idea of making the government more efficient.
So suppose you bribed the public and you said, look, public, I know you don't follow the news.
I know you don't know exactly whether it's a good idea or a bad idea to do these aggressive cuts.
I know you have many questions.
But what if he got a check?
What if he got a check for $5,000, just as an example?
Well, suddenly that would make everybody think, why don't I just shut up about this?
I just got a check.
Or I might get a check.
So this is one of those rare situations where Typically, I would just say, no, the whole point of it is to pay off the debt.
I don't want to hear anything else.
If it's not about paying down the deficit or the debt, don't even break it up.
But if the only way you could get there is with massive support of the public, because remember, Doge is going after the low-hanging fruit first.
When they start getting into the tougher stuff and the bigger cuts, which I hope are ahead, They're going to need massive public support.
Would it make sense?
One of the ideas now that's being floated is that 20% of all the Doge savings would become a check that goes to the public.
That doesn't make any sense economically.
So I don't support it economically.
But as a way to keep Doge popular, So it has the right amount of support, and it's got the right, just the right framing.
It just comes as a positive thing.
It might make sense.
So I'm going to say I'm solidly on the fence, meaning that I don't know if we can tell if getting more support for Doge is the most important thing, worth 20% of all the money we might save.
And a stimulus is always a good idea.
Stimulus is never a bad idea.
But this one's tough.
I would say there's no obvious right answer on this.
So either way it goes, I'm inclined to say, let's see how it plays out.
But once they've raised the possibility, it's going to be a little hard to say it's never going to happen.
I've got a feeling they might kick the can down the road and say, if we find a trillion, well, we'll return X amount.
And then we'll see if they find a trillion.
So, we'll see.
It's not a terrible idea.
It's just hard to predict how that goes.
So, if you think of it as a psychological thing and not an economic thing, it makes more sense.
Well, Trump is the ultimate showman, and he likes to tease about what's coming with Doge.
He said, quote, some of the things I don't want to discuss, they are very, very embarrassing to people.
But you will be seeing and reading about it very soon.
Okay, so I love that Trump is teasing that there's going to be something entertaining to come.
And it's like, you know, very, very bad.
You know, scaring people who know they're being looked into.
But here's an example that the Free Beacon reported on.
Libs of TikTok is talking about this on X. So here's what the Free Beacon found.
There were $2 billion in taxpayer dollars that went to a brand new non-profit called Power Forward Communities.
Now, have you noticed that all these non-government, non-profit organizations have names like that?
They all have names like the Power Forward Communities, or the, I'm just making these up, but the Democratic Freedom Organization.
They're all these generic American sounding names, so you can't tell one from the other, and there are thousands of them.
So the first thing you need to know is, I think they're intentionally confusing, so that they can hide among all the other money laundering entities.
Allegedly money laundering.
Anyway, so there's this brand new little non-profit with a generic name like the rest of them.
That has what they call close ties to Democrat Stacey Abrams.
Well, there's nothing wrong with that, right?
If she's got a good and useful charity, and she wants to do some good work, and maybe she has a little track record, you know, she's done it before, or the group that she's backing has done it before, this could be a good thing.
Two billion dollars put into the right charity, that can really help the country.
Let's see what else we know about it.
Oh, it was only a few months old, and it had $100 in the bank.
Well, that's pretty good.
It went from having $100 and never having done anything to receiving $2 billion in 2024. Is that illegal?
To have no experience, no track record, and no money, and the government gives you $2 billion?
It's probably not illegal.
But let's find out what else is going on.
You know, suppose they still just did something good with it.
Well, that wouldn't be illegal.
It might be something you wouldn't do, but not illegal.
So let's see what kind of good things are up to.
On their website, they listed partnerships with two other non-profits.
Well, this is good.
So they're not operating alone like some little criminal organization.
They're tied to other non-profits.
So that makes you feel more comfortable, right?
Because they have connections to other nonprofits.
Yeah, so let's see.
Those other nonprofits, they were both founded by, oh, Stacey Abrams.
So Stacey Abrams got $2 billion for a brand new nonprofit that had only $100 before that.
But it's connected with two other nonprofits that she also founded.
What would be the purpose of having interconnected organizations?
Let's see.
I remember Hunter Biden had lots of shell companies.
And I remember it was at Franzese, the ex-mobster who used to do crime for a living, who explained that the one and only reason you have all these interconnected entities is for fraud.
So you can move money around and it's hard to know why anything went anywhere.
But that's just a pattern.
It's not illegal to be reminded that it looks like some other thing that's a crime.
It would have to be a crime itself.
It's not enough to say it just looks like one.
So you can't say that it's a crime.
Let's see.
Stacey Abrams also serves as the senior counsel for something called Rewiring America.
That leads a coalition of groups.
Okay, so she's also in charge of something that leads a coalition of other groups that would include the power forward communities.
Okay, so she started a group that's associated with other groups that she's associated with, but don't worry because it's controlled by a larger group in which she's also the senior counsel.
Yeah, that doesn't look suspicious at all.
So, if you think anything is suspicious about that, there's something wrong with you.
I judge you.
You.
Stacey Abrams is not accused of any crime, and I see no crime in anything I just described.
It does look exactly like the pattern of criminal behavior.
Exactly.
Exactly like the pattern.
But that doesn't mean it is.
You can't go to a court and say, jury, we don't see any actual crimes, but a lot of what she did is like the pattern of a crime.
That's not a crime.
So I can't say that I see anything criminal.
I do see something that really needs to stop.
It really needs to stop.
Whatever this is, there needs to be less of this.
Whatever it takes to get there.
Legally, of course.
But yeah, I don't need to know that it's a crime or not.
That's almost beside the point.
You can't do this with our $2 billion.
You can't put $2 billion into some kind of a network of interconnected, shady organizations.
Unless you're under Biden.
Well, in other news, House Democrats are trying to put together a bill to kill the Doge program.
They would just need three GOP defectors.
Can you imagine what would happen to any Republican who voted to kill Doge for any reason?
Talk about a quick way to end your career.
I think nearly 90% of donors would say, wait, you did what?
Yes, I was one of the three GOP who voted to kill Doge.
I must be hearing this wrong.
You did what?
Yep, yep, I'm proud of it.
I was one of the people who killed Doge.
And you're a Republican, right?
Yep, proud Republican.
I just thought I went too far.
Those cuts, it looked like they were up to no good.
Okay, you know that you don't have a fucking chance of winning another election.
You're done.
You're as done as you could possibly be.
And that's kind of what I like about the Republicans right now.
They're not taking prisoners.
If you're going to be the one who fucks our entire country, you're going down.
You know, in a legal, of course, appropriate way.
That has to be the most severe consequences within the law if you were to derail Doge.
At this point?
At this point?
I don't think it's going to happen.
But the fact that the best thing that the Democrats have is to go after something that's very popular.
They're literally organizing around one of the most popular things that's ever happened in the country.
It's one of the most popular things.
Now, it's only...
You know, just over 50%.
But if you can get a brand new Republican or even a brand new Democrat president who can get a 56% on a brand new thing that's got a lot of energy and it's making a big difference, that's amazing support in our country.
That would be amazing support.
Well, let's see if the Trump effect is affecting anything else.
I don't know if this is the Trump effect.
But according to polls, Francis Macron, if he ran an election today, he would lose by a lot, by 18% margin to Le Pen.
So I don't follow French politics too much, but it seems like that would be quite the earthquake.
I know that Le Pen's been trying since about the same time that Trump's been trying the first time, 2016. And it didn't work then, but it looks like Macron has just disgraced himself to the point that Le Pen would be a shoo-in.
Now, I think that doesn't mean that Le Pen becomes the leader.
France is a little more complicated than that.
But in terms of popularity, it's not even close.
Is that the Trump effect?
See, I think anybody who doesn't act like Trump is going to look much...
Less desirable going forward.
Because every day that Trump has a good week, or every week he has a good week, is going to make any leader who's anti-Trump just look like a moron.
And it's just going to get worse every day.
So Macron will probably just go lower.
You know, this is a pretty big difference in popularity, but I think he's heading even lower.
All right, well, here Jonathan Turley was posting about this.
I've been writing about it.
The so-called Royal Society out of Great Britain is one of the most prominent scientific organizations.
And they used to, you know, support, I don't know, they used to have such luminaries, according to Turley, as Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin.
So this is the most, maybe the most prestigious scientific organization in the world, at least the Western world.
But the British scientists, they've decided that they want to expel Elon Musk.
So they want to kick him out, Elon Musk, because they disagree with his political views.
Yeah, they disagree with his political views.
And so a whole bunch of scientists from this royal society got together and they signed a document saying that they'd like to kick Elon Musk out of their society.
Now, I'd like to ask you a question, and this will be like a pop quiz.
Let's see how well you do this.
What would be the two least credible entities in 2025?
Well, one of them would be Great Britain, and the other would be anything that a group of experts sign to say is true.
Those are the two least credible things in the world.
I don't trust anything about England or Great Britain at the moment.
I don't even know what team they're on.
Literally.
Because, you know, I don't need to get into the details.
But if you go all the way back to Russia collusion, there's a lot of British fingerprints on that, if you know what I mean.
I don't know exactly what they're up to, but a lot of British fingerprints.
But then they've got this Royal Society and get a bunch of scientists to sign on the same opinion.
When was the last time you saw...
A whole bunch of experts sign on to the same opinion that wasn't absolute bullshit.
Has it ever happened?
I feel like whenever the experts all sign a document, be it 51 intelligence experts, or be it scientists who are backing climate models, or be it this, whenever you see that the experts have to sign a document and they all got together, that's almost never true.
In my opinion.
Now, you could argue that in your opinion it is true, but I think that's a real good indication of lack of credibility.
So it's just a political thing.
All right.
I saw Insurrection Barbie had some great posts today.
I'm going to talk about a few of them.
Insurrection Barbie on X. You should follow that account.
So Insurrection Barbie says...
Once you realize that the entire resistance to Trump is made up of like 300 super-connected Democrats and then a bunch of paid protesters, you realize why the last election, why they lost the election and why they keep leading voters.
Now, do you buy that?
My neighbors promised me that they would not use heavy equipment before 8 a.m.
my time.
It's now 7.30.
That's very heavy equipment.
I think my microphone doesn't pick it up, but right now I'm in the middle of a war zone.
You can't tell, probably.
I hope you can't tell.
But the Insurrection Barbie's idea that there are only 300 well-connected Democrats, that completely tracks with my impression of what's going on.
Have you noticed how it's the same bunch?
That are anti-Trump, and their jobs can change, and they might be in this Congress, but they might be in the Senate later.
Then they used to be in the non-profit, but now they're working for Biden, but now Biden's gone, they're back to a non-profit.
And they're just cycling around.
If you could control 300 entities, because you had 300 people that, you know, because you had other Democrats that could support them.
You'd make sure you had Democrats in all the key places.
If you could control the money that controls the protests and then you could control the news, because you would only need, what, 20 people under your control in the entire news business and you could control the entire news with 20 people.
Think about that.
If your 20 people were the heads of some news organizations, They would just make sure that the other people were on the same team.
You would only need about 20 people.
And so, yes, I think there are about 300 people that are sort of a shadow government of Democrats that are not exactly the same as being part of the Republic.
It's like a group that's trying to be their own Republic within the Republic and to make the actual Democratic Republic maybe a puppet.
And I think they've done an incredibly successful job of gaining power that way.
Amazingly successful.
But they're up against a once-ever personality in Trump.
And what happens when they play their games and they say, but Trump is a monarch.
He's a monarch.
He's trying to be a king.
And then even Time Magazine had a photo of Trump wearing a...
A king's crown.
Oh, man, they're so good.
They're so good at controlling the media.
What will Trump do?
How could Trump possibly get out of this trap of being called a monarch?
Well, what he did was he killed congestion pricing for driving into Manhattan, and then he posted about it bragging, and he said, congestion pricing is dead.
Manhattan and all of New York is saved.
Long live the king.
And then he puts a photo of the Time magazine.
Okay.
But, you know, I know you might get tired of me being sort of a fanboy for Trump's persuasion skills.
Now, just to be clear, I'm not endorsing every single thing Trump has ever done all of his life.
That's not my job.
But when he does persuasion better than you've ever seen it, and then he keeps doing it...
I'm going to continue to be impressed, and I don't apologize for that.
This is one of the...
First of all, it's very Trumpian that he can do this and get away with it.
He's just using mockery.
So he's taking one of their strongest attacks, and he's just basically taking the gun out of their hands and using it against them.
Has he ever done that before?
Yes!
Over and over and over.
He just keeps doing it.
You remember the mugshot?
He has the mugshot framed and hanging in the Oval Office, so all of his enemies have to walk past the mugshot.
And then the media noticed and said, hey, you've got your mugshot on the wall of the Capitol.
It's like you're mocking your enemies.
And then they make a big story about it, and then we all laugh about it.
We think, ah, that's the best mockery I've seen.
As long as he does mockery of their absurd little attacks, He's golden.
Mockery is very effective, and he does it so well.
I don't think there could have been...
The fact that he used his Long Live the King in the context of congestion pricing in Manhattan.
So he didn't even connect it to something like stopping a war or saving the country or, you know, like the big, big issues.
It's like, hey, it looks like I killed congestion pricing in Manhattan.
Long live the king!
Could not be better.
You can't beat that.
All right.
I promised you I was going to give you the reframe of reframes.
You are not going to...
You're not going to be able to forget this one.
Because once I give you the frame, everything you see is going to stick to it.
Now, it's a little bit of something you've heard before, but it's never been completed.
So I'm going to complete the reframe like you've never heard it before.
You ready?
All right.
So let's look at what Trump is bringing to politics, and then we'll look at what the Democrats are bringing to politics, and then I'm going to put it in a frame that you'll never forget.
So let's start with Trump.
Would you agree that if you look at the, let's say, the Theme or the strategy that he brings to politics.
Would you say that he's bringing humor, strength, energy, risk-taking, but risk-taking that makes sense, unity, and potential for greatness?
So he talks about greatness, he's funny, he's got strength, he's energy.
What does that sound like?
Well, first of all, he focuses on real things.
This is an important point.
Trump focuses on real things.
We've got a deficit, there's childhood, chronic illnesses, I can stop this war.
Those are real things.
Very, very real things.
So he's got humor, strength, energy, optimism.
I should have said optimism, but lots of optimism.
He's making things great.
There's action.
What does that sound like?
I'll tell you what it sounds like.
It sounds like every movie that males want to watch.
If I pick a movie, do I want a sad one?
No.
Do I want action where it's a bunch of bad things that happen one after another?
Not so much.
But do I want an action movie where there's lots of funny in-between stuff?
Oh yeah.
Oh yeah.
Every man wants an action movie with optimism, energy, humor, strength, risk-taking.
The good people come together and there's a potential for greatness.
Trump is every man's and every boy's favorite movie.
Now, this is just the first part of the reframe.
It doesn't come together until I do the second part.
Now let's look at the Democrat approach.
They lead by victimization, division by identity, weakness.
Oh, we're weak, we're weak, we need help.
They're sad that they're living through a slow-motion disaster of some sort.
And they mostly focus on things that have no basis in reality, like losing their democracy, Trump's a dictator, and they're going to lose their bodily autonomy.
Literally things that don't exist.
I was watching CNN, and there was a split screen in which Jake Tapper was having a frown-off with Kara Swisher.
Now, if you watch enough media, do you know why Kara Swisher gets invited on CNN? It's because she's willing to say more sad and unhappy things about Elon Musk, which are not real.
They're just imaginary.
And then Jake Tapper does his famous tapper tilt when he's listening, turns his head to one side, and he frowns.
So he's frowning on one side, and then Kara Swisher is really sad.
She's got the saddest frowny face, and she's got things to say about Elon Musk that are completely imaginary about the things he might do and the things he might be thinking and the potential for the future.
That something could go wrong.
He might look at your private data.
He might do something where there's a conflict of interest and nobody catches it.
He might be bad.
He might not be working for your benefit.
But all of those things are imaginary.
And they're all sad.
And they're a little melodramatic.
And they're not really action-oriented.
They don't have any comedy.
There's no optimism whatsoever.
It's just melodramatic, sad, Character-based.
So, the Democrats are character-based.
Oh, you're a racist.
Oh, you're really going to cheat.
Oh, you don't care.
Oh, you're a monarch.
It's all character.
Now, I'm not done yet.
When did I complete the loop?
So, if that's the only thing you knew, that Trump was creating the best movie ever, the exact feeling That boys and men like.
Action, energy, optimism, comedy, risk-taking, unity, potential for greatness.
It's all we want to see in a movie.
And then you look at the Democrats.
They're also doing a movie.
But what's different about their movie?
Who is it who reads most of the movie?
Who reads most fiction?
Women.
Let's talk to AI and find out what AI says about this, because I asked it today.
Well, AI says that 70% to 80% of fiction, which is usually melodrama, is women.
So women for entertainment are driven to sadness and tragedy for entertainment and mostly fiction.
Like real things.
They like nonfiction.
Or things that, if they're fiction, they're optimistic and happy and funny.
Now, let's see if these examples can make the point.
Let's see, Al Sharpton went on MSNBC and he said he joined Joy Reid.
And he talked about the dangerous direction of Trump.
Well, the dangerous direction...
Is something that isn't real.
It's just something you worry about.
It's literally fiction.
Okay, imagine a dangerous direction.
And he says he's being pushed by characters like J.D. Vance and Peter Thiel and Elon Musk.
In other words, it's about their character and their personalities.
That's a woman's movie.
He said Trump isn't shaping a nation.
He's trying to drag us back into pre-1950 America.
Erasing diversity and rights for women and people of color.
Now, none of that is part of the real world.
That is pure fiction.
Who watches fiction?
Women.
Women like fiction, especially if it's sad.
So he's got some sad fiction for the women who watch MSNBC. He says, the real danger, we have an entertainer playing a role rather than a leader upholding democracy.
Okay.
And so far, that's been a problem how?
It hasn't.
It's just not part of the real world.
In the real world, it turned out that having showman skills works really well with politics.
Trump is, I would argue, the most capable politician maybe of all time.
I don't think anybody's come close.
But Joy Reid, also MSNBC, said separately, she said, For years, it has been said by analysts and former intelligence officers that Donald Trump has, at best, a profound affinity for Russia, and at worst, is and has long been a Russian recruit.
Okay.
Trump as a Russian recruit, is that based on any reality?
No.
Even Joy Reid doesn't base it on any reality.
It's fiction.
It's literally fiction.
And it's really sad.
Because imagine if this were true.
So it's sad fiction.
Who reads and consumes sad fiction?
Women.
80% of it is consumed by women.
How about Joe Scarborough?
Also on MSNBC. He said today, quote, they're going to take away medical research.
Talking about Trump.
They're going to take away medical research?
That's literally the opposite of what Kennedy's doing.
Kennedy is trying to make sure there is medical research that's dependable.
It's the opposite.
So he says, those plane crashes you're seeing, you're going to see more of them.
Based on what?
They're pretending that the people fired at the FAA are the air traffic controllers.
Nobody said that.
That's fiction.
I'm sure the people fired are more likely to be back office people.
I don't even know that.
It's just obviously true.
He said there are going to be cuts in food safety, water safety, air safety.
So how much of that...
Now, that might be true, that there might be cuts in regulations.
But does that mean the cuts in the regulations are bad for you?
This is all imaginary.
It's all imaginary.
How about Jasmine Crockett, one of their favorite people they like?
She said on MSNBC, the only thing Trump is doing is lining his and Elon's pockets.
What's the evidence of that?
Have you seen them lining their pockets?
Now, could it happen?
Well, anything could happen.
Could it be true that Biden lined his pockets?
Yes.
Could it be true that a future president might try to line their pockets?
Yes.
But unless it happens, it's fiction.
It has to actually happen.
You don't accuse people of the crime that they haven't done.
You have to accuse them of something they might have actually done.
This is pure fiction.
Who consumes fiction?
80% of it, women.
Especially if it's sad.
It involves characters.
There's your reframe.
Do you think it's a coincidence that the Democrats are the party of women and that they've created the type of fiction that women absolutely love?
It's about the character flaws of the people and it's a mellow drama and it looks like there's going to be a lot of sadness between now and then and it's fiction.
That's a little bit on point, isn't it?
Because that's exactly the type of stuff that women consume.
Five to one over men.
And then you look at Trump, and is that not the perfect male movie?
The humor, the energy, the action movie, the optimism, the unity, we'll bring it all together in the end.
In the long term, it's going to be a great victory.
Perfect.
Now, if you were to say there are these two themes, and they're competing against each other, which one wins?
The male theme every time.
The male theme every time.
Every time.
Because it's everything positive.
You're going to get far more people who say, I can't stand the sad stuff, than you're going to get people who say, you know what, I could use more sad stuff.
It's going to be a lot easier to get a woman to sit through a Marvel superhero movie that's maybe not first choice.
A lot easier than to get a man to enjoy.
You might get him to do it because he wants sex, but he's not going to enjoy sitting through a sad movie.
We just don't like it.
So Trump has taken the perfect male movie, and the MSNBC and the Democrats have chosen the perfect female movie.
And that's the reframe.
And you're never going to forget it.
Because once you start watching that what the Democrats criticize is fiction, Always.
All of their problems are fiction.
And then you see that the Republicans are all about real stuff.
You can't get rid of it.
That will infect all of your other impressions from now on.
Well, Trump and Elon were on Hannity, as all of you know.
And he was talking about the press.
He had this to say.
Trump did.
He said, you have to watch The Enemy, MSNBC. Now, isn't it funny he calls them the enemy?
Now, I think that's fair.
They're definitely not a news program.
The other thing you have to understand is CNN is news with a bias.
Fox News is news with a bias.
We all understand what it looks like to see news as a bias.
That's not what MSNBC is.
They're not news with a bias.
It's entirely fiction.
It's just a female movie.
That's all it is.
It's just a character assault.
And so they invite all the character assault people on and do that.
Now, when Jake Tapper has Kara Swisher on, that's more like the female movie.
But CNN does, sometimes.
Actually, every day.
They put on somebody who will represent the other side.
And Fox News does that too.
Every time.
Every day, actually.
At least weekdays.
Every weekday, they'll put on somebody who can at least represent the other side.
So bias, we understand.
MSNBC is not about that.
They are not about the news.
Once you understand that's not a news network, then everything starts making sense.
And he says about, Trump says about the...
I think mostly by MSNBC. He says, the level of arrogance and cheating is horrible.
They are horrible people.
They are horrible people.
It does seem like that sometimes.
They lie.
They couldn't care less about the Constitution.
I watched them asking questions with hatred and anger.
So he said that MSNBC is the enemy.
He says, but CNN is bad.
The bias is so incredible.
PBS is bad.
And they said CBS took an answer for Kamala and literally put it in the answer she gave 20 minutes later.
I've never heard of this at all.
Now, I've softened that by saying it's not that unusual for the big entities to manufacture a quote.
Unfortunately, it's way more ordinary than you think.
It's not good.
Nobody likes it.
If you're the person who got the manufactured quote, nobody likes it.
But yeah, it's skeevy, so he's correct to call it out as illegitimate.
But it is more common than people know.
And then getting back to Insurrection Barbie, one of the things that the Democrats like to say these days is that, you know, Musk is an unelected billionaire who's trying to control the country.
Now, every single Republican said, wait, say that again?
Yeah, Musk is an unelected billionaire trying to control the country.
And then every single Trump supporter at least said, you know how weird that sounds, right?
Coming from Democrats?
No, I don't understand what you're saying.
Okay, have you heard of a guy named George Soros?
Well, well, Trump's a racist.
I mean, at that point, they have to talk over you.
You know that Democrats just talk over you if you make a good point.
So you can't get any further than that.
But that's where they start talking over you.
So Insurrection Barbie goes after this pretty hard and says about unelected people running our government, said even before Biden was inaugurated.
So this is some stuff I'd never heard before.
Before Biden was inaugurated, he had, quote, transition review teams.
Transition review teams.
Well, that sounds like something you'd like if you're going to transition into the government.
Yeah.
You might need some transition review teams.
And they have these teams for every department within the government.
Well, that makes sense.
That's good preparation.
You've got a transition team for every part of the government.
Solid planning there, Democrats.
And those teams had to understand all the operations of the specific government agencies.
So that the administration will be ready on day one.
Well, this all sounds great.
It's great.
I didn't realize the Democrats were that well prepared.
But they had this transition team ready for every part of the government.
And they had an expert.
It wasn't some new person, first day in the job.
And then Instadirection Barbie says there's 17 picks for those transition teams worked directly for the Soros organization?
Wait.
Worked for the Soros organization.
Didn't have an association with them, worked for them, were actually employees of Soros.
Okay?
And he could call them and direct them on what policy to push in each department.
The following are examples of agencies that had a transition team member directly working in a Soros organization.
So the transition teams were not even just Democrats.
They were Soros, also Democrats.
But they were Soros employees.
And here's the things that they had the most influence on.
Have you ever heard of these parts of the government?
The State Department?
Have you heard of the State Department?
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?
Already gone.
United States Mission to the United Nations, the Department of Defense.
Department of Defense?
The Department of Labor?
The Department of the Treasury?
The Banking and Security Regulators?
The National Security Council?
Did you know that two-thirds of all the visits to the White House, I think this is by Soros, coincided with the Biden White House climate change initiatives?
That there was a Soros visit to the White House right before every Biden climate change initiative announced, anyway?
Well, that's a big coincidence.
And that Alex Soros, who's now the person in charge of stuff, he met with the Biden White House 33 times in two years.
33 times?
I haven't met with anybody 33 times in two years.
33 times?
Now, in my opinion, so the funny thing here is that the Democrats seem to be completely unaware that Soros essentially was controlling the government by knowing exactly where the levers were.
So lever number one, you get all these local prosecutors so you can control the Department of Justice and jail your enemies.
And number two, you get these transition teams.
Transition teams.
They were literally just there to propagandize people and probably tell them, you know, you know, if you do it this way, things will be good for you.
And if you do it this other way, things might not be so good for you.
So kind of brilliant how well Soros figured out how to control our government.
And I would say, I'm not positive about this, but I'll just speculate because I can't read anybody's minds.
I'm going to speculate that Elon Musk would not be involved as heavily as he is with the government unless Soros did what Soros did.
I think that part of what Elon...
And again, I can't read any minds.
So I'm just really talking about my own feelings and then I'm projecting them onto somebody unfairly.
But it seems to me that the Spider-Man curse...
Drives Elon to some extent.
Now, the Spider-Man curse is that great power comes with great responsibility.
Elon Musk has assembled, just through success and money, great power.
And also through X. He had a big platform.
So for a variety of reasons, he had great power.
And then imagine being a billionaire and looking at some other billionaire corrupting the country, in your opinion.
Such as Soros.
And realizing that the government wasn't even strong enough to handle that one billionaire.
There was nobody in the government who had the right skill, the right risk profile maybe, the right level of intelligence to take on George Soros.
What would you do?
What would you do?
If you knew that the only way to take down a billionaire Was to be the stronger billionaire.
It's the only way.
Because the government absolutely can't do it.
It would have happened by now if they could.
I feel like, although I've never heard him say it, so again, I'm just projecting my own views onto another person, which is not fair.
So this is just speculation.
I think if Soros had not taken control of the government, that the Spider-Man curse would not have been so strong.
And Elon might have said, How about I just build my rockets and make the country better the way I've been doing it so far?
I feel like he would have maybe said, you know, you can handle the budget.
Now, I do like the fact also that the budget problem is an existential risk.
And Musk, he does double down on all existential risks.
So getting to Mars is about saving humanity.
You know, it's not just cool.
Specifically, to save humanity in case, you know, the one planet thing isn't enough diversification, which is, of course, in the long run, would not be enough diversification.
So we have to be interplanetary or we're not really going to survive.
There's not really that option of surviving.
But the debt was a lot like that.
So to argue the other side of what I just argued, even without Soros, If he realized he might be the only person who could possibly save us from the escalating debt, well, that too would be the Spider-Man curse.
You know, the person who has the ability has to do it.
Now, I can only tell you from my own personal experience that every now and then there seems like a problem that I'm uniquely suited to attack.
And the first thing I think is, damn it, am I really that uniquely suited to attack that thing?
And then when I realize I might be, I just have to.
It's the Spider-Man curse.
You know, I've had enough good things happen to me that if there's a problem in the country that only I, you know, I won't say only I, but if I have some, you know, little extra gear about a specific problem, not problems in general, but there might be some specific things I can make a difference, I'm all in.
And I can't even help it.
I wouldn't be able to talk myself out of it.
It's the Spider-Man curse.
If you have the power and you're one of the people who can fix the problem, well, there you are.
There you are.
There's a Quinnipiac poll that says 22% of voters approve of the way Democrats and Congress are handling their job.
And that's a new all-time low.
Now, don't get too happy because it's not like Republicans are, you know, at 60% popularity.
I think they're 40-ish.
But 40-ish is still about double what the Democrats are looking at at this point.
So things are not looking good for Democrats.
And then Trump continues to do things that look like common sense.
And here's another one.
I wasn't aware of this until today, but the federal government...
Well, I guess I knew this in general.
The federal government...
Controls D.C., but the federal government decided that it would delegate it to, you know, the local D.C. government.
But it doesn't have to keep it that way.
So, you know, maybe there'll be a Supreme Court case on this, but the argument is that if the federal government decided to take back control of D.C. because it got in a hand and it's too dangerous, that they would be able to do it.
The Constitution would.
Would accept that.
So Mike Lee, based Mike Lee, he says, so Trump says the federal government should take over the governance of D.C. and run it properly.
And Mike Lee says it's right.
The Constitution puts Congress in charge of D.C. And they've only delegated the authority to the D.C. government, which means they can take it back.
And so he's putting together what he calls the Bowser Act.
So he's naming it after the...
I guess they would say failed mayor of DC, the Bowser Act.
It's especially insulting because it sounds like a dog, Bowser.
Anyway, it would repeal the DC home rule and put the feds back in charge because DC is unsafe.
And you know what?
Everybody understands that.
Everybody understands that DC is literally unsafe.
Walking down the street, It's kind of dangerous.
So, who would complain about this?
Well, let me take a guess.
I'll bet you that Democrats will complain about something that hasn't happened, but could be a fictional future possibility based on somebody's bad character.
Because that's the movie they like.
Well, in horrible news, I barely want to bring this up except my audience won't be affected by it.
A Tesla showroom in Oregon got shot up.
Shot up.
And presumably for political reasons.
Nick Sorter is reporting on this on X. And apparently it's the second criminal incident.
There was an arson also somewhere.
Now, don't you think this is a direct effect of Propaganda, calling Elon Musk some kind of Hitler-helping whatever they're saying about him today.
This is a propaganda problem.
So this is caused by them.
All right, now let's talk about Mike Pence, who says to Trump, he says, Mr. President, Ukraine did not, quote, start this war.
So there's an argument about who started the war.
Now, nobody questions who made the first overt military act.
That was Putin.
He's the one who crossed the border with military intent.
So nobody questions the fact that the first serious war part of it was Russia.
But does that mean that that was the start of the war?
Do you know who thinks that's the start of the war?
Liars.
Yeah, liars.
And people are not paying attention.
You'd have to be a liar or a person who's not paying attention.
Now, I used to have a lot of respect for Mike Pence just because he seemed like a good vice president.
He supported the president.
He didn't cause any problems on his own.
He just seemed stable and good backup, maybe.
But boy, have I lost all respect for him.
So let me explain this.
I'm going to put this in the form of a little...
Story.
And then see if you can generalize this.
So you're walking in the forest and you encounter a bear.
And you say to yourself, you know what would be a good idea?
If I pick up this stick and I run over the bear and I poke it.
So you pick up the stick and you're like, rah, rah, you're poking the bear.
Because you think it would be fun or you think maybe you'll get a video of it.
It doesn't matter why.
But you decide to poke the bear.
And then the bear.
It gets angered because you're poking it with a stick, and it kills you.
Whose fault is that?
Who started it?
Well, poking with a stick isn't exactly dangerous.
I mean, it doesn't even hurt.
So, obviously, the bear started the fight, right?
Let's ask Mike Pence.
Which one started the fight?
Was it the stick that didn't really hurt anybody?
Didn't hurt the bear?
It was just annoying.
Or was it the claws that tore the throat out of the stick person?
Oh, it's obviously the bear.
We're going to blame the bear.
Yeah, do you know who blames the bear in that situation?
Liars and morons.
Liars and morons.
Literally nobody in the real thinking world blames the fucking bear.
If you've been poking it with a stick.
Now, is this a perfect analogy?
Let me help the people who can't handle analogies.
This is only for the dumb people, so the rest of you can take a break for a moment.
So a special message for any dumb people.
Most of my audience is brilliant, but there might be a few dumb people who snuck in.
It's not a perfect analogy.
A bear is not exactly like...
Vladimir Putin.
There are differences.
There are differences.
And so, it's really more about making a point that can be generalized by the analogy.
It's not really that every part of the analogy matches the real world, because that would be the opposite of an analogy.
You wouldn't need an analogy if the real world was doing the story that you needed it to do.
The analogy simply helps you understand the real world in a different frame.
It's not an argument per se.
And so, you don't need to say, but Scott, Ukraine didn't have a stick.
No, all they had was the desire to join NATO, which was a red line.
But Scott, a red line's not a stick.
No, it's not a stick, you fucking idiot!
All right, now I'm talking to the rest of you?
I think I've made my point.
According to Rasmussen, Trump ending DEI policies is pretty popular.
But here's what I like.
Rasmussen asked the question and then organized it by people who knew the most.
So the more you know about DEI, the less you like it.
So 80% of voters who are familiar with DEI... Including 44% were very familiar with it.
Now we're talking about people who really understand what it is.
Of that group, 56% strongly approve of Trump ending it, for the federal government at least.
56% of the people who know what DEI is favor him ending it.
And again, 56% doesn't sound like the biggest majority in the world, except in American politics.
You've got to work really, really hard to get 56% on the same side of anything.
But isn't it nice to know that the people who even understand the issue are definitely on the same side?
So that's nice.
So Trump signed an executive order cutting off taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants.
New York Post is reporting on this.
So it's an executive order I guess he signed last night.
So illegal immigrants won't be getting any federally funded benefits.
Now, that doesn't mean they won't get any benefits.
I think it just transfers it to the states, which is clever, because then the sanctuary city states got to explain why they're not willing to continue raping their citizens to pay for the non-citizens.
Now, if the Fed is paying, it makes it kind of easy for the state, doesn't it?
Oh, yeah, it won't cost you much, citizens.
It's kind of annoying, but at least the Feds are paying a lot of it.
What happens when the states have to pay all of it?
I also don't know what percentage the Fed versus the states was, so I'm not immediately aware of how big a deal it will be.
But what if it's half?
I don't know.
Is it half?
If my state...
Has to put in a few more billion dollars to cover what the feds stopped spending?
I'm going to be really mad at my governor.
I already am.
But I'm going to be a few billion dollars more angry, and so will even his base.
So in terms of sending things back to the states, once again, Trump is playing this right.
He sent, you know...
Through his actions, Trump sent, indirectly, he sent abortion back to the States.
Boy, did that pay off.
You know, I knew when it happened, it might cost them an election.
And I think it did, to some extent.
But I also thought that when it went back to the States, that we would just wait a few years, and it would just stop looking like a federal issue.
Because that was the whole point.
At this point, I think it's...
Kind of stopped looking like a federal issue.
So Trump wins.
Now, it might be part of the reason that he had to skip a term and that there was a dead Biden presidency between his two terms.
It might be largely because of that or partly because of it.
But boy, did he win in the long run.
And here again, he's doing the same trick.
If the states are the ones who are deciding to harbor the immigrants, The states should pay 100% of it, because to the federal government, it's just illegal.
That makes sense.
That's another perfect application of, hey, states, you better handle this.
So RFK Jr., he's launched a new, well, actually Trump launched a Maha Commission, and they're going to look into all kinds of things that you wish had been looked into more deeply before.
So some of the things they're looking into, specifically about childhood diseases, chronic illnesses, some of the factors that they're going to look into were formerly taboo or insufficiently scrutinized.
And that would include childhood vaccine schedules.
Now, here's the thing that Democrats have to understand.
In my opinion, and I suppose I could be wrong, but I'd be really surprised, RFK Jr. is so public and so clear that the science needs to support where we go.
He's not going to cancel things willy-nilly.
He's just going to ask for better science, and it might take a while to get it.
So I think you're fine.
You're not going to lose your childhood vaccinations unless there's some fairly quick information that looks persuasive.
But he's going to look into the vaccine schedule, electromagnetic radiation, the glyphosate that's used, and other pesticides as well.
Look at ultra-processed foods, artificial food allergies, SSRIs, antidepressants.
Wow, we need that.
He's going to look at psychiatric drugs, PFAS and PFOA. I don't know what that is.
Microplastics.
Nothing's off limits.
And then he said that he would admit he was wrong if shown the data.
Now, this is in the Hill.
So what the Hill said, according to the Hill, quote, but even when Cassidy, so this was Senator Cassidy, who's a doctor himself, was questioning RFK Jr. for his past statements about things, according to the Hill, Cassidy did just that during the confirmation process.
He said Kennedy cited additional studies of dubious merit that favored his conclusion, leading Cassidy to note that Kennedy was always asking for more, never accepting the mountains of evidence that already exist.
So think about the absurdity of what I just told you.
It's 2025, and a publication of no medical experts, The Hill, Let me just say it again.
The Hill, an organization of journalists with no special scientific medical treatment, have decided that they can tell you which of the studies are credible.
Now, they're not saying it just out of nowhere.
They're looking at sources.
So one of their sources would be Doctor.
Dr. Kennedy, or Dr. Cassidy, because before he was a senator, he was a doctor.
Now, tell me your experience with doctors picking true studies.
Do you know how many studies are true?
About half.
About half.
How many doctors can tell you which half are the true ones?
None.
There are no doctors who can do that.
There are none.
So if you think that the journalists can tell you what studies are real, you're really lost.
They can't do that.
If you think that they talked to the experts and then the experts told them, what experts?
Who are the experts who know what studies are false?
There's no expert like that.
That doesn't exist.
There are people on both sides of everything.
There is no source to know what's true.
That's the whole point.
That's what RFK Jr. wants.
He wants some sources that are ideally, you know, the platinum quality study that's not funded by the people who have a stake in it.
So number one, can't be funded by somebody who has a stake in it and no hidden stake.
How do you know if a study was funded by the wrong people?
Even indirectly.
How would you know that?
You wouldn't.
What if the way the big pharma is bribing the study has nothing to do with the study?
Maybe it's all about once you've done the study, we have lots of people who would like to see it, so we'll pay you to give really expensive speeches.
And if you write a book, we'll push it because that's good for us.
There are a million ways you can bribe the sponsor or the person who's running a study.
I don't know how many ways that they actually use, but there's probably a million ways.
So if you're trusting any scientific study in 2025, and you're making an argument that you know which ones are the real ones, you're either a liar or a moron.
Those are the only possibilities.
But when Kennedy says that he will admit when he's wrong, if the studies go in that direction, That sounds honest.
Because you want the person who says, I can totally be wrong.
I'm only looking at the data, and I'm going to look at the same thing you are, and we're going to try to figure out together what looks like it's real and what doesn't.
That's as honest as you can get.
This is exactly what I want.
I want somebody who's honest enough to say, if you embarrass me in public by giving me data that shows I was wrong about something important, I'm going to say in public, I was wrong.
Thank you.
Can you beat that?
You can't beat that.
So I think Kennedy is also one of these great power, great responsibility situations.
Over a lifetime, he acquired great power in the form of a specific expertise about the medical and the food community.
But at the same time, being quite aware that he's a Kennedy, He had sort of this accidental power as well.
So, imagine living in the United States, and you see that children are just being destroyed by, it looks like, we don't know, but some combination of food and maybe medical treatment.
And you have the knowledge to make a difference.
You have the grit, the energy, the intelligence, and even the money that you can survive.
Economic hit.
And you're a Kennedy.
It's the Spider-Man curse.
It's just the Spider-Man curse.
He could do it.
Or it looked like if he put in everything, if he went all in and risked everything, including his marriage, including his marriage, if he went all in, he might be able to save children.
How do you say no?
You don't say no to that.
It's a Spider-Man curse.
Nobody else could do it.
Who was the other Kennedy?
Who was the second person?
Who was the second person?
There was no second person.
Although Nicole Shanahan is amazing.
So as a team, they're incredible.
But you needed RFK Jr. I mean, nobody had the specific combination of exactly the right stuff at the right time.
You know, he had a life directed at this mission.
So that could not be a more pure incentive, and I love it.
Meanwhile, the postmaster general is stepping down.
At about the same time, people are asking Doge to audit them.
Now, there's no indication he's stepping down because he might get audited, but every time you see that coincidence, Oh, there might be a doge audit, and the current leader stepped down.
Oh, that's a curious situation there.
So you're allowed to be curious about that.
Meanwhile, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass is doing a clever thing, according to the Gateway Pundit.
Michael Lachance is writing about this.
So Mayor Bass, Karen Bass, She's setting up an investigation to find out why she was allowed to travel to Africa while her city burned.
Now, that's a little hyperbole.
So she's trying to find out why they didn't tell her that there was a big risk of fire before she left.
Now, I don't believe anything about anything, so I don't believe she didn't know.
It might be true.
It might be true, but I don't necessarily believe it on face value.
But I love the technique.
I love that she's going to keep studying to find out why she keeps failing.
Wait a minute.
Every time I fail, I'm going to have to find the white man who's responsible for this.
So she'll set up some kind of commission to find somebody who should have told her something but didn't.
And therefore...
Once again, I've found the source of the problem.
It's other people.
I think I'm going to set up a commission for the same thing.
I've made some mistakes in my day.
Very few.
I mean, practically none.
But for those few mistakes I've ever made, I really need to set up a commission to find out whose fault it was.
Who was it who drove me to make those bad decisions?
Because that person needs to be punished.
And it might be a bear.
Meanwhile, in drone news, there's a new drone killer that can zap a drone from four miles away.
So if I understand it right, it's an American company, California-based, called Design Technologies, and it's a counter drone.
So it's not a very large drone, but it can jump up in the air, it can sense another drone coming its way for four miles, and it can knock it out of the sky with electronic means, I think.
I think just, yeah, electronic means.
Now that's amazing.
I have to get one.
I feel like I need one for the house.
Because, you know, maybe I could program it and say, Don't knock the drone down unless it's, you know, directly above my property.
But I'd love to have a drone that just says, hey, there's another drone coming.
Bop!
Done.
Gotta get one.
That was in Interesting Engineering.
Kapil Kajal was writing about that.
There is also, speaking of drones, there's now a drone that can smell.
Meaning sniff, not that it smells bad.
But they use some kind of silkworm moth antenna.
How do you make an antenna out of a silkworm moth?
I don't know.
But somehow they think they've done it at Shinju University.
So they call it an odor-sensing biohybrid drone.
So that's cool.
So what would you use the sniffing drone for?
Well, the one example would be, let's say there's a building that comes down and you need something to go sniff for survivors.
Maybe the drone can do it.
Maybe it can do it faster and more accurately than even the dogs.
We'll see.
But I've long speculated since actually the 90s.
Back in the 90s, I wrote a book called The Dilbert Future.
And I talked about how in the future, if technology could make an artificial nose, it would really change a lot.
Because a sense of smell, we humans...
I kind of don't appreciate the sense of smell because it's not our dominant sense.
But if you had a machine that could smell like the best dog, you could probably solve crimes as long as the crime was reasonably fresh.
Because you know how a bloodhound can go into a crime scene and it can pick up hours late smell from the perp and then it can follow it?
Well, what if you had a database of everybody's smell?
And then the dog comes in, or let's say the technology comes in and just goes, and it's after the crime scene.
It's like, well, it looks like Bob was here an hour ago.
That would almost be the end of most crime, because it's tough to make yourself smell different just for the crime.
I mean, you could do it, but it'd be hard.
All right.
So, that's what I've got for today.
I'm going to ask you if you think I should talk about this.
So, I've been teasing you that there was something that was coming that might be interesting.
I'm going to tell you what it is.
But you tell me later if you want me to talk about it.
Because you might not.
Do you remember I got cancelled?
Anybody remember that?
Because it was a Rasmussen poll.
Some percentage of black Americans said that it was, quote, not okay to be white.
And I thought that seemed super racist.
And so I railed against racism.
And it turns out if you rail against racism, you get canceled.
And they call you the racist.
So that's what happened to me.
But it's two years later, and they...
Reissue the poll.
So the poll is out again.
Now, without getting into details, I'll just do it now.
I'll do it now.
Without getting into details, again, there's a similarly alarming number of people.
Now, it's a much bigger sample this time.
Last time it was admittedly a small sample, but the larger sample has maybe an 8% margin of error, which wouldn't change the Wouldn't change the interpretation at all.
So even if it's the worst case, you know, inaccurate, even the most inaccurate could be, would be about 8% statistically, would still make the same point.
There is an alarming number of people who are black Americans who answered they either don't know that it's okay to be white, you don't know, or that they say it's not okay to be white.
Now it gets complicated.
Because the first time this came up, I didn't know it, but other people said, well, that phrase, is it okay to be white, or it's okay to be white, is some white supremacist thing that they say.
Now, I'd never heard of it, because I guess I don't hang around with white supremacists, but I'd never heard of it.
And I couldn't imagine that the average person who took the poll had ever heard of that.
So I reject that that had anything to do with the outcome of the poll.
I just don't think that's a common thing that people have heard of.
And even if they hadn't heard of it, why would you say it's not okay to be white?
How would you ever answer that question?
And then I ask myself, how would it be if the question were reversed?
I don't know a single white person who would ever say that it's not okay to be black.
It's nothing I've ever heard.
I've heard lots of racist-sounding things.
But it's not about sort of the general existence.
That seems kind of extreme.
So I've never heard of it.
But let me put it in the context I should have the first time.
And I like to reverse the races because that teaches you something, right?
If you can reverse the race and then see what would happen if it'd gone the other direction, that at least tells you something.
You can interpret it however you want.
I give you this example.
If you were a black family in America, and you were offered a new job, and it was a great job, so you wanted to move and relocate to the great job, and you had a choice of two towns that were near the job, one of the towns, you happen to know, was the headquarters for the KKK, and that maybe 20% of the town was just flat-out racist, and maybe even...
You know, supporting the KKK. And then there was another town that just didn't have that.
It was just a regular town.
No indication of any special racism.
Which one would be the safer one for you to move to?
Well, it's obvious.
If I were advising that black family, I'd say, whoa, stay away from the town with 20% racist.
Because, you know, even though that says nothing about any individual, you know, the person at the Who's helping you at the grocery store?
You know, you can't assume they're in the KKK just because 20% of the town is.
So you still have to treat all the individuals like individuals.
But would you ever go to a place where 20% of them seem to be deeply on the side of you're not okay?
There's something wrong with you?
Why would you do that?
Who would do that intentionally?
So for your own self-protection, economic well-being, psychological well-being, I would say, I got some advice.
Stay away from those frickin' racists.
And nobody would argue with that because we all have the same sense of security.
And I've said this before, but I think now it comes into better focus.
If you're discriminating against an individual, You're probably just making a mistake.
I would never be in favor of that because you're just reducing your own options.
Like if you said, I would never hire whoever, any kind of demographic you pick.
Well, what if the very best person available happens to be in that demographic?
You're just limiting your own choices.
It doesn't even matter if you think there's some statistical difference.
It's not going to be enough of a difference that you could tell every single person's Character.
That doesn't work that way.
So discriminating against an individual just never makes sense.
It's not good for the individual who is discriminated against.
It's never good for the person who discriminated.
And it's not good for society.
So I'm against it 100%.
But in the case of the black family who could choose to not live in the community with a KKK, if you're making your safety decisions, Based on demographics, that's totally okay.
That's not racist.
That's self-protection.
Your security is your top priority in your family.
You have no obligation to ignore crime stats or polls or anything else.
You can use any source you want if you're protecting yourself from danger.
Now, on top of that, you've got DEI. And let me ask you just a basic statistical question.
If you were working at a company where all the people look like you, and it doesn't matter who you are, you can be black or white or Asian, whatever, pick anything Hispanic.
If everybody at the company looked like you, what are the odds of you getting sued for some racial discrimination?
Well, zero, right?
Now, what are the odds if you lived in a place that was more diverse and you were a white American male?
What are the odds that you would be accused of being a racist?
Or, even if you were accused of nothing, what are the odds that you would be passed over for a job?
Pretty good.
Or at least greater than zero.
I would argue that...
For decades, white American men were directly discriminated in every diverse community.
So if you had a choice of going somewhere with the odds of you specifically being discriminated against because of your demographic, you should avoid that.
And that's just common sense.
It's just how to plan your economics.
It's how to stay safe.
It's just common sense.
And it works for every race.
In every situation.
So it's just as true for black Americans.
Don't move into the town with the KKK. Why would you do that?
There's no reason to do that if you have options.
So I advise everybody to make their decisions based on whatever criteria they want, if it's about safety or economics.
But don't discriminate against individuals.
Ever.
Never a good reason for that.
So, two years later, after I got cancelled, doesn't sound very extreme, does it?
Does that sound extreme?
Now, I'll admit I got a little ranty and angry two years ago when I got cancelled.
And I think the ranting and the anger made it easy for my enemies to cancel me because then it looked like I was being the racist.
I was arguing against racism.
I was saying that if you can demonstrate A statistical bunch of racism?
You should avoid it.
Everybody should.
Black, white, male, female, gay, not gay.
Let's use gay.
If you're gay, would you rather live in, let's say, San Francisco, where the acceptance of the gay community is pretty close to 100%, or would you rather move to, I don't know, pick some place that you think is...
You know, backwards.
Let's say someplace in the Middle East, except for Israel.
If you're gay, would you move to Saudi Arabia or San Francisco?
You would move to San Francisco.
But does that mean that you're discriminating against all people from the Middle East?
No, not at all.
And if you met one person from the Middle East, you should treat them as an individual, even knowing.
That you might want to not live in that zone where there's lots of people who might be against you.
So a little bit of common sense can keep you alive.
And that's all I have to say about that.
All right, that's all I got for today.
I know I went long.
Sorry about that.
And I'm going to say some private things to the people on Locals and the rest of you.
