God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Sovereign Wealth Fund, France DEI, FCC Disney DEI investigation, Racist University List, James Carville, Chaos Brainwashing Technique, DOGE, Signalgate Coverup, Mike Waltz Contact List, Alex Wong, Tesla Takedown Protest, Common Democrat Traits, Uncertainty Persuasion Technique, Greenland Acquisition, Unfunded Scientists, EU, USIP Poppy Support, Anti-Heroin Taliban, Indirect Iran Talks, Houthi Solution, Israel Hamas War, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
You've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels you can't even understand with your tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or mug or glass, a tank of Gelzerstein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Enjoy me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and darn it, it's going to happen right now.
Go. That's the good stuff.
Well, let's start with the fake news first.
We might get to something that's somewhat real.
So, I saw a headline, I think it was on the Hill, said that top vaccine official at FDA resigns, citing RFK Jr. misinformation.
Now, if you saw that headline, would you think that the top vaccine official decided he couldn't work there because RFK Jr. was full of misinformation?
Because that's what it says.
But if you read the article, it says that he was asked to resign or be terminated.
In other words, he was fired.
So first he's fired, and then he's disgruntled, and then he says that RFK Jr. only wants misinformation.
I wouldn't take any of that seriously.
If you fire somebody in that situation, what do you think they're going to say?
Do you think they're going to say, you know, RFK Jr. was really right.
I wasted my entire career.
Everything I believed was probably wrong.
I just don't want to stay around to figure it out.
No, no.
They're going to say that the new boss is terrible.
And if you understood how bad that new boss is, you would understand that they had to quit.
I mean, it was a matter of principle.
Fake news.
Here's a probably fake news.
The Post Millennial is reporting that, well, the Post Millennial is not the fake part.
They got the story right.
But Anna Paulina Luna says that NBC has a video that allegedly shows Lee Harvey Oswald attending the event at the time of the shooting.
And if that were true, he could not have been the lone shooter up in the window.
Because you can't be in two places at the same time.
And so there, you know, they have some source that says that NBC has been sitting on this video forever.
And do you think that's true?
Do you think NBC has a video that shows Lee Harvey Oswald sort of hanging out at a place that means he couldn't have been the shooter?
I'm going to take a really big bet against that being true.
Here's what I think is true.
Have you seen the old grainy black and white videos from the Kennedy shooting?
You could find any one of us in that crowd.
Because we all look like blotches.
Here would be a good test.
Do you think you couldn't find somebody who looks just like me standing in the crowd?
Of course you could.
Now I was only six years old or something when it happened.
But Could you find me in the crowd?
Yes, you could.
Do you think that most of you, if you're I think mostly white guys at the time, do you think if you were a 40 year old white guy, do you think there was no video of that day that showed a blotchy black and white white guy that looks a lot like you?
So first of all, I don't believe it exists.
Secondly, even if it did exist, NBC is the last The last entity that would give it to you?
Because I don't know personally, but NBC has often been accused of being in bed with the CIA.
So do you think you're ever going to see that video and you're going to look at it and you say, Oh, that is clearly Lee Harvey Oswald.
You can see it so clearly.
I'm going to bet against it.
If you do see something, it's going to be a blotch.
And if you don't see something that would be more understandable, so I wouldn't wait for that According to Musk's doge team, you know, they're getting rid of a lot of Government facilities and some of them would be include the ability to make a phone call or the ability to go in person To do this or that retirement thing But they're thinking of building what they call an Apple Store like experience now I
assume that means actually a place you go to.
And it does seem to me that that would be the right model if they could do it.
The thing I love about the Apple store is that you can go there for your phone or your watch or your laptop or any other products and they can help you.
So wouldn't it make sense to have a Apple like quality store?
Where you could go for whatever your government, you know normal process is so you're trying to get Medicare you're trying to get Social Security You're trying to work out anything and there's a genius standing there and they just working out while you're standing there That would be pretty awesome.
And what an improvement.
I make it my god now.
It's a big That's a pretty big goal.
You know, it would be pretty expensive on its own and But I love the fact that they're thinking in those terms.
You know, thinking big is what we need.
So yeah, keep thinking big.
I think they can do it.
Believe it or not, according to Breitbart News, Neil Monroe is writing about this.
You know how the coyotes, this would be the cartel members who are helping to transport the illegal migrants across the border?
Well, apparently they have a new business model.
And the new business model is helping migrants that are already across the border get the hell back home because they know if the government catches them, they're going to end up, you know, or they would be worried about ending up in a El Salvadorian prison that looks like the worst place in the world.
And they're thinking, uh, I saved $10,000 by working here.
I'd rather pay that than get back home so I don't end up in one of those prisons.
So apparently, for $10,000 a piece, the coyotes are now helping people go home.
Now, how many of you predicted that?
I gotta say, I did not see that coming.
But it makes sense, because bringing people into the country looks like a failed proposition.
But taking them out of the country so they'll be safer from the old Salvadorian jail, it makes perfect sense.
It makes perfect sense.
There's a new potential buyer for TikTok.
Super rich guy, Reid Rasner.
I guess he's probably put together some people for this bid.
But his bid would be over $47 billion.
And But here's the interesting part, which is way more than other bidders are offering, like by a lot.
But part of the deal is that they would donate 5% of their TikTok bid of the $50 billion to the Sovereign Wealth Fund.
Now remember I told you that why would the government of the United States ever, you know, go along with a TikTok sale unless, you know, according to Trump, unless the government got a piece of the action.
Now, I think more of a percentage ongoing would make more sense, but 5% of 50 billion?
Not so bad.
5% of 50 billion?
It's a good little start for the Sovereign Wealth Fund.
I have some questions whether the Sovereign Wealth Fund can actually be created.
I think there were some technical or legal obstacles to that, so it might not actually become a reality.
But if they work that out, this might start a new trend where one of the ways that you can make sure the government's on your side is contributing to the sovereign wealth fund.
It might feel a little bribery-like at some point, but this company is doing it voluntarily.
Meanwhile, Mario Noffle is reporting.
By the way, you should follow Mario Noffle, N-A-W-F-L.
He does a great job of summarizing stories every day on X. But apparently French companies that deal with the United States are in trouble with the Trump administration unless they end their DEI policies.
So apparently the U.S. is telling France, you have to get rid of your DEI or we won't buy your stuff anymore or we won't trade with you.
Now that's going to be kind of a shock.
I wonder if they can get away with that.
Makes sense.
I mean, why would we trade with a racist country?
Well, we probably do that all the time, but if we can do less of it, that'd be great.
France 24 is reporting on that.
Speaking of DEI, the FCC is going to investigate Disney over DEI discrimination.
Post-Millennials reporting on that.
Now, that's probably the best thing that could happen to Disney.
Imagine you're the CEO of Disney and you're absolutely trapped by the fact that you've got too many DEI supporters at the company.
And if you, on your own, decided to get rid of it, it wouldn't work.
There'd just be too many resistors.
But what if the FCC came in and said, we're going to shut you down unless you get rid of the DEI.
Well, now the CEO has a tool.
So if you think this is all bad for Disney, it's probably only bad for the DEI staff.
It might be really good for the board of directors and the CEO, because it would give them a tool to do the thing they probably want to do, get rid of DEI.
Meanwhile, Jeremy Carl on X is reporting that he got a report from one of his followers that the University of Michigan in Flint It's just going to rebrand their DEI to Hope.
And they're not going to fire anybody who is in the DEI.
So just as you imagined, you know, just as you imagined, they're just going to hide it and just continue to be racist.
Just going to hide it.
Now, it seems to me that one of the things we need, you know how universities are ranked?
You know for all kinds of things.
It's like the best of business school the best engineering school And then of course they have to be certified by somebody So it's not unusual that you know there are lists of what?
You know how good or how bad universities are doing Don't you think we need a racist list?
So that we can actually say these are the most racist Meaning they have lots of DEI.
These are the most racist universities I think if the government listed them as racist and just said, top 100 universities, there's only three of them that are not racist.
The rest, pure racist.
I feel like that would solve the problem in about three years.
Because nobody would want to be on that list.
You know, the trouble is that we keep calling it DEI and saying that DEI, you know, is illegal or violates the constitution.
How about we just go right at it?
And say, these colleges have been branded as racist.
If anybody wants to know the details, they can look into it and they'd find out they have a DEI program or a HOPE program.
And don't make it anybody's problem but the colleges.
It should just be the college's problem.
And when you apply for a college, that should be one of the things that pops up.
How racist they are.
Now, I asked today on X, How many had this experience that there was a white male high school senior in their world, could be female in this case, but white, who had all the qualifications for a top college and didn't get into any of them?
Turns out a lot of people say that, but when they showed their qualifications, they were sort of marginal, meaning that if you only had a 4.0 average, I don't know that that gets you into an Ivy League school.
But there's a member of my extended family who is a white male who checks every box.
I mean, his GPA was way over four.
Over four.
And he was in every kind of activity, all the good ones, the ones that make sense.
He did everything right.
Applied to a bunch of top schools, you know, your Stanford's and your Harvard's and places that you would expect to get in if you had a higher than a 4.0 and everything else was done right.
Absolutely nothing.
The, the only, the only school that accepted him was, uh, I won't say the name of the school, but wasn't in the top 29 for the, you know, the, the specific field that he wanted.
And by the way, He was looking at a technical field.
So he was, he was looking at one of those really useful, you know, not one of these waste of time majors, but like one of the real ones.
Didn't get in.
Now I want to give him advice.
I haven't talked to him yet, but I think when he, when he gets over the shock, cause he's been aiming at, you know, this has been his goal for years and everything he worked for.
Was to make it into one of these top colleges, but during the time he was working on it the top colleges became garbage So I don't believe that he should put himself in debt You know if he had to borrow a lot of money because they're not high income I don't believe That any of those Ivy League schools would be a good a good decision.
I think he'd be better off You know, at a school that teaches him the basics and then he just makes a world, you know, makes a life out of it.
So, we know that Harvard would just turn you into God knows what.
And Stanford, same.
Now, these are the same schools that Trump is investigating.
Stanford is one of them.
So, Stanford is one of the ones that rejected him.
And I'm thinking, okay, you got rejected by a college that's been labeled racist.
I think there's not much question about what went wrong.
I mean, if people with his credentials can't get into one of the top colleges, there's something really broken, really broken.
Anyway, a lot of people had similar experiences.
They're reporting on X. Well, according to EI Klein on X, there's a new AI app called Marika that can clone any singer's voice and generate music using it.
So it'll generate its own original songs, but it'll use the voice of famous people like Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber, and Taylor Swift.
Now, how is that legal?
Since when can you clone A famous singer's voice and create new music.
I feel like the lawyers are going to be coming after him.
Uh, so that was a scary one.
So that that's definitely one of those edge cases where we'll figure out what's legal and what isn't.
In political news, uh, smirconish on CNN was talking to James Carville and Jay.
Okay. This is a little bit funny, but James Carville.
So maybe a month or two ago, it said, the best thing you can do is to just, uh, you know, lay low, don't do anything and just wait for the Republicans to self-destruct.
Well, instead of that, um, Trump is more popular than ever.
Doge is still popular.
Um, but he was very clever because the one thing he knew for sure is that sooner or later his fake news compatriots would would find something that wasn't a big deal, and they turn it into a big deal through the power of the media.
And that's what Signalgate was.
So now, Carville has re-merged, and he says, what tense are we in?
As in past tense or current tense.
He goes, what tense are we in?
Is it collapsing?
Talking about the Trump administration.
Or has it collapsed?
Is it collapsing or has it collapsed?
Do you notice the fake choice?
He's good at this.
He's very good at it.
He can only decide between is it collapsing or has it collapsed.
Those are the only choices.
He goes, that's the only argument to have.
Well, he says it directly.
He wants to make sure you're not thinking about anything else.
He goes, and I was wrong.
I said Memorial Day.
It's before April Fool's Day, which the Trump administration should make a national holiday because it so accurately represents who they are.
So the new Democrat talking point.
Which apparently has virtually no backing in the real world, is that the American people are turning on the Trump administration.
You know, the one that's more popular than it's ever been.
And none of this is true.
But, Carville is not dumb.
He knows that if you create a narrative, that things will stick to it.
So his narrative is, there's chaos, and it's all falling apart.
There's chaos.
And then, Any little thing that the fake news finds to say about Doge or about Trump, you're just going to stick that to it.
Say, Oh yeah, yep, Carville was right.
The administration's falling apart.
Now I would submit to you that you can tell who's brainwashed and or is a brainwasher by one word.
Let's see if you know what it is.
There's one word that sometimes Republicans use it, but it's just sort of a, You know, fight back, or it's used in an ordinary way.
But there's one word that the Democrats use consistently that shows that they're not actually using the thinking.
And the word is chaos.
If you say chaos, how do you prove there's chaos?
Well, you listen to the news.
But the news is fake.
So the news and the pundits are going to tell you there's chaos all day long.
If you turned on Abby Phillip, that show, let's say tomorrow, what are the odds that one of those people would say, it's chaos, it's chaos.
That's brainwashing.
Now it might be that they're brainwashed, but it's a little more likely that they're brainwashers and they're trying to get you.
If you went to one of the protests, you know, like the anti-Tesla protests, where you stop somebody in the street and you say, Why are you so anti-Trump?
What are they likely to say, given that they don't know anything about anything?
They don't know if Doge is working or not working.
They don't know if the savings are real or not real.
They don't know really anything.
They're going to look right at you and say, it's just chaos.
That Trump is just chaos.
If that's all they have, that's just brainwashing.
And for the most, for the most part, That's all they have.
Yeah. Carville got the chaos.
So I would say James Carville's concerned that the Trump administration is collapsing.
It's collapsing.
I'm going to delegate that to the Department of Imaginary Concerns because that's why we created it.
The Department of Imaginary Concerns handles all the things that Democrats are worried about or talking about, but aren't the least bit real.
So the Department of Imaginary Concerns will handle the collapsing.
All the collapsing and the chaos.
We'll handle that.
Meanwhile, this is also from Mario Noffoli.
He's looked at the Doge Clock, which is published, so you can see for yourself what's been saved.
As I said, $257 billion.
That's how much has been drained out of the swamp.
Now, As a rule, here's my new rule.
I'm not going to believe any number about Doge.
I'm not going to believe any anecdote.
And I'm not going to believe any total numbers.
And when I see a number like that, and I don't know if it's over 10 years or over one year, or it's already saved, or it might be saved, or it could be saved under the ideal conditions, or maybe it'll be saved, but you still have, you'll have to spend a bunch of other money to replace some portion of it.
I don't believe anything.
Now, I do think, in all likelihood, Doge is doing an amazing job.
In all likelihood.
But I'm not going to believe any of the numbers.
You know, I've been bitten how many times?
By repeating some anecdote, like the condoms for Hamas.
That was never real.
Right? So...
I'm going to assume that the criticisms of Doge are all fake, and that the Doge numbers are probably directionally correct, but I wouldn't believe any specific numbers.
There's just too many ways to count things.
There's probably a lot of assumptions and opinion that go into deciding how much you really saved.
Here's an update on SignalGate, you know, the Signal app, and how Jeffrey Goldberg somehow mysteriously got What are the odds that after this many days have gone by, we don't know the answer to the following question?
Who added him?
And how did that happen?
Because remember, Mike Walsh says that he doesn't know him and didn't have his phone number.
But you'd need the phone number to add him, and he got added by Mike Walsh's account.
Now, some are saying, well, but it could have been his assistant, Alex Wong.
How long would it take to find out if Alex Wong is the person who had access to the phone?
Even if you don't know he did it.
Do you know if he ever had access to the phone?
Was there ever a time when Mike Walsh would hand him the phone and say, hey, can you create this chat group?
Add this guy, this guy, this guy.
This is the worst cover-up of all time.
You know, I thought this was a Sort of a non-problem But there is some serious There's some serious lying going on at this point and I feel like I would just be dishonest if I don't call it out I still don't think it's important and I will tell you that yesterday for the probably the fifth time I Sent a personal message to the wrong person on text probably for the fifth time now in my
defense I've got several people with the same first name and I've got two people who have The first two letters of their last name are the same Now I was a speed reader I learned speed reading when I was a kid and one of the things you learn is you don't read whole words You just read enough of the word until you know what it must be So it's just faster that way.
So if I say the first name is correct And the first two letters of the last name are the ones I'm looking for.
I don't ask myself how many people have those same first two letters.
I just hit that damn thing.
And I did send a pretty personal message to the wrong person.
They're both guys.
It wasn't anything naughty because they're both male.
But how many of you have done that?
It's the most ordinary thing in the world.
But In my case, both of those people are in my contacts.
So we really don't know.
I mean, really?
We don't know why Jeffrey Goldberg was on Mike Walsh's contact list.
Really? After all these days, we don't know that?
I don't know.
Now I could see that maybe it was a stalemate.
I could imagine a case where Walsh says, you know what?
Two people had access to it.
It was a mistake, but since neither of us believe we made the mistake, Alex Wong doesn't say he made the mistake, and I don't remember making it.
But how did it get there in the first place?
How did it get there?
Now, I will tell you something else that maybe the is not telling you.
It's not that unusual for, let's say, a Republican at a high level to have the contact information for some terrible, terrible journalist.
You know, Trump used to have contact all the time with people who were terrible to him.
And you would say, what?
Why is that?
Now, I don't have a defense for it.
I'll just say that if Mike Waltz had Jeffrey Goldberg's contact and if they had ever talked about anything, it wouldn't be the weirdest thing in the world.
And I wouldn't even be super concerned about it.
He might just say, there was that one day I had a question.
I don't remember what it was, but I had a question that he could answer.
Um, maybe, maybe, maybe there was a time when the Atlantic had asked to interview him.
And rather than talking to the reporter, he thought, you know, I'll, I'll talk to the boss and, you know, ask him if this reporter is legit.
So you could, you could imagine completely legitimate reasons that Mike Waltz would have, you know, You know, what you might call an enemy journalist on his list.
It's just not that weird.
It's not weird at all.
But the fact that we're not told, not cool.
Not cool at all.
But I also don't think there's much chaos involved there.
It's just at least one person who's not telling us the truth or not telling us what they know.
Maybe the truth is unknown, but tell us that.
Tell us that.
What have you looked at?
What do you know?
All right, so I'm not happy with that at all.
So I guess yesterday was the so-called Tesla Global Day of Action, where all the unattractive people gathered to dance and show us their misspelled signs.
And, uh, there were, uh, if you ever noticed that if your protest involves organized dance, then it's just stupid.
I've never seen an organized protest with dance that wasn't just dumb.
So they got that going for them.
And you've seen a bunch of people getting interviewed.
It's like, why do you disagree with Doge?
And they seem just completely uninvolved in politics.
They don't even know why they have a problem.
They're just there because they have a problem.
I'm gonna give you a theory for what might be driving these people, besides being paid.
You know, some of them are paid, but I imagine they're not all paid.
And even if you were paid, wouldn't you take five minutes to develop an argument for why you were there?
Like, if you paid me to be a fake protester, I'd say, okay, I'm gonna be a fake protester.
What will I say if somebody asks me why I'm there?
Kind of basic for a fake protester to have some reasons.
Anyway, Governor Newsom on Bill Maher on Friday, he said that Democrats have become too toxic and judgmental.
Toxic and judgmental.
Does that sound right?
Kind of does.
Kind of does.
But I want to give you a theory that I was exposed to this morning from a user on X who is anonymous, but he goes by Dr. Insensitive Jerk, which is a very disarming way to label yourself.
Because then you see if he posts something that looks like, hey, you insensitive.
Oh, I get it.
That's who you are.
I read recently that that's a good trick for Who was it?
One of the famous persuader guys, who's always on social media, said that if you label yourself harshly, it takes away people's incentive to label you, because you just labeled yourself even harder than they would.
So he's calling himself an insensitive jerk.
And he had an argument about it, but I'm going to kind of crib from his argument, rather than read it exactly, because I want to add my own flavor to this.
You know, I always tell you that everything is an extension of the mating instinct.
And if you really want to understand what's going on, the mating instinct, Chris Voss.
That's right.
Chris Voss was the persuader who said that on Instagram or something.
Thank you.
He's very good, by the way.
I've listened to Chris Voss, his little clips.
I don't know too much about him, but the ones I've seen, they look really useful.
These little persuasion tips.
So I'd recommend them.
So here's what I think.
And so some of this is stolen from Dr. Insensitive Jerk, but I'm going to mash it up with some of my own opinion.
So Dr. Insensitive Jerk notes that insecure men are going to dislike successful people because they would be a threat.
Now, if you were unable to To become rich like Trump, or rich like Elon Musk, or rich like Scott Besant, or rich like Whitcoff, or rich like, you know, most of the people working as Democrats at the moment.
If you were unable to be one of those rich people, and then you looked at it from a mating, biological, evolutionary perspective, what would be your best strategy?
So you can't become rich or you don't believe he can But you're competing for you know, basically women against people who are Well, I think what you do is you'd say I have better character than they do So you try to sell your character because it's all you got But it's never gonna work Because I've never heard a woman say yeah,
my husband he can't hold a job But man, his character is great, so I just can't get enough of him.
As a matter of fact, I'm going to find him right now and sex him up.
Yeah, he's never made a dime.
I'm the only one working in the family, but wow, does he have a good character.
Ask him any question, he'll have the right answer.
Do you like Elon Musk?
No, he's an oligarch.
He's an oligarch.
So if you notice the men, At these Democrat protests.
Do you ever see a man who's been to the gym?
No. Do you ever see a man who looks like he might be rich?
There are probably a few, you know, sneaking in there.
But I'll bet it's not most of them.
So the mating instinct assumes that men would go after successful men in every domain.
And sure enough, that's what we see.
But what about the women?
Here's where it gets a little harder.
A little more non-obvious.
Women, because they have to have babies that need to be protected, and if you're having a baby, you're protecting a baby, you can't do much, make enough of your own money, you're tending the fields or hunting or whatever, whatever was the original stuff that people did.
So you need to attract the man.
The man becomes the provider of resources and also protection.
But what if you're a single Democrat woman or a woman whose man doesn't have any of those qualities, but he's got a great character, by the way.
Oh, you can't win a fight, can't make a dime, but wow, he's got character.
What would you do from a biological, just evolutionary standpoint?
Well, one of the things you might do is turn to the government and say, hey, government, give me some money because I need money.
Everybody needs money.
And if they don't have a second, you know, practical way to get it, you're going to turn to the government.
But what if the government is super successful people who think you should go make your own money?
Well, in that case, you might try to bring them down.
You might try to embarrass them.
You might try to destroy them publicly until They think that their best move to become a member, you know, a functioning member of society is to give away lots of their money to People who need it So I think what you're saying is this large mating instinct failure of the Democrats being Channeled into these protests now,
of course, it doesn't mean every single person that never means that but wow, you know if you look at the If you look at the crowds, they don't look like they're real successful in the mating category.
You know what I mean?
So look for that.
And then Dr. Insensitive Jerk points out that if you look at who the leaders are on the Democrats, they're almost anti-success people.
It's people like Bernie Sanders, who's never done anything successful.
Or Joe Biden, who's never made money outside of probably crime.
And Elizabeth Warren, who's kind of suspect, you know, for how'd she get so much money.
So Republicans seem to be, um, let's just do the best job and you can make your money.
We'll make our money.
And the Democrats are, we don't know how to make money.
Can we get yours?
So that's what this is.
That's what it looks like to me.
Meanwhile, the White House Correspondents Association, you know they always do that dinner where they have somebody who's like a Dean Martin roast.
It feels like you've gone back in time.
It started out with both sides, Democrats and Republicans used to go, but then they turned into a Democrat hellhole, like everything else, it seems.
And Trump isn't going, which is a good call.
And They had hired some totally anti-Trump comedian to be the roaster-in-chief, and she's already been fired, because I guess they realized there was no point in having it if it's only Democrats.
Yeah. So Amber Ruffin, she had declared at one point that no one wanted President Trump to attend or even be in the same room with him.
Really? And then for months, The head of that organization had ignored the objections, but on Saturday they said she was unanimously sacked.
Man, it seems like that entire event doesn't make any sense.
It's just a relic of the past.
And, you know, once it becomes just a Democrat event, it has no real reason to exist.
I mean, it's not really about, you know, getting everybody together so they know each other and, you know, they can network.
I don't know.
Looks like the whole thing should be cancelled.
Well, Trump, just to be provocative, but he's also a good negotiator, says of Greenland that he won't rule out using military force if he has to take it.
Now, you might say to yourself, but he said he wants them to determine their own fate, and he does.
But it's always smart to never rule out any of your tools, because it makes other people say, but he might.
Did he mean that?
He hasn't ruled it out, but does that mean he's going to?
So that's the uncertainty play that he likes to use.
I suspect there's a low chance that he's going to do that.
But Trump says, I think there's a good possibility we could do it without military force, but I don't take anything off the table.
Now he says that for pretty much every domain.
But the question that needs to be answered Is I believe it was either Greenland or maybe it was Denmark, might have been Denmark, who said that the US used to have a bigger military presence there.
So it's lower than it used to be because we do have military presence in Greenland, but it's only 200 people, I think.
And my question would be, since Denmark has allowed that they would be happy with a larger You know, a more serious American military presence.
Why aren't we happy with that?
So Trump has, Trump's been kind of put in a corner and I don't know if anybody's asked him that question yet, but the question would be, if what you want is national defense and let's say defense of the entire area, why would you not have everything you wanted if you could put all the American military there you want?
With all the assets you want to do whatever makes sense to protect Greenland and everything else.
I don't know.
It seems like that would be actually a perfectly legitimate solution.
So I want to hear Trump answer that.
There might be some answer to that.
We'll see.
Maybe he wants the military presence to be paid for by mineral rights or something like that.
So there might be a reason.
Well, European institutions, according to the Hill, are offering what they call scientific asylum for the scientists who are being defunded in America.
But the things that are being defunded are things like, you know, a lot of it is stuff like DEI research and transgender stuff and climate change.
And I'm thinking to myself, did we find a way to get rid of all of our worst scientists?
We'll send them to Europe.
Are we losing any scientists who are working on fusion or military things or quantum entanglement?
I feel like if we ship to Europe all of our DEI, transgender research and climate change people, we might come out ahead.
So maybe that's a win-win for everybody.
That's what I say.
So, Moscow is blasting the European Union, saying that the European Union is refusing to get rid of the sanction on one of their banks.
Now apparently the deal that Putin believes was made, and you have to be careful because everybody leaves these meetings thinking a different kind of deal was made, but Putin believes that in order to Agreed to not do war in the Black Sea and attack ships that part of that was at least one part of the sanctions Not all of them, but just the sanctions against this one bank Would be dropped and then the European Union said nope.
We're not going to do that so You know it makes me wonder who is our enemy in the United States?
It's getting a little murky because Putin wants to stop fighting, which would be good for the United States, because we'd stop funding it and it'd be less risk.
And he wants to probably do trade, and maybe that's good for us too.
Whereas the European Union wants to drag us into World War III for reasons that maybe we don't think are good ones.
So which one is on our side?
It's not as clear as it was a month ago.
I mean, a month ago I said, well obviously the EU's on our side, and you know, Putin's on the other side.
But if you see the EU signing up for a permanent war with no chance of winning, and what seems to be backstabbing any progress, I don't know.
I'd say it's sort of a toss-up at this point.
And I feel sorry for Europe that the European Union Has basically taken over and they've got some woman with crazy eyes who's driving the ship.
Have you seen her crazy eyes?
You know, the big wide ones?
It's not an accident.
The crazy eyes.
So Mike Benz has a story today.
So apparently USAID had a partner, you know, one of the many things that it has funded, called the U.S. Institute of Peace.
Well, that's a good idea.
Who wouldn't want to fund the U.S. Institute of Peace?
Do you like peace?
You like peace, right?
So obviously that would be a good thing to fund.
So what has that group been up to?
Oh, they're arguing that the Taliban should not stop the growing of poppies and the heroin trade, which the Taliban is now successfully doing.
So the Taliban is trying to get Afghanistan completely out of the Poppy heroin trade, which is something the United States couldn't do.
Now I heard, and I can't confirm this, that the reason we didn't want to close that down, according to some CIA assets said this, is because almost all of that heroin from Afghanistan was going into Iran.
It wasn't going to the United States.
Now I can't confirm that.
But it would make sense why the USAID would be funding a group that was arguing they should keep the poppy growth because it's good for the economy.
That's actually what they argued in writing.
They argued that it was good for the economy of Afghanistan and it would be devastating for them to stop making heroin.
Now that only makes sense if we thought the heroin was not coming into the U.S. Now I'm going to give you an anecdotal Point, and maybe some of you have your own anecdotes to either back it up or refute it.
If you know anybody who's a drug addict, ask them when was the last time they had actual heroin, even if that used to be their drug of choice.
I think what you're going to find out is that sometimes they think they're getting it, but it's just fentanyl.
So I think our current situation is that fentanyl has completely replaced heroin.
Partly because it's maybe cheaper, more available, more powerful, and the addicts have figured out how to handle it.
I hate to say that, but the addicts that haven't died have learned how to, you know, handle the dosage so that they're a little less likely to die.
So I think that might be what's going on, that we want to keep that in play, and then the Taliban are saying, nope, We don't want to be the heroin company, which makes sense.
You know, I hate to support the Taliban.
I hate to be on the side of the Taliban, but the Taliban at least is consistent.
You know, how about no?
How about our country is not the heroin producer of the world?
All right.
Now, I'm not I'm not supporting the Taliban.
They got some bad opinions, too.
Plenty of them.
But at least they're consistent.
Well, I told you yesterday that Iran had rejected direct talks with the U.S., but they're okay with indirect talks going through some third-party country.
Now, the AP is reporting on this.
Don't you think that's nothing but a stall?
So Iran can pretend that they're doing something that looks like, maybe, progress?
But if they're not talking directly, and they're talking through the third party, it's going to be a whole bunch of, well, the third party says we got a deal, and then Iran says, no we don't.
And then they go back, and then they think they have a deal, and they say, well, it looks like the third party's worked out a deal, and then Iran says, no we didn't.
And basically it's exactly the same as not talking at all, but it gives them the cover of looking reasonable.
Because they said, hey, we'll do some indirect talks.
How about that?
That's not nothing.
No, it's worse than nothing.
It gives them cover for doing nothing.
It's worse than nothing.
That's what I think.
There were some more Hootie attacks.
One of the questions attacks on the Hooties.
Now, one of the questions that many of us have is, how does this Hootie thing ever end?
It looks like a permanent war.
Because the minute we leave, Iran ships them some new missiles.
They got lots of them underground in their big facilities.
They're not running out of missiles.
And they ship them some new radars so they can spot it.
They'd be back in business in a week, wouldn't they?
Like actually a week.
So how do you ever end this?
And I think I just saw my answer to it.
Apparently there's one or two Um, air bases nearby that have now been developed into us air bases.
So I don't know if there are islands.
I was a little unclear on the geography there, but it's close enough that we could put our, our B-52s there.
So the landing strip is optimized for bombers and it would be close enough to make it economical and easy to bomb the hoodies whenever we want.
And I think that's my answer.
The answer is we're going to put up a permanent military presence and every time there's a Hootie missile, they're just going to get bombed to shit.
And we're just going to see if we can do that longer than they can do it.
So I don't think there's any chance you can bomb them all into nothingness, that they'll stop.
But there's definitely a chance that if we have a permanent position there and every time a Missile gets fired, the entire town disappears, or whatever it is.
That should have a suppressive effect.
Now, I still think it's a long shot that anything good will come out of this, but you can't do nothing.
Doing nothing seems like a bad idea.
Although I think a lot of people say you should do nothing because it's only a very tiny amount of US traffic goes through there.
That would be a good argument for doing nothing, actually.
Well, Hamas says it accepts a new Gaza ceasefire, but Israel says nope.
They're counter-offering, according to the AP.
So do you think Israel is going to accept any more of these hostage deals?
I guess they want some humanitarian aid and some releasing of a whole bunch of Palestinians.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I feel like at some point Israel is just going to say, we're done, and we'll stop bombing when we have them all back.
Because I think they're almost at that point, which is really bad domestically, because there's going to be a large number of people who say, but my relative's in one of those tunnels.
So I think they have to cut the number of hostages down to the point where even if the hostage families and their friends Or making a big, big stink about it, that it's not a big enough stink to stop them from doing what they want.
So we'll see.
We'll keep an eye on that.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is all I had for you today.
I hope everything's good for you.
I'm going to talk privately to the people on Locals and the rest of you on X and YouTube and Rumble, we'll see you tomorrow, same time, same place.