God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Blue Origin Flight Questioned, Ashwagandha, Hollywood Job Difficulties, Optimus Package Delivery, Leticia James Fundraising, Al Sharpton Target DEI, Democrat Leadership Confidence Poll, Democrat 20/80 Plan, Abrego Garcia Arguments, DNC David Hogg, Kamala Harris, AOC, Federal Reserve DEI, Jerome Powell, Elon Musk, America's Missing Survival Plan, DOGE Neutered, Scott Bessent, Tariffs, Cost of Living Decrease, Douglas Murray, Joe Rogan, Citizen-Only Voting, Michael Shellenberger Congressional Testimony, Psyop Tactics, Ukraine Mineral Deal, Ireland Mass Immigration, Conor McGregor, Thorium Reactors, 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, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a gel, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens right now.
Go. Oh, that's good.
Well, I should warn you that I'm on the tail end of taking some muscle relaxants.
So if it sounds like I'm slurring my speech or speaking a little bit slowly...
You are correct.
I recommend replaying this at at least 1.5 or double speed.
Doing the best I can.
I think my brain is still kind of working, but the muscle relaxants, they're definitely doing their job.
I've got a back problem, so I'm trying to slow down the muscles in my body because, you know, my muscles are so active.
After the show, there will be a Spaces hosted by Owen Gregorian.
So immediately after this, you can talk to some other people on Spaces.
So that's the audio-only service with an X. So just look for Owen Gregorian, and you'll find that.
Or you can see the link in my X feed.
Well, last night at 9.30ish when I was getting ready for bed, My neighborhood was once again robbed by a car of masked men, who I think might be the same car that we saw stalking the neighborhood recently.
So that would be the fifth.
I think it's the fifth time in two years that we got hit by the burglary gangs.
They seem to know who's home and who's not.
So, so far they haven't gone into a home where somebody was home at the time.
But just a few doors down, while I was sitting here, my neighbors were being invaded by probably a South American gang, but we don't know.
So that was bad.
So yesterday, I was on social media, and I saw this weird, crazy conspiracy theory.
That the Blue Origin spaceflight with the all-female crew, that it was all faked and CGI.
And I laughed, because I thought, oh my god, the conspiracy theorists, they're just going to say anything about anything.
It's like, there's nothing that can't be turned into a conspiracy.
But, you know, I thought, this will be fun.
I'll give it 10 seconds of my time.
And the first claim is that the video of the launch itself was so fake that you could just look at it and you would know it was fake.
And I thought to myself, come on, come on, that's ridiculous.
And then I looked at the video of the launch and I thought, hmm, I'm not saying it's fake, but it sure looked fake.
How do you take a real launch?
And make it look completely fake on video.
Because it looked completely fake.
And then there were other pieces of evidence that did, in fact, highly suggest that it was all faked.
I think there was something about when the women were weightless, their hair didn't seem weightless enough.
Normally the hair would just be all over the place, but it wasn't.
There was something about the distance between the windows that completely changed from the inside of the craft to the outside.
There was something about the space capsule that re-entered, didn't have the re-entry marks of smoke and burn that you'd expect.
There was something about one of the hands of the people didn't match the people that we knew were inside.
They looked like a mannequin.
Now, I'm not ready to say it was all faked, because that would be hard to believe.
But why does it look all faked?
So as far as I can go is, it looked all fake.
It just completely looked fake.
Was it fake?
I don't know.
You know, it's hard for me to imagine they could have gotten away with it, or that they even wanted to.
Like, why would so many people even be involved in such a thing?
So, I don't know.
But I will recommend you, just for fun, to look at the conspiracy theories that it was faked, and you're going to have the same reaction I did, which is, it couldn't possibly have been, oh, hmm, maybe.
So, in other news, according to the SciPost, Vladimir Hendry is writing, There's this plant, a shrub, actually, that's been used in the Indian Ayurvedic medicine for forever.
Some call it the Indian ginseng.
But apparently, you can give this in pill form to somebody, and within one hour, they will be smarter and feel better.
And there doesn't seem to be much of a side effect.
So if you give them to them for 30 days, they stay smarter and happier for the entire 30 days.
But it works within like an hour.
Now it's called ashwagandha.
I'll spell it once in case you're thinking to yourself, why wouldn't I take it?
And honestly, apparently it's over the counter.
Widely available.
I don't know.
You could probably just get it from Amazon or something.
But let me spell it.
It's A-S-H-W-A-G-A-N-D-H-A.
Ashwagandha. And it will boost your brain and your mood at the same time.
Doesn't it sound a little bit too good?
I feel like later there will be some information that says...
Of course, you'll never have an erection again, and you'll lose all your hair, because that's what usually happens.
Usually, if there's any kind of drug that's good for you, it'll make your pecker stop working, and your hair will fall out.
But we don't know that about this one.
All right.
So scientists, according to the University of Chicago, if you're just joining...
My voice is a little bit slow and slurred because I'm on muscle relaxants.
I think my brain is still working, but I'll remind you of that.
So there's some new material that's been discovered by scientists that has the weird quality that it shrinks when heated.
Now, normally everything would expand when heated, but it shrinks when heated.
Now... Doesn't it seem to you that if you had a material that shrinks when heated, but you also had normal materials that expand when heated, that you could somehow figure out and make a perpetual motion machine?
Now, it wouldn't be real perpetual motion because it would be using heat from the outside.
So it would be sun heat or earth heat or, I don't know, ocean heat or something.
But doesn't it seem to you that if you just had those two things, One material shrinks in heat and the other material expands in heat.
Isn't that enough to build yourself a perpetual engine?
It wouldn't be perpetual motion because there's an outside source.
But isn't that enough?
Think about that today.
Come up with a design.
But they think they can use it to make better EV batteries because every single day there's a new story about somebody can make a better battery, which we may or may not ever see.
Well, Ben Affleck has joined what Rob Lowe had said recently, the same message, that basically California ruined the Hollywood movie business by being such a hard place to do business that apparently the stars are completely aware that California's dead as a place to make movies.
Can you imagine a state so incompetent that you can't buy fire insurance?
It's letting in zillions of people and giving them free medical care, so bankrupting the state.
And it allowed its most famous businesses to be destroyed.
So California essentially destroyed our energy business.
You know, by making it too hard to build refineries.
They've destroyed the film business, which nobody ever thought would ever move out of, you know, Southern California.
But apparently it's just too hard to use California.
Too many restrictions, not enough benefits.
So, let's see.
So, the energy.
What about Silicon Valley?
I wonder if there are as many startups as there used to be.
Probably not.
So California is on its plan to destroy itself.
Good job, Democrats.
How many of you knew that Joe Rogan recently quit alcohol?
Which is sort of a big deal.
If he were just a normal person, I'd say no big deal.
But he does have a big influence on the world in a good way.
And here's what he said.
He talked about his own experience.
He said, and I'm like, what kind of moron who takes so good care of his body is poisoning himself a couple days a week for fun?
Why am I doing this, he said.
So he actually used the poison analogy for why he quit.
Now, you probably are aware that my book, Reframe Your Brain, as that is one of the key reframes that alcohol is poison.
As soon as you match that word with your habit of drinking, it makes a difference.
Now, not for alcoholics, of course.
That's a whole different issue.
If you're an addict, you're an addict.
But if you're just drinking more than you want to, pairing that word poison with alcohol really seems to help people quit almost immediately.
So I wonder if that was a big part of Joe Rogan's journey.
Pairing that word, or if he just knew intuitively that would make it easier to do.
There's a new Tesla rumor that Tesla might be using its robots soon in conjunction with its self-driving vehicles so that someday your DoorDash,
I'm just picking DoorDash as an example, it's not, there's no specific rumor about that, But that your robot would get out of the self-driving car and take your little package, be it food or be it something else, and deliver it to your front door,
just as if a human were doing it.
So the interesting part about this is you wonder what kind of industries will fall to AI and robots first.
But it could be, and I'm just making this up, this is not part of the rumor per se, But it seems to me that Tesla could take over FedEx, UPS, and the U.S. Postal Service, and DoorDash, and Grubhub all at the same time.
Because robots.
If your robot can drive anywhere, and then get out of the car, and go up steps, and knock on your door, and wait for you to answer, that's a delivery service.
And how do you beat that delivery service?
Because the robot delivery service would work 24 hours a day.
Now, I think there's one thing that I would look for to see if delivery is going to be part of Tesla's plan.
I would look for Tesla drop boxes where you as a resident could put something that has, I don't know, some kind of security or camera on it or something near your front door.
So that at least if the package is within a certain size, let's say food, for example, the robot can drop it off whether you're there or not, and nobody can get into it.
So if you see that, if you see a test of a Tesla Dropbox for delivery, oh, it's on.
Then FedEx and UPS better start worrying.
Anyway. So, let's check in with the Democrat criminals.
There are always so many.
Letitia Jesse James, as I like to call her.
So, she's launched a fundraiser for her next election, I guess.
And it's up to $18,000 per person to join, according to the New York Post.
And she's hitting up her supporters for big bucks.
Apparently part of her advertisement for her fundraiser is a photo of herself framed by a gay pride flag.
Is Leticia James part of the LGB community?
Or LGBT community?
Do we leave the T off?
I think the LGBs like leaving the T off these days.
But it's not up to me.
So, the reason I ask is because I think it actually matters.
It seems to me that the LGBT community would be the ones who were, you know, I would say most propagandized or most brainwashed to think that Trump is evil because they would believe that,
you know, all the general Democrat claims.
But for some reason, the LGBT community thinks that Trump is some kind of special danger when it's clearly the opposite.
Somebody said the other day, Trump's the only president who ever came into office in favor of gay marriage.
Nobody else ever did that.
They may have converted while they were in office, but I think he was the first.
Biden was, of course.
And I think...
Trump is famously, you know, he's got some high-level people like Scott Bessent, who is highly respected and part of that community.
So it's weird that they would have, you know, like a special fear of Trump when all the evidence is exactly the opposite, that he's neither pro nor against.
He just acts like it doesn't exist, which is your perfect situation.
Anyway, So anyway, she's raising money.
How would you ever give money to Letitia James when she's credibly accused of the same crime that she wasted all of your taxpayer time going after Trump over instead of doing the things that your community really needed?
She's literally famous for doing something that didn't work, and by the way, she was doing the same crime.
And then she does a fundraiser, and people will still give money.
The Democrats have this death wish for their party that is like nothing I've ever seen.
Meanwhile, Al Sharpton is going after Target, the store Target, because you might know that Robbie Starbuck recently got Target to drop their DEI.
Illegal DEI culture.
And get rid of all that.
And now, because they got rid of it, Al Sharpton is going to target them.
Fox News has that story.
And so I guess the CEO of Target met with him.
Met with Al Sharpton on Thursday.
And they're pressuring him to put that DEI back in there.
So I guess Sharpton called the meeting with the CEO, very constructive and candid.
And he said he would inform our allies, including blah, blah, blah, what my feelings are, and we'll go from there.
Well, it doesn't sound like Target agreed to something specific, but I wonder if Target got blackmailed, basically.
Do you suspect that at any part of that conversation, Sharpton said, Well, if you can't go all the way back to DEI, I realize that would be tough to do that U-turn, but suppose you could donate to one of my organizations,
and then I could at least say, well, they didn't do everything I wanted, but they did donate to my valuable organization.
What do you think?
I feel like Target might have been maybe blackmailed.
Because Sharpton can turn on the pain.
So he can just say, we'll organize protests against you, unless you donated in a way that shows you're an ally.
So let's wait.
That's my prediction.
My prediction is there's a donation somewhere in the background that we don't know about.
Let's find out about that.
Well, surprisingly, according to the New York Post, there's a new poll.
Let's see, this poll by Gallup.
It says that the confidence in Democratic leadership plunges to an all-time low of, guess what?
Let's see if you can guess.
What do you think is the confidence in Democrat leadership?
What percentage?
Anybody want to guess?
Now, if you're new to my podcast, you're going to be very impressed.
Watch this.
With no hints whatsoever.
There we go.
In the comments, almost every person is guessing the correct number.
25%. So that's the new low.
It's never been even close to that.
25% of Democrats have confidence in their own leadership.
Huh, I wonder what would cause that.
Could it be their dogged determination to do discrimination with DEI?
Could it be that?
Or could it be what I call the 2080 plan?
Now, I think it needs a name.
So a lot of people have made the observation, so certainly I'm not the first, I'm like the millionth, that The Democrats seem to consistently go after the Republicans when the Republicans are on the side of 80% of the public.
So Trump, being the populist he is, if something is really, really popular with the Americans, the public, he is very likely to be on that side.
And then the Democrats, since they have to be the resistance, they end up taking the 20. So I think we should call it the 20-80 plan.
Because once you brand it, if you can put a sticky name on it, it becomes more powerful.
So what do you think?
The 20-80 plan?
Because we usually say 80-20 and everybody knows what that means.
20-80 kind of tells you very quickly what's going on, doesn't it?
Because it's not really an insult.
But it is an insult in the sense that as soon as you understand that they're after the 20 instead of the 80, it's sort of self-insulting.
But it's accurate, you know, in a directional way.
It's not always 20-80.
But directionally, it's quite accurate.
All right.
All right, we see some support in the comments for the 20-80 plan.
All right, let's call it the 20-80 plan.
Let's see, is there anything else they're doing to support the 20-80 plan?
Well, what about that Maryland dad?
I'm so fascinated by that story.
Now, part of it is what I call the lawyer effect.
If you were to watch any kind of court case, when the defense is talking, you say to yourself, oh, wow, that defense lawyer is pretty convincing.
Yeah, well, that...
Person is certainly innocent.
Listen to all that good defense.
And then you hear the prosecution talk, and you'll say, oh, oh, well, actually, hmm, you know, actually, now he sounds totally guilty.
So a lawyer can make anybody sound guilty or anybody sound innocent if you're willing to sit there and listen to their side of things.
So when I listen to the arguments about the so-called Marilyn dad, who may or may not be an MS-13, when I listen to the Democrats, they have pretty strong arguments.
Pretty strong arguments.
One of the ones I heard yesterday is that the accusation that he was part of MS-13 was double hearsay.
Double hearsay.
And I thought, really?
So it's really just that somebody said it to somebody else who said it.
And what I realized was that means that the first person who said it was the source, you know, the person who allegedly knew what they were talking about.
But then the second person would be the law enforcement person who quotes the other person.
So neither of them would be direct evidence.
It would be a double hearsay.
Now, it doesn't change anything I knew because I already knew there was a source and they told law enforcement and then the court acted on it.
But when you first hear that it's double hearsay, you think to yourself, huh, that sounds pretty weak, double hearsay.
And then they say that the police officer or whoever it was, the law enforcement person who got that information, Then was later, not very later, accused of some kind of lying or wrongdoing and then left.
And then I think, huh, an undependable person and double hearsay.
And then there's some doubt about whether the tattoos and the dress meant anything.
Then there's some doubt about whether he was really with MS-13 people because he was MS-13 or he was just...
Standing there at Home Depot to get a Home Depot job?
Or, you know, why did he have...
And then you listen to the other side.
It's like he had cash in his pocket.
He had been previously accused of human trafficking, which sounds worse than it is in this case.
It was adult men.
Illegal, of course.
But, you know, when I hear human trafficking, I'm usually thinking of some...
Sex-related thing and underage people and horrible things.
So both sides seem to have a strong argument if you're only listening to one side.
But here's my current take.
I think the Democrats have the best legal technical argument.
The best legal technical argument.
Meaning when I hear them say, you know...
The court said you should facilitate his return.
And I say, well, what does facilitate mean?
But I ask myself, if this were an American citizen, would we be confused about what facilitate means?
No. Trump would make one phone call to his friend Bukele, and he would say, oh, we made a mistake shipping this guy down there, because that's what happened.
He wasn't supposed to go to El Salvador.
And then Bukele would say, oh.
Well, he's in my country now, so I have full control of whether he goes anywhere, and I'd like to keep him.
And then Trump would say, I know, but it would really be helpful if you released him.
We could send the plane down.
So then you send the plane down, if this were an American citizen.
And then you reintroduce him to the process.
But maybe that source...
You know, the original source is hard to find, and maybe some of the evidence is, you know, aged down or is hard to reproduce.
So I can imagine that if he were an American citizen, which he's not, that we would follow the courts and say, oh, well, you told us to facilitate, so we did.
And then we decided that he needs to go back because...
You know, once we've looked into it, it didn't change our minds.
Now, I think that Trump would be on stronger ground if he facilitated.
As Stephen Miller has pointed out, it's not going to change the end result.
I don't think so, because there's still going to be, you know, evidence that, at least there'll be enough evidence.
That he's dangerous and needs to be shipped back.
Or shipped somewhere else.
I mean, it might not be to El Salvador, but it could be deported somewhere else.
So here's my take.
I think the Democrats might be right on the legal technicality, but they are so wrong on the politics of it and how people feel about it and the mood of the country.
It's 2080.
So once again, They're pursuing their 2080 because the public isn't really following the technicalities of the legal stuff.
But they definitely know whether he's a good guy or a bad guy.
And they definitely know that his wife had made some allegations that sound pretty bad.
And they definitely don't think, oh, he's helping America by being here.
2080. Let's see what else they're doing wrong.
CBS had an interview with the DNC co-chair, vice-chair, I guess he's the vice-chair of the DNC.
David Hogg.
Now, if you were trying to win an election, would you put in charge of your party David Hogg?
Does that sound like somebody who's really trying to win?
That's 2080 all the way.
Anyway, he was on CBS, and he said, now this is a little out of context, but he said, democracy is what put us through school shooter drills and school shootings, and it's what put us through climate crisis and so much more.
So he literally was complaining about democracy.
But if you put it in context, He's saying they need to be wiser and smarter about democracy and they have to stand up to the special interests.
But the way he expresses himself, he makes it sound like democracy is a system that can't work.
So there's your 2080 right there.
2080. And then it's even funnier that there's a conversation about who the leader is.
Of the Democrats' right now?
Like, who's most likely to be the presidential candidate?
And the people they come up with are Kamala Harris.
And by the way, I'd like to do a special shout-out to the Fox News art director or whoever it is, because every time Kamala Harris is discussed, I was watching The Five yesterday, and they'll run a sequence of photos of Kamala Harris.
While there's some discussion of Kamala Harris.
And all of the photos are of her laughing like a hyena.
So they're usually still pictures, but they're all her like with her mouth wide open and looking just crazy and drunk as shit.
And if it were just one photo, it would be hilarious by itself.
But they do the compilation of just one screaming crazy photo after another.
and oh, and oh, and oh, and oh.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
You couldn't possibly watch that series of photos and think that she's any kind of a serious candidate.
Not one of them had her mouth closed.
It's really hilarious if you watch it out of context.
Anyway, AOC.
Of course, has charisma and she's got a following and stuff like that.
But I guess even Bill Maher on his show, I didn't see it, but I heard he said, no, AOC is not the right answer.
But AOC is a 20-80, right?
She's 20-80.
So 20% of the Democrats would think, yeah, give me some AOC.
And I think 80% would say, This is exactly the problem.
The problem is that the Democrats keep favoring the 20% crazy part of the party and ignoring all the normies, the normal people.
And AOC would be the ultimate expression of that.
She would be the ultimate 20-80.
So of course she's going up in popularity because she's a 20-80.
She's so 20-80 that it seems to me that the conservatives are boosting her.
And by that I mean the conservatives keep acting like, oh, it's AOC, she's coming.
I think AOC is going to be the next candidate.
But I don't know if the Democrats are saying that.
I feel like maybe there's a little wishful thinking going on with the conservative side of the world.
Say, oh yeah, oh yeah, AOC, we're afraid of her.
Don't match us up with AOC.
I don't know what we'd do if that happened.
Well, I think you'd win.
According to the rabbit hole account, the Federal Reserve still has DEI all over its website.
And they've got a little video of Jerome Powell endorsing it.
I don't know if that's enough to abolish it, but it's not helping.
It's not helping at all.
Do you think Jerome Powell can be fired by the president?
I haven't looked into that because I just assumed that was not something that's possible.
But now I think maybe anything's possible.
Is it possible?
That Trump could fire Jerome Powell?
Could they find some kind of, I don't know, impeachable...
I see my smartest follower says yes, that he can fire him.
Huh. Well, that would be interesting.
Allegedly, according to one account that follows who follows who on the X account, Allegedly, Elon Musk stopped following Scott Besant, which would be interesting.
If you're wondering if there's any internal dispute, I feel like there must be, because Elon Musk's view on tariffs appears to be at odds with Scott Besant and also the president, and I think that Musk is probably having a tough time being as silent about it as he is.
Now, he certainly talks about his side.
If somebody asks him in a podcast or something or an interview, he'll tell you what he thinks.
But he's not going balls to the wall, you know, get rid of these tariffs.
So he's in a very awkward situation.
He can't win in any direction on this.
But I'll bet you that there is some internal dispute.
And here's my question.
Does America have a plan for survival?
Survival. Because I'm not aware of our plan for survival.
I'm aware of our plan for driving as fast as we can into a gigantic debt hole that makes all of our money and the entire country worthless.
I can see that happening.
So we just...
Have another year of $2.5 trillion debt added on top of our existing debt, and then we'll just drive into that deficit hole and we'll all be dead.
That's the current plan.
There's no plan that's any deviation from that.
Now, if there is a plan that involves, I don't know, robots or taxing the rich or switching to Bitcoin or doging it up more than we've doged it up, I'm not aware of it.
There was a plan.
I recall a plan in which Doge was going to cut a trillion dollars.
But that didn't happen, did it?
Or am I not getting the news?
Because to me it looks like a $2.5 trillion deficit is exactly what it would be with or without Doge.
So did Doge get stopped by the bureaucracy?
You know, what you would expect is when Doge started and it was cutting like crazy and you thought, man, this could really work.
And then one by one, the department heads get appointed.
And then, of course, the cabinet heads and the department heads say, not so fast.
I'm the only one who gets to decide what the final cuts are.
And then Doge is just completely kneecapped, right?
What can Doge do?
If the ordinary managers are the ones who get to decide what can be cut and what won't.
Because that goes right back to people protecting their turf and all that.
So my question is, did we once have a plan, and I'm talking about only a month ago, for survival, and did we lose that plan and it's not replaced by a new one?
So the question for Trump...
Do we have a plan for survival?
The question for Scott Besant is, do we have a plan for survival?
Now, even if we get everything right on the tariffs, and even if everything worked out, which would be a long-term thing, bringing manufacturing back, is that really a plan for survival?
Or is that just a really good thing to do?
I think it's a really good thing to do.
And directionally, I'm in favor of using tariffs as a tool.
But it doesn't look like a plan for survival.
It just looks like one thing that maybe we should have done a long time ago, but it's worth doing now.
Yeah. I don't know.
So we'll see.
I think that question needs to be asked of our current government.
Do we have a plan for survival?
Is the plan military force?
It might be.
It could be that using our military to force people to use the dollar or force people to do business with us, or if they don't do big deals with America, we won't protect them.
We won't be part of NATO.
So it could be we just use our military.
But wouldn't you like to know if there's a plan?
Literally, is there a plan for survival?
Nobody's going to ask that question.
That is the question that must be asked.
Anyway, according to One America News, the data is very clear that the cost of living is going down.
Daniel Baldwin is saying this.
The cost of ordinary things going down, a lot of it has to do with energy prices dropping, and I think the President, Trump, gets credit for a big piece of that.
But I also don't think it matters, because it doesn't matter why prices went down.
Obviously, it's better that they went down.
But it's not any indication of the future.
The future will be driven by tariffs.
And since we don't know if tariffs are going to drive prices up or how much they're going to drive prices up or how long they'll drive prices up, I don't think it means much of anything at all that we had a good month inflation-wise.
Better than a bad month.
But it's not telling you that inflation will be low in the future.
So therefore, it's sort of a nice but not super important in the long run.
What is important will be the tariffs.
We'll see if that makes a difference.
Are you following the Douglas Murray issue with comic Dave Smith and his issue with Joe Rogan's show?
So I guess Douglas Murray wrote an opinion piece in the New York Post.
And he says, among other things, that without standards...
For who gets to talk about important issues, in other words, experts, without some kind of standard about who your expert is, the new media, and that would be people like Joe Rogan, the new media will lead people into errors and evils far greater than the old media could have ever dreamed of.
Well, that's not true.
The old media led us into how many wars?
It's pretty hard to be worse than the old media.
But do you remember before the Douglas Murray thing blew up, do you remember me telling you that the problem with the Joe Rogan setup is that it didn't matter who was on, you know, which expert, they would get to the documentary effect.
So if you watch three hours of anybody, whether it's comic Dave Smith or Douglas Murray, at the end of it, you'd say to yourself, very persuasive.
Yep, that's a good...
That's a complete worldview, and I'm persuaded into it.
And that's the documentary effect.
If you watch a documentary on any topic, by the time it's done, you will be convinced that that point of view is a good one, and maybe you should adopt it.
That's because only one side gets shown.
Now, Douglas Murray is taking it to another level, which is not just that only one side is shown, but that if it's the wrong expert, It's just wrong.
Now, that's not too different from what I was talking about with the documentary effect, because I also assume that the documentary, the documentarian, is not always right, but they're just persuasive.
So, I had been saying that to fix the Joe Rogan system problem, and I'm going to call it a system problem.
It's not a Joe Rogan problem.
It's not an individual problem.
It's a system problem.
Which is, if you're talking about anything that really matters, you know, it's not just fun stuff about pyramids, but it's, you know, something about the real world.
The model that could work is to have, you know, experts on both sides.
But you saw what happened when he tried to put comic Dave Smith and Douglas Murray on the same show, which is exactly the right instinct.
Is that they got into an argument about the quality, you know, Douglas Murray simply attacked the knowledge of the other person.
And so it sort of turned into a nothing.
But I still think that's the right model.
Because what it showed is that comic Dave Smith won.
In other words, in a battle of ideas, there was only one person there to talk about ideas.
And so I judge.
Comic Dave Smith to be the winner of that round.
But there could be other rounds.
There are other podcasts.
There are other people who would disagree with Douglas Murray.
So let's keep going.
If Douglas Murray wants to continue being on shows with people he would consider maybe not quite as qualified, then we get to judge.
Okay, did you actually interact with his ideas?
And did you correct them with your superior knowledge, which I would really enjoy watching?
Or did you simply attack him as an individual and for his past statements and for some kind of process problem or certification problem or expert qualifications?
Because if I see that, then I get to judge that too.
I get to judge, did you go after the argument or did you go after the person?
And if you went after the person, I'm going to judge the other person the winner.
So that's just my standard.
But I do think Douglas Murray is correct in his sense that the setup of one podcaster talking to one person for a long time definitely has risks.
So I'm all completely on the same page.
But the fact that Joe Rogan even tried to put comic David Smith and Douglas Murray on at the same time shows he's completely aware of that.
And that's good news.
So you know my standard for judging people, right?
My standard is not, did you ever do anything wrong?
Because that's just everybody.
We've all done things that didn't work out.
Maybe we meant well, but it didn't work out.
Everybody makes mistakes, and even calling them mistakes, I feel, is too harsh because we're just humans, right?
We're all trying to crawl our way through to find the truth, and sometimes it doesn't work out exactly.
So if I see somebody like Joe Rogan moving from the model that was criticized, having one person on without the other side, And then he tries to do the obvious correction to that.
To me, that's A+.
You can't be better than correcting for something when there's a valid complaint about it.
So that's A plus Joe Rogan performance, if you ask me.
So I think just more of it is the answer.
Just do more of that.
So we know what the answer is.
Just do more.
And I think we can work our way out of it.
So as you know, there was this vote on what's called the SAVE Act.
So Congress is requiring that the states make sure that somebody is a resident of the United States before they can vote.
Well, who would vote against that, you ask?
It turns out almost all Democrats voted to not make it a requirement.
That you prove you're a resident of the United States to vote in our elections.
And then when asked, why in the world would you not want to be sure that somebody's a resident before they voted?
A citizen.
I'm sorry.
Yes. Thank you for that correction.
The question is citizen, not resident.
A resident could be a non-citizen.
So I was using the wrong word there.
So the correction is a citizen.
So the SAVE Act is to make sure you're a citizen before you vote.
So who could be against that?
Almost all Democrats.
But when asked why they're against it, they say that it's a myth that any non-citizens are voting.
But apparently, according to an article by the Daily Color News Foundation, Nicole Silverio, Several notable examples of very large numbers of non-citizens on voter rolls, which would suggest a lot of non-citizens are in fact voting.
Now, I'm not sure that they're actually voting.
It might be more that somebody's voting for them, which would be the other big risk, right?
Because I've seen reports that the names are being used, but not necessarily the real people voting.
So it might be some kind of mass voting problem as well.
I don't know the details of that, but that's been alleged at least a few times.
So again, that would put the Democrats in the 2080.
That 2080 plan, they're very committed to it.
The RFK files, more RFK files have been released.
I haven't heard anything that's...
Really different in them, except one thing that I don't think is important.
But apparently, in the RFK files, there's a story about a tour group in Israel that heard Kennedy was shot.
This is Robert Kennedy.
They heard he was shot in Milwaukee a month before he was actually assassinated.
And so the FBI...
Tried to figure out how in the world they could know a month before it happened.
So they believed it happened.
Not that it was going to happen.
They believed it actually happened a month before it happened.
And it was exactly what happened.
So the FBI was like, uh...
Now, I don't think that this is really going to be...
I don't think this is anything except a weirdness.
You know, maybe just somebody guessed right, or there was a rumor, or it's a big world, and I don't know.
So we'll see if anything new comes out of that.
I'm seeing in the comments.
Let's see if I can see that.
As in the death of John Kennedy, many in the world, again, will regard in terms of a conspiracy.
We could not and should not be in a position of adding to or blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
All right, so I don't know the context of that.
But people are pouring through it to see if there's anything there.
I'm not expecting anything super new to be in there.
Well, Michael Schellenberger was testifying to Congress.
I'm not sure about the date of this, but just think about whether this will be part of history.
So this is Schellenberger doing his great job, as usual, of summarizing a situation that we're in.
So I tried to summarize his summary, but let's see how close I get.
So here's how I understand the world.
But will this be how history records it?
Will children be taught this?
So here's his version, which I agree with.
After the War on Terror, the U.S. used counterinsurgency and counterterrorism and counterpopulism tactics to inspire the Arab Spring.
Do you remember the Arab Spring when some of the Arab countries looked like they were going to overthrow their own governments?
And then moved those same tactics later to Eastern Europe in what they called the Color Revolutions.
Now, that's well documented that those techniques were used in the color revolution.
And they used, among other tools, they used social media to foment revolutions against places we wanted regime changes.
Will history show that we use social media in other countries to foment revolutions and cause regime changes?
I don't know.
But we definitely did it for other countries.
And then also use censorship to repress opinions that were opposing.
So the big part of our influence on other countries was controlling social media through censorship, but also creating messages and making them look like they were bigger than they were.
Then he says, Those tactics were turned against the American people after the revolutions of 2016.
Now, that would include Trump's election as a revolution.
And he said that among the things that would be part of that would be Russiagate, creating small groups of experts to decide what the truth was, you know, the fact-checkers, which would be censorship,
just under the guise of...
Telling the truth, but it would really be censorship.
And then there was more of a direct effort to control the media, such as the Hunter laptop, where you get the FBI to tap you on the shoulder and say, you know, we're not so sure.
Or you get the 51x Intel people to say, hmm, yeah, we're not so sure.
It could be Russia, you know, Russia tradecraft.
So moving from just censoring speech to literally just making shit up.
And that it's all done under the guise of essentially controlling or removing the government in place.
And then Schellenberger talks about the takeover of independent journalism through a European and worldwide organization.
That had some control over independent investigative journalists.
And essentially, you know, it was a control mechanism through funding and whatever else.
Now, will history record that?
Do you think you'll ever see a history book?
You know, will your teenager ever come home and say, oh, I just learned that the U.S. government...
Took the tools that he used to try to influence the overthrow of foreign countries, and they just turned it inward because Trump seemed like such a risk to their nice little setup, in which they were all making money and had power,
that they tried to basically use those same tools against us.
I don't think that will ever be part of history.
But at least we know it.
it.
I don't know about this story.
It's too complicated.
Too complicated.
Too complicated for a Saturday.
So I saw a video today.
It's the first time I saw it.
Trump said that...
We might reach a Ukraine mineral deal on Thursday.
What year was he talking about?
Did it happen on Thursday two days ago?
Or yesterday?
Two days ago?
Did we get a mineral deal?
Or was he talking about next week?
Because if he's talking about next week, that's kind of strange.
So does anybody know about a mineral deal with Ukraine that's either imminent or already happened?
Because I'm betting against it.
And I'm betting that even if one gets signed, it would just all fall apart.
Because I do think that the Ukrainians are so committed to criminal activity that they can't possibly be trusted with any kind of a deal.
I don't think they could be trusted with aid.
I don't think they could be trusted with the war.
I don't think they could be trusted with an election.
And I definitely don't think they could be trusted with, you know, a multi-billion dollar mineral deal.
So I don't think that's going to happen.
Or if it happens, I don't think it's going to work.
I saw Conor McGregor talking to Tucker Carlson.
And remember when you thought...
Conor McGregor might run for office and run in Ireland and try to change things.
Well, apparently, the Irish system doesn't allow just anybody to run for office.
So I don't know the details, but it's not like a democracy where you could just sort of prove yourself and become popular and then run for office.
I guess it's kind of a closed system, and he doesn't have any way to get into it.
So he can't run.
Maybe in a theoretical way he could, but in an actual real-world way, he can't actually get nominated and run for anything.
So what are you going to do?
So he's claiming about the mass migration and it's completely overrunning the Irish culture.
And as Tucker pointed out, The Irish didn't try to conquer anybody.
They were never colonizing anybody.
They were sort of just minding their own business for eons and eons.
And now they're being completely replaced and destroyed by mass migration.
Tucker said that if you go there, there's no advertisements that show Irish.
All the Irish advertising shows people from other ethnicities, We see in the United States, but worse, I guess.
So at the moment, I don't see any path for Ireland to survive as Ireland.
It doesn't look like there's any path.
I think McGregor was threatening, making sort of indirect threats to the leadership if they keep doing what they're doing.
I don't see anything that could happen.
I can't imagine that there would be any response.
So it looks like Ireland is on just a suicide path in terms of the Irish citizens that have been there forever.
So, yeah, I assume they will become Islamicized.
Apparently the Iran talks are continuing.
Now, I don't think there is any chance of Iran reaching a deal, except...
Except, here's a wild card.
So there's some news out in China that China successfully is running a thorium reactor.
Now, a thorium reactor, this would be the first one, and it's up and it's operational, and it's not a test site.
It's actually a nuclear power plant.
And the thorium reactor does not use the Uranium that normal reactors would use.
Now, if you have an energy source that doesn't use uranium, then you don't have to worry about taking the uranium up to nuclear weapons grade, because those two things work together.
If you have a domestic uranium-based nuclear experts, the same experts can use that expertise.
To refine the uranium until it could be a bomb.
Now, we've said that under no conditions can Iran have the bomb.
I don't know if this is still true, but you can correct me on this.
Didn't Iran used to say, but we have a right to domestic nuclear power, and that's all we're doing?
Could it be possible...
That if China were willing to share its thorium reactor technology with Iran, that we could say, well, if what you really want is a robust energy source that's not your own oil,
because that's not the best energy source for electricity, that you could go thorium and everybody would be happy.
So you wouldn't get to build a bomb.
We wouldn't have to worry about it.
But you could build these nuclear power plants so it would be safer and not have a military possibility.
So I'm just going to throw that in there as a wild card.
Now, you'd have to also believe that Iran means it when they say we just need a domestic nuclear program.
But hey, once we have that, you can't tell us what we can and cannot do with it.
So, I don't know if they'd agree to it, but it would certainly expose the question of whether they really meant to just have a domestic, you know, peaceful power situation.
Anyway, so Thorium, it's coming.
All right, that's all I got for today.
As I told you, Owen Gregorian's going to host a Spaces right after this.
It won't take long.
I'm going to say a few words privately to the local subscribers.
I'll be short so that you have time to go over and listen to Owen Gregorian on Spaces on X to keep the conversation going on these topics or anything else I think you think is interesting.
All right.
Thanks for joining if you're on X or Rumble or YouTube.
I'll remind you if you joined late that I'm on some muscle relaxants right now because I got some back problems.
So if it sounds like I'm drunk or slurring my words, that's why.
