God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorksFind my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.comContent:Politics, Gene-Edited Super Soldiers, Klaus Schwab Allegations, Artificial Food Dye Ban, Low Testosterone Democrats, Micro-Drama Romance Videos, Catherine Herridge, DEW Weapons, Havana Syndrome, Kari Lake, VOA Rehiring, Government Funded Independent Agencies, Censorship Organizations, Geoffrey Hinton, Human Brains Analogy Machines, Laurence Tribe, Analogy Thinking, First Principle Thinking, Zelensky Peace Reluctance, Bill Pulte, State Department Agency Closures, Tim Poole, Economic Uncertainty, Iranian Drone Expertise, President Trump Negotiation Technique, Shake The Box Negotiations, UK Sunlight Reduction, EU Fines Apple META, Scott Jennings, Abby Phillip, Jen Psaki MSNBC Bias, Elon Musk, NATO of NGOs, Worldwide Shadow Government, Jennifer Rubin, Norm Eisen, Psychedelic Brain Therapy, Drone Manufacturing, 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 to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cup of mug or a glass, a tank of chalice, a stein, a canteen, a 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, the dopamine end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens.
That's right.
Right now.
Go. Looks like everything's working.
It's all working today.
Well, here's an important story.
According to science, walnuts can curb inflammation that may reduce colon cancer.
So if you're at risk of colon cancer, walnuts could be your answer.
Now, I'm no doctor, but I have a recommendation.
Don't make the mistake I made.
The walnuts are to be eaten.
Yeah, you take them orally.
You're thinking...
You're thinking you want to take them the other way because it's reducing your colon cancer risk, but no.
You should remove the shells and take them orally.
Don't make the mistake I made.
Well, here's a little scientific thing that might be a big deal.
According to NoRidge, there's a drug that already exists for people who take too much Tylenol and you want to save them from...
Too much Tylenol, I guess.
And what it does is it's called N-acetylcysteine.
And what it does is it can prevent art attacks, apparently, because it can prevent clots from forming.
Now, I didn't know this, but apparently, if you have a drug that prevents clots from forming, it might make you bleed too much, so there's a downside, but this doesn't do that.
So you might be able to take this drug, which already is approved for other purposes and seems pretty safe, and it could basically eliminate millions of heart attacks and strokes.
Now, it sounds a little too good.
Well, you know, the baby aspirin and the other things, they have some downside.
But as far as I know...
There's no specific downside from this particular drug.
It already exists.
They know about it pretty well.
So that's kind of cool.
Over in China, there's a report in Interesting Engineering that the Chinese are looking to gene edit super soldiers.
So they can make super soldiers with gene editing and maybe give them AI power.
So they're basically making cyborgs that are gene-edited.
Do you think that they have any yet?
Do you suppose there are any gene-edited babies that are just being raised as super soldiers?
I don't know.
But I don't know how well these super soldiers are going to do against a wave of drones that are destroying them from above.
But watch out for those super soldiers coming to a war near you.
I'm not sure I believe any of that story.
Do you believe that China is making gene-edited super soldiers?
You know, I suppose anything is possible, but I'm going to say I don't believe it.
Apparently, Trump says he's going to talk to AG Attorney General Bondi about what's holding up the Epstein files.
How many of you believe the Epstein files were really going to come out?
Now, let me ask you this.
When I say Epstein files, do you say to yourself, oh, just the text messages and the documents?
Wouldn't the Epstein files be the video that we know must have been there on the island?
No video?
Are we really going to get the Epstein files and somebody's going to tell us, yes, we've released everything?
And there won't be a single video in there?
Is that going to happen?
I think it is.
Do we even know who has the video?
Do you think the U.S. government knows who has the video from the island?
Maybe. Maybe they do.
Maybe they don't.
But I'll tell you one thing for sure.
Somebody has those videos.
I don't think they got destroyed.
So maybe Israel has them.
Maybe the FBI has them.
Maybe Russia has them.
I don't think Russia.
But we're not going to see anything good from the Epstein files.
I think the odds of us seeing the good stuff, probably zero.
But we'll see.
So you remember Klaus Schwab, the head of the World Economic Forum?
And remember how...
People like me kept saying, why does he seem like an evil supervillain?
Like he talked and looked exactly like some kind of evil villain that you would cast in a movie.
And it turns out there's a whistleblower who's got some complaints about Klaus alleging financial and ethical misconduct.
And he resigned from the World Economic Forum.
We don't know if it's because of this.
But the reporting is after it.
So maybe it's because, but we don't know.
Allegedly used forum cash for hotel massages.
ATM runs by junior staff and holiday travel disguised as business.
And he says he's going to sue whoever is accusing him of this.
And his wife allegedly ran their, this is according to the Wall Street Journal, Allegedly ran their 50 million lakeside villa like a private spa.
So while Davos was talking about austerity, Schwab was apparently having a good time with his full-time spa.
Now, I know what you're thinking.
Happy endings.
Well, you're probably right.
But is anybody surprised that Klaus Schwab was a little bit sketchy?
Allegedly. Allegedly.
We don't know for sure.
That's according to a whistleblower.
Well, RFK Jr. apparently is succeeding in getting rid of the artificial food colorings in our food.
Everything from candies and drinks and jams and cereals.
But it's going to take a while.
I guess it's going to take until the end of 2026.
But the FDA is announcing that...
The petroleum-based synthetic dyes will be eliminated from medications and the food supply by the end of 2026.
So that might be a big deal.
I saw that RFK Jr. was talking about how the testosterone level in young men was so low, it was lower than people my age, which is pretty bad.
I wonder if any of this is related.
I mean, he's got a lot more work to do to figure out what's going on with that, but if we don't get our testosterone levels back, I don't think we're going to be a successful country.
How much of you, if you have to guess, how much of the current drama in the United States might be caused by low testosterone?
Because the Democrats are a low-testosterone party.
It's pretty much women and men with low testosterone.
If we didn't have this testosterone emergency, do you think the Democrats would be acting the way they are?
I don't know.
But my experience is that if you change somebody's chemical reality that much, lowering testosterone has got to have a big impact on your behavior.
There's no way that that's a nothing.
And there does seem to be a difference between the two parties.
So I'm guessing that if you improve testosterone, politics would change as well.
Just look at a single issue.
Look at protecting the border.
Do you think the low-testosterone people and the high-testosterone men have the same opinion about protecting the border?
I'll bet not.
I'll bet you could find a difference.
What about deporting people without enough due process if you suspect they're gang members?
I'll bet you there's a big difference between the high testosterone opinions and the low testosterone opinions.
So a lot of times we think we have opinions, but really what it is is just different chemical situations.
Anyway. According to a user called Didi on Axe, there's a startup in China that has 150 million users, and they've created what they call micro-dramas, which are basically romance fantasies for women.
But what's different about them is that they're only a minute to a minute and a half long.
And the first few are free to get you hooked, and then you would pay a little bit for each one.
But they're all going to be like a minute and a half.
And they do it with cheap actors and AI-generated backgrounds.
But they're making like $200 million in revenue.
So what they've invented, basically, is porn for women.
Now, here's something I've observed for many years.
If you're trying to predict an online service and whether it does well, here's what you look for.
Number one, does it have anything to do with sex?
Because that's always good.
So, yes.
So even though these are romance fantasies, you know, one assumes that it's basically sex adjacent.
The other thing is faces.
If you have any kind of an online service that has faces, whether it's Instagram or basically anything that has faces, it's going to be far more...
Successful than anything that doesn't have faces.
So always look for faces.
And then the other thing lately is whether it's brief.
So this Chinese service with these minute and a half clips, it gets it all.
It's got the sex, it's got faces, and it's brief because our attention span is so low.
So I guess you could have predicted it because it sort of hit all the...
You know, the notes.
Well, Catherine Herridge, a very respected reporter, has a big piece out now.
She did some interviews.
And she says that top U.S. neuroscientists and military advisors confirm that reports are, quote, credible, credible is the key word here, that directed energy weapon attacks have happened on U.S. soil and targeted U.S. personnel abroad.
Now, I watched her interview with one of the individuals who claims to have been a victim of the attacks.
Now, you might remember that when this story was new, I said that it was not real and that it was mass hysteria.
I'm going to mildly revise my opinion to, I might be wrong.
I might be.
But let me just interject this.
If you're looking to determine what's real and what's not real, I always look for the money.
And so her key interview was an individual who claims to have been damaged by one of these weapons.
And the reason he's claiming it is so that he can get workplace disability, some kind of payment for his care.
So he has a financial incentive to say that he was damaged by it instead of just having Alzheimer's, because I guess his symptoms are Alzheimer's-like.
So here's the problem.
He could be telling the truth, and he could be 100% right.
I wouldn't know from here.
But can you really take as a credible witness?
Somebody who has a huge financial interest in you believing in one thing or another.
So for me, this is a little sketchy because you've got to find somebody who doesn't have a financial interest.
And I think that most of the people who claim this damage are claiming it probably for the same reason, so they can get some kind of workplace payment for being injured on the job versus just a natural.
Health problem.
So I don't want to cast any aspersions on anybody because they seem like good people and they didn't look like they're lying.
You know, didn't have any tells for lying.
But generally speaking, I would tell you to be very cautious if your best witnesses are getting paid or if they have a financial incentive.
So just put that in your quiver.
So, and I'll say again, I could be wrong.
I could be wrong about it being a mass hysteria.
Maybe there is a weapon.
So I'm going to go all the way to maybe.
You remember that Carrie Lake was in charge of the Voice of America and RadioFew, and, you know, they basically are external-facing propaganda networks.
And they were all shut down and defunded and everybody was fired because Trump administration decided that wasn't really useful.
Well, you would not be surprised to find that a U.S. district judge, here it is again, a district judge who should not be making decisions about things outside her domain, has granted a preliminary injunction.
And is requiring all the people to be hired back.
How is that even possible?
How is it even possible that a judge can tell the government that they can't fire people and they can't close down a government entity?
And I think the argument has something to do with they're an independent federal agency.
But how independent are you if you depend on funding from the government?
That feels like the opposite of independent.
Maybe the post office is a similar situation.
It gets government funding, but it's independent.
I can't even believe that.
Do you think that would have happened if we had a Democrat as a president?
Or do you think it's just all these district judges are just ruling anything that Trump does is wrong, has to be reversed?
Because it's starting to look like It's just automatic.
You know, they just shop for the right judge, and then they get somebody to say, whatever Trump wants, we're going to say no.
So here's a question that I've been noodling on.
You know, if you've been watching Mike Benz or watching the Doge Project, you know that there were a number of organizations, both domestically and internationally, that were in the censorship business.
Now, they wouldn't say they were in the censorship business.
They would all say that they were in the getting rid of disinformation business.
But the disinformation would always be on one side.
They would never get rid of the disinformation on the left.
They would only get rid of what they would call the disinformation on the right.
Now, do you think they were accurate in knowing what the disinformation was?
I don't even think that was the goal.
I think it was just pure censorship of one side.
But Elon Musk said on X, several more censorship organizations will be deleted.
And my question is this, how many were there?
Every time I listen to Mike Benz talk about some new disinformation organization that was international or domestic, I say to myself, Have I heard this story before?
It just feels like the letters changed.
You know, it's a GEC or a CISA, or there was a new one recently.
And I'm really wondering, were there hundreds?
Were there dozens?
And then that's not even counting the FBI that we know is trying to influence the social media platforms.
How many entities?
We're involved in trying to take away my freedom of speech.
A lot.
And how many entities were involved in trying to reduce the advertising revenue to any platform they didn't like?
A lot.
It turns out that there was enormous, not only dollar-wise, but the number of entities that were involved in this evil plot to take away your...
Your freedom of speech in the United States?
I don't even know.
If several more censorship organizations get deleted, how many are left?
Several doesn't tell me anything.
I always say a number without a percentage is useless, but a percentage without a number is useless.
Here's a number, several, but without the percentage, I can't tell if that matters.
If it's only 1% of all the disinformation organizations, it doesn't mean anything.
If it's 80%, maybe it does.
So I'd like to know how many there are out there.
There's some AI expert I was seeing on a clip on X, Jeffrey Hinton.
He says that the more we understand AI...
And how the brain actually works?
The less human thinking looks like logic.
I saw this on a Vitrupo account on X. And he says, we're not reasoning machines.
We're analogy machines.
We think by resonance, not deduction.
We're much less rational than we thought.
Who does that sound like?
It sounds like me.
It sounds like my book that's behind you.
I forget which one.
But where I talk about Loser Think is the book.
And I write about how analogy thinking is not real thinking.
If all you're doing is being reminded of something else, that's not thinking.
Now, how many smart people do you think would be analogy thinkers as opposed to people who reason from, you know...
From base facts and then reason their way to a conclusion.
Well, let's look at the news.
According to The Hill, a Trump critic named Lawrence Tribe.
You know Lawrence Tribe?
Very famous lawyer-type person who's anti-Trump.
He says that Trump's attempted Harvard takeover mirrors Hitler, Orban, and Erdogan.
And then later he was on the...
Some TV show where he said, Trump's Harvard tactics are like the mafias and Hitler's.
Is that reasoning or is that analogy?
It's analogy.
Now, one of the things that I've predicted since the beginning of the AI big wave was that AI would teach us that we're not reasonable creatures.
Because as we learn to understand how AI thinks, We're going to realize that's how we think, too.
And it's not based on reasoning from, you know, first principles.
It's sort of just pattern recognition.
It's just analogies.
So I don't know what percentage of human beings can use reasoning, but it's not a lot.
And if you were ever to say to yourself, the world is a simulation and some of us are NPCs, you know, non-player characters.
I'm pretty sure the NPCs would be the analogy thinkers.
And the few people who were players in that model would be able to reason from first principles, I guess.
So ask yourself, which one are you?
So let's talk about Ukraine and Russia.
So according to the Wall Street Journal, Zelensky says he'll never agree to peace without the surrender of Crimea.
Now, Russia, under no circumstance, will ever give up their biggest, I guess, naval base.
And there's no way they're going to give up Crimea, much less the other properties that they own right now.
So, does that look to you like anybody who's serious about...
You know, even trying to get a peace deal, it doesn't to me.
And it makes me think there's something we don't understand about what's going on.
Now, as you know, I've never been to Ukraine, so therefore that makes me not an expert who is worthy to talk about it.
So I'll just talk about it as an observer who is confused.
So I won't talk about it as an expert.
I'll talk about it as somebody who's watching the news and saying, what?
What? Why does this news make sense?
So apparently Rubio has canceled some high-level meeting because it doesn't look like Ukraine and Russia are serious about a peace deal.
And they've downgraded the...
They haven't cut off contact, but they've downgraded the negotiations, it's called.
And so instead of Rubio being there or Trump being there, it's going to be Ukraine Envoy General Keith Kellogg.
General Kellogg.
Kellogg. Kellogg is a serial, and a general is somebody who kills people.
So would he be a serial killer, General Kellogg?
I don't know.
That's the first thing we have to decide.
But secondly...
I'm trying to figure out what could it be that we don't know?
So one possibility is that Zelensky doesn't think he could personally survive peace, right?
Because if peace happens, there'll be elections, and then he would be voted out, and then whoever is voted in will start investigating all the money that Zelensky stole, allegedly, you know, possibly.
I don't know about any.
And he might die.
So it's possible that Zelensky is doing everything he can do to prevent peace because he doesn't know how to survive peace.
That might be the actual reason.
Another possibility, this is maybe a little wilder, is that Zelensky knows there's a weapon coming that he would have access to that would change the nature of the war, such as...
And I'm not predicting this, but I'm just speculating.
What are all the reasons he would act this way?
And one of them would be that they're developing a million drone wave of attack, and nobody knows about it because there's big warehouses where they've got a million drones and they're building them up, and they're just going to run over the entire occupied Russian-occupied territory and just kill every Russian soldier with a million drones.
You know, they might lose 800,000 of them, but when they're done, there won't be any Russian soldiers.
Is that possible?
Are we moving to a fully drone war, and Zelensky knows it, and he knows it's imminent, so he thinks that it would go from Russia has the military advantage to every Russian soldier in those territories is dead?
Maybe. I don't think that's the greatest possibility, but again, what else is it?
The other possibility is that he's just negotiating.
So he's taking the most extreme position, and then he's got something to give up.
But it doesn't feel like it, does it?
It doesn't feel like he really would give up anything.
So I guess the mystery remains.
But as long as the mystery remains, the United States probably just needs to get out of it.
If we can't understand why he doesn't want peace, or at least peace on the terms that are practical, then we shouldn't be involved.
One way or another, we need to back out, because we don't have the real story.
Unless we do, and we're not talking.
Well, one of the things I love about the Trump administration is that he's created sort of a culture where if you're cutting the fat out of your organization, you know, you're going to get some attention.
So it feels like a lot of people are sort of almost competing to cut the most out of their organization.
One of them is Bill Pulte.
He was reporting today, or yesterday, I guess, You know, he's in charge of the, what's it called?
The FHFA and Fannie and Freddie.
And so that's the U.S. federal housing groups.
And he says there's so much redundancy in the paperwork that makes your head spin.
As a result, the people at Fannie and Freddie, he got rid of a bunch of redundancy.
He eliminated all kinds of redundancy.
And as a result, the people at Fannie and Freddie tell us they're very happy with us.
Now, here's my standard for you haven't done a good job of putting your paperwork together.
If I'm filling out paperwork for anything, let's say a commercial loan, how many times do I have to write my name and address?
If I have to write my name and address more than once on a bunch of documents that are all aimed at doing the same thing, it's just there are lots of parts to it, I'm not going to be happy.
So, I don't know what it means to reduce redundancy, but I'm betting that Pulte is doing a great job on that.
And that could be huge, just in terms of making it easier to be a citizen of the United States.
At the same time, the State Department is going to be pared back.
So, listen to this.
132 agency offices, so that's State Department agency offices, Going to be closed, according to the Free Press.
But now the question you ask is, 132 agency offices?
And if how many?
How many do you think the State Department has if they can close 132 of them?
The answer is 734.
They have 734 offices?
Are you kidding me?
Where? Doing what?
So they're going to close them and reduce it to only about 600.
It's only a 17% reduction.
Can you even imagine closing 132 offices and it's only 17% of your offices?
Oh, my God.
The amount of waste.
Which must exist in the State Department.
But what this tells me is that the State Department was the animal wagging the tail.
It's a wrong analogy.
But the State Department must have been insanely powerful that nobody could prune them back until the Trump administration.
So you have to think that prior administrations have thought, hey, we have too much stuff.
And our budget is too big, and we should cut this back a little bit.
But probably they couldn't, because the State Department was sort of so deep state that nobody could touch them.
But apparently we can now, but only 17%.
Anyway. But that's a move in the right direction.
So you may have seen the video of Tim Pool.
He was at the White House briefing room.
And when he was asked to ask his question, he mentioned that the people in the room...
Oh, hello.
I'm seeing in the comments, breaking.
New York Attorney General Letitia James is now suspected of insurance fraud.
And this is not associated with previous allegations.
Insurance fraud.
All right.
She's in trouble.
She is in trouble.
Anyway, what was I saying?
So Tim Poole was in there and he calls out the, I guess, the traditional media that's in the room and noted how they seem to be in lockstep on the hoaxes.
And he mentioned the very fine people hoax.
And I love the fact that he made the traditional media who had been Promoting the Find People hoax for years.
He made them sit there on television while he called them out for that being a hoax.
And he had two other examples.
But the Find People hoax was the one that, of course, interests me the most since I worked hard to get that debunked.
So that's good.
I love that.
All right.
So I've got a little theme.
For the next part of the show, it's a theme.
It's called Calming Economic Uncertainty.
All right?
So here are all the things that, as I mentioned at the beginning of the show, the stock market is up strongly today.
And it's not a coincidence.
There are things happening.
So Iran says it's ready to make its nuclear program more transparent.
In return for an easing of sanctions.
Now, isn't that what we wanted?
Didn't we want full transparency on their nuclear program to make sure they weren't making weapons?
Do you think this is real?
Or is it just stalling again?
Here's why I think it might be real.
So Russia has been, I guess, brought into the process.
We don't know exactly how.
But Russia and Iran have a tighter relationship than we do with Iran, obviously.
But one of the reasons that Iran and Russia have a tight relationship is that Iran is creating, manufacturing, many of the drones that Russia is using in the Ukrainian war.
Now... Would it be a coincidence that Iran is suddenly flexible about us knowing about their nuclear program, at the same time they're becoming really, really good at producing a lot of drones?
I'm not sure that's a coincidence.
Because if you were Iran, one of the things you would know, because everybody knows it, if you ever used a nuclear weapon, Your country would be destroyed for sure.
Like, no doubt about it.
So, using a nuclear weapon doesn't really get you to a good place in any situation.
But, suppose they created a million drones and they wanted to attack Israel with a million drones.
If they were successful, I don't think they would be, but if they were, they would probably not get nuked.
Because you don't really nuke people unless they nuke you first.
So it could be that Iran just feels like its traditional weapons are now so plentiful that they wouldn't need nukes, and nukes would just work against their interests because their country would be destroyed if they ever used one.
So there's a little bit of me that thinks they might be serious about this.
Not in a good way, because if they had those other weapons...
They would be just as dangerous.
But I do wonder if they're serious about it.
So that would be one thing that at least would calm markets a little bit if you thought there was less chance that there would be a big war in Iran.
Then, apparently, President Trump has said he's not planning to fire Fed Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.
And that was roiling the markets and making people feel uncertain.
But he's taking that off the table.
Do you think that will calm the stock market?
Yes, of course it will, because that was one of the big issues.
So he's calming the market that way.
What else is he doing?
Trump also said yesterday that the huge tariffs on China will significantly be reduced after he negotiates with President Xi of China.
He expressed optimism about getting a deal with China, and he said 145%, that's the current tariff he has on China, is very high.
It won't be that high.
It's not going to be that high.
It won't be anywhere near that high.
Only Trump talks that way.
Trump tells reporters in the Oval, it will come down substantially, but it won't be zero.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting on this.
And apparently in response, I think it's in response.
China signaled it was open to trade talks with the U.S. I think it was in response.
They're open to trade talks, but not under duress.
In other words, if they're being threatened, they're going to go to war.
But if we treat them with respect and as legitimate peers, then they're going to be open to talking.
So that would certainly suggest that the problem with China is manageable.
We're pretty far from having a deal, but it suggests that both the United States and China are serious about getting to the other side of this.
So will that calm the markets?
Yes. Yes, it will.
So here's the thing that I think Trump does so well.
He shakes the box, and then he says, all right, Did I get an advantage here?
And if he didn't, he shakes it again.
And he just keeps shaking the box until something looks like a Trump advantage.
And then he uses the advantage.
So he got everybody just worried to death.
And now when he says, you know, we can make a deal.
The people who had been worried to death, and that would include China, because you know China was more than a little bit worried about where this was heading.
Then they're just emotionally, they're just really, really wanting to get a deal.
So he's created a situation in which, in theory, China will be far more emotionally committed to getting it done because it was so painful to think that it might not get done.
So it's one thing to be just, you know, coldly calculating, let's make a business deal.
It's another thing to think, We might all die.
And then you've lived through, they might destroy our entire economy.
And then you survive that.
And then you go to negotiate and you're not thinking, oh, what's a good business deal?
You're thinking, God, I don't want to feel that again.
So Trump creates a situation in which people's emotional state is really, really triggered to make a deal.
You can't beat that.
That's the ultimate negotiating technique.
So we'll see.
And I do think that Trump will turn it from, you know, we're in charge and we're going to slap you down China.
The moment he talks to President Xi, it's going to be all, President Xi is an awesome guy.
We know he wants to make a fair deal.
We can certainly work with China.
It's going to turn into that automatically, and then everybody will say, oh, that sounds a lot better.
According to a Reuters-Ipsos poll, 37% of Americans approve of Trump's handling of the economy.
Of course it's going to be low, because he shook the box.
When he shakes the box, Americans, too, are going to say, oh, I don't know about this.
And other countries are going to say, whoa, I don't know about this.
So if he's doing everything right, which is getting people afraid of not making a deal, then you'd expect the approval of his economic policies would be low for a while.
But the only thing that matters is how it turns out.
If it turns out well, and he just gets better deals with China and everybody else, and I think there's a pretty high That would presumably change.
According to the same poll, nearly 75% of U.S. adults said they're worried about a recession.
That feels like, aren't we always worried about a recession?
It seems like that's not telling me anything.
75% are kind of...
Always worried about a recession.
Because no matter how good things are, somebody's going to say it's a bubble.
So you're always thinking, well, I'm a little bit worried about a recession, even though things are going well.
So that doesn't mean a thing.
And then 56% said Trump's retooling of the economy is, quote, too erratic.
Too erratic or too perfect?
Because he shakes the box until everybody's ready to negotiate.
We'll see.
We'll see.
Well, so I posted this on X yesterday.
The thing people were worried about with Trump is that he was making the economy unpredictable.
Would you agree?
The markets were acting like, uh-oh, we don't know what's going to happen.
Could be bad, could be good, but we don't know.
So the uncertainty...
Was making people, you know, act a little crazy and stocks went down.
But here's what I'd like to add to the conversation.
We've never had certainty in the economy.
There was always an illusion.
No matter what the economy is, you're always like five minutes away from the whole thing falling apart for some reason you didn't know about.
It's like, oh, no, there's this big financial problem we didn't know about.
Oh, no.
The national debt is going to crush us today instead of tomorrow.
There's never been a time the economy was predictable.
Now, somebody said to me, but the S&P, the stock market, has been predictable if you look at the long term.
But we weren't looking at the long term recently.
We were looking at relatively short term.
And the stock market has gone down over 20% quite a few times.
And 20% is considered really bad.
So we've never had a predictable economy, and we never will.
It's not even a thing.
But to imagine that what Trump did was turn a predictable economy into an unpredictable one, that's not true.
That's not true at all.
He made us uncomfortable, and he shook the box pretty hard.
But it was always thoroughly unpredictable.
And it still is.
People feel like it's not.
And how they feel is what drives the economy.
Well, over in the UK, according to the inside paper, they're doing new experiments.
I can't even believe this is real.
Experiments to dim sunlight to fight global warming.
So I guess that means we'll be spraying something in the air to dim the sunlight.
Now, I'm no expert on the UK, but I can't think of anything you could do with the UK to make it less appealing to go there than to have less sunlight.
The biggest problem with the UK is not enough sunlight.
It's the last place on Earth I'd be looking to reduce the sunlight.
It's like, where did they come up with that idea?
Do they want no tourism whatsoever?
Do they want everybody to move out who can afford it?
Yeah, let's have less sunlight in the UK to try to fight global warming.
So I guess those three days of sunlight are going to go to two.
Well, speaking of Europe...
I guess Apple and Meta both got these gigantic hundreds of millions of dollar fines by the European Union.
And the problem is that they're not complying with a 2022 law that was passed in the European Union, the Digital Markets Act.
And I guess the Digital Markets Act was designed to make it easier for smaller companies to compete with these big platforms.
Or allegedly, that's what it was.
But I wonder if that's really what it was.
Both Apple and Meta are going to appeal.
I guess there's an appeals process.
But it's hundreds of millions of dollars they're being fined by the European Union for being anti-competitive in ways that are technical and not worth mentioning.
And whatever it is is not illegal in the United States.
How do we put up with this?
I realize that these big companies have to conform to local laws, otherwise nothing's going to work.
But it feels like the European Union is just trying to mess with the United States in every way that it can.
It just doesn't feel like they really mean it.
It's like they looked for something that was bad for the United States and then they implemented it.
I don't know.
Looks sketchy to me.
Apparently, when Trump is talking to the European Union with his trade negotiations, which apparently will happen soon, that might be one of the topics.
So it could be that they were doing it for negotiating leverage.
And they could say, well, you know, maybe we could lower our tariffs a little bit, but...
Maybe you could get rid of these fines on our American companies and let them prosper overseas.
We'll see.
Meanwhile, on CNN versus Scott Jennings, that's the way I like to think of CNN now.
It's CNN versus Scott Jennings, the conservative commentator who's always schooling them.
Apparently, Abby Phillip of CNN.
Was insisting that the reason that the credibility of the major networks was down was not the fault of the networks themselves.
They're not responsible for their own decrease in viewership and credibility, but rather it's because of right-wing rhetoric.
So it's the right-wing rhetoric that's making CNN and MSNBC lose their audience?
Really? Do you think the right wing was watching MSNBC and CNN?
I don't think so.
And do you think that the lefties are listening to right wing rhetoric about what they should watch?
I don't think so.
But anyway, Scott Jennings wasn't having that.
So here's what he said.
The reason that you've lost trust ought to be obvious to you.
And the way to fix it is also ought to be obvious to you.
It has nothing to do with Donald Trump, but everything to do with the product.
Ouch. It has everything to do with the product.
Yeah, that is correct.
If the product were better, more people would watch.
So he says, just try to make a better product that appeals to more people, and the way you appeal to more people is by not crapping on half or more of the country.
Now, let me challenge that a little bit.
Do you think that the problem with CNN is that they're crapping on half the country?
Because doesn't Fox News do the same thing, and Fox News is having banner traffic?
And then I asked myself, when you watch Fox News, are they crapping on weirdos and politicians, or are they crapping on Democrats?
I don't know.
It just seems to me that Fox News does a better job of programming.
Yeah, I've said this a million times, but the producers at Fox News just do a better job.
They put together shows that you want to watch, so people watch them.
I think The Five and maybe Goffeld, too, have an unusually high audience of Democrats, more than you'd expect.
And the reason is they're good shows.
That's it.
It's a better product.
Where would you go on CNN to watch something that you could stand if you were a Republican?
Basically just watching Scott Jennings insult them and try to correct their ideas.
Anyway, so it doesn't look like CNN or MSNBC will be able to fix themselves.
Speaking of MSNBC, you remember Jen Psaki used to be the spokesperson for Biden.
So she was on a show, a podcast, I think, with Dylan Byers.
And she was explaining what's going on there.
And she said that...
She said that people tune in to, their audience tunes in to see coverage of Trump that is, quote, typically not going to be positive.
So she's admitting explicitly that the show is anti-Trump.
And that that's what the audience wants.
So apparently that's what they're going to get.
She says, quote, and we're also going to talk about Trump and it's typically not going to be positive.
I don't think anybody watching expects it to be positive, right?
Well, there it is.
They're playing to the audience and they're basically just saying negative things about Trump because they think that's what the audience wants.
She says, there's not like a North Star thing.
Written on a card and everybody does it slightly differently.
But I think that's fairly the vibe.
So in other words, management is not telling them, make sure you're anti-Trump all the time.
It's just that everybody knows it.
So how do you maintain a network where you're basically telling people you're going to be biased all the time?
Well, I guess the reduction in...
Traffic answers that question.
And then, do you remember Rainn Wilson?
He was one of the stars of that TV show, The Office.
I guess he's got a podcast now.
Now, I don't know if he identifies as left or right, but it doesn't matter to the story.
He had Stephanie Ruhle on.
She's one of the MSNBC hosts.
And so Rainn Wilson said, To her, 40% of Americans don't trust mainstream media.
Why is that?
How did we get here?
And what Rule said was Trump won and tons of people were shocked or angry or frustrated, and they're tuning out.
At the same time, you have the Elon Musk media machine because they want you to leave traditional media and they want you to go to X. So she's blaming the lack of trust in the mainstream as the shock that Trump won.
And Elon Musk trying to drive people to X. Does that sound like she's nailed it?
Well, not according to Rainn Wilson.
He goes, this is where I would push back.
Left-leading news media organizations were kind of like, la, la, la, la, la, everything's fine.
Look, the economy's great.
La, la, la, immigration, not that much of a problem.
And really being Cleopatra, queen of denial.
And he left out the denial that Biden's brain was done.
Do you think that was it?
Where if you watch these shows, they were just obviously ignoring reality?
It feels like it.
It feels like they were so obviously ignoring reality that their credibility would have to take a hit.
Meanwhile, the Tesla earnings call happened yesterday, and no surprise, but their earnings were down 71%.
But I guess the Model Y, their newest one, They had a historically best ramp-up of any of their cars.
So they've got a big hit with the Model Y. They still made over $400 million, but that would be a billion dollars less than the first quarter last year.
And separately, I think Elon Musk said on that call, that he's confident that you could sleep in your Tesla and wake up at your destination by the end of this year.
That's what I've always dreamed of.
I've always dreamed of being able to sleep in my car and then wake up at my destination without worrying about it at all.
Can you imagine travel?
Imagine if you could just tell your car, hey, I'd like to see Arizona.
So take me on a tourist trip to Arizona.
I'd like to stay in a four- or five-star hotel.
So make sure that every eight hours or so, you do that.
And also make sure that you stop for lunch and a couple of pee breaks.
And then you just take a nap or read a book.
And the next thing you know, you're somewhere else.
That would be the coolest.
The coolest experience.
It would also have to go charge itself, so it would have to know where the charging stations are.
But my take on this is that I have not yet been in a car that had the full self-driving capability.
So I haven't experienced it.
But here's my guess.
That once you've experienced it, you probably can't go back.
It feels like something like a smartphone versus a flip phone.
When you tried the smartphone first, even though it couldn't do a lot with 3G and everything, there was no going back.
Very few people would get a smartphone and then say, you know what?
I'm going back to my flip phone.
Some old people did.
But basically, it was a one-way trip.
I feel like this self-driving car, once it's really, genuinely, fully self-driving, And genuinely way safer than a human driving, I don't feel like you can go back.
Because I really don't like driving, especially in, you know, in areas where the traffic is heavy.
So if I could go places without driving, and I could just get in this thing, it would take me somewhere.
I don't think I could ever go back.
Also, Musk says he's going to allocate more time to the company and less time to Doge because he's got most of the Doge stuff set up.
And he says the large slug of work necessary to get the Doge team in place is mostly done.
I'll continue to spend one to two days per week as long as the president wants me.
But I think that could only be through May, right?
Because he's got that 130-day limit.
But he also said...
That he won't have a problem getting rare earth minerals from China, which is interesting.
He said on the earnings call that he'd be able to get China's rare earth minerals for Tesla Motors, and all he has to do is prove that it won't be used for military purposes.
Now, do you think China really made an exception for Elon Musk?
And the answer is, I think they did.
I don't think everybody can get rare earth minerals from China, at least under the current tariff situation.
I think that Elon Musk played China just right for the benefit of his company, which is he was never in favor of tariffs.
And imagine how much China appreciated that because they know he's important to the opinion of the United States.
China had to love the fact that he was anti-tariff, or at least anti-tariff war.
But also, the cybercab is being built in a giga Shanghai factory.
And he thinks he could get the pace of building one of these cybercabs.
Now, those would be the things that are self-driving cabs.
They don't even have steering wheels, so there won't be even a driver there.
But he thinks he can get them built six to seven times faster than the Model Y, and they would build a vehicle every 33 seconds.
Oh, no, that's what the Model Y was.
The goal is to build a cybercab every five seconds.
Isn't that incredible that they could produce one every five seconds?
So I don't know how big the market will be for these cybercabs, but if the price of using them is reasonable, I feel like a whole lot of people will just say, why have a car?
You know, there's no point in having a car if you can just use your phone and a cybercab pulls up in front of your house and you can tell when it's coming, like Uber.
I don't know.
I don't know how big that market can be, but it could be really big.
All right, here's one of those stories that if you didn't already know a lot about the background of it, it wouldn't mean anything to you.
So if I told you that Jennifer Rubin and Norm Eisen have a podcast and you were not deep into politics, that wouldn't mean anything to you, would it?
But if you knew who Norm Eisen and Jennifer Rubin are, then suddenly it would take on some meaning.
And apparently they were talking on their podcast.
And they'd like to create what Jen Rubin called the NATO of NGOs.
In other words, an organization that's a combination of various non-government organizations that would coordinate for what purpose?
Why would she want these NGOs to be coordinated?
That's a shadow government.
I feel like they were talking openly about creating a shadow government right in front of us.
Because if you get enough of these NGOs, they would be able to influence censorship in every country, which would influence who gets elected.
It would influence all the politics.
It would influence everything.
And maybe they would coordinate the NGOs to...
Play favorites with different countries so you could have influence over different governments.
This is the scariest freaking thing I've ever seen in my life, but because it's a little technical and you'd sort of have to know the background and you'd have to know the resume of the people involved, it doesn't really carry as a story.
In other words, it probably will never be a headline because the public...
Wouldn't have enough background to even understand the level of risk.
But Mike Benz basically says this is the sort of thing he has nightmares over.
The NATO of NGOs literally would be a shadow government for the whole world.
For the whole world.
A shadow government for the world.
And they're talking about it openly.
It's just incredible.
And I think they can talk about it openly because none of it's illegal.
It's just really, really something I don't want, but not illegal.
In other news, a single dose of psychedelics have been shown to boost brain flexibility for weeks.
So apparently you get some benefits from depression, PTSD, and neurogenerative diseases.
This is according to the University of Michigan researchers.
The genomic press is talking about this.
And they said what makes this discovery particularly significant is the sustained duration.
So you only need the one dose of a psychedelic, and you get weeks of benefit from various pretty damning or damaging mental problems.
Now, how many times have you heard the same story?
Every time they test psychedelics to see if it gives people better mental health, every time, it's the same answer.
Yes. Yes.
Super yes.
Absolutely yes.
And do they need to know that they only need to do it once?
I think every time they've tested it, they only had to do it once.
And it lasted.
I've told you from my own one experience with psychedelics when I was in my 20s, it changed my brain completely, and it never changed back.
And I'm pretty sure it was a positive change.
So, yes, yes, psychedelics, one treatment, can completely change your life from a whole bunch of different...
Pretty big problems.
You know, depression, PTSD.
I don't know about anxiety, but it seems like that would be on the list.
So, yeah.
How many times do we have to study this before we just say, all right, let's just make this part of popular medicine?
It's time.
In drone news, the U.S. Army's got this solar-powered spy plane that has a thousand-mile range, according to interesting engineering.
It's easy to operate and it looks great.
But what caught my eye is that it's being developed by a California-based company, Krauss-Hemdani Aerospace.
And the amazing thing is not that it can go a thousand miles on solar power.
The amazing thing is that California can have a company that works.
How many drone companies are there in the United States now?
Now, given that we know...
Our military is going to need just infinite drones.
So we know that for sure.
And we know we don't want to depend on some other country to make them.
So wouldn't you like to see like a dashboard or something to show you how many manufacturing facilities have been built that can make drones?
Because it might be a lot.
But if it's only a few, well, I'm going to be a little worried.
Because we need to make a million drones really fast because other people are going to have a million drones, and we don't want to be on the other side of that.
So anyway, California can make drones.
How about that?
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all I've got for you today.
I'm going to say hi to the locals people privately, but if you're on X or YouTube or Rumble, thanks for joining, and I'll see you at the same time.
Tomorrow, where we'll settle all the problems of the world.