Episode 2996 CWSA 10/22/25

Hey, come on in.

It's about time.

We're going to have a good time today.

Promise you.

We got news.

We got Well, we got all kinds of things happen.

If I can get my comments working, and I know I can.

Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization and scholar coffee with Scott Adams.

And you've never had a better time.

But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains, all you need for that is a cover mug or a glass of tanker gel, a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.

Go.

Delightful.

Delightful.

Why is my computer not giving me what I want?

Oh, it will.

It will.

So, as tradition dictates, I've been giving you each uh one reframe a day at the beginning of the show from my book, Reframe Your Brain, the highest rated book I've ever written, changing people's lives like crazy.

All right, let's find a new reframe.

Remember, not all of these will change every person's life, but some of these you will find very helpful to help other people, if not yourself.

Um, all right.

Here's one.

Uh, this is one I use a lot.

Now, this won't this will not uh work for everybody, but do you have in your life a lot of repetitive, boring chores such as folding laundry?

You know, it's like the boring repetitive chore.

Uh what I find is if I reframe my boring repetitive chore as a thing I can learn to do so gracefully and efficiently that it feels like play.

So I think I've given you some of you demonstrations before of folding bath towels.

If you're just folding the towels because you want them folded, it's just boring.

But if you say, "How how efficiently and impressively can I fold a a towel?" You know, you you hold it, you throw it up in the air, you catch it just right, you let it fold over itself, flop, flop, flop, flop, and then you slap it down and it's perfect.

You can't tell me you wouldn't enjoy that.

So, if it's a boring task, but it's physical, try to try to see how impressively you can do it for yourself.

Nobody else has to say it, but you'll find it's fun.

I used to go to this restaurant called Potti in uh Danville near me.

And for several years, they had a buser, the guy who buses the dishes away who was like a a wizard.

He would take he would take all the plates somehow.

He would hold all the plates and and everything for the table and he would just sort of set them down in the middle of the table and then he would go and the table would be perfectly set and everybody would stop to watch because it was like, "What?

What?

What did I just see?" So, he took the most boring job picking up and he did the same when he picked up the plates.

So, there'd be an entire table that's just full of dirty plates and he would be like, and he would have this gigantic pile of plates that nobody should ever try to carry, but he could do it.

So he he put on a whole floor show kind of a boring task.

You can do that too.

There's a study side post Karina Pov is writing about it.

This says that brain wave analysis shows that listening to music can restore your energy if you've done a fatiguing process.

How many of you didn't know that if you stop doing something that's making you tired and instead you just sit there quietly and listen to music that you like that it will make you feel more energetic?

Didn't you didn't you all know that?

Every one of you.

Um well, you could have asked me.

But apparently there's more to it than just the fact that resting when you're tired is a good idea.

Apparently they say the brain waves are doing something more dramatic to your brain so that it's actually better than just resting without music.

So they say there's a Zero Hedge which you need to know sells creatine as part of their business model.

They've got a new information on some studies about creatine that say it's not just for helping you in the gym, which it does very well helping you build muscles.

But apparently creatine has all these other benefits that they're finding out.

Again, this is based on, you know, new studies that are probably probably unreliable, but uh allegedly it helps you with lean tissue strength even without exercise.

So it prevents you from losing muscle uh at least as fast as you would and also helps your cognition and memory they say and may even push off early stage Alzheimer's and it might help with sleepdeprived college students.

So don't take any medical advice from me.

That's the only medical advice you should take from me is that don't take medical advice from me.

But the people who sell this creatine and therefore can't be trusted and the fact that it's on uh scientific studies that at least half the time are fake.

So you can't really trust this, but it's good to know that there are several studies that show it's safe and maybe maybe useful.

Speaking of things like that, did you know there are about a thousand ketamine um treatment centers where they use the ketamine to treat you for other problems such as depression, mental problems?

I don't This is another one that I don't recommend.

Ketamine is some dangerous stuff is my understanding.

So, if you had a, you know, severe medical problem and you're working with real doctors and or real professionals who can keep you safe when you're doing the ketamine treatment, I don't know if that's a good idea or a bad idea.

I know I wouldn't do it alone.

So, so if you know somebody who's got like a little batch of ketamine and you think, "Oo, I don't want to don't want to go to one of those centers, but maybe I'll try it." Don't recommend it.

I don't recommend it.

I think that would be kind of dangerous.

But I don't have any bad feelings about ketamine treatment if it's done by professionals.

So maybe that's a thing.

Uh there's lots of reports that it works.

And now because this issue never will go away.

This is also Karina Petrova and Cypost.

Scientists have used brain scans to find out that people who had CO have different brains.

meaning that the CO did some kind of a long-term change in your brain and your your brain chemistry, I guess.

So, how do they know that it was the CO that made their brains different and not the shot that almost every one of them probably took for the CO?

Well, doesn't say.

So if they don't mention that that they've controlled for the people who got the shots, do you really know that the CO is what caused the brain difference?

I don't think you do.

Now it might be if I read the, you know, the source article, it would tell me if they looked at the shots and somehow separated that out in their study, but I don't know.

But here's the weirdest part about it.

They also discovered that your brain has a correcting mechanism such that if you get that that brain problem that your brain will actually correct it over time.

And what it made me wonder is is it possible that CO can make you smarter and make you evolve to a smarter thing.

So here's the thinking.

If you were exercising a regular muscle, the way you would do it would be to break the muscle and then when it recovered, it would recover as a stronger muscle, right?

So for muscles, breaking them down is what makes them stronger.

But what about your brain?

Same thing.

If you if you stress your brain by making it work harder to think and you do harder thinking tasks, the brain physically changes to become a better brain.

What if, and I'm just playing around now, I don't think this is true.

Just playing.

What if the COVID infection damaged your brain?

But because it's a specific kind of damage that the brain apparently can self-correct, is it possible that it made you smarter when it was done the way any muscle or any other mental process would?

Would it be the only mental process that corrected itself, but it corrected it right to exactly where it was instead of a little bit better or a little bit worse?

I don't know.

Maybe maybe CO is how we uh how we evolved to the next level.

So, keep it keep an eye out to see if the people who got CO got smarter.

I'm just I'm just joking.

I don't think the people who got CO got smarter, but it's funny to think that it might be true.

Well, Trump has suggested that buying Argentine beef might be a good way to lower our beef costs.

I guess the American beef is way overpriced at the moment for a variety of reasons, supply and demand mostly, but I guess Argentina has some beef that we could get for cheaper.

and uh Trump has said maybe yes, maybe that is Wade.

So, I like the fact that he's open to it and it would be good for our ally and it might be good for us in the short run.

Um I have a confession after about 30 years of being a vegetarian and then a pescatarian.

I was sitting around yesterday and I said to myself, you know what?

I think I'm gonna try to eat a steak after 30 years of not having, you know, any kind of mammal in my mouth.

Well, shut up.

Uh, so I I door dashed a uh ribeye steak and uh now keep in mind 30 years of not having any kind of steak.

I have I haven't had a hamburger or anything in my mouth in I think 30 years.

I I haven't done the math, but I think it's like 30 years.

Uh, and you're wondering how it went.

It was pretty good.

It was a pain in the ass to cut it because I don't like to work that hard for my food, but uh, delicious.

Delicious.

Might do it again.

I'm in the nothing to lose category, so it's not like there's a downside.

According to engine chemical and engineering news, one in five chemists have deliberately put errors in their papers during peer review.

Why would a chemist intentionally put an error in their scientific paper right when they're going to send it to peer review?

Does anybody know why?

Why would you do that?

When I first read the title, I was like, what?

Why would you intentionally put an error in the thing that you're going to send to somebody to look to see if there's an error and then it will be rejected and the whole point is to not be rejected.

The answer is if the chemist knows that the person reviewing it had an error in their work, the only way they can match it is put the error in their own work.

So, so if they know the peer reviewer is wrong about something, they'll put that same error in their paper so they'll be approved by the person who was also wrong about that thing.

One in five, one in five chemists have done that at least once.

So, how's that settled science feeling now?

All settled.

Uh, Open AI is now previewing what they call agent mode.

So, I guess OpenAI can now take control of your cursor and your keyboard and it can complete some tasks.

So, it can book some tickets for you or do some research.

Um, how many of you would trust an AI to do tasks on your computer that involve your other applications?

because that always requires the AI to know your password, right, for the other application and that it would know also or the parent company presumably could find out exactly what you're doing and when and how.

I don't think there's a single person who thinks that's a good idea.

Not even one.

But I'm going to make a prediction.

the the way you overcome these um sort of privacy and security risk problems if you have an application.

Do you know you overcome all that resistance from the public?

It's kind of easy.

You just make it better than not using it.

So if you're if you're sitting in an office full of people who all say, "I'm never going to use this.

Too dangerous." Well, then it's safe for you not to use it, too.

you'll just be one of those people in the office.

But if your coworker is using this and doubling his productivity and getting a big bonus and you're not, you're going to be looking over at your coworker and saying, "Ah, I really God, I really don't want to use this agent mode, but I want to raise and I want to get my work done twice as fast and my co-workers doing all that." So, so I think I think people are going to cave and and keep in mind also that the AI will be your brainwasher from now on.

So if the brainwasher the AIs tell you that this is safer than you thought.

At first you're going to say, "No, it's not.

No, that's just your business model.

That's not safe.

You can't tell me it's safe." And then they'll say it again.

So you hear it twice.

still won't convince you twice.

That's not going to change your mind.

How about a hundred times?

How about if you hear a hundred times from a 100 different sources?

Totally safe.

Yeah, you can use agent mode.

Everybody's doing it.

All your your relatives are using it.

Everybody's using it.

And then suddenly it'll look like a good idea.

And then you'll use it.

Maybe not all of you.

You're a special group.

But yeah, young people, young people are going to use this pretty quickly.

Elon Musk announced that his Wikipedia competitor that will be called Groipedia U was going to launch at the end of this week, but he thinks he needs more time to clean up all the wokeness and propaganda that's in there.

So what will happen in a week or so when Groipedia is a legitimate competitor to Wikipedia?

And I said that the test of Groipedia will be how it handles January 6th, the fine people hoax, the 2020 election integrity, and climate models.

Now, when I say it depends how it handles them, I'm not assuming that I have the, you know, the grip on total truth and therefore has to match my opinions on those things.

I'm not saying that.

I'm saying at the very least it needs to show both sides.

Would you agree?

At the very least, it has to show both sides.

And certainly Wikipedia didn't try to do that for some of these hoaxes.

But if uh Grock says some people think January 6 was an insurrection and here's why and then it says but other people say say that's ridiculous and here's why.

I'd be okay with that.

That that would work for me.

Both sides.

Um and there's a good chance that Elon's going to get this right.

I mean it's Elon.

So we'll see.

Did you know that there's a startup in California that's trying to build a city?

The all-in podcast guys featured uh Yan I think it's Yan Ceramic who's the head of that.

They've already got a 100 square miles and a bunch of billionaire rich people, tech people who are in on it.

And the idea is to design a city from scratch because you know most of our cities were built over time.

They weren't really designed intelligently.

They just sort of evolved.

And so they would put the manufacturing near the living spaces so you'd have jobs but you wouldn't have to commute that much.

And uh they'd fix the transportation so it's easy to get from one place to the other.

They would fix the the building architecture so that it look good.

There's no reason it can't look good and be the most livable places and affordable that you could have.

What is it that you say when I say people are looking at new living styles?

You irrationally say, "You can't let make me live in any tiny house." Did I mention a tiny house?

No, this is not about tiny houses.

But what will be your objection to these well-designed cities?

Your objection will be, "I'm not going to live in a tiny house." No.

Let me tell you again.

There's no tiny houses.

This has nothing to do with tiny houses.

I know you won't live in a tiny house.

I got it.

I got it.

You don't have to.

You don't want to live in a 15minute city.

I got it.

No, this would be designed by the by the uh people who would want to have a better lifestyle.

It's not being designed by the people who want to control you.

Or is it?

I don't think so.

I I think that this would be a safe group of entrepreneurs.

That's my guess.

Joe Rogan had a uh climate skeptic on a famous one Richard Linden you know him he's retired now but he was a PhD professor ameritus of all earth science kind of climate stuff so he's an expert on climate um at one of the biggest schools MIT so he uh here's what he said now I' I maybe I'd heard this before but he said quote uh on the one and you're told the science is settled.

We're talking about climate change.

But on the other hand, if you read the IPCC reports, they're pointing out, for instance, that listen to this.

Water vapor and clouds are much bigger greenhouse factors than CO2, and we don't understand them at all.

So, here you have the biggest phenomena we don't understand at all, but the science is settled.

Who knows what that means?

Now, I did understand that they were having trouble with water vapor and modeling it.

I don't know that I'd ever heard directly from, you know, a top expert that that's a way bigger variable than the one we've been looking at, CO2.

I thought it I knew it was a big variable.

I didn't know it was like an overwhelmingly larger variable.

That that really doesn't that settle everything?

If you if you know that the biggest factor can't be modeled, that's your answer to everything.

We don't know.

We just don't know.

That's it.

We don't know.

Anyway, the funniest story of the day.

I've been trying to form an opinion about this story, but I can't get back past the fact that it's funny.

Prior to Trump winning his second term, he had uh used an existing process to ask for a compensation for all the lawfare that he had experienced.

So, he wanted the government to pay him $230 million to compensate for the, you know, outrageous amount of lawfare they put him through that didn't amount to any jail time at least.

Now independent of whether you think that that should be awarded cuz I think it's not a court process.

I believe it's a government process as opposed to going through a court.

So when he applied for it, he was not the president and so it was a perfectly applicable thing.

It's an existing system.

People can apply exactly the way he applied for exactly the reason he applied.

So he just followed the existing system and applied to see if he could get some money.

Then he wins the presidency.

Guess whose job it is to approve the $230 million award should it be approved?

Trump, the president.

So Trump not only went through the process to request the money, perfectly legal, all transparent, but then he got in a position to be the only one in the world who gets to approve it.

I I think that's how it works.

So he can literally just say yes and the government will give him a quarter billion dollars.

Now, when it was brought up to him in one of the press events yesterday, he said, "Uh, oh, you know, I'll I'll donate that to charity," was he really thinking that he would donate $230 million from from the government to charity?

And isn't the government sort of the charity itself?

Like wouldn't one thing to do just not take the money so that it hey it goes toward reducing the deficit?

See I'm struggling I'm struggling to find some kind of an angle where I could have like a serious opinion about that topic.

I can't get past the fact that it's funny.

So part of me wants him to just take the $230 million because I would never stop laughing about that.

It would just, you know, we're in a phase where Trump is sort of winning everything all the time anyway.

But to win that hard would just be funny because it's it's just so unexpected out of nowhere.

Free money.

I always tell you Trump's good at picking up the free money.

No example better than that one if he goes ahead and does it.

I suspect he won't do it, but we'll see.

So, do you know the real reason the government's shut down?

We got a lot of mind readers.

So, the mind readers are telling us the real reason it shut down.

They might be right.

So apparently there's some Democrat senator who anonymously made some news by saying and I quote um that Democrats are afraid of opening the government because quote we'd face the guillotine meaning that the Democrats believe that they would look like the losers to their own team if they're the ones who cave.

Now here's another take.

The other reason the Democrats might not want to open the government is that nobody cares if it's shut down.

Do you think that the Democrats, the voters are pestering their leaders to open up?

No, they're not pestering their own leaders to open up.

They're they're just blaming Republicans.

Do Republicans care that Democrats are blaming them?

No.

Republicans are blaming Democrats.

Do the Democrats care that Republicans are blaming the Democrats for being closed?

Apparently not.

They don't care at all.

So, we have we have this weird situation where both sides want the government to reopen, but not much.

I mean, not much.

They don't really want it to open.

I mean, I'll say I want it open, but I don't really care.

Every day that uh Trump's uh people can cut the budget of the Democrat programs while it's closed is just going to look like a good day to me.

How many of you are directly impacted by the closing or the people not getting paid or the closing of the government?

Have any of you had any impact yet?

I believe I have not, although I suspect I would someday, but so far I don't even feel it.

And I guess it's the second longest uh government close.

It's the second longest one and we don't even care.

It's like this is not even relevant.

So I think Trump wins the longer they stay closed.

Tucker Carlson was at a looked like he was talking at a turning point event.

I saw some video and he had a very handy fivepoint um fivepoint point of view of what MAGA is.

So here are the five things that Tucker says MAGA is.

And I didn't spend a ton of time looking at them, but I feel like it's right.

So let's see if you would agree that these five things define MAGA.

Right.

America first.

That's MAGA.

America first.

Uh, no pointless wars.

Agree.

No pointless wars.

Uh, bring back meaningful jobs.

We're talking about manufacturing mostly.

Yes.

Bringing back manufacturing.

Uh, controlling immigration.

Yes.

Mega.

And free speech.

Yes.

Uh, I accept those totally.

If you told me that we're that we're going to agree to say that MAGA is those five things, it's not the only five things we want.

But I would I would go with that.

To me, that seems like a very workable, functional definition.

Uh Ted Cruz is uh trying to help out uh with all these um you know these funded protests.

And uh one of the things Ted Cruz says is that if we add rioting funding, they can go after the criminal enterprises that are funding the uh the protests.

So in other words, it would be a RICO case if you could tie the funders in with the people doing the street protesting.

If they're being dangerous, if if all of it is uh non-dangerous, then there's no crime.

But if there's somebody funding groups known to be dangerous, Antifa for example, then apparently this uh if Congress approves Ted Cruz's idea, there'll be some legislation that says, "Oh, if they're doing bad things and they're being funded, that's a RICO situation.

Now you have you have a real good solid base to go after them." So I think Ted Cruz is is right on.

This feels like a real good idea.

Good job, Ted, if it gets passed.

Well, uh, John Brennan has now been uh referred to the Department of Justice by Representative Jim Jordan primarily for lying about the uh steel dossier.

So he we all we've all seen the video where John Brennan said that the CIA did not rely did not rely on the steel dossier for their post-election intelligence community assessment.

But we know from other reporting that he definitely not not only did they rely on it, but it was the it was the primary thing they relied on.

That's a pretty big lie.

That's a that's as big as lie as you can get.

Uh that's an overthrowing the country lie.

So I don't know if they'll get him for more than lying, but if you're lying for the purpose of overthrowing the country, and there's no doubt about that, that's exactly what it was.

Uh I don't know, maybe this maybe there's some other crime involved.

John Stewart continues to be interesting um in his criticism of his own team because there's only now there's a handful of people on the political left who are willing to uh accurately and fullthroatedly, you know, insult their own team's performance.

And Stuart, I think, does the best of that because he's not crazy.

And I do believe that Steuart wants to get the right answer as opposed to the team answer.

And I appreciate that, you know, I mean, it's a hard balance because he needs to keep his audience and everything else, but he does seem to be seeking truth.

and he went after he had Bernie Sanders on his show and uh he said uh to Bernie is it frustrating that the thing you fought for your whole career Democrats are the one who run away scared and Trump has embraced some of it and I thought to myself what what exactly has Trump done that would be Bernie Sanders preferred policies I I couldn't think of anything but then uh then John Stewart gave two examples and I said, "Huh, you you you might be on to something." One of the examples was Trump taking equity in businesses.

So, that's something that Stuart called socialism.

I called it capitalism.

Uh to me it was just free money and if Trump could get it and he could get it for the benefit of the public and and it wasn't just taking it but rather was adding something to the company's success that would be totally worth the fact that that they had given up some equity.

Uh but I can see how you could define that as maybe some kind of a socialist thing.

I could see that.

And then the second uh the second thing was that Trump's got a government website for selling pharma products cheaper directly to customers and some but not all cases.

Now would that be an example of something that Bernie wanted the government to be more involved in direct um healthc care work kind of.

Yeah.

So these are actually not bad examples of where but but if you call it socialism, you're doing uh what I call word thinking, you haven't added anything except controversy.

So what I call them is common sense.

So I don't see them as uh right or left.

I don't see either one of those as right or left.

Common sense.

Why do you have to be a Democrat to want to lower pharma costs?

There's nothing left or right about that.

Why Why do you want to be a socialist just because there's an opportunity to take equity while also helping the industry and helping the company?

Isn't that more like common sense?

There's nobody who's losing.

If you have a situation where everybody wins and nobody loses, what's that?

That's just common sense.

So, we'll see if common sense beats socialism.

I'm still a little fascinated why those no kings protests and some of the other ones we've seen are so many uh old white people.

And I I feel like there's more than one reason and you'd have to have all the reasons to get what we have.

One reason is that many of them are old hippies and they're just they're just enjoying a final run.

It's like, ah, I've been a hippie all my life.

Protesting is in my blood.

A lot of them talk like that.

Yeah, my parents were My parents were protesters.

I've been protesting since I was six years old.

So, some of it's just that, you know, the the one bucket list that let's do our final tour while we we can still walk kind of thing.

Some of them are probably paid to the organizers paid.

I think some of the attendees are paid.

So, some of it might be money.

Some of it might be it's the only it's the only group that has that much free time and would enjoy this.

There are other groups that are unemployed, but would they have enjoyed being there with all the senior citizens?

Probably not.

So, it's not just that they have time, which they do, but they have time that they don't mind spending doing this.

they might actually enjoy it and that would not apply to other people.

Um, but I saw the reason I'm even talking about it is I saw somebody say that the reason all these old people are protesting the uh what is it?

They're protesting the authoritarianism.

It's because they watch the fake news still.

it it's a group of people who don't know that sometime in our recent past the news stopped even trying to be news and if all you were doing is just watching the same channels you always watched you would never know that because there's nobody on those channels who tells you they're fake news if if you're not tuning into you know Fox News or Breitbart or you know if you're not on podcasting you know if you're not watching podcasters and stuff.

You don't know.

You don't know that the news is completely fake.

You would think that the stuff that you agree with is real and the stuff that disagrees with you might be fake.

And I'll bet you I'll bet you the senior citizens largely believe the news.

And if you took that away, meaning if you took their illusion that the news is real, if you took away that illusion, I don't know that they would show up because they wouldn't have anything to rely on anyway.

And then some of them might be just genuinely concerned about healthcare, but I suspect that's the minority.

I love it when Trump does things that only Trump would ever do.

Like I never get tired of that.

when he does a Trumpy thing, like what's the what's the Trumpiest thing that Trump could ever do?

Well, it's going to be hard to top this.

So, he was at uh I guess some press events yesterday and he and Trump says, quote, "They say you're the third best president." Third best.

And then they said, "Uh, who are the first two?

George Washington and Abraham Lincoln." And I got extremely angry at this man.

Okay, that's he you cannot entertain me better than this.

The the when when Trump says things that you know are going to bother people, I just my dopamine goes through the roof.

I love it when he bothers people.

He says it's going to be very tough to beat Washington and Lincoln, but we're going to give it a try, right?

And then he goes further.

He goes, "Hey, they didn't He goes, "Hey, they didn't put out eight wars.

Nine coming." All right, we put out eight wars and the ninth is coming.

Believe it or not, come on.

Forget about um you know how real any of that is.

Forget about how valid the comparison is.

It doesn't matter.

The fact that he would even say these words in public is so delicious because because you can you can play in your mind the reaction that his critics are having to it like you sort of imagined their heads exploding because he he's got a decent argument.

It's not that he's right or wrong.

It's not that he actually could someday be considered better than those two presidents.

What's funny is that you know what the reaction will be.

That's the joke and and he's the best at this.

Anyway, I do like that he sets the bar high for his own performance.

He's not trying to he's not trying to uh leave office with like a good solid 50% approval, which would be amazing.

50%.

He's not trying to do that.

No, he's trying to be uh not just the third best president.

Come on.

I mean, that's like not even trying.

So, he's trying to be the best president in the history of the United States, and he's trying to beat Washington at and Lincoln.

Maybe.

In other fun news, Robbie Starbucks, you I hope you know him as a anti-woke activist, let's call him.

But, uh, apparently Google, if you did a Google search with their AI not too long ago, um, they would have been defaming him by calling him a whole bunch of things that definitely do not apply.

So, they've they've accused him of sexual assault claims.

No, nothing like that ever happened.

They've accused him of being a white nationalist.

Nope.

Nope.

Nothing like that.

Uh they said he was friends with some famous racist Richard Spencer.

Nope.

Uh none of it true.

So he's suing them now.

He he already won.

Who did he beat?

He already beat one AI that was doing that.

They they settled with him.

He's going to win this one, too.

Uh, so I don't know if we'll ever find out what the settlement is, but getting defamed looks like a pretty good business model at the moment.

So, Karin Jean Pierre, Biden's old Spock spokesperson, she's back with her new book called Independence.

And so, she's making the rounds.

Um, well, that's funny.

All right, I'm seeing a funny comment.

I'll get back to that.

Have you noticed though, if you saw Karen John Pierre, that she's changed her hairstyle.

So, instead of having the the afro that she had, she's gone to a whole different look with uh I guess she uh what would you call it?

Uncurled her hair, flattened her hair, and she looks like a totally different person.

I don't like it.

One of the things I liked best about her when she was Biden's spokesperson is that she didn't look or dress like other people.

I thought she did a great job.

I loved her old look.

I know a lot of you didn't, right?

We can disagree on that, but I loved it.

I I always thought, God, that's that's such a bold like such a a classy, bold, professional, and yet stylistic approach.

I always thought it was great.

I loved her look, but she went a different direction and uh a lot of her charisma just disappears as soon as she changes to a uh like just an ordinary.

She now now she just looks like somebody's mom.

Uh and she loses a lot.

Lose a lot.

Anyway, they're they're pestering her about how much she knew about Biden's decline.

She of course is going to deny.

She's denying that she noticed there was anything wrong with him.

Uh he certainly had signs of aging, she admits, but there did not seem to be any signs that he couldn't do his professional job, says her.

Some people think that she would only say that because her only way she could ever get a uh another job is with the Biden's approval.

So apparently the Bidens might have enough sway over the world that if she wants to have a good job in her future, she's going to have to say good things about Biden so that Biden can put in the good word for her and maybe get her something.

Now, that's just somebody's hypothesis.

It could be that this is just exactly what she saw and felt.

Might have been because cognitive dissonance would get her to the point where she couldn't see his disabilities.

It doesn't have to be that she's lying or stupid.

It could be just cognitive dissonance.

She knew that if she acknowledged his disabilities that her life would be ruined and her career would be ruined.

So her brain just talk her out of it.

That would be the normal way cognitive dissonance works.

So could be just a phenomena and not any kind of you know organic fault in her.

Um did you know that the Trump government has 40 people involved across the government in some kind of a what's it called?

Uh they're they're trying to fight against the lawfare against Trump.

Uh well weaponization of the government.

So, it's 40 people, pretty high-powered people, too, I think, that are fighting the weaponization of government in different departments, I think, but they're working together.

And, uh, they're looking for retribution for January 6 and the Trump prosecutions and the the Russia probe, and I am all for that.

40 people, that sounds like a serious effort, and it has to be done.

that there has to be there has to be an answer for what has been done.

So good.

See inter agency weaponization working group.

Go nuts guys.

Well, Laura Loomer, controversial uh right-leaning pundit.

Uh apparently she's having some uh security problems.

there's an anti-Israel guy who's made credible threats and she's she has to beef up her security, but uh also I guess he's made threats to what to also um the uh the CEO of uh oh what you call it the CEO of what's the satirical site?

that we all like the the conservative satirical site.

As soon as you say it, I'll go, "Oh, you know what I'm talking about, right?" Anyway, so this the same nut job has threatened a few people and I guess law enforcement is taking it seriously.

Uh Loomer is being accused of being a Mossad spy.

I don't think that's the case.

Daily the Daily Mail is reporting on this.

don't think it's the case, but it is a terrible situation that Trump supporters, the prominent ones, um are worried for their life.

Apparently, a lot of the high the Babylon be thank you the Babylon B CEO, uh Seth Dylan is one of the ones being being threatened.

Um so I hope that all of them are okay because some of them are going to spend a ton of money.

Uh I think Ben Shapiro probably spends a ton of money and uh probably there are half a dozen others that just absolutely have to have security now or they feel they do.

Now the beauty of me being in my current situation which is you know my lifespan is not that long.

I don't feel the need for security.

I was telling the local subscribers before I started this this podcast.

I was telling you if somebody like broke into my house and threatened to kill me, I'm at the point where I'd be like, "All right, just make it a good shot." Right.

Right there.

Can Can we get this over with right there?

So, at the moment, I don't need security.

I'd probably have a good conversation with the killer before he did his thing.

Bill Aman, investor Bill Aman has some thoughts on Curtis Siwa who's running for mayor and uh in New York City and uh a lot of people want him to drop out because that would give at least some chance that somebody who's not a communist mom dummy would win.

Meaning uh meaning Cuomo.

Now, if you're just watching and you don't know much about the what's happening behind the curtain, you would say to yourself, "Ah, what's wrong with that SLwa, uh, he's got to give us a chance not to get a communist." Um, but Bill Aman has some inside information.

He says uh that apparently New York City has an 8:1 matching funds program for New York City donors which w which allows Siwa because he's an official candidate for office to get $5 million of matching funds for his campaign from the city.

So, here's a guy who is not rich, who by running for office and not not dropping out, not dropping out, he gets $5 million slloshing around to hire So, I wonder who he would hire.

Well, according to Bill Aman, he hired his wife and his friends and uh they're enjoying a better lifestyle than they have enjoyed before presumably because it I imagine he didn't hire them for cheap and it's not even his money.

It's public money.

So would you expect Curtis Leewa to drop out if it meant that his family would make a lot less money and he could, you know, he could defend not dropping out even if he hated it.

He could defend it.

I don't think if if this is true, and I'd have to hear I want to hear Leewa's uh response to it.

So we don't have the response yet, but if it's true, there's not really any chance he's going to drop out.

Would you agree?

I if if he can, you know, pay his wife another high salary for another x number of months and there may never be another chance like this to get sort of free money.

You don't think he's going to stay in?

I I say follow the money.

Now, it might create a situation where somebody's going to make him some illegal offer to drop out.

Pretty sure that would be illegal.

I think he claimed that somebody offered him $10 million to drop out, but um I don't know about that.

James O'Keefe has another win for his uh his undercover work.

He exposed a hundred billion dollar federal contracting scam where minorityowned uh businesses would uh get contracts because they could they could get them because they're minority owned, but then they would just farmount the work to other entities.

So they would only do 20% of the work and that's what they admit by the way.

He got them to admit that directly and they would outsource 80% of it um illegally because they're not allowed to do that.

and then they would just sit back and collect some extra money, I guess.

So, that was part of a scam where all these minority companies were skimming money off of contracts.

Now, as I've told you many times, um, wherever there's government funding, there is massive corruption every time.

And there's a very good reason for that.

Nobody's checking on it.

That's it.

If you have if you have gigantic amounts of money slloshing around and there's nobody who's checking on where it goes or how it's used, do you think there's any chance that won't devolve into corruption?

No.

No, there's not any chance.

It's zero.

It's exactly zero chance that that does not turn into corruption.

Zero.

There isn't the slightest chance that that remains a credible system over time.

Maybe on day one, but day two, no, by day two, the robbery begins.

So, I'm going to say for the millionth time, because I feel like I can get I feel like I can get this message through.

We do not have an idea for a system of government that can protect us from this.

We really need a system of government that can protect us from this because it's destroying every city, every program, and it's of course hurting the poor more than the rich.

It's everything bad about our country is one thing.

And the one thing is we don't watch where our money goes.

It's one thing.

Do you think that we don't have any way to to solve that?

There's no way to get auditors.

There's no way to use AI, blockchain, something.

Well, I would argue that the people who are in charge of fixing it are the people who are raping it.

So, the big problem is that the people who should fix it are the ones benefiting from it and therefore they can never fix it.

But if we don't figure this out, I feel like this is the alpha problem that all the other problems revolve around.

Even immigration, you would think immigration is sort of a standalone problem, but probably immigration was subsidiary to this problem.

Probably somebody who found a way to make money by letting people in.

You know, the NOS's were making money by letting people in, not preventing them.

So probably every one of our biggest problems trace back to the fact we don't watch where the money is spent.

All of it.

All of it.

So if I saw Trump come up with some kind of reaction to this as in we're going to try, you know, maybe putting some kind of federal.

So that's the trouble is that you can't expect the local governments to police themselves.

But is there any way you can have the federal government say, "We're just going to be a watchdog and we won't do anything because we don't have power.

We'll only watch and then we'll report." Maybe.

Well, what did I tell you about the Gaza ceasefire?

Besides the fact that there's no way it's going to hold, uh, of course it's not going to hold.

But the other thing that I could have said that you already knew is that the odds of a false flag claim, a fake claim that the other side had violated the ceasefire was guaranteed.

We may have already had it cuz you know there was a there was a report that the gazins had attacked and then there was a report that Netanyahu had responded by attacking back and then closing the crossings.

But then the crossings got immediately reopened.

Uh and the reporting is that uh the US caught Israel in a lie.

Now I don't know that that's true.

Remember everything's fog of war.

So if you hear that the United States caught Israel in a lie, that doesn't mean it's true.

That doesn't mean anything.

It just means that somebody said it.

That's all it means.

Somebody said it.

Uh but the accusation is that uh it might have been there might have been an explosion of an IED that was an accident that Israel interpreted as intentional.

But then with a little bit of research, the US found out, uh-oh, that probably wasn't even intentional.

Just something blew up that had been unexloded.

And uh Netanyahu very quickly reversed the closing of the crossings, which would suggest that he either understood it wasn't real or understood he couldn't get away with it.

One of those two things, but we don't know.

Anyway, I saw that on Matt Gates's uh podcast.

Um apparently preparations are underway for Trump and Putin to meet in Budapest, even though there's no date for that.

and they postponed it because they were not close enough to getting anything agreed on that it was worth it and they're still not.

But um I guess one of the one of the critical points is that Russia wants to keep all of the Donbass and I of course not being a Ukrainian I had to go make sure I knew what the Donbass was.

So the Donbass is the place where essentially Putin already owns it.

he's already occupying it.

It's the the part on the uh the east coast of Ukraine.

So, it's not a it's not a perfect match to what uh Putin's already conquered, but he he has 89% of it.

So, the Russian armed forces control 89% of the Donbass, isn't that really the end of the question?

If he already controls 89% of it, he's not going anywhere.

Can't we just agree that however this turns out, he's going to have the dog bass?

I mean, obviously Ukraine would have to get something in return.

I think um according to the Washington Free Beacon, Jessica Costu, she says that Trump's crackdown on the border has reduced the fentinel flow.

um they're down almost 53% compared to last year.

Now, you might say, "Oh, that just means they're catching less of it.

It doesn't mean there is less of it, but it probably does.

It probably does mean that they're catching more of it, and that's why why there's less of it getting through." Um I don't know.

And the the reporting is that the cartels have uh stopped exporting as much fentinel because of the crackdown.

Do you believe that?

Again, this all the border cartel stuff is also fog of war, but it's more like a permanent fog of war.

So, I don't know how much of reporting I'm going to believe on this topic, but it looks like I mean directionally it looks real.

I mean the the border is pretty sealed tight relative to how it was in the past.

So it wouldn't be a surprise if Trump had cut down the fendle by 50%.

Wouldn't be a surprise.

Just don't know.

Senator Ran Paul continues to show what makes him valuable as a senator.

Even though he's uh you know with Thomas Massie, he's one of the two Congress people who who tend to be the fly in the punch.

I don't know that.

But they tend to plague the other Republicans by not being on the same page.

But when they're not on the same page, let me give a compliment to Rand Paul.

When he's not on the same page, it's not because he doesn't make sense.

It's not because he's crazy.

It's not because he's dumb.

It's not because he's underinformed.

So when he disagrees with all the Republicans as he is with this Venezuelan drug boat attacks, you should listen to him.

You don't need to agree with him.

I I think this is a case where I don't.

But I very much appreciate him.

I love I love that he's giving us this transparency and a different way to look at this situation.

Specifically, what he says and I I can't verify that any of this is true.

I'm just appreciating that this version of events is out there.

And he says that uh we're not getting any fentinel from that part of the world.

He says that Venezuela is like a zero fentinel producer.

they are a drug producer but it's you know the opioids.

So he thinks that first of all it's a lie that we're stopping fentinol.

Secondly he says that because of the geography over there and the boats that they're using these would not be the boats you would use to take drugs to the United States.

This would be for taking it to some island that would be prepping to take it maybe to Europe or somewhere else.

So the other part of it is it's not even destined for the US.

It would be too far away, too hard to too hard to use those little boats to get it all the way to the coast of the United States.

You wouldn't do it that way.

So why are we blowing up boats?

Is it to stop the regular opioids?

You could argue that that was a good enough reason.

you could um but the uh head of Colombia thinks it's about a play to get the oil.

And then somebody else said on on uh Axe, "No, we don't want that crappy Venezuelan oil cuz it's all it it's too hard to refine." So it's like I don't know, it's it's thick and sweet or something.

So it's hard to re refine.

So therefore, it's not true that the US covets their oil because we have plenty of oil and our oil is easier to refine.

However, Grock disagrees with that.

Grock says that the US actually has uh the highest capable refineries in the Gulf Coast, right?

You know, close enough.

And that our refineries actually can handle that.

and they can handle it so well that the net effect would be cheaper oil because it our our refinery is so good that we can take their crappy oil and refine it into a good product and still cheaper than if we had to ship it all the way from the Middle East to refine it.

Now, at this point, I don't know how much we ship from the Middle East because we we're the big producer at this point.

So, I don't know.

So, I don't know about the economics of it, but um it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if the US was trying to get a bite of that business.

It'd be sort of Monroe doctrineish to put the drug dealers out of business.

So, here's what I would say.

So, Trump is also leaning on Colombia for being a big drug narco terrorist country and the president is saying, "No, no, no.

uh you're just trying to get our oil.

Uh in the case of Colombia, I don't think it's the oil.

I think it's more like Venezuela is about the oil.

But here's what I think.

I think that this has to understand what Trump is up to.

The first thing you need to know is that it is not his obligation to tell us the truth about these military/CIA operations.

How many of you would agree with that?

We'd like to know the truth.

I mean, I'm curious, but it's not really his obligation to tell us the truth about life and death military secret ops.

It's not his job to tell us.

His job is to get it right.

Right.

So, when we judge Trump, we're going to judge, did he do the thing?

Did he reduce our risk?

Did he make us safer?

Did he make us richer?

If he does those things, okay, A+, but he doesn't need to tell me what the secret plan is.

So, I'm left to speculate what the secret plan might be.

And so, I will do that right now.

Uh, so I'm a big fan of the Monroe Doctrine, which says that the US uh can and should dominate the entire hemisphere and that we're all better off if that happens.

I I believe we're all better off if that happens.

But what happens if two of the major countries uh are are converting from something like a standard country into a narco terrorist cartel entity that's essentially a criminal enterprise?

What would be the best way to handle that if you're a Monroe doctrine loving president of the United States?

Well, number one would be to cut off their source of funds.

That that's the first thing Trump always has.

And the way to cut off their funds is to kill their drug business.

Once you've cut off their funds, well, then you get a little bit more flexibility, don't you?

Then they're going to negotiate.

Then they might need to get into a different business.

Then, you know, maybe maybe they're they won't even be able to pay paramilitary people to attack the United States.

So, generally speaking, uh I'm in favor of the US degrading the income that the two countries, Venezuela and Colombia, get from drugs.

Not just because it might keep some Americans alive.

I I worry that we can't make much difference.

They'll just pay more for the drugs and, you know, then it won't make a difference.

So I worry that it doesn't work that way, but it definitely works to reduce the income of the the two leaders who may or may not be leaders of criminal enterprises.

So, if that's what's going on, and at the very least that is what's going on.

It it's not all that's going on, but definitely it's going on that they're, you know, they're in the drug business, the two leaders of those countries, and that we're decreasing their income substantially.

That should be useful.

It should be useful.

We'll see.

And I guess Breitbart's reporting that uh the Coast Guard found a 100,000 pounds of cocaine in the Pacific.

In other words, on a boat.

So they uh inter interdicted 100,000 pounds of cocaine in the Pacific.

So that would be the the other side of the country if you're keeping track.

So both sides of the country have a massive, you know, drug problem.

But uh 100,000 pounds.

I asked Grock how many overdoses that could uh that would respond to uh three billion.

So if it's true that there's 100,000 pounds of coke and if you were to divide it up just enough to kill a person and so everybody got a dose that was an overdose, you could kill three billion three billion people.

Is that right?

It doesn't feel right, does it?

I 100,000 pounds of coke is a lot of coke, but really three billion people.

I I feel like maybe Grock was hallucinating on that one.

Don't take my word for it.

Meanwhile, we're starting to suspect a big land attack on Mexico is coming from the US.

Apparently, everything's approved uh at least by the president, not by Congress.

And maybe that won't happen.

But uh it looks like the CIA is already planning, you know, where would be the best place for an attack.

How are you going to do it?

Uh there's no word as to whether Mexico would be involved in it.

Seems like that would be a mistake because there's no way you could trust the uh the Mexican forces not to not to turn you in and tell the cartels what's coming.

So I don't see how we could work with Mexico.

The best we could probably do is ask them to get out of the way.

I don't know.

We'll see where that goes.

Meanwhile, the Washington Free Beacon, Aaron Sabarium, is writing that uh UC San Diego had this race-based scholarship thing, uh which when they got in trouble for having a racebased scholarship, you could you couldn't get it if you're white, basically.

Um, all they did was they they moved the scholarship thing into this fake, not fake, but some external uh external uh organization to make it look like it wasn't the college doing it because if it wasn't the college doing it, then it could still happen.

And apparently that didn't fly.

So So they're getting rid of that trick.

Apparently, it was the Ku Klux Clan Act that stops people from using race.

And there it was actually the Kuclux Clan Act that that stopped them.

Amazon says there's going to look they're going to replace 600,000 workers with robots.

I feel like that's just the start.

Now, I don't give you uh and I I'm very emphatic about this.

I don't give financial advice, but I will give you a financial lesson if if you can handle the difference.

So, do not make any investments based on what I'm about to say or anything I've ever said before because I'm not your financial adviser, but I can tell you things like, you know, diversifying is a good thing.

That would be a lesson.

That's not advice, right?

Diversifying is a good thing.

So, here's another one of those.

I've said this before, but one of the ways that I look to invest, if I'm looking at an individual company, I look for one that's, you know, going to stay in business first.

That's number one.

But also, if they're involved in something that will only happen once in the history of the world.

So, one of the reasons I have stock in Tesla is that there will only be one time in the history of humanity when robots are introduced.

There'll only be one time when AI is introduced at least in that business too.

There'll only be one time uh that we're we're going to move to, you know, massive solar and batteries and stuff.

So, basically, Elon is in all these one-time only trends.

So, of course, I own that stock.

Now, I'm not recommending it.

I'm explaining the thinking that somebody would use.

Not recommending it.

Now we see that Amazon is on the verge of replacing humans with robots.

How many times in the history of the world will that happen once?

What would be presumably the biggest expense at Amazon?

Humans, right?

Wouldn't that be their biggest expense?

So there might be one time in the history of the world where this big dynamic successful incredible company Amazon gets rid of people.

Now this could be a disaster for the economy in general while their stock might do well because they're reducing their costs.

Now does that sound like a recommendation to buy to buy Amazon?

No.

Because here's the part you're missing.

The other thing that's going to happen only once, only once is that the AI will eat Amazon because o open AI is already adding shopping.

Would you use Amazon if you could just pick up your thing and say, "All right, I want to buy this thing.

What should I buy?" Okay, good.

Good.

There's a link.

Boom.

Why would you go to Amazon?

Well, Amazon also will have an AI.

So maybe the very best combination of AI advice plus photos of the product plus return plus free shipping.

Maybe maybe that's enough to keep it all on Amazon because remember you're talking about Bezos.

Bezos is still involved.

So if it were a bunch of, you know, second tier founders or something, I'd say, well, you know, they'll get eaten by AI.

But he's not the guy who gets eaten by AI.

He's the guy who eats AI.

So, um there's no way to know if the AI threat to Amazon will be bigger than the the robot thing will be big.

But something really big is happening at Amazon.

Either way, whatever it is, it's really big.

And then they've got the, you know, the Amazon servers, the cloud, yeah, the AWS thing they've got to fix.

But I'm sure they'll get a handle on that.

All right.

So, that's clear enough.

So, the lesson is look for things that happen only once, but make sure you don't ignore.

There might be more than one thing that's going to happen only once, and they could be working as opposites.

All right, ladies and gentlemen.

That's all I have for you.

I ran a little bit late.

I'm going to say a few words to my beloved local subscribers.

The rest of you, thanks for joining.

It's always a pleasure.

It's my favorite part of the day.

All right, we'll see if our buttons all work today.

Locals coming at you privately, I hope.

Hey, come on in. It's about time.

We're going to have a good time today.

Promise you.

We got news. We got Well, we got all

kinds of things happen.

If I can get my comments working, and I

know I can.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization and

scholar coffee with Scott Adams. And

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance on elevating

your experience up to levels that nobody

can even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains, all you need for

that is a cover mug or a glass of tanker

gel, a canteen jugger flask, a vessel of

any kind. Fill it with your favorite

liquid. I like coffee. And join me now

for the unparalleled pleasure, the

dopamine hit of the day, the thing that

makes everything better. It's called the

simultaneous sip and it happens now.

Go.

Delightful. Delightful. Why is my

computer not giving me what I want?

Oh, it will. It will.

So, as tradition dictates, I've been

giving you each uh one reframe a day at

the beginning of the show from my book,

Reframe Your Brain, the highest rated

book I've ever written,

changing people's lives like crazy.

All right, let's find a new reframe.

Remember, not all of these will change

every person's life, but some of these

you will find very helpful to help other

people, if not yourself.

Um, all right. Here's one.

Uh,

this is one I use a lot. Now, this won't

this will not uh work for everybody, but

do you have in your life a lot of

repetitive, boring chores

such as folding laundry?

You know, it's like the boring

repetitive chore. Uh what I find is if I

reframe my boring repetitive chore as a

thing I can learn to do so gracefully

and efficiently that it feels like play.

So I think I've given you some of you

demonstrations before of folding bath

towels.

If you're just folding the towels

because you want them folded, it's just

boring. But if you say, "How how

efficiently and impressively can I fold

a a towel?"

You know, you you hold it, you throw it

up in the air, you catch it just right,

you let it fold over itself, flop, flop,

flop, flop, and then you slap it down

and it's perfect. You can't tell me you

wouldn't enjoy that. So, if it's a

boring task, but it's physical, try to

try to see how impressively you can do

it for yourself. Nobody else has to say

it, but you'll find it's fun. I used to

go to this restaurant

called Potti in uh Danville near me. And

for several years, they had a buser, the

guy who buses the dishes away who was

like a a wizard. He would take he would

take all the plates somehow. He would

hold all the plates and and everything

for the table and he would just sort of

set them down in the middle of the table

and then he would go

and the table would be perfectly set and

everybody would stop to watch because it

was like, "What? What? What did I just

see?" So, he took the most boring job

picking up and he did the same when he

picked up the plates. So, there'd be an

entire table that's just full of dirty

plates and he would be like,

and he would have this gigantic pile of

plates that nobody should ever try to

carry, but he could do it. So he he put

on a whole floor show kind of a boring

task. You can do that too. There's a

study side post Karina Pov is writing

about it. This says that brain wave

analysis shows that listening to music

can restore your energy if you've done a

fatiguing process. How many of you

didn't know that if you stop doing

something that's making you tired and

instead you just sit there quietly and

listen to music that you like that it

will make you feel more energetic?

Didn't you didn't you all know that?

Every one of you. Um well, you could

have asked me. But apparently there's

more to it than just the fact that

resting when you're tired is a good

idea.

Apparently they say the brain waves are

doing something more dramatic to your

brain so that it's actually better than

just resting without music. So they say

there's a Zero Hedge which you need to

know sells creatine as part of their

business model. They've got a new

information on some studies about

creatine that say it's not just for

helping you in the gym, which it does

very well helping you build muscles. But

apparently creatine has all these other

benefits that they're finding out.

Again, this is based on, you know, new

studies that are probably

probably unreliable, but uh allegedly it

helps you with lean tissue strength even

without exercise. So it prevents you

from losing muscle uh at least as fast

as you would and also helps your

cognition and memory they say and may

even push off early stage Alzheimer's

and it might help with sleepdeprived

college students.

So don't take any medical advice from

me. That's the only medical advice you

should take from me is that don't take

medical advice from me. But the people

who sell this creatine and therefore

can't be trusted

and the fact that it's on uh scientific

studies that at least half the time are

fake. So you can't really trust this,

but it's good to know that there are

several studies that show it's safe and

maybe maybe useful. Speaking of things

like that, did you know there are about

a thousand ketamine

um treatment centers where they use the

ketamine to treat you for other problems

such as depression, mental problems? I

don't This is another one that I don't

recommend.

Ketamine is some dangerous stuff is my

understanding. So, if you had a, you

know, severe medical problem and you're

working with real doctors and or real

professionals who can keep you safe when

you're doing the ketamine treatment, I

don't know if that's a good idea or a

bad idea. I know I wouldn't do it alone.

So, so if you know somebody who's got

like a little batch of ketamine and you

think, "Oo, I don't want to don't want

to go to one of those centers, but maybe

I'll try it." Don't recommend it. I

don't recommend it. I think that would

be kind of dangerous.

But I don't have any bad feelings about

ketamine treatment if it's done by

professionals. So maybe that's a thing.

Uh there's lots of reports that it

works.

And now because this issue never will go

away. This is also Karina Petrova and

Cypost. Scientists have used brain scans

to find out that people who had CO have

different brains.

meaning that the CO did some kind of a

long-term change in your brain and your

your brain chemistry, I guess. So, how

do they know that it was the CO that

made their brains different and not the

shot that almost every one of them

probably took for the CO? Well, doesn't

say.

So if they don't mention that that

they've controlled for the people who

got the shots,

do you really know that the CO is what

caused the brain difference?

I don't think you do. Now it might be if

I read the, you know, the source

article, it would tell me if they looked

at the shots and somehow separated that

out in their study, but I don't know.

But here's the weirdest part about it.

They also discovered that your brain has

a correcting mechanism

such that if you get that that brain

problem that your brain will actually

correct it over time. And what it made

me wonder is is it possible that CO can

make you smarter

and make you evolve to a smarter thing.

So here's the thinking. If you were

exercising a regular muscle, the way you

would do it would be to break the muscle

and then when it recovered, it would

recover as a stronger muscle, right? So

for muscles,

breaking them down is what makes them

stronger. But what about your brain?

Same thing. If you if you stress your

brain by making it work harder to think

and you do harder thinking tasks, the

brain physically changes to become a

better brain.

What if, and I'm just playing around

now, I don't think this is true. Just

playing. What if the COVID infection

damaged your brain?

But because it's a specific kind of

damage that the brain apparently can

self-correct,

is it possible

that it made you smarter when it was

done

the way any muscle or any other mental

process would? Would it be the only

mental process that corrected itself,

but it corrected it right to exactly

where it was instead of a little bit

better or a little bit worse?

I don't know. Maybe maybe CO is how we

uh how we evolved to the next level.

So, keep it keep an eye out to see if

the people who got CO got smarter. I'm

just I'm just joking. I don't think the

people who got CO got smarter, but it's

funny to think that it might be true.

Well, Trump has suggested that buying

Argentine beef might be a good way to

lower our beef costs. I guess the

American beef is way overpriced at the

moment for a variety of reasons, supply

and demand mostly, but I guess Argentina

has some beef that we could get for

cheaper. and uh Trump has said maybe

yes, maybe that is Wade. So, I like the

fact that he's open to it and it would

be good for our ally and it might be

good for us in the short run. Um I have

a confession after about 30 years of

being a vegetarian and then a

pescatarian. I was sitting around

yesterday and I said to myself, you know

what? I think I'm gonna try to eat a

steak after 30 years of not having, you

know, any kind of mammal in my mouth.

Well,

shut up. Uh, so I I door dashed a uh

ribeye steak and uh now keep in mind 30

years of not having any kind of steak. I

have I haven't had a hamburger or

anything in my mouth in I think 30

years. I I haven't done the math, but I

think it's like 30 years. Uh, and you're

wondering how it went. It was pretty

good.

It was a pain in the ass to cut it

because I don't like to work that hard

for my food, but uh, delicious.

Delicious. Might do it again.

I'm in the nothing to lose category, so

it's not like there's a downside.

According to engine chemical and

engineering news, one in five chemists

have deliberately put errors in their

papers during peer review. Why would a

chemist intentionally put an error in

their scientific paper right when

they're going to send it to peer review?

Does anybody know why? Why would you do

that? When I first read the title, I was

like, what? Why would you intentionally

put an error in the thing that you're

going to send to somebody to look to see

if there's an error and then it will be

rejected and the whole point is to not

be rejected.

The answer is if the chemist knows that

the person reviewing it had an error in

their work, the only way they can match

it is put the error in their own work.

So, so if they know the peer reviewer

is wrong about something, they'll put

that same error in their paper so

they'll be approved by the person who

was also wrong about that thing. One in

five, one in five chemists have done

that at least once.

So, how's that settled science feeling

now? All settled.

Uh, Open AI is now previewing what they

call agent mode. So, I guess OpenAI can

now take control of your cursor and your

keyboard and it can complete some tasks.

So, it can book some tickets for you or

do some research.

Um,

how many of you would trust an AI to do

tasks on your computer that involve your

other applications?

because that always requires the AI to

know your password, right, for the other

application

and that it would know also or the

parent company presumably could find out

exactly what you're doing and when and

how.

I don't think there's a single person

who thinks that's a good idea. Not even

one.

But I'm going to make a prediction.

the the way you overcome these um sort

of privacy and security risk problems if

you have an application. Do you know you

overcome all that resistance from the

public?

It's kind of easy.

You just make it better than not using

it.

So if you're if you're sitting in an

office full of people who all say, "I'm

never going to use this. Too dangerous."

Well, then it's safe for you not to use

it, too. you'll just be one of those

people in the office. But if your

coworker is using this and doubling his

productivity and getting a big bonus and

you're not, you're going to be looking

over at your coworker and saying, "Ah, I

really God, I really don't want to use

this agent mode,

but I want to raise and I want to get my

work done twice as fast and my

co-workers doing all that."

So,

so I think I think people are going to

cave and and keep in mind also that the

AI will be your brainwasher from now on.

So if the brainwasher the AIs tell you

that this is safer than you thought. At

first you're going to say, "No, it's

not. No, that's just your business

model. That's not safe. You can't tell

me it's safe." And then they'll say it

again.

So you hear it twice.

still won't convince you twice. That's

not going to change your mind. How about

a hundred times? How about if you hear a

hundred times from a 100 different

sources? Totally safe. Yeah, you can use

agent mode. Everybody's doing it. All

your your relatives are using it.

Everybody's using it. And then suddenly

it'll look like a good idea. And then

you'll use it. Maybe not all of you.

You're a special group. But yeah, young

people, young people are going to use

this pretty quickly.

Elon Musk announced that his Wikipedia

competitor that will be called Groipedia

U was going to launch at the end of this

week, but he thinks he needs more time

to clean up all the wokeness and

propaganda that's in there.

So what will happen

in a week or so when Groipedia is a

legitimate competitor to Wikipedia?

And I said that the test of Groipedia

will be how it handles January 6th, the

fine people hoax, the 2020 election

integrity, and climate models. Now, when

I say it depends how it handles them,

I'm not assuming that I have the, you

know, the grip on total truth and

therefore has to match my opinions on

those things. I'm not saying that. I'm

saying at the very least it needs to

show both sides. Would you agree? At the

very least, it has to show both sides.

And certainly Wikipedia didn't try to do

that for some of these hoaxes. But if uh

Grock says some people think January 6

was an insurrection and here's why and

then it says but other people say say

that's ridiculous and here's why. I'd be

okay with that. That that would work for

me. Both sides.

Um and there's a good chance that Elon's

going to get this right. I mean it's

Elon. So we'll see. Did you know that

there's a startup in California that's

trying to build a city? The all-in

podcast guys featured uh Yan I think

it's Yan Ceramic who's the head of that.

They've already got a 100 square miles

and a bunch of billionaire rich people,

tech people who are in on it. And the

idea is to design a city from scratch

because you know most of our cities were

built over time. They weren't really

designed intelligently. They just sort

of evolved. And so they would put the

manufacturing near the living spaces so

you'd have jobs but you wouldn't have to

commute that much. And uh they'd fix the

transportation so it's easy to get from

one place to the other. They would fix

the the building architecture so that it

look good. There's no reason it can't

look good and be the most livable places

and affordable that you could have. What

is it that you say when I say people are

looking at new living styles?

You irrationally say,

"You can't let make me live in any tiny

house." Did I mention a tiny house? No,

this is not about tiny houses.

But what will be your objection to these

well-designed cities? Your objection

will be, "I'm not going to live in a

tiny house." No. Let me tell you again.

There's no tiny houses. This has nothing

to do with tiny houses. I know you won't

live in a tiny house. I got it. I got

it.

You don't have to. You don't want to

live in a 15minute city. I got it.

No, this would be designed by the by the

uh people who would want to have a

better lifestyle. It's not being

designed by the people who want to

control you.

Or is it? I don't think so. I I think

that this would be a safe group of

entrepreneurs.

That's my guess.

Joe Rogan had a uh climate skeptic on a

famous one Richard Linden you know him

he's retired now but he was a PhD

professor ameritus of

all earth science kind of climate stuff

so he's an expert on climate um at one

of the biggest schools MIT

so he uh here's what he said now I' I

maybe I'd heard this before

but he said quote uh on the one and

you're told the science is settled.

We're talking about climate change. But

on the other hand, if you read the IPCC

reports, they're pointing out, for

instance, that listen to this. Water

vapor and clouds are much bigger

greenhouse factors than CO2, and we

don't understand them at all.

So, here you have the biggest phenomena

we don't understand at all, but the

science is settled. Who knows what that

means?

Now, I did understand that they were

having trouble with water vapor and

modeling it. I don't know that I'd ever

heard directly from, you know, a top

expert that that's a way bigger variable

than the one we've been looking at, CO2.

I thought it I knew it was a big

variable. I didn't know it was like an

overwhelmingly larger variable.

That that really doesn't that settle

everything?

If you if you know that the biggest

factor can't be modeled,

that's your answer to everything. We

don't know. We just don't know. That's

it. We don't know.

Anyway, the funniest story of the day.

I've been trying to form an opinion

about this story, but I can't get back

past the fact that it's funny. Prior to

Trump winning his second term, he had uh

used an existing process to ask for a

compensation

for all the lawfare that he had

experienced. So, he wanted the

government to pay him $230 million to

compensate for the, you know, outrageous

amount of lawfare they put him through

that didn't amount to any jail time at

least. Now independent of whether you

think that that should be awarded cuz I

think it's not a court process. I

believe it's a government process as

opposed to going through a court.

So when he applied for it, he was not

the president and so it was a perfectly

applicable thing. It's an existing

system. People can apply exactly the way

he applied for exactly the reason he

applied. So he just followed the

existing system and applied to see if he

could get some money. Then he wins the

presidency.

Guess whose job it is to approve the

$230 million award should it be

approved?

Trump, the president. So Trump not only

went through the process to request the

money, perfectly legal, all transparent,

but then he got in a position to be the

only one in the world who gets to

approve it. I I think that's how it

works. So he can literally just say yes

and the government will give him a

quarter billion dollars.

Now, when it was brought up to him in

one of the press events yesterday, he

said, "Uh, oh, you know, I'll I'll

donate that to charity,"

was he really thinking that he would

donate $230 million from from the

government to charity?

And isn't the government

sort of the charity itself? Like

wouldn't one thing to do just not take

the money so that it hey it goes toward

reducing the deficit?

See I'm struggling I'm struggling to

find some kind of an angle where I could

have like a serious opinion about that

topic. I can't get past the fact that

it's funny. So part of me wants him to

just take the $230 million because I

would never stop laughing about that. It

would just, you know, we're in a phase

where Trump is sort of winning

everything all the time anyway. But to

win that hard would just be funny

because it's it's just so unexpected out

of nowhere. Free money. I always tell

you Trump's good at picking up the free

money. No example better than that one

if he goes ahead and does it. I suspect

he won't do it, but we'll see.

So, do you know the real reason the

government's shut down? We got a lot of

mind readers. So, the mind readers are

telling us the real reason it shut down.

They might be right. So apparently

there's some Democrat senator who

anonymously

made some news by saying and I quote

um that Democrats are afraid of opening

the government because quote we'd face

the guillotine

meaning that the Democrats believe that

they would look like the losers to their

own team if they're the ones who cave.

Now

here's another take. The other reason

the Democrats might not want to open the

government is that nobody cares if it's

shut down.

Do you think that the Democrats, the

voters are pestering their leaders to

open up? No, they're not pestering their

own leaders to open up. They're they're

just blaming Republicans. Do Republicans

care that Democrats are blaming them?

No. Republicans are blaming Democrats.

Do the Democrats care that Republicans

are blaming the Democrats for being

closed? Apparently not. They don't care

at all. So, we have we have this weird

situation where both sides want the

government to reopen,

but not much.

I mean, not much.

They don't really want it to open. I

mean, I'll say I want it open, but I

don't really care. Every day that uh

Trump's uh people can cut the budget of

the Democrat programs while it's closed

is just going to look like a good day to

me.

How many of you are directly impacted by

the closing or the people not getting

paid or the closing of the government?

Have any of you had any impact yet? I

believe I have not, although I suspect I

would someday,

but so far I don't even feel it. And I

guess it's the second longest uh

government close. It's the second

longest one

and we don't even care. It's like this

is not even relevant. So I think Trump

wins the longer they stay closed.

Tucker Carlson was at a looked like he

was talking at a turning point event. I

saw some video and he had a very handy

fivepoint

um

fivepoint

point of view of what MAGA is. So here

are the five things that Tucker says

MAGA is. And I didn't spend a ton of

time looking at them, but I feel like

it's right. So let's see if you would

agree that these five things define

MAGA.

Right. America first.

That's MAGA. America first. Uh, no

pointless wars.

Agree. No pointless wars. Uh, bring back

meaningful jobs. We're talking about

manufacturing mostly. Yes. Bringing back

manufacturing. Uh, controlling

immigration.

Yes. Mega. And free speech.

Yes.

Uh, I accept those totally. If you told

me that we're that we're going to agree

to say that MAGA is those five things,

it's not the only five things we want.

But I would I would go with that. To me,

that seems like a very workable,

functional definition.

Uh

Ted Cruz is uh

trying to help out uh with all these um

you know these funded

protests.

And uh one of the things Ted Cruz says

is that if we add rioting funding, they

can go after the criminal enterprises

that are funding the uh the protests. So

in other words,

it would be a RICO case if you could tie

the funders in with the people doing the

street protesting. If they're being

dangerous, if if all of it is uh

non-dangerous,

then there's no crime. But if there's

somebody funding

groups known to be dangerous, Antifa for

example, then apparently this uh if

Congress approves Ted Cruz's idea,

there'll be some legislation that says,

"Oh, if they're doing bad things and

they're being funded,

that's a RICO situation. Now you have

you have a real good solid base to go

after them." So I think Ted Cruz is is

right on. This feels like a real good

idea. Good job, Ted, if it gets passed.

Well, uh,

John Brennan has now been uh referred to

the Department of Justice by

Representative Jim Jordan primarily for

lying about the uh steel dossier. So he

we all we've all seen the video where

John Brennan said that the CIA did not

rely did not rely on the steel dossier

for their post-election intelligence

community assessment. But we know from

other reporting that he definitely

not not only did they rely on it, but it

was the it was the primary thing they

relied on. That's a pretty big lie.

That's a that's as big as lie as you can

get. Uh that's an overthrowing the

country lie. So

I don't know if they'll get him for more

than lying, but if you're lying for the

purpose of overthrowing the country, and

there's no doubt about that, that's

exactly what it was. Uh I don't know,

maybe this maybe there's some other

crime involved.

John Stewart continues to be interesting

um in his criticism of his own team

because there's only now there's a

handful of people on the political left

who are willing to uh accurately and

fullthroatedly,

you know, insult their own team's

performance. And Stuart, I think, does

the best of that because he's not crazy.

And I do believe that Steuart

wants to get the right answer as opposed

to the team answer. And I appreciate

that, you know, I mean, it's a hard

balance because he needs to keep his

audience and everything else, but he

does seem to be seeking truth. and he

went after he had Bernie Sanders on his

show and uh he said uh to Bernie is it

frustrating that the thing you fought

for your whole career Democrats are the

one who run away scared and Trump has

embraced some of it and I thought to

myself what what exactly has Trump done

that would be Bernie Sanders preferred

policies I I couldn't think of anything

but then uh then John Stewart gave two

examples and I said, "Huh,

you you you might be on to something."

One of the examples was Trump taking

equity in businesses.

So, that's something that Stuart called

socialism. I called it capitalism.

Uh to me it was just free money and if

Trump could get it and he could get it

for the benefit of the public and and it

wasn't just taking it but rather was

adding something to the company's

success that would be totally worth the

fact that that they had given up some

equity. Uh but I can see how you could

define that as maybe some kind of a

socialist thing. I could see that. And

then the second uh the second thing was

that Trump's got a government website

for selling pharma products cheaper

directly to customers and some but not

all cases. Now would that be an example

of something that Bernie wanted the

government to be more involved in direct

um healthc care work kind of. Yeah. So

these are actually not bad examples of

where but but if you call it socialism,

you're doing uh what I call word

thinking, you haven't added anything

except controversy. So what I call them

is common sense.

So I don't see them as uh right or left.

I don't see either one of those as right

or left. Common sense. Why do you have

to be a Democrat to want to lower pharma

costs?

There's nothing left or right about

that. Why Why do you want to be a

socialist

just because there's an opportunity to

take equity while also helping the

industry and helping the company? Isn't

that more like common sense? There's

nobody who's losing. If you have a

situation where everybody wins and

nobody loses,

what's that? That's just common sense.

So, we'll see if common sense beats

socialism.

I'm still a little fascinated why those

no kings protests and some of the other

ones we've seen are so many uh old white

people.

And I I feel like there's more than one

reason and you'd have to have all the

reasons to get what we have. One reason

is that many of them are old hippies and

they're just they're just enjoying a

final run. It's like, ah, I've been a

hippie all my life. Protesting is in my

blood. A lot of them talk like that.

Yeah, my parents were My parents were

protesters. I've been protesting since I

was six years old. So, some of it's just

that, you know, the the one bucket list

that let's do our final tour while we we

can still walk kind of thing. Some of

them are probably paid to the organizers

paid. I think some of the attendees are

paid. So, some of it might be money.

Some of it might be it's the only it's

the only group that has that much free

time and would enjoy this. There are

other groups that are unemployed, but

would they have enjoyed being there with

all the senior citizens? Probably not.

So, it's not just that they have time,

which they do, but they have time that

they don't mind spending doing this.

they might actually enjoy it and that

would not apply to other people.

Um,

but I saw the reason I'm even talking

about it is I saw somebody say that the

reason all these old people are

protesting the uh what is it? They're

protesting the authoritarianism.

It's because they watch the fake news

still. it it's a group of people who

don't know that sometime in our recent

past the news stopped even trying to be

news

and if all you were doing is just

watching the same channels you always

watched you would never know that

because there's nobody on those channels

who tells you they're fake news if if

you're not tuning into you know Fox News

or Breitbart or you know if you're not

on podcasting

you know if you're not watching

podcasters and stuff. You don't know.

You don't know that the news is

completely fake. You would think that

the stuff that you agree with is real

and the stuff that disagrees with you

might be fake. And I'll bet you I'll bet

you the senior citizens largely believe

the news. And if you took that away,

meaning if you took their illusion that

the news is real, if you took away that

illusion, I don't know that they would

show up because they wouldn't have

anything to rely on anyway.

And then some of them might be just

genuinely concerned about healthcare,

but I suspect that's the minority.

I love it when Trump does things that

only Trump would ever do. Like I never

get tired of that. when he does a Trumpy

thing, like what's the what's the

Trumpiest thing that Trump could ever

do? Well, it's going to be hard to top

this. So, he was at uh I guess some

press events yesterday and he and Trump

says, quote, "They say you're the third

best president." Third best. And then

they said, "Uh, who are the first two?

George Washington and Abraham Lincoln."

And I got extremely angry at this man.

Okay, that's

he you cannot entertain me better than

this.

The the when when Trump says things that

you know are going to bother people, I

just my dopamine goes through the roof.

I love it when he bothers people. He

says it's going to be very tough to beat

Washington and Lincoln, but we're going

to give it a try, right? And then he

goes further.

He goes, "Hey, they didn't

He goes, "Hey, they didn't put out eight

wars. Nine coming." All right, we put

out eight wars and the ninth is coming.

Believe it or not,

come on.

Forget about um you know how real any of

that is. Forget about how valid the

comparison is. It doesn't matter. The

fact that he would even say these words

in public is so delicious

because because you can you can play in

your mind the reaction that his critics

are having to it like

you sort of imagined their heads

exploding because he he's got a decent

argument. It's not that he's right or

wrong. It's not that he actually could

someday be considered better than those

two presidents.

What's funny is that you know what the

reaction will be. That's the joke

and and he's the best at this. Anyway,

I do like that he sets the bar high for

his own performance. He's not trying to

he's not trying to uh leave office with

like a good solid 50% approval, which

would be amazing. 50%. He's not trying

to do that. No, he's trying to be uh not

just the third best president. Come on.

I mean, that's like not even trying. So,

he's trying to be the best president in

the history of the United States, and

he's trying to beat Washington

at and Lincoln.

Maybe.

In other fun news, Robbie Starbucks, you

I hope you know him as a anti-woke

activist, let's call him. But, uh,

apparently Google, if you did a Google

search with their AI not too long ago,

um, they would have been defaming him by

calling him a whole bunch of things that

definitely do not apply. So, they've

they've accused him of sexual assault

claims. No, nothing like that ever

happened. They've accused him of being a

white nationalist. Nope. Nope. Nothing

like that. Uh they said he was friends

with some famous racist Richard Spencer.

Nope. Uh none of it true.

So he's suing them now. He he already

won. Who did he beat? He already beat

one AI that was doing that. They they

settled with him. He's going to win this

one, too.

Uh, so I don't know if we'll ever find

out what the settlement is, but getting

defamed looks like a pretty good

business model at the moment. So, Karin

Jean Pierre, Biden's old Spock

spokesperson,

she's back with her new book called

Independence.

And so, she's making the rounds.

Um,

well, that's funny.

All right, I'm seeing a funny comment.

I'll get back to that.

Have you noticed though, if you saw

Karen John Pierre, that she's changed

her hairstyle. So, instead of having the

the afro that she had, she's gone to a

whole different look with uh I guess she

uh what would you call it? Uncurled her

hair, flattened her hair, and she looks

like a totally different person. I don't

like it. One of the things I liked best

about her when she was Biden's

spokesperson is that she didn't look or

dress like other people. I thought she

did a great job. I loved her old look. I

know a lot of you didn't, right? We can

disagree on that, but I loved it. I I

always thought, God, that's that's such

a bold

like such a a classy, bold,

professional, and yet stylistic

approach. I always thought it was great.

I loved her look,

but she went a different direction and

uh a lot of her charisma just disappears

as soon as she changes to a uh like just

an ordinary. She now now she just looks

like somebody's mom.

Uh and she loses a lot.

Lose a lot.

Anyway, they're they're pestering her

about how much she knew about Biden's

decline. She of course is going to deny.

She's denying that she noticed there was

anything wrong with him. Uh he certainly

had signs of aging, she admits, but

there did not seem to be any signs that

he couldn't do his professional job,

says her. Some people think that she

would only say that because her only way

she could ever get a uh another job is

with the Biden's approval. So apparently

the Bidens might have enough sway over

the world that if she wants to have a

good job in her future, she's going to

have to say good things about Biden so

that Biden can put in the good word for

her and maybe get her something. Now,

that's just somebody's hypothesis.

It could be that this is just exactly

what she saw and felt. Might have been

because cognitive dissonance would get

her to the point where she couldn't see

his disabilities.

It doesn't have to be that she's lying

or stupid. It could be just cognitive

dissonance. She knew that if she

acknowledged his disabilities that her

life would be ruined and her career

would be ruined. So her brain just talk

her out of it. That would be the normal

way cognitive dissonance works. So

could be just a phenomena and not any

kind of you know organic fault in her.

Um did you know that the Trump

government has 40 people involved across

the government in some kind of a what's

it called? Uh they're they're trying to

fight against the lawfare against Trump.

Uh well weaponization of the government.

So, it's 40 people, pretty high-powered

people, too, I think, that are fighting

the weaponization of government in

different departments, I think, but

they're working together.

And, uh, they're looking for retribution

for January 6 and the Trump prosecutions

and the the Russia probe, and I am all

for that.

40 people, that sounds like a serious

effort, and it has to be done. that

there has to be there has to be an

answer for what has been done. So good.

See inter agency weaponization working

group.

Go nuts guys.

Well, Laura Loomer, controversial

uh right-leaning pundit.

Uh apparently she's having some uh

security problems. there's an

anti-Israel

guy who's made credible threats and

she's she has to beef up her security,

but uh also I guess he's made threats to

what to also

um the uh

the CEO of uh oh what you call it

the CEO of

what's the satirical site?

that we all like the the conservative

satirical site.

As soon as you say it, I'll go, "Oh, you

know what I'm talking about, right?"

Anyway, so this the same nut job has

threatened a few people and I guess law

enforcement is taking it seriously. Uh

Loomer is being accused of being a

Mossad spy.

I don't think that's the case. Daily the

Daily Mail is reporting on this. don't

think it's the case, but it is a

terrible situation that Trump

supporters, the prominent ones, um are

worried for their life. Apparently, a

lot of the high the Babylon be thank you

the Babylon B CEO, uh Seth Dylan is one

of the ones being being threatened.

Um

so I hope that all of them are okay

because some of them are going to spend

a ton of money. Uh I think Ben Shapiro

probably spends a ton of money and uh

probably there are half a dozen others

that just absolutely have to have

security now or they feel they do. Now

the beauty of me being in my current

situation which is you know my lifespan

is not that long. I don't feel the need

for security.

I was telling the local subscribers

before I started this this podcast. I

was telling you if somebody like broke

into my house and threatened to kill me,

I'm at the point where I'd be like, "All

right, just make it a good shot." Right.

Right there. Can Can we get this over

with right there? So, at the moment, I

don't need security.

I'd probably have a good conversation

with the killer before he did his thing.

Bill Aman, investor Bill Aman

has some thoughts on Curtis Siwa who's

running for mayor and uh in New York

City and uh a lot of people want him to

drop out because that would give at

least some chance that somebody who's

not a communist mom dummy would win.

Meaning uh meaning Cuomo. Now,

if you're just watching and you don't

know much about the what's happening

behind the curtain, you would say to

yourself, "Ah, what's wrong with that

SLwa, uh, he's got to give us a chance

not to get a communist." Um, but Bill

Aman has some inside information. He

says uh that apparently New York City

has an 8:1 matching funds program for

New York City donors which w which

allows Siwa because he's an official

candidate for office to get $5 million

of matching funds for his campaign from

the city. So, here's a guy who is not

rich,

who by running for office and not not

dropping out, not dropping out, he gets

$5 million slloshing around to hire So,

I wonder who he would hire. Well,

according to Bill Aman, he hired his

wife and his friends and uh they're

enjoying a better lifestyle than they

have enjoyed before presumably because

it I imagine he didn't hire them for

cheap and it's not even his money. It's

public money. So would you expect Curtis

Leewa to drop out if it meant that his

family would make a lot less money and

he could, you know, he could defend not

dropping out even if he hated it. He

could defend it.

I don't think if if this is true, and

I'd have to hear I want to hear Leewa's

uh response to it. So we don't have the

response yet, but if it's true, there's

not really any chance he's going to drop

out. Would you agree? I if if he can,

you know, pay his wife another high

salary for another x number of months

and there may never be another chance

like this to get sort of free money.

You don't think he's going to stay in?

I I say follow the money. Now, it might

create a situation where somebody's

going to make him some illegal offer to

drop out. Pretty sure that would be

illegal.

I think he claimed that somebody offered

him $10 million to drop out, but um I

don't know about that. James O'Keefe

has another win for his uh his

undercover work. He exposed a hundred

billion dollar federal contracting scam

where minorityowned uh businesses would

uh get contracts because they could they

could get them because they're minority

owned, but then they would just farmount

the work to other entities. So they

would only do 20% of the work and that's

what they admit by the way. He got them

to admit that directly and they would

outsource 80% of it um illegally because

they're not allowed to do that. and then

they would just sit back and collect

some extra money, I guess. So, that was

part of a scam where all these minority

companies were skimming money off of

contracts.

Now, as I've told you many times,

um, wherever there's government funding,

there is massive corruption

every time. And there's a very good

reason for that. Nobody's checking on

it. That's it. If you have if you have

gigantic amounts of money slloshing

around and there's nobody who's checking

on where it goes or how it's used, do

you think there's any chance that won't

devolve into corruption? No. No, there's

not any chance. It's zero. It's exactly

zero chance that that does not turn into

corruption. Zero. There isn't the

slightest chance that that remains a

credible system over time. Maybe on day

one, but day two, no, by day two, the

robbery begins. So, I'm going to say for

the millionth time, because I feel like

I can get I feel like I can get this

message through. We do not have an idea

for a system of government that can

protect us from this.

We really need a system of government

that can protect us from this because

it's destroying every city,

every program, and it's of course

hurting the poor more than the rich.

It's everything bad about our country is

one thing. And the one thing is we don't

watch where our money goes. It's one

thing. Do you think that we don't have

any way to to solve that? There's no way

to get auditors. There's no way to use

AI, blockchain,

something. Well, I would argue that the

people who are in charge of fixing it

are the people who are raping it. So,

the big problem is that the people who

should fix it are the ones benefiting

from it and therefore they can never fix

it.

But if we don't figure this out,

I feel like this is the alpha problem

that all the other problems revolve

around. Even immigration, you would

think immigration is sort of a

standalone problem, but probably

immigration was subsidiary to this

problem. Probably somebody who found a

way to make money by letting people in.

You know, the NOS's were making money by

letting people in, not preventing them.

So probably every one of our biggest

problems trace back to the fact we don't

watch where the money is spent.

All of it. All of it. So if I saw Trump

come up with some kind of reaction to

this as in we're going to try, you know,

maybe putting some kind of federal. So

that's the trouble is that you can't

expect the local governments to police

themselves. But is there any way you can

have the federal government say, "We're

just going to be a watchdog and we won't

do anything because we don't have power.

We'll only watch and then we'll report."

Maybe.

Well, what did I tell you about the Gaza

ceasefire? Besides the fact that there's

no way it's going to hold, uh, of course

it's not going to hold. But the other

thing that I could have said that you

already knew is that the odds of a false

flag claim, a fake claim that the other

side had violated the ceasefire was

guaranteed. We may have already had it

cuz you know there was a there was a

report that the gazins had attacked and

then there was a report that Netanyahu

had responded by attacking back and then

closing the crossings. But then the

crossings got immediately reopened. Uh

and the reporting is that uh the US

caught Israel in a lie. Now I don't know

that that's true. Remember everything's

fog of war. So if you hear that the

United States caught Israel in a lie,

that doesn't mean it's true. That

doesn't mean anything. It just means

that somebody said it. That's all it

means. Somebody said it. Uh but the

accusation

is that uh it might have been there

might have been an explosion of an IED

that was an accident that Israel

interpreted as intentional.

But then with a little bit of research,

the US found out, uh-oh, that probably

wasn't even intentional. Just something

blew up that had been unexloded.

And uh Netanyahu very quickly reversed

the closing of the crossings, which

would suggest that he either understood

it wasn't real or understood he couldn't

get away with it. One of those two

things, but we don't know.

Anyway, I saw that on Matt Gates's uh

podcast.

Um apparently preparations are underway

for Trump and Putin to meet in Budapest,

even though there's no date for that.

and they postponed it because they were

not close enough to getting anything

agreed on that it was worth it and

they're still not.

But um I guess one of the one of the

critical points is that Russia wants to

keep all of the Donbass

and I of course not being a Ukrainian I

had to go make sure I knew what the

Donbass was. So the Donbass is the place

where essentially Putin already owns it.

he's already occupying it. It's the the

part on the uh the east coast of

Ukraine. So, it's not a it's not a

perfect match to what uh Putin's already

conquered, but he he has 89% of it. So,

the Russian armed forces control 89% of

the Donbass, isn't that really the end

of the question? If he already controls

89% of it, he's not going anywhere.

Can't we just agree that however this

turns out, he's going to have the dog

bass? I mean,

obviously Ukraine would have to get

something in return. I think

um according to the Washington Free

Beacon, Jessica Costu, she says that

Trump's crackdown on the border has

reduced the fentinel flow.

um they're down almost 53% compared to

last year. Now, you might say, "Oh, that

just means they're catching less of it.

It doesn't mean there is less of it, but

it probably does. It probably does mean

that they're catching more of it, and

that's why why there's less of it

getting through." Um I don't know.

And the the reporting is that the

cartels have uh stopped exporting as

much fentinel because of the crackdown.

Do you believe that? Again, this all the

border cartel stuff is also fog of war,

but it's more like a permanent fog of

war. So, I don't know how much of

reporting I'm going to believe on this

topic, but it looks like I mean

directionally it looks real. I mean the

the border is pretty sealed tight

relative to how it was in the past. So

it wouldn't be a surprise

if Trump had cut down the fendle by 50%.

Wouldn't be a surprise. Just don't know.

Senator Ran Paul continues to show what

makes him valuable as a senator. Even

though he's uh you know with Thomas

Massie, he's one of the two Congress

people who who tend to be the fly in the

punch. I don't know that. But they tend

to plague the other Republicans by not

being on the same page. But when they're

not on the same page, let me give a

compliment to Rand Paul. When he's not

on the same page, it's not because he

doesn't make sense. It's not because

he's crazy. It's not because he's dumb.

It's not because he's underinformed.

So when he disagrees with all the

Republicans as he is with this

Venezuelan drug boat attacks,

you should listen to him. You don't need

to agree with him. I I think this is a

case where I don't. But I very much

appreciate him. I love I love that he's

giving us this transparency and a

different way to look at this situation.

Specifically, what he says and I I can't

verify that any of this is true. I'm

just appreciating

that this version of events is out

there. And he says that uh we're not

getting any fentinel from that part of

the world. He says that Venezuela is

like a zero fentinel producer. they are

a drug producer but it's you know the

opioids. So he thinks that first of all

it's a lie that we're stopping fentinol.

Secondly he says that because of the

geography over there and the boats that

they're using these would not be the

boats you would use to take drugs to the

United States.

This would be for taking it to some

island that would be prepping to take it

maybe to Europe or somewhere else. So

the other part of it is it's not even

destined for the US. It would be too far

away, too hard to too hard to use those

little boats to get it all the way to

the coast of the United States. You

wouldn't do it that way. So

why are we blowing up boats? Is it to

stop the regular opioids?

You could argue that that was a good

enough reason. you could

um

but the uh head of Colombia thinks it's

about a play to get the oil.

And then somebody else said on on uh

Axe, "No, we don't want that crappy

Venezuelan oil cuz it's all it it's too

hard to refine." So it's like I don't

know, it's it's thick and sweet or

something. So it's hard to re refine. So

therefore, it's not true that the US

covets their oil because we have plenty

of oil and our oil is easier to refine.

However,

Grock disagrees with that. Grock says

that the US actually has uh the highest

capable refineries in the Gulf Coast,

right? You know, close enough. And that

our refineries actually can handle that.

and they can handle it so well that the

net effect would be cheaper oil because

it our our refinery is so good that we

can take their crappy oil and refine it

into a good product and still cheaper

than if we had to ship it all the way

from the Middle East to refine it. Now,

at this point, I don't know how much we

ship from the Middle East because we

we're the big producer at this point.

So, I don't know. So, I don't know about

the economics of it, but um it wouldn't

be the worst thing in the world if the

US was trying to get a bite of that

business.

It'd be sort of Monroe doctrineish

to put the drug dealers out of business.

So, here's what I would say. So, Trump

is also leaning on Colombia for being a

big drug narco terrorist country and the

president is saying, "No, no, no. uh

you're just trying to get our oil. Uh in

the case of Colombia, I don't think it's

the oil.

I think it's more like Venezuela is

about the oil. But here's what I think.

I think that this has to understand what

Trump is up to. The first thing you need

to know is that it is not his obligation

to tell us the truth about these

military/CIA

operations.

How many of you would agree with that?

We'd like to know the truth. I mean, I'm

curious,

but it's not really his obligation to

tell us the truth about life and death

military

secret ops. It's not his job to tell us.

His job is to get it right. Right. So,

when we judge Trump, we're going to

judge, did he do the thing? Did he

reduce our risk? Did he make us safer?

Did he make us richer?

If he does those things, okay, A+,

but he doesn't need to tell me what the

secret plan is. So, I'm left to

speculate what the secret plan might be.

And so, I will do that right now. Uh, so

I'm a big fan of the Monroe Doctrine,

which says that the US uh can and should

dominate the entire hemisphere and that

we're all better off if that happens. I

I believe we're all better off if that

happens. But what happens if two of the

major countries

uh are are converting from something

like a standard country into a narco

terrorist cartel entity that's

essentially a criminal enterprise? What

would be the best way to handle that if

you're a Monroe doctrine loving

president of the United States? Well,

number one would be to cut off their

source of funds. That that's the first

thing Trump always has. And the way to

cut off their funds is to kill their

drug business.

Once you've cut off their funds,

well, then you get a little bit more

flexibility, don't you? Then they're

going to negotiate.

Then they might need to get into a

different business. Then, you know,

maybe maybe they're they won't even be

able to pay paramilitary people to

attack the United States.

So, generally speaking,

uh I'm in favor of the US degrading the

income that the two countries, Venezuela

and Colombia, get from drugs. Not just

because it might keep some Americans

alive. I I worry that we can't make much

difference. They'll just pay more for

the drugs and, you know, then it won't

make a difference. So I worry that it

doesn't work that way, but it definitely

works to reduce the income of the the

two leaders who may or may not be

leaders of criminal enterprises.

So, if that's what's going on, and at

the very least that is what's going on.

It it's not all that's going on, but

definitely it's going on that they're,

you know, they're in the drug business,

the two leaders of those countries, and

that we're decreasing their income

substantially.

That should be useful. It should be

useful. We'll see.

And I guess Breitbart's reporting that

uh the Coast Guard found a 100,000

pounds of cocaine in the Pacific. In

other words, on a boat. So they uh inter

interdicted 100,000 pounds of cocaine in

the Pacific. So that would be the the

other side of the country if you're

keeping track.

So both sides of the country have a

massive, you know, drug problem. But uh

100,000 pounds. I asked Grock how many

overdoses that could uh that would

respond to uh three billion. So if it's

true that there's 100,000 pounds of coke

and if you were to divide it up just

enough to kill a person and so everybody

got a dose that was an overdose, you

could kill three billion three billion

people. Is that right? It doesn't feel

right, does it? I 100,000 pounds of coke

is a lot of coke, but really three

billion people. I I feel like maybe

Grock was hallucinating on that one.

Don't take my word for it. Meanwhile,

we're starting to suspect a big land

attack on Mexico is coming from the US.

Apparently, everything's approved

uh at least by the president, not by

Congress. And maybe that won't happen.

But uh it looks like the CIA is already

planning, you know, where would be the

best place for an attack. How are you

going to do it? Uh there's no word as to

whether Mexico would be involved in it.

Seems like that would be a mistake

because there's no way you could trust

the uh the Mexican forces not to not to

turn you in and tell the cartels what's

coming. So I don't see how we could work

with Mexico.

The best we could probably do is ask

them to get out of the way. I don't

know. We'll see where that goes.

Meanwhile, the Washington Free Beacon,

Aaron Sabarium, is writing that uh UC

San Diego had this race-based

scholarship thing,

uh which when they got in trouble for

having a racebased scholarship, you

could you couldn't get it if you're

white, basically. Um, all they did was

they they moved the scholarship thing

into this fake, not fake, but some

external uh external uh organization to

make it look like it wasn't the college

doing it because if it wasn't the

college doing it,

then it could still happen. And

apparently that didn't fly.

So So they're getting rid of that trick.

Apparently, it was the Ku Klux Clan Act

that stops people from using race.

And there it was actually the Kuclux

Clan Act that that stopped them.

Amazon says there's going to look

they're going to replace 600,000 workers

with robots.

I feel like that's just the start.

Now, I don't give you uh and I I'm very

emphatic about this. I don't give

financial advice,

but I will give you a financial lesson

if if you can handle the difference. So,

do not make any investments based on

what I'm about to say or anything I've

ever said before because I'm not your

financial adviser,

but I can tell you things like, you

know, diversifying is a good thing. That

would be a lesson. That's not advice,

right? Diversifying is a good thing. So,

here's another one of those. I've said

this before, but one of the ways that I

look to invest, if I'm looking at an

individual company, I look for one

that's, you know, going to stay in

business first. That's number one. But

also, if they're involved in something

that will only happen once in the

history of the world.

So, one of the reasons I have stock in

Tesla is that there will only be one

time in the history of humanity when

robots are introduced. There'll only be

one time when AI is introduced at least

in that business too. There'll only be

one time

uh that we're we're going to move to,

you know, massive solar and batteries

and stuff. So, basically, Elon is in all

these one-time only trends. So, of

course, I own that stock. Now, I'm not

recommending it.

I'm explaining the thinking that

somebody would use. Not recommending it.

Now we see that Amazon is on the verge

of replacing humans with robots. How

many times in the history of the world

will that happen

once? What would be presumably the

biggest expense at Amazon?

Humans, right? Wouldn't that be their

biggest expense? So there might be one

time in the history of the world where

this big dynamic successful incredible

company Amazon

gets rid of people. Now this could be a

disaster for the economy in general

while their stock might do well because

they're reducing their costs. Now

does that sound like a recommendation to

buy to buy Amazon? No. Because here's

the part you're missing. The other thing

that's going to happen only once, only

once is that the AI will eat Amazon

because o open AI is already adding

shopping. Would you use Amazon

if you could just pick up your thing and

say, "All right, I want to buy this

thing. What should I buy?" Okay, good.

Good. There's a link. Boom. Why would

you go to Amazon? Well, Amazon also will

have an AI. So maybe the very best

combination of AI advice plus photos of

the product plus return plus free

shipping. Maybe maybe that's enough to

keep it all on Amazon because remember

you're talking about Bezos.

Bezos is still involved. So if it were a

bunch of, you know, second tier founders

or something, I'd say, well, you know,

they'll get eaten by AI. But he's not

the guy who gets eaten by AI. He's the

guy who eats AI. So,

um there's no way to know if the AI

threat to Amazon will be bigger than the

the robot thing will be big.

But something really big is happening at

Amazon. Either way, whatever it is, it's

really big. And then they've got the,

you know, the Amazon servers, the cloud,

yeah, the AWS thing they've got to fix.

But I'm sure they'll get a handle on

that. All right. So, that's clear

enough. So, the lesson is look for

things that happen only once, but make

sure you don't ignore. There might be

more than one thing that's going to

happen only once, and they could be

working as opposites.

All right, ladies and gentlemen. That's

all I have for you. I ran a little bit

late. I'm going to say a few words to my

beloved local subscribers. The rest of

you, thanks for joining. It's always a

pleasure. It's my favorite part of the

day. All right, we'll see if our buttons

all work today. Locals coming at you

privately, I hope.