A (0:01)

Just in time. We've got a podcast we're getting ready here. But first, I thought I would check my stocks, because several months ago. Well, actually, it was during the bottom of the pandemic, I did something I don't usually do, and I advise against it, actually, but I did it. I put an unusually large amount of investment in one company. I don't recommend that. It's a bad idea, but let me check on it to see how it was. The company was called. You've heard of it? It's called Tesla. Oh. Up a hundred percent. How's the rest of your stocks doing? Spy? Up a little bit. All right, so the general market's up a little bit. That's looking good. Let me get your comments working here, and then we got a show to do that you're gonna love. Trust me, you'll love it. You'll love it. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time. But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience this morning to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tanker shells to stein, 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 of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's cold. The simultaneous zip. And it goes like this. Ah. Well, you want to hear about the weirdest thing ever? Are you ready for this? Do you remember that at the beginning of yesterday's show, I decided to be a little bit vulnerable and opened up my test results for my testosterone levels, which is important to see that they're as low as possible. For cancer reasons. You don't want high testosterone if you have cancer because the cancer just eats the testosterone. So you want to lower your testosterone depending on, I suppose, which cancer you have. But for mine, I want it as close to zero as possible. And do you remember that I opened up the test results while I was looking at it? I basically read it to you, and I could see that it had jumped up to the middle of the range, which would mean I'm. Which would mean that the meds weren't working, and. And I was basically, you know, die faster than I was hoping. Now, how many of you saw me do that live? I'm not imagining that, right? I did that live right in front of You. And I was looking at it, and I was just reading it. Right. Here's the fun part. That doesn't exist. That test that I looked at in detail and had an opinion, and it changed my whole day. That doesn't exist. Because when I. When I talked to my doctor by Zoom later that same day, he said the. You know, no, your testosterone's effectively zero. The meds are working, you know, the way they were supposed to. And I said, no, they're not. I mean, I looked at it myself. So I called it up, and it was. Not only were the numbers completely different, but even the presentation of the graph wasn't the same. So what happened? Did I hallucinate while I was completely awake and talking to you on live stream? Did I literally just hallucinate what I saw? I don't know. Or was it some kind of preliminary number? Because the number was just coming in. And did they update it maybe from the old number to the new number or something? I don't know. But the good news and the bad news is that the meds were doing exactly what they were supposed to do to lower my testosterone to what they consider full castration levels. However, the bad news is since my PSA spiked, it means the meds. The meds are doing what they were supposed to do, but my cancer's already figured out a workaround, so it's essentially probably producing something that doesn't measure as testosterone but has a similar impact. So according to Grok, who I'm not sure I should believe in these situations, I'm pretty much dead unless we figure out a new solution. So I don't have a solution at the moment, but I also don't know how bad it is. So that's why I gotta get scanned. Once I get scanned, then you'll actually see. Did anything get worse? If nothing got worse, then I'm fine. But if I'm suddenly filled with extra tumors, which I might be, it means we don't have a solution. But there are some options. So I'll keep you filled in. You want some good news? You ready for some good news? Cambridge, I guess. Cambridge, they're one of their sciencey parts of their university, figured out how to make an organic solar panel. So they use some exotic organic material, and here's how efficient it is. It's nearly one to one. You know how if you shine sunlight on a regular solar panel, and it used to be they could get, you know, they could convert 10% of the light to energy, and they get better and better. It was like, oh, 20% now, I think the best ones, correct me if I'm wrong. Or maybe approaching 30% conversion to energy. These organic ones are close to 100%, which means you could put organic panels. I'm making this part up, but just to tell you how unlikely it is, it means that if you put these panels around the walls of your room and then you turned on the lights, the lights would create enough energy to power the lights. Not 100%, but it might be like 98% of all the energy you need to power the lights. Maybe. Now all of these solar breakthroughs, because it seems like there's one every day, but you're not going to see them on the market. This is probably five to ten years away, if they can do it at all. Because it's tough to manufacture these exotic things. It would take years to figure out how to make a factory to make it. You'd have to test it to see if it lasts as long and it's economical. So it would take forever to actually reach the market. But imagine if it worked and solar panels could get to something like Unity, I think they call it, where it just captures all the energy we might get there. So that's maybe good news. And my question is, which of the climate models has modeled that in 5 to 10 years solar panels will be nearly 100% efficient and easier to make because there would be no exotic materials. You wouldn't have to get anything from China. So which of the climate models had that? If this one thing turns out to be true, plus battery storage so that your light can be used anytime, that would change everything. And it's just one thing the science is working on. The other thing that could change everything is these small OCLO like nuclear power plants, you know, the modular ones. So the government is now all about approving these sort of standardized, smaller nuclear power plants. As soon as they start building a few of those, that changes everything. So you've got unlimited fusion energy on the way. Actually one or two plants have actually been approved for building fusion. They're so close to it that they think they should start building the thing. So you're going to have fusion. You can have small nuclear, that's a new version of nuclear, but not fusion. And you might have these insane solar panels. And probably all of it looks to be hitting in the 10 to 15 year range would be my guess, because it just takes a while. But in 10 to 15 years, if we could move to that, then even if climate change was a problem, I don't think it is, but even if it is, we're going to be in good shape with energy. We might find that even if climate isn't the problem with many people thought it was, and I think that's where we'll end up on climate. It will still be the greatest boon to humanity that we took energy costs from way too expensive to, oh, now it's practically a commodity. You're going to need that energy to be a commodity in the age of robots and self driving cars and AI. So for all the wrong reasons, we might be moving really quickly in the right direction because the climate change people are going to love these new sources of energy. The AI and robot people are going to say there's no limit to how much energy we need, so you better do everything. So suddenly, for completely different reasons, the entire planet is on the same page about energy, future energy, meaning that left and right would say, yes, we would prefer a world where we have all this clean nuclear and finally we make the economic argument for solar. We solve it in 15 years with batteries so that you don't have the can't watch your TV at night problem. And battery technology is having these huge advantages too. All right, here's some more good news. Recently we asked some people about sharing their New York Times accounts. My name is Dana. I am a subscriber to the New York Times Times, but my husband isn't. And it would be really nice to be able to share a recipe or an article or compete with him in wordle or connections. Thank you, Dana. We heard you introducing the New York Times Family subscription. One subscription, up to four separate logins for anyone in your life. Find out more@nytimes.com family are you ready for this? This one's got it really good. Apparently, according to phys. Org Wilbourne Nobles III is writing about this. There's a small school in which they, they can put kids in this school. And the way they teach is they teach them how brains work. So they teach them, you know, what to do to maximize your brain. Just think about that. They teach young kids how to manage and maximize their own brain. So they teach them how to think critically, but they do a whole bunch of other exercises where they just learn sort of about their, believe it or not, their amygdala and they do projects on how the brain works. And by fourth or fifth grade they're doing that stuff and they do, they have to do illustrations of how the brain works and how people learn and social and emotional regulation. But here's the thing. Apparently they've already demonstrated, although you know, smallish samples, but they've demonstrated that they can get more of their kids into a college and get a college degree than the regular schools. But here's the fun part. They're, they're low economic students, they're poorest students handily exceed the college success of the richer students in regular schools. Let me say that again. They have already built a model and demonstrated it in the real world in which the way they teach the kids is really teaching them how to learn. Not just learning, they're teaching them how to learn at a level I've never seen before. I've never seen this level. And they've proven and it works. And they've basically erased income as the major factor in how you do in life income when you're born. So basically you don't have to be a J.D. vance genius to go from low income to Harvard to vice president at the moment. That's what it takes. You know, you've got to be unusually smart to get past that low income barrier and into something else. But apparently you could just randomly select people and teach them right and they would become superstars. Now you know why I'm so excited about that. This is what I've been working on for years. That's what my books are. Let's see, you can see most of them. The, the four books on the top of my shelf are written so that a 14 year old and up and I, I make sure that I write it with the kind of language that a 14 year old can follow easily and, but it works for adults because adults like simple writing as well. And it's written to teach you how to think. Reframe your brain teaches you how to reframe. How valuable is that if you were a teenager to learn how to reframe all your experiences and see examples of it life changing. Win Bigley is teaching you persuasion instead of just logic. So you can see why persuasion rules and our common sense gets overruled. How valuable would that be if you Learned that at 14? Invaluable. How about loserthink where it teaches you how to avoid the bad dumb arguments? Well that's exactly what you need to know how to do. Imagine learning that at 14 and then you know, my seminal book had failed almost everything and still went big is really the I, I, I believe it's the most influential book in this genre for teaching you how to go from nothing to something, whatever your success looks like in your mind. Now again, that was written specifically for a 14 year old and up. And so I'm, I'm all in on this concept that if you teach people how to think, then they can carve right through any income or other barriers. Doesn't matter what your race is, doesn't matter what your gender is, probably doesn't matter too much what your age is, you'll be able to carve right through it, I'll bet you. I'll betcha if you even had a prison record, but you mastered all three of my books, you'd probably be fine even with a prison record. So that's how powerful this stuff is. And when I see it, when I see a version of it, obviously it's not based on my work, but when I see a like minded version of this, working for young kids in fourth and fifth grade and elevating the poor kids above the rich kids, not just equal, well above, just by teaching them right. So exciting. Probably. This is probably the most exciting thing that I've seen in years on any domain. There's nothing I've seen more exciting than this. So good on them. This is also why I like King Randall's work. He wanted to come and visit me and I didn't know if I'm healthy enough to do that, but I might see if he wants to stop by and do a podcast anyway. King Randall is a youngish black man who has a school for young kids, most of them black, but they don't have to be. There's at least one white kid in there and he's simply teaching them life skills that you wouldn't normally get, which would make you more confident and you would just have all kinds of advantages. You learn etiquette, you know, if you're a poor kid, imagine being a poor kid and learning, you know, which fork to use and where to put your napkin and stuff like that. If you couldn't do that, that's the cap on your success right there. If you didn't know how to eat with proper people, who could be your mentor, invested you, hire you. If you didn't know how to eat in a way that the other person says, oh, this person knows etiquette, if you didn't know that, that would be a cap, you're done. You don't get a better job than somebody who can't eat in public, that's it. So what King Randall does is amazing and I'd love to tell you more about that at some point. All right, so OpenAI AI the company is. It's the company that's beyond chat GPT their valuation is apparently $500 billion now. Now the way you calculate that is because some of the current and former employees are already selling stock in the secondary market. So you can't publicly buy the stock, but you can do it privately. And they have sold $6.6 billion worth of shares. That means that some number of current and former OpenAI people probably made some people at the top 100 million. Maybe they made 500 million for one person. I don't feel like they earned that, do you? If somebody already earned a billion dollars, like, and they've cashed it out and, you know, it's just their money forever now, it can never go away. Did they really earn that for the six months they might have worked there? I don't know. Well, probably they had to work longer to get vested. I'm surprised we even invested. But maybe they really had to offer them good deals. Well, Tesla, like I said, is up 100% since the day that Tim Walsh was publicly celebrating the drop in Tesla stock. So if you, if you went with Tim Walsh's opinion about Tesla, you missed a hundred percent gain. And, you know, I, I own some of the stock, as I said, so you shouldn't listen to me when it comes to investments in general, if it's about an individual company, the only thing you should listen to me about is, is that diversification is good. That's it. That's the only thing you should take from me. That's just like a fact and you should bank on it. Diversification is good. But anyway, so, yeah, Tim Wallace continues to be the, the worst public figure in the world anyway, so I guess Elon bought a billion dollars of Tesla stock last week or something, and it made a. Made a big impression because it showed that he was confident in the stock and we'll see. But speaking of stock, did you know that there's a movement, mostly from the entirely from the political right to boycott Netflix, and Elon Musk is the biggest name in that. Benny Johnson was talking about it. So Benning Johnson was explaining why people like Elon and and others are not too happy with Netflix's content because as Benny explains that Netflix is sexualizing children by packaging explicit graphic radical sex topics as children's entertainment. Now, I'm not going to name the titles that have been coming up as the ones that are inappropriate, but use your imagination, all right? If these entirely reasonable people, Benny Johnson, Elon Musk, tons of other people, if these entirely reasonable people have looked at these titles and they have and said no freaking way, you're going to put that in my house? Because my kids can turn on Netflix and just see it. And in fact, not just see it. It would be served up to them specifically so. And then apparently Elon posted that 100% of Netflix employees donations are to the Democratic Party. Well, I knew that already, but when you think of this topic, it's sort of especially meaningful, isn't it? But apparently they've lost. Netflix has lost 15 billion in market value since people started canceling subscriptions. Now, I've got mixed feelings on this one. I'm not a huge fan of boycotts. Not a huge fan, because in effect, that's why I'm canceled. Because somebody decided. Somebody decided on your behalf that you shouldn't see Dilbert in newspapers. You didn't get to decide that. Is that a good model? That the people who are the customers had no say whatsoever in whether I was canceled. Worldwide Books and, you know, not the books I've republished, but the original publisher, all canceled. So I've got a little bit of mixed feelings. But on the other hand, I also have that. What we call the Internet dad energy, meaning that if I had young kids in the house, I would cancel it today. Everybody know where I'm coming from. If I had any young kids in my house, I would cancel Netflix for sure. But I don't. So I also am going to start monitoring to see if there's even one thing I can watch on Netflix that I want to watch, because usually not, but something might come back. So I don't know. I'm not sure which way I'll go on that. But I guarantee, if you. If I had a kid in the house, even one kid, no way. There's no way I would let a kid watch that material. So the, the, the meme story just keeps getting better and better. So, you know, the meme story, which is Hakeem Jeffries, was shown in a Trump passed around meme where he had a sombrero and a big fake muscle, you know, Mexican mustache. And there, there are three of them now that all have them in that, you know, one of them includes Trump playing them as the mariachi band. Now, the beautiful part about the third one, I think it was the third one in the same vein, is that if you've got Trump wearing the hat and playing mariachi music, is Trump making fun of Mexicans? Because he's wearing the hat. He's wearing the hat. And I think he even has. Did he have a mustache? I don't remember. I think no mustache. But he's wearing the hat. So he put himself in the meme in, you know, almost exactly the same context as Hakeem Jeffries. You don't put yourself in the meme if the meme isn't, you know, meant to be a racial insult. So that, that makes it even more fun and, and interesting. But Caitlin Collins, CNN's Caitlin Collins is talking about how apparently the White House has been playing the memes on a loop over the loudspeaker in the White House for the press corps. They're not, not only are they not running away from it, they're doubling down, they're tripling down, and they're playing it on the white and the White House speakers. And now I could not be happier about this because cnn, one of their hosts, already called it a racist video. And I think it was Caitlyn who said they simply don't care about the criticism. I guess they just figured it out. They just figured out that the Republicans are in breakout mode. Breakout mode. They had been contained by charges of racism. It was the most powerful, you know, the most powerful product that the Democrats had. They didn't have arguments, they didn't have good candidates, they didn't have policies, they didn't have a track record, they didn't have anything. They had this one thing, this psychological wall that they built that if you did something they didn't like and it really didn't even matter, they could make a story that it was being racist. Oh, you want to lower taxes? Oh, well, that's obviously going to affect the, you know, the brown community more than the white community. So I guess that's pretty racist. So they can do it with anything, but by Trump and company going directly at it, like, instead of running away from it, running toward it, saying, all right, we're going to mock this, we would make a joke out of. Totally worked. So Republicans have just experienced breakout. I think the Charlie Kirk thing changed everything. I didn't know at the time that it would, but in my opinion, it changed everything. And what it did was it changed people from, all right, I'm still on steroids at the moment, so if your 4 year old is listening, cover up the ears. I think the Charlie Kirk thing went from, we have a preference that you would not be saying these things about us. Now. It's fuck you. It's fuck you. We're going right at you. And you see it in a lot of domains. You're seeing it with the so called black fatigue theme that's going around and you're definitely seeing it with the Mexican sombreros. Although I remind you that I'll bet you will never find a single Mexican who's honest who would say that that bothered them. You won't even find one. So it's a fake everything is racist thing that CNN and MSNBC does. But now it's, now it's just a joke. And I believe that this creates the model going forward that every time they do the stupid racist thing where they torture the topic until it looks like they can make it racist, you just turn them into a meme. And then when they complain, my God, you're even more racist because you turned it into a meme. What do you do then? Turn it into a meme. And when they complain more, what do you do? Turn it into a meme. So good luck, guys. Well, I told you that there was a. The Minneapolis had. 50% of the immigrants had some kind of criminal, you know, outstanding criminal behavior, but I didn't realize that 50% of them had committed immigration fraud. New York Post is reporting. So apparently the former director of USCIS some kind of Biden department created a parole program that funneled unfettered military age migrants into Minneapolis, establishing an Islamic enclave. Yeah, that was a good idea. Biden. Let's, let's funnel the unvetted military age migrants, they have some kind of a parole program and create an Islamic enclave. Great idea. I'm going to say more about that in a minute, but I'm going to go through this topic to get there. According to the post millennial, 53% of Americans. There's a new Pew Research poll. 53% of Americans think that not having kids is bad for the nation. Only 53% think that it's a bad idea to not have enough kids. Do they understand what happens if you don't have enough kids? Are there really that many people who don't understand that if you don't have many kids, we're all dead or the country's dead? People don't really understand that, which is weird. I think. You know, my entire life I was told that we were overpopulated and we better have fewer kids. So I think a lot of people have just been brainwashed in the, you know, we're overpopulated climate change stuff. So think about, think about how dangerous climate change has been that actually talked an entire civilization into killing itself by not reproducing at replacement rate. That actually is happening. And it's not all climate change, but I'll bet it's a third of it. So what happens if you don't have replacement rates for your own population? And at the same time you have a immigration system that is allowing in a lot of people from other countries? Well, depends what countries. If it's, say a lot of people are coming in from England because they want to get away from their repressive government over there, probably they would assimilate pretty quickly. There would be high education in that group, probably be fine. That that would be one way to compensate for low birth rates. What if your people came in from an Islamic country, which there are lots of them? Well, that too would be okay if you kept that number lowish and they were distributed around the country so that, you know, they just assimilated. Might take longer, but, you know, that'd be okay. But what would be the worst thing you could do? The worst thing you could do is have a low population. Naturally, your native population is not reproducing while you're bringing in a lot of Islamic people and putting them in places where they will form caliphates, effectively, they'll push for electing all their own people. Because you don't need to have, you don't have to have a majority in, like, look at New York City, look at England, look at London. You don't need a majority. You just need that majority to all vote the same way, that minority to vote the same way, and then you control politics. So the Islamic model, where you really don't change religions, so that's a non. Since you, you could actually be murdered by your own people if you change religions. It kind of locks you in to not assimilating, because literally for some people would mean death. Also, if you put them in one place, like this Minneapolis model, you are designing a system that guarantees in the long run, we become an Islamic country. It's guaranteed because the Islamic thing is not about the people per se. It's about a. I'll call it a mind virus. You could call it a religion that doesn't. That is not compatible with other religions. But I'm going to call it a mind virus. The mind virus. If you put enough people who have the same mind virus in the same place, they will eventually take over your country a little bit at a time. But we currently have a system which it looks like the Trump administration is trying to undo, but the Biden administration had in place an entire system which guaranteed we would become an Islamic country. Because if you simply brought in all kinds of different people at, let's say, the same rate, let's say 10% of your people coming in were from Mexico, 10% from other South America, 10% from Europe, 10% from Islamic countries, what would you end up with? You would end up with an Islamic country. 10%. 10% probably would get you to an Islamic country. And I think that would be by design. Now, not necessarily by intentional design. It's just that if you looked at it on paper, you'd say, let's see, the locals are not reproducing and they're bringing in a lot of people. Many of them will just assimilate. But 10% might be the ones who by their own preference, would not want to assimilate. If you bring a, if you bring a Mexican into America and he wants to live in America and have American kids, do you think they want to assimilate? Absolutely. Absolutely. They want to. I mean, they might want to hold on to some of their, you know, Hispanic traditions, of course, but they want to be mostly American. Do the, do the Islamic immigrants have the same intention and, or ambition? I feel like their system is a different system and it's more about making their host country more like them. Would you agree? I. I don't know of any situation in which a Mexican immigrant even once has tried to make America more like Mexico, except, you know, unless they started a Mexican restaurant. But those are fun, right? They, they're not even trying to resist assimilation. They come here to assimilate. But if you told me that the Islamic immigrants came, came here to assimilate, I would call you a liar, because I don't think that's true. So we have a system that guarantees we would be Islamic, and only, only the Republicans can unwind it, if it's even possible. I think there's still time. I think we can save ourselves, But I do not think Europe acted fast enough. I think Europe's dead. Not dead. They'll be Islamic eventually. Well, Steve Malloy and I saw this post by amuse2007. Al Gore warned that the Arctic would be ice free by 2014. How'd he do? Well, it's now 2025 and 500,000 square kilometers more ice have been added. That's about as wrong as you could possibly be. That's about as wrong as you can be. And the new news is that according to Israel, Greta and her little flotilla, I think There are about 50 boats heading with what they claim is food for Hamas. And some documents were found in Hamas's possession or abandoned by them. I guess the documents suggested that Hamas is funding the flotilla and probably organizing it too. And the reason for it is, you know, to make Israel look bad. And one of the reasons, you know, that they are not genuinely intending to deliver food and that the food delivery thing is a fake is that Israel already offered a way to offload that food in Italy, where, where it's not a political event, and then Italy had already offered to ship the rest of it to Israel and Gaza. So, so they have a way to get all of the food to Hamas and they've turned it down because they, they want to make the political statement of being, you know, turned down when they reached the border, I guess. So Greta went from the, the wonder kid of climate change, which was of course, a gigantic scam, as far as we can tell, to being scammed by Hamas because she's not smart enough to figure out who funded her. And now she's just a dupe of a terrorist organization. So she went from being the most destructive person on earth by pushing climate change. That would meant, literally, that makes her the most destructive person on earth to being duped by a terrorist organization. So I don't know how Wikipedia is going to write that up, but I think Grokopedia might get it right, if you know what I mean. Anyway, but it's possible that all data is fake, so maybe that whole story is made up. You know, anything from a war zone, you can't totally trust it. So if Israel said, oh, we found these documents, which coincidentally are right on the nose, do you believe it now? I read it to you like it's a fact. Should you believe Israel, they, that they found this thing? That's just perfect. It's right on the nose. Oh, isn't that perfect that they found that the flotillo was funded by Hamas? Now, I, I don't know if it was or wasn't, but would you believe it because it's reported? The answer is you should not believe it because it was reported. It's exactly the kind of fake that gets made up during a war. It's exactly what gets made up during a war. Was this made up? I don't know. I, I want to believe it's true because it makes a good story, but a little too good. It's a little too good, little too on the nose. So I'm going to say that all data is fake, and probably that. But we see if, if there's followup or we see the documents and somebody, I know, somebody confirms the documents are real, somehow I'll change my mind. But right now I'm, I'm leaning toward no, probably not True. Well, there's a new poll that says 1 in 3Americans now think political violence might be necessary. Now, all data is fake and most polls have some problems, too. Do you believe any poll that. That has this high percentage of people that say that violence might be necessary? Do you believe. Let's. I'll give some details. Let's see. The support for violence is rising faster among Democrats, jumping from 12% thought violence might sometimes be necessary for politics to 28% in just 18 months. And they probably did this after Charlie Kirk was assassinated. Imagine the number among Democrats going up for violence after Charlie Kirk is assassinated. I mean, just try to hold that in your head for a second. Wow. I mean, now I believe that the, this poll was taken after he was assassinated, but I don't have a confirmation in it. So NPR is writing about this if you want to follow up. And let's see, I guess Republicans, well, Republicans still slightly outpace them at 31%. So 28% of Democrats, that's way up. And then independents aren't too far behind. 25% of them, 25% say violence is all right. Well, the 28, as you know, is close to my magical 25, which I say 25% of people in every poll, no matter what the topic is, no matter who does the poll, no matter who answers it, 25% of the respondents will have the most batshit stupid answer that is possible. And this is it. Here's what I think. I think if you call somebody and the only thing that they have to worry about is what they say on the phone. They say, oh, yeah, it's time to. Time to get violent. That's what you say if you're answering a poll question, because you might want that answer to be there. You might be a troll. You might be just trolling, right? But what happens if you go to your neighbor and say, go to your Democrat neighbor and say, all right, it's go time. Grab your gun and meet me in the street because we got to start shooting the bad guys. What happens next? That guy who said, yeah, violence would be a good idea, he realizes that he doesn't own a gun. If he goes out in the street, he will be opposed to the people who have all the guns. So do you think that that guy is going to be in favor of violence if violence was a real option in both directions? I've got a feeling that that 28% are just full of shit. A few of them are going to be antifa types that would do violence, and they're Just crazy and broken, and they're just broken people. But the average, ordinary Democrat, they might say yes in a poll. They're not going to say yes. If, if there are gunshots outside, you know, they're suddenly going to realize they're unarmed. Except for the criminals, I guess, who will just be robbing the people who are trying to do something political anyway. So I don't. I don't believe that poll. I don't believe it on the Democrat side. I don't believe it on the Republican side. I don't believe the independence, I think is the data is fake. Well, the Ryder cup ended yesterday. That's a big golfing thing where various countries compete against other countries. I guess Europe won it. And. But the big story is that a New York, New York, PD Police detective snuck in, and the way he did it was wearing his full police uniform with guns and everything, and he talked his way into the highly secured area where Trump was. Where Trump was. He talked his way in without credentials just by saying he was working on Trump's security. Do you know how they found out he had a weapon? Because he accidentally dropped a clip. Somebody noticed he dropped a clip of bullets on the ground, and they're like, oh, hold on, hold on. Maybe we need to talk to you again. Now, as far as we can tell, he was just a, a cop who wanted to get into the show. So he might have been just a Trump fan and he didn't have a ticket, and he thought, oh, this would be a clever way to get up close and Magazine, not a clip. All right, we'll call it a magazine, not a clip. The. The news story called it a clip. So I was just, I was clipping their clip. But we'll go with the real gun. Gun people, a magazine, not a clip. All right. Anyway, he got kicked out. But the question is, if it was that easy to get in with a loaded gun or, or a gun, how much security does Trump really have? Does make you wonder. So this is the kind of story that tells me that if, if the dictator took over one day and the citizens, you know, by a majority wanted to take out that dictator, they could get to him. You know, the, the security just would do a lesser job. And, yeah, they could get to him. Well, the super bowl has now their halftime entertainment, which is always controversy, and they chose a fellow named Bad Bunny. Now, Bad Bunny, I think, does most of his music in Spanish. So that's the first American provocation going on right there. But secondly, he wears a dress. He's sort of a cross dresser. I don't know if he's non binary or what he is, but. But he likes wearing dresses. And some thinking is that is it. I don't know if this part's true, but is Jay Z and his production company, are they in charge of the super bowl, the entertainment of the Super Bowl? Because I. Some. So some thought that Jay Z was just sort of messing with, you know, messing with America by doing the, what he might think is the worst, you know, the worst choice for the Republican part of the world. So, but, and then the reason that Bad Bunny had was not doing any shows in America. He's going to make this one exception for the Super Bowl. But he wasn't doing that because he was worried that ICE would attend his shows because it would be a large Hispanic population going to his shows. And he's worried that ICE would sort of stand outside and start arresting people and deporting them. So he canceled all of his US shows. Oh, that happened a while ago. So what do you think the US Is going to do about that? Well, Corey Lewandowski, who is part of Homeland Security, he says that, yeah, ICE will definitely be at the game. He said there's no place that is a safe haven for people in this country illegally. Not the super bowl, and nowhere else we will find you, we will apprehend you, we will put you in a detention facility, and we will deport you. So know that there's a very real situation in this administration which is completely contrary to how it used to be. Now, when you first heard that Bad Bunny was concerned and, you know, good Democrats were also concerned that ICE might be at the super bowl getting Bad Bunnies fans and deported them, didn't you sort of automatically think, oh, well, you don't want to ruin the super bowl, so ICE will not be there because, you know, it just seems like the wrong domain for that kind of action. But. But once again, the Trump administration breaks through a wall and basically says, oh, yeah, we're going to be at the super bowl all day long, we're going to deport anybody we can get our hands on that, you know, is the right person to deport. And I gotta say, every time Trump does something that's more baller than you thought he would do, because obviously he would approve of this, it doesn't make me like him less. It doesn't. So acting strong. I've said this before, but I'll say it again. Acting strong will hurt you in the short run because there's always somebody who's totally offended by the strong actions. And this is the beginning of the end. They always think that everything strong turns into something even worse. But in the long term, and there's some. There's a new poll out showing that Trump's popularity is, is going pretty far down. I would argue that that is the mark of a change leader. If you're a big change kind of a leader, you probably have high polling numbers to get elected. That's why you got elected. You had high approval numbers on day one. Everybody's know, optimistic, high, high, high numbers. But as you start doing the things that hurt, because it always hurts to do that much change, the more change you introduce and the faster you introduce it, and nobody's introduced more change than Trump is faster or more, your, your popularity should drop quite a bit in the short run. If the things that you do work out, then half the people who said, oh, no, tariffs are a mistake, well, suddenly they go, okay, I guess I was wrong about tariffs. But not until the long run. If closing the border looks cruel in the short run, but a few years go by and everybody on both sides says, yeah, that had to be done, you're going to forget about all the anecdotal little stories of the, the hairdresser who got deported. Maybe you didn't like that one. All you remember is that there was one president who closed the border when the others couldn't or didn't or wouldn't. So in general, if you had the best president you could ever imagine, the most logical path for his approval would be to start high. Yay, you won the election. You're going to do all these things we want you to do. Oh, wait. Going a little bit too hard. Oh, oh, I wouldn't have done it that way. Oh, Ooh. Maybe if I reduce my approval, you'll. You'll back off a little bit. Oh, I like nine out of ten things you're doing, but I don't like that ten thing. Oh, oh. And your approval, if you're a big change leader, which Trump is, should drop precipitously because people are thinking about that one thing in the news that bothered them that one day, over time, if the things that Trump does work out, and to me they look like they will five, ten years from now, he would be the highest rated president of all time. So if you're worried about these, you know, momentary drops in his popularity, it would have to drop a lot more before it would be even an indication of bad news. All it is now is an indication of people having Short term thinking. That's. That's all it's telling you. It's not telling you anything about Trump. It's telling you. Oh, people think short term. The news has to do the. What's the problem of the day? Of course it goes down. It would. It would be anybody. All right, the government's closed for the second day in a row. Oh, oh, oh, no. What am I going to do with the government shutdown of unnecessary services? I. I need some unnecessary services. Oh, oh, okay. Are any of you affected in any way by the shutdown of the government in any way so far? Not me. I'm sure it'll affect somebody, but I don't know. But there is some thought that the, the shutdown is going to resonate a little bit better for the Republicans than for the Democrats. So I don't know if that's true, but that's what people are saying. They're. Some are calling it this humorous shutdown, but of course, the Democrats are trying to say it's a Republican shutdown. Here's what I'm liking about it. As I told you, I say no more money to the government. If both sides are lying about the budget. Both sides are lying about the budget. Both sides are just lying through their asses by omission and by leaving out context. So, but as. As things are developing, it appears that the GOP lie is the good one. It's the one that's working, because the GOP lie is that they're making it all about giving free health care to illegal people. Is that true? Is it true that. That the money that the Democrats want primarily could be thought of as free money for health care for illegal aliens? Well, that's not true, but it's a little bit true. It's not true because they're not technically illegal. The ones who are here on asylum could still get the services, but they're not technically illegal because they came in through asylum. But if you're a Republican, you don't count them as legal because you know the asylum claim is fake for 98% of them. Maybe a few are real, but 98% of them are lying to get a temporary legal status. A Republican would say that that's just an illegal alien. I might use a different word for it. But if they lied on. On your asylum application, they're an illegal alien. So the Republicans can reasonably and sort of honestly say that there would be more health care if this. The case would be if a asylum seeker who is technically legal, but according to any common Sense Republican opinion, that's an illegal person. They've done two, they've done two illegal things. One is they're in the country illegally in, in the Republican opinion. But also they lied to get in here. Two crimes. They're double illegal. They're more illegal than the illegals. They would be more illegal than somebody who just, just snuck over the border because they did two things, came in illegally and lied about it. That's two. So at the same time that the Democrats are saying, no, no, they're lying, it's a lie. We're not, we're, we're not going to fund any illegals. We're funding the people who pretend to be legal. That's completely different. So CNN can call the Republicans liars, which they do at the same time that they are forced to do a deep dive, as Jake Tapper did, to find out, okay, what, what really is going on here. And the deep dive is not helping Democrats because once you do the deep dive, you see that the, the Republican framing of this that is to fund illegal aliens is not correct. It is not correct. But the truth is just as bad, which is kind of genius. If there's anything I've ever taught you about persuasion is that you can, and it's not always unethical. Usually it is, but not always. You can tell a story that's persuasive as hell, that's not exactly accurate, and you could be doing it in the service of the country. In other words, it could be good for the country if it gets you the funding you want, the services you want, et cetera. But maybe, maybe there was a little shaving of the context, if you know what I mean. So because the critics have to explain why it's not true that the funding is for illegal aliens, in the process of explaining it, they end up defending the Republican view accidentally. It's kind of freaking genius. So if people believe the Republican view on Face, the Republicans win. But if they don't believe it and they also drill down to find out what is true, Republicans win the second time. Because nobody's going to like the fact that just because they came in and illegally said that they're asylum seekers, they get free health care, nobody's gonna like that. All right, I guess Akeem Jeffries went on cnn, Eric Doherty noticed this. And so Jake Tapper was going through this, you know this well, and he goes, so he reads Jeffreys the provision so that Jeffreys can see that in reality people who are non citizens, now, Jake would make the, he would correctly make the distinction that the asylum seekers are non citizens but not technically illegal. So he reads the provision that says that that group would get health care. And then Jeffrey says, let's see, here's what he reads. He goes, Jeffrey's called it a lie. But then Tapper says it's a lie. So he agrees with him. It's a lie that illegals are going to get health care with us. He goes, but you support what you support does bring back funding for emergency Medicaid to hospitals which pays for undocumented immigrants and a provision for people seeking asylum and temporary protective status non citizens. Why even include that? So Jake is saying, why would you even put that in there when you know that's going to stop everything? I don't even know what the other things are, do you? I've only heard of one topic that they want to fund and it doesn't sound like a good idea. Are there other parts that that trillion or dollars is going to go to and just nobody wants to mention it? Republicans don't mention it and the Democrats don't mention either. Well, if they don't mention it, I guess it comes down to this one thing. And to Tapper's credit, although he called it a lie, technically he did also support. Why it's a perfectly good point that the Republicans are making. It's perfectly good point. If they don't want to fund people who are non citizens, that's, that's the choice of voters. And then anyway, so Jeffries didn't have much of an answer to that. He doesn't have much of an answer to anything. All right, it gets better. So the White House, I guess they had to furlough their social media manager because of the shutdown. So instead of not having their social media manager operate from the White House, the White House did one of the funniest things I've ever seen. They, they announced in a post on X our social media manager was furloughed. But making America great again isn't. So they show. So they show a meme that apparently was made by the people who were the, the backup staff, you know, the ones who were not the good social media managers. And so they intentionally made the meme have all the wrong fonts. A terrible design, you know, super simplistic, a little eagle in the corner that's just, you know, two on the nose and hey, cat. But they made the meme so hilariously bad, it looked like something you would made on the first day that PowerPoint was invented. You know, somebody said hey, PowerPoint. What's that? What's it do? All right, watch this. I'll grab these images and I'll put them all together, and I'll put all these different fonts, and it would just be a mess. So if you didn't get the joke that they intentionally designed it poorly, wasn't funny at all. But once you realize that they intentionally made it funny, it's definitely intentional. They intentionally made it bad. It's freaking. It's just great. It's really funny. And then you look at the comments. Then people who got the joke rolled in and they played with the meme themselves. One of them put a little sombrero on the eagle. I mean, just. Just great stuff. So I reposted that on X if you want to look at it. It's definitely worth a look, but a plus to the White House, probably the social media managers were part of designing that. But it's brilliant. It's just brilliant. I saw a post from Cynical Publius, one of my favorite follows. He said that Fat Generals is merely the latest 8020 issue that Democrats have decided to support. On the 20% side, have you heard anybody complain about the Secretary of War saying that the general shouldn't be fat? I haven't heard anybody complain about it. It is another 80 20. We do want our generals not to look fat. I do. I want that. I mean, it's not my number one problem in the world, but, yeah, I want my generals to not be fat. So. Good call. Once again, Democrats on the 20% side. All right, we talked about that. So Harvard has hired a drag queen as a visiting professor. The drag queen's stage name is Lahore Vajastan. Sorry, cat accident. No, no, don't. No, Roman, don't knock over the microphone. You can be at my lab. You can be over here. It's fun to be in my lap. Okay, so here are the classes that their drag queen visiting professor is going to teach. One is Queer Ethnography. So if you wanted a queer ethnography class in Harvard, you could get one now from a drag queen named Lahore Vajastan. But that's not all. You can also attend a class at Harvard called Rue Politics, Drag Race, and Desire, and that will be in the spring semester. Now you tell me, is Harvard trolling, or did they really think this was a good idea for their brand and for the students? What is going on with this? To me, that's just funny. It's just funny that they would destroy themselves. I would like to keep an updated estimate of what the value of a Harvard education was and is, I would say, a few years ago, very few years ago, the value of a Harvard education could be in the millions. You know, if you looked at lifetime earnings, even though it would be expensive to go there, probably one of the best investments you could ever make because of your lifetime earnings. I would. So I would say a Harvard education would probably have been worth $20 million over a lifetime. I mean, really, really valuable. Current value of a Harvard degree. Updating my estimates. See carry the three. $200. $200 current value of a Harvard degree. Did you know that Joy Reid went to Harvard? Yeah, and Joy Reed was just on a show. End Wokeness spotted this and she said, when my mother came from Guyana, she realized it is not a land of opportunity for people like us. Was she talking about America being not a land of opportunity? I believe she was saying that America was not the land of opportunity she thought it was. As N wokeness points out, the average salary in Guyana was $5,200 a year. And Joy Reid came here and earned $3 million a year at MSNBC. So let's say, put it all together, her mother's from Guyana, which means they came to this country well after slavery was done. So was not part of the slavery, but she earned $3 million, probably on the backs of white men who didn't get into Harvard because she did and didn't get a job at NBIS NBC because she did. So question, does Joy Reid owe me reparations? Because she didn't. She didn't. She wasn't part of the legacy of slavery, but she was part of the legacy of denying white men jobs. So do that. Does she owe me reparations? I went through, let's say I. I lost my first career because as a white man. I lost my second career because as a white man, I lost my third career because I'm a white man. She got on the rocket ship to the top through Harvard, which of course considered her ethnicity, and then msnbc, which of course considered her gender and her ethnicity. So she owes me reparations. Right. All right, well, get back to me on that. Do you know Rick Caruso, the developer guy? I think at one point he ran for mayor against Karen Bass but did not win. So he was on the all in Pod event and he was talking on stage with the all in Pod guys and he said, quote, we are spending in the city of Los Angeles $900,000 per homeless person that we're removing from the streets. Chamath said, 900,000 per year because Chamath is unusually smart. And that, that immediately looked like a sketchy number. So it was like 900,000 per year, you know, kind of, kind of challenging him to back that up. Caruso said, yeah. Chamath said, oh my God. So I looked it up on Grok to find out if that $900,000 estimate was real. It's not. There's no number like that. Yeah. So remember, I tell you all data that matters is fake. That's presumably fake data. I think Chamath saw it right away. But, you know, they didn't have, they didn't have the ability to do a deep dive. But I guess I'll ask you guys, Jason, you might be listening, but do a little, do a little search on that, see if you can update that number. If it's true, if you can back it up, that would be really interesting. But Grok is not aware of any. It gave lots of details of what they are spending. It was nowhere near that number. It was still big, but more like a few hundred thousand. So probably fake. Trump just signed some executive order that they say will, according to the Post Millennial, it will supercharge pediatric cancer research with AI. Now that's a good idea. So I think it's mostly an AI related thing, but they want to direct the AI looking at all the. Apparently they have immense amounts of cancer data that would be relevant to childhood, but they don't really have an excellent way to see what that data means, which is strange. I would think that they would have. But apparently they're going to fix that. And you know what I say faster, please, because if they fix it for children, well, you know, they're not going to be working on prostate cancer for children, but they might, they might learn something about cancer that can be useful. Keep me alive a few more years. Here's some more Good news. The U.S. department of Energy is going to take a 5% ownership stake in Lithium Americas Corp. Which, I didn't know this, but apparently Lithium Americas Corp owns rights to look for lithium in a giant a. What do you call it when a volcano is dead? But it's that big volcano hole. Well, anyway, the volcano, the, the non active volcano apparently has the largest lithium deposits in the world in America. So America has the largest lithium deposit in the world. The only thing we don't have is the efficient way to get it legally. So the U.S. department takes a 5% ownership, which presumably will help them get the, get the resources and the approvals and the regulations that they need. Now my question is this. How many, how many companies as the US taken an equity position in intel and there was another one. Few. I feel like we already have taken the value of something that will easily be a few hundred billion dollars. Maybe not right away, but fairly easily will be worth a few hundred million billion dollars. A few hundred billion dollars. And it makes me wonder since I like this model where the government takes a small piece of equity in return for being a more, let's say, active participant in the company's success, where the government makes a difference. I kind of like it. Kind of like it. And it makes you wonder if we could get to paying off the entire debt that way. Cats. So I feel like we could get to a trillion dollars in equity with maybe half a dozen more deals. That would all make sense. That would make sense for the company, that makes sense for the government. And it wouldn't be fascist because they would just have a little equity. Just a taste. I feel like we couldn't pay off the entire $37 trillion debt, but we would at least get on the ride. That can go up, whereas taxes can't go up that much. You know what I mean? So if you check in in five years and the government has taken a bunch of equity in five years, that equity may have doubled in value, it may have tripled in value because of the government's development. So we may have found a way to pay off 5 trillion without raising taxes. I mean, just think about it. This model of if you add tariffs to taking equity, suddenly you have two. It's not, you know, the tariffs I understand often come from the domestic importers, but still it's, it's creating a non directly tax way to, you know, take a bite out of that debt. Maybe that could be good news. I do like the, I do like the government taking equity. If it's a small part, anything over 10% would start. That would be bothersome. But up to about 10%. Yeah, sometimes. All right, the, the Lithium America stocks already went up 130%. I think just on announcements or suspicions of the deal. I don't know if we're already part of that because if we already had our deal, did we already get the upside or did the upside happen before the, the equity was granted? I don't know. But Trump picking up free money for the country, I will never, I'll never dislike that. Well, as you know, there's all these drone sightings over in Europe. So now we've had, and they think it might be Russian drones, but now we've seen Denmark and Estonia and Poland and Romania. And now the latest is Germany got some drones that they can't identify and didn't shoot down, but they look like they're surveilling important infrastructure. So what do you think this is? Is it possible that each of these countries is just saying domestic drones, but they don't know what they're seeing, so they're just imagining that it's, you know, more of a Russia problem because everything's a Russia problem. Or is Putin showing NATO that NATO has no air defense? Because if it is Putin, he is in fact, country by country, proving that they have no air defense. Now, you notice that France is not on the list yet. Would France have a more robust air defense? And maybe that's why they haven't been challenged with drones. What about England? Does England have a little bit better air defense? Because if, if Putin knew that these would be easy targets with no air defense. Let's call it, I'll just name them again. What is it? Estonia and Germany and Denmark and Romania and Poland. I don't imagine that their air defenses would be as robust as, say, France or England. Is that fair to say? I don't think Germany had a robust air defense. So it could be that what Putin is doing is he's, he's preparing for negotiations. That's one possibility. And the one way you could do that is to show the weakness of NATO as an ability to fight. Because if NATO doesn't know it can fight and win and it's, it's going to be an air battle. If there's any battle at all, it'll be in the air. If, if Russia can prove that to NATO. Look, I'm going to prove to you that you could not defend against our attacks. You can't even, you can't even detect our drones for, let's say, four out of five of your NATO countries. Right. That would be a somewhat brilliant persuasion because you wouldn't have to even know for sure it was Russia. Right. All you'd have to know is that all these countries can't control their airspace. And those countries have to think about that. Oh, damn. We can't. We don't have any control over our airspace. None. And that's being proven every day. The other possibility is that Putin is collecting data for an attack. And so he's looking at where they can attack the best. Because remember, Trump has now authorized long term or long range attacks by Ukraine in deep into Russia to go after their critical infrastructure like their energy Infrastructure in particular. Remember I told you that the Ukraine war was going to turn into two things, a robot war on the front line, drones being robots, but also ground robots, and that instead of trying to kill people, the robots would try to kill the energy production in Russia. And they'd only have to get about 20% of it before Russia would have to make a deal because, because that would be. 20% would be cataclysmic. So it could be, could be that Russia is just stiffening up because of that. So the courts in Germany have backed surveilling of the far right, what they call the far right anti immigration group, the AfD. So that would be the right wing group that's picking up influence in Germany. But if, because they're accused as a group, you know, not every person in the group, but, but as a group, they've been accused of saying things that were directed against the human dignity of foreigners, in particular, asylum seekers, as, quote, ethnic strangers. So because the far right was saying that the people coming in with immigration were so different from the Germans that that was causing a problem in Germany. So I guess just saying that they're ethnic strangers was enough to authorize surveillance of all of the, all of the phones of everybody in the party. I think, I think that's what it's saying now. What would happen if somebody like me went to Germany? Would I be automatically breaking a law because of things I had said? Like even during this podcast, would Germany say, oh, here's your social media thing, you can't say that because you, you may have insulted strangers in your, in your own way. Would I be in trouble or would I be automatically surveilled if I entered the country? Because I had a background of saying not every kind of immigration is good for the country. Just, you know, common sensical things, which is what their, their far right is doing. Just common sense. I don't know. But they. Anyway, here's what I would say about the AfD. I believe that they're in defense mode, not political mode now. It's political, of course, but when they're saying this, immigration coming in, this isn't like, let's argue about tax rates or something. They're saying that we're dead if you keep doing this, we're just dead. So from their perspective, they're engaged not in politics as much as literally self defense. And you know what I say about self defense? There are no rules in self defense. Self defense doesn't have rules. There's no morality rule, there's no ethic. Rule, there's just self defense. It's one of those things that it takes you a moment to realize that that's true. No, if somebody's going to kill you or your family right now, but the only way you could stop it is something that someone else would call unethical. That's not a boundary. Save your family. Self fence does not have to be gated by right or wrong. So that's what the political right in Germany understands, that they're involved in self defense. When it comes to immigration, the, the people in charge apparently think it's a political or wokeness or rudeness or bad behavior thing, not what it's self defense. That would be true if it were not self defense. If people were saying, no, we just don't like them because, you know, they, whatever they say, if it wasn't to, to protect their lives and you know, their, their country as, as Germany, then, then you could argue this is, you know, this is bad behavior. You know, we don't insult people and call them different and call them strangers just because they're different. I wouldn't be in favor of that. I mean, I like free speech, but I wouldn't be in favor of that particular brand of it. But once it becomes self defense, which is what this clearly is at this point is clearly self defense, then no, I think the political right doesn't have to apologize for anything. They have to stay out of jail. I don't know how they're going to do that, but they don't have to apologize. Meanwhile, at the Tulsa State Fair, apparently they've got drones and all kinds of AI and facial detection so that you can have, they'll take a picture of your child. So if your child gets separated from you, they could almost instantly find it with a drone or something else, which I kind of like. I kind of like that you, that you could go there and not worry about losing your kid. You know, if you, if you split up. And I like that, you know, it'd be much harder for somebody to try to kidnap your kid or get your kid out of the park if the kid had been ID'd before then. So I can see why they'd like it. And they also say that they will catch people who have outstanding warrants. But it's super creepy, super, super creepy because it's not just the kids. They're gonna, they're gonna take everybody's face. So, you know, there, there's, there goes your privacy at the fair. Would you go to the fair if you knew that it would cost you your privacy. Probably because the only reason people go to the fair is that their kids are bugging them. I don't think people go to the fair for any other reason than their kids. Kids are bugging. At least that's the local fair here. That would be true. Yeah. Let's see. Oh, that was my last story. It went a little long. Sorry. I went long. I hope you enjoyed it. Anyway, I'm going to talk privately to the members of locals. My beloved members of locals. Don't you wish you were beloved? My goodness. All right, everybody, see you tomorrow, same time, same place. And local supporters. I'll be private with you.