My new book Reframe Your Brain, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/3bwr9fm8
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, IKEA Car, Freedom Cities, President Trump, Xi Putin Body Language, Starbucks San Francisco, Israel Gaza War, Biden's Classified Boxes, Candace Owens, Extra Credit Protests, Mike Cernovich, Legal Trend, Deprogramming MAGA Cult, Hillary Clinton, Brainwashing, Deprogramming First Draft, Trump Gag Order, Steve Milloy, Junk Science, Rejecting Palestinian Refugees, Implementing Deprogramming, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.
It's the best thing you could ever be doing, and man, just think of all the other things you could be doing.
They're all worse.
All worse.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody could even ever imagine, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice, a sty and a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine at the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go, go.
That's some good stuff.
Well, let's mix things up a little bit today.
You ready for some trouble?
Anybody want some trouble?
I got some.
I'm gonna bring it to you right now.
But first, these lesser important stories to get you all warmed up.
I need to fluff you a little bit before we get to the good stuff.
So apparently IKEA is gonna make a car that comes flat packed.
So somehow they figured out to make a tiny little electric car, you know, not a Tesla, but you know, even more like a golf cart and would cost less than $11,000 and it would be flat packed and shipped to somebody who would assemble it for you.
Do you think you would drive a car at 55 miles per hour that could be flat packed?
I feel like if you hit something at 55 miles an hour, there wouldn't be much left of you.
But suppose, if you will, that all of the traffic was, by requirement, self-driving.
Well, then it wouldn't matter too much what your car looked like because it would never hit anything else.
It would know where everything else was and avoid it.
But I like the fact that I keep trying this.
I don't know if it'll work.
I wouldn't say that I want one, but I like that they're trying it.
Well, Trump is still pushing his Freedom Cities, which I think is just one of the best ideas any president ever had.
Am I all alone about this?
His idea is to use government land To bid it out to developers who want to build a city from scratch.
The idea is to make it a better city than a normal city, because you design it right from the start, but also that it would be affordable, that ordinary people could afford to live there.
That's totally doable.
If you started from scratch with the idea of building a city that was better to live in than any city, plus way, way cheaper, You can do that.
You can totally do that.
Yeah, there's nothing that would stop you from doing that.
So I like that idea.
I like it.
It creates jobs.
I like that it might make housing more affordable for a lot of people.
It would spur innovation.
It would spur optimism.
It would become a model for other cities.
I tell you, whenever real estate is involved, Trump excels.
Am I right?
Wherever real estate is involved, he's always really good.
And this Freedom City stuff is just perfect.
This is an idea that just couldn't be any better.
It's just a perfect idea.
It's like his perfect phone call.
But think of the other things he does that are real estate related.
No new wars were started during Trump's administration.
No new wars.
What are wars?
Wars are always real estate.
Like the reason given, you know, such as Hamas might be more about just killing people they want to kill.
But at the bottom of everything is real estate.
So he not only ends war by effectively being good at real estate, I guess, but he could build these freedom cities and I know he's really good at real estate.
He also used the same plan to make peace with North Korea.
Remember when he was talking to Kim Jong-un, well actually before he visited him the first time, his administration created a video of how they could develop North Korea, and they could, you know, build these nice buildings there, and maybe even American investment, etc.
So he used a real estate argument to make peace with North Korea.
You just see real estate wherever he goes, and apparently it works.
Anyway.
I love the Freedom Cities.
So President Xi met with Putin.
Putin traveled to China.
And I took a careful note.
You can stop doing the reframe.
I saw it.
I took careful note of the body language.
Have you ever noticed that when people meet President Xi, He looks like he doesn't want to be there and he has he has heartburn.
Very is is usually his eyes are kind of closed and he's got the heartburn face.
And he's he's just sort of wishes he weren't there sort of thing.
They just sort of wish I was somewhere else.
But when Putin showed up.
I looked at his body language.
It was completely inclusive.
He looked like he actually enjoys His company.
Like, he did not look like it was a state visit.
They look like buddies.
Now, Putin didn't.
He seemed more nervous because he wasn't on his home court.
So he seemed a little more formal.
But she looked like, hey, my best friend just came to visit.
It honestly looked like his college roommate came to see him or something.
So if you're worried about that association, maybe that's a little more worrying.
All right, here's a story that I don't believe yet.
I guess this was in the Daily Mail.
You've seen this story before, but the fact that it's again in the news doesn't make me believe it more.
And the idea is that the biggest cartel has banned their own organization from selling fentanyl.
Now, they also have said that they were never in the fentanyl business to begin with.
So the cartel, this is El Chapo's cartel, Sinaloa, I've said two things.
One, we've never been in that fentanyl business whatsoever in any way.
Two, we're totally getting out of the fentanyl business and we'll kill you if you try to sell any.
And then there are stories that they actually killed some of their own people who tried to sell fentanyl.
I don't know if I believe any of that.
Do you?
Does that sound like a real story?
Like whatever is real is probably three layers below this.
You know, that there might be some kind of a weird agreement to go easy on one cartel if they help us take down the other cartels.
You know, I've often thought if I were in charge, I would get the head of one of the cartels, El Chapo, and I'd make a deal.
Say, look, we're just going to keep crushing just your cartel.
Nobody else's.
We're going to put all of our attention just crushing your cartel.
Unless, unless you'd like to flip.
Get out of the, get out of the fentanyl business completely, and then help us take down the other cartels.
Maybe.
I mean, it might be the best you can do, because you probably can't get them totally out of business.
That seems unlikely.
But you could maybe cut it down to just cocaine and weed and meth, and then it's not as bad as fentanyl.
So maybe something like that's happened.
We have no visibility on it whatsoever.
Well, Starbucks in San Francisco is closing seven stores.
The company declined to provide comment as to whether it was crime related.
Let me see if I can piece this together.
A San Francisco Starbucks closed.
What would be all the possible reasons for that?
Well, one would be unprofitable.
Do you believe there's ever been an unprofitable Starbucks in San Francisco?
Do you think that's happened even once in the history of Starbucks?
Somebody says yes.
Maybe.
Unprofitable.
Well, unprofitable because of crime.
Maybe.
But not unprofitable because people don't want to buy expensive coffee in San Francisco.
That's not a thing.
So San Francisco continues its decline toward an agrarian situation.
Have you seen all the video?
Changing the topic now.
Going from one hellscape to another.
We'll go from San Francisco to Gaza.
Have you seen all the video of the Gaza attacks?
The new ones I'm talking about.
The ones in the last 24 hours, have you seen them?
Nope.
No, you haven't.
You haven't seen any attacks.
No.
You've seen old ones.
You might have seen a still picture that was taken who knows when.
But nope, you are not going to see any video of whatever is happening in Gaza.
Now, you knew that was coming, right?
Not just because it's war.
But because it's a war in which the hearts and minds are such a big part of the story.
So yeah, you're not going to you're not going to see anything.
You might see some stuff snuck out and then you're going to wonder if it's real.
Somebody very nicely sent me an axe this morning.
Probably the most disturbing image I've ever seen in my life.
Like scarred for life kind of image.
Now I wish they hadn't.
But I looked at it and I said to myself, how do I know that came out of Gaza?
How would I know?
It was just a picture of the most horrible thing I've ever seen in my life.
But I don't know where it came from.
So I blocked the person who sent it.
Anyway, let's talk about Biden's boxes.
This seems like the least important story in the world, doesn't it?
We're watching the world explode.
The Middle East and Ukraine and all that.
But it turns out, do you remember the narratives that we were told about Biden's boxes?
So you had the Trump boxes, which were a big problem.
I'm talking about the Mar-a-Lago boxes that had secret stuff in it.
Oh, those were some bad boxes.
We're not sure, but probably nuclear submarine stuff.
You know, maybe space laser stuff.
I mean, he had the good secrets and, and I'll tell you, not only did he have the really dangerous secrets, but he was showing them to people who visited.
Oh, look the bad stuff he was doing.
And, uh, and he was trying to hide from the prosecutors, like moving it around and lying and trying to keep stuff.
Oh, he did everything wrong.
Oh my God.
Now, if you compare that to the moment, The moment that Biden found out he had some boxes in his garage that didn't belong there, turned it in, reported it, cooperated, and just the contrast was so huge.
One, probably some kind of criminal trying to get away with stuff.
The other, innocent mistake.
An innocent mistake, quickly corrected.
And probably nothing in those boxes to worry about anyway.
Well, enter Jonathan Turley.
To inform us that it turns out there might be a little bit of question on that Biden box timeline situation.
It might be that on a number of occasions they've been relocated.
It might be that a lot of them were in one place and then they were doled out to different locations such as the Penn Center and different houses.
Which would suggest a long knowledge that they existed and decision making about which parts went where.
Over a long period of time.
That's right.
There's a little more to the story.
Jonathan Turley can tell you.
Just Google him and Biden's boxes and it'll pop right up.
But it was all bullshit.
The whole, oh, oh, we didn't know we had some boxes.
I guess we better turn these in right away.
Oh, and by the way, have you heard this speculation about the secrets that are in Biden's boxes?
Because I've heard lots of speculation about what was in Trump's boxes.
Why no speculation about Biden's boxes?
Maybe nuclear secrets?
What about all the nuclear secrets?
Are they only in Trump's boxes?
Nothing is true.
The news is just completely made up.
They're just all bullshit, top to bottom.
Biden's boxes.
All right.
Bill Maher, I think it was on Friday on his show, was talking about the word colonizer.
He was talking about how the Hamas is calling the residents of Israel colonizers.
But, and I think he was quite cognizant of the fact that if you're calling somebody a colonizer, you're kind of marking them for bad treatment.
Like, nobody likes a colonizer.
Although he was making the point, which is that the Hamas would think that Jews anywhere in the world are colonizers.
So there does seem to be a question about how much of the Hamas-Palestinian-Israel situation is about real estate.
Because there are smart people who say, no, no, Scott, it's not about real estate.
You have to understand that one group wants the other group dead.
But would they want them dead?
There's never been a dispute about real estate.
In other words, are the Uyghurs, you know, also they want to kill the Vietnamese who've never left Vietnam?
Are they colonizers?
Does Hamas say, you know, all those Sri Lankans, we got to get them next, those colonizers?
I don't think so.
So I don't think you can separate real estate from the hatred Yeah, I think it's all one big ball.
So to say it's either just hate or it's just real estate.
Both wrong.
It's some kind of weird mix of those two things and other things too.
But I would like to point out as many times as I need to that if you're in America and some American is calling you a colonizer, that person.
It's a prelude to violence.
Have I ever told you that?
The thoughts turn into words.
Words turn into action.
I didn't make that up.
That's an old saying.
So if people have already turned their thoughts into this word, colonizer, colonizer suggests a specific set of future actions, right?
It's not a general word that, hey, anything could happen.
Once you said colonizer is your point of view, that does narrow what you imagine are the acceptable ways to go forward.
And I wouldn't want to be around anybody like that.
So get some distance between yourself and any people who are talking those terms and use words like colonizer, which is the C word for white people.
It's the N word for white people, basically, with a C. Here's a story that's just blowing my mind.
If I didn't know the people involved, I would say this was fake news.
This is Candace Owens.
I consider her high credibility.
She's telling about her own experience, right?
So it's unlikely this is wrong.
So just hold in your head that this is a real thing that happened in the real world.
I'll just read it.
This is Candace Owens.
Two years ago I enrolled in an online course at UCLA Law.
I kid you not when I say my final exam essay was to argue against Project Veritas by representing the arguments of the New York Times in their ongoing defamation case.
For weekly extra credit in this class, we were encouraged to show proof of attending various social justice events.
Imagine attending a protest for extra credit?
Candace says I declined to attend these events, but I'm sharing this experience now to underscore just how severe the indoctrination has become.
I had no idea.
Like as bad as you think it might be, you don't really realize it's gone to this level.
I mean, I just really I had no idea.
So professors are literally offering to improve your grade if you tend to protest or get involved in a variety of their left leaning causes.
Now that doesn't quite seem like education, does it?
That just feels like pure indoctrination.
It's just propaganda and programming.
And it gets worse.
In the same class, the assigned textbook stated that Donald Trump gassed protesters on his way to visit the church during the BLM riots.
That's one of the most famous debunked hoaxes.
It's in a textbook.
Have you heard me say a whole bunch of times, how would anybody write the history of the last seven years?
How would you do it?
Because there are two completely different histories.
If you've lived through the last seven years, you know that there are two histories and they don't match.
So if you're going to write a history book, there's no way in the world you can combine them because they're just totally incompatible.
And there's no way you can pick one of them.
Because one of them's gonna be bullshit.
And the other one, who knows?
Maybe that one's bullshit too.
But we have this entirely fake history, so we can guarantee, not just wonder, but you can guarantee that the time you live through, your own life, will be recorded as fake history.
In other words, there'll be a fake version that doesn't match what you actually live through.
And that will be taught to the kids and the grandkids.
And that's a done deal.
I'm not saying that we must worry about this happening.
I'm saying it's done.
History's been erased and replaced by bullshit.
Probably always has been.
Probably always has been.
All right.
Mike Cernovich gives a warning that... Scared the shit out of me.
So I'm going to scare the shit out of you by just quoting, okay?
So Cernovich posted this today.
It was in response to Candace's thing that I just read.
He said, yep, these are going to be law clerks for federal judges.
We won't have a functioning legal system within 10 years, maybe five.
I've told every conservative I know to make sure their kids have been taken care of financially and be prepared to face false charges.
He's completely right.
The way things are heading, and I don't see anything that's going to change it right away, conservatives will just be arrested for made-up charges.
Because all it takes is that there be enough people of a particular point of view to be in the right jobs, and there's nobody to overturn it.
So if you got the DA, Well, you're okay if the judge is on your side.
You know, the judge is not too woke.
That might correct it.
But what if the DA and the local politicians and the judges are all the same point of view?
How could you possibly have anything like justice?
You wouldn't expect it.
So, you sort of mentioned saying it could get to the point where people are essentially hunted with lawfare.
Now, that is my biggest concern at the moment, that I'll be charged with something fake.
And I don't think there's a defense against it in today's world.
I believe if you get charged in the right place, and I live in a place where I've got a Soros prosecutor in my county, I'm thinking of moving just for that reason.
It's the most dangerous risk I have, is being in the same jurisdiction with a Soros prosecutor.
Am I wrong?
I think it's a bigger danger than any natural disaster.
By far.
Yeah.
The odds of me dying in a natural disaster in California?
0.001, right?
Like, hardly worth thinking about.
The odds of me being arrested by a Soros prosecutor on a made-up charge?
Pretty good.
It was well over 10%.
I don't know what it is, but it's well over 10%.
All right.
There's a story about this Cornell professor who said that when he watched the Hamas attacks, he felt exhilarated and energized by what he called this challenge to the monopoly of power.
Now that's being interpreted as he was energized and exhilarated by the murder of innocent people.
He didn't say that exactly, but he didn't say he was mad about it.
You know, if he didn't mean it, it would have been a good time to say, I'm not talking about the innocent people being slaughtered or something like that.
But he didn't, which suggests that he didn't care too much about it.
He might have cared more about what he felt was some rebalance of power that he thought was important.
I think he's still employed.
Cornell is a place I almost went to college.
Almost went to college there.
And I would be pretty embarrassed if I had.
I'm sure my own college isn't doing much better.
All right.
You heard that Hillary Clinton said she wants to deprogram anyone who, quote, worships at the altar of MAGA.
So Hillary wants to deprogram conservatives.
What do you think of that?
Is that a good idea or a bad idea?
Because she's talking about those who have a cult-like belief in Trump.
Cult-like.
I'm all for it.
Are you against it?
Why would you be against that?
If she can find anybody who has a cult-like following of Trump, they should get deprogrammed.
I've never met one.
Have you?
Have you ever met somebody who had a cult-like belief in Trump?
I've never seen it.
There are people who love the show, and there are people who like the politics.
You know, they like the show, and they like, you know, his policies, and they think he did a good job.
But I don't think I've met anybody who, to me, looked like they were somehow hypnotized.
So if he wants to find people that she thinks are hypnotized and deprogram them, Go ahead.
I don't think she'll find anybody.
I mean, it's not, it wasn't a real suggestion, right?
However, I do think that the world has reached the point where deprogramming our fellow citizens is a requirement for survival.
It used to be that we were all crazy little people in tribes.
And if you did some crazy stuff in your tribe, the worst, worst thing could happen is your tribe dies.
And all the other tribes are doing fine.
They don't even know you're gone.
Didn't even have communication.
But given that people can communicate instantly and infect other people with their ideas, and given that an individual can destroy, you know, a gigantic building in a major city, or, you know, do all kinds of damage, given that individuals have so much power for destruction, we're gonna have to start deprogramming people.
I don't think it's optional.
Do you?
You get that we're reaching a point where it won't be optional.
We have to deprogram the dangerous people.
They just will have too much access to firepower.
What else can you do?
Here's a little wild card.
However good humans are at programming people, AI is going to be better.
Not right away.
I don't think it's there yet.
But AI can learn all the rules of persuasion.
And just start reprogramming people, assuming that they use the internet.
Now, it would require the right, you know, collection of AI and platforms and governments to make sure that the right things are happening.
And that's a big yes.
But in theory, AI could look at the problems of people disagreeing and could create something like a deprogramming subroutine.
And it could reprogram anybody.
So it wouldn't just be, you know, woke people on the left, and it wouldn't just be Hamas.
It could be some people on the right.
You don't think there are some people on the right who need to be deprogrammed?
Now, I'm not going to start a big fight and tell you that the people who believed in Q should have been reprogrammed, but it would have been interesting to see if they'd gone through a course that tried to do it.
Would it change their minds?
Or would the instructor become a Q-Believer?
One of those two things might happen.
So I'm not going to say that the reprogramming applies to only one side, but there is a big qualitative difference in how the brainwashing is done on both sides.
So there are differences.
However, I thought that I would create for you a deprogramming course, which I just posted on X-Platform.
It's the first draft.
It's the first draft of how to deprogram people.
And let me tell you what's on.
All right, so it's pretty long.
Just the first draft.
Now, the first draft is just bullet points, right?
So there's no chapters or anything like that.
It's just a bunch of bullet points.
Sort of organized a little bit into categories.
But let me tell you what the categories would be.
So this would be a college course to deprogram People who have been, let's say, too woke or believe what the Democrats are feeding.
And again, Democrats are not the only people feeding bullshit to their people.
I'll say that a hundred times.
Because you need to hear that, right?
We're all subject to being programmed by our own team.
Far more than we're programmed by the other team.
So here are the things I would put on a course to deprogram somebody.
I first have a reading list.
And I would include in my books, God's Debris and Winn Bigley.
God's Debris, because if you haven't read it, you won't understand this, but it's basically just a mind opener.
It doesn't try to tell you what's true or even what's false.
It's just a fiction and it's just to open your mind.
So I would use that as my first book.
And people would say, Oh, that's not true.
That thing in that book was wrong.
And I would say, it's just fiction.
It's just so you can imagine things being different than your normal view.
That's all.
It's just opening your imagination.
Then Wim Biggley is a story about Trump's persuasion game.
So you can learn about persuasion that's being applied by everybody all the time.
But you can also get a different view of Trump that's opposite of the he's a monster, just so you see it.
You don't have to believe it.
You just have to see what other people say or how they see the same situation.
I would also want to add to my reading list books that debunk hoaxes.
Because there are probably a number of them.
I think Cheryl Atkinson probably has a book on that.
So I picked the best one or two books that show how many hoaxes the country has been subjected to.
Because you want to give somebody an idea that this has always been true.
I'd want something that talked about Project Mockingbird, so you can know that the CIA once had a mission to program the country.
And then I would tell them about how there was a law against that at one point, so the law changed, they couldn't do that.
And then Obama, I believe, changed the law back so they could.
And then what we observe, It appears to be a massive influence campaign by our own intelligence people.
Now, I don't know if it is, but if I were training people, I would tell them, it used to be done, so we know it can be done and there's a reason to do it.
Then it was illegal.
Now it's legal again.
What do you think is happening?
Do you think he made it legal so that nobody would do anything differently?
He made it legal so they would do it.
You know, specifically, To make sure that it could be done.
So of course it's being done.
Can you spot it?
Well, that would be part of the class.
So I would also give them a list of what I call the alleged disinformation spreaders.
Or you could call them just the team players.
The people who are not trying to inform you of both sides of anything.
These are just people who you could reliably assume are giving you one narrative.
You know, their team narrative.
And some of them would just be pure liars.
All right, so I'm not going to just distinguish on this list the pure liars from the people who are just narrative masters.
You know, they're going to give you their view.
But here are the ones that you should at least have a little flag that goes up.
Now, I should do this for the political right.
Probably will.
But at the moment, these are names on the left that are just a pure signal for fake news, right?
I'll just read you the names.
And again, this is alleged and just being a team player doesn't mean you're breaking any laws.
It just means that you should take anything they say with a grain of salt.
Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell.
And by the way, if there's any name on this list you don't recognize, that's a problem.
That's a problem.
Because you might run into them and read their stuff and say, well, that's a credible person.
No.
All right.
John Brennan, James Clapper, Lawrence Tribe.
Do you recognize the names?
Every one of them, you should not believe a word they say.
Which is not to say everything they say is wrong, but they have the lowest credibility of anybody in the news.
Here's some more.
Jonathan Greenblatt, the ADL Abby Phillips, Max Boot, General Hayden, Dan Goldman, Jamie Raskin, Dean Obadiah, Stephan Collison, John Avalon.
Those are CNN people.
Glenn Kessler, Phil Bump, Jennifer Rubin.
Now, before any of them sue me, this is an opinion based on observation.
All right?
That these are the people you could trust the least on the left.
I could absolutely make the same list on the right.
Would you all agree?
Well, you're not going to fight me on that, right?
I can make the same list, same length on the right.
All right, I haven't done it because I'm just trying to make this one go down well, but I probably should.
I should, right?
Yeah, and I would make a distinction between the, let's say, the You know, the John Avalon, Stephen Collinson's and the Hannity's.
They're sort of in the same business.
They're more narrative people.
But that's different from somebody who will look you in the eye and just lie.
That is different, right?
I have no reason to believe that several of these people would look you in the eye and just lie.
But they're definitely going to leave stuff out and spin and create a narrative.
All right, what else?
I would teach people in this class the dog not barking rule.
So instead of just looking at the news, they would always ask, shouldn't there be something in the news that's not being mentioned?
And then teach them the importance of the dog not barking.
Why is this all being ignored?
Why are we not looking at this?
It's a very important lesson.
I would teach them about words, which words are the dangerous Persuasive words like patriarchy, colonizer, mega extremist, cult member.
You hear any of those words and somebody's got violence on their mind.
That's important to know.
All right.
Then I would also teach them how to identify fake news.
So I just, first draft, I put it into three categories.
Things that are probably true, maybe a 50-50, and things that are probably fake.
And then other things that are pure propaganda.
All right?
So just quickly, these are things which are probably true.
So these are the tells for something probably true, not guaranteed, but probably.
If one of the sides is telling you the story, the left or the right news, and the other side is completely ignoring it, it's probably true.
Because if it were not true, the other side would debunk it.
If you see a claim and then a debunk, well, you're not really sure what's true.
And that could work in either direction.
One side makes a claim, the other one debunks it, and it could go either way.
But if one makes a claim, shows their evidence, and the other side treats it like no news happened, it's probably true.
Because that's the dog not barking.
There's a reason it's being ignored, because it's not convenient.
All right?
Both sides report the same thing as true.
It's probably true, right?
If they both said there was a hurricane, there was probably a hurricane.
If all the studies forever have pointed in the same direction, no matter how you do the study, that's probably true.
I doubt there are many, I don't think there are too many studies that show you that smoking cigarettes is good for your health.
Probably not.
I mean, within the last, I don't know, 30 years?
So, that's probably true.
Everything points in one direction.
I like, whenever science matches my own observations, I'm more likely to think it's true.
Doesn't guarantee it, but at least that's two things going for it.
The science plus your own observation.
If there's one narrative that predicts better than the other, that's probably true.
So if you got the left and right, you have different narratives, you know, a story of how to understand something.
Well, if one of them predicts, oh, these people say, for example, one narrative is that Hamas wants real estate.
So they would like some real estate in Israel.
The other narrative might be that they want to kill all Jews and the real estate part is more incidental to the big plan.
Well, predict.
If it's about real estate, the prediction would be that they would negotiate some kind of access, real estate, right of return, maybe give up something to get it.
But if they just want to kill Jews, then you would see something like what just happened.
So which one predicted better?
It's pretty clear in this case.
All right.
So a few other things on there, witnesses, etc.
Here's some coin flips.
If you see one scientific paper that hasn't been peer-reviewed, maybe yes, maybe no.
Probably a little less than a coin flip that is true.
What if it's one scientific paper and it has been peer-reviewed?
Exactly the same.
The peer review adds nothing.
In the modern world, the peer review has no value at all.
Just discount it.
So one scientific paper, meh, you don't really know.
What about a meta-analysis where they looked at a whole bunch of studies, none of those studies were great, but, you know, they looked at them all to see what the overall is.
Nope.
You can fake meta-studies too easily.
They're not science or bullshit.
About if there's a video or audio of the event, you could actually see it with your own eyes.
Is it true?
You're seeing it with your own eyes.
You're listening to it.
It's about 50-50.
If it's political, there's about a 50% chance it was taken out of context.
And now you have to add that it might be a deep fake.
It might not even be real people.
Things that are probably fake.
So if you didn't know anything else but these things, you would say, hmm, it's probably fake.
There's a lot of money involved.
Climate change, wars, everything you hear about, anything that has a lot of money involved.
We're not talking about a little money.
We're talking about a lot of money.
That stuff's usually fake.
Because the people who have a lot of money involved can pay to make some fake news appear.
They can fund a fake study.
They can create a fake, what do you call it, a think tank.
They can create a fake fact-checking group.
They can create a fake watchdog group.
So, If there's enough money going around, they can make anything that's fake look true.
So money is a very strong signal for not true.
What if neither CNN nor Fox News report it because neither of them think it's true?
Is it true?
Neither Fox News nor CNN.
They both say it's not true.
Probably not true.
Yeah, no guarantees.
These are just working with statistics.
If you had one anonymous source, is it true?
No.
If you have two anonymous sources, is it true?
No.
No.
Two anonymous sources is just like one.
It means nothing.
There's no evidentiary value of an anonymous source in politics.
It's most likely not true if you hear that there are sources like that.
How about a witness under oath who's reporting what somebody else saw or heard?
So there's a witness under oath who says something like, I didn't see the UFOs myself, but I definitely talked to the people who did.
Is it true?
No, it's never true.
No, no, I shouldn't say never, you know, maybe, but no, don't believe anything like that.
Being under oath means nothing.
If you're talking about what somebody else told you, there's no value to be under oath.
How about there are only fuzzy photos and videos and that's the best you can do?
No, it's not true.
How about a randomized controlled trial?
A randomized controlled trial.
Is that going to be valid?
Depends who funded it.
Yeah, depends who funded it.
So probably not.
Probably not.
How about a randomized controlled trial?
With the funding is unknown.
So you don't know who funded it?
Nope!
Not gonna believe that either.
I don't know who funded it.
It has no evidentiary value whatsoever.
What if one side says it's true and the other side says it isn't?
Is it true or not true?
CNN or Fox News and you can reverse them.
It could be either way.
One says it's true and the other says it's not true.
Probably not true.
More likely not true.
What if it's a story about a public figure?
Is it true or not true?
Never.
It's never true.
But stories about public figures always leave out the important context.
Always.
If you don't know that, everything looks weird.
They don't even do a story about a political figure unless there's a way they can distort it to make it interesting.
All right, how about if the story is new and breaking in the context of a war.
So let's say there's a fresh war and some news comes out.
Is it true?
Nope.
Nope.
Yeah, the only thing that might be true is that one group of people is attacking another group of people.
That might be true.
But almost every other anecdote, video, story, data, statistics, In the heat of war, none of that's true.
It's just all bullshit.
And then there's the pure propaganda.
These are the ones where, for example, when context is intentionally omitted.
I always tell you about the one where somebody will give you a raw number, but not tell you if that's a big percentage.
That's propaganda.
And the reverse.
They tell you the percentage of something, but they, for some weird reason, they leave out the raw number.
That's propaganda.
The only way you can understand a thing is to know both the raw numbers and the percentage.
If anybody looks at one or the other, that's not news.
That's propaganda.
If somebody uses analogies instead of an argument, that's propaganda.
And it goes like this.
Those MAGA people are basically like Hitler in 1939.
That's always propaganda.
It's just something reminding you of something that you turned into hyperbole.
That's not real.
About which sources to trust.
This one's tough, but people need to know that the news isn't real.
And I worry that they do.
Like I always talk about my smart Democrat friend.
I'm positive he believes that the New York Times and the Washington Post and CNN are telling him real news.
I think he actually believes that.
Now, I think a lot of the country does.
Because if you'd never been exposed to how many stories were obviously fake, how would you know?
And the people on the right hear those stories about, you know, the debunkings, the corrections, the, you know, the obvious planted by some intelligence or FBI or something.
We hear that all the time, if you're watching all the news.
But if you're only watching the sources that produce it, they'll tell you the real news.
How do you know the difference?
So anybody who's got raised on what they thought was real news probably thinks it still exists, except they're pretty sure the other side is fake.
I'll tell you, anybody who says the news that they're reading is the real stuff, and the stuff the other people is reading is fake, they're lost.
That's as lost as you can be.
That's maximum lost.
Once you get to the point where you don't believe anything, and your best bet is to look for these tells and signals, and then you're also looking for bull stories, you've got a chance.
But if you're only looking at one side, you don't have a chance.
Uh, then I would look, I would teach people the tricks.
You know the trick about the headline that doesn't match the story?
How many times have we seen that?
The headline will say something like, uh, Republican slaughters a group of people with his car.
And you're like, oh my God, a Republican slaughtered a bunch of people with his car?
And then you read the story and it's like, he's a race car driver and he won the race.
He slaughtered all the other competitors.
You're like, I thought he'd guilt people.
Now, I made that one up.
That's not real.
But the point is that the headlines will be provocative, and then you read the story, and often in the last paragraph, it will completely debunk its own story.
It's a very common political story to do that.
Then there's a trick where you just do some fake news.
Everybody gets excited about it.
Then you print a correction.
Whoops, it was wrong.
And 1% of the people who saw the fake news Will ever know that you corrected it.
They'll just never see it.
So you bury the correction.
You teach them the Nancy Pelosi wrap-up smear.
And basically the way that you use the news to support your lies.
So the way that works, I think I have this right.
So a politician will tell a lie to a person in the press.
Oh, this thing is true.
The press will say, I've got a secret source and they'll print the story.
And then the person who created the story will point to the news and say, hey, don't believe me, believe the news.
Hey, but you wouldn't know that it's only in the news because that person that you're talking to put it there and that they've got a friendly reporter who's willing to believe them without too much proof or willing to play along and just do fake news.
So if you don't know that that's a thing, that the politicians get the reporters to report things anonymously, So that the politician can say it's true because it's in the news.
If you if you're unaware of that trick.
You're really going to be lost again.
The news is going to be confusing, but once you know that trick, yeah, you can spot it.
Alright.
And then I would do the hoax quiz you've all seen where I've got all the Trump hoaxes and teach people how those hoaxes were done.
And then I would also teach them the tells for cognitive dissonance.
Which are, if you're having a discussion with somebody and you've made a good point, if they counter your point, well, they might have a good argument.
But if they do one of these things that I'm going to tell you, they're already in cognitive dissonance and there's nothing you can do.
It means that they're having a psychological event.
They're no longer in the debate.
One of them is a quick change of topic.
Well, that's a tell, right?
If you can't even stay on the topic, it means you lost it.
Ad Hominem and Attack.
You make a good point and the person says, well, you stupid maggot.
I'm like, what?
I just made a point that's based on data that you can check yourself.
Oh, you maggots.
You maggots believe everything.
Then there's the mind reading.
The mind reading.
Oh, yeah, I know what you're really thinking.
And what you're really thinking is, and that's something you're not thinking and nobody would ever think.
The crazy mind reading, that's a tell.
The word salad, where they just started saying words, but you're listening like, I'm not even sure any of that made sense.
That's a tell.
The people who resort to an analogy and try to sell you that since the analogy is something we all understand, that that tells you something about a completely different situation.
It doesn't.
It's just a thing that reminded you of it.
If you accept their frame, you're an idiot.
Never discuss an analogy.
Do you know what I do when somebody says, well, but what about this?
They give some analogy.
I say, well, that's a good story about a completely different situation.
Do you have any method that applies to what we're talking about?
Never engage an analogy.
Best advice I'll ever give you.
As soon as you see the analogy, say, no, it's just a different situation.
I don't really want to talk about all the ways it's different, but if you could defend this situation with actual reasons, that'd be great.
There are other things that are too complicated to explain.
Oh, we could talk all day, but it's too complicated.
You'll never get it.
That's sort of a tell.
And the Sotel.
So, you're saying that pigs can fly?
No.
No, I didn't say anything like that.
So, you're saying that cars don't have engines?
No!
No, I didn't say that.
So, you're saying that clouds don't exist in the sky?
No!
No!
I'm not saying any of that!
You know, the Jordan Peterson thing.
Anyway, this is the first draft.
of a course for correcting or deprogramming somebody who's been programmed.
And yes, it could be done to the left and the right.
Now, here's why it should be done.
At the moment, we talk about the other side needing to be deprogrammed, right?
Blah, blah, blah.
Do you see it?
Do you see my blah, blah, blah?
If my hand were not going blah, blah, blah, There'd be no visual to the story.
Right?
There's no visual.
There's also no fear.
Right?
You've got this general sense that it would be better if people had, you know, access to real news.
But you're not afraid of it, like you're gonna run away.
So your two biggest tools of persuasion are not available to you.
It's not a so scary somebody has to run away and do something right away and there's no visual element to it.
It's just this idea that people should be deprogrammed and that's why.
There needs to be an actual entity.
Ideally, a physical location.
You know, ideally, but that that's a lot to ask, but at the very least there should be a book or a course guide.
You should be able to put a picture of the course guide.
on the X platform and say, hey, if you want to see if you need to be deprogrammed, here's the guide.
Check it out.
See how many hoaxes you believe in.
Now, that's why the hoax quiz that I created has been so successful.
How many of you have seen my hoax quiz on a platform somewhere?
Most of you?
I think most of you have seen it, right?
And the reason you've seen it is because it's portable.
It's really easy to take a screenshot.
I made sure it wasn't so long that it's like multiple pages.
It's like just nice, tight little list.
And the fact that I made it physical is what made it visual.
So it's not just that there are a bunch of things that are questionable.
It's that you can see them on a list.
You look at them.
So this idea of deprogramming the left or deprogramming Hamas or whoever you think needs to be deprogrammed, you need to turn it into an actual product.
It's got to be a document.
Or a building.
Or there has to be a professor.
You know, an actual class with a time, a location, and a technique.
Once you get that going, Then you can have a real conversation about how programmed we are as opposed to making good decisions.
So, I don't think it needs to be a book.
If it's book-sized, nobody's going to read it.
That's the trouble.
You're not going to get anybody if it's book-sized.
All right, here's a few other things.
There's a Trump gag order.
Federal Judge Tanya Chukin.
So it's a tailored big gag order for Trump, so he's not allowed to disparage witnesses, prosecutors, or court employees.
Now, the trouble would be, as someone, I think the editorial board at the Wall Street Journal pointed out, imagine if Trump got in a debate with Mike Pence, because Mike Pence is a witness to the January 6th stuff.
He wouldn't be able to criticize Mike Pence because the court wouldn't let him.
He would anyway, I'm sure.
Now, that's probably not going to come up, but you don't think Trump should be able to criticize his opponents in an election?
Of course he should be able to criticize them.
So, I've seen some people helpfully suggest that they should violate the order and go to jail, but that's easy for you to say.
It's easy for us to be sitting here and say, you know what?
You know what would be a good strategy for someone else?
If they would go to jail, but just for a little while.
No, that's not a good strategy for other people.
I mean, it might happen, but you don't want to make that happen.
Nobody wants to spend a night in jail just to get a little more power.
I mean, I don't think Trump does.
Although it would give him more power.
So, I believe this will help him.
And, you know, the thing that would help Trump the most would be if somebody put a gag order on him that he couldn't say anything about the election ever.
Right into office.
Because you know, 95% of Trump's risk is whatever he says between now and election day.
Am I right?
95% of his risk is what he says between now and election day, because that's what they'll be attacking.
In my opinion, Trump has brilliantly stayed under the provocation line, and it looks intentional, because he knows how to provoke.
We all know that.
He knows where the line is, and he knows what is too far.
He's going up to the line, but he's not crossing it.
And that appears to be a brilliant political strategy, because the thing that people worry the most about him is that he goes too far.
He's the goes too far guy.
So if he gives you a solid year of not going too far, you're going to say to yourself, oh, I get it.
It was always optional.
And when it worked, he went too far because it got him attention.
But when the going-too-far caused more trouble than it was solving, he pulled it back.
Now that would be a big confidence builder, even for the people on the right, to see that he can moderate.
Because they're not so sure he can moderate.
They feel like he's just a crazy guy doing crazy stuff.
That is so not who he is.
He is very, very strategic, even with the provocative stuff.
Very strategic.
So, It would help a lot, the people who are worried about him, to just see him, you know, be somewhere closer to the middle in terms of his provocations.
But of course, he's always provocative.
All right.
Lakers ex-player Rick Fox.
He's working with some company that's building houses out of concrete that can suck the CO2 right out of the atmosphere.
So there's a kind of concrete That will absorb CO2 into it, as opposed to producing more CO2 than the concrete sucks.
So I don't think that's going to be the big solution to anything, but there it is.
So it's kind of interesting.
Now, how many of you follow Steve Malloy at Junk Science?
So he questions climate change mostly.
I swear, it is so interesting following his account, because it's a whole parallel world in which everything's opposite.
And I don't know if he's right or wrong.
I just don't have the qualifications to do it.
But I'll tell you what I think I know.
What I think I know is that he uses only the government's own data.
So when he makes a claim about the temperature has or has not changed, Or a claim about the CO2 levels.
My understanding is he's using only official government data.
And then he shows it to you in a variety of ways to show you that there's no relationship between CO2 and temperature historically.
Now, that's not my claim.
I'm telling you that he's using official data.
He's showing his work and he's saying, look for yourself.
Now his claim would be that there hasn't been any identifiable warming in quite a few recent years.
So that's claim number one.
But also even more provocative is the claim that the data shows clearly that temperature goes first and then CO2 goes up with temperature.
So it's not temperature, it's not CO2 causing temperature.
It's temperature causing CO2, because when you look at the data, you can see that the temperature went up before the CO2.
Now that's the claim.
That's not my claim.
It's the claim.
Now, what do you think are the odds that the entire scientific community didn't notice that the causation was backwards?
Is that possible?
The entire industry Not noticing that the correlation was backwards?
It's entirely possible.
It is entirely possible.
Every day, almost, I didn't do it today, almost every day, well, I guess this is the example, I tell you about a scientific study that appears to have causation backwards, and obviously so.
Like, obviously!
Right?
It's stuff like People who went to jail become criminals.
And I'll be like, well, I think, wasn't it the crime that made them go to jail?
Like, isn't that obvious?
And, you know, there's never been a study that says that exact thing.
That was just an example.
But if with no scientific background whatsoever, I can look at the news about studies, and to me, they look backwards.
They all look backwards.
The most famous one is that moderate, moderate alcohol use made you healthier.
Day one, I said, uh, that's backwards correlation.
The people who can afford daily light drinking and are not alcoholics, that's a whole separate category.
But if you could afford to have a bottle of wine every day and you're not an alcoholic, you just like having wine with dinner, what does that say about you?
Well, it says you know how to moderate, number one, right?
If you did nothing but put the people who know how to moderate anything in their life, they know how to quit.
That group is always going to be healthier than the other groups.
It's obvious.
The richer people live longer and are healthier.
They have better health care, etc.
And being able to afford wine with dinner is clearly correlated with doing well.
So, if you and I can see example after example where it appears, don't know for sure, but it looks like they got the causation backwards, and obviously so.
You don't think that the entire industry could get climate change backwards?
I'm not saying they have, because it's a data argument and I don't believe any data, but it's absolutely easily possible.
It is easily possible.
So that's why I love the Steve Malloy stuff.
Because he's using their own data and he shows you his work.
What else do you ask for?
Is there something else you want?
It's about all you can do.
And it's like he's out there yelling all by himself.
Because there aren't a lot of people who are, you know, echoing his same point of view.
Or at least not, you know, in an official capacity.
So, that's interesting.
What about this question of why nobody wants the Palestinian refugees?
You've heard that the neighboring countries don't want to let them in, but they don't give reasons.
Now, I assume the reasons are obvious, right?
Because they have mindsets that would cause trouble.
So it's not because they're Islamic, obviously, because the countries involved are also Islamic.
So they have no problem with the religion.
There must be something about the specific way this group of people were, let's say, brainwashed.
And here's the reframe that I think could change everything.
I don't think it will.
But you know, we're all desperate for just a different way to look at the situation, that could give you some kind of alternate path, because all the paths that we can think of are terrible.
Here's the alternate path.
If somebody went, let's say, to war, and they came back with PTSD, would you ignore it?
Or would you treat it like a mental problem?
A mental disorder?
Well, I would say that that's a health problem and a big one, right?
If somebody had trauma in their childhood of any other kind, and it seemed to be affecting them in their adult life, is that somebody who has a mental disorder?
I would say so.
So they start with a perfectly healthy brain.
So we're not talking about anybody's genetic makeup, right?
That has nothing to do with your genes.
You could just be a victim of trauma.
And it changes your brain.
Well, to me, it seems that the Palestinians are not only victims of a certain kind of trauma.
Right?
Because, you know, they have a certain narrative that's been given to them that they're victims.
And then a certain lifestyle, which is suboptimal.
So they're feeling maybe physical stress of having a tough life.
On top of that, the mental stress There's somebody's doing it to you intentionally and maybe you should, you know, get back at them.
So I would treat the Palestinians and we're not talking about Hamas only.
Hamas probably just needs to be killed.
I'm talking about the Palestinians who largely have similar thoughts to Hamas, except not operational.
Like they're not going to do anything about it, but they might just sympathize.
With the general approach, but maybe not the specific killing that they did.
If you were to bring those people into your country, you'd be importing mental illness at a scale we've never seen.
Now, do I think that the people coming across our southern border have mental illness?
Well, some probably do, because it's a big population.
But I don't think that's why they're coming.
I would say that most of them just had tough lives, which gives you a little trauma, but it's the kind of trauma that tough people can get past, and by the time you make it all the way here, you're pretty tough.
So I'm not really worried that people coming across our southern border have some kind of mental defect.
Like, that's a whole different problem.
They're just, you know, you know what the problems are.
But with the Palestinians, I would treat it like a mental problem.
And the way you would treat it, um, if we're mental and I, and specifically, it's like a mind virus because you can actually transmit it.
You could teach kids to think the same way and feel the same trauma.
And they would end up with PTSD too, because they would interpret everything as somebody else's, you know, cause so that they would feel like victims.
And I'm not saying they're not victims.
They do look pretty much like victims, but If we were to treat them compassionately, what would you do if your only goal was compassion?
You would, number one, keep them where they are.
That'd be number one.
Because you wouldn't want them to take their mental illness into the rest of your population.
Right?
Has nothing to do with the religion, has nothing to do with their genes, or even Culture per se, because there are lots of cultures where they're not violent, but they're otherwise similar.
So it's about the specific teaching that's happening there, the specific narrative, and that's a mental virus.
I would isolate it first, but of course you would do everything you could to make their life comfortable, but then you would absolutely have to deprogram them.
You would have to deprogram them before you allowed them into polite civilization.
Now, I would say the same thing about our college students.
You've seen that college students in America are being, they're mentally unwell, because they've been damaged by a certain kind of training that is guaranteed to make you mentally incompetent.
It'll make you believe things that aren't true, and see oppression where it doesn't exist, or at least put too much attention on it, etc.
So I think That what we need is something like what I just described as a deprogramming course.
So that if somebody came to me and said, I'd like a job with you.
I have all these qualifications and I have a degree from Harvard or Berkeley.
I want to be able to say to them, have you been through the deprogramming course?
And if they have, and if they can show me that they have, I would actually hire them even if they had views I didn't like.
Because I would say if you took that as seriously and you actually went through that.
I can respect that.
Right, I would be willing to hire somebody under those conditions, but if somebody just came right out of one of those institutions, I'd be very hesitant.
To mix them with my staff who are not mentally ill.
So.
We need to.
We need a physical real.
program for deprogramming our college students, and we need a physical, real program for deprogramming the Palestinians.
Now, you might say to me, Scott, you're really talking about brainwashing children.
Like, we don't brainwash children!
To which I say, that's all we do.
We only brainwash children.
Do you know why we do that?
Because they're not capable of making decisions.
You have to brainwash them.
You don't make it optional that you look twice before you cross the road.
Anybody tell their kid, you know, you don't have to look twice, you don't have to look in both directions.
No.
You say, you look twice or I'll never let you out of the house again.
Whoa, whoa, whoa!
I saw you look one way, you didn't look the other way.
Stop.
You know, you're never leaving the house again until I see you look at both ways.
Basic stuff, right?
So that's what I think the world needs.
We should stop talking about deprogramming, and we need to implement.
It is the single most important thing in the world, and it would solve not only America's problem, but the Middle East.
And I can't think of anything else that would work.
So I'd love to see some experimentation.
To see if various approaches would actually change anybody's, at least amount of extremism.
You know, you don't need to change their minds entirely, but you could talk them out of wanting to be violent.
That probably could work for many.
If you look at Germany in 2023, Germany, Could you conclude that you can brainwash an entire country and then you can unbrainwash them in the other direction?
Sometimes too far in the other direction.
It's obvious, right?
Because if you look at, you know, Germany under Hitler, it's completely opposite of Germany today.
And some would say you went so far that, you know, your brains are falling out, which is a separate conversation.
But you can literally brainwash an entire civilization.
Now, probably in Germany, the key to it is that at least one generation went through totally brainwashed.
The old people, you can't do much with them.
But the new people, you can bring on the new generations fully brainwashed when they reach adulthood.
Now, here's something I haven't heard talked about.
In the Palestinian areas.
Who controls their education systems?
Because it's religious school, right?
They don't separate school and religion.
If Israel, or maybe some other friendly Arab countries, if somebody doesn't take control of the schools, then you just have to keep it an open-air prison.
So the way to make it not a prison is to start training the children To be good citizens.
And then you can let the children out.
But the old people, I don't know.
Who's gonna take them?
If they've been poisoned and are not trying to fix themselves.
Poisoned by bad ideas.
All right.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is my suggestion for fixing the world.
We should get serious about the deprogramming.
And you know what?
If Hillary Clinton wants to pull together an actual deprogramming course, For what she calls the mega extremists?
I'd take a look.
I'd take a look.
Maybe there's something in there that actually would be productive.
But I don't think the average Republican, right?
I don't think the average Republican needs to be deprogrammed.
All right.
That's all I've got for today.
I'm going to say goodbye to the Twitter and YouTube folks, and I will talk to you Tomorrow.
