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, Quiet Leaf-blower, Backwards Science, Bread Inflammation, Omnibus, Thomas Massie, CO2 Climate Change, War Truth, Gaza Hospital, Israel Hamas War, Palestinian Refugees, Rwandan White Massacre, Mike Cernovich, President Trump Gag Order, Propaganda Deprogramming, Critical Thinking Certification, 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 now with whiteboard.
That's right, whiteboard later.
You're going to love it.
If you'd like your experience to go up to levels which nobody can even imagine it's so good, all you need for that is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stye, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
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.
Happens now.
Now, go.
Well, you know how sometimes a small story can be big to you You know, the rest of the world will say, well, that's not much of a story.
But to me, it's big.
And this is a story about a company that's making a quiet leaf blower.
It's going to have something called a whisper drive.
So somehow they figured out how to make it way, way quieter.
To which I say, oh my God, that will add half a day of productivity to me.
Now, I don't know about you, but if you work at home in any kind of a neighborhood that has lawns, there could be up to two days per week where you can't work at your own house.
It's just too fucking loud.
And it's like, One day it's mine, right?
So one day a week is my own leaf blower guy.
But the other times the same guy is on my next door neighbor who's just like right there.
So probably two to three days is too loud to use my office.
And if this product becomes available.
I will be buying this for my gardener within five minutes.
I'm going to say, I know maybe you wouldn't buy this.
You know, it's kind of expensive and new and what you got is working fine, but Merry Christmas.
So that's what's going to happen if this becomes a real product.
Well, in my next segment that I call Backwards Science!
Backwards Science!
That's where we look at studies and we say, wait a minute.
Don't they have the causation backwards?
Here's one.
Did you know that having a positive attitude toward aging, according to a new study, substantially reduces your risk of getting dementia?
Having a positive attitude about aging, very, very highly correlated with having less dementia.
Huh.
It would seem to indicate that if you could just make your attitude better, which they say you can change, you could actually reduce your risk of dementia.
Well, how about that?
Does that sound like real science to you?
Well, let me give you another hypothesis.
Here's my hypothesis, and it's based on myself.
If you ask me, Scott, what is your personal attitude about aging, do you know what I would say?
I would say, well, because I've been a lifetime exercise guy, I've cruised into my 66th year of life with a perfect BMI, and I look the same with my shirt off as I did when I was 25, but a little more muscular.
Now, if you ask me, what is my attitude about aging?
I'd say pretty good, because I'm healthy, and a lot of all the drama of youth This sort of behind me, which actually feels pretty good.
So yeah, I'm pretty optimistic about aging for myself.
Now suppose you said to me, Scott, you weigh 400 pounds and you have not been out of your basement for a long time.
How do you feel about pushing 70?
Do you know what I'd say?
I'm not so sure I'll ever be able to walk up the stairs when I'm 70.
I don't have such a positive thought about that.
Now, what would be the real correlation here?
The people who exercise are physically healthier, which includes your brain.
It turns out that exercise is good for every part of your body.
Don't you think that the people who were in relatively good health when the question was asked would also be the ones who would be optimistic?
And wouldn't the ones who are already failing in health at, say, age 50, wouldn't they have a negative feeling about aging because everything's gotten worse every day since they've been alive?
Obviously.
Now, I didn't see that they controlled for any of this, so I'm going to assume it's backward science.
Or potentially backward science.
All right, have you ever done a post on social media and you said to yourself, well, this one's just for me.
This one's not really for the public.
Just sort of some little personal thing.
And I did that yesterday and got nearly five million views.
So for context, a really big post on the X platform for me, I have a million followers, but a big post, really big, would be a million views.
That'd be super big.
Five million views is crazy, right?
For anybody.
Even if you have a million followers, five million views is just crazy.
Well, it turns out that Elon Musk got into the comments, and so that might be the biggest reason, but it might also be the topic.
And here's what it was.
I said I stopped eating bread.
There's two gigantic wars going on.
Climate change, maybe, and inflation, and the world's falling apart.
We've got a big election.
Freedom of speech is questionable.
And I do a tweet about eating bread.
I have five billion views.
So here's what I posted.
It said, I quit eating bread products several months ago and had the following outcomes.
Number one, I drifted down to my ideal BMI without any conscious dieting.
Number two, I mean, I quit eating bread because I know that always makes my weight just drift down, but there was no effort except not eating bread.
I ate as much as I wanted of everything else, made no other changes in my life, and the weight just starts falling off.
I've done it a number of times.
It's always the same.
Then, but weirder, I said my continuous full-body inflammation and aching that I thought was age-related disappeared completely, and recently my sinuses opened, and my sense of smell returned.
You know, for so far, it's been several days, which is the longest it's ever returned.
Sometimes it'll come back for a few hours.
But I haven't had a sense of smell for 20 years because I got some weird inflammation in my sinuses.
Elon Musk commented, he said, that diet works for a lot of people.
He said, instead of himself, he said, I love carbs and dairy and feel great, but don't have them in large portions.
I don't want to be unkind, but some of you have seen me without my shirt on, and some of you have seen Elon Musk without his shirt on.
Whose diet would you follow?
I'm just asking.
I'm not trying to be unkind.
I'm just saying if you're talking about diets, you'd probably want to follow the diet of the person who has the body that's at least in the neighborhood of where you want to be.
So, but I do appreciate the comment on that.
And by the way, I think Elon Musk would say exactly the same thing I just said.
I doubt he would disagree with that.
All right, we don't have a... So, I asked the people who follow me on the Locals platform, scottadams.locals.com, where they get all the special stuff.
I asked how many of them would want to do a one-month test to just give up bread for one month.
Because if it's true that it makes a difference, I think you'd see it right away.
It wouldn't take long.
And it would be really, really obvious.
Or maybe there's nothing there in your case.
Because our bodies are different, right?
People respond differently to this stuff.
But it could be, for some percentage of the people who try this, it could be one of the biggest changes they ever make.
It could be completely transformative, both your mind and your body.
And it's worth one month.
I'm no scientist, I'm not a dietician, so I don't know that quitting bread will make you healthier.
I have no reason, no scientific basis for that.
But for one month, I'd give it a try.
All right.
Still don't have a Speaker of the House.
Thomas Massey, who's backing Jim Jordan, says in this post, he says, it's not hard to understand what's going on here in DC.
A vote for Jim Jordan is a vote Do you think he'd do that?
I feel like he wouldn't do that.
Like, I don't believe that at all.
bloated omnibus spending bill every year.
And apparently Thomas Massey believes that Jim Jordan would not be one to put all the bills in one big bill so that everybody has to say yes without actually liking the parts of it.
Do you think you'd do that?
I feel like you wouldn't do that.
Like, I don't believe that at all.
And this is nothing against Jim Jordan.
I just don't think anybody will.
I think anybody who goes into that job will do what everybody ever did before, because there must be some reason.
There has to be a reason that once you get in the job, you just can't do it, which is to separate the bills.
Probably because it wouldn't get approved.
Probably because nothing would ever pass.
So I don't believe that putting a different person in that job Changes what happens.
I think the the person will become the job.
I don't think the job will Change to meet the person's you know techniques That's what I think But I can be wrong and I could definitely be wrong if Thomas Massey is of a different opinion So he's on the very very short list and by the way, you should all have this list This is the list of people Who if they disagree with me?
I immediately say, well, me, I might be wrong.
That's not a lot of people.
But, you know, let's say if Elon Musk disagreed with me on something about solar power or space or almost anything, I would immediately stop and say, I'm going to really think about this.
Nancy's one of those.
If he disagrees, I'm going to, I'm going to question my own thinking.
All right.
Let me say that as far as I know, We're going to talk about climate change, so I have to give you the background first.
As far as I know, it's well demonstrated that adding CO2 should be some kind of a greenhouse effect.
That's separate from knowing that once you add in all the other variables, that you could predict the outcome, or even if you could predict it, you would know what's better for the world.
Right?
Completely different what the predictions are from what the things you can prove in the lab.
That said, I read a crazy, crazy, kooky scientist guy who disagrees that there's any evidence whatsoever that CO2 could cause warming.
Now, before I get canceled or demonetized, I don't think this guy's right, but I just love listening to the people of dissent.
I just can't get enough of it.
I don't know why.
Now, some of it is we totally froze up on the other platform.
It's dead.
The other platform has been dead for a while.
Let's see if I can restart it.
So it's one more reason to use locals.
Make sure you see the streams.
All right.
So I was starting to say there's a scientist guy who's got a different view of CO2 and The fascinating thing is, if you had asked me even one year ago, or maybe a few years ago, I have to go back a little bit, you said, what is the likelihood that science would be completely wrong about something that 100% of scientists are positive is true?
I would have said, is this something that they've tested?
Yes, it's been tested.
Does it conform to, you know, the laws of physics and everything?
And did people get the result that they expected when they tested it?
Yes.
Can it be repeated?
Yes.
So, to me, it seemed like the idea of, does CO2 cause a greenhouse effect?
That seemed pretty well tested.
I wasn't sure about the predictions and, you know, if there's any big deal to it, but it seems like that part was tested.
And now there's a A guy who says, not only has it never been tested, but when you do test it, you don't find it.
It's like it's never been true.
Does that seem right?
Now, I still think it's far more likely that there's some kind of greenhouse gas effect.
I don't know how big, and I don't know how the other variables affect it, etc.
But it's fascinating to know that there's somebody who knows a lot about the topic, Who says it's complete BS?
Now, I want to give you the non-scientific example that sold me on this, because you're probably wondering why I'm giving it any attention at all.
Because there's always somebody who disagrees with the mainstream, right?
Doesn't mean they're right.
Here's why I'm giving it attention.
He used one little example that's not terribly scientific, but it was really persuasive.
So, think of this more in terms of how persuasive it is.
I'm not going to try to change your mind about anything, okay?
He says if you took a, say, a gas engine, and you turn it on, it might heat up to, say, a thousand degrees.
And then you turn it off, and it will go down to whatever the exterior temperature is.
But, if you put it in CO2, It would cool down exactly the same time.
It would still cool down.
So you say to yourself, well, wait a minute.
If you were to put that hot engine in a room with more CO2, isn't the CO2 supposed to be like a little blanket?
Doesn't the little blanket of CO2 keep the engine warmer longer?
And the answer is, nope.
Nope, it doesn't.
The engine cools down exactly the same.
To which I say, uh, I don't know if, you know, any specific test is conclusive, but when you hear that, is that, is that not super persuasive?
I don't know.
You know, nobody did that exact test.
So it's not logical and it's not scientific, but it's really persuasive.
Yeah.
Which unfortunately you could be persuaded outside of reason.
So I'm not going to say that this really is any kind of a new thought that you should consider, but I find it really interesting that there's somebody who knows this much and says it's all BS.
It's from a book from James Moody, or actually a paper he wrote, Three Proofs Carbon Dioxide Causes No Warming.
Anyway, look at my tweets and you can find that.
All right.
What were the, Two most predictable things that would happen this week in the news, if you were going to be a predictor of future events.
Let's see, you knew that Israel was going to attack Gaza.
The most predictable story in the news would be, number one, allegedly Israel bombed a hospital or possibly a school, but since nobody is in school, What would it be?
Oh, nobody's in school during the war zone.
Oh, it's not a school.
Where's a place that people can't evacuate and yet you would feel really bad for them if something happened?
A hospital.
Yeah.
Yeah, I predict that there will be a story in the news sometime this week that accuses Israel of bombing a hospital full of people.
That's the first one.
Number two, and we'll talk about the BS part of the story.
Number two, what is the second most predictable thing this week?
Remember, the context is that Israel is moving into Gaza militarily.
What's the most predictable thing that's not a hospital gets bombed?
Number two, there will be big stories about UFOs.
The two things you can guarantee is UFO stories, because it diverts you, and that there would be a story, probably not true, about Israel bombing a hospital.
Now, only some of the people who have been following me for a while are going to believe the next thing I say, and I'm mad at myself for not making the prediction.
Prior to this story about the alleged hospital bombing, I had my phone out and I started to send a tweet that said, wait for the fake story about the hospital or school being bombed.
Because it's guaranteed.
It's not maybe.
Like, maybe there'll be a story about a hospital being bombed?
No, it's not maybe.
There was a 100% chance there was going to be an allegation about a hospital being bombed.
100% chance.
The only reason it's not a school is because school's presumably not in session during a war zone.
Otherwise, what about a school and also a hospital?
Maybe an orphanage, right?
I mean, it's just guaranteed.
So, what do we know about this story about the hospital in Gaza that was blown up?
Well, let's go to the whiteboard and I'll teach you how to know what's true when wars are involved.
It's very simple.
has three parts and the three parts are as follows.
During the first hours you've got something called a fog of war going on.
During the fog of war you should assume that the news is not reliable because it's just too soon and everybody's making claims and They're not quite sure what they're seeing.
Nobody knows who fired what missile.
Fog of War.
So don't trust anything that happens during the Fog of War.
But eventually the Fog of War transitions to the phase we're in now.
It's called the propaganda phase, in which all of the news will be fake, but this time it's intentional.
During the Fog of War, it's more like we just don't know what's going on.
But then that morphs or evolves into, well, some people know what's going on, but they're sure as hell not going to tell you because they want to tell you some, some version of what's going on.
But if you wait long enough, this phase passes where the news is intentionally fake.
And then it turns into whoever wins the war gets to write the history books, which of course is based on the propaganda.
So there are three phases.
And if you're looking forward to find out the truth, Don't stop in the first phase, because that's always bullshit, the fog of war.
Don't look at the second phase, because you would never know what's true, it's the propaganda phase.
And definitely don't look when it's over and the history books are written, because those are not even intended to be real.
Now, let's talk about that hospital in Gaza.
Does it matter?
No.
Doesn't matter if it's true.
And that's the sad thing that nobody wants to say out loud.
The sad thing is, it doesn't make any difference.
It doesn't make any difference whose shell hit it.
And the fact is, it doesn't even matter if it was intentional.
It wasn't.
At least the Israelis are not going to intentionally hit a hospital, right?
Do we all agree with that?
I think you all agree that they're not intentionally going to hit a hospital.
But it is war, it is a war zone, and if hospitals get blown up That's not too surprising, except the most surprising thing would be if it was an accident.
That would be the most surprising.
Because you see the picture, there are all these buildings around that have not been yet bombed.
Probably will be, but not yet.
And that one little area of the hospital gets blown up.
But then there's also the story that the hospital did not get blown up.
That the whatever it was landed in the parking lot.
Blue up a bunch of cars in the parking lot.
Did a little bit of damage to the exterior of the building, but basically it did not have five people.
500 people died.
I don't know what's true.
Do you know it's true?
Of course not.
You couldn't possibly know what's true.
But I'll tell you, it's not going to change anything.
It won't change anything.
And all of our opinions about what Israel should or should not do.
They don't change anything.
Yeah, I'm sure Israel would I prefer that more people agreed with them, but they're very much in the decided phase.
Right?
If you think they were in the wanting phase, where like, ah, we want to attack.
We kind of want to, but we're going to need public opinion on our side.
Nope.
We are not there.
Public opinion has no role in this conflict.
Because Israel is simply going to do what they've decided to do.
And it's the right decision.
They have to eliminate this risk because they can't have it hanging over their heads again.
So, um, as much as I'd love to give you all my predictions, or not my predictions, but my, let's say my moral belief about this situation, who is more moral and who's the bad one and who's the good one.
None of it matters.
None of it matters.
Our opinions have nothing to do with anything.
This is just happening.
And we should be dealing with, what do you do now?
Because this is happening.
But I have one more prediction about the hospital story.
That if it turns out that the narrative turns into it was some kind of errant missile from Hamas, I think that will start to morph into, sure, it was Hamas's missile.
Or rocket.
But it's also Israel's fault.
And now how could it be Israel's fault that a Hamas missile allegedly hits a hospital?
Well, easily.
Did you see the videos of the Hamas guys digging up the pipeline that allegedly Israel built them a pipeline for water and they dug it up and they used the tubes, the pipes, they repurposed them to make rockets.
The water pipes.
Now that's Israel's fault.
Why did they have to give them such a poor water supply that was so hard to turn into rockets?
Couldn't they have given them, you know, maybe done a little bit more work to put those water lines in there in a way that were easier to dig up and turn into rockets that were more accurate?
I mean, if you work at it, you can make it Israel's fault somehow.
That's God.
All right, UFOs are in the news.
None of that's true.
The UFO stuff's all bullshit.
Don't get excited about people who can see things in skiffs.
And new evidence from the same guys have been telling us there's evidence.
Nothing's gonna happen.
I feel very confident in telling you there are no aliens who have visited Earth.
Or if they have, we don't have their ships.
And we definitely don't have their bodies.
All right, I feel very confident in saying that.
I'd love to be wrong.
It'd be awesome.
But no, I don't think there's really any chance of that.
We're now in the propaganda phase, or entering it, and have you all seen horrific pictures of bodies that are ripped apart?
You've all seen it, right?
And I've seen things that I can't unsee.
You know, people tweet things at me, I'm like, Like I wasn't looking for it, just there it is.
It doesn't help.
All right.
The big story that people like to talk about is that the neighboring countries are saying hell no to taking Palestinian refugees.
Not Hamas, but innocent Palestinian refugees who are not part of any military action.
Their neighbors don't want them, and they're very, very firm on it.
It's not a maybe, it's like, No way.
Now, are they racists?
Yes or no?
Are the Jordanians racist and the Egyptians?
Are they racist against the Palestinians?
I don't think so.
I think that they know that this group has a mindset that they can't let in their country.
That is their reasoning, right?
Am I right?
That you don't want people who have a certain mindset to come in in big numbers because they might You know, spread that mindset.
So how much?
Sympathy.
Does America need to show?
Do you think Americans need to open up a little bit and make sure that we, you know, check really carefully?
But let in some number of Palestinians, even temporarily.
And I've just, you know, human concern.
And the answer is no, not even a little bit.
And if you say to me, but Scott, not letting people in would be this tremendous, uh, tremendous problem to people who are largely innocent, to which I say, that's sort of how national defense works.
The way national defense works is you protect your own country.
And many times that's really, really terrible for other people who have nothing to do with fighting or war or killing because they'd all like to live here.
And if you stop them, you're sort of a turd, because they're going to have to go back to some war-torn country, and that's not good.
But you have to grow up.
You have to grow up.
This is an adult decision.
An adult decision is you say, what do you got to do?
And then you just do it.
What we've got to do is make sure the mindset of this country does not get further corroded, because it's already on a deadly path.
I don't know if you've seen Mike Cernovich's tweeting that's getting, let's say, increasingly dire.
And he posted this yesterday, Mike Cernovich.
Remember when I said the left wanted to do a Rwanda genocide on white Americans?
And yes, they code American and Israeli Jews as white.
And you goobers called me hysterical or whatever because you lack my vision and understanding of human nature.
So his suggestion is that we're creating a situation in which at some point, certainly, white Americans will be murdered in a Rwandan type way.
Now, how many of you agree with that?
I agree with it.
Meaning that on our current trajectory, that would be a guaranteed outcome.
The end of America and the full slaughter of the white citizens.
However, Nothing really goes in a straight line.
We don't live in that world.
If you took a straight line from anything we're doing, it would be the end of the world.
You know, you could take anything.
What if we keep growing food and using fertilizers exactly the way we've been doing it for years?
What will happen?
End of the world!
We'll run out of fertilizers.
But we'll probably figure out some workaround, right?
What happens if we Just keep having babies.
End of the world.
Population would get too much to sustain us, wars would break out, we'd all die.
But then we figured out, oh, birth control.
What happens if we go in the same path of depopulating, which is where we're going now, end of the world.
There's no way around it.
Depopulating your own people, end of the world.
But is it going to be the end of the world?
Probably not.
We're building robots and AI that will do a bunch of labor.
Well, we'll probably come up with some incentives if we need to, to have more kids, kind of like Hungary does, which works.
Tax incentives.
So yeah, we'll be fine.
But this whole situation that's heading toward a Rwandan slaughter, I think you should look at Mike Cernovich as way more useful than you might see on the surface.
When he scares you, about a Rwandan massacre, which is absolutely where we're heading.
It's to make you change.
It's to wake you up.
At the very least, get prepared.
Right?
You better get ready for a fight.
But at the, you know, more ideally, we would surface the awareness that we're heading toward doom, as we do with all the other topics from climate change to you name it, and then we would get busy fixing it.
Now, I'm going to suggest some ways to fix it, to show you that we're not going to necessarily end up with a Rwanda-like outcome.
We are heading there, but we're also smart enough to fix it, if we want.
I guess we'd have to want to fix it.
All right.
It goes like this.
Well, let me work my way into it.
I'm going to talk some Trump stuff and I'll tell you how I'm going to save the world.
Do you remember how everybody said Trump was dividing the country?
That was like the main story.
He's dividing the country.
But I was trying to think of any example of Trump ever insulting any segment of the population, including Democrats.
Is there any example of that ever?
Because he went after individuals hard, but they usually had it coming.
You know, they were in the battle, so to speak.
You know, even the so-called gold star parents.
Fuck those guys.
They entered the war and he gave them, he wounded them.
And then they went running back to, oh, we're gold star parents.
Yeah.
We all, we all respect gold star parents, but if you step into the ring, you're going to get punched.
Fuck you.
Don't make that about us.
You've gotten the ring.
It's not our problem.
So, sorry about that, Gold Star parents.
Anyway.
So, I'm speaking now, coming to you as an accused, deplorable, colonizing, MAGA extremist.
And how did we ever fall for the narrative that Trump was the divisive one in the United States?
That all came from propaganda on the left.
There wasn't anything he ever said about a group.
And if you look at the few times he treated a group special, what were they?
Well, one was prison reform, which was very, you know, largely biased or helping black people who were in prison for reasons that maybe weren't the best reasons.
Right?
That's one time he targeted a demographic, even though there are other people in that group.
Another time was when he did funding for historically black colleges.
That was a targeted demographic thing, positive for black Americans.
But I can't think of any example in which he divided America by any kind of group.
Can you?
I know of no example of that.
Now, if you look at policies, they, of course, could be divisive.
You know, abortion, for example.
But it seems entirely a Democrat thing to say that a group of Americans should be targeted as the bad ones.
I mean, literally, that's Biden's policy.
That he's looking after these mega extremists.
And who knows how he defines extremists?
All right.
So, as you know, Trump He is under a gag order that involves the one set of criminal charges.
He's not allowed to talk about people involved with January 6, like Pence.
You can't insult Pence, because Pence might be a witness in that case.
But the Babylon Bee had a good joke.
It showed Trump with a mini Trump ventriloquist doll, so that Trump would use the ventriloquist doll to say the things he can't say.
And I thought to myself, OK, I get it.
It's a joke.
It's pretty funny.
But where is that line?
What if Trump stood on stage during a rally?
And, you know, he's giving his rally speech, but then he wants to say something bad about Mike Pence.
Just hold this in your mind.
And then I'm standing next to the, I'm on the stage too, and I'm standing next to him by the lectern.
He gives a speech.
He goes out.
I got one thing I can't tell you.
He goes over to me, he goes, he whispers at me.
And then I take the microphone and say, Mike Pence, he looks like a Lego.
His hair looks like Lego hair.
And then I hand the microphone back to Trump.
And then Trump goes, well, he said it.
He said, I can't say that.
I'm under a gag order.
But he said it.
Mike Pence's hair looks like Lego hair.
That's him.
I would never say that.
I would never say that because I'm under a gag order.
Now, here's my question.
Would he go to jail for that?
I mean, in theory, in theory, the judge could interpret it as the same as him saying it.
But where's the line?
If Trump talks to somebody who then He writes a story about it and says, well, he said this off the record, but I'm an asshole, so I'm going to report it anyway.
He thinks Mike Pence has Lego hair.
I don't know.
It does.
It does make you wonder how much he could play with it and just have fun with it.
Because if he played with it and had fun with it and stayed out of jail.
He could really turn it into entertainment.
But I don't want him to go to jail trying that, so he better get some legal advice before he does that.
All right.
So yesterday I tweeted what I call the first draft of a book on how to, or maybe it's a pamphlet, on how to deprogram Democrats.
Now, I'll say it at the front, do Republicans ever need to be deprogrammed?
Of course, because both sides are just adopting their team's narrative.
Now, sometimes their team might be right.
You know, depending on your subjective view of things.
So that wouldn't be wrong.
Or it wouldn't be a problem if they were adopting an opinion that was also a good one.
But not always.
Sometimes it's just narrative and you've adopted it anyway.
So everybody needs to be deprogrammed.
But I could probably only write one that worked on the left.
And people say, Scott, how would you deprogram somebody?
Well, I'll tell you what won't work.
What won't work is making a better argument.
That doesn't deprogram anybody.
What won't work, probably, is showing them facts that are conflict with their point of view.
You could try, because that seems so obvious, right?
It's like, let me show you the facts that you haven't seen.
And now when you've incorporated these facts, how do you feel now?
Well, I've tried that.
Do you know what happens?
People say your facts are wrong.
And then you show them your source.
And then they say something like, well, why would I listen to a MAGA extremist?
And then you say, well, okay, I'm not one.
I'm not a MAGA extremist.
And also the source I'm showing you is in no means a MAGA extremist.
And then the person you're trying to convince will say, everything Q said was a lie.
And then you'll say, we're not even talking about that.
What's that got to do with this topic?
And then they'll say, but Trump said, Racists were fine people.
And you'll say, no, that didn't happen either.
And we're not even on that topic.
Can we get back to this topic?
So what happened is people just immediately changed the topic and they won't let you go back.
Because people really, really, really don't want to be wrong.
And they don't want to disappoint their team by changing sides.
So you can't talk people into a new view with better information, or better logic and argument.
Not even worth trying.
I know it's weird, but those two things are not even worth trying.
But could you talk somebody into it?
And the answer is yes.
Won't be easy and it won't work for every person, but here would be the technique I would use.
Instead of teaching them what's true or false, which they will immediately reject, you teach them the skills of spotting fake news on the other side.
See where I'm going?
You teach them to spot fake news coming from the right.
You see where I'm going?
If you teach them to spot it coming from the right, and they enjoy the hit of doing it.
So, for example, they hear something that comes from the right, and the right says, there's an anonymous source.
Well, if I had trained you, you would say, anonymous source?
On politics?
That's totally not real.
So you would have a little skill.
You would have learned a thing.
Oh, I can tell when those Republicans are trying to fool me.
That new book that came out that claims an anonymous source said Biden doesn't believe in climate change?
Yeah.
You now know that that would almost certainly be fake.
And then I would teach you to follow the money.
Then you look at a Republican claim and you say, oh, isn't that an interesting coincidence that the thing you say is true Is also exactly the thing that would be good for your profits, or your friend's profits, or your sponsor's profits, or whoever's donating to your campaign's profits.
Right?
So, I could teach you all the tools, and then show you that it works against Republican propaganda.
What happens then?
Well, it would be really hard to turn off your skill.
Because you can turn off a lot of things, but you can't turn off skill.
If you have a skill, it's just sort of there.
So you fill them with a skill that they got, you know, good dopamine hits from using, and then you let them just deal with the stuff coming from their own team.
And they're going to start to notice.
They'll start to notice.
But there are a few other things I would do to prep somebody.
So I would start with the following conversational approach if I were doing it in person.
But if I'm doing it in writing, I would give some background, but not overwhelming history of the world background, just sort of a little tight background.
For example, if it were in person, I would say, are you aware that this project Mockingbird ever existed?
Now, if they say no, then you explain to them and you give them time to research it to make sure they can confirm it.
Now, the Project Mockingbird, as far as I know, is not in doubt by any historian.
Is that fair to say?
It's not in doubt by any historian.
It's a real thing that happened.
The CIA was influencing or manipulating the media to tell a version of propaganda that the CIA wanted you to know.
Now that became illegal at some point, right?
That is also something all historians would agree on.
Am I good so far?
So there's no left right in any of this so far.
That was a real thing that happened.
But there was a point, and I'll need a fact check on this, that Obama reauthorized that very type of behaviors, but we don't know exactly what they are or are not doing.
So it's not like it's history where it's been researched.
It's just that it's possible now.
Now, I would ask somebody, do you think that any country that could legally program their own population to make them safer or even just to support the whoever's in power, you don't think they would do it?
Of course they would.
Of course they would.
And so the first thing you do is you take them back in history long enough that they don't have an argument about Republicans and Democrats.
It's just something that historians on both sides say is true.
So you first set up the situation that they probably have already lived, depending on their age, they may have already lived through a time when the news wasn't real and it wasn't even trying to be because it was influenced by the government.
So once they believe that that's an ordinary thing that could exist without them knowing it was existing, you know, if you were just alive at the time, you didn't really know.
Then you've loosened them up to discover on their own that maybe it's happening now.
I would also say some version of this, that I don't know when the news, if it ever was real, but none of it is real now.
It's all narrative.
And I would teach them the the techniques for finding out what's real and what's not.
And once they had the basic understanding that it's possible for all of the news to be fixed.
Now I'll tell you something that I heard from my smart friend.
The idea that if there was some mass conspiracy Like the media in general was all like biased in the same way for the same reason that somebody would have been a whistleblower.
Somebody would have, you know, let us know.
Hey, the news is fake to which I say we couldn't be screaming at any louder.
It's the most obvious thing in the world.
Yeah, I would also point out the following context that I can do a little easier than you can do.
Which is, as a public figure, I can tell you that none of the news about me is real.
And if you know any public figures, ask them.
Don't take my word for it.
If you know anybody who's ever been in the news for anything, ask them if the news was accurate.
I know the answer, and I don't even know who you're going to talk to yet.
Of course it wasn't.
It never is.
And that's true of all political, scientific, and celebrity stories.
None of them are true and in context.
They might have true elements to them, but the narrative, never true.
Yeah.
Dr. Drew says the same thing I see in the comments.
Yeah, every public figure says it.
You won't get anybody disagreeing with a statement that the news about them wasn't true.
Yeah.
So that's where I start.
So I've started plumping out the ideas to see if it's any kind of a document or a book.
But here's what I would do.
If I don't create this, somebody needs to.
And I would call it a certification.
Have I ever taught you that reframing makes a big difference in the real world?
In fact, you might be aware that I have written the most influential book In the history of reframing.
It's called Reframe Your Brain.
If you don't have a copy, I feel sorry for you because it will change your life.
Reframes.
Here's an example of one that's not in the book, but it gives you an idea.
The reframe is if I said I'm going to deprogram Democrats, what would you assume about my efforts?
What would be the natural assumption if I said I'm going to deprogram Democrats?
You would say, You would say I'm a Republican stooge and that it's really just a political thing, right?
Wouldn't you?
As soon as you hear deprogram, it seems like a team thing, right?
Sort of a team thing.
So I would reframe this.
Saying deprogramming the way Hillary did, she wants to deprogram the mega extremists.
Deprogram is a fighting word.
And if you use it, you're not going to get anywhere.
if your objective is to change somebody else's mind.
Here's a word that is going to thrill you because it's so effective.
Certification.
Now, if you didn't immediately respond to that word, you did not work in a big company.
Am I right?
I want to get a hell yes from everybody who's ever worked at a big company.
The word certification is like a serious word.
You hear that word, and you're not talking politics, are you?
That's not a political word.
That is a skill word.
And you don't hire people who don't have the right certification.
Period.
If somebody does have the right certification, well, lucky you.
It's hard to find somebody who is certified that they have learned the specific skill that you're looking for.
That's important.
And so, Instead of saying, let's never hire Harvard or Berkeley graduates, which people are saying, you say, there's one more thing I need from you.
See where I'm going?
There's just one more thing I need.
I love your Harvard thing, but there is a risk of hiring a Harvard person.
And I'm going to be honest about it.
And I don't think I can be fully comfortable with you unless I know you've, you've passed the certification.
For understanding fake news.
Do you feel that?
Yeah.
It needs to be a certification.
I wouldn't say critical thinking.
Critical thinking is a much larger category.
And it also insults the student.
The reason you don't want to have a critical thinking class is that everyone believes they can already do it.
So you're just insulting them.
Oh, maybe you need a critical thinking class.
I know I don't need it.
I could probably teach it.
But you, you need a critical thinking, right?
Even if it's true, you don't get anywhere with critical thinking as a suggestion for somebody else.
That doesn't work.
But you know what does work as a suggestion for somebody else?
There's a specific certification you might want to get before you go to that job interview.
Do you feel it?
You can feel that, right?
Like you actually feel in your body that that works.
That's the test of persuasion.
If your brain said, oh, that makes sense.
We shall try that.
That's probably nothing.
But if you can feel it, that's more than something.
And you can feel That word, can you give me a give me some feedback?
The word certification completely reframes the situation.
And turns a thing where you couldn't imagine it was practical into something that would be really, really practical.
Very doable.
All I'd have to do is put this thing online.
And they'd say, look, here's a link.
You know, go take this test.
It's the 20 minutes.
You know, there's a little background reading and then he answers some questions.
20 minutes and you'll be certified as somebody who can distinguish propaganda from objective truth.
Who wouldn't want to be able to do that?
And then you include on your test some propaganda that came from the right as well as propaganda that came from the left.
Or you could just leave it out entirely.
You could just say, a politician claims.
Actually, that would be better.
I think it'd be better to leave out the parties entirely and just say, one party claims that X happened.
Then you have to determine whether it's likely that that's true from the context.
All right.
Systemic talent stacking.
Yeah, the internet already is taking to that idea.
So you could say, I would like to add one certification to your talent stack.
I want to know that you can tell the difference between propaganda and real news.
And then the person says, well, wait a minute.
Are you some like Republican bad guy or something?
And you say, no, no, this has nothing to do with your political party.
This applies equally to Republicans who believe in Q as it does, you know, people on the left who believe in whatever crazy thing, TDS.
All right, so what do you think?
An online certification to see if you can tell the difference between propaganda and truth.
Now let's get back to Mike Cernovich's prediction slash warning, because a prediction is a warning by its nature.
The climate change predictions, the models, they're not trying to be accurate.
I don't know if you know that.
They're trying to warn you.
Now, maybe that you don't need the warning.
That's a separate question.
But the purpose of the models is to warn you to do something differently.
It's not to tell you what's going to happen.
It's the last thing they want to happen.
So likewise, the Rwanda potential, you know, mass murder is where we would head if we didn't do something different.
But we will.
We always do something different.
Nothing ever goes in a straight line for long.
So this would be one example where you could see that it would take a clever reframe certification To completely dismantle the entire, you know, bullshit propaganda, you know, complex.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is your show for today.
I like to make sure there's at least one thing that'll change your life forever.
A lot of people who are reading my Reframe Your Brain book are saying it's changing their life forever.
And I gotta tell you, that's pretty satisfying to be part of that.
Maybe the people who experiment with quitting bread, if I had to guess, I'm going to guess that 25% of the people who experiment with quitting bread will change their life forever.
That's a lot.
That could be thousands of people whose lives dramatically changed because I put a post out that said, Hey, maybe you should take a month without bread.
See how you feel now.
If you couldn't tell, and if you've read my book, How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big, you know this.
The recommendation that you try a month without bread is not so much about the bread.
I mean, that's the subject topic, but it's really about the concept.
It's about the system.
The system is, if there's something you can test easily, That might have a big impact.
You test it.
So if you thought to yourself, well, I don't know if bread or any other particular food or beverage is making a difference.
If you don't test that, that's bad system design.
Good system design is you test all the time.
You're just test, test, test, test, test your whole life.
You test exercise techniques.
You test your motivation.
You test your sleep.
You test your everything.
You just keep testing, testing, testing.
You never stop.
So it's in that frame that I suggest take a month without bread.
But I could have filled anything in there, right?
Take a month without alcohol.
See how you feel.
And thanks for joining on YouTube.
Sorry about the little technical difficulty there.
And on X. And I will talk to you tomorrow morning.
