Find my Dilbert 2025 Calendar at: https://dilbert.com/
God's Debris: The Complete Works, Amazon https://tinyurl.com/GodsDebrisCompleteWorks
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Red One, US National Bird, Greenland Security Update, Elon Musk, Mike Benz, USAID AOC, USAID Liz Cheney, Democrat Leadership Vacuum, Democrat Messaging, President Trump's Listening Skill, Trump Predictions Review, Fine People Hoax, Anti-Trump Psyops, Bill Gates, Censorship Supporter Bill Gates, Pro-mRNA Vaccines Bill Gates, RFK Jr., 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
And you'd like to have coffee on Christmas morning with your favorite distant friend.
Distance by, you know, only distance.
Alright, let me call up your comments here.
Huh.
There we are.
Where are we?
Thank you.
Nope, that's not it.
That's not it.
That's it.
Alright, we're ready.
You doing wine in the morning?
Well, that's quite a Christmas.
Do-do-do-do-do-do.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of Human Civilization Christmas Edition.
Well, if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that even Santa Claus couldn't understand, all you need for that is a cup or a mug or a glass of tankard shells to sign a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
Dopamine hit of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
Go.
Oh, it's a Christmas miracle how good that tastes.
And I get to do it with all of you.
My favorite part of the day.
By the way, I don't know if I've ever told you this is literally my favorite part of the day.
Maybe it's because I like doing the talking and having you do the listening.
Maybe it's not a good sign that this is my favorite part of the day.
But it is.
So I caused more trouble than I ever imagined yesterday by recommending a movie.
Who in the world thought that that would cause hate?
I got more hate by recommending a movie I like than just about anything that's happened to me this year since I got canceled.
And here's the problem.
A number of people said that I must be doing it for pay.
So I finally said I liked the movie.
I liked the movie Red One.
It's a Christmas movie.
And I got accused.
I can't tell you how many people accused me of doing it for money and being a sellout.
And I thought, really?
When did it become unusual to say you like a movie on social media?
And somebody said, you know, why would I be delving into this trivial stuff?
You know, why would you be talking about trivial things?
To which I thought, is it your first day on social media?
Social media is like 90% trivia, 10% substance.
So I can't have a little bit of Christmas trivia?
Anyway, so out of curiosity, since movies, of course, are highly subjective, there's no such thing as a good movie or a bad movie.
If I could teach you one thing, it's this.
There's no such thing as good art or bad art.
There's no such thing as a good comic or a bad one.
There's no such thing as a good movie or a bad one.
There is such thing as did people go and like it or not.
If people like it, it's good.
So if you're looking at the comments and you see that 80% of the people commenting say, yeah, that was a good movie.
Good recommendation.
I enjoyed it.
A comment that doesn't make sense is that was a bad movie.
It's not a bad movie if 80% people liked it.
If 80% like it, that's a good movie by definition.
Your own opinion of the movie is just your own opinion.
It's not some kind of universal standard.
So out of curiosity, I followed up today just to cause more trouble.
Which other people are saying I'm trying to just get engagement money.
But no, I'm actually curious.
When I ask a question, it's usually because I actually think it'd be an interesting question.
So my question was, if you think Red One is not a great movie, like I do, I think it's a great movie, what would be your favorite movie recently?
So I asked the people who said they didn't like Red One.
What movies do you like recently?
And most of my answers were movies that were 30 to 50 years old.
30 to 50 years old.
That's what people answered with their favorite recent movie was 30 to 50 years old.
But there are some people who mentioned a little bit more recent movies.
For example, Schindler's List and The Shawshank Redemption were high on people's list of all-time best movies.
Do you know what I think of those two movies?
It's two movies that make you feel like you're in prison and or a concentration camp in Nazi Germany.
And it makes you feel that the entire length of the movie.
And that's your favorite movie?
Who wants to feel like they're in the most horrible prison situation for three hours in a row?
Mmm, popcorn.
Oh, look what they're doing to them now.
How about that hurt?
So, I'm not judging.
I'm not judging.
But it was hilarious to see what people's favorite movies were.
Because some of them are so dark that I actually think that Schindler's List should be illegal.
And I mean that actually literally.
Schindler's List, I don't think that should be legal as a movie.
Because I got PTSD from it.
So I suffered for years of having flashbacks to the movie.
Now, I get that we should all be informed of how bad things were at different times.
I get that.
We should all be informed.
But did I have to get PTSD? Like they couldn't just give me the details and I wouldn't be able to figure out that that was pretty bad?
Yeah, I think I would block somebody from watching that movie if they wanted to.
But it was well made.
It was just destructive to human beings.
Anyway, so there's news today.
A little bit.
Anybody want to talk about some news on Christmas?
I'll try to keep it light.
Okay?
It's mostly an excuse just to hang out today.
So here's the theme for today.
The theme for today is it doesn't really matter what's happening in the world.
It'll just give me something to talk about while you're talking to each other, usually, in the comments.
So just make sure you have an amazing day today if I can help out by keeping you some company.
By the way, for the local subscribers, I will be back this evening.
So 7.30, I'll tell you the time this time.
I don't usually tell you the time.
But tonight I'll shoot for 7.30 Eastern Time.
Eastern Time.
7.30 tonight.
And we'll hang out.
So there are a lot of people I found out who literally don't have any human contact on all of Christmas Day.
And we're going to fix that.
I will be your human contact.
Alright, so the news is all just kind of light and funny today.
Some of it is, anyway.
Here's my first news item.
Does anybody want to make a bet that the drone activity over New Jersey is way down on Christmas?
Because if the drone activity is way down on Christmas, that definitely narrows down what the drones might be.
Do you agree?
They're probably not Iranian drones.
And they're probably not from another planet.
Because they don't do Christmas.
I don't know if the Chinese drones would.
That might be a hybrid situation.
But let's watch today.
We're going to ask Erica to look outside tonight in the man cave and see what the drone activity looks like.
Because one of us here...
I don't know if Eric is here yet, but one of us is in New Jersey and has been taking pictures of the drone activity.
So we'll have a pretty good baseline.
We'll see if it went down today.
That'll tell us something.
All right.
Biden signed a new law designating the bald eagle as our national bird.
Now, I'm glad he's doing the important stuff before he leaves because Because you might not know this, but the bald eagle was not the national bird, which came as a surprise to me.
If you had asked me, Scott, who is the national bird?
I would have said bald eagle, but it turns out it wasn't.
How many of you are blown away by the fact that the bald eagle was not the national bird your whole life?
Did you know that?
It wasn't the national bird?
What?
Now, it was close to that.
It was a national emblem.
So back in 1782, Congress decided that it would be our national emblem, but not the national bird.
Now, I feel like I've been lied to since 1782. I thought it was a national bird.
But the other thing that offends me about this story is that they called it a bald eagle.
A bald eagle?
Really?
Really?
I thought we were more woke than that.
I don't call it a bald eagle.
I call it a feather-challenged eagle.
Feather-challenged.
Not bald.
For the people who don't understand how humor works, I'm not actually literally suggesting that bald eagles don't have any feathers on their head.
This is just a joke.
And if you do not understand jokes, it must be a very terrible life for you.
But we're not going to be talking about that for now.
For now, we're going to be talking about other things.
So, moving on.
So in other hilarious stories, Greenland has decided to beef up its military security.
So Denmark, which owns Greenland, said that because of Trump's saber-rattling, they were going to substantially increase the security of their country.
But did you know that the United States has a A military defense agreement with Greenland?
That means that any attack on Greenland is considered something that the US military has already committed to respond to?
I'm not surprised, just because the hemisphere is in, but I didn't know that.
So, apparently we would be all in if somebody attacked Greenland.
Now, if you're laughing, who's going to attack Greenland?
That's actually a possibility now.
Because as the Arctic melts, it's going to be a big fight between Russia and China and U.S. and Canada and Denmark, I guess, about who owns what.
Because once the ice melts, there's going to be a lot of sea travel and a lot of claiming of territory and whatnot up there.
So whoever owns Greenland's got a good solid base to operate enough, so it probably makes a difference.
But they're going to increase their security.
They're going to have long-range drones, more inspection ships, and sled patrols.
And they're going to upgrade one of their airports so it can land a fighter jet.
You know, when Trump first brought it up, I thought, I think we can take Greenland.
Yeah, we didn't really win in Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq didn't really go the way we wanted it to, but I really thought we could take Greenland.
Like, I have confidence in the military of the United States.
I feel like we can take that Greenland.
But we're a little too late.
Too late.
They beefed up their security.
I mean, we're probably going to send some intercontinental missiles at them, but now they have extra sled patrols.
So how are you going to get past that?
Extra sled patrols.
And over the next several years, they'll build a better airport.
So I don't know how you can fight that.
So we better give up on our dream of conquering Greenland because they've got new sled patrols.
And that'll stop us.
Now, actually, the reason they're stepping up to security, it's even funnier, is the Trump effect.
So because Trump...
We made noise about Greenland being a national security risk, Denmark said, oh, wait, you're actually right.
Greenland is a national security risk for everybody because of the Arctic opening up.
So they're beefing up with security, which is sort of a laughingly small amount, is because they're trying to respond to the fact that Russia and China might be a threat sometime soon.
So that's the Trump effect again.
So here again, Trump's mere existence and statements make other countries do what we wanted them to do otherwise.
Now, apparently this is also happening with NATO right now.
So Estonia and Lithuania, I guess, are all saying we better massively increase our NATO spending because if America ever pulls out, we're in trouble.
So Europe is actually saying, hey, we better step up and make sure we're taking care of ourselves because we're relying too much on America, which is Trump's message.
Trump's message is you're relying too much on us.
Step up your spending.
And they're just doing it anyway in anticipation.
This is the Trump effect.
The Trump effect is very real.
It seems like every country...
Is making fairly substantial adjustments just to accommodate the fact that he's a completely different character and more effective in so many ways that they have to change things.
When Biden came into office, do you remember anybody making any changes in other countries?
I don't.
Did any other country do anything differently?
I don't think so.
But as soon as Trump comes along...
We better change everything we're doing in the right direction.
Now, one of the funny questions going along around social media was, if the United States takes over Greenland, what will we name it?
Now, obviously, we would just keep it the same name, Greenland.
But it's funny to think about.
And some people had suggestions like Megaland and others.
But my suggestion, I think, is the best.
If the United States takes it over under Trump's administration, we should change the name from Greenland to Orange Land.
Greenland to Orange Land.
Yeah.
Yeah, you wish you thought of it.
All right, what else is happening?
Apparently, according to the Byte, the Washington Post is trying to get some new leadership in there to run the paper.
And the people who are applying or had been considered for the job are pulling out because they don't like the question they get when they interview.
And the question is, how would they use AI and technology basically to make the paper more successful?
And all these newspaper people don't know anything about technology or AI. And they're just like, I'm out.
I'm out.
So I would go further and say if Jeff Bezos wants the Washington Post to be more of a technically driven enterprise, you can't hire an editor.
You can't hire somebody who's been in journalism their whole life.
You're going to have to get somebody like a Vivek or an Elon Musk.
You're going to have to get somebody who really, really understands technology.
Anything short of that would be...
Why bother?
A regular newspaper editor...
It's not going to be bringing in a new technology way of doing things.
That's just not going to happen.
That would be like asking a bookstore in 1985 to build Amazon.
Bookstores don't know how to build Amazon.
Newspaper people don't know how to do AI. Politico has a story with this headline.
Elon Musk's, quote, move fast and break things attitude clashes with Washington.
Now, weirdly, I've been hearing the following complaint from people in my own life, you know, people that I interact with.
People are saying that Elon Musk Unique among all human beings is the only person who won't be able to figure out that governments operate differently than businesses and some adjustments might need to be made.
To which I say, okay, let me understand this, right?
You're saying that Elon Musk, unique among all 8 billion people, would be the only one.
He'd be the only one.
Who couldn't see what every one of us see, which is government runs differently than business.
Secondly, if you believe that move fast and break things won't work in government, what is your basis for saying that?
What data are you looking at?
What experience are you relying on that move fast and break things won't work in government?
Now, I would agree it might not.
Might not work in every situation.
But do you really think that Elon Musk looks at a brand new situation and says, I think I'll treat this the way I treat it, a completely different thing?
Elon Musk.
You think that Elon Musk is uniquely unable to see that every situation is different, and therefore you must adjust.
Elon Musk?
Why am I even having that conversation with multiple people?
What does Politico think he is?
How could you watch him do what he's done so far and think he can't navigate a new situation?
He's literally the most famous navigator of new situations in the history of the entire planet.
That'd be like me sitting at home saying, you know, what does Arnold Schwarzenegger know about bodybuilding?
I mean, I think he was working in construction before that.
So anyway, that's a weird criticism.
I didn't even read the Politico article, because when I saw the headline, I was like, oh, there's nothing here for me.
Mike Benz, who's working on Christmas Eve, found the receipts to prove the following.
Now, if you haven't followed Mike Benz, you're absolutely confused about the real world.
I mean, for the first time, all the stuff I didn't understand about the world, at least in terms of how governments in the United States are operating, finally it all came together.
Because what he does is he describes how the CIA has all these cutouts that control other countries, and more recently, they tried to use that trick to control the United States directly, which they're not supposed to do.
But let me just tell you what he discovered recently, just the other day.
So as he often describes, there's an enormous entity that That the United States controls and funds, it's a US entity, called USAID. Now, if you heard USAID, and you knew it operates to influence other countries, and you knew it was hugely funded, I forget their budget, but it's gigantic, wouldn't you assume that it was like foreign aid?
Just because of the name of it, USAID, and it's externally focused.
It's not aid to the U.S. It's U.S. aid to other countries, is what it sounds like.
But it turns out it's nothing like that.
The mission of USAID is to act innocent while overthrowing other countries on behalf of the CIA. So it's a regime change entity.
I'm trying to look like something else, but basically it's just a CIA weapon.
And did you know, according to Mike Benz, that AOC and Liz Cheney were both spawned by the USAID? They both have a prehistory that went through USAID. Do you know what that means?
Well, the suggestion is that AOC and Liz Chainer are both essentially CIA-influenced operatives and that they're not exactly operating for the benefit of the country so much as maybe the benefit of the CIA. Now, that's a big leap.
It's a big leap.
It's a leap from they had important contacts with USAID, like extensive ones, so much so that at one time they were certainly working with the CIA and you could argue for them.
But is it also true that the USAID and the CIA still have their hooks in them and they're just puppets for those guys?
Could be.
Could be.
It would explain everything you see.
It would explain 100% of your observations about the two of them.
But there's no direct evidence of that.
There's no direct evidence.
But that's also how it works.
The way it works is, hey, there's no direct evidence.
So I'm not going to say that they're CIA operatives.
I will say...
That Mike Benz's research on them, it's public.
You can see the documents.
He shows them to you.
You can see it for yourself.
But he makes a strong case.
He makes a strong case that they grew out of an entity that isn't, let's say, exclusively patriotic.
Well, maybe in its own special way.
I guess if you get pulled into that world, you always think you're on the side of goodness, even if you're not.
So that was interesting.
I continue to enjoy watching the Democrat experts talking about why things went wrong and getting everything wrong.
But what I call the doom spiral of the Democrat Party is way more entertaining than I expected.
I knew the Democrats were going to have some dissension and chaos if they lost the election, which they did.
I didn't know it would destroy the entire Democratic Party for I don't know how long.
But the question, and I've joked yesterday that the smart people who are Democrats have decided that the only way they can recover is by copying Trump.
That's right.
The Democrat experts, the smart people, went from the only thing we have to say is orange man bad...
That's all we have to say.
Trump's worse.
And they often said it directly, by the way.
They would often say, sure, our guy or our lady later may have some issues, but at least they're not Trump.
Right?
It was just an anti-Trump message.
And now they've decided that they have to have a Trump copycat message to win.
So they literally went from anti-Trump Can we copy everything he did that worked?
And that happened in like days.
So how artificial was their entire program?
It wasn't anything that smart people believe in because they wouldn't have changed their minds overnight.
It must have been that everything they were doing was seen as a tactic as opposed to a good idea for the public.
And when they realized their tactic didn't work, You can change a tactic.
So a tactic can change on a dime.
But your core values aren't going to change on a dime.
So when you see that what they think they need to do to win changed on a dime, do you think that had anything to do with core values?
I doubt it.
It suggests to me they didn't believe the core values that were being espoused by their own party.
But they were too cowardly to say it.
Or too loyal to I guess you could go both ways.
Too cowardly or too loyal to their team.
Ends up being, it looks the same.
But, here's a question.
How in the world are they going to recover?
So, let me lay out the situation for the Democrats, and you tell me if you think they can recover.
Because we kind of ordinarily imagine that if Republicans have a bad election, they can recover.
If Democrats have a bad election, they can recover.
Because that's all we've ever seen.
Usually there's always a comeback.
But there's a real interesting situation now with the Democrats that I haven't seen before.
So here's my description.
Number one, Democrats have no leader.
Would you agree?
Now, we've talked before about, you know, Obama, you know, secretly pulling the strings, but then other people say, no, it's the advisors.
The advisors are secretly pulling the strings.
And other people say, hmm, I think it's the Clintons or the deep states.
Or the CIA. Or it's the military-industrial complex.
Or it's Israel.
Everybody's got some idea of who's controlling the president.
But would you agree that the Democrats have no identifiable leader?
I mean, Hakeem Jeffries says some things once in a while, but it's in the context of his current job.
He doesn't feel like a leader of the party.
They also have no popular policies.
Just think about that.
They have no leader.
And they have no popular policies because they got beaten, and the polls show that the public didn't like any of their top policies.
Now, I'm talking about the top ones.
Once you get down to the fifth and sixth preference, then they start getting some support, like abortion, for example.
But if you look at the top three, it's just all Trump.
And so they would just have to...
So how are they going to win with no leader...
No charismatic leader.
No popular policies, let's say the top three priorities.
They also have no unity.
At the moment, the Republicans are completely unified under Trump.
Even Mitt Romney says, oh, it's Trump's party.
The Republican Party is Trump's party.
And when Mitt Romney said it, he didn't say it like an insult.
He did not say it like an insult, which is...
Pretty remarkable.
Pretty remarkable.
So somehow Trump found unity by simply success.
Boy, if you want to unify people, try being successful.
That'll get it done.
So he's got unity.
And then the Democrats don't seem to have any positive messaging.
So Trump's talking about the golden age and how great we're going to be.
And the Democrats mostly talk about How bad we've been.
Those are not competitive.
How great we're going to be is a strong message.
How bad we used to be, and we have to beat ourselves up for that, you can't win with that.
And then, of course, the entire party is DEI-infected, meaning that their enthusiasm for diversity should, all things being equal, cripple their effectiveness forever.
Because they can't back up from diversity and DEI. There's no way out.
Like, once you get there, you're going to have to die in that hell.
You can't back out.
But the Republicans don't have that problem at all.
And wokeness, the whole idea of wokeness, it appears to have just turned into a joke.
I don't even see Democrats supporting wokeness anymore.
They all seem to have said, oh, this was a losing theme.
It wasn't good for the country.
It totally destroyed the Democratic Party.
And they're right.
It did.
It totally destroyed the Democratic Party.
But possibly in a way they can't come back, which I worry about because I want a competitive party.
Gloria Romero, former state senator of California, said the Democrats were in complete collapse.
Now, at this point, that story, complete collapse, which is shared by other people, their opinion, that's forming a narrative.
And the Democrats, of course, like everybody, they'll seize on whatever narrative seems to capture things that other people are talking about.
So if enough Democrats say we're in complete collapse, That's how they will see their party.
It's not going to take too many pundits to use those words, complete collapse or words like it, for the mainstream to say, yeah, we're in complete collapse.
And then it becomes self-fulfilling.
So they're definitely circling the drain.
And I feel like I've switched a little bit from, yeah, the less of them, the better.
To, oh, we may have overcorrected.
If we overcorrect, then we don't have a good fight.
I mean, our system depends on a nice, fair fight.
So, you know, I hope Democrats can come back, but only if they're competing with good ideas this time.
If they're competing with bullshit, we don't need it.
Newsmax was reporting on Trump, how he did with young people, and he said, quote, Trump said, My son Barron said, Dad, you got to talk to this one and that one.
He likes Joe Rogan a lot.
He said, Dad, you got to do an interview.
He has a feel for young people.
I might have to start thinking about TikTok, meaning keeping TikTok so we can benefit from it.
Here, in my opinion, is Trump's least appreciated skill.
And when I say skill, I mean way above average.
Like skill.
Skill like you haven't seen before, skill.
His most important skill is at the age of 78, he is a really good listener.
Have you heard that before?
Because the bad guys, the Democrats, were all about Trump's a narcissist, so he's not even going to listen to you, or he's going to make a decision based on the last person to talk to him.
Which is just laughable.
Or he's going to use his narcissism and he's just going to do things that are good for him.
Which is completely at odds with the observable fact that he's the best listener I've ever seen in politics.
Does he understand what his base wants?
Yes.
Yes.
I've never seen anybody understand what their base wants more than Trump understands what his base wants.
He knows how to joke with us.
He knows how to tease us.
He knows how to get us interested.
He knows how to inspire.
He understands his base.
But it goes further than that.
When he talks about listening to Barron, he was taking political advice from a teenager.
Do you know why?
Why was he taking political advice, like important political advice, from a teenager?
Let me tell you why.
Because he listened to him.
He listened to him like genuinely listened to him.
And he heard things he'd never heard before.
And then he probably checked it with other people.
And then he operationalized it, put it into practice.
Now, I see this everywhere.
And by the way, people who have talked to him in person will say the same thing, I think every one of them says the same thing, that he absolutely listens.
And I'll tell you from my, I've told you this before, but my one experience where I talked to him personally, when he invited me to the White House in 2018, and I think he was just, the reason I was there, he was just, it was a slow summer, 2018. Not much news.
And I think he was just firming up support with the people who were public supporters.
So I got an invitation.
And if you can imagine this, it's beyond imagination.
Imagine me sitting in the Oval Office, like I'm on the other side of the desk, and I'm just chatting with him about nothing in particular.
Nothing in particular.
I mean, I'm not going to give you details of the conversation, but...
It kind of went from one topic to another because I wasn't there for a specific purpose.
But here's the part that will blow you away.
A good percentage of it was him asking questions about my life and my career life and how Dilbert worked and how many papers was in and how that was working out.
And he was completely engaged or it felt like it.
So imagine somebody who's got the weight of the entire world on their shoulders, and you sit in front of them, and for 30 minutes you feel like you're the only person in the room that he cares about.
Like, it was amazing.
So as a listener, it's like his top skill.
And he's got a lot of skills, but that might be his top skill.
So when you see the Baron story about he got his advice from a teenager, that's more like who he is.
That's not the exception.
Meanwhile, in that hellscape called Europe, apparently starting July 6th, No, apparently that already started.
There's some kind of technology they're putting in the cars in Europe that will make your car beep if you exceed the speed limit.
So your car will start scolding you for driving fast.
And the funny thing is that the guy who gets a lot of bad press in Great Britain, that teary or theory Breeden guy, the anti-free speech guy, or the censorship guy, let's call him that, Now he wants your car to be scolding you.
I'll tell you, the reasons not to go to Europe just keep adding up.
Anyway, I got some technology stories.
But I thought because it's close to year-end, I would give a little review of my best predictions that involve Trump.
So clearly I'm better at predicting Trump-related things than other things, for whatever reason.
I wanted to just give you my best list, because if you haven't heard them all at once, it's different.
So these are all things you've heard, but if you don't hear them in a list at the same time, it won't feel the same.
So of course you know that I kind of got a lot of notoriety, because in 2015 I said that not only would he win, but he would change how we saw reality.
Now, those were two of the best predictions of all time.
That Trump would win when people thought he was a joke, and that he would not just win, he would change reality.
I said that in 2016. Did he change reality?
The way you see reality.
Did he change the way you see reality?
Oh my God!
Now we understand that the news was never a legitimate industry.
I had no idea how bad the fake news was, but he let us see it.
And he was on it early.
Now, why did he see it before the rest of us?
Because he was in it.
He knew how often the news was fake about himself.
So he knew the news was fake because it was fake about him for years.
So he let us in on the secret.
The news is fake.
And then we could start to see it.
Once you see the news is fake, You start to realize that everything from the Russia collusion is more than an accident.
And that, you know, there are forces behind the curtain who are orchestrating things.
And then you start to understand Soros.
And suddenly everything starts coming together.
And then you start thinking the experts might not know things.
You know, he calls climate change a hoax.
And the first time you hear it, you're like, oh, God, really?
Oh my God, I was supporting that guy, and now he's saying that science is like, their main thing is a hoax.
And then the more you see about climate change, the more you think, oh, yeah, he might be right about that too.
And then you find that all experts who have bosses are lying.
All experts who have bosses are And then you learn that every organization that reaches a certain scale is fully corrupt.
Just all of them.
I didn't see that coming.
I didn't know all of them were corrupt, but it seems to me that all of them are corrupt.
So he did change reality.
I also said in 2016 that he was one of the best communicators, not just persuaders, But one of the best communicators we've ever seen.
And people laughed.
And they said, Scott, they say he has a sixth-grade vocabulary.
We think he has mental illness.
And I said, no.
That sixth-grade vocabulary, you don't see what he's doing.
He's talking the way people talk.
He's communicating on their level.
That's how you do it.
That's the right way to do it.
If you don't even recognize it as a technique, and you think you must have mental illness, you are so far from understanding how things work.
You're just flying blind there.
Today, would you agree that even the people who are on his enemies list, would you agree that even they say he's the best communicator around?
You would.
They basically say he out-communicated us.
I mean, the Democrats are kind of being honest about that.
And I would say that his slogans, his summaries, his ability to provoke, make you think, make you think differently, reframe things, you've never seen anything like it.
He's the best.
You know, Reagan was amazing.
I think Trump's better.
I think Trump's better.
And Reagan was amazing.
But Trump's a little bit better.
He's the best I think we've ever seen.
So here's what else I predicted.
By the way, along with our idea of reality changing, the simulation theory, the fact that string theory doesn't look like it works, and then some maybe even things about aliens, I don't know.
But certainly the way we look at reality is completely different since Trump.
I predicted that after Trump lost in 2020, even though his reputation was in the toilet and he was being called a I predicted, against the grain, that he would get more popular every day.
Every day.
And he did.
And he just reached his peak popularity.
He got more popular every day.
I predicted incorrectly, so this is my biggest incorrect one, that Russia would not invade Ukraine And my reasoning was that if they did, it wouldn't work.
And all the experts were saying, oh, Scott, it's going to take two weeks.
Russia will just roll into Kyiv.
There's nothing to stop them, basically.
And I said, no, I think drones are going to stop them.
And today it's a drone war.
So Ukraine was reporting they did their first all-robot attack.
Today I'm going to say I don't believe that's true.
I think their alleged all-robot attack was just propaganda.
Good propaganda.
Well done.
Because in war, propaganda is one of the tools.
It's one of the tools of war.
So if you judge wartime propaganda as to whether it's true or false, you're in the wrong conversation.
Wartime propaganda is just supposed to work or not work.
True or false isn't...
Who cares?
It's a war.
You're just trying to win the war.
If it works, it works.
That's the end of it.
It doesn't need to be true.
So Ukraine came up with this great propaganda that they're so advanced with their robots and their drones That they can now launch all robot attacks, which conveniently sends the message that, sure, they're running out of human beings because they're all dead, but that won't stop their war effort because they'll just replace human beings with all robot warriors.
So I would look at that first report as propaganda.
I don't think you're going to see them You know, duplicating their all-robot attack and suddenly taking Crimea back with robots.
That's not going to happen.
The story about that is way ahead of the reality.
I feel very confident in saying that.
Although the reality will certainly be all robots.
There's no doubt that it will be, we'll have robot war.
But not in Ukraine and not this year.
So, but my best, so that was my best Prediction about Ukraine is that they would use drones and technology that Russia had not seen yet to make it impossible to hold ground.
And I thought, really?
They're going to roll tanks?
They're going to bring tanks into Ukraine?
And they think any of them are going to survive?
And sure enough, most of their tanks got taken out.
So I beat all of the military experts on not the question of whether Putin would invade, But what would happen if he did?
I predicted in 2019, and most of you did too, that Biden's brain was shot and there was no way he could last to the end of his term.
So I beat the medical doctors, the medical experts, in my prediction about Biden's brain.
I beat the military experts on how Ukraine would fare if Russia attacked.
I beat all the political experts When I said that, you're going to be surprised how much the Hispanics like Trump.
And I said, if you live and work among the Hispanic community, as I do, you will see that they're just basically Republicans.
They love their family, they like hard work, they're willing to do it, and their religion.
And yesterday I was watching a clip of a Hispanic American saying, yeah, I think the Democrats underestimated our Catholic beliefs that are just closer to Republican.
So I alone in the entire world predicted that although Trump was being demonized for his border policies, that he would gain in Hispanic votes.
I alone predicted And the entire world predicted that.
Now, I say I alone, I mean in just the political pundit class.
There might be plenty of you who predicted it, too.
I also predicted that Trump would pick up black votes mostly among men, long before it happened.
So at the same time that people were saying, you know, fine people hoax and everything else, it seemed impossible.
I said, hmm, he might not win the black vote, but watch what he does with black men.
Sure enough, black men.
I also told you way before anybody was onto it that the Democrats were becoming the party of women and men who were willing to go along with the women.
And sure enough, it became the party of women.
I also predicted that the fine people hoax wasn't like the others, and that it was the tentpole hoax.
And if you could pull out the tentpole, the entire tent would come down.
And I think that's what happened.
I think that with the amazing work of Steve Cortez and Joel Pollack and I, the three horsemen of the anti-fine people hoax, I think we just stayed on it and stayed on it and stayed on it until most people knew it was a hoax on the right.
Would you agree?
Most people know that's a hoax on the right.
And didn't really know it right away.
It took a while for that to become the common view on the right.
Some people saw it right away, but before it was a common view, it had to be persuaded.
And then I think that's the main reason I'll call them the common sense switchovers switched.
You've heard Joe Rogan say the fine people hoax affected him.
I think you've heard Elon Musk, maybe Sachs, David Sachs.
So there are several very notable people who were flipped by that one hoax when it got debunked, when they realized it was debunked.
And I was right.
It turned out to be the 10 poll hoax.
It was the one that allowed you to see that the others were hoaxes.
Because once you see that they pulled that off, then you can see that if the news could pull off that hoax so easily debunked and they still pulled it off.
They still pulled it off.
So much so that Biden ran on that message.
That's how well they pulled it off.
So once that got pulled out, especially after Snopes debunked it, I think that was like the domino that just destroyed the Democrat Party.
I think the fine people hoax...
Allowed the highly credible people, such as the Elon Musks, to come over.
RFK Jr. too, probably.
I think it allowed the common sense people to say, you know what?
We like these things.
Not everything, but we like these things that Trump is saying.
We can work with that.
So that was the biggest thing.
And I think it was probably hugely helpful...
When I created the original hoax list, the list of 12 or so hoaxes that later got expanded to about 20 of them, and it became memeable.
And for the first time, because the hoaxes had names by then, you got your Russia collusion hoax, you got your fine people hoax, your drinking bleach hoax, they had names.
So naming them and putting them on the list allowed it to be memeable.
But more importantly, it allowed you to see that this is a giant PSYOP and that the Democrats and the CIA and the media were all one entity running PSYOPs one after another.
And once you saw that, you can't unsee it.
Because it creates vision for you.
You can actually see it happening.
So, I gotta say, I'm pretty proud of those predictions.
But if you'd like to be good at predicting too, learning persuasion is probably what gets you there.
Because persuasion is predictive.
Specifically, if I see the best persuader in the world enter a field, I know where things are going to go.
Oh, it doesn't matter what anyone else is doing.
The best persuader just entered the field.
All right.
Bill Gates was calling for anti-vaxxers to be censored by AI, and he says questioning vaccines is tantamount to inciting violence.
So he wants the free speech of anti-vaxxers to be limited.
In a pretty serious way.
All right, you win.
For how many years have I been saying, why are you calling Bill Gates evil when he's just trying to make the world a better place with all his charities?
Now, I get it that he was, you know, he was pretty tough when he was running Microsoft and did some things you think are anti-competitive.
I get that.
But when he switched over to charity or philanthropy being his main thing, and he started developing better toilets for Africa and cleaner water and stuff, I thought, how in the world are you criticizing somebody working full-time to make the world better, especially in the worst places like Africa?
How in the world is that evil?
And people would say, oh, the vaccines, the vaccines, something about the vaccines.
And then I would say something like, well, I don't know that whole story, but are you saying all vaccines are bad?
Because at the time, I thought he was just trying to help and he thought vaccines would make a difference.
Then people would say, yes, but he used Africa as guinea pigs.
And sometimes it didn't work out and people died from the vaccines.
To which I say, how do you think any medicine gets tested?
At some point it gets tested on people.
And you're going to have to find a place where the people say yes.
So using Africans as guinea pigs, to me, is just a subset of all Big Pharma uses human beings as guinea pigs.
That's sort of their whole business model.
They use the guinea pigs as guinea pigs, or rats, and then if it works on the animals, They use human beings as guinea pigs.
That's what it is.
So I said to myself, are you making too much of this Africa thing?
No, I get that it was a mistake.
And I get that it turned out horribly wrong for way too many people.
I get that.
But does that mean it was poorly intentioned?
Or is it just built into the nature of vaccines that every once in a while you're going to get a real bad result?
And we all know that, and it's just sort of built into the risk management of it.
So I had a million different ways to say, I think you're misinterpreting this Bill Gates guy.
Just because he's seemingly creepy, you know, and maybe his social life and his connections to Epstein make you uncomfortable, that doesn't mean his philanthropy is all evil.
Come on.
And then I hear this story today, that he wants the anti-vaxxers to be censored by AI, and he's questioning whether vaccine questioning is inciting violence.
And I'm out.
I'm out.
I'm not going to review any of the old arguments, because this is all I need to know.
This is all I need to know.
Once I see that he's all in on the vaccines, whether they work or not, basically, I don't need to know anything else.
So it took a while for me to see something that I considered unambiguous.
Because all the other complaints about him, they always have that ambiguity.
Well, you know, maybe you're misinterpreting this.
Well, you can't read his mind, I would say.
You can't read his mind.
But in this case, you don't really need to read any minds.
This is I don't even have to say what this is.
You probably have the same opinion I do.
So he's on his own now.
If Bill Gates rises or falls or helps the world or doesn't, it's all him.
I'm not going to back him on anything from now on.
I'm out.
RFK Jr. was asking on a Theo Vaughn Interview not too long ago.
He noted that Bill Gates and the CIA were co-hosting an event In 2019, and he said to Theo, quote, you have in New York City Bill Gates hosting a coronavirus pandemic simulation.
His co-host is Avril Haines, the deputy director of the CIA. What is the CIA doing at a public health forum?
They don't do public health.
They do coup d'etats.
Coup d'etats.
To which I say...
Yeah.
Why would Bill Gates and the CIA be hosting a coronavirus event in 2019, which was right before the coronavirus got out?
None of that sounds good.
None of that sounds good.
I'm not comfortable with that.
So, again, if this had been a year ago, I would have said, well, the CIA probably has an interest in this, and Bill Gates is trying to help, so maybe they just got together.
Today I say, I don't like any of this.
I don't know what it means.
I don't like it.
So I'm with you on that.
Okay.
So there's a new battery breakthrough.
Lithium ion batteries will double the, according to Tech Explorer.
So the reason I tell you there's a breakthrough in batteries every single day is because there's a breakthrough in batteries every single day.
And what you should get from this is the world is going to be really different and technology and engineering are really focusing in the right place.
Because if you can get batteries that are twice as good, five times as good, really everything changes.
It changes the economics of almost every industry and every residence as well.
So it's a big deal.
So there's this airline crash in Azerbaijan.
Somebody got on film.
And...
There's some kind of weird structural failures that didn't seem to be the proximate cause of the crash, but maybe it was, but it's a mystery.
So it looks like a whole bunch of, almost like an explosion from outside may have ripped a whole bunch of little holes in the fuselage, which might have been the original problem.
So nobody knows what those holes are caused by.
But there are a bunch of them, and they're randomly scattered on the outside of the plane.
To me, it looks like shrapnel that happened from the outside.
Wait, I'm seeing something here.
What about Ben Shapiro?
I can't go backwards in the comments.
They won't back up.
So your comment about the Fine People hoax and Ben Shapiro, I couldn't read it as it went by.
I saw you were trying to flag me desperately.
But I'll watch now if you want to put it back, but it'll take about 30 seconds for it to show up.
All right, well, I'm not going to see that one, I guess.
If somebody saw that, you can put it in the locals' feed.
If it was important.
It looked like it might have been some good point that I was missing.
So if I was missing something important, I wanted to back up and get it.
All right.
Well, look for that.
So we don't know what that was, but it's a mystery of why that plane went down.
Meanwhile, over in Saudi Arabia, you know they're building that miles-long city called Nome, I think?
So it's the biggest construction site in the world.
And so it's basically this straight line build of businesses, mostly businesses, maybe some residents.
And here's the thing that makes news.
So they're replacing the number of the workers with robots.
So that's why it got in the news, because the robots are coming in.
But apparently 21,000 foreign workers Ben Shapiro, the Grand Zero of TDS. Oh, so somebody's telling me that Ben Shapiro believed the fine people hoax at first.
Well, there's nothing wrong with believing it at first.
See, here's the standard that you should all adopt.
If your complaint is somebody got something wrong at first, And then when better information was available, they revised their opinion.
That should be a compliment to the person.
It shouldn't be an insult because they got something wrong at first.
The very best thing a person can do is adjust from wrong to right.
If you tell me that Ben Shapiro with bad information got something wrong and then with good information got something right, I say kudos to Ben Shapiro.
That to me sounds like just a compliment to his intelligence, flexibility, and open-mindedness.
So did you mean to compliment him?
Because that comes across as a compliment.
Or is this just another anti-Semitic rant?
Because his last name is Shapiro and he's Jewish, so you've got to shove that into every topic to find something that fits your little preconceived anti-Semitic frame.
Is that what we're doing?
Sometimes it's hard to sort out how much is a political opinion and how much is just pure anti-Semitic garbage.
Because I got a real question on that one.
Are we all on the same page?
You can disagree with Ben Shapiro all you want, but if he improves his opinion with better information, he's still the smartest guy in the game.
He's smarter than I am.
And I don't say that a lot.
Right?
I think you would agree.
You don't hear that a lot.
But no, he's smarter than I am.
So if he and I disagree, and it's not based on some obvious values or religious difference, I'm going to stop what I'm doing.
I'm going to listen to what he says, and I'm going to listen to his evidence, and I'm going to definitely question my own opinion if he disagrees with me.
I love that there are people in the world Who, if they disagree with me, I will stop on a dime and say, oh, uh-oh.
You know, Naval would be one.
He'd be at the top of my list.
If Naval said something that was opposite of what I thought, I would stop what I was doing and say, what?
Like, where is this coming from?
Ben Shapiro's another one.
Jordan Peterson's another one.
You could probably come up with a few more.
On the legal side, Jonathan Turley or Dershowitz, if they disagree with me, I immediately change my opinion to their opinion, because I'm not going to out-legal opinion them, for sure.
So, yeah.
So, I don't think the people on the right are fully appreciative of what Ben Shapiro brings to the whole conversation.
Like, you'll always have one person Whose logic and knowledge of the event, eventually, maybe not on day one, will be nearly perfect.
So I don't think we understand how important that is.
There are half a dozen people on the right that have that kind of intellectual weight, and they can bring it to almost any topic.
Elon Musk, right?
If I disagreed with Elon Musk, For example, Elon Musk says our biggest problem in the world is depopulation.
You're not reproducing enough.
I see a lot of people saying, oh my god, he's so wrong.
Our biggest problem is too many people.
To which I say, do you hear yourself?
If Elon Musk, who has looked into it a lot, says with no reservation whatsoever, not maybe, not if, biggest problem is our lack of reproducing, you should immediately pause your opinion and say, I need to find out more about this because I'm probably wrong.
Right?
You know, I'm not sure I was totally on that page.
Until I heard how confident he was, and then I started looking at the data.
And once you look at the data, oh yeah, he's right.
He's definitely right.
If you know a little bit about economics, you know that you have to have a certain ratio of new people to old people, or everything breaks.
Although robots will be interesting.
All right, ladies and gentlemen.
There wasn't much in the way of news today, so I just tried to keep you company and keep you going.
Yeah, Japan in particular is losing people like a million a year.
Mike Burt said the same thing Elon did way back when this group was new.
You get the credit, Mike Burt.
Someone says, so Bighorn Shaver says, we'd love to see Ben and Candace, Candace Owens, knock down, drag him, fight over Zionism versus the Catholic Church.
I wouldn't.
Why would you want to see that?
Can't they have different opinions?
See, the thing is, I'm not asking you to have the same opinion as Ben Shapiro.
If you heard that, you heard it wrong.
I ask you that if he's talking about values or Israel, he has a certain emotional connection to things.
You don't have to take those opinions.
Because I think he would be quite transparent in saying even where his biases are.
I think he'd be completely transparent about that.
He always is, right?
Alright.
You love to listen to me rapping while you're rapping?
You're rapping on Christmas Day?
I guess your family's coming later, huh?
He's a performer, not a deep intellectual.
Alright, so let me comment this.
Somebody's commenting that Ben Shapiro is a performer, not a deep, intellectually honest thinker.
Now, in order for you to have that opinion, you would have to be smarter than Ben Shapiro.
Because if you didn't recognize what he's doing as intellectually deep, depending on the topic, how could you judge that?
Can your dog judge your intelligence?
No.
Can you judge your dog's intelligence?
Probably.
So in general, the smartest person can judge the intelligence of the less intelligent person, but not vice versa.
So if you think that he's a performer and not an honest intellectual thinker, That kind of puts you that your opinion is that you're smarter than he is.
Is that what you're saying?
Like I say, I'm an egomaniac, and even I don't say that.
He's clearly smarter than I am.
Clearly.
If we took any kind of standardized test or a history test, a math test, he would beat me on probably every parameter.
So, I don't judge that he's not a deep thinker.
I judge that I can't tell.
It's deeper than I can go.
If it's deeper than I can go, then I'm getting a lot of value out of it.
So, I think some of the criticisms are overblown.
He wouldn't beat me at tennis.
Maybe.
He does have youth.
He has a Harvard Law degree, but he is a performer.
So one of the things that seems to be directed as an insult that doesn't come across as an insult is that somebody is just doing something for clicks.
That's literally the business model.
The business model of everybody who talks about politics is, quote, doing things for clicks.
It's not an insult.
It just means that they're doing more than one thing at a time.
That they can do things for clicks while making the world a better place.
I do things for clicks, but I try to make sure that people are getting value from it.
So I'll get your click, you get some value if you like the entertainment or you learn something, and then we're both happy.
You got some entertainment, I got a click.
Why is that a problem?
Why is that a problem?
To me, those kinds of complaints seem like you're not in a winning mindset.
A winner mindset is, oh, you're doing something good and you're getting paid?
And people are all happy about that?
Good for you.
That should be the approach.
So if somebody's an entertainer, in addition to being able to think deeply, isn't that just a talent stack?
Trump's an entertainer, but clearly he can go deeper.
That's a talent stack.
So sometimes your insults are just compliments, and I don't know what to do with it.
Or when you say, when people mock me for changing my mind, that's a compliment that I change my mind.
If you're trying to make that seem like an insult to embarrass me, that's not going to work.
Every time anybody changes their mind, you've seen me a million times say, oh, it looks like Cenk or Bill Maher or somebody are coming closer to an opinion that I hold.
I always compliment them.
I don't insult them for their old opinions.
So, yes, we're going to work for clicks.
We're going to be entertaining if we can.
And we're going to try to make as much money as we can.
But you're never going to succeed.
Unless the audience is getting a lot out of it.
how's that a crime with the solution to the economic problem be more babies Well, if we knew how to do that.
The assumption is that there's something we could do in the United States to improve the number of American-born babies.
I don't know if there is.
There's nothing I've heard that could get that job done.
Probably in the long run, if you improved your economic situation or the way we raise kids or the way schools work or something, you can easily imagine that if we changed enough, we could get back to having more kids.
But I don't see it happening.
I think the structure of the United States and how much it costs to live is just so expensive that people say, I can do one baby at most.
I don't think that's going to change unless the economy changes radically.
I don't see it radically changing.
Maybe.
All right, here's one way it could change.
Suppose robots start doing all their work and people have too much free time.
And let's say that all the basics are provided by robots so that nobody's out of food, nobody's going to run out of diapers, nobody's going to run out of health care.
So basically all the basics will be taken care of.
And you're bored.
If you were bored because you didn't need to work and it didn't cost you extra to have a baby, Well, maybe that's exactly what would cause you to have more babies.
But you know what the problem would be?
By the time your robots are handling all that stuff, you're not going to need more babies.
So by the time the robots are really doing the work of people at a large scale, we're going to start talking about having too many people again because they won't have a purpose.
So if people stop having a purpose because they don't work, what happens to them?
Can you imagine me with only leisure?
I don't think I could survive that.
I've evolved over a million years, like I'm the result of a million years of evolution, that turned me into a creature that prefers work.
I prefer it.
I mean, not every kind of work, but...
I mean, I'm working on Christmas Day because I want to be here.
I don't have to be here.
There's nothing that makes me be here.
I want to be here.
So, I don't know that I would love the world where the robots are doing the podcasts, even if they're really good at it.
So, I still need a person.
Doing nothing is boring.
That's right.
Doing nothing that's useful to me is torture.
If I do something that's hard or easy or whatever, as long as I know it's really making a difference for me or for somebody else, then I'm all in.
It has to make a difference.
But I don't really like the world where the robots are working and I'm watching TV. Or going to the gym.
I don't know.
That doesn't seem like the world I want to live in.
I worry that the only way humans can survive and thrive is if one-third of them are starving, one-third of them are getting by, and one-third of them are thriving and really trying to change the world.
And I think if you change that to everybody's just fine, then it doesn't work.
Because the thing that propels humans forward is the one-third that are going to really make things happen.
One-third that are showing up and making sure that things are clean and the paperwork gets where it needs.
And then one-third will always be below the level that society needs for work.
There'll be one-third of the world at least.
It's probably beyond that already.
That doesn't really have an economic value in terms of taking a job.
So I think it has to be that way.
I don't think we can all be in the middle.
So that's what I worry about.
When you listen to Ben Shapiro talk to Russell Brand, your head will explode.
That's a lot of vocabulary between those two.
You can tell Russell Brand's intelligence by how quickly he can compose perfect but complicated sentences with big vocabulary.
But not so big that you don't know what he's talking about.
That's quite a skill.
We'll be like cats.
Yeah, just laying around and licking ourselves.
Why won't Ben debate Nick Fuentes?
Is that a serious question?
Really?
Are you genuinely confused about why Ben Shapiro would not debate Nick Fuentes?
That can't be a real question.
And by the way, I'm not insulting Nick Fuentes.
I'm just saying it wouldn't make any sense for Ben to talk to him.
Yeah, I wouldn't want to see that.
I wouldn't want to see it at all.
And I wouldn't recommend he do it.
Santa looks like me without the beard.
Funny you should say that, because I was saying that while I was watching the show.
I was joking about Santa being too much like me.
All right.
I'm going to go talk to the locals people privately.
How about Matt Walsh?
What about him?
You mean to talk to Nick Fuentes?
How about never ask me that again?
I'm going to put it on the list of things I never want to answer or say a question on.
Who should talk to Nick Fuentes?
And I'm not insulting Nick.
I'm just saying, I don't want to really even deal with that question again.
Because the problem is, let me be more specific.
Nick Fuentes, his business model involves creating controversy that would rub off on anybody who got near him.
Why do you think that people you like should get near him?
Because you hate them?
When does Christmas start?
It's already on.
We've got the Christmas trolls in the comments.
Yeah, I mean, you can love him or hate him, but don't ask other people to be part of his act.
His act does not really lend itself to guests.
Now, I'm talking to somebody who got cancelled.
Now, trust me when I say half of the country, at least half, would have no interest in dealing with me.
I had the experience recently of asking, and this is rare, I don't ask people to be guests on the show a lot, But there was one person in the public domain, I won't be specific, who I've chatted with a thousand times.
Maybe a thousand times.
So somebody I know really well.
And somebody who at one point had been a big fan.
And I asked that person to come on my show because that person would be unusually interesting.
And I got turned down hard.
I got a hard turn down.
I think the answer was, if I'm ever interested, I'll let you know.
What?
This was somebody that I had quite an extensive multi-year ongoing conversation with, and it was all positive.
But after I got canceled?
Nope.
Nope.
Now, was he wrong?
It was a he.
Was he wrong?
I'm not going to tell you who it was, but if I did tell you who it was, He was probably right.
He was probably right.
I would be a reputational stain on his world, and he doesn't need that.
Why would he do that?
So I completely understand if somebody doesn't want to go on Nick Fuentes in exactly the same way, I understand if somebody doesn't want to come on my show.
Because I do present a reputational risk.
And that's just a fact.
It has nothing to do with my character or anything else.
I don't take it personally.
So I didn't take it personally when I got turned down by somebody who kind of surprised me.
But if you looked at what their job is, or their role, let's say their role in the world, I won't call it the job, but if you look at their role in the world, Yeah, yeah, keeping the canceled guy's stain off of him, probably a good play.
He's got other fish to fry.
All right.
Well, we appreciate you all too.
All right.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, look at all that flannel.
That's a good-looking Dilbert doll.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately for a moment, and I'll see the rest of you tomorrow.
Thanks for joining me on this special Christmas Day.
You're all amazing, and thanks for the great year.
