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, California ADU Increase, Bernie Sanders Credit Card Interest Law, New Orleans Terror Attack, X Censorship, Laura Loomer, Corrupt Government Agencies, Stephen A. Smith, H-1B Conservative Debate, Greg Gutfeld, Fine People Hoax Debunking, President Trump, Climate Change Persuasion, Catherine Herridge, Russian DEW Weapon Whistleblower, Ivermectin Cancer Cure Claims, Lavrov Leaked Offer Rejection, Ukraine Peace Negotiations, 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 2025 edition.
Happy New Year!
If you'd like to take this new year up to levels of enjoyment that you can barely even understand with your tiny, shiny human brains, all you need is a cup or mugger, a glass of tankard, a chalice of stein, 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 the whole year better, it's called the simultaneous sip.
And darn it, it's going to happen right now.
Go.
Well, it's the first day of my attempted no cursing.
I've tried this before with total failure.
But I'm going to try again.
A year with no substantial cursing.
We'll see if I can do it.
Well, surprisingly, there are stories.
I thought it'd be such a slow news day that it'd be nothing to talk about.
They're not all good stories.
We'll get to that.
So you know how the science always shows that conservatives have more of an ick factor?
They get grossed down at things and that's what makes them conservatives.
Have you ever heard that?
I've been hearing that research my whole adult life.
A new study says that the thing that makes conservatives conservative is they get icked out easier than other people.
Well, according to SciPost and Eric Dolan's writing, that doesn't hold up.
The science doesn't support it.
That was all fake.
Or, it should be noted, it could be real, but the new studies don't find it.
So the new studies are debunking the old studies, but I suppose it's just as likely that the old studies were right and the new ones were wrong.
Basically, a lot of science is a coin flip.
The difference between we did a scientific study and we flipped a coin, there's none.
There's no difference.
Because studies, just in general, it wouldn't even matter what the topic was, studies tend to be inaccurate and fake and not reproducible about half of the time.
If it's half of the time, And you're not sure in advance which way it's going to go?
And you can do new studies later and they're the opposite?
It's just a coin flip.
It is so far away from being science, even though it follows the scientific process.
We hope.
So I don't know if this is true or not, but maybe it has nothing to do with the ick factor and a lot to do with common sense.
Common sense?
Maybe?
Alright, well, there's a new poll from Bloomberg, the conference board.
Unusual whales on X is telling us that Americans are the most bullish on stocks they have ever been.
Just ever?
Seriously?
Ever?
60% of U.S. respondents, they think stock prices will rise over the coming year.
Well, that's not really the The hardest prediction, is it?
Because if things were just basically the same next year as they are this year, inflation alone would make the stock prices go up, because the companies would charge more for the same product, and you'd pay it, and then the stock price would start reflecting the larger dollar amounts.
But it wouldn't be real, it would just be inflation.
So yes, 60% of the U.S. made a pretty good prediction about the stock prices.
But just saying that they went up, that could include 1%.
That could include 2%, which would not be very good because that would be below the inflation rate.
So yeah, it's pretty easy to say it's going to go up.
60% seems about right.
60% say it's going to go up.
Not that it would go up 60%.
Meanwhile, California is acting all rational.
So it's a big story.
The only reason I'm going to tell you this story is that as far as I can tell, the governor...
And the government of the state is doing the right thing.
And I'm so surprised by it that I thought I'd talk about it.
Every time you see somebody doing something smart and logical and the right thing, you think, oh, that's weird.
Didn't expect that.
So here's what it is.
California, back in 2021...
They passed the law that you could build more homes on your single residence property.
So if you're zoned for only one house in the past, you would only be able to have your one house.
But because they wanted people to build ADUs and in-law apartments and make housing more affordable and more frequent or just more available, California said, hey, you can build more than one house on your property, up to four.
And the local cities said, no, you can't.
They passed their own ordinances to thwart the state.
And now the state has fought back and said, no, you do not have the right to have these local ordinances to thwart the state.
So the new rule, I guess, is going to try to override the states.
Now, the good news is that they're allowing the free market to do its thing.
The bad news is it took them from 2021 till now to fix this.
So I don't want to say what took you so long, because you can say that about everything.
Everything that's good took too long.
But at least this shows the right thinking.
The right thinking is let the free market solve it.
So that's a step in the right direction.
Here's another step in the right direction.
End Wokeness, account on X, put together a list of the major corporations that have already canceled DEI. So in 2024, the following canceled their DEI. See if you can find I want you to see if you can find any pattern to these companies.
So what pattern do you see?
Why would it be these companies that would be the first ones to do it?
Ready?
The companies are Ford, Coors, Lowe's, Nissan, Boeing, Toyota, Walmart, Caterpillar, Craftsman, John Deere, Jack Daniels, Tractor Supply, Black& Decker, Harley-Davidson, and Indian Motorcycles.
What do they all have in common?
Most of them.
All but one.
Well, the answer is they're all masculine brands.
They're masculine brands.
They would be the ones you'd most likely imagine men would have the most interest in.
Everything from motorcycles to power tools to cars and airplanes and beer.
Walmart's kind of an in-betweener.
And then Just the News is reporting that the Idaho State Board of Education just approved the ban on DEI. And I think Texas has also banned DEI. So this answers the question that I had.
Which is, you know, the activist on this who's getting the most success is Bobby Starbuck.
Robbie Starbuck.
But Starbuck said he had a plan for the order of attack.
And attack just means which companies you approach.
And I didn't understand why Quesco wasn't necessarily toward the top of the list.
I wondered what the criteria was for deciding what order to try to approach it.
And now I understand.
I think I understand.
I don't know for sure.
It's not confirmed.
But it would make perfect sense to go after the male-oriented brands first because they would obviously be the ones who would buckle first.
They would have the most risk, the most reward.
If you can get enough of the male-oriented brands to say we're getting out of this business, not everybody is going to notice they're all male-oriented brands.
They're just going to say, whoa, major corporations are canceling DEI. At that point, it might be easier for the non-masculine brands to make the move.
I think the CEOs of these particular companies, most of them, at least 80% of them, probably are not going to get a blowback from their main customers.
Their main customers are probably going to say, well, it's about time.
So these would be the ones to start with.
Smart.
Meanwhile, Argentina's Mille, I guess he's an Ayn Rand fan.
He's going to some event, which makes sense.
Free market kind of thing.
But here's a free market thing he's doing.
He announced that starting this year, the In Argentina, if anybody wants to hire a new state employee, you can only hire a new person if you fire three.
So you have to fire three existing employees if you really, really, really need this new employee.
Otherwise, you just can't do it.
Now, what does that sound like?
It sounds like Trump's plan of regulations.
Do you remember in the first term?
Trump said he would remove, if you wanted any new regulation, you had to remove, I forget the number, was it 3 or 10 or something?
But you had to remove a larger number of regulations to add one.
And now Millet is saying the same thing with hiring.
Did that come from Trump?
Do you think that this is the Trump effect?
Meaning that Millet is just borrowing Trump's technique, which apparently was a 10. So you had to get rid of 10 to add 1, right?
That was Trump's plan.
This looks like Trump-inspired.
So that whole Trump effect is wild.
I mean, it's really, really pervasive.
Way more than I would have ever predicted, for sure.
So that's all good news.
We'll see if that works.
Meanwhile, and this is wild too, Bernie Sanders is going to introduce legislation, according to Fox News, he's going to introduce legislation that was inspired by Trump.
So Trump said that we should do a temporary limit on credit cards of 10%, so they can only charge you 10%, not higher interest.
And Bernie Sanders agrees with that.
Now, I think Bernie's trying to make it permanent.
Trump wanted it to be temporary.
But still, so Bernie's sort of testing the president to see if he would sign it.
So he's introducing this legislation.
What if he does sign it?
I suspect he won't, because Trump was saying temporary, which at least you could defend a little bit in terms of the free market.
But there is a free market question here that seems to be opposite of what Trump normally does.
Normally, I'd expect Trump to say, no, free market, free market.
We can't be messing with the private companies.
Just use a different credit card company if you don't like the one you have.
And I'm not sure why that doesn't work in this case.
I don't really understand why that doesn't work.
But at least there's a prominent Republican and a prominent Democrat, or Independent or whatever Bernie is these days, who both agree.
Now, it is anti-capitalist and it's anti-free market, to put a cap on a particular business.
Very anti-free market.
I don't know that I hate it, though, because I'd have to hear the argument the other way.
Here's my guess.
Yeah, my guess is...
That there's some reason why the rates are so high for some people.
There must be some reason.
And I think it's because the credit card companies are absorbing massive fraud.
The number of credit cards that are being used...
Let's see, I think I had to change my credit cards twice last year.
My major credit cards, I had to replace them two or three times.
It might have been three times, just in one year.
So my own credit cards are just massively stolen all the time, presumably from just public use.
It's not like somebody's going through my wallet.
So I feel like the whole credit card thing doesn't work.
The high prices might be an indication that the business model doesn't work at all.
There's just too much fraud and they can't stop it.
So, we'll see.
It doesn't make me super happy, but I'd like to hear more about it.
I can be convinced about this gap, but I'm not convinced right now.
Well, you probably heard there's a tragic New Orleans terror attack.
The information is just coming in because it happened last night in the French Quarter, apparently, in New Orleans.
The only thing I know about it And maybe you probably know more about it than I do because the last several minutes the news was coming in and I was prepping for this.
So I may have missed a little bit, but you can fill me in in the comments.
So watch the comments for newer information than I have.
So my understanding is it was a white pickup truck plowed into the crowd in the French Quarter.
So while they were celebrating New Year's Eve, killed at least 10 injured dozens of And the mayor described it as a terrorist attack.
I think the police did.
And then the FBI said, well, not so fast.
It might not be a terrorist attack.
Now, there's reporting that I heard not confirmed because we're still in the fog of war stage.
Anything you hear in the next several hours is subject to update, I would think.
But the current not yet credible reporting, and remember, it's not yet credible, Because it's too soon.
Whenever there's a big event, the first ten things you hear about the big event, four of them aren't going to be true.
You just don't know which four.
So we're in that foggy information stage.
But apparently he slammed in and then had some kind of a weapon and was firing at people and two police officers were shot, but they're still alive, I guess.
And then they returned fire.
Did they kill him?
I don't even have information.
Oh, he's been taken.
So the latest report I had was it's unclear if the driver has been taken into custody.
Have they taken him into custody in the last hour or so?
And then I saw another report that said he got away and they were looking for him.
But by now?
Oh, he's dead?
Did he die at the event?
Or did they die when they were looking for him?
See, there's your perfect example.
The perfect example is that they didn't know if the suspect was on the run, but he was shot at the event.
So I'm seeing in the comments that he was shot at the event, which would make sense because he was in a shootout with police.
So, yeah, that's usually how it ends.
Police tried CPR on him but couldn't bring him back.
Okay.
He's in custody but not moving, right?
Killed in the shootout.
All right, so thanks for the update.
This works so well.
I love the fact that you can correct me in real time.
The model that we're seeing here, where you're correcting my facts in real time, That's very impressive.
Wouldn't you like to see that on the regular news?
Wouldn't you like to see CNN reading the news and then Jake Tapper would look up and say, oh, I'm getting a correction here.
Well, maybe he knows what the real story is and I don't, so that would be different.
So, somebody said, and let me give a...
I need another fact check on this one.
Somebody said he's a Mexican national.
That it was a Mexican?
And somebody said there were explosives in the truck.
So the things I don't know, I don't know if these are confirmed.
Maybe or maybe not explosives, but they didn't go off.
And maybe or maybe not use a Mexican national.
I don't know that they know that yet.
So we'll just put a pin in that and say, hmm, better wait for that.
Better wait for that.
Now, I saw, I think it was Mike Flynn, who was just flipping out at the, that's my own term.
He was, let's say, angry at the fact that anybody was calling this a non-terrorist event or that it might be a non-terrorist event.
If it's not a terrorist event, what is it?
What do you call it?
What in the world would you call it?
Now, so I guess we'll find out.
They found an IED at the site, but we don't know if it's necessarily his.
Great.
So there may have been two separate potential attacks.
We don't know if the ID was functional.
All right.
Now, that seems a little odd, doesn't it?
These non-functional IEDs?
Seems like we've seen this before.
But I also don't know that even if the IED story is true.
So pretty much everything that we know about this is subject to revision.
Alright, I will tell you that yesterday, before this happened, I was posting on X that I wouldn't go to any mass public event.
Now, I wouldn't have been afraid of the truck.
I should have been, but I wouldn't have been afraid of the truck.
I would have been afraid of going to a mass public event in the age of drone swarms.
I wouldn't be as worried about one drone.
No matter what it did.
But a drone swarm?
How hard would it be for the bad guys to get 10 to 20 drones in the area over some populated area?
It feels like it's just such an obvious venue of attack or avenue of attack.
So I was worried that we were in a world where having any kind of mass public event is just begging for a mass casualty event.
And I personally would be very hesitant about going to any mass gathering really forever, unless it's indoors, I suppose.
And even then.
But at least it'd be safer from the drones.
So be careful when you go outside.
Well, Ashley St. Clair is raising the alarm that there's too much censorship on X. So I don't know the details of this, but I'll tell you what I do know.
So apparently, reportedly, a number of accounts on X... People have been deplatformed or minimized or hidden or their blue check is taken away or they're demonetized.
But basically people being suppressed or kicked off or made invisible.
Through a variety of actions it would be different in each case.
It's not like everybody did the same thing and got kicked off for the same reason.
But as Ashley points out, this is how censorship starts on every platform through every avenue throughout history.
They de-platform the worst people because they're not going to get any support.
And then they can kind of work their way down if you're quiet about it and just get you used to the fact that things are getting suppressed.
And you say to yourself, well, they probably had a good reason for that one.
And you don't worry about it.
And then there's another one.
And then you say to yourself, well, I don't know the details, but...
Might have been a good reason.
And then you're completely off the rails by then.
It's too late to put the toothpaste back in the tube and it becomes just full-on censorship.
So, given that accounts are being suspended for what is called without reason, I don't know that it's without reason.
It might be that people don't know the reasons, which would be bad enough.
But I don't know that it's without reasons.
Somebody had a reason.
It might not be a good one.
And people are losing subscribers.
I mean, so a variety of things are allegedly happening.
And again, I don't know if it's really a variety of things happening.
All right.
So here's what I do know.
So I responded that I need examples.
Because if you give me a specific example, then I would be able to judge, oh, wait, that wasn't about free speech.
That was about some action that was, you know, different than just free speech.
Now, I only know one example.
Laura Loomer just sent me a message because I asked this question.
Just sent me a message to tell me about her situation.
So here's what I know about it directly from one person whose account is now being suppressed.
So, Laura Loomer, apparently in the process of doing what she does, which is talking about the news, seems to have accidentally doxed someone, someone who is coming into the administration.
Now, by accidentally doxed, apparently what she did is point to a public document that was relevant to whatever argument she was making about the person.
But on that document, apparently it had his home address.
That would be called doxing.
If the reason that you posted it was to show somebody's address so that the trolls could go after them, that would definitely be a behavior that you would be canceled for.
So, here's where it gets complicated.
Laura apparently immediately apologized because that wasn't the purpose of showing the form.
The purpose of showing the form was some other point and just didn't notice that the address was on there.
She later blurred the address to repost it, showing that her intention was not to show the address.
Further, she says she sincerely apologized because it was just a mistake.
It's a bad mistake.
I think you'd agree it's a bad mistake to make.
But it was, she says, a mistake.
Now, I believe that.
I believe that was accidental.
If you look at the totality of it, that sounds accidental.
Now, should somebody be banned for doxing?
I think maybe yes, because that's not about free speech.
Should somebody be banned for accidentally doxing?
Well, here's where we need to be able to talk about it.
So I would say that the only thing I want to add to this conversation is that there should be some kind of an appeals process for somebody like Laura Loomer.
There should be some formal place where not everybody, not everybody, but at least people who are taking a financial hit, Imagine her total financial situation, which I assume was largely X-related, you know, because you get paid for how much involvement, what do you call it, how much people are clicking and commenting.
You get paid for that if you're a big account.
So she probably had fairly substantial income, you know, by middle class income standards.
It was probably pretty substantial.
And she lost it.
Now, I think if somebody is losing revenue, X has a responsibility to have an appeals process.
Ideally, they'd have an appeals process for everybody who gets canceled, but maybe that's just not doable because they cancel a lot of trolls, mean bots and stuff like that.
So I don't know what is practical, but it's definitely practical if you're canceling somebody who's making a living.
If they've taken your offer, the ex-Elon Musk offer is, if you do these things on this platform, If you get a lot of engagement, I will send you money.
If somebody signed up and was operating in good faith under that business model, but just had a little problem that was accidental, I feel like they should get their day in court, if you know what I mean.
And it should happen quickly, because money's on the line.
It's what they do.
And if the ex-business model encourages engagement, They really need to have a quick adjudication process for the people who've got a lot of money on the line.
A lot, you know, by their living standards, is what I mean.
So I don't know all the details here, but if you saw more examples, you might say to yourself, hmm, these additional examples, they're all special cases.
They might be.
Now, one of the other things that's happening is that some of the claims of censorship are not real.
Apparently, X claimed there was a glitch that some kind of people who had blue checks had them temporarily taken away, and it affected quite a few people.
But each of those people were a special case, and it was the same special case, different than you and me.
So there was something about the way they had the blue check through some other organization or connected to some organization that caused the glitch.
So those are not real.
So keep in mind when you're looking at this topic of censorship on X, however many of them are real situations of censorship, There's going to be a bunch of them that are not.
They're just computer glitches that they're going to fix.
In some cases, it might be a confusion over whether somebody did or did not dox somebody.
But I think if you dug down, you'd find out there aren't too many that are just speech.
I'd be surprised.
But we'll see.
And that's why you need a process.
Well, how bad is the government?
Well, let's see.
Three senior Department of Justice officials apparently got caught leaking sensitive and private information to hurt Trump's re-election chances.
And according to the George account on X, the inspector general has identified them and found out that they did, in fact, intentionally leak things to hurt Trump's chances of election.
So that's the Department of Justice, right?
The Department of Justice was trying to take down a president or potential president.
Wow.
So that's real.
You know, the Inspector General has confirmed it.
We know names.
They have documents.
That's confirmed.
Department of Justice is crooked, at least part of it.
Then Paul Sperry is reporting for Real Clear Politics, or he's got an article on there, about McCabe.
So did you know that two days after the then-acting FBI director...
Oh, so right after Comey got fired, two days later, the guy who replaced him, McCabe, put President Trump under criminal investigation.
And they reached out to the author of the Steele dossier, even though he had been fired for misconduct and even though people had looked at it before and didn't find enough to investigate Trump.
So they went through the, you know, they poured through the non-credible stuff again after people had seen it once.
And the people, and according to Paul Sperry, prosecutors and investigators interviewed by RCI said none of the information made public should have been enough to launch an FBI probe.
So in other words...
McCabe, knowing that there was not enough to launch a probe, intentionally went after a source that they knew was not credible, so they had something to say about why they were going after the president.
Now, I'm sure McCabe has a different version of that.
What does he say?
He had some slightly different version of that, just so you know, there's always two sides to everything.
But it sure looks exactly like what it looks like.
It looks like Comey got fired, McCabe went for revenge, Peter Strzok was anti-Trump, and that the entire operation was nothing but going after Trump.
And that they probably knew that the Steele dossier was garbage, but they needed it to justify their research, so they used it.
So I would say this is pretty strong evidence that the FBI is corrupt.
So now we've got the DOJ is corrupt.
Again, it's not every single person in it, of course.
And we've got the FBI is corrupt, allegedly, but the allegations look kind of solid to me.
But at least the State Department is clean.
That'd be terrible.
Could you imagine if the Department of Justice was crooked and the FBI was crooked and the State Department?
I mean, imagine that.
Because we know the presidency was crooked.
We know Biden was crooked.
So it'd be terrible if the presidency, Department of Justice, the FBI were all crooked.
But thank God the State Department is not.
So Gabe Kaminsky for the D.C. Examiner says, the State Department is being accused of, in a lawsuit by a watchdog, So in other words,
the State Department It has some memo, allegedly, secret memo.
They must know about it because it's being requested, so they must know it exists.
And it unfairly links these two independent journalists to Russia.
So the State Department allegedly was running an op to smear these two independent reporters who were too close to the truth.
Okay, so it's not so bad, people.
So far, it's only the Department of Justice that's corrupt.
The FBI is corrupt.
The presidency, of course, was a criminal organization.
And the State Department is apparently trying to frame citizens for good reporting.
But it's not all lost.
At least Congress is honest.
I don't know if you can tell if I'm kidding sometimes.
Okay.
Do you remember I said that every large organization is corrupt and there's no way around it?
When any organization reaches a certain size, it's pretty much guaranteed to be corrupt.
We've seen it over and over and over again.
And according to Aaron Maté from The Gray Zone, more about this Russiagate, in response to his FOIA request, Freedom of Information, the FBI released a heavily redacted copy the FBI released a heavily redacted copy of what he asked for about how they opened the investigation into Trump about potential Russia collusion
and that the factual basis for the FBI taking the extraordinary step of investigating Trump, the factual basis was redacted.
Entirely.
Entirely redacted.
So the most important thing is why did they investigate the president?
Did they have good information?
Or was it just something they were doing to take him out?
And instead of showing the good reasons they had for investigating, they redacted the whole thing.
Why?
I assume they're crooked.
I assume.
I don't know that, but I assume they're crooked.
So there's another bad FBI thing.
Well, I continue to be amused by Democrat-leaning people, leaning people who criticize their own team and say, you know...
Trump got a few things right, if you hadn't noticed.
And Stephen A. Smith is one of the more entertaining ones.
He noted in a fiery monologue that he did on video, he said that watching the Republicans Debate the big issue about the foreign workers.
So you know the Republican Party allegedly got split on this debate about how many H-1Bs should be put in and whether it should be reformed and all that.
So that really happened.
It's true that there was that debate.
Do you remember my phrasing of that, my reframe?
So other people said the same thing, so I didn't invent this.
But I said, I think I'm watching one of the most extraordinarily positive things I've ever seen, which is people strongly fighting and But mostly, politely, for a common good, meaning that people were trying to find something that worked for the whole country.
They weren't looking for just their own personal gain.
So people had the right intentions, and they fought it out fairly, and I think we're a lot closer to having a coherent opinion.
So I said that that's more positive than negative.
I said that the fact that that fight could happen and that we could shake hands and say, all right, let's adjust forward, or at least the president is watching.
So indeed, as I said, Trump smartly waited until the dust cleared, and then he came down with one big foot on top of it, because he has the big foot, so to speak.
And he just said, here's what I want.
Now, maybe you don't want it.
But remember, the argument is, what did you vote for?
Remember?
The argument is not what your opinion is.
The argument is, what did you vote for?
And Trump, I think, has always said he wanted the best people from other countries, but he didn't want just everybody coming in.
And he kind of confirmed that.
And that might require changes to the current system.
I don't think the current system gives him what he wants, but he probably knows that.
So he weighed it in his opinion, and I think it quieted things down because you could no longer argue, hey, this is what we voted for, because once Trump told you what he wanted, you'd kind of have to say, well, I guess that's what I voted for.
If he didn't know what he wanted, It wasn't because he didn't say it.
He's been consistent about that for a long time.
So Stephen A. Smith made a big deal about how Democrats don't allow internal debate.
But when he watched Republicans have a public knock-down fight, just verbally, and he watched the Republicans actually be happy about their work.
I was.
I was completely happy about my contribution to the conversation, and I didn't know much, and then I learned a bunch, and many of you learned a bunch that maybe you didn't know about the weaknesses of the current system.
We all got smarter, and I don't have any bad feelings about anybody I had any disagreements with.
Do you?
Did anybody get any bad feelings?
I don't have any.
Did I ever feel that I needed to Did I ban or block somebody because of that conversation?
No.
If I blocked somebody, it was just for being a jerk, not because they disagreed.
So to me, which I said publicly, this is just a great experience because there should be some friction.
There should be some back and forth.
We should play hard.
Nobody says you shouldn't play hard.
And we all have the right intention.
Everybody's trying to get the right answer.
Nobody's trying to get the devious answer.
Oh, if I can trick them, if I can trick them, I can get something over?
No.
No, we all really just wanted the right answer, the one that helps the economy, the one that helps the American citizens the most.
We just had different ideas how to get there.
So Stephen A. Smith was basically praising Republicans for knowing how to have a public debate without being banned, and he said the Democrats just can't do it.
Because they're too locked into there's one right way to do everything.
I love that.
I love that.
Because he wasn't agreeing with Republican policy.
That would be a lot to ask.
He was agreeing that the way the Republicans approached it was as good citizens with good intentions and good energy.
You can't get much better than that.
That kind of is the pinnacle of preferred citizen involvement.
It's tough to top that.
It's as good as it gets.
Even if you don't like the outcome, the process is as good as it gets.
So I'm glad he notices that.
Maybe others will notice too.
Well, Greg Gutfeld had a post the other day that spurred me to make a post related to it, and he said, and I loved his analogy here, he said, he was talking about the fine people hoax being a way to tell if somebody's in terminal TDS situation.
He said in a post on X, if they still believe the fine people hoax, then they're no different than those Japanese pilots on remote islands who had no idea that World War II ended.
You cannot help them, leave them behind.
And I love the analogy, but the analogy is stronger than just a clever way to think of it.
And I wanted to give you a little persuasion lesson, if I could.
So here's what I suggested about how to cure TDS, because I believe for the first time, We now have all the tools.
There was always a piece missing before.
If you've been watching me for a while, you know I've been pushing and pushing and pushing to make sure that we had the tools to debunk that thing.
Now, here's what I said.
If you're trying to deprogram somebody from TDS, we now have all the parts to do it.
Part number one, You have to get them to believe one thing that they didn't believe before.
And that's what the fine people hoax does.
If you can get them to believe that they had been fooled by something that the entire media that they watched said was true, but even more than that, they allowed the president, or Biden, when he was running for office, to run on that claim that the fine people hoax claim.
They let him run on that without fact-checking it.
Now, if you can show somebody the debunks, you could point them to Snopes, or you could point them to, on X, the American debunk, all one word, site, has the clean debunk of the thing.
So you could either look at it on Snopes, because that's left-leaning, or you could look at it on American debunk, Which has sort of a right-leaning bias, but at least the information on it is accurate.
So it doesn't have all the hoaxes that may have gone the other direction.
But as far as I can tell, it's all accurate.
So once you've debunked the fine people hoax, as you've seen, it was instrumental in getting a number of people, public figures, to say, wait a minute, that was a hoax?
If that was a hoax, what else was a hoax?
And then you've softened them up.
Once they say, what else was a hoax?
The doors open.
Then you hit them with the top 50 hoaxes.
You could do top 12, and it might even be stronger if you do 12 instead of 50. There are 50. 50 media lies slash hoaxes.
But if you just kept it, say, top 12 or top 20, they're easier to defend because some of them get into more opinion territory.
But if you can convince them that it's the norm that their side only, doesn't happen on the Republican side, but their side only was one hoax after another, and they weren't the small ones.
They're the biggest headline stories.
The biggest headline stories were complete hoaxes.
And once somebody sees the whole list, and they've confirmed that the most important one, the fine people hoax, was in fact a hoax, then that gives them the vision to see the rest of the list.
Until they know that one of the most important, I would say the most important one on the list, is fake, completely fake, 100% fake.
Until you know that, you can't even see the rest of the list.
So that's your first persuasion lesson, is showing the list didn't work until there was one thing they knew for sure about that list that was fake, and then they could see the rest of the list.
Once they've seen the list, Then you want to round it out with these arguments.
Point out that the whole Biden is sharp as attack hoax that the media admits they did.
Now the hoax about Biden being sharp as attack is special.
Because it's one that the media admits they all got wrong.
So you don't have to argue about whether it's true or false.
The media says, no, we got this completely wrong.
Now, obviously, they're lying that they didn't know.
So most of the media is trying to pretend they didn't know.
Oh, come on.
You all knew.
You all knew.
So that's a strong attack.
The Biden is sharp as attack.
Everybody knows I was wrong now.
Then ask them the following question.
Why is the administration so proud of their peaceful transition to Hitler?
If anything they said about him, about his Hitler-Putin-loving fascist tendencies, if any of that was true, any of it, why would they do a peaceful transfer of power?
And can you respect Democrats who would peacefully transfer power to Hiller?
Now, when I said this on the post, somebody said, nobody said he was Hiller.
To which I said, It's all they've done.
It's all they've done.
Actually, what I said was, well, good point.
The real Hitler is dead.
All they did is say, he reminds us of Hitler, and you should take that very seriously.
That's the sort of thing they did.
Literally, minutes before somebody said nobody called him Hitler, I'd just been watching Punchy.
What's his name?
The actor.
What's Punchy's real name?
Dinero.
Punchy Dinero.
I was watching Punchy Dinero say, well, you know, it's exactly like Hitler, and you've got to take that pretty seriously.
It's all Hitler stuff.
Just minutes before somebody said, nobody said that.
Nobody says like Hitler.
Anyway, so you point out why they're so happy to give Hitler a peaceful transition.
Then round it out by noting that Trump won.
In large part, because people noticed the other hoaxes.
So certainly the Joe Rogans, Elon Musks, and you could name several others, didn't realize the fine people hoax was a hoax until they found out, and then they became a lot more open to what was really going on.
So it's not an accident that Trump won.
He won the The popular vote, and it had a lot to do with people breaking out of the hoax bubble.
Now, at that point, you're done.
So once you've said all those things, do you think it will change anybody's mind?
Not while you're standing there.
There is zero chance that you can talk somebody out of TDS right while they're standing in front of you.
Don't think there's any chance.
However, once you've reframed these things and it's in their mind, just let it marinate.
They will talk themselves out of their old views because these are really powerful persuasion tricks.
Now, Somebody said, but Scott, your argument is based on logic and facts.
And you always tell us that logic and facts are not persuasive.
So how do I square that?
That I tell you that logic doesn't convince anybody, and then I gave you this whole logical argument.
So how do you square that?
That was a good question.
So I thought it was worthy of an answer.
And the answer is, the logic is just the wrapper.
The real persuasion is that all the smart people saw it before you did.
The real persuasion is what Greg Gutfeld said.
You don't want to be the last Japanese soldier who doesn't know the war is over.
Now, is that logic?
Is that logic that you don't want to be the last Japanese soldier?
No, that's not logic.
That's telling you you don't want to be the one that everybody knows is wrong.
You don't want to be alone in your wrongness.
You don't want to be the last person in the world to find out this important fact.
Wow, how embarrassing it would be to be you, wouldn't it?
Imagine being the last soldier out of the cave.
Yeah, you don't want to be that guy.
So, what this is, it sounds logical on the surface, because I say these events happened, this is debunked, blah, blah, blah.
But what it's really doing is getting you to the stronger point That he won the popular election and he got all these high visibility smart people on his side because they figured out before you did, not you specifically, but you the ones who don't know it yet, that they figured it out and they're already moving.
Not only did they realize it, but they made real important changes in their own lives and the risk profile and things they said in public.
I mean, they took big chances.
They didn't just intellectually accept that they knew something.
They changed what they were doing.
And then you're sitting there watching and saying, but I still think Trump is bad.
Once you see that the smart people are all moving in the same direction, then what you're looking for is herd instinct.
You need the herd instinct to pull the TDS people to safety.
Because unless they see the herd moving, they're not going to move.
So first you have to create a situation where a few people move, and then they say, huh, looks like a few people move, but that's just a few people.
And then you want to keep that up.
Oh.
Well, I guess a few more people moved.
Okay.
Well, now every day I hear somebody moved.
Seems like every day somebody's moving.
And so you create this, you want to create the impression that the herd is already on the move and you better catch up to the herd.
And that's purely non-logical feelings, biological.
You know, at a biological level, you don't want to be the one who stands out as not following the herd.
That's dangerous.
So, Greg was persuasion perfect in saying that, you know, you don't want to be that last Japanese soldier out of the cave.
That's the emotional right-on-point persuasion.
What I gave you was the logical stuff, which can get you to the point of thinking that you're the last one following the herd.
All right, so try it at home.
It'll be fun.
Meanwhile, Trump said some stuff about climate change on Fox Business, and I'm going to give him a little persuasion tip.
So here's what Trump said, I think, to Stuart Varney on Fox Business.
Quote, nobody's more into climate than I am, but this is a climate hoax.
It's a hoax destroying our country.
And then he went on to say, quote, you have a thing called weather, and you go up and you go down.
The climate's always been changing.
Alright, so that's what he said.
So let me give him a persuasion grade.
First sentence, nobody's more into the climate than I am.
Perfect.
Perfect.
I love that.
I love that he starts...
The first sentence is that he's really into it.
Now, is that true?
I don't know.
But if you don't say that you're very into the climate, everything you say after that will sound like you're not taking things seriously.
So he starts with, oh, I'm really into the climate.
So now you know he's taking the topic seriously, and then you can listen to the rest.
So the first sentence is perfect.
You should always do that first sentence.
And it doesn't exactly make sense.
What does it really mean to be into the climate?
And what does it mean to be competitively more into the climate than other people?
That's just a perfect Trump framing statement.
Because it makes you stop and think, well, I don't know.
How would you know he's more into it?
What does it even mean to be more into it?
We don't know what that means, but he certainly seems to be showing attention to the topic, and that's what we're looking for.
So the first sentence is perfect, and then he says, but it's a climate hoax.
It's a hoax destroying the country.
That part's good.
It's a climate hoax.
I don't like that.
I'll tell you what I like better in a second.
And he said, you've been having a thing called weather and it goes up and down.
That is a pure mistake, which is rare.
I don't say that about Trump very often.
That's a pure mistake, persuasion-wise.
Do you know why?
How many of you know that it is a pure mistake, persuasion-wise, to say that the weather goes up and down, so climate change is a natural variation?
The problem with that is that everybody on the left...
The people you would want to persuade.
The left will say, wait a minute, if you don't know the difference between the weather and the climate, you can't be in the conversation.
And they're right.
They're right.
If you don't know the difference between the climate and today's weather, and the fact that it's hard to forecast the weather, but it's a whole different process.
In my opinion, you can't do either, but it's a different process.
So if you compare them, you're screaming at the top of your lungs, I don't understand the topic.
Do you get that?
Everybody who has ever said to me, but Scott, it's just the weather.
The first thing I say, oh, you haven't looked into the topic at all.
Because that's like first thing.
You know, if the depth of the topic is, let's say, 100, the first step is to learn that weather and climate should not be treated the same.
It's the first step.
So when you say that, your opinion should be ignored after that.
If you are a rational person listening to somebody talk and the first thing they say is clearly showing a lack of understanding of anything on the topic, why would you listen to anything else?
So this is a pure mistake.
Pure mistake.
Now, does Trump not know the difference between climate and weather?
He probably does know the difference, but he often goes for the simple, you know, what's the simplest way to make the case?
And I think he's just going for simplicity here, and he knows that it works on the base.
So, by the way, that works perfectly on the base because there are so many people who think it makes sense, but it doesn't.
It's a big tell that you don't know anything about the topic.
So, here's what I would do instead.
So you can make his point, but here's how I do it persuasion-wise.
I would never conflate the weather and the climate.
Just never say that again.
Never, ever say that again.
It's just a mistake.
But instead...
You should say that the hoax part is the absurdity of the climate models.
You just go after the models and say, do you really think that they know what the temperature will be in 80 years?
Does that sound like something that they can do?
You want to go after the level of panic and say the panic is overdone because that will make people feel good even if they disagree with you.
But you can't say the panic is overdone If first you said that weather and climate are basically the same, Because nobody's going to listen to you when you say that the panic is overdone if you don't even know the topic by saying that climate and weather are the same.
So that's so important.
And you could also say that the money that the government is giving to all this green stuff is probably unaudited and we don't know where it's going.
So if you're trying to convince somebody who's a climate-afraid person, Oh, and then on top of that, you'd want to have at least one anecdote that shows you know something about the topic, right?
So saying climate and weather are the same shows you don't know the topic.
But in addition, you should add something that shows you do know it.
And I would add the simplest thing.
The heat island effect.
So somebody who knows what they're talking about should give Trump the five-minute lesson on the heat island.
Now, what that is, is there are thermometers set up around the world to measure temperature.
In theory, you just go back to those thermometers every year and you say, oh, let's look, the average looks like it's up or it's down.
You'd think that that would be a good process.
What you don't know is that those thermometers were put outside of cities so that the heat from the concrete doesn't artificially influence them.
But then the city grew.
So the city got closer to the thermometers over the years until the cities were in fact close enough to affect the temperature.
Now, that means that we don't actually have a history of temperature that's reliable.
Because the thermometers have that problem.
Now, do you think that's a problem?
Well, there's a story at the Met Office in Great Britain.
One of their thermometers They have a continuous record of temperatures since 1873, but there's proof that it hasn't been there that long.
So basically, there's one thermometer for sure that they're using as data that they can know for sure the data is fake.
Somebody just made it up.
I don't know.
But...
So if Trump knew one anecdote of something that doesn't work, it would be very persuasive, as long as it was a true one.
Because even the left doesn't argue about the Heat Island effect.
What they say is that they can adjust for it.
How do you do that?
How do you make up the past if you don't know what it is?
How exactly do you compensate for the fact that your thermometers are not accurate and can't be because of this effect?
So, summarizing, never say weather and climate are the same.
That's a big tell for not understanding the topic.
Do learn at least one thing.
I would do the heat island thing as the one thing you do understand.
And say that the hoax part is the panic and the models, and the models are based on the input by things like temperature, so obviously the models are going to be weird.
And then you could certainly say that the government isn't spending the money on the green stuff correctly, because both sides understand that to be true.
They know the government's wasting the money no matter, even if they like the general direction.
And related to this, according to Ken Richards at the No Tricks Zone, scientists say that over the last 40 years, there's been a striking increase in greenness attributed to the higher CO2 fertilization and maybe also land use changes.
So the new study, we don't know if the new study is better than the old studies, but the new one says we're getting greener than we are getting browned.
So the good news is the green movement worked because the world's a lot greener.
So Greenpeace should take a bow because from the time that Greenpeace was organized, the world has gotten greener.
Good job.
Not really the way you intended to do it, but...
By failing to change anything important, apparently it took care of itself.
So that's not about temperature.
That's about greening.
But one would assume that if you have a lot more greening, it's going to have a dampening effect on temperature.
Do you think the models account for that?
Probably not.
At least not correctly.
All right.
I did a deep dive on the Catherine Herridge report about the whistleblower, CIA whistleblower, who suspects a foreign-directed energy weapon, probably from Russia, was the source of her injuries.
And so people ask me, Scott, Scott, since you think that this secret Russian weapon is not real...
What do you think of this whistleblower?
It's so compelling.
So I did take the time to listen to it completely, because if you haven't watched the entire video, you don't have the sense.
And I want to give you my take.
So my take is as follows.
The person who's blaming Russia for the weapon is a person whose professional career involved blaming Russia for stuff.
In other words, her job was to be on the other side of Russia.
It was her specialty.
So somebody whose job it is to say Russia is the bad guy in every situation, and then suddenly they say Russia is the bad guy, how much credibility should you put on that?
It's their whole career saying Russia is the bad guy, and then she says Russia is the bad guy.
Does that sound credible?
It's exactly like Republicans blaming Democrats and Democrats for blaming Republicans.
It's the least credible thing that you could say.
Now, if somebody had nothing to do with studying Russia, had a claim about Russia, I'd say, oh, well, I mean, you don't have any stake in the fight, so if you say it's Russia, I'm going to listen to the rest of what you say.
But if somebody's job it is to blame Russia, blames Russia, the amount of credibility you should put in that would be zero.
Let me give you an example.
If you hire a Ghostbuster to come into your house and figure out what the suspicious noises are from, do you think the Ghostbuster is going to find a ghost that they can charge you for?
Oh, good.
I found the ghost.
I've eliminated it with my machines you don't understand, and so you should pay me.
Yeah, the Ghostbuster always finds a ghost.
The Russian, anti-Russian guy always finds a Russian behind every tree.
If it were anyone else, it would be more credible than somebody whose job it is to blame Russia.
You with me so far?
Now here's where I need to make the distinction between what is true, which I don't know, from what is credible.
So I'm going to stick to what sounds credible to a reasonable person.
So no, this is not credible coming from that source.
Who, by the way, are professional liars by trading.
Next, part of the claim was that it's a worldwide event.
So there's a picture of the globe, and you can see that all over the world there's these different events.
Now, it's hard for me to imagine what kind of play a random attack all over the world would do.
Random, you know, smaller embassies, nothing critical.
It doesn't really make sense as a coordinated plan, because it seems random.
But...
So the randomness of it sort of gets away from the Russia part, because why would they do it all over in these random places?
What would be the point of that?
And...
But...
That doesn't mean it's not them.
There could be some secret reason they're doing it I don't know about.
But it decreases the credibility to know that it's happening all over the place.
In most changes, in most cases, It probably is mass hysteria.
So you can maintain the unknown of whether this one person was attacked by a Russian weapon.
That might be true.
It might be true.
But it's very unlikely that all the other cases around the world are also true.
It's far more likely that whether or not one or two or three of these are real, It's far more likely that no matter how many are real, that the bulk of them are just people imagining it.
Right?
Now, What about the fact that there's an actual injury?
Apparently, the doctors confirm real injuries, and she looks like she has real better.
And I believe she's not lying.
If she was lying about the injuries, I'd be amazed.
So, if you were to do a PET scan or a brain scan of a bunch of randomly chosen people, how many of them would show some abnormality in the brain that you didn't know about?
I don't know.
But it seems to me that some people are just going to have ordinary abnormalities.
And she said that she knew the moment of the attack because she got this piercing headache.
I think she heard something maybe.
And there was some vibration under her feet.
So her experience of it was that she felt the attack.
And then thereafter, she felt the health problems.
So if you felt the attack, that would be a better argument that it was an attack, right?
But here's my question.
If you had a stroke or some other mental brain defect, there's probably a variety of ways your brain can glitch.
What do you remember of it?
If your brain is where the problem is, what happens to your memory of the moment it came on?
I'm going to give you an analogy.
It's not a perfect analogy, but it's more to explain my point.
I was once playing tennis years ago.
And all of a sudden, something that I imagined was maybe a golf ball hit me in the back of my calf muscle and just took me down.
And the first thing I did is I looked backwards to see who the bad person was who had shot me or driven a golf ball at me.
I mean, it definitely wasn't a tennis ball.
Because it was, whatever it was, was hard and moving very fast.
So it felt like I got shot in the back of the leg and I went down.
Do you know what it was?
It was nothing.
I had the experience of being attacked.
But what it was is that tennis players often get this...
There's a specific muscle in the calf muscle that fairly often snaps if you're a tennis player, but it doesn't snap during your movement.
You're just standing there usually.
It's like it got weakened to the point where it's going to go.
So you're just standing there waiting for a serve and you feel like you've been attacked.
Now, it's only because I could look behind me and there was literally nobody behind me That I knew I wasn't attacked.
And then later I found out, oh, you had this problem?
And other people had the same story.
So, it was not an Achilles.
It was just a muscle that snaps.
And then you just stay off it for two months and it heals on itself.
You don't even treat it.
It's just a very normal tennis player accident or problem.
So, Is there an equivalent for people who have brain-related organic problems, like a stroke?
I mean, there are probably a few other things that are in that stroke-y category.
So that I don't know.
I don't know.
But it's easy to imagine that somebody could have something sudden come on and they would remember it that way.
Now, what about the vibrating of our feet?
I mean, that's kind of weird.
The feet are vibrating at the same, you know, the floor is vibrating.
Well, about once a day, my phone vibrates in my pocket and I reach in my pocket and I don't have a phone in my pocket.
Does that happen to you?
I've had a phone vibrate in my pocket even when I'm in the shower and I'm not wearing any clothes at all and I certainly don't have a phone.
It's called a phantom, the phantom vibration.
How many of you have that?
It's very common.
If you've had the real vibrating in your same pocket a lot, you'll feel it for the rest of your life.
And it's so distinct.
It doesn't feel like it's in your imagination.
It's really clear vibrating.
So you don't say to yourself, here's what you don't say.
You never say to yourself, did I feel a vibration?
No, you totally feel it.
It's 100% vibrating.
So, Is there anything that would be an analog that could fit this?
Could it be that the building was getting some construction and somebody was jackhammering about the same time?
And maybe she just didn't notice it or wasn't standing in that part of the building.
So it could be something else, right?
So I did not see any sense.
So I do believe the injuries are real.
And I do believe that she's telling the truth as she knows it.
There were no signs in my incredible ability to detect liars.
I didn't see any tells.
I saw no tells for intentional lying.
I saw a lot of indications that it might not be true, or at least not credible.
That's the only part I can judge.
Let's see, what else?
If the whole thing, some said it's a Russian PSYOP, so it wasn't so much about injuring the individual people, it was about creating some kind of feeling in the psychology of the United States, to which I ask, why would you use a secret sonic weapon or energy weapon to do your PSYOP? If it were Russia...
Wouldn't Russia know that these people would know they'd been attacked if you did more than one?
So if you went and you attacked a bunch of people with the same weapon, don't you know that the United States would figure out they'd been attacked with something like that kind of weapon?
And wouldn't you know that if it's that kind of weapon, that we could rule out Estonia?
We could rule out Peru?
You're going to basically look at Russia first.
Am I right?
You wouldn't even look at China first.
You wouldn't expect China to take that kind of risk.
But you might say to yourself, you know, maybe Russia.
But why would Russia do that?
It would be like trying to do a secret attack, but you do the attack in a way that you're the only one who would do that kind of attack.
It's a little on the nose, isn't it?
It seems like Putin would be the last person, the last person to do something that would be so obviously tied to his country.
It's not like a bunch of other countries are going to have an energy weapon and have a reason to use it.
So it doesn't make sense from a Russia perspective.
Not that we know everything Russia is up to, but I don't see how it works as a PSYOP. All it does is make America want to attack Russia more.
Like, why would Russia do an op that would make you want to attack them?
That's the last thing they would want.
She also said that not only was she an anti-Russia kind of CIA operative, but that she was especially good at her job.
And her theory is that because she was especially good at her job, that she was targeted.
Oh, I think she was targeted at home, wasn't she?
I may have the story wrong about where she was.
She said she was targeted at home.
So that makes the vibrating part, you know, different, but unless the dryer was running in the next room or something.
And so here's my persuasion recommendation to you.
If you're ever injured, you should say that the reason that somebody tried to injure you is because you were so effective at your job that That you're a risk to a superpower.
I'm so good at my job that a superpower that Putin himself...
Because, you know, they wouldn't have done this unless Putin ordered it.
Would you agree?
Would you agree that there's no way, if it were a Russia weapon, there's no way that Putin would not know that they were using it?
Because it would be way too risky to not have the boss approve it.
So...
Yeah, so that's a good story.
I'm so good at my job that Putin himself had to order a hit on me.
But the only way he knew how to kill people is by using a weapon that would be easily identified with Russia.
Do all those things seem true to you?
Incredible.
That she's so good at her job that Putin needs to take her out.
But the only way he knew to do it was to leave a complete business card that it was Russia.
Does that make sense?
That's asking a lot.
So anyway, I'd like to see what brain doctors say might be the other possibility of what's happening in her case, because it does look like serious medical problems.
So I'm not making light on Of what looks like serious medical problems.
So I don't want to act like that's not a big deal.
It is a big deal.
And I don't want to tell you that I know what's behind these things.
I don't want to rule out a weapon.
And I don't want to rule out Russia.
But I would say the odds of a weapon are much higher than Than the odds of a weapon used by Russia.
Because I don't see how it could work in their interest.
And it's just too reflexive to blame Russia.
As soon as I hear Russia being blamed of anything, I automatically go, well, 90% chance it's not true.
Right?
90% chance it's not true.
So that's my take.
Credibility is zero.
But that doesn't mean it's not true.
It might be true.
There's just no credibility to the way it's told.
Anyway, in other news, I've been talking about this a little bit, Vigilant News on X is talking about ivermectin and some alleged cures From ivermectin.
And so I weighed in and said, why do we never hear from the person who got cured?
And then sure enough, somebody chimed in and said that she was cured of pancreatic cancer.
And I thought, wow.
But why don't you give your name?
You're anonymous.
That's kind of sketchy.
And then it was pointed out to me that in her pinned post, she does show her identity, and it links to an article that goes into great detail about her cancer treatment, which did not mention ivermectin.
She got chemo and radiation.
So the story is that she was cured by ivermectin, but the extensive story of everything she did for her treatment didn't have any ivermectin in it.
And here's what's missing.
Her doctors So if it's true, so the claims are that there are now, let's say, multiple claims of people curing cancer with just ivermectin or fenbenazole, which is similar to ivermectin in terms of treating worms.
But people say that might work.
So what are the odds that there are cancer doctors who have observed with their own eyes their patients being cured of incurable cancers and fairly rapidly?
What are the odds that the doctors would not want to talk about that?
So here's what it would take to convince me it's real.
I would need multiple cases.
I would need to know that there was a cure that was unrelated to the other treatments, because if the other treatments are known to sometimes be curable or curative, then you don't know anything.
So I'd need to see the patient go public.
I'd need to see them sit with their doctor And I'd want to see somebody who knew to ask the right questions, let's say one of the doctor journalist types, I'd want to see a doctor journalist say, all right, you say that you're cured by this.
Doctor?
Was she cured of this?
Yes.
If it's yes, that would be pretty amazing.
So my current take is that there's no credible evidence that it works.
There are lots of signals.
There are lots of signals.
I'm not your doctor, so don't listen to me when it comes to medical stuff.
But I'm just trying to give you a way to look at it.
To be credible, you would have multiple cases.
You'd have cures, and you would have multiple doctors from different places saying, yep, saw it with my own eyes, and I've never once seen this cured.
This is the only time I've ever seen it, so it must be the ivermectin.
If you don't see that, and keep in mind that everybody would have a reason to tell you it worked.
Anybody who saw this work would not just have a reason.
It'd be the best reason ever.
It would be the most important thing that's happening in the world.
And there's no doctor talking about it?
There are doctors talking about it, but they're not sitting with a patient in front of somebody to ask the right questions, saying, all right, ask any question you want.
We're pretty sure this worked.
If you don't see that, you should take that into your consideration.
And there are claims that I can't, you know, I'm not a doctor, so I can't say for sure.
But there are claims of injury from people who took the ivermectin or the other thing.
And only that, in some cases, may have overdosed or taken it too long.
But there are side effects.
You know, we talk about ivermectin being so well-tolerated.
That's true.
It's well-tolerated.
But if somebody thinks they're going to cure their cancer, They might double up on it, if you know what I mean.
If somebody says there are no side effects and it might save your life, are you going to go with the minimum dose?
Who would?
I think you'd probably say, well, I could do a little more than the minimum.
So there are reports that people may have delayed regular treatment because they're trying that first.
Oh yeah, just to be clear, I'm not saying it's outside the realm of possibility.
I'm saying there's no credible report of it.
So remember, whenever I say something's not credible, I'm not saying it didn't happen.
I'm saying it's very suspicious that something this important, which would have this many witnesses, we've never had a clean conversation with the doctor, the patient, and somebody who could ask the right questions.
And you'd want more than one of those.
You'd want several.
And then you've got my interest.
Then you've got my interest.
But no, nothing in that domain looks credible yet.
This is interesting.
According to Liz Heflin and Remix, the Russian foreign minister has rejected Trump's proposed peace plan for Russia and Ukraine, which has not been announced, but it got leaked.
So the alleged leaked plan...
Trump was floating the idea that NATO would be not part of Ukraine for 20 years.
So that no NATO in Ukraine for at least 20 years.
But they would want to station some British and European peacekeepers in Ukraine just to keep things peaceful.
Now, so I think it was Lavrov, the foreign minister, said, you know, it's a non-starter, can't do it, blah, blah.
Now, the first thing you should know is that when somebody like Trump makes a first offer, nobody in the world expects that the first offer will be accepted as is.
So it doesn't really mean anything that he rejected it.
Next thing you know is that the Russians are going to reject any first offer.
Why would they do that?
Because everybody does.
Everybody rejects the first offer.
Nobody even takes it seriously.
Now, is this the first offer?
It's not.
It's a leak.
So now he's created a situation by responding to the leak in which he's put Trump in a position Of negotiating with himself, which would be the classic negotiating mistake.
So here's what Lavrov is trying to set up.
Now, maybe intentionally, maybe not, but here's what it would look like.
There's a leaked offer, and then Lavrov says, nope, no way, 100% no, don't even give us that leaked offer.
You better do better.
So then, what Lavrov would like is that before he sees the first offer, because remember, it's just a leak, they've already improved on the offer so that the first offer is better than the leak.
That's what Lavrov would like.
That would be a mistake.
Because if Trump responded to his rejection of the leak, it would be as if Lavrov were asking him to negotiate with himself, which is to make an offer that is rejected and then make a better offer.
You never do that if you're negotiating.
What you do is you make your offer and you say, all right, respond to it with a better offer.
And then you say, all right, I don't accept the better offer.
But we're getting closer.
Maybe I'll give up a little bit.
Can you give up a little bit more?
And then you move toward the middle and you find something that works.
So this will be an interesting thing to observe because if Trump really, really wanted that to be his first offer, now it can't be.
If he wants to be true to negotiating principles, he's going to have to just make that offer.
And he's going to have to make them turn it down as part of a formal offer.
And then he's going to say, well, you're going to have to counter.
So we'll see if he plays it clean.
I think he will.
It would be a big mistake to respond to the rejection of the leak.
Don't do that.
That's weak.
That's bad form.
However, I would like to say that the idea...
of putting a 20-year limit on it is, frankly, genius.
Do you know why I say it's genius?
Because I recommend this all the time.
So let me tell you where I've recommended it.
So when I've talked in the past about North Korea and South Korea, and North Korea thinks it should own South Korea, and on some level, the Koreans all think that maybe they should be the same country in the future.
But nobody thinks it can happen fast.
So what I suggested to make peace with North and South Korea is that you make a deal that says in 100 years, or pick a time, in 100 years we will definitely be one country.
And we're going to work toward it for 100 years.
And everything we'll do will be in that mode.
So that would allow Kim Jong-un to have passed along and maybe his kids have already grown and died.
So his family would be able to set them up financially, get some kind of government deal that they're not haunted if they ever become one country.
And you would say to yourself, well, we definitely can't do it today.
But if we're moving toward it, why would we fight?
It would make more sense just to wait.
So then Kim Jong-un could claim that he had unified Korea, and maybe that's even true.
It's just that there would be a timeline before it happened.
So from a negotiating perspective, here's the trick.
If you know you can't get a deal today, See if you can tell somebody, well, we'll definitely make this happen, but you've got to wait.
Or in the case of Trump, it's something they don't want to happen, so you say it definitely won't happen for at least 20 years, because so much will happen in the next 20 years.
I mean, is Putin still going to be in charge in 20 years?
I don't know.
I mean, he'd be in his late 80s, mid-80s.
So I don't know.
Late 80s, I think he'd be.
So it was a smart, smart offer.
And it does suggest that there's plenty to work with.
So I think he's going to get it done.
We don't know what it'll look like yet.
According to Normal...
There's a study that says that patients are less likely to have thoughts of ending their own lives if they use marijuana.
So, let's see.
They did a big expensive study to see if people feel better about their life when they're high.
You know how they could have saved a little time?
You know what I'm going to say, right?
No, you don't.
I'm going to trick you.
I usually say they could have just asked me.
In this case, it's funnier.
But they could have even done something easier than that.
You know how they could have found this out?
Instead of doing a study, they should have just smoked some joints.
See how they felt.
Trust me.
You're definitely going to think less about ending your life if you're enjoying it at the moment.
That's pretty straightforward stuff.
If you're enjoying it at the moment, you're probably not thinking of ending it.
All right.
Meanwhile, according to Washington Times, the drug cartels are now Mexico's fifth largest employer.
175,000 people.
Fifth largest employer.
And I think that's misleading because they own the governments as well.
So you'd have to add the government employees.
That should make them the largest employer indirectly.
Well, according to...
Breitbart is reporting on a blaze.
I think the blaze did the reporting on this.
There's a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine that some Bill Gates funded entity is testing putting medicine or vaccinations in mosquitoes.
So they put the drug in the mosquitoes somehow and then the mosquitoes bite you and you get vaccinated.
Feel comfortable with that one?
How's that one feel?
Oh, I can't wait.
I can't wait for the mosquitoes.
The mosquito vaccination.
Well, what could go wrong?
Until somebody weaponizes the mosquitoes to overdose you with fentanyl.
Wow.
Somebody named Caroline Delbert.
What an unfortunate last name, Delbert, is writing for popular mechanics that there's a battery that will finally unlock massless energy storage.
I don't know what the massless part is about.
Oh, massless.
That makes sense.
So somebody figured out...
These researchers, that how to make a structural battery.
Now, a structural battery is one that can hold weight.
So instead of having a car that's a frame and an engine and then a separate battery, the frame would actually be the battery.
And if you use the right materials, it might not be any or substantially heavier than the regular frame that wasn't a battery.
So if you can make the whole frame of your car your battery, you don't need to add a battery because the car is the battery.
So imagine what would happen to the weight of the car if you could do lightweight batteries that are just built into the frame, doing what the frame of the car does, and they don't need to add a battery.
It took about 10 seconds for somebody to enter the chat and say, what happens if the battery goes bad?
If your entire car is the battery, what happens if the battery fails?
Do you have to trade in the whole car?
Sounds like it.
But it's not that much worse than the situation that we have.
So, batteries.
The future is batteries.
Dr. John Campbell on Rumble.
So I know you're going to point me toward all the experts.
I've seen them all.
All the names, I've seen them all.
I've seen their work.
I see what they claim.
And it doesn't change my comments.
Falling for the propaganda.
All right, can you tell me what big pharma propaganda that I use?
So this will be a test of your own intelligence.
Give me an example of what evidence from big pharma that I used for my ivermectin opinion.
Go!
What part of my opinion came from Big Pharma?
Was it the part where I said there's no evidence?
Did Big Pharma tell me that there's no evidence when there's lots of evidence?
No, that didn't happen.
As far as I know, I have no input whatsoever from Big Pharma.
I don't think it has anything to do with anything.
Big Pharma did not tell me it doesn't work.
I've never heard Big Pharma say that.
Have you?
Has Big Pharma said it doesn't work against cancer?
I've never heard them say that.
If they're saying it, I'm not aware of it.
So I looked into it with just my own powers of observation.
And It's very important that you know the distinction between not credible and not true.
The not true part I don't know.
I don't know if it's true.
I just know that if you're convinced it's real, You've been convinced on very, very bad information or inadequate.
I won't say wrong, but inadequate.
So if that's enough information for you, then I would say, I don't know how you'd defend it.
I don't know how you could possibly defend it.
So just find me, all you have to do is find me one person who's real, who will sit there with their doctor.
I'll even ask the questions myself, or I'll see if Dr. Drew would talk to him.
How about this?
I'll make you a deal.
I'll make you a deal.
Keep me out of it, because I'm not a doctor.
But if Dr. Drew was presented with the opportunity to talk to, let's say, one or more than one person, Plus their doctor and not anonymous to say that this worked for me and there's no, there's no, it couldn't have been anything else.
I would definitely be influenced by that, but I haven't seen it right now.
You might say, but Scott, what about this doctor or that doctor?
Nope.
I'm not going to be convinced by somebody who tells me they talked to somebody else.
If that's your standard, if that's your standard, the closest I got to finding somebody who said they were cured is somebody who would only talk to me by chat.
So automatically, I don't have full confidence in that.
They'd only talk to me by chat.
And again, I didn't talk to their doctor.
Would the doctor say the same thing?
I don't know.
All I know is somebody I don't know said that something good happened.
So there are reports.
If you're saying to me, Scott, you're missing the signals, there are signals.
It's just that when you chase them down, they turn into dust.
So that's all I know.
All right.
I'm losing my voice.
So I think I'll end the main show here.
I'm going to say just a few words to the locals people.
I went a little long today because nobody else is working.
Well, that's not true.
All right.
Locals, I'm coming to you privately in 30 seconds.
