Gaza success, Trump's negotiating magic, Leticia James Karma, lots more fun~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, Zuby, Conspiracy Theory Poll, Tylenol Circumcision Autism, RFK Jr., AI DeepFake Detection, President Trump, 3l/ATLAS Speculation, Hamas Peace Deal, Trump Changes Reality, Trump's Success List, Qatar US Protect, Jared Kushner, Leticia James Fraud Indictment, Nobel Peace Prize, Military Enlistment Numbers, Pete Hegseth, Israel Politics, Benevolent Authoritarianism, Peace Through Strength, Jake Tapper, Democrat Government Shutdown, Chuck Schumer, Dominion Indictments Speculation, Princeton Admission Testing, Democrat Pro-Science Scams, Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, Legalized Government Propaganda, Thomas Massie, Columbus Day, Palisades Fire Arsonist, Climate Models Danger, Steven Crowder, George Clooney France, mRNA Cancer Treatments, Ukraine War, Scott Bessent, Democrat NGO Funding, 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.
I gave somebody some stock advice yesterday, and the stock is up 4% this morning.
Too late.
If I'd gotten there one day earlier, I could have made somebody a lot of money.
Well, stocks look pretty good.
Not bad.
We'll get your comments going on to show you deserve.
if you've been good why is nothing happening All right.
Here we go.
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of human civilization, it's called coffee with Scott Adams, and you've never had a better time.
But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience up to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mugger, a glass of tanker charles to Steiner Kantine, sugar flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's cold.
The simultaneous sip.
Yeah.
Oh, so good.
Well, apparently I owe you some of you an apology.
Oh, maybe two, two apologies.
One was that I had a misdated Dilberg comic for those of you who subscribe.
So I fixed that.
So go look at the comic from yesterday and it will be the correct one.
Number two.
Apparently, when I posted my last post for the evening on X, I said I was signing off.
What I meant was going to bed.
But apparently, given the context of my situation, when people saw me say I was signing off, it looked like it was a little more extreme than going to bed.
If you know what I mean.
I Promise You00:02:50
No, I was just, I won't be clever about it.
I promise you, here's my promise.
If it ever comes to the point where I'm doing a final message, you will know it's a final message.
There won't be any ambiguity.
So I promise I won't be cute.
All right.
So if you thought, oh, he's being subtle or cute or something, I would never do that.
No.
If I'm checking out from the big picture, if you know what I mean, if I decide to check out and I decide to post about it, there won't be any doubt.
Got it?
All right.
So just so you don't have to worry next, but next time.
But I do have a path to potentially getting better.
We'll see if it works out.
All right.
Today, I believe will be released the podcast of Zuby and me talking on Zuby's podcast.
So just, I don't know, just do a Google search for Zuby's podcast.
It'll pop up somewhere.
One of the things I love about Zuby is he's got this great approach to life where he just sort of figures out what would be the smartest thing to do just in life.
What would be the smartest thing to do?
And then he does that thing.
And it's fun to watch because he just makes one good common sense, smart decision after another.
And then he implements it and then it works.
And then he's better off.
So he's living in like the best place in the world because he can.
Where is it?
One of those Middle East countries that everybody wants to be in.
And he's got this business model where he can travel the world.
He likes traveling.
Then he does his podcasts.
He lines them up so that when he travels, the travel and the podcasting.
And he can bring his, you know, he can bring his family, bring his baby, bring his wife.
So he's got a portable job that he can schedule anytime he wants.
He can do it in a bunch and then go back and live his life.
It's a pretty good model.
And his talent stack is amazing.
It's everything from fitness to music because he raps.
He's got one of the best podcasts, one of the best personalities, one of the best online personas.
Just so many talents to put in one person.
So he's a good interview.
Love Zuby.
New Coffee Studies Revelations00:15:14
All right.
Would you believe, according to Daily Coffee News, which is completely unbiased, that there was yet another sweeping review of existing coffee-related scientific studies?
And guess what?
It's still good for you in a variety of different health ways.
It adds more than it subtracts.
Now, how many times have I told you about somebody who did the least scientific thing you could ever do, which is just look at the other scientific studies, which everybody's already looked at a million times?
Is there somebody who didn't know that if you looked at all the coffee health studies, that the net would be that, yeah, coffee's good for you?
There was still somebody who didn't know that in the world.
Well, at least my audience knows it.
Yes, that is the lamest research you could ever do.
Nobody should ever give you money for that.
Next time, you know who to ask?
Just ask Scott.
Well, here's another one.
Let's see if I could have done a better job than science on this one.
Northeastern University, according to Cody Mellow Klein, did a little study and they found out that 78.6% of people they surveyed agree with at least one conspiratorial idea.
So did they have to do that study to find out that almost 79% of people believe at least one conspiracy theory?
Well, if they'd asked me, they would have gotten a better answer because the answer is not 79%.
Does anybody know what the answer is of what percentage of people believe in conspiracy theories?
It's 100.
It's 100.
You don't have to study it.
It's 100.
Do you know why the researchers didn't get the answer 100?
Because researchers don't know what's true.
They only have an opinion of what is a conspiracy.
Some of them, they might have a good enough debunk that they know for sure, but there's no such thing as a researcher, like a living human being who knows what all the conspiracies are and which ones are not conspiracies.
That's not a thing.
That's not a thing at all.
100% of people of every type in every place believe conspiracy theories.
Just the fact that you don't know which ones they believe has nothing to do with whether they do or do not.
They do.
Every single person.
No exceptions.
So next time, ask Scott.
Well, I saw a reference to a story that I didn't actually read details of, but I think I know enough about it.
Is it true that RFK Jr. has found that there are several existing studies that correlate use of Tylenol during circumcision for kids that get their circumcision extra early?
I think it doesn't apply if maybe you waited a few years or something.
I don't know how long you're supposed to wait.
But since Tylenol is already implicated for autism, if it's in the mother's body, in other words, if the pregnant woman takes Tylenol, there's some thought that that increases the chances of autism.
But wouldn't you imagine that it's fairly routine and has been for a while for Tylenol to be given to babies to handle the circumcision pain?
Is it possible, given that I believe I saw that there were four separate studies that clearly indicated that Tylenol use during circumcision was correlated with autistic symptoms?
And I don't think this is necessarily the kind of thing where there'd be some other confusing cause.
They probably got a pretty clean data set on that.
So here's the thing.
As monumental and historic as this week has been already, we'll talk about all that stuff.
Is it possible that RFK Jr. just solved the autism mystery?
Did that actually happen?
It's a little too early to know, but there's a non-zero chance, and I would say pretty darn good, because Tylenol has now been spotted in two completely different domains and with the same outcome.
That's pretty convincing, right?
Now, remember, half of all the scientific studies that ever get published, even the peer-reviewed ones, turn out to be not reproducible.
But this is four different studies just on circumcision on top of multiple studies about pregnant women.
That's getting a little bit hard to ignore, isn't it?
A little bit hard to ignore.
So it could be that in a week of fantastical successes, that we had one of the biggest ones we've ever had.
If this is true, and we can get to that next level of confirmation, that Tylenol was the bad boy behind autism.
Just think about that.
Did RFK Jr. just almost cure autism in a way that would not have happened if he had not been in that role and pushed exactly the way he pushed and even had the VP running-made choice that he did, Nicole Shanahan, because she's the big force behind all the autism stuff, I believe.
And I wouldn't even know what to say.
I mean, if this is true that RFK Jr. actually, within one year, really on the timeline that he said he would, if he actually pulled this off, this is going to make a peace in the Middle East look like it was easy.
No, I'm exaggerating.
Peace in the Middle East is still pretty amazing.
But he would probably, the impact, my God, the size of the impact, if he actually got a handle on this?
I don't know.
I've never been, I don't think I've ever been more proud of an American government.
You know, it's just not something I do.
Not really proud of governments.
But damn, if he pulled this off on top of what's already happened this week, damn.
I don't know.
I'd like to think maybe they did.
Elon Musk says that Grok will soon be able to detect AI-generated deepfakes.
How awesome is that?
One of the things we worry about the most is that we won't be able to tell what's real and what's not.
But fortunately, there's this guy, Elon Musk, who really likes maximum truth-seeking AIs.
So if he's figured out in a way that AI can detect deep fakes, that would be amazing.
Again, if that was the biggest thing that happened this week, that'd be a big thing.
I mean, I don't know if it works or if it'll work on every case.
But if Elon says we'll be able to detect AI deepfakes with Grok, wouldn't that be amazing?
That would be amazing.
All right.
Trump's making some kind of announcement today at 5 p.m. Eastern Time from the Oval Office.
I'm going to guess that it's just sort of bragging about the success with Gaza, giving us some details.
You know, the country probably wants that and needs it.
So that would be my guess what that's about.
But I like to speculate that maybe he's going to announce that that big comet, 31 Atlas, that's going to come close to the close to our solar system, or in it, I think, that it might be an alien spacecraft.
Wouldn't that be fun with all the news that's happening today?
Imagine if Trump got up there and said, oh, we think we have peace in the Middle East, and we think we've solved autism.
And he just goes down the line.
And then he does a Steve Jobs.
You know how Steve Jobs used to do it?
You would think he was done with the rollout.
And then it's like he's walking away and goes, oh, one more thing.
And then the one more thing is the big announcement.
So wouldn't it be fun if he went through all the good news that happened this week?
He goes, oh, one more thing.
That comet, it's an alien spacecraft, and we've been in touch with it for a year.
I'm not going to predict that, but wouldn't that be fun?
All right, let's talk about Trump's success so far.
I mean, it's looking good.
And a little behind the curtain stuff about how we got it done, okay?
Remember, I told you early on that Trump was playing a brilliant game by taking the yes but no response from both Hamas and Israel, which are really no, right?
If you say, yes, I agree with this, as long as I get these other things which are impossible and nobody's ever going to give me.
And then Israel says, yes, I agree, as long as we get these things that we're never going to get, because the other side said there's no way you'll ever get that.
So when I read it, I read it as a no.
That both sides said yes, so they would look reasonable.
But in the detail, they said no, because they were very much not agreeing to the details of the deal.
They were just agreeing to letting the hostages go.
So the story goes, and this is from the Israel's foreign minister, right?
I predicted this.
I alone predicted this.
And the only person in the world, I think, who predicted what I'm going to tell you next.
But the Israel foreign minister confirmed it.
So Trump decided to take the no, which was in the form of a yes, but really no.
And he decided that he was going to force the people to treat it like a yes.
In other words, he wasn't negotiating.
He was changing reality right in front of you.
Because if he could change the reality to you said yes, instead of the actual reality, which was the starting point, which is they said yes, but no, which is really no.
And I guess when he allegedly, when he called Netanyahu and Netanyahu was all negative, like, I don't know, you're happy about this.
Doesn't move the ball forward.
And allegedly, Trump just chewed him out.
Why are you so fucking negative?
Take it as a yes.
Now, how many people, presidents or non-presidents, would have been smart enough to know to treat that as a yes?
Because once he treated it as a yes, he could bully people into a yes.
But if he treated it as a no, people would just dig in.
But if he says, you just said yes, I say yes, you say yes, the other side just says yes, we're working on a yes, people.
We're working on a yes.
Then you've changed reality itself.
You've changed how they see the possibilities.
Nobody else could do that.
Nobody else can do that.
He's the only one.
And I feel good about the fact that even his critics, you know, his biggest TV news critics, they also say Biden couldn't do that.
They also say that Trump's bullying, and here's the payoff, authoritarian, strongman personality might have been just exactly what they needed for the situation.
Has anybody ever said that before?
That maybe this whole authoritarian strongman thing is a lot better than you thought it was.
Could it be, and here's the fun part.
Could it be that the consistent Democrat messaging that Trump is strong, unpredictable, authoritarian, dictator-like, is it possible that made it more likely he would get a deal?
Because Hamas would look at the same stuff and say, oh my God, this guy's, you know, nothing can stop him.
He's a power-hungry guy.
I feel like the more they talked him up as a powerful leader, the closer he got to being able to bully both sides into a deal.
Maybe.
So here's the part I predicted.
I predicted that the only way he could make this work is not through negotiating, but changing reality.
And that he's the only person who could do it.
And then he did it.
He did it right in front of us.
He changed reality instead of negotiating.
There was also negotiating.
But the changing of reality is the breakout part.
The part that brings him from, oh, he's a good deal maker.
That's not what you're seeing.
You're seeing a legend.
You're seeing a once-ever personality.
You don't see this again.
You'll never see this again.
So enjoy it while you got it.
All right.
Here are some of the things I've mentioned before.
His credibility up to this point allowed him to do things that people couldn't do because he's done things that other people can't do.
Boy, if you want to be in position to do something that other people can't do, do something that other people can't do in some other domain until people start thinking, oh, I get it.
This is a person who can do things that people can't do.
Elon Musk being the best example of that, right?
Jared's Credibility Crisis00:15:06
So here are some of the things that Trump has done just to be in a position for people to say, oh, I think he does impossible things.
He won a second term after being law-fared and impeached twice.
He was actually convicted of felonies, booked, headshot, impeached twice.
What do we call that?
What do you call it when you lose your second term the first time?
You got lawfared into literally felony convictions and you got impeached twice.
You know what the name for that is?
Mr. President.
Yeah, that's why we call that.
We call that Mr. President, 47, if you like.
So that seemed impossible.
He survived two assassination attempts, and one of them didn't even keep him on the ground.
He's jumping up and telling us to fight.
That was amazing.
And also a sign that God's protecting him.
I'm not even a believer, and even I think it looked like God protected him.
He's now had enough time that he appears to be completely right about tariffs, using them as a tool sometimes, using them as a way to raise money sometimes.
Maybe he'll use some of that money for stopgap healthcare stuff.
We'll see.
But he clearly was right about tariffs.
And that looked impossible, didn't it?
All the smart people were saying, oh, no, this will never work.
And then it just kept working.
He kept making deals.
And he closed the border in no time, the thing that at least Democrats thought was impossible.
And people watching from other countries.
Imagine if you're a European and you're watching your own countries being continually overrun now and no control.
But you watched Trump come into office and immediately close the border successfully.
You don't think they're a little bit jealous that he did what looked like maybe it was impossible.
Nope.
Closed it down tighter than a gnat's ass in the winter.
He got the original Abraham deal done.
Remember that?
Jared Kushner got the original Abraham deal done.
Did anybody think that was possible during his first term?
No, not at all.
He got several other peace deals done.
We'll talk about his list of successes.
And he managed to be the commander-in-chief who dropped several gigantic bombs down ventilator shafts in Iran and essentially brought Iran to his knees.
Now, if you've got all of that working in your favor and you make a phone call to somebody, they're going to take the call because they think, oh, man, this guy's got some kind of magic.
Like he's just doing all these things that on paper, they didn't look doable at all.
Even people who supported him would have said, well, I don't think so, but try.
I like it that you try, but it looks out of reach.
And then he doesn't.
It's quite amazing.
So anyway, Trump became the only person who could legitimately bully Netanyahu.
Would you agree?
Nobody else could legitimately bully Netanyahu at the same time he was bullying Qatar.
We'll talk about that.
At the same time, he was getting all of the leaders in the region to line up behind his vision.
You tell me somebody else could have done that?
I don't know who.
I don't know who.
There's one theory that the breakout came because when Netanyahu decided to bomb the, which was kind of a baller play, when he decided to bomb and kill all of the negotiators, the Hamas negotiators who had gathered in Qatar,
it not only showed Qatar that Qatar is not the boss of us, well, not the boss of Israel anyway, and that they would no longer be a safe haven for Hamas.
If you were Hamas' leadership, you probably thought to yourself, well, worst case scenario, I can live in Qatar safely and rebuild what I had.
And taking out the negotiators sent a very strong message.
We're not negotiating anymore.
We don't need these negotiators.
So we'll get rid of them.
And at the same time, we'll prove that Qatar is not a safe space for anybody.
And so, of course, Qatar was super mad.
And there's some weird relationship with Qatar where sometimes there are good friends and they, I think we have a base there, but sometimes they might be helping all the worst people in the world work against us.
So Qatar is sometimes a good guy, sometimes a bad guy.
And it's like extreme in both cases.
It's like extremely bad, but sometimes extremely good.
And their money is clanking around.
So Qatar had a little issue, but also Qatar had power over the United States because we would sort of have to keep them happy in order for them to do what we needed to do.
But apparently, Qatar got so freaked by Israel bombing it that when they said they needed military protection.
So what does Trump do?
He offers to protect them militarily from our own ally, Israel.
Now, did you see that coming?
Would you have made that play?
Would you have even known to offer?
How about we'll be your military protector, but you're our bitch from now on.
Now, he didn't have to say the part to Qatar that says, we will protect you militarily.
I can influence Netanyahu.
We've seen it.
But you're going to have to be our bitch.
So it could be that what we're getting out of this, the stuff we don't know, was communicated with Qatar and whatever they're going to do.
It could be that that's one of the biggest benefits we get from it, is that Qatar decides to be smarter and a little bit more our friend than something else.
All right.
Oh, you're such a fucking asshole.
There's some people in the comments who are just fucking assholes.
Oh, fuck you.
I hate you so much right now.
All right.
I won't even get into it.
Anyway, the other thing that I thought was super interesting, besides the fact that Trump became good cop to Netanyahu's bad cop, and that worked, I like the fact that Jared was sent at the end as a closer.
And I'll give you a little behind-the-curtain fun for that.
You might remember that in 2018, I got invited to the White House to just meet Trump.
And I think he was just consolidating support with his supporters.
And I was just one of those people.
And Ivanka told me that the reason I was on their radar, she introduced me to the president, took me around, showed me the Oval Office, is that she had read my book, Winn Bigley, which taught Trump's persuasion techniques.
And she told me, and I couldn't even believe this, she said that when she read the book Winn Bigley that I wrote, it was the first time she understood her father, meaning that she didn't understand him as a persuader the way I described him.
And that once she did, like a lot of things clicked into place for her.
You would not believe who I just got a text from.
I can't tell you, though.
So anyway, so she read it.
And then apparently Jared also read it.
So Jared read my book.
Here's this book.
The new version is out.
If you want to get the audio, I didn't do the audio book.
It's an audio artist.
But Wooden Big Lee, it's version two.
This is the only one you want to buy.
It's only on Amazon.
It's nowhere else.
And so prior to negotiating the Abraham Accords, Jared read my book about how to be a negotiator and persuader like Trump.
And then armed with those skills in his talent stack, he went out and did the impossible, the Abraham Accords.
Now, of course, there's lots more.
I don't know about that.
The only thing I know for sure is that Jared is super smart and he's adding talents.
Now, it doesn't mean that he couldn't have done it without reading the book, but he did consciously read a book about how to negotiate like his boss, his father-in-law.
And I've heard lots of other stories from people who read the book and got promotions, doubled their pay, just did all kinds of amazing things.
So then this situation comes along.
You know, Jared is no longer actively in the administration, but he was asked to be brought in toward the end here as kind of a closer.
Now, we don't know what he really did.
It could be that Wickoff and Trump and everybody else had already got the deal pretty well done.
But even if his direct role was not consequential, although I think it probably was, my guess is that he had personal contacts in the area that were super important.
So he probably just called in some personal contacts.
So I do believe he probably made a big difference.
But even if he didn't, do you see how genius it is for Trump to send him in?
Because Jared is like a signal that something impossible is going to happen.
As soon as Jared enters the room, you say, he's done one impossible thing so far, the Abraham Accords.
Just seeing him, just seeing him and knowing he's part of it would make everybody in the region go, oh, this thing's actually going to happen.
So again, this is Trump managing reality, not negotiating.
Because introducing Jared into the larger picture changes how you feel about the reality.
And then suddenly the negotiating part becomes the trivial part because you've just reframed the entire reality by introducing the magical deal-making Abraham Accord guy.
That's amazing.
I don't think that history will ever quite record the total number of small genius things that were done to make this to get to this point.
That was one of them, sending Jared.
Anyway, on other news, Letitia James has been indicted, as you know, for mortgage fraud.
I like the fact that the name of the alleged crime sounds pretty bad, banking fraud or mortgage fraud.
Anyway, I don't think she'll be convicted.
I think they've probably got some clever, some clever kind of defense.
One of the defenses that somebody suggested that sounded pretty good to me is that maybe if you get a loan and you say, this is my intention when I get the loan, but then something comes up.
Let's say you intended to rent it or you intended to use the second house as your second house, vacation house.
But then let's say something came up.
Let's say a family member got evicted and needed a place to stay.
So you said, all right, well, I wasn't intending to do that when I got the loan, but you're my cousin, so I'll rent it to you.
Now, I'm not saying that's what happened.
What I'm saying is, how do you handle the fact if somebody gets a loan and then they change their mind maybe temporarily, not even permanently, and say, all right, it was going to be my second home, but why don't you rent it for a year until you get back on your feet?
So if she's got a story like that, even if she technically broke the law, even if she should have notified the bank, it's going to make the crime look so small that maybe the jury will just say, ah, get out of here.
Who knows?
So I'm guessing that she will not go to jail over any of it or won't be convicted anyway, but it will be a punishment.
And I'm hearing people on TV say, but but but it's looking like it's just revenge.
No, it's not looking like it's revenge.
It's revenge.
Am I in favor of the government using its power for revenge?
Yes.
Yes.
Because it's revenge against the lawfarer.
If he was doing it against somebody who just was a critic, then I would be like, whoa, whoa, whoa, authoritarian.
No, you don't go after somebody who just disagrees with you.
You don't send the Department of Justice against somebody who said, you know, said a bad word about you.
No way.
But if you're going after the people who created hoaxes to try to remove you from government, go me.
If you're taking out somebody who said, I'm going to take this person down, I don't even know what the crime is yet.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
You have to revenge the hell out of that.
Nobel Peace Prize Controversies00:14:56
And I feel safer when that happens.
I feel safer that the January 6th people got their sentences commuted or whatever the right word is.
That makes me feel safer because I don't want to be locked up for bullshit and rot in jail, but at least, you know, at least they didn't stay there forever.
And when I see Trump just publicly and unapologetically going after people who were lawfare creeps, then I say, oh, yeah, absolutely.
You can revenge the hell out of that.
Because I will feel safer if I know that anybody who goes after a Republican with a lawfare agenda, somebody's going to take him out.
Take him out with lawfare, not violence, of course.
So, yeah, I feel better.
Makes me feel safer.
Makes me feel better as an American.
Makes me feel that something like justice is happening, even if there's no jail time.
Just the annoyance of it and having it on your record would be bad enough.
Well, the Nobel Prize winner was selected really at the beginning of the week.
So Trump didn't have a chance.
And I guess it's the opposition leader, a woman who was known as Venezuela's Iron Lady.
And some would say that she's the real legitimate leader of Venezuela and not Maduro.
And I guess she's been in hiding for a while, which makes sense.
Yeah, you'd want to be in hiding.
And the nominations, I think the nominations were in January or something.
Now, some people said, Scott, don't you know that Trump wasn't nominated in January?
So there was no way that he could have been selected.
Well, he probably was nominated.
He probably was.
You don't know who was nominated.
That's not public information.
But he probably was nominated.
Trump probably was from some of his other work.
But it would have taken the Gaza thing to put him over the line, and that was just too late.
So what I think is happening is that this is an only Trump thing, too.
If you were maybe up for a Nobel Peace Prize and you didn't make it, and you were not Trump, what would be the summary of that situation?
The summary would be, well, I guess you didn't do enough to win a Nobel Peace Prize.
That's the end of that.
But when it's Trump, don't you think that the credibility of the Peace Prize is what took the hit, not Trump?
Like the fake news.
It used to be if the fake news said something about Trump, you would say, oh, that's bad.
That's bad for Trump.
That's really bad.
But once you realize that the fake news is fake news, then you blame the fake news when they blame Trump.
That's happening here, too.
Even though there's, I would argue that there's a good reason because of the timing of things why he wasn't eligible for this one.
But it would be harder for them to deny him next year.
That'll be hard to deny if things work out.
We'll know by then if things are working out.
But I think he's destroying the credibility of the prize.
He's already destroyed the credibility of the Pulitzer by showing that the Russia hoaxers were the ones getting Pulitzer prizes.
So to me, that just makes the Pulitzer just garbage.
I mean, I already thought it was a garbage prize, but I mean, the rest of the world knows now it's a garbage prize.
I think when Obama was picked as Nobel Peace Prize winner, you know, maybe that was a big hit for their credibility.
But by not choosing Trump, even though they've got a good reason because of timing, people aren't going to take it that way.
People are going to say, you know, you could have changed it at the last minute.
I mean, it's your own organization.
You know, you make the rules.
You could just change them and say, well, this is extraordinary.
But we had somebody picked, but we're going to change it at the last minute.
They could have.
They could have done that, decided not to.
So I think that destroys the credibility of the Nobel Peace Prize as opposed to being bad for Trump.
Although he still wants it, of course.
All right, let's talk about how many wars and or conflicts Trump has solved, because he likes to mention that.
He'll probably mention it again today from the Oval Office.
He said, quote, nobody in history has solved eight wars in a period of nine months.
So that's his claim.
Eight in a period of nine months.
So I went to Grok and I said, can you tell me how many wars and or conflicts Trump was instrumental in helping solve?
It came up with six, not counting Gaza.
So the typical Trump thing is to add two to whatever he's doing.
Like if he saves you a trillion dollars, he's going to say three, right?
So he always adds a little.
So I knew that the real number would not be, you know, eight.
But Grok says six, plus, I guess they would add Gaza.
Here are the ones, just so you remember, they're claiming.
And by the way, these are not claims that other people would necessarily say that Trump made a difference.
These are just Trump claims that he made a difference.
The Israel-Iran war.
He definitely made a difference there.
But I don't know if we'll call that peace.
I guess even Iran at the moment is saying they like the Gaza deal.
Did you see that coming?
That Iran has officially said they like the Gaza peace deal?
Weird.
I was not expecting that.
Then there was the Republic of Congo-Rwanda conflict, but some say violence continues.
There was the India-Pakistan-Kashmir conflict.
The U.S. tried to mediate, but India, India acts like India was more the cause of that.
Thailand-Cambodia border pushed for a ceasefire.
And I think he actually gets credit for that one.
They actually say, yeah, you made the difference.
There's the Armenia-Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that he resolved.
But the stability is uncertain, but that would be true of all peace deals.
There was the Egypt-Ethiopia Nile dam dispute.
The claim is that he settled it to avert war, but there's no official agreement.
But it looks like they averted war, at least for now.
Serbia-Kosovo, ethnic tensions, resolved via economic normalization.
Some say there's more progress than there is settlement per se, but he gives credit for that one too.
And then you add the Gaza deal.
So here's what I love about Trump claiming that he did solved eight wars in nine months.
First of all, he's going to make his critics argue about whether those were wars, because some of them were just conflicts.
Secondly, he's going to have people trying to score his report card to take his grade down.
But how much, how down are they going to be able to take it?
Suppose somebody says, all right, you did not solve eight wars in nine months.
You solved five conflicts in nine months.
He's making them think past the sale.
The sale is, did you solve a whole bunch of conflicts around the world?
Yes or no?
If he can make you argue about which ones he solved and which ones he didn't is the number six or seven or eight, he wins.
He wins hard.
So he just has to make you think: is that the right number?
Let's talk about that.
Let's talk about all these examples that you never would have heard, except that I'm talking about what the right number is, right?
If everybody had agreed on the number, and everybody said, yeah, it's five, he got five, I wouldn't even look them up.
But because there's dispute, then suddenly it's interesting and fun for all of us to know what the names of those disputes are.
And then you say, oh, well, okay, I can see why his critics might say that one's not.
I can see why his critics would say he doesn't get credit for that specific one.
But in the process of debunking any one of them, you're going to be reminded that he got several wars or conflicts ended through his involvement.
So it's perfect persuasion.
All right.
I love that he does that.
All right.
And Trump said that Iran wants to work on peace now.
They've informed us and they've acknowledged that they're totally in favor of this deal.
Do you think it's possible that this would actually lead to a lasting Iran kind of a deal?
Because I think even Russia was in favor of the Gaza deal.
So that would be just about everybody.
All right.
And then Pete Hagseth gets the win because apparently the military has met its full year quota.
Let's see what it met its year-long goal in the Marine Corps in two weeks.
So apparently people joining the military is way up.
And there's no way that that has anything to do with anything except leadership.
Would you agree?
It's not because the economy is so bad, although it's hard for young people to get jobs.
So that is part of it.
But it's Hagseth and Trump.
They simply made it cool for young men.
You know, I'm sure young women are still joining, but young men, they made it cool to be in the military.
And now they know that if you're in the military, maybe nobody's going to call you fat.
So, because you won't be, because you don't get to stay.
So good job, Pete Hagseth and Trump, on getting the military so respected that they just smashed through the recruitment goals.
The opposite of what was happening under Biden.
The press is having a weird, weird week in trying to be at least a little bit honest about how happy they are that this peace deal might be happening.
Here are the things that even the Trump, let's say I'll call them Trump critics, just the people who are not pro-Trump.
But they do agree that Biden could not have gotten this done, which is amazing that people are saying that out loud.
You know, Fetterman said that if he also gets the Ukraine deal solved, I don't think that's imminent, but maybe.
That Federman himself would lead the push to get him the Nobel Peace Prize because he would deserve it.
I believe that his critics are all on the same page that no matter what you don't like about Trump, the one thing you have to admit is that he's a peacemaker and he really, really doesn't like war.
That's amazing that they do not argue that even though they would say he lies about everything, he has convinced even his most serious critics that not only is he the biggest badass if he has to go militarily, but he's also the biggest force for peace at the same time, and that that's real, that that comes from his heart, not from some policy decision.
Even his critics say he's the strongest man of peace who's also strong.
That's amazing.
His critics.
They give him credit for being willing to and able to bully Netanyahu.
That's real.
Because that whole thing about Israel is the tail wagging the dog.
Well, I think Trump kind of reinforced the model that I've been trying to promote, which is it's not that Israel runs the United States.
It's more like a sibling situation where they want things and they try to influence us.
We want things, so we try to influence them.
But I don't know that we've ever been as good at it as we are now with Trump.
Probably not.
This is probably the most influence we've ever had.
And Netanyahu is smart enough to know that he needs to stick with the winner.
So if Netanyahu had any doubts or wanted to push back against Trump before, he probably has figured out that that would be a bad idea at the moment.
You know, he should just go with Trump because that's the winning horse right now.
And I love the fact that his critics are going to have to struggle with the fact that Trump's authoritarian side is probably what got this done.
So their number one complaint about Trump is that he's authoritarian.
Organic Reframing of Authoritarianism00:13:20
And remember, just the other day I was talking about how the best form of government would be an authoritarian who has your best interest in mind.
They have, his critics have decided that he has our best interest in mind when it comes to ending war and that he needed to be authoritarian to get it done.
How do you win harder than that?
It's the number one complaint about him.
And he just used that number one personality.
They would call it a defect.
But he uses that personality strength to get one of the most remarkable wins of any president.
And he did it right in front of them.
Well, we all watched.
We watched the authoritarian thing turn from, oh, I'm scared of this, to once you realize that he's pro-America and he's a benevolent authoritarian.
Now, people got mad at me for acknowledging his authoritarianism.
But authoritarian just means that you're big on following the law and the Constitution, because that is the authority.
It doesn't mean that he wants to be the law.
It means that he's going to push all the doors and test all the envelopes and stuff like that.
But he's still going to follow the law.
So I think the thing that people aren't talking about is this sort of organic reframing of authoritarian into a positive, at least this week.
But you didn't see that coming.
All right.
And I think the Democrats made Trump's success more likely by promoting him as bad cop.
So his critics created a, let's say, an image of him as the ultimate strong man who could not be persuaded out of his views.
None of that's true, but I'll bet it helps him negotiate.
So, you know, his critics get the win.
They get the assist, not the win.
Jake Tapper is, I'm kind of enjoying what he's doing right now.
So CNN, as you know, has been trying to find the middle and not just be the anti-Trump network.
And I got to give them credit.
You know, they're giving plenty of time to Scott Jennings, and they do seem serious about trying to find a reasonable middle ground that's real news.
Here's an example of it.
So Jake Tapper is challenging some of the Democrat leaders by saying that in the past, when the news talked about government shutdown, and they talked about the continuing resolution option, which allows you to keep it open until you agree on a final budget.
So he points out to the Democrats that the Republicans have offered to sign a continuing resolution, which means everybody gets paid.
The military gets paid.
All the Medicare medical stuff gets covered until it's the time to negotiate for real, which is not too many weeks away.
Now, Jake Tapper correctly says, in the past, we would call this the Democrats shutting the government because the Republicans have directly said, no, we'll open it whenever you want.
We'll open it today.
Every one of us will vote to open it.
And the only thing you have to do is put off the negotiating until a few weeks.
So, yes, that is very clearly and unambiguously the Democrats closing the government.
So good on you, Jake Tapper.
I didn't see anybody else doing that.
And that was actually a really salient point.
Meanwhile, I saw a video of Chuck Schumer, who is the worst communicator in the history of communicators.
I mean, he's so bad.
And he was talking about the shutdown.
He actually said the following in public.
He said that every day of government shutdown gets better for Democrats.
Now, do I have to tell you how bad a mistake that sentence is?
So people are wondering how to pay their bills.
People are wondering if they'll have health care.
I mean, really panicky stuff.
And what does he talk about?
Oh, what's better for Democrats, which he means Democrat leaders.
And those are the fuckers who are getting paid.
So he wants to make sure that you know that the people who are getting paid who are making sure that you're not getting paid, as Jake Tapper says, is the Democrats.
They're making sure you're not getting paid if you're one of the government people not getting paid.
But oh, he's really happy that every day without you getting paid is better for fucking Democrats.
Can you believe that their leader is so dumb that he thinks saying that what's good for the leadership is the thing he should focus on?
That is so lost.
So lost.
Now, I get that there's a political element to this, but you got to start with: you know, this shutdown is terrible for the people.
We want it to end as soon as possible.
But I don't think the Republicans have made the right bet on this.
That would be fine.
That would be fine.
Because at least he's showing that his thoughts are with the people not getting paid.
But no, his thoughts are with himself and his career.
Terrible.
Just so bad.
There's so much interesting news today.
Apparently, Dominion, the voting machine company, has sold to a they call him an ex-Republican kind of guy who's an entrepreneur.
So he bought it.
We don't know what price, but I saw Rasmussen, the polling people, had some comments about this.
They've been talking about Raspusson always talks about the past election integrity.
And Rasmussen said in a post, you bet you're bippy that we're reading between the lines here, which is what we're all doing.
I'm going to read between the lines too.
But with what is surfacing almost daily, it's practically the only reason that makes sense.
And that would be that Dominion sold it for scrap because indictments are expected.
Now, indictments in this context, in Rasmussen's context, would be for rigging the election or lying about rigging the election or something.
Now, I don't have any evidence that anybody rigged an election through Dominion.
I do know there are a lot of accusations, a lot of allegations.
And I think people have done legally binding sign things saying that they believe stuff happened.
But part of this deal is they had to settle the ongoing cases with, let's see, who else was it?
Lindell.
I think you were still in a lawsuit with Lindell and some other people.
So they had to stop suing the Republicans to get this deal done.
And let's see.
It's Liberty Vote.
That's who bought it.
And it's a former Republican election official, Scott Leindecker.
Now, I'll give you my own reading between the lines.
We don't know how much they sold it for, but I'll bet it wasn't as much as it used to be worth because Trump is talking about removing all electronic voting machines from the United States.
If you were the electronic voting machine company, now they service the world, not just the United States, but the United States has to be one of the big customers.
And so if you don't know if you're going to lose your biggest customer, and by the way, if the United States removed them because they weren't safe, what would the other countries do?
Do you think the other countries could keep them after the United States had hypothetically said, no, these are too unsafe.
We don't even want them in our election.
It probably would take down the whole company.
Now, what would be the one and only way that Dominion could survive, let's say reliably survive, under the Trump regime, which is just trying to get rid of electronic machines?
Well, I would say the one and only way to do it is if you could find an ex-Republican who's just really Republican who would allow you and your people and whoever needs to to really look at those machines and number one, for the first time, find out what's going on.
And number two, get rid of any rigging, or if there is rigging, make sure it's in favor of Republicans.
Now, under those conditions, you can see why a sale would go through because the Republicans would have a massive incentive to have full access to the code and find out what was real and maybe make sure any rigging doesn't happen again if it ever happened.
So you can see why a Republican might buy this company.
If you ask me, as just, let's say, an entrepreneur, I would never buy that company.
Given the turmoil and the suspicions and the allegations and the lawsuits that are going on, that would be the worst company you could ever own.
So if somebody bought it, I'm going to guess that it was for reasons more than profitability.
In other words, it had to be a larger purpose for the sale to even go through because nobody in their right mind would buy a company that had that many threats that you can't know how they're going to turn out.
It was an unbuble company that got bought.
So there's something happening in the background there that probably has to do with figuring out what really happened.
Anyway, Judicial Watch, you know them, right?
They did a FOIA request, and I guess they didn't get what they wanted, so they must be suing for it now.
They want to, quote, any records about statements made by Director Gabbard, this is about also the voting machines, made by Gabbard during a cabinet meeting with President Trump in which she stated, quote, we have evidence of how these electronic voting machines have been vulnerable to hackers for a very long time and vulnerable to exploitation to manipulate the results of the votes being cast.
Now, that's different from saying that they've discovered rigging.
She's not saying that.
She's saying they discovered a mechanism by which rigging would be somewhat trivial.
Now, do you think there's any chance that if voting machines are riggable by, let's say, a standard hacker, is there any chance that they didn't try?
No.
No.
Is there any chance that they didn't succeed?
Well, we don't know, but it looks like there might have been more than one way they could have.
So if you have enough time and you have enough at stake and you have enough hackers, what are the odds that it would be rigged?
The answer is 100%.
The only thing you can't know is when.
Has it happened yet?
Well, that I don't know.
If things had kept going the way they were, would it happen for sure within the next 10 years?
Don't know, but probably.
So the situation is such that, you know, I often describe this as fraud is guaranteed.
If you've got lots of people involved, very high stakes, there's lots of complication.
That's where you hide things and complexity.
The code is complicated.
The elections are complicated.
And then you wait a long time.
Under those circumstances, it's always rigged.
Always, 100% of the time.
The only thing you don't know is how long it takes.
So we don't know if it happened yet or it was guaranteed that it would happen.
I've never heard anybody except me make that argument, by the way.
Thomas And Climate Models00:12:49
It's the best argument.
You can borrow it.
So yes, I think the sale of Dominion is probably going to open up a very big chest of surprises.
So also Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani and OAN, OANN, were all part of these definition lawsuits.
So I guess those all got dropped as part of the sale.
Well, good.
Well, Princeton has announced that it will begin requiring standardized test scores for admission for 2027 and beyond.
So now Columbia is the only Ivy League that doesn't require looking at your test scores before they accept you for the college.
Do you know why Princeton is going back to requiring test scores?
Because when they didn't, they got really bad students who didn't do so well.
So it turns out that measuring stuff works.
How many times have I told you that if you're not measuring, you're not managing?
You can't manage anything if you don't know if the changes you make are making things better or worse.
You've got to be measuring.
So at least they measured and they found out it didn't work.
But the fact that they ever stopped measuring, dumb.
I posted this at X. I borrowed an old saying and reworked it.
I said, the best trick the devil ever played was convincing the world Democrats were the pro-science side.
Do you know how much that costs society?
That somehow we all got convinced, even if you're a Republican, you might have been convinced, that the Democrats were the science side.
And they couldn't tell if men were women.
They thought IQ is not predictive.
They thought climate models are real.
They thought that fighting crime by allowing more of it to go unpunished would work.
And they thought that overpopulation was a problem instead of underpopulation.
And that's just a sample.
We thought that the Democrats had the right science.
Just think how expensive that was.
All of those things.
I mean, these are literally end-of-the-world kind of problems.
Because if they still think that overpopulation is the problem, and they don't want to have kids because they think the climate models are real and they're all going to die, these are existential risks to civilization.
And I don't believe that Republicans ever had any improper scientific ideas that would have killed us all.
Am I wrong about that?
Maybe I just couldn't think of an example of it.
But was there anything that Republicans sort of reliably got wrong in science that because it was wrong could kill us all?
I'm not aware of anything like that.
But there are several examples of Democrats who could literally end civilization with their bad ideas about science.
Well, Thomas Massey has put in some legislation that he hopes to get signed, but I doubt it will, to repeal the 2013 Smith-Munt Modernization Act.
You might remember that that's when I think Obama pushed that through, and that allowed our intelligence agencies, the CIA in particular, to use propaganda against Americans in America.
Whereas, well, the government, I guess, in general.
So I guess it used to be illegal for the government to try to propagandize and brainwash you.
But then I think it was Obama who made it legal again.
And that was about the time that the Russia collusion hoaxes started.
And then basically the government started massively lying to you with hoaxes, probably more than any time in history.
But it was legal.
It was specifically legal that the government could lie to the citizens over and over again.
So that's the Smith-Munt Modernization Act allowed them to do that lying.
Thomas Massey wants to withdraw it.
Now, do I have to tell you again, although Thomas Massey often votes against the MAGA agenda, as long as there aren't too many Thomas Masseys, he's the most valuable person in Congress because he's the only one who does a whole bunch of things that just look like common sense to me.
But for political reasons, you know, maybe they won't get signed.
Reasons we don't always know.
But I love the fact that he's trying.
Like he went to work and he did something today.
I don't know that the rest of them did.
What they do, went to a meeting, talked on TV.
He actually did something.
Might not work out, but every time I see Thomas Massey doing something, I say to myself, well, at least you extended the argument.
At least you showed that there's a priority that's missing.
Maybe he'll get this one done.
It's doable.
This is doable.
I just feel like it would have been done sooner if it were easy.
So there must be something that keeps us from being done.
We'll see.
Good luck.
Good luck, Thomas Massey, on that.
I like that there's one person operating on principle.
We need at least one.
Rand Paul does as well.
So Trump signed a proclamation to make Columbus Day Columbus Day again because it used to be, I guess they changed it to what?
Native American Day or something else.
I don't know what it was.
But now it's back to Columbus Day.
Now, Columbus himself, if you judge him by modern standards, he was a really bad dude.
Like really, really bad.
The way he treated the Native population was sort of just historically, unbelievably cruel.
I don't want to say however, because then it will sound like I'm defending it.
It will sound like I'm defending the white guy mistreating the brown people.
And I'm not doing that.
But if you put it in historical context, unfortunately, anybody who had weapons in power were abusing people who didn't have weapons in power.
So that's not an excuse.
But there is a good argument for looking at things in context.
Now, jumping off from the prior topic that the government sometimes tries to brainwash the public, I would say that the legal and ethical way to brainwash children, because you do have to brainwash them, you can't just let them make all their own decisions.
They're children.
You have to brainwash them what's right and wrong.
And then, you know, someday you hope that they will understand why things are right and wrong.
But in the beginning, you just have to tell them.
You do this.
And one of the ways that you tell people what's what and how to be is by what heroes you promote.
So we promote our presidents, you know, make sure everybody knows who the important presidents are, because we're promoting that our democratic republic is the best system.
Now, is that good to brainwash children to think that they're in the best system?
Yeah, because it makes the system stronger.
But when you push any kind of hero, you're telling a story.
So if you do a war hero, you're saying that we honor military service, right?
That's the sort of the secret message you get.
It's like, why is this guy the statue?
Well, he was a general.
So, you know, people who win wars, and in some cases, even the ones who lose wars, if they were generals, we're going to give them respect.
So that's one way to train young people to respect the military.
Columbus is in that vein to me.
What makes Columbus interesting is that he was an explorer and he was willing to risk everything to try to get a bigger thing.
And that kind of worked out.
So if you're lionizing and making a hero out of an explorer, do I want American children to see explorers as heroes?
Yes.
Yes.
That's some good brainwashing.
I want them to think that they can be entrepreneurs.
I want them to think that nothing will stop them.
I want them to think that, yes, there's an ocean between you and whatever you're looking for, but you can figure that out.
So yes, I'm very much in favor of overlooking his historical evils, which definitely were evil, and focusing on his explorer bravery, shake the box, think outside the box.
Love all that stuff.
It's a good message for the kids.
All right, I got a question for you.
You know that they caught that the arsonist who set the fire for the Palisades fire, and we learn now that he was a lefty who was also very concerned about climate change,
which makes me wonder if you add his, you know, probably mental illness, and if you added that to his lefty belief that the climate is going to kill us all, is it possible that he set the fire as any kind of a response to what he thought was the world not doing enough about climate?
Do we have enough information to say that a guy who is really radical about climate and climate risk, that's not the one who sets a fire, right?
Because he'd be worried about the climate.
The only reason you would do it is if you're trying to make a climate statement by saying, well, you know, tried to warn you, but here's the here you see what happened.
You didn't do enough on climate, so I guess your city burned down.
Now, it feels like maybe that's what happened.
We don't have confirmation of that.
But what would be alarming is that it could be that the climate models have destroyed more than the climate.
The climate models are what causes underpopulation.
Is that a big problem?
Yeah, it's like the end of the world problem.
And it would be because, in large part, because people believe that the climate's going to destroy the planet, so you don't want to put your kids here to get destroyed.
So now it may be behind underpopulation.
It may the climate models might be behind massive mental health problems.
We know that people have all this anxiety if they believe in climate crisis.
And it might have caused the Palisades fire because it inspired somebody to do something a little bit crazy, a lot crazy.
So is it possible that literally, no exaggeration, that the models have destroyed more of the country and the world than the climate, at least change in climate.
The change in climate is making things greener and warmer and the gardening better.
The climate models are causing us not to reproduce and in one case, maybe burning down the city.
The models are more dangerous than the climate.
Now, there's a reframe.
Yeah, Benny Johnson had some breaking news on that about the fire guy being a radical left-wing eco-terrorist guy.
Stephen Crowder's Productive Conversation00:05:24
Well, Stephen Crowder, you all know Steven Crowder, podcaster.
He went into a black barbershop and filmed it and had what looked like a productive conversation with a number of black men who were at the barbershop.
They talked about reparations.
I don't think, let me give Crowder a compliment and then a suggestion.
My compliment is that he's another one of those full stack people.
He looks like he knows fitness, which is really good if you're going to be on camera.
You know, your arm should be good.
He knows podcasting.
He clearly can run a business.
He knows politics.
So he has a really deep talent stack.
And it's not a surprise at all that he's doing super well in the podcasting space.
He has exactly the right set of talents, which he, my observation is that he's built over time, knowing that these would be exactly the talents that he would need for his future life.
And here he is.
So I love the fact that he's doing well because he just did all the right things.
I will say that his persuasion game is not up to where it could be and probably will be because he's, like I said, he's a talent adder.
So it's not like he's done.
He's a young guy.
So I feel like he should read Winn Bigley if he hasn't.
Because I listened to a little bit of his arguments and there's another level.
Like he's solid.
He's a good, solid debater, but he's more of a debater than he is a persuader.
That's what I wanted to say.
Yeah, he's a good debater because he's always got a response and he's good at talking in public.
But that's debate.
Debate is a very limited thing if you're putting on a debate show or debate contest.
You know, that could be the right thing.
But what you really want to do in this domain, if you walk into a black barbershop, I want to persuade them.
If you do it as a debate, you already know how it ends.
Both sides claim victory, right?
That's what a debate always ends in.
Both sides claim victory.
Every time there's a political debate on TV, at the end, who do we say won?
Democrats say the Democrat won, Republicans say.
Debates don't have winners, they just have both sides claim winner.
Persuasion can actually move the rock.
If, for example, Crowder had laid down a sticky reframe, then that would even go beyond the content.
So maybe the reframe had a little bit of effect of the people in the room.
Maybe it didn't.
But it would have a bigger effect on the people watching.
They're like, oh, wow, that was a good way to put that.
That was a good way to put that.
And then they'll use it.
So I would say to Stephen Crowder, you have an amazing talent stack, and your success is very impressive, much better than mine.
And just that one thing.
I would just tune up a little bit on reframing.
My other book, Reframe Your Brain, might get you there faster.
But Wynn Bigley will teach you persuasion.
Reframe Your Brain will teach you reframing.
And if he adds those two things to his talent stack, unstoppable.
He would be just unstoppable.
Well, George Clooney has said that raising his children in rural France has been a much better life than they would have had in Los Angeles.
Well, that's one way to put it.
Do you know that if you word that wrong, you get canceled?
Yeah, George Clooney, what were you escaping to go to raise your children in rural France?
Well, I don't want to say it because I already got canceled, but no, you're getting away from crime.
You're getting away from, well, I don't have to say it.
You know, he went to where the demographics were friendly to his family.
Let's just put it that way.
Was that a good idea?
Yeah, probably, if you could afford it.
So, yes, George Clooney, if you had worded that differently, you'd be as canceled as I am.
Speaking of canceled, let's talk about cancer.
According to Massimo, good follow on X, by the way, Massimo.
Scientists at the University of Florida, they have, believe it or not, an mRNA cancer vaccine that erased deadly brain tumors in some early people who had brain tumors.
And apparently, the vaccine reprogrammed their immune systems within 48 hours, and then their own immune system took out the tumors.
And it worked in like four out of four people, I think.
Drones and mRNA Vaccines00:03:21
Four out of four.
It got rid of the tumor, a brain tumor.
Four out of four people.
Now, I guess what they do is they take something from your tumor first, and then they deliver it via lipid nanoparticles or something.
So it's based on your own specific cancer and body.
And then they can turn that into a shot on the mRNA platform, and then they give it to you.
And I guess it's already worked on mice and dogs, and now on a handful of people, and they're moving into phase one pediatric trials.
Oh, I didn't say.
So this is, I think, for children's brain cancer specifically.
Now, the way things move slowly, even if this is the magic bullet, it probably won't be available in time to save my life.
But this is one of now several different cancer treatments that have something in common, which is they take something from your body and then they build up a special kind of a shot that's just for you.
And I think I've read about half a dozen of these completely different tech, but in each case, they're customizing a vaccine just for a person and all kinds of claims of success.
So you know what I say.
Can you do that a little bit faster and like a lot faster?
That would be really good if you don't mind.
Anyway, the robot energy wars are going on.
I guess 450 Russian drones attacked Ukraine's energy sites.
They're trying to shut them down before the winter so that Ukraine will have no warmth in the winter.
And that would be pretty ugly.
And I guess they're being pretty successful.
450 Russian drones in one night.
I wonder what the top number for that's going to get to, like the total number of drones for one attack.
You think it'll reach a million?
Because it might.
You know, 450 is going to be 1,000 pretty soon.
And if they're just cranking up their drone factories, 1,000 becomes 100,000.
So whoever can get to a million drones at a time probably wins.
And apparently, the Russian strikes have already taken out 60% of Ukraine's natural gas.
Now, if Ukraine had enough money from other helpers, they could replace the natural gas, but it's an energy war.
So it's now robots versus energy, as I told you.
I guess the U.S. is going to buy a bunch of Argentina currency, the pesos, and they're doing it to help prop up the country's economy and help their good friend Millay, the new leader, newish leader of Argentina.
What I like about this is that it's not a gift, it is an investment.
And the person behind it is Scott Besant, head of the Treasury, who is one of the most famously successful currency traders in the world.
Social Media's Dark Side00:04:01
So we're sending like, you know, one of the best guys in America to make this investment, and Besson thinks it's a good one.
I kind of love this because it's part of the Monroe doctrine that, you know, this part of the world is ours.
You know, keep your military out of it.
And, you know, we'll try to keep things stable and do what makes sense.
This makes sense.
And having the best guy in the world in charge of it, that makes sense.
And I would bet that the U.S. will make a tidy little profit and Argentina will be directly benefited in a big way.
And I like everything about it.
Well, according to a University of California Los Angeles study, there were more hate acts in California than usual.
And allegedly in 2024, 3.1 million Californians who were 12 years up and older experienced a hate act.
Now, that could be verbal or physical, but a hate act in the previous year.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that 3.1 million Californians over the age of 12 in one year, that there were 3.1 million of them that experienced a hate act?
Well, here again, they should have just come to me and said, Scott, how many Californians do you think experienced a hate act last year?
And I would have said, how many of them are on social media?
And we're done.
How in the world can you be on social media and not observe a hate acts every day?
Do you know how many hate acts are implemented against just me alone?
I mean, just one Californian?
Every single day I get hate.
Very obvious hate.
So, no, it's not 3.1 million saw some hate.
It was every single person on social media.
It's called social media.
Let's see.
So, Zero Edge is reporting: you know how we found out that U.S. taxpayers were paying maybe up to $100 million that we didn't know was going to these NGOs, and then the NGOs were doing things like funding Antifa and riots on demand and stuff.
Well, according to Elon Musk, that number is way more than 100 million.
We don't know what it is, but far more.
So, he couldn't let that go.
That number is way too low.
Do you ever wonder if the entire problem with our debt is the part that Democrats were stealing to give to their give to bad guys and back to themselves?
Like, could it be that there's $2 trillion a year that's just being siphoned off and it goes into this darkness of NGOs that you can't track?
I don't know if it's $2 trillion a year, but I'll bet it's $1 trillion.
I'll bet you.
New York City is suing the big social media companies for allegedly addicting children, Reuters is saying.
What happens if they succeed?
If they succeed, will it will destroy the entire social media platform?
Well, I think it might.
If you took all minors off of social media, they wouldn't be hooked as they got older.
It could crash the whole thing.
But I suspect that social media is in for reckoning from AI anyway.
So I don't know if social media will ever look the way it looks now.
It might be even more addictive because of AI.
But we'll see.
It's a weird time to have that lawsuit because maybe it won't matter at all.
Maybe all the social media will just morph so much.
Inspirational Videos & Mood Boosting00:02:46
According to American Psychological Association, short inspirational videos are as effective as meditation at reducing stress.
All right.
I'm going to say they could have just asked me, but let me check in with you.
If a researcher said to you, hey, I just have a question.
I was going to do this big research thing, but maybe I could save some time just by asking a stranger, hey, stranger, do you think that inspirational videos make people feel good?
Yes.
Yes.
Who didn't know that?
Did you not know that inspirational videos make people feel inspirational?
And that if you're feeling inspirational, you're probably not feeling as bad as you could feel, you know, like depressed and anxious, because inspirational is kind of close to the opposite of that.
So yes, every single person in the world who's ever watched a video knows that inspirational videos could be as good as meditating to reduce your stress.
There's nobody who doesn't know that.
Everybody knows that.
Anyway, next time, just ask me.
And my audiobooks and books.
Look at me doing all this selling.
So the books you see behind me.
So the non-Dilbert books that I've written, the last four or five, those all had the entire purpose of them is to make you feel better.
I write books to make you feel a certain way while you're learning something.
So I always make sure you're learning something, but I'm not writing it for knowledge.
I'm writing it to make you feel a certain way.
So of course, if you want to feel better, just listen to my audiobooks.
And by the way, I should tell you, I do not record the audiobooks for all the second editions.
I couldn't do the audiobook.
My dyslexia is just, I couldn't read.
I can't read more than a sentence or two without mixing words.
So I tried to do it in the studio, but I couldn't get it done.
So I hired a really good voice talent.
Apparently, Andrew Tate has been banned on YouTube one hour after getting unbanned.
Boy, do I want to see that now.
So if anybody finds the banned Andrew Tate video, I got to see what they banned it for.
That wasn't in the story.
All right, that's all I got.
I'm going to say hi to the beloved subscribers on locals.
And the rest of you, sorry I went long, but the news is so interesting today.