The best reframe ever~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Politics, CA Governor Candidate Swalwell, Eric Swalwell, Social Security Improvements, Ukraine War Audit Resistance, Ukraine War Corruption Crimes Immunity, President Trump, Master Negotiator Trump, JD Vance, MAGA Health Plan, Blackrock, Trump Mamdani Meeting, US Rare Earth Magnet Production, Jasmine Crockett, Alex Soros, Elon Musk, Open Society Objective, Gell-Mann Amnesia, HOW vs WHAT to Think, Jeffrey Epstein's Mentor, Minnesota Fraud, Islam's Successful System, Maximally Truth-Seeking AI, CDC Vaccine Statement, 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.
Since I'm at least a minute late, I thought I had my studio all set up, but turns out I hadn't started.
I was having fun chatting with the local subscribers.
And at the time, I didn't feel like I needed anything else.
All my needs had been complete.
But I'm going to give you a show today that you're likely to remember for the rest of your life.
there we go good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and it's the best thing that ever happened to you, period.
But if you'd like to take a chance on raising or elevating this experience to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is, don't you wonder, all you need is a copper, a mugger, a glass of tanker, chalicer stein, a canteen, jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
it's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now incredible Well, gas prices are projected to go down a little bit by Thanksgiving.
And then the Trump administration will get to brag about their Thanksgiving gas prices.
So gas will be heading down.
Speaking of gas heading down, Eric Swalwell has announced he's going to run for governor of California.
Well, California needs some extra gas, and I don't think anybody has more of it than he does, if you know what I mean.
So Eric Swalwell will be teaching us that you can do literally everything wrong for years and be a front runner in the Democratic Party for anything, really.
Governor, senator.
Well, you want to run for president?
Sure.
I don't see why not.
It's not like you've done anything wrong, such as lying to the American people about the most important things in the history of the republic.
But none of that is disqualifying.
I mean, come on.
We're a big tent, the Democrats say.
We're a big, big tent.
You can come in if you're even one of the designated liars.
You know, he's one of the handful of people I label the designated liars.
They're different than normal political people.
The designated liars will tell the lie that the top of the party wants to tell, but most of the people in the party would be a little uncomfortable with it because it's just such an obvious lie.
But if you've got some designated liars, they'll say anything.
And Eric Swalwell has been one of those designated liars who will say absolutely anything.
That role is currently being filled by Jasmine Crockett.
Has anyone noticed that Jasmine Crockett just became the person who says the most ridiculous things?
Today there's some new ones.
I think we'll get to that.
Unbelievable.
All right.
So good job, Democrats, and apparently somehow rewarding your designated liars.
You know, I'm not sure that AI is ever going to be super useful the way we imagined it would be.
It'll be super useful for sure.
But not necessarily the way we imagined it.
Like you've got a little AI buddy and you just tell it to do stuff.
Like that's the world I wanted, where I just tell my AI, hey, AI, go make some dinner reservations or whatever.
And then it opens up my apps and has access to my wallet.
How many of you would ever allow AI to have access to your money?
Now, maybe if you had some kind of smallish, limited credit card that was just for that, you know, so you could limit your damage if something happened.
Maybe.
But can you imagine a world where all the things that you do during the day, all the approvals, all the times you use your credit card, can you imagine having that connected to some AI that was built by somebody else, managed out of some other office, possibly in another country, and you're going to connect that stuff to your money?
All right.
Well, I have a potential insight, potential insight coming up.
You know how I always say that we've entered the cyborg era where we're already part machine, part people.
It's not really our future.
We're already there.
I mean, if you have a phone in your hand or you've got any kind of a headphone, earplug kind of thing, you've kind of already started to merge with the machines.
If you've got any kind of meta glasses on, you're another step closer.
So we're sort of already committed to the cyborg, half human, half robot world.
But what if?
Here's the part I'm going to add.
What if the only way you could prove the AI part of you is real and it's what you want to happen is if it comes from your cyborg self.
What if you were not the human versus the machine, but rather you were human and machine?
If you're human and machine, but there's only one of you that is that combination of that machine and that human, it's still just you.
So could it be that to unlock the benefits of AI, where the AI will do all the things that you would have done as a human, spend your money, that sort of thing?
Could it be that you can only get there when you are unambiguously committed to being a cyborg?
Because then the cyborg part of you is no more different from your hands or your feet.
It's just part of you.
So, you know, under those conditions, would you always have access to knowing that your cyborg part was trying to spend some money?
Yeah.
Suppose the organic part always had to approve any money expenses.
That'd be pretty safe.
Yeah.
I don't know.
So I don't know if we can ever get there, but I feel like you have to go through being cyborgs before you can unlock the real benefit of AI.
So that's my prediction.
Must be a cyborg to get the full benefit of AI.
And I wouldn't want to be in a military battle, just to further my point, with a bunch of soldiers who were cyborgs if you were not.
You know what I mean?
As soon as I say that, you totally understand, which is, oh, yeah, I definitely would not want to be in a military battle with cyborgs.
They're going to be good.
And what happens when AI gets combined with the CRISPR technology, the gene editing stuff?
Clearly, that's already being done in some small ways.
But what happens when AI can use CRISPR to make anything it wants?
to make any kind of living creature or to solve any disease.
Well, I know what I'm going to do.
I'm going to create a monster island.
So I'll create a monster island made entirely by AI and CRISPR technology.
And I'll just give you some general rules like, all right, make sure at least some of the monsters are cyclopses.
Why do you need them to be cyclopses?
That's cool.
Make some of the monsters have really big tails.
Why do they need to have big tails?
Again, how cool would it be if they did?
That's all the reason I need.
And then I put a bunch of robots on there with high-definition cameras and have the robots film the final battle for Monster Island to see who is left, which monster will survive.
Is that the most unethical thing you ever heard in your life?
No, I'm not really going to create Monster Island.
You're a monster.
You're a monster if you think that was even real.
Who's the monster?
Maybe you are.
Yeah, makes you think, doesn't it?
Well, here's some good news from Fox News.
Jasmine Bayer is writing that apparently our social security people are bragging that they fixed things up way more efficient than it used to be.
How many of you were waiting here today to find out if the social security system had become more efficient?
I was waiting for it.
One of the most exciting things I've ever seen in my life.
Yep.
But apparently they've made a whole bunch of improvements since the pandemic.
Actually, that's a pretty big deal.
So congratulations, Social Security people, for what looks like a big improvement in a small amount of time.
They say their in-office wait times are down almost 27%.
That's not really impressive.
Kind of depends where it started from, doesn't it?
But they do say it's down to 22 minutes.
Remember, I always say that if they give you the percentage without the raw number or vice versa, then that's just propaganda.
They have to give you the raw number and the percentage, or else they're just sort of lying to you, you know, in a clever way.
Here they're giving you the percentage and the raw number, 22 minutes.
So that would be an indication of being forthright and honest.
So good job on that, administration.
All right, let's not talk about social security anymore.
Don't you think there's got to be a story in here that's better than that?
Does anybody think I can top that?
Hey, Social Security is 27%.
No, no.
I'm going to top that so hard.
I'm going to give you something to think about today that you'll probably never stop thinking about.
Yeah, it's coming.
Well, Trump is teasing some kind of Ukraine peace plan.
And as you might imagine, it is light on final details, but it looks like what they're doing, if I just had to guess, is they might be, the administration might be floating some trial balloons to see what people could handle in terms of a Ukraine deal.
So some of the things that are being kind of whispered around, I guess, is that Ukraine would get a 10-year security deal that would be modeled in some way on NATO's Article 5, meaning if they got attacked, the West would come to their aid, the U.S. specifically.
Is that real?
Well, it's sort of being discussed, so it's just something that's on the table, I guess.
Ukraine reportedly got rid of what was a proposal to for the U.S. warrant to demand an audit of all wartime aid.
And Ukraine said, oh, no, we can't.
But we just want to audit.
We just want to make sure that our billions of dollars are going to the right place and not being stolen.
How about that?
No, no.
We can't stand for that.
Okay, you have a whole war that's going on.
Are you telling me that you would continue a war in your own country that's on your, that's in your homeland against an unbeatable foe, you know, in the long run, Russia?
And you'd rather do that as long as you don't have to have an audit of where you spent the money that we gave you.
Yeah, that's about right.
So I don't think we should do any kind of a deal with Ukraine that does not include our ability to audit where the money goes.
Are you with me?
Indeed, nobody should ever give away billions of dollars without an airtight audit system.
It would be just absurd.
It would be the height of stupidity to give away billions of dollars and have no mechanism for checking where it goes, which is pretty close to the current system, I guess.
And then also, this is almost humorously ridiculous, that Ukraine also is pushing for, quote, full amnesty for actions committed during the war.
So Ukraine wants to make sure that not only is there no way to audit the wartime aid, but that if anybody already stole some, they get full amnesty.
Come on.
Come on.
Is that even real?
Is that actually what you think the U.S. is going to agree to?
How about, I don't know, I'm just going to test this out.
I'll run it by you.
Run it up the flagpole.
What if we let you steal all the money that we give for wartime aid and we don't check?
And then on top of that, we give you full amnesty for stealing our money.
How about that?
I don't know.
I'd like to get a little more than that.
You want more than that?
That's a lot.
We should be lining you against the wall.
No, just kidding.
All right.
And here's my real curiosity I have about the whole Ukraine mess.
On one hand, it seems just observably, obviously, objectively true that Trump is better than maybe anybody at getting deals, at bullying people into deals.
Would you say that that's generally true?
That even his critics would agree, especially after Gaza.
Even his critics would agree.
All right, you know he is good at it.
We might not like where he ends up, we might not like how he does it.
Well, we gotta admit, he's pretty good at it.
So when I see Ukraine and what's happening, that looks like the biggest waste of time ever and it doesn't look like it really doesn't look like they're heading even in the right direction.
Does it like?
I don't have a sense of what the right direction would look like in this case, but does it really look like they're getting closer to a deal?
I don't see anything that would suggest it's getting close to a deal.
But that's the same thing I saw in Gaza right before they made a deal, and the thing that we I think all of us were blind to I certainly was is that Trump could convince people there was going to be a deal before those same people had agreed on what their end of the deal would be, and it was almost like he got everybody a little bit pregnant and then it.
And then there was something that happened where they they somehow went past some psychological line that maybe nobody even knew existed in the first place that made it impossible to go back, so that they sort of blundered into a peace deal that nobody had expressly, nobody had expressly said, let's do this right.
And and even now, like even today correct me if i'm wrong the Gaza leadership is still saying they haven't agreed to it.
Right, but yet it's going forward.
We, we have a peace deal.
It's being implemented.
We can see what you know where they're putting together the UH Security peace force and all that, but at the same time, it's not really happening because Hamas has not agreed to it, they've not agreed to give up their weapons, and that was from the very beginning.
That was a key requirement.
So is it possible, and I'm not going to assert this as a fact, it's more of a question, is it possible that Trump alone, and because of his personality,
because of force of will, because he can be a bully when he needs to, because he understands negotiations like nobody ever has, is it possible that he's literally invented a way?
to get deals, peace deals, that nobody's ever seen before and it involves just confusing people and pushing them at the same time?
Hey Bob uh, how do you like that deal?
We just uh introduced what I, I didn't see the details.
Push, all right, so looks like you're halfway on board with the deal.
I haven't really seen the the details of the deal.
What what, what deal are you talking about?
Push, Push.
Stand over there Bob, now just stand over there.
So now you're standing with the other people who agree with us on this deal.
Wait, hold on, hold on.
Uh, I have not yet seen the deal.
Can somebody explain to me what is being proposed?
Absolutely absolutely, Bob.
Can you stand over there with the other people who have agreed with everything?
Great right there right, I know you have questions.
We'll get to your questions, but it's, it's encouraging that we've all agreed to do this deal this way.
Hold on, i've not agreed to do the deal this way.
All right, looks like everybody's on board.
Is that what's happening?
I mean, I'm doing it humorously, but doesn't it feel like that's actually what's happening?
That Trump is convincing people that no progress is progress, and that once they feel there's progress, there's nothing like success to get you more success.
So it feels like he's literally just creating this structure, purely psychological, that only he can do.
No one else could do it.
And that once you buy into the structure, that there is something happening, that you are moving toward peace, that it is possible to have peace, that Trump is the one person who can make it happen, that there might be a phase where it looks like it's impossible, but that's not really predictive.
What's more predictive is that Trump is part of it because he predicts good outcomes, at least for peace deals.
Maybe.
But you at least see where I'm going on this, right?
That he's in such uncharted territory that I don't know if we just blundered into it and maybe something good could happen.
Or does he intentionally create these narratives or structures or psychological, let's say, labyrinths where once you're in it, you're in his world and then he can decide which hallway you go down because there's not infinite hallways.
They're just the ones he's created.
It's going to get better.
Hold on.
All right.
So we don't know what the details would be of any Ukrainian plan, but keep an eye on that.
We'll see if he has, in fact, invented a new way to solve problems.
Or it's just confusing and it's hard and that's all there is there.
So I guess JD Vance might have some largish role in creating a Republican health care plan.
This is what JD said.
He was teasing that the Republicans have a, quote, great health care plan that the Trump administration has in the works.
How many of you believe that?
How many of you believe that the Republicans already have this great health care plan?
But for reasons that are entirely unclear, they've chosen not to tell you.
We got this great healthcare plan.
Oh my goodness.
Can we take a look at the details?
The details.
Yep, yep.
The details will follow.
But it's a great, great plan.
Is it?
Is it?
How exactly are you going to be saving all the money?
Well, you know how our current healthcare plan is too expensive?
Yes, I do know that.
Ours will not be expensive.
Boom.
Wait, what?
So yeah, the Republicans got a, they got a great healthcare plan.
It's going to roll that baby in any minute now.
All right.
But there are several things that Republicans are doing and can doing, or can do, that would lower your healthcare costs.
The problem is they don't combine very well into a package or a message.
So for example, Trump is considering lowering some tariffs on some food-related items coming into the country.
Would that lower your grocery bill?
Well, it could.
Could make a big difference.
Let's say that he lowered some tariffs and that helps you a little bit on the margins.
What if he negotiated some prices down with, let's say, the meat packers?
Let's say he just negotiated with them and got their price down.
Well, that would be useful and that would go toward his, you know, his improving things, at least on food.
But and food would just be, you know, I suppose if you indirectly improve people's nutrition, they don't need as much health care.
So in some indirect ways, there are things that the Republicans can do.
They can negotiate the firm of prices down, which he did.
There could be higher employment.
If Trump's economy results in more people being hired, then they buy their own health care in many cases.
So there's a whole bunch of things they can do that would sort of be in that direction, but you wouldn't be able to claim credit for it so well because it'd just be this grab bag of miscellaneous things.
So I think JD is smart enough because you need your smartest people working on healthcare, no doubt about it.
But I would love somebody to explain to me where all the money is going.
Have you ever wondered about that?
Like, how did we get to the point where healthcare costs this amount, and then suddenly it's three times that amount and not much time has gone by?
Where exactly did those extra dollars go?
Has anybody ever shown you on a chart?
It would have to be a highly simplified chart.
You know, the dollar leaves your pocket, and then where does it go?
I have no idea.
Is there any element of where your healthcare money goes that any reasonable person could say, aha, if we stop this going over there, we can just save all that money.
Is there anything like that?
See, the trouble with a healthcare plan is that unless it costs less money, it's a nothing.
Would you agree?
That's the whole game.
The game is to, you know, make sure we have some pretty good health care.
But separately, we need to vastly, you know, grossly reduce the price.
Well, whose pocket is that going to come out of?
And who has ever even told us whose pocket that's going to come out of?
If you say generic stuff like, oh, the insurance companies are getting rich, well, show that to me.
Show me that the insurance companies collectively are making so much money that if you were to, let's say, cut their profit in half, that the price that people would pay for health care would go down by 50%.
Would it?
Or would it go down by 1%?
We don't really even know where the money's going, do we?
So I would say job one, if you were a JD Vance or whatever Republican works on this, job one would be to figure out where the money's going.
And then you have to come up with a plan that addresses each of those buckets, such as, all right, you can see that all this money goes into this particular thing.
This money goes into this particular thing.
So yesterday I needed a little bit of health care.
How many people do you think get involved?
Like 12 to 20 people by the time I'm done for any little healthcare item.
And it's just because the system is trying to be very careful and it's trying to make sure all the right people get pulled into decisions and make sure that nobody drops the ball or anything.
But the end result of just taking care of everything really scrupulously is that it could cost $100,000 to do something that looks like should cost $100.
It looks like it.
Now, I'm not talking about the cost of a machine or the cost of the meds, but the human cost and the physical capital.
Yeah.
The healthcare system in this country really needs to be understood at a different level than we do.
So job one, JD Vance and somebody like him would be perfect.
You're going to need something like a Silicon Valley guy or gal.
You need something like somebody who can look at a complicated business and say, aha, here's where all that money's going.
So we'll concentrate on here to get some back.
And that sort of does scream Silicon Valley venture capitalist, but people who are on your side.
So that's what I'd be looking for.
I wouldn't believe any healthcare plan from Republicans that did not go through somebody who really understands money and how to manage it.
Anyway, here's some fake news.
How many times have you read an article or seen on social media that the company BlackRock owns all the meat packing businesses in the United States and maybe all the pharma?
How many of you have seen that on social media and said, that looks true, that this one company, BlackRock, owns all of the meat packing companies?
There are only four of them.
Only four of them.
But how many of you think that's true?
That's not true.
How could you think that was true?
That one company owns all the meat packing and that one company owns all the big pharma and that one company owns all the food companies?
How in the world could you think that was true?
I mean, seriously.
That is so far from being true.
Do you know it is true?
That BlackRock probably owns a little piece of equity in just about every major U.S. company because they're so big, they kind of have to have their beak in everything.
The truth is, they do own part of a whole bunch of big companies in the United States.
Do you think that BlackRock has controlling interest of the meat packing?
Nobody ever told me one way or the other because all I hear is this ridiculous thing that they own them.
They don't own them.
They can't tell the meat packing company what to do.
The meat packing company has lots of stockholders and they all have an opinion.
All right.
Now, how many of you are slapping yourself on the forehead and saying, thank you, Scott.
I've been listening to everybody say that one company owns all the other Fortune 500 companies.
I've been listening to that for five fucking years.
I knew that couldn't possibly be true.
Thank you for saying that in public, because now maybe I'll feel braver to say it in public too.
But really, did you really think that that one company owned all those other companies?
Like all the pharma?
All the food companies?
All the meat packing companies?
A lot of people believe that.
There are other things in that category, but I don't want to give them all to you at once.
You know what I mean?
All right.
Job market's looking good.
You heard that yesterday.
Job report came good.
I don't know if you can believe anything about jobs.
How many of you believe anything about jobs?
Oh, yeah, and all the real estate.
Yeah, and then there's separately, there's another belief that's also false that all of the single-family homes got bought up by not by BlackRock, but what's the other company that starts with Black but has something else in the end?
Yeah, that's another one where they just own some percentage of things.
All right, so Zoran, Mamdani, speaking of jobs, he says he's going to the White House.
That might be today.
I think I may have seen a post on it yesterday that referred to today.
So either today or tomorrow, Mamdani is going to the White House and he wants to tell Trump that deportations will no longer be permitted in New York City after he takes power.
No longer be permitted.
So that should work out great.
All right.
And blindly supports Trump.
Blindly.
Do you think that saying that I blindly support Trump is an insightful comment?
I literally talk about every element of Trump top to bottom every day for 10 years.
You don't think I've looked into it?
You don't think I did a little analysis that maybe I could answer some questions on this topic?
You don't think maybe I know more than you do?
Some of the critics are so funny.
They're so bad at even being critics.
Anyway, my guess is that Trump is going to have fun with Mamdani by being somewhat professional, but somewhat insulting.
And I cannot wait for the insulting part.
Are you waiting for that too?
There's going to be maybe a picture opportunity.
I definitely want to see the handshake.
If there's a handshake, I definitely want to see that.
And then I want to see what Trump says about Mom Danny while the press is listening to him and Mom Danny is standing right next to him.
I mean, I just can't wait for that because he's not going to be, he's not going to hold back.
He's going to do something you've never seen before.
He's just going to dump all over him.
And Mamdaniel will just have to stand there because it's the White House.
He can't really walk out.
Well, Scott Besant, Secretary of the Treasury, he held up, I think it was on Fox News, and he held up the first USA-made rare earth magnet in 25 years.
So apparently the United States already now has a rare earth magnet manufacturer.
The question I have is: was that already being built?
Or did we go from we have no idea how to make a rare earth magnet to here's a magnet?
Did American ingenuity, which we worry is on the wane, did we just figure this out?
I'm very curious.
Is this really the success story it looks like?
And is this something that's repeatable?
Because I'll tell you, I've had a curiosity about the whole rare earth domain.
And the curiosity is this.
If the government said, we're really going to support you if you make any kind of rare earth stuff, because we need it desperately, we're going to get rid of all the government red tape.
We're going to give you loans.
We're going to make sure you can find the markets.
There'll be plenty of markets.
Don't worry about markets.
If you created that situation, how long would it take before the normal free market just flooded the zone with products?
Because it's what we do best historically.
What I don't know is if we still have that, I don't know, that gene, that intuition, that just sort of magical ability that's transported us to this point in history so far.
I don't know.
But there's some possibility that it's going to look more like World War II when the U.S. entered the war.
If you ever, I'm sure most of you have watched the history channel and history shows about the U.S. was sort of, you know, we were good at manufacturing things.
But when World War II hit, and the winner would be who could make the most stuff, I mean, I'm simplifying, but if we could make more stuff, as in tanks and artillery shells, we probably would win.
So we just went crazy, making more stuff and made an unbelievable amount of stuff, airplanes and tanks and shells.
So how many of the experts in World War II would have known Blackstone, yeah, Blackstone's that other company with black in the beginning of the name.
How many of the experts would have known that the free market could have created, plus the government being supportive, could have created that much production?
Do you think that was known at the time?
Or is it like today where there's just something about the situation where you can't wrap your brain around how effectively we could tackle it?
Because I do wonder if we can just jump in there and just shock everybody with how well we do and how quickly we develop an industry.
I don't know.
I'm going to say that maybe we can.
Maybe we can.
Jasmine Crockett.
I told you I was going to talk about her.
So now she looks like she's auditioning to become one of the designated liars for the Democrats.
And she says, she was just on some interview saying that Trump and Bolton's hate is why there are random black bodies being strung up in the South.
So Jasmine Crockett believes that there are random black bodies being strung up like today, modern day.
I hope not.
I'm not aware of any.
So, and her point was that Trump is creating a dangerous situation, so dangerous that that's why black bodies are being strung up in the South.
Well, first of all, as far as I know, there are no black bodies being strung up in the south presently.
We hope that will be the future as well.
But don't you think that she's creating some danger here by suggesting that we have this Hitler-like character in charge of the country and half the country is supporting him?
Don't you think that creates a little danger?
So, yeah, she's a funny one.
All right, here we go.
I promised you something that would reframe your brain, and here it comes.
You're going to like this.
Unless I've totally oversold it.
All right, I'm going to sort of lean into it, and then we'll get on it, okay?
So I guess something happened recently with the Soros organization, the open, whatever it is, open society.
And Alex Soros was just saying something defiant on the X platform.
And what Alex, the son of George Soros, said was, he said, come on.
I wrote this down.
Well, he basically said that the Soros organization wasn't going to go anywhere.
The most important thing that I didn't write down.
All right.
Seriously?
Oh, yeah.
His exact words, Alex Soros, that he put on X was, quote, we aren't going anywhere, meaning that the Soros organization was not in any mortal trouble.
I don't know what trouble they were in, but they were getting some pushback.
So anyway, he was sort of celebrating that they were not in any danger of going away.
But Elon Musk, owner of X, commented on Alex's comment and he said, quote, can you stop trying to destroy the civilization for like five minutes?
That would be great.
Thumbs up.
He puts a little icon.
Now, think about that comment.
You ready?
Think about that comment.
The richest man in the world says, can you stop trying to destroy civilization for like five minutes?
Now, how could it be that the Soroses could exist at the same time that Elon Musk exists?
Because these are two completely different views of reality.
It's not just a different political view.
It's a different view of reality.
How many of you think that it's objectively, obviously true that the Soros appear to be determined to destroy Western civilization?
A lot of you, right?
Now, I'm not saying that that's the true version of the world.
I'm saying that, you know, I often talk about two movies on one screen.
We're still playing on one screen.
But when a lot of people on the, let's say, Trump supporting side look at it, it does look, it does look that way.
Like Soroses are not trying to help, that they're going to destroy Western civilization.
Now, I'm not saying that's necessarily true, but it looks like it.
So if somebody decides to treat that as their reality, you can understand why.
Now, obviously, the Soroses do not see that in themselves.
I think that's fair to say.
I can't read their mind, but I doubt they think, like when they're, well, I doubt when they're eating breakfast, they're thinking, so, Alex, what have you done to help destroy society today?
Probably they don't think of it that way.
Probably they think of it in, I don't know, maybe gaining power, maybe accomplishing some social goods.
Might be a variety of things they think about it, but they're not thinking, well, I'll eat this age and destroy society.
So how could both of these views, so completely different, I'm destroying the world with my billions versus I'm saving the world with my billions?
How could they both exist at the same time?
Well, here's part of it.
I saw Elon say about Grakapedia.
Now, I'm going to tie this all together in a moment, all right?
So we started with Soros and Musk.
Now we're going to talk about Grakopedia.
So that's Elon Musk's version of Wikipedia.
It's still underwork.
But Elon was talking about it and he said that it's going to be way better than Wikipedia, blah, blah, blah.
And then Elon talks about the phenomenon where you would know that Grackopedia is better than Wikipedia if you were a public figure or an expert.
because you would understand your own domain.
And if you understood your own domain and then you read about what Wikipedia said, this would be his claim, and then you read what Grok said, Grackopedia, you would come away from it thinking that Wikipedia was wrong and Grackopedia was closer to right more often.
Now, this is, there's a name for this, the phenomenon I'm describing.
What is the name?
And watch this.
Watch how many of you know the answer to this question.
What's the name for the phenomenon where you know that the news is fake because you're an expert or the news is about you, but the rest of the world might not know that.
What's that called?
I'm looking, there it is.
It took like one second for it to appear.
It's Gel-Mann amnesia.
Now, Gel-Mann is a hyphenated last name of a physicist.
G-E-L-L-M-A-N-N.
I always forget how many double letters there are, but something like that.
So here's the important part.
How many people have in the public mentioned Gell-Mann amnesia, maybe without using the words, but described it in a way that you knew that's what they're talking about recently?
I'll give you some examples.
So Elon Musk has talked about it a number of times.
I've talked about it a number of times.
Mike Cernovich has talked about it a number of times and has properly credited Michael Crichton, the author of Michael Crichton.
I think Michael Crichton might have also borrowed it.
Somebody said there was some prior claim to it.
It doesn't really matter.
I'm just saying that a lot of smart people have referenced it.
I'm pretty sure Greg Gotfeld has mentioned it on his show or shows.
I've seen some other Silicon Valley people mention it, but you've also seen Bill Murray.
Do you remember actor Bill Murray?
When he talked about his own experience reading some stories about John Belushi, and he knew Belushi personally and very well.
So when he read the stories, he knew they were fake.
And then he had the Gelman amnesia effect.
It was like, wait, wait a minute.
What are the odds that the only stories that are fake are John Belushi's stories?
Because it happens to be one of the few things I'm an expert on.
What are the odds that's the only thing?
Isn't it more likely that everything's fake?
And the way you find out about it is being an expert in one thing.
You're like, hey, wait a minute.
I am an expert in this.
This stuff's wrong.
What about Bill Maher?
I saw him recently, was it on his Club Random or maybe the regular show?
He's mentioned that because he's a public figure, he has extra vision on this, the fact that the news is so often fake.
That wouldn't be obvious to people who are not public figures because they don't read news about themselves, like people like me and people like him do.
All right, now, so you've got Elon Musk, Joe Rogan's mentioned it, Bill Murray's mentioned it on Joe Rogan's show.
Guffeld, Fox News, me, my books, Cernovich, etc.
This is teaching people a way to think and a way to see the world.
If what comes out of all this Gracopedia stuff is simply that more people understand what gellman amnesia is, it completely changes how we see the world.
It will change how you see the Soros versus Musk.
How in the world could both of them exist if they have this view that just are complete opposites?
So I say that what's different about the era you're in is that the Trump-supporting part of the world, not all of it.
Oh, somebody's saying that Dr. Drew has mentioned Gelman?
I think he has.
I think he has.
So you're probably all thinking of other examples, right?
Now, if I went over to the Democrat influencers, how many of the Democrat influencers have taught their audience the Gelman amnesia?
Any?
Any?
So what happens over time if one side of the political world gets trained in how to think, which is exactly what Elon Musk does every time he talks to you, he also teaches you how to think, like how you should think of entering AI, how you should think of that risk, et cetera.
That's completely different than just telling you what to think.
The right-leaning, or I'll just say Trump-supporting common sense part of the political world, is really about teaching the other people in it how to think about stuff.
That's all I do all day.
I teach you how to think, not necessarily what to think.
All right, so what happens with that?
Do you think that the people on the political right are more able to identify a hoax?
Yes, they are, because they're actually trained on what the hoaxes were, how they were created, and then how they were supported by the media.
So you've got an entire political class that while the Democrats weren't paying attention, and this is the fun part, the Democrats don't see this coming.
That half of the world has been trained to recognize bullshit, and the other half has been trained to accept it.
If you just fast forward that tape, let's see, one half of the country trained to accept bullshit as the truth, the other half of the country trained to identify bullshit as soon as they see it and to avoid it as quickly as possible.
Fast forward that.
Where do you end up?
Where you end up is what you observe right now, which is the team that can't avoid the hoaxes just goes right off the cliff.
What happened to the Democrats this year?
They went off the cliff, did they not?
Right?
Now, are you having the feeling that I was hoping that you would have right about now?
If I'm doing this right, and I think I am, the feeling that many of you are having right now is, wait a minute, did you just connect all the dots?
Is it the fact that one part of the country has learned how to think, how to, for example, if I use the phrase too on the nose, how many of you would know what I'm talking about?
If I said, oh, that's story, it's too on the nose.
You tell me in the comments, you tell me.
How many of you would know exactly what I meant?
How many Democrats would know what I meant?
None.
There wouldn't be any Democrats who knew what that meant.
Because again, two on the nose is teaching you how to spot BS.
It's just one of many ways.
So there's this entire, I don't want to say army, because then you know what the Democrats will say if I say army, but in the very conceptual way, an army, of people who have been trained to spot hoaxes and even to know specifically why.
There's a whole bunch of you who have been trained in persuasion, right?
That you actually know what works and what doesn't, and it's not an accident.
And the other part of the country is just flailing poop at you, I guess, because they don't have training in that domain.
And I think people always imagined before I came on the scene.
People imagined that persuasion was something you're either born with or maybe you just have it.
It was not really thought of as a learnable skill, but I'm here to tell you, it's a learnable skill.
And I've watched people learn it and then I've watched them employ it.
And then I've watched them succeed, get elected, get promotions, get the partner they wanted.
Now, let's take this a little bit further.
When Grackapedia becomes sort of the standard for, and I think it will become the standard for checking things, then Elon will, I think, have come close to completing one of the greatest reframes of all time, which is the reframe is Democrats teach you what to think, and Republicans teach you how to think.
Do you feel it?
Democrats tell you what to think.
And at least in 2025, this was not always the case.
This was not historically true.
At the moment, and I would say that Musk is primarily the reason for this, is that we've all been taught how to think.
And a lot of it comes from him.
I think there were probably three, probably three separate stories I saw today that all were some little clip of Elon explaining how to think about a thing, how to think about the, let's say, the economics of space.
How many of you understood before, let's say this year, the importance of reusable rocket ships?
And it wasn't just that you learned that, you know, there's a thing called reusable spaceships.
It's that you learned that that's important enough that if you don't understand that part of the question, you can't really see what's coming.
How many of you knew that if you put your solar panels in space, you didn't have to worry about cooling them, being blocked by clouds, or that it's night?
Well, now you know.
And it's because you've learned how to sort of look at things like an engineer.
That's what Elon does more than anything else.
Looks at it like an engineer.
Once you learn that, and it becomes your go-to, it's like, all right, what would an engineer do in this case?
Changes everything.
All right.
So I'm going to call the reframe.
We have now entered the golden age.
And one of the defining factors of the golden age is that the left is being told what to think, and the right is being taught how.
And how is going to be what every time?
Eventually, but every time.
Mission accomplished.
All right.
Did I give you something to think about today?
You know, we're closer to the beginning of this teaching people how to think.
But if you look at my books, you know, I've got five books that are sort of in that domain of teaching you how to think.
Systems over goals.
That's exactly right.
Anyway, there's some question now about Epstein and some red flags that should have been seen by his bank, J.P. Morgan Chase.
They're being accused by Senator Wyden, Democrat.
JP Morgan is being accused of failing to report more than a billion dollars in suspicious transactions tied to Jeffrey Epstein.
So isn't literally everything that has to do with Epstein sketchy?
It feels to me that you could pick up any category.
If it had to do with Epstein, there would be something about it.
You're like, hmm, that looks a little sketchy.
Like, you could go to his barber and talk to his barber, and you'd say, all right, is there anything sketchy about the way Epstein got a haircut?
And the barber would say, sketchy about a haircut?
How could there even be anything sketchy about a haircut?
And you'd say, you know, just something non-standard.
No, no, it's exactly like everybody else's haircut.
He'd come in with three bodyguards and three underage women.
They'd get a private room in the back.
And I go, wait, wait, wait.
That sounds very sketchy.
Does it?
Does it?
Just a haircut.
It's like there's no category you could pick where it wouldn't immediately devolve into, wait a minute, wait a minute.
Why was he doing that?
Wait a minute, wait a minute.
Why did he have a billion dollars for flowing through J.P. Morgan?
Everything is sketchy.
And then that made me come up with the following question that will also plague you to the end of your days.
You ready?
Here's the Epstein question you'll never get out of your head.
Who taught Epstein to be Epstein?
Yeah.
Yeah, roll that one around in your head a little bit.
Who taught Epstein how to be Epstein?
Meaning, who taught him how to move gigantic amounts of money around, money laundering, without getting caught?
Who taught him to make these connections, we think, don't know for sure, with various intelligence groups?
Who would even know how to do that?
Is that something you work out on your own?
How do you do it?
So, and then how do you blackmail famous people?
It can't be that obvious how to blackmail a public figure.
Do you know what I'd worry about if you said, Scott?
It's not rocket science.
It's just blackmail.
So here's some tapes of this famous billionaire.
Now go blackmail him, Scott.
I'd say, hold on, hold on.
I know you think that's easy, but I have questions.
And then somebody would say, there's no questions.
Everybody knows how to blackmail.
Blackmails the simplest thing you could ever just threaten that if he doesn't do everything you want, you'll release the tapes.
That's it.
To which I say, question, question.
Is this a billionaire who has access to private armies and unlimited security?
Yes.
Why do you ask?
Would this person also be completely aware that I'm the one blackmailing them?
Well, yeah, I mean, that's why it works, because they know who's blackmailing them.
So let me get this straight.
If I were to blackmail this person and let's say something went bad and I released these images, what would that billionaire do to me and my family?
Oh, well, obviously they'd be rounded up and tied to chairs.
And after that, well, no promises, but they would be tied to chairs, if you know what I mean.
So, in my mind, I can't even come up with a scenario in which I would know how to blackmail anybody.
How do you blackmail somebody without them killing you?
Right?
Because if you gave me a billion dollars and then somebody blackmailed me, I might be looking for some solutions.
I might talk to some of my people.
There might be some people in my world, if I were a billionaire, who wanted to owe me a favor.
I wouldn't have to specifically ask for somebody to take care of my enemies.
People would figure out that if they did, I'd hear about it and probably be quite grateful.
But you see my point, right?
How did Epstein learn to be Epstein?
How did he learn to be Epstein?
There's no way that you just work that out on your own.
All right, so most of you are saying CIA, but that is the fun question here.
All right, I'm going to do a little test for you.
Here's the test.
If you see a news story that involves the following words, now these will be out of order.
They're just going to be words, not in sentences.
If you see the following words, what do you know about the story?
Here are the following words: Minnesota, taxpayer dollars, Somalia, investigation, scheme.
Is there anything else I need to say about that?
No, that's the whole story.
And I feel like there's one of these every day.
I pick up, you know, or I look at the screen.
Like, oh, there's another story.
It's in Minnesota taxpayer dollars, Somalia investigation scheme, millions of dollars missing.
Is this yesterday's story?
Yeah, and fraud.
Is it yesterday's story or is it just every day?
How many days in a row do we get stories about Somali migrants stealing money from Minnesota taxpayers?
If you're a Minnesota taxpayer, I have one word advice for you.
Run!
Run!
All right.
According to the New York Post Emily Crane, there's a new report that warns that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated U.S. colleges and it aims to, quote, transform Western society from within, and that it's halfway done with its 100-year plan.
So 50 of its 100-year plan has been done, and they claim to be about half done in conquering the West via the educational systems.
Is that real?
Do you believe that the inevitable future is that Islam, and let's say Muslim Brotherhood in particular, because that's who this is about.
Do you believe that the natural arc of history is that they will infiltrate, they will reproduce slowly but methodically, they will take over various institutions until the U.S. is Islamic?
Well, unless there was a counterforce, I don't see how you could stop it.
Because Islam is a very, I'm going to try to use the most respectful language.
So you're going to watch me struggle here to pick the right words.
But Islam is a very successful system.
Now there I did it.
I wanted to make it not sound like it was biased.
Islam is a very successful design for a system.
For example, if you're in the more extreme elements and you tried to leave the religion, they'd kill you, right?
I mean, that's not the normies, but for some part of the Islamic world, you can't really leave.
And even if they're not going to kill you, it's not going to be very fun.
So it's a system that says if you leave, you're going to pay a price.
And if you're competing against, and when I say competing against, I mean just trying to own the future.
If you're competing against some other religion or system that lets you go in and out if you like, in theory, the one that kills you for leaving is going to do better in the long run.
And it has a number of other advantages, such as the high reproduction rates.
I won't get into all of it.
But if you were to design it on paper, on paper, Islam would conquer the other systems just by being introduced.
And then you wait.
Am I right?
That it would conquer all the other systems one at a time just by being introduced.
Now, it takes a while, but its very design guarantees that it dominates over time.
So that's going to happen.
I would say we're probably halfway to that.
And if you were going to ask me, Scott, is there any way the West can save itself to not be destroyed by this superior system?
And the answer is, there might be one way.
There might be one and only one way that the West could save itself from an Islamic, just guaranteed system design takeover.
Do you know what that is?
What is the one system that could defend against that?
It's not Christianity, because Christianity is a little too peace-loving for that to work.
I'll tell you what it is.
It's Elon Musk, and it's AI.
If AI becomes maximum truth-seeking, which is what Elon is after, he says it almost every day, that the AI has to be maximum truth-seeking.
You can't give the AI morality.
You can't program morality into AI.
That would just cause the potential for the biggest problems in the world.
But if you program it for ultimate truth, you could come up with something that's just purely additive, ideally.
We don't know, but it'd be worth a shot.
So now imagine that it becomes a normal thing that half of the country is teaching its own half how to think better, my prior conversation.
Do you think that that is also a system that can reproduce?
Yes.
Yes.
If you learn how to think better and you're sitting in the room with somebody who doesn't know how to do it and an opportunity comes up where you can kind of explain to them, you know, the way you should think about this might be this way instead of that.
You'll do it.
So there's something about the common sense learning how to think approach to life, which would be Elon's and the other people I mentioned as well, that is in its own way sticky.
And it doesn't require a specific educational structure.
In fact, the whole college system might fall apart in 10 years.
Who knows?
But the idea of thinking better probably will just keep going because it's good for everybody who's exposed to it and it's easy to teach.
The whole technique of something being too on the nose, I haven't described that here.
But it's really easy to teach somebody how to spot things using a certain set of tools.
So that is a way that the West could possibly become immune from any external systems, be they Islam or anything else.
How's your brain doing?
All right.
The CDC has apparently, I don't want to say caved.
Somebody said that.
That's always the wrong word.
The CDC has altered its statement about vaccines and autism.
Now it's scrubbing the bold statement that they used to have, the CDC, that vaccines do not cause autism.
And they've replaced it with vaccines do not cause autism is not an evidence-based claim.
So maybe the primary claim that the CDC has made for my entire life, the primary thing, I mean, I've been hearing it since I was in my 20s, I think, that they would have said that the vaccines, all the vaccines, not just the COVID ones, they would say that all the vaccines do not cause autism, but they would say it as a statement of fact.
Should they have said it as a statement of fact?
No.
No, because they hadn't tested it.
They just didn't have any evidence that it was.
There's a real big difference between not having evidence that it is and saying we've proven and it's a fact that it isn't.
And it's so unscientific the way they were doing it to imagine that they knew for sure there was no connection despite not having run the right kind of tests to know one way or the other.
So it feels like a step in the right direction that they're simply saying it in a truthful way.
They didn't know if it caused autism.
I'm not claiming it does or it doesn't.
I'm saying I don't know, but I'm pretty sure they didn't know either.
And now that's what that looks like.
All right.
I had no idea what time it was.
But let me do a little check with you on today.
Did anybody have a, let's say, a brain event today where you said to yourself, holy cow, I had not thought of things that way.
Did you like my reframe?
The reframe that Democrats teach you what tell you what to think and Republicans teach you how to think.
Now, that might not be true when it comes to something like religion, but that would be its own special case.
Right.
All right.
I see.
No.
Yes, Epiphany.
Yes.
Very much so.
All right.
Good.
Not really.
For those of you who are not affected, it probably had more to do with the fact that you were already there.
For most of the people, I'm taking them to where a few people already were.
if you were in the group of a few people who were already there no no travel time all right Just looking at your comments here.
Wow, you're too nice.
40 years of what?
Okay.
I'm going to talk to the locals people privately in a moment.
