A (0:00)

We got room, lots of room today. But people will be coming in because they need to hear what I have to say. Because it's better than what other people have to say, as far as I know. All right, let's see how your stocks are doing. Wait, today's Monday, right? It's funny that the company named Snap is probably moving on. The news about Snap. That's nothing to do with the company. Whoa, stocks are up. Hello? What? Rumbles up 14%, but it's still from a low. And then the Tesla's up to not bad. Last week was a devastating, so not that good, either. All right, everybody, did you find a seat? 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 here to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny, shiny human brains, all you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tankard shells or 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. If only I could lift my arm. It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens. Now, I'll give you a second one. So you weren't ready. You weren't ready, but now you are. All right, let me check my situation here. Do we have any kind of news about coffee being healthy for you? Oh, it turns out that coffee is really good for you. According to Dr. Marcus, that your odds of surviving a heart problem if you've got a cup of coffee in you is way better. Not. Not because of that one cup of coffee. But people have coffee. Coffee. Coffee. Yeah, I said coffee. I grew up in upstate New York. I can say coffee. Can we agree on that? All right, so despite my maximum coffee influence, I had a really good, really good nap this morning. I didn't think I was going to be awake for the show, but I made it. Pain level is currently manageable. It's been pretty bad lately, but maybe it's a little bit less today. That would be good. Well, apparently, Microsoft, according to Tech Explorer, Microsoft's going to look into what they call super intelligence after the OpenAI deal. So their current deal, I guess, allows them to explore with ChatGPT. So this would be Microsoft Plus Chat GPT allows them to explore sort of ordinary AI. As if there's anything ordinary about It. But if they want to go all the way to. All the way to super intelligence. Super intelligence, then it looks like they would make another deal and that super intelligence would look different. That would be the good stuff. Do you know what that means? It means they don't know how to do super intelligence and that whatever they're doing now is the best they know how to do at the moment. Does that mean they'll ever be able to do super intelligence? Probably what they will eventually, but I don't know if it's going to happen on Tuesday or anything. All right, so that would be when robots can do everything. We can do super intelligence. Well, Trump is pardoned, or is it called a pardon? I always get the pardons and the clemencies and all that mixed up. But basically pardoned a whole bunch of his cronies before they've been charged with anything. So they haven't been charged. This would be a situation where it's just getting ahead of it, just in case. But includes Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Ken Chesubro, a whole bunch of people, some of the names you've heard, but they seem to have all been involved in one way or another with the, quote, fake elector's plot. Now that's what Democrats call it. Call it fake electors. Why? Because they're word thinkers. If they can get you to accept that a good label for what happened was that it was that there's a bunch of people who did some illegal stuff and they need a pardon, well, then they win. So I did wonder if this is actually a good play, because it does. Even though they're not even charged with anything relevant. Relevant to these actions, they're not charged with anything. It kind of makes them look a little guilty, doesn't it, that they accepted it. Trump himself did not pardon himself. But does that matter? If you can pardon yourself anytime you want, he can kind of, you know, if he got in trouble, he could bang that out in a few minutes. So I wouldn't make too much of the fact that he excluded himself from that. He could do it anytime anyway. That was a good. That was good programming. So it's one of those stories that reminds you that the Trump people may have been mistreated. So it's kind of good that way. But it also makes it look like maybe they needed a pardon. What'd they do? So this one works both ways. But if Trump thought this was a really good timing for it because we're too distracted with other things, he'd be right. The. The distractions are all over the place. So this one just, it isn't going to move any, you know, move anything. So if, if some people he liked got some pardons, well, he wins. I don't know if the juice is worth the squeeze, as the boring people say, but the, the Democrats will get to sell this as authoritarian. Right, because they sell. Everything is authoritarian. What, what, what? He's giving pardons to his friends. Not to his friends. That would look like he's some kind of authoritarian. Authoritarian. So that's coming. Well, here's another story I don't believe at all, but Dylan Butts over at CNBC is talking about China allegedly suspended some critical mineral export curbs. How many times have we heard that China or the US Made some kind of change to their tariffs and their, you know, their minerals? I feel like none of it is believable. Are you having the same reaction? It's like, yeah, maybe somebody did something, but more likely they're all just going to go ahead and do what they were going to do anyway before any of this was announced. I just don't believe anything that comes out of, oh, China decided to do a totally reasonable trade deal with us. Did they? Did they really? Well, we'll find out. Allegedly, you were using somebody's easing some restrictions and blah, blah, blah. I don't believe so. I don't believe any of it. But it'd be great if it were true. All right, here is the, the big payoff. So how many of you were with me in 2015 when I changed the world by introducing the reframe, that it's not about the policies, it's about the persuasion. And if you didn't see that Trump was coming, oh, he was coming in 2015, if you didn't, if you didn't recognize how much power he was bringing to the domain, you were probably really surprised when he won. But famously, I was not surprised. So I had a worldview that predicted, would you say, would it be fair to say, my worldview that he's persuasive, predicted that he'd win even outside of his domain, and then he did. So I often say that the closest you can get to reality is prediction. So if I was able to predict that Trump would do well based on his persuasion skills, and I think most people agree that that's exactly why he's doing well, his persuasion skills, that that's now a done deal, wouldn't you say? Even the AI acknowledges that. I changed the argument from, from policy to persuasion. But there's one more coming you ready? I've got another reframe that you haven't heard yet. This will blow your mind. I'm gonna have to tiptoe into it a little bit because once it settles in, you're gonna be like, whoa, whoa. Why did I never think of that? You ready? All right, so here's what, here's what he does. Do you know who Thomas Soul is? Thomas Sowell, famous economist. He's a conservative. And he does a really good job of explaining stuff, doesn't he? It's like a really good explainer. And I always wonder, who do the Democrats have on their side, who's a good explainer? And, and how. How important would it be if in 2015, you started training half of the country, but not the other half in how to think better? How to think better, which is not really persuasion per se. You know, persuasion would be part of thinking better, but it's much bigger. All right, let me give you some, some names here, and then you're going to see this come together pretty fast. Why'd I put the thing I wanted to do first last? Because that's how I am. All right, here it is. So the other day I was, remember, I was naming some well known conservative podcasters, and I started realizing how many there are and how skilled they are. But let me just go down the list, and I want you to see if you can find the pattern. The pattern is that conservatives have been teaching each other how to think better and more productively for about 10 years. And I don't think that the Democrats have even tried. So when I look at the conservatives, Republicans trying to figure out a new thing, you know, let's say there's a new, new policy thing pops out. You can see them thinking better than they used to. You can see it. Right? But let me give you some names of people who are identified with the right, and then you can see why. You can see this, but the left can't. Why are they blind to it? I'll give you some names. Newt Gingrich. Newt Gingrich can explain, you know, any kind of history thing, and he's got the whole context of everything from the Clintons for the Congress and everything else. So when Newt Gingrich is explaining something to you, you know, whether it's in a blog or a, or he's doing an appearance, he's making you smarter, right? How about Ben Shapiro? Now you can, you can hate on Ben Shapiro. So I put him near first. So you can get over it faster. Just get over it. I'M only talking about smartness. Wouldn't you rather have Ben Shapiro on your team? If you're trying to be the smart team? Now, you could disagree with them on all kinds of policies because people are different. But don't you want the smart team on your side? You know, like the whole Daily Wire cast, like they're all smarter than, way smarter than average. Don't you want them on your team? Of course you do. What about Jordan Peterson? Now, Jordan Peterson, I don't think he tries too hard to be a Republican or a Democrat, but he seems to get along better with the conservatives. Who in the world is as productive in terms of telling you how to live your life and understand reality and be effective? And Jordan Peterson, what do they have on the left? I mean, just think of some of these names. It's, it's incredible, the difference in skill. And you go right down the line. You know, you're Megyn Kelly. She knows the law, she knows the news, she knows the, the news business. Tim Pool is, you can do a deep dive on anything with the right set of guests. Pbd, amazing. He has great guests. Sean Ryan, bunch of people. So I would add myself to the list of people who help you think. If you look at all of my books in the shelf behind me, they're all in that domain. They're, they're. What does loser think? What is persuasion? You know, systems versus goals, talent, stack. Now, let me just put it in the simplest form. So those of you who have consumed my content for the last 10 years, most of you have read maybe at least one of my books. Can you validate that? If every Republican read my books, that Republicans would have like a superpower, it would just be crazy. Well, they don't. I'll read my books. But they read other books from other people who are also very good at explaining things. You know, Thomas Hole, good example. And it seems to me that we've got 10 years of conservatives teaching people how to think and operate better. And no years of the Democrats doing that. Like none. The Democrats are more like arguing if you're a racist or not. How much? How many legs does that have? If your whole strategy is arguing the other side is a bunch of racist sexists, does that last? I mean, is that a long term strategy? I know. I also think that one of the reasons that we note that conservatives seem to tolerate more consenting, dissenting voices is because they're trained. Let me give you a specific example. If someone who had never been introduced to Nick Fuente's Content. Say a Democrat were exposed to it with. No, no preparation, just exposed to it. Would you be happy with that? It's free speech, but beyond the free speech. Would you be happy with that influence? Maybe yes, maybe no. Right. But suppose. Suppose you heard that I went on and I'm not going to do this, by the way, but suppose you heard that I went on a show to talk to Nick Fuentes and you know who I am, so you know everything about me. Would you be worried that his opinion would change my opinion? Would you. You think that might happen? No, it's not a chance. But might my opinion change his opinion? Totally. I'm not saying it would, but if you're going to guess who is likely to change the other person's opinion, it would be the one who's trained to do it. Although he's very good at. He's very good at it as well. So I think the reason I can watch Candace and Nick and Tucker Carlson and Ben Shapiro and they're all arguing and it sounds like somebody's anti Semitic and somebody's not. You know, it sounds like terrible stuff, but I'm just trained to not treat it that way. It's just training. And I think a lot of. A lot of conservatives are just trained the same way. It's like, you know, I'm not saying it's nothing. I'm just saying that the conservatives can handle it better. They can handle the friction better. All right, let me go way back to where I started, because then I'm going to maybe have some more examples of this. So, as you know, the government's going to reopen maybe on Monday, not sure yet. So eight Democrats crossed over and voted to reopen, which if that holds, they'll reopen today sometime. It might take a day or so. I don't know. There's only eight of them. And of course, you should see. Have you seen how angry the Democrats are at the ones who voted for this? Oh, my goodness, they're very angry. They're calling their own team traitors and everything. And. Right. If that's how you want to play it, that your own team is traders. If they do something that's first of all perfectly predictable. Perfectly predictable. And then it happens. All right. Even on msnbc, one of the hosts said it seems like the President was kind of getting what he wanted. Yeah, that's what that looks like. That's the President kind of getting what he wanted. And he still. He still hasn't given up on getting rid of the filibuster. I thought he wanted to get rid of the filibuster. Just, it was just sort of opportunistic. You might want to do it anyway. But even though he guessed his government reopened, he's still like, well, while we're at it, maybe we'll kill that filibuster while we're at it. Anyway, Fetterman is one of the ones who famously cross sized to vote for opening the government. Good for Fetman. As long as he doesn't want any future in the Democrat Party, it's good for him. He basically eliminated himself from higher office as a Democrat, I think, because the Democrats believe that fighting is just doing annoying things while people are watching. I guess. I guess that's what they think fighting Donald Trump is. All right, so did it work that Trump threatened the filibuster or threatened to end it? Did that work? There's no way to know if anybody changed the vote just because of the filibuster, but it might have, it might have worked a little bit. People might have thought, well, if we give him this, maybe he won't also try to get the filibuster. To which I said, have you met Trump? Have you heard about him? No, he's not going to give up on the filibuster just because he got something else. He'll try to get everything he got. Whatever is the most aggressive stance. Of course. Anyway, the other thing that's funny, going back to my theme, is that Democrats will have no idea what's happening today because they don't have a worldview that incorporates what they're witnessing. They just don't have any worldview that explains us. Like, why did, why did all my heroes say there's no way, no way we're going to cave? And then they caved. Was it ever important? Don't you think it leaves the Democrats with some big questions about their own side? Yeah, some big questions. So the Democrats are going to look at their side as a bunch of wimpy losers. There's going to be more pressure on Schumer to get the heck out of that job because he's an embarrassment. Bernie Sanders pointed out that the Republicans ruined health care. He ruined health care. Correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the things I'm watching is that every time the Democrats ruin something, don't they blame Republicans every time the Democrats ruin something, because who ruined climate change? That wasn't. That wasn't Republicans. How about the border? Not Republicans. How about inflation? Wasn't Republicans. So there seems to be a Clear pattern here, which is the Democrats do these things which have gigantic downsides and then they sell as hard as they can that the problem was from the Republicans. That's their whole game is doing dumb and trying to blame it on the other side. That's it. That's all they have. And they use it a lot anyway. And apparently there's somebody who admitted that the real play for Schumer and the Democrats was to get crime out of the news. Because I guess the Democrats thought they were losing if they were talking about crime, because nobody like. So if they said it's really about health care, that would be the strongest emotional pole to pull the headlines away from, from anything except what they wanted to focus on. In this case, it was health care. So if that's what they were doing, it was kind of a good play, you know, politically, if that's what they were doing. But boy, did, boy, do they get savaged. Schumer's gonna get savaged. They're all just going to get totally thrown under the bus now on top of that. And again, I'll go back to my main theme. How do Democrats understand what they're seeing? And this is something that the, the Republican model of the world can completely explain. I think he can can it. The Republican model is that Trump is very persuasive and if you wait long enough, he's going to win the negotiation and the government will open and we will look back and say, oh, why do we ever think he was going to lose this negotiation? He's better at that than we are. And then that's what happened. So the Trump sort of version of the world where Trump is persuasive and it matters and he actually wins because of it. Here we are. So isn't it true that my worldview predicted. My worldview predicted again, so that doesn't mean it's true, but it's the closest thing to being true. All right, so the BBC. This is hilarious. The BBC, actually, and the fact that this is a government funded news entity in Great Britain. The BBC edited some text from Trump's speech on January 6th to make it look like he was encouraging people to go there and be violent when nothing like that happened. Meaning that there was, there was no language like that. They just spliced together some existing stuff and made it look like he was calling on violence. Now, weirdly, but it's good. Who's the guy they call Tater? Who, who's the guy on CNN that Greg got filled those mocks? Tater. So Tater is one of the ones who bought into the fine people hoax completely. Then he went away, but then he came back. And now, believe it or not, Tater is completely supporting the point of view that this was a fake, spliced together thing and it was never true. And it was exactly the same as the fine people hoax. Exactly the same. They just took some words that he did say and crafted them together in a way that he didn't say them and then claimed they did. Now, do you know why this didn't work? Why didn't it work? The only reason that didn't work the way it did work was the fine people hoax for about four years. It did work for about four years. The reason it didn't work is that conservatives, you're waiting for it. I'm tying it all together now. The reason it didn't work is that we had trained conservatives. What it looks like when they do this kind of hoax, this specific kind of hoax, you've all seen it. Once you've seen how they can do it, you, first of all, you can see all the parts. And then you're like, oh, okay, I see how this works. But you can see all the parts. There's nothing you have to guess at. It's all right there. So even cnn, who is trying to find the middle ground and I would say is succeeding. I think CNN has succeeded in finding middle ground News place, and I give them credit for that because they did talk about this as sort of a scandal. I mean, it's a, it's a competitor of theirs, so that's easier. But they did talk about a scandal. And if that had never existed to find people hoax, you wouldn't have even known that the BBC did that. You just wouldn't even know. Foreign surprisingly, turning Point, USA has an event today at UC Berkeley. Of all liberal places. Now, UC Berkeley is where I went to go get my mba, but I have parted ways with them. I am not happy with UC Berkeley, but it is good to see that they would have welcomed a conservative group, which I'm not sure they would have done that before. So that looks like progress. Looks like progress. But still, this is what I talk about when I say that Republicans would be hunted. I would not feel safe if somebody knew me by sight and I went to a conservative event in Berkeley. Do you think I should feel safe if I did that? We're not there yet. We're heading there. I feel like we're heading there. It's definitely safer than it used to be, but it's Definitely not safe. So is there anybody on the left who ever experiences that? Which is, they've never haven't broken any laws. They're not planning to. They just have a different opinion. But they can't go in public in a way that they could express that opinion because they get hunted. You just can't do it. The, the fact that Democrats are not aware that I couldn't walk outside and go to Berkeley with a MAGA hat, you know, they would think, oh, you know, you're whining about too much. That's a, that's a pretty legitimate wine, isn't it? If you can't go outside in your own relative neighborhood because you might get beat up for your political opinion, that's completely legitimate. Yeah, that's getting hunted, but getting better, maybe. Who knows? So this is funny. Kathy Hochul, governor of New York, is saying that Zoran Mamdani's idea of free buses, well. Well, maybe you won't see any free buses. Well, I'm not sure you'll ever see any free buses. She says, and I quote, I cannot set forth a plan right now that takes money out of a system that relies on the fairs of the buses and the subways. So all it takes is some bureaucratic reason and it all goes away. So do you think that mom Dummy will find a way to do these things that are not funded, but if you did fund them, you'd have to take away something substantial from people who are already funded? Do you think he can pull that off? I doubt it. I doubt it. But reality has come to visit the socialists. I hope they enjoy it. Speaking of reality, Trump is. I saw that he's promising this. I don't know if that's yet the right word, but he is teased at least that consumers or taxpayers might get a two thousand check, two thousand dollar check back from taxes as part of their tariff payoff. And what do you think of that? Just Everybody gets a $2,000 check. Now, it would not include high income people. So I don't know if I'm in that or not in that. I think my current income is zero. Once you, once you actually look at the expenses, like actually zero. Not, not cheating on my taxes. I think it's actually zero because I have a staff and, you know, and the, the income went down when I got canceled, blah, blah, blah. So it's somewhere around break even, basically, which is fine because I'm not looking to build assets. I'm just looking to not lose them. All right, what do you think of that? Idea. Somebody mocked me and said, scott, do you think it's really a good idea to give all these people $2,000? What will happen? To which I said, I don't know what will happen. I have no idea what would happen if he gave everybody $2,000? Inflation. I think the right answer is inflation, maybe, but sometimes the inflation is worth it. So Trump's smart about reading the room. If he can find any way at all to give somebody a few bucks, they're going to be happier than if they didn't get a few bucks. And that's all it is. All right, so I've been trying to figure out if our economy is good or bad. If any of you figured that out yet, the U. S. Economy, is it good or bad? Because when the Republicans talk, they say it's good and they give some examples. When the Democrats talk about they say it's bad and they give some examples. Who's right? Don't you think we should at least know the most basic thing about our reality? The most basic thing about a reality is that either the economy is good or it's bad. And we can't decide if it's good or bad. Was it Mark Twain who said that we can't tell the difference between good news and bad news? The humans can't tell the difference? Well, it feels like that. But I did see a post that says that. I think this might have been from a screen grab on Fox News, that coffee is up 19%, utilities up 12, electricity 5, vehicle repair 12%. So although our growth in the economy seems okay, it's not making a lot of jobs. People are holding off to see if AI Is going to make any difference? I think so. They call it a jobless economy, but it's not really. Anyway, what do you think if I just asked you, is the economy, is the economy better under Trump or worse? And you were, let's say you were not doing just team play. So you're not just arguing to, you know, win your side if you're really, really being honest, Is the economy better or worse since Trump took over? I don't know. I have no idea. I really don't. And the fact that we don't know that the most basic thing you should know about your country, is it going up or is it going down? I can't tell. Well, I think we need a little more information. That's what I say. Anyway, there's a big climate change convention, I guess you call it that, the COP30 climate thing in Brazil. And of course, everybody's gonna be talking about all the carbon that they burn doing it for rich people. And then that will be the story that entertains us for about two days. Oh, here's my list. Jeez. I had a whole different list of the conservatives that are teaching us how to think better, and I left out the best ones. So did I mention Mike Benz? Democrats don't have a Mike Benz. That's like. It's like having a super, a hero on your side about Charlie Kirk when he was doing the debates. Charlie Kirk doing debates. They didn't have that, did they? You know, now I know that Steven Crowder did some debates, too, but he was more. He was more team play. That was kind of a different, different vibe. Joe Rogan, Glenn Beck, they all bring people on who can explain all kinds of things. That's good. I would also like to say that Gutfeld's a good explainer. Maggie Hemingway, Victor Davis Hansen. Do you see the pattern yet? I was trying to make the point without having the right list in front of me, but, yeah, these are all the smartest people in the game, and they're teaching you how to think, not just what to agree with. Pretty strong stuff. Anyway, Newsom is going after Trump. Trump's having a good day, but they're going to have to find something bad to say about him. So Newsom said, Donald Trump said he would make us wealthier and healthier, but we're poorer and sicker. And I don't want to see this sickness extend to ending our Republican, our democracy. Okay, all right, whatever. Meanwhile, the Gateway pundit is reporting that there's a. A gang called the Latin Kings operating in the U.S. i guess who. They must be in Chicago, and they put out a hit on some of the ICE people. So that better not happen. Do you think that's going to turn into a thing, that the criminals are going to start putting hits on the ICE people? I wouldn't be totally surprised if it happens, but, boy, is it going to get a savage if they do. If they kill one ICE agent in something that looks like a hit, Trump's just going to go full Viking on them. And they have to know that. I mean, they have to know that's the end of their operation if they do that. At least they can, you know, struggle along a little bit if they don't do that. But we're still going to take them out one way or another. So in China, apparently they have some version of the LSATs, the test you take to become a lawyer or to test you take to see if you qualify for law school. And apparently some Chinese prep company stole the test. They stole the test. They were selling the results. So do you trust your lawyer now, now that you know your lawyer could have bought the test results in China? I'm not sure if he could, but some allegation there. Anyway, the chip making industry is mad because apparently somebody in the administration is, is raising the idea just as a proposal that, that the U. S. Taxpayers would take some equity in some of the chip making business. So the semiconductor business would sort of say, okay, you, you have a little ownership of that. Do you think that's going to work? I don't. I think there'll be too much pushback on that. That will not happen. All right, then, Mayor Brandon Johnson, he wants to tell us how bad things are in Chicago because of Trump. He says whether it's the unconstitutional acts that are being carried out by the Trump administration or the fact that food and medicine has been cut off. Has it, has anybody died yet? I'm pretty sure nobody is starved. When was the last time somebody starved to death in the United States? Sort of never. I mean, it's not true. Not never, but I don't think they're gonna starve to death this year, but hope the post millennials writing about that. All right, ladies and gentlemen, let me go back, let me circle back to my main point today and see if it stuck. Okay. And then we're going to do some reframes because I know you like them. So the reframe is that conservatives have spent 10 years training their, training their base, how to think better and that if you were to extend that, that, let's say that variable over time, it would perfectly predict who's going to be in charge. Let me say that again in the same way that persuasion skill predicted that Trump would be in charge. The fact that we've been training other conservatives, and most of us though the right people to do the training. The fact that we've been training other conservatives. Oh, and I would throw Michael Shellenberger in there too. Conservatives are way, way smarter about how to just look at a topic and, and pull it apart. Would you agree, even if you disagree with them, they have been training for 10 years with the right people to tell them how to, how to enter this argument, how to deal with climate change. For example, have you noticed that the climate change arguments tend to at least now cluster around a few people's opinions that you've seen before because they're the ones who are good at teaching you how to think about it. Yeah. So I don't think that the Democrats see this coming. If you were not looking for the pattern, you wouldn't know there was a pattern. You would just say, oh, a lot of people talking about climate change now, a lot of people talking about this. It wouldn't look like a pattern. But if you understand that only half of the country is treating the topics as a. As a class. Yeah, that's what it is. It's the conservatives. They treat the topic as a class where you can learn about the topic and how to respond to it. If somebody is on the other side of it, it's just not happening on the other side. I don't believe they're learning how to do that. But almost every day, almost. Almost every day I teach somebody on the right how to do that or give them some, maybe some, you know, context they didn't have before, which is the same thing. All right. Don't mess with the lawyers. Good idea. All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to do a reframe. I usually do these at the front, by the way, if you didn't know, the Dilbert 2026 calendar is available only on Amazon. Only on Amazon. Nowhere else? Only on Amazon. And I wouldn't wait because we're gonna run out. We really are. We're gonna run out. If I'm wrong, I'll let you know. But I think we will run out. All right. Oh, here's one. This one is so simple and yet so sublime. So the usual frame is that history is important, wouldn't you say? If you're looking at the Middle east, history is pretty important. If you're looking at World War II, history is important. So in most cases, you're looking at anything with history in it, it's going to be pretty important. But the reframe is this. History doesn't exist. History doesn't exist. Try getting a handful of history. Where is it? Where's this history you're talking about? Can you fill up a bucket with history? No. History isn't even real. So there are people who go through their life tortured by things that have gone before. The things that they experience, the things they worry about will happen, but none of those things are real. If it's something that did happen in the past, it's not real now. It might have actually happened, but it's not happening now. It just doesn't exist. Once you realize that history is completely artificial and also, I don't know if you knew this, but there is scientific evidence that we make up our minds after. After the decision that we decide first, and then we come up with weird explanations of why we decided. That's actually how decisions are made. We just think it's the other way around. It's an illusion. So that's your reframe of the day. Has anybody heard that one before? It. It's real. It's so effective. I use it all the time, and I just go, no, it doesn't even exist. Does not exist. Don't have to worry about it. All right, people, I'm gonna go think about getting some breakfast because I deserve it. And the rest of you, I guess I should talk to the locals people privately. I've. I've been cheating them a little bit, so. Locals people. Well, I can't lift my arm, though. Oh, I'm gonna try to turn this off. Let's see if I can do this and keep the locals people. I literally can't lift my arm above my. Above my nipples. How many of you have seen me drawing on here? So in case you missed it. Oh, you can't see it at all. I. I would put my hand up to the camera so you can see it, but it just hurts too much. I can't reach over there. So I've been doing some drawing on camera. People seem to like it. The good news is I can still draw despite the limitations in my hand. Didn't. Didn't know if I would, but yesterday I could. All right, so did locals not work? Did locals not work today? I heard somebody say that locals didn't work. Is that true? Because I don't see it here. That's weird. All right, I guess we're not talking, huh? All right, so I'm going to figure out what's wrong with all my devices. All right, people, I can't hang around today. I wish I could, but I can't. I'll talk to you tomorrow. I should have your calendar uploaded by then. Bye for now. Oh, come on, hand. Work, work.