ming, right? Nothing like that. I don't see any energy toward a civil war. You know there might be little spats here and there but something big is happening and I don't think we can predict exactly where it's going to come out. Just watch this. The next, I would say between now and the end of the year, something we didn't expect and very large will happen. Hopefully not a war, but I think historically that's you end up with a war in these situations. Hyperinflation? I don't know. I mean maybe, but that doesn't feel like with this kind of energy.

But first let's do the simultaneous sip because all you need is a couple of margaritas, tank or Chelsea's tiny canteen, trigger, flashlight, vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including your antibodies. It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now. Go.

Ah. Antibodies. Feeling good.

I would like to address some of my critics yesterday who say, number one, Scott doesn't read the comments. Well, I read your comment and so I'm going to address them. I was criticized yesterday by several people who said that lately I've been acting smarter than my audience and they don't like it one bit. Agree or disagree? I've been acting arrogantly smarter than my audience lately and you don't like it one bit. Go. Disagree. Agree a little. Disagree. Be right today. Disagree. No.

So you can see there's disagreement but clearly there are people saying yes. All right. So even those who disagree, you can see there are plenty of people who say yes. So is that a valid criticism? Is the criticism valid? I'd say so if there are this many people who have it and it's an opinion, I'll call it valid.

But here's my counter to it, which is not, I'm not saying it doesn't exist. Like that's your opinion. Let me put it this way. If people are having an impression, a subjective experience of this, it's not right or wrong. It's just your experience. So you can't be wrong. You're having an experience and you just told me what it was. So you're right in your experience. That's what you feel. So obviously there's something I'm doing that's causing that feeling in you. So criticism, right on point.

But I will add this framing. That's the whole point of watching this. You're supposed to be watching this because you think in the specific way that I attack the issues, persuasion, economics, usually, that I am smarter than the audience. Otherwise you shouldn't watch. Would there be any point of this? Because you don't watch this just to get the news, right? You can get the news from better sources. For me, I would think that the only reason anybody would watch it is that I'm going to say something you hadn't heard somewhere else that sounds smart enough to be worth listening to.

So my claim is not that I'm smarter than my audience. I would never make that claim because that's a misunderstanding of what intelligence is. Intelligence very clearly is this distributed thing where there are lots of things you could be smart about. I'm smart about some of them but not most of them. Not most of them. I'm not smart about fashion. I'm terrible at navigating, you know, just getting from one place to another in my car. Terrible sense of direction. No musical talent. I could go on and on about the things I don't know. Never took chemistry. I never took chemistry or physics in school. So the list of things which I don't know and my audience would be smarter than I, or is it smarter than me? Grammar is another one that you would be smarter than I or me or they.

But my point is I don't believe in intelligence per se as some global thing. I believe that people are intelligent about different things. How many of you would be better at parenting than I would? A lot of you. A lot of you. Because you're smarter about that, right? So I don't believe that people are smart, you know, in some universal way. I get that IQ picks that up but you tend to be smarter on the things you focus on and the things that you know, your genetic propensity leads you toward.

So I can't change your impressions or your subjective opinion but I will tell you this. If you think in my mind that I'm thinking I'm smarter than you, that's not happening. Not in my mind. In my mind I think there's some narrow topics that I do know more than most of you. That's my only claim. But there are all kinds of stuff you know that I don't know. So arrogance doesn't really fit into my mental model because I would assume I'm thinking I'm better than you and I don't see any evidence of that. I just see evidence that you're good at some things, I'm good at other things. That's it. That's the only thing we can conclude. There's no better than.

So if you're picking up some kind of arrogance in my approach, probably the frame you should put on it is that this is a show. And even though I do it in a personal style, you know, almost like I'm talking to you, you have to know that this is my public presentation, right? It wouldn't be the same in person.

All right. And also I heard some criticism that I never admit I'm wrong. I would just like to suggest that the people who watch all of my content don't have that opinion. The people who have sampled it probably do. But I would say, and I'll just put this out there as a provocative claim, that no public figure has admitted they were wrong more than I have about, you know, in this topic about the news. I don't think any public figure has admitted more times they've been wrong except maybe Tucker Carlson. Am I wrong about this?

I feel as though Tucker Carlson is one of the few people who, when he's wrong and you know events prove it, that he starts his program by saying we said X, we were totally wrong, and then he goes on to update the story. Haven't you seen him do that? I feel like I've seen him do that a number of times and it always stands out as being honest. I try to do that but I don't know if I succeed.

All right, enough about me. Here's all the fake news.

How many of you believe that Tony Fauci was behind some research, either funding it or otherwise, in animal cruelty? In other words they weren't testing animal cruelty, they were testing on monkeys. How many believe that Fauci was somehow involved in torturing monkeys for science? Anybody believe that? Because I saw it on the news yesterday. It was all over the internet. Yeah, the answer is no. No, there's no truth to it. There's no connection between Fauci and any monkey research or animal dogs, anything. So apparently there's nothing to the story.

Now here's the standard that I'm using to decide whether it's true or not. So it's not my magic. Like I'm not using magic to look into the details that you can't see. I'm using a simple standard that if one of the two networks, CNN or Fox News, reports it as true and the other one debunks it, believe the debunk. It doesn't matter which direction. If one of them debunks a fact and the other one says it's true, it's not true. If both of them say it's true, it's probably true. Probably, not certainly, but probably. If only one of them says it's true, it's just never true. I haven't seen an exception. Let me say that t