tell you that my feeling is based on anything that you should believe because it's just a feeling. But I am feeling that this Omicron is going to be a mild one and that it will finish up our herd immunity in its own weird way.

I said this on Twitter yesterday and I got almost no pushback on it, which is the story itself. So here's something that I couldn't have said one year ago. The public wasn't ready for this. You ready?

So I've told you that there's some big shift in public awareness that's happening, and I'm going to talk about that a little bit more. But the first thing I noticed was this dog that stopped barking for about, I don't know, five years since I started doing public stuff about politics. For most of those five years the biggest criticism I got was, "Oh yeah, we should listen to the cartoonist. Let's not just listen to the experts. Oh, we should pay attention to the cartoonist. Sure, cartoon boy, tell us what you're thinking. We'll just stop listening to the scientists and the experts. We'll just listen to the cartoonist."

That all stopped. It's all stopped. And I didn't notice it for a while, and it took me a little bit to figure out why. Now I could take credit for maybe being more credible, but I don't think that's what's happening. I don't think that people's opinion of my credibility has changed because of my performance. I'd love to think that the world was like that. You know, they could see me doing a good job and then they could say, "Oh, that one's doing a good job predicting, so we'll give him a little more credibility." No, I don't think that happened.

Here's what I think happened. I think it was like Trump beating Hillary Clinton in 2016. Trump never made himself more popular. He simply made her less popular successfully. And remember I predicted that. I said Trump doesn't need to become more popular. He just has to make her less popular. And then he went out and did that. He did exactly that.

So I think what happened is that the experts have so self-immolated that almost anybody seems credible relative to the experts now because the experts have done such a bad job. At least it looks that way. I would argue that it isn't so bad, but the public impression of the experts is awful right now. So suddenly if you say, "Well, I heard it from an expert" versus "I heard it from a cartoonist," they don't sound that different anymore, do they? They should. I mean they should sound different. But the experts have done such a good job of destroying their own credibility that people just don't say that about me anymore. So that's the first thing.

So I did a little experiment on Twitter because I was very curious about many of my critics who seemed to think I had completely different opinions than the ones I actually have. And they were quite adamant in their criticisms of the things I don't think and have never said. And I wondered, where is that coming from? And is this something that happens to everybody and I just see more of it because I have more of a public profile? And so I did a little experiment to find out, and I think I have the answer. I didn't think I would necessarily get one, but I do.

So I tweeted, "If you're one of my critics, tell me in one clear sentence what you believe is true that you think I don't." You know, just give me the one thing we disagree on. What do you think happened when I asked people — my critics, the people who are really, really mad at me — to tell me what they disagree with? What do you think happened? Almost none of them disagreed with me.

Yeah, no, it wasn't crickets because they had to say something. But I'll give you some of the examples of what they imagined I was saying that I didn't. I'll tell you why they imagined it. There's a very specific reason. The people who think they disagreed with me and that I'm talking crazy almost all were Twitter followers or people who had seen me on Twitter but not the live stream. All right? So the people who've seen my live streams had a completely different opinion of me. But on Twitter the biggest complaint was that I don't seem to take a side. I'm not taking a side. Or that I seem to be on both sides of issues. Is that fair? Would you say that that observation is true based on Twitter anyway? That I seem to be on both sides of issues.

That's how it works. Every issue has some positives on one side and some negatives on one side. So if you're not on both sides of every issue, are you even thinking independently? You should at least be able to say, "Oh, here's a good point on this side. Here's a good point on the other side."

Now on Twitter I think I'm less likely to state a direct opinion than I am here. I hadn't really thought about it, but I think that's true. So the people on Twitter, I call the underinformed the binaries. They're people who see two teams and they see you saying things that would be good for one team but wait, now you're saying things that would be good for the other team. So now, Scott, you're being ambiguous. How can you say something good for one team and then also say something good about the other team? That doesn't make any sense. So, Scott, you won't take a side. So therefore you're a weasel. That's what they say. Is that what's happening? And some people say I'm betting both sides. It's called fence sitting. Some people say, yeah, I would call it looking at all the issues. I mean that's what it looks like to me.

So the binaries are the people who believe that everything fits into the two buckets and I never fit into the two buckets. So the binary choice is don't take the vaccine because it's dangerous or take the vaccination because it's good and you know it's more good than bad, right? Those are the binaries.

Cassandra says you fell for several hoaxes but yet you won't be able to name any. Watch this. Cassandra, name a hoax I fell for. I'll just wait for you. So on YouTube, name a hoax that I fell for. If you mean the Covington kids for exactly 24 hours, that would be true. The name, if we're talking about the virus, yeah, there won't be anything, right? So the Covington kids was, yeah, I was fooled by a hoax for all of 24 hours, so I cop to that.

You fell for the ICL model? No, I didn't. I don't know what that is. I'm sure I didn't fall for it. Previously vaccinated poses a far greater risk? No, the science is not growing on that. You're reading crackpots. I'm not ruling it out, but the science is not growing on that. I don't think that's true.

So here's what's happening. I think the people on Twitter who don't see me dealing with the whole issue, they just see me say things like, "I'm not sure if the vaccines work but I took them." Because that doesn't fit into another category, right? I don't know if the vaccines are good or bad. I only know that I decided to take them. Nobody else has that opinion that I know of, or at least they don't say it in public. Probably lots of people have it.

Or how about this: I think lockdowns work and we totally shouldn't do them, right? It doesn't fit into your box. People say either the lockdowns don't work and we shouldn't do them or they do work and we should do them. I say they do work but we shouldn't do them.

Let me give you some of the other comments that people believe I think. This is things that people said about me. You think vaccines work. Is that an accurate description of me? You think vaccines work. All I know is I took them and every expert in every country says that they work. That's what I know. Do you disagree with the fact that 99 percent say that they do work and that I took it? That's all I know. And I know that there are other people who are serious people, mostly rogue people, but they have credentials and I acknowledge that they say there could be some big problem. All right, so that's two nuances, I guess.

Somebody says I strategically avoid stating my position. No, I don't. No, I don't. I just don't always do it on Twitter. You believe it's likely that the vax compliance close to 100 will make the government remove restrictions. And somebody says there's no chance that — yes, I do believe that and so do all of you. So do all of you. If it'll never happen, right? We don't think it can happen. But imagine if California reached 100 percent vaccination or 95 percent. They would lose their argument for continuing to keep things locked down, especially as the therapeutics are coming online.

So I believe that if vax compliance was high, which I don't recommend — I'm not recommending you get them. I'm not recommending you do or don't get a booster. So I'm not saying what you should do. That's the problem. I'm just saying predictably if the government's reason for lockdowns goes away, probably the lockdowns will. Not right away, but we could make it happen.

If you got COVID, why would you not try ivermectin? I don't know. I don't know why. Do you think that I disagree with you? I would try it. So can I say that I think it's very unlikely that ivermectin is the solution to COVID and at the same time can I say but if I got COVID I would take ivermectin right away because I don't fear the consequences of it hurting me? So I occupy all these weird middle grounds where I can feel both sides.

But I don't think he didn't have it quite right. Somebody said they've successfully inserted — they being, I know, the deep state or somebody — have successfully inserted the narrative of blaming the wave of heart problems on COVID and the blue pills have taken it hook, line, and sinker. And that I'm the canary in the coal mine. So the suggestion is that I'm part of accepting the narrative that the wave of heart problems are the COVID and not the vaccination itself. No, no, no. That doesn't describe me at all.

What I would say is we don't know. I'm saying that all data is unreliable. There is definitely alarming stories about people dying. Usually those alarming stories turn out to be fake. They're just coincidence or misinterpretation. But I'm not going to tell you that the heart problems from the vaccination are less or more than the COVID risk. I'm just saying that they both have a risk. How in the world would I know which one is bigger? How would I ever know that?

All right, anyway, I could do some more of this. But my favorite one is the abacus. He's a user who sent me a list of tells for being a fascist and says that you should look at how many Scott Adams applies to. So I'm going to read the list of how to know you're a fascist and I want you to vote in the comments which of these apply to me.

Powerful and continuing nationalism. Yes or no? Does that apply to me? Powerful and continuing nationalism. People are saying no. Really? Definitely yes. Yes, yes. If this is a tell for being a fascist, absolutely. I have a powerful and continuing sense of nationalism. I'm not apologizing for that. I would call that patriotic and I would hope that people in other countries feel the same about their country. I hope so because I'm sure some of their countries are quite awesome and they should feel quite proud about it.

All right, how about this? The second one is disdain for human rights. Do I display a disdain for human rights? No. How about identification of enemies as a unifying cause? That would be everybody, right? Is there anybody who doesn't identify the side that's causing them problems? There's nobody who doesn't do that. So yes, I absolutely do this. So so far two out of three signs of fascism.

I perfectly identify with supremacy of the military. Well, supremacy meaning the military runs the country? I'm vehemently opposed to that. But I would like our military to be supreme compared to other militaries. So this one's ambiguous, but I certainly don't want the military running our country.

Rampant sexism. Did you know that was part of fascism? I feel like this was just like a woke thing that got added to the list. Rampant sexism. What's that got to do with fascism? But do I display rampant sexism? Rampant sexism would be the idea that some genders are superior. Yes, I do. Yes, I do have rampant sexism. I believe that men cannot have babies, for example. Some of you disagree, I know. But I believe that women are superior to men in the production of human life. You know, men are pretty good at their part, but when it comes to actually incubating the baby and producing it, compared to men, women do that way, way better. So I guess I am a rampant sexist because I do think women make babies better than men.

How about controlled mass media? Well, I don't control the mass media, so not sure that applies. Obsession with national security. Who isn't? Is there somebody here who doesn't think national security would be really high on the list of things to be concerned about? I cop guilty to that.

Religion and government intertwined. Well, I'm not a believer, but I do acknowledge that the United States has intertwined Christianity and government and got a good result, I think. Now I could criticize lots of elements of that and have, but I wouldn't doubt the fact that religion and government formed not a perfect union but pretty good. Pretty good.

Corporate power protected. Yeah, I want corporate power protected. That's why we have laws. We have laws to protect everybody, including corporations. And corporations of course are created for the benefit of the people. It just helps rich people more, but it doesn't hurt other people mostly.

Labor power suppressed. Have I wanted to suppress any labor power? I'm pro-union, so I don't know about that.

Disdain for intellectuals and the arts. Well, okay. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts. Guilty. Guilty.

Obsession with crime and punishment. Well, obsession is just sort of a trigger word, isn't it? Isn't everybody very interested in crime and punishment? I mean it's part of the texture of life.

How about rampant nepotism and corruption? Yes, I have hired relatives. I have in fact hired relatives. Now I don't run the government, so I think that would matter. Corruption, not so much.

And then fraudulent elections. Oh, I don't think that's me. You're talking about that might be the Democrats.

So anyway, this list of what it means to be a fascist is completely ridiculous. But apparently I do meet quite a few of those things unapologetically.

All right, the Waukesha narrative is getting hilarious with CNN. These are two things that CNN has said without being embarrassed apparently. On CNN they reported Waukesha will hold a moment of silence today. This might have been a tweet or a headline, I can't remember. Marking one week since a car drove through a city Christmas parade, killing six people and injuring scores of others. Now I am mad at that car. If it had had a driver, we'd probably want to know more about that driver. But CNN's reporting it was a car. So now we have rogue cars driving through parades and killing people. And that's a trend I hope doesn't continue. But no mention of a human involved in the crime. Just a car.

Also on CNN said that a New York NYPD hate crimes task force is investigating after police say an Asian American woman was attacked with a large rock. So it's worse than just the cars going rogue. Now the rocks are throwing themselves