getting publicity. Nobody cares that you did something well. You can't get publicity because you did something really well. I did a good job, right? Unless it's like extraordinary. Here's how you get publicity. You do something that other people have been doing forever but you do it a different way that looks like it could work. That's what Trump could do. You could say well the first time I ran for office I just did every media interview and it was different than the way other people did it. I just sucked all the energy out of the room. Nobody ever did that before. Now he could say all right I'm going to do a brand new way again and the brand new way is I'm going to suck all the energy out of the major platforms and just starve them and just make my show the only thing that's interesting on TV because it would be. Nothing else would look interesting if you did that. He would immediately make everything else boring. He has that power.

Now what if he doesn't do that? Suppose he decides to be the Trump of the last several years and he says I'm just going to go out there and do my thing and I'll do my rallies, I'll post things on Truth Social, I'll accept interviews when they're offered and I'll just do it the straight way. Can he win? I don't think so. Because you don't realize the extent to which opinions are assigned to the public. It's easy for you to say you know I'm never going to change my mind because the media changed my mind. I'm not going to change my mind because somebody else had a different opinion. But that's not how it works. Your minds are changed every day by the media. If the most influential people on the right decide not to back Trump they have enough influence to take 25 percent of his support away which makes him not viable. So it doesn't matter what his base thinks. It matters what the people who influence the base think. And I think they've abandoned him. I think they've abandoned him.

So I mean I have, yeah like I said he could win me back like I can imagine that but at the moment he's not offering me something I can support. So I don't think that without the most influential voices, and it's not always the people with the biggest audience, right? There are some people who are just influential. Cernovich would be, again my universal analogy like every example there's like a sort of a jungle to it. I don't know why there's like everything has that Musk angle or a sort of a jungle but Cernovich is not pro-Trump at the moment and how much impact does he have? A lot. A lot. You might not notice it. You might not know how he does it. You might not track his influence through other people but a lot. Now by himself does that make a difference? Maybe not. But there are enough other people who are let's say good influencers who are pulling out.

Cernovich eventually referred to himself as a humble mom blogger which is one of the funniest things I've seen. He's a mom blogger now. You know he's a stay-at-home dad I guess. I'm not sure if that's the right term but he's with his kids during the day most of the time. And okay I've always loved, how much do you love the fact that he had three daughters? That's just the simulation talking to him isn't it? What are the odds of having three daughters? 12 percent by doing the math, right? I thought he had three. Wait he has two daughters and a son. Oh he's the newest one the son. Oh I did not even know that. Okay well there you go. Two daughters and a son. Kind of perfect.

Oh good. You know I love following even though he's a mom blogger as he calls himself, his mom blogging is actually good blogging like or good posting. You know I follow him on Instagram and Twitter. I like the personal stuff as much as I like his political stuff.

All right somebody says he's a good writer. That's true. He's a good persuasive writer.

All right what else is going on here? Let's see. How many of you have seen the Netflix series Ancient Apocalypse? Yeah, Netflix series Ancient Apocalypse. I recommend it. So here's my strong recommendation for a super entertaining series. That's the first, this is the first series I've binge-watched. I'm actually carrying my iPad with me from room to room because I couldn't stop watching it.

Now here the basic idea of the show is that there are a number of ancient ruins that suggest that everybody learned from some kind of smart prior civilization that was destroyed after the Ice Age. So let me say it better. Graham Hancock I guess is the journalist who is delving into let's say the archaeological domain and he's getting a lot of pushback because he's not an archaeologist. But he put on a good show in terms of the production quality of the show. It's really, really good. He takes you into all these ruins that are not, are way better than ruins because you're learning stuff that wasn't obvious to you. But the idea is that there must have been something like an Atlantis and that there were building techniques and how to be farmers that was known to some advanced civilization and then the Ice Age and some major apocalypse happened and that wiped out most of the smart people. But some of them must have survived and were like missionaries that went to other civilizations and taught them the secrets of building monoliths and moving big rocks and how to do farming instead of hunting and gathering.

Now those of you who watched it, did you find his thesis persuasive? Just the people who watched it. Did you find his and were you persuaded? All right saying well wall of yeses. See mostly yeses but some no's. Some no's. Okay.

Here's what you need to know about documentaries. Number one, documentary is the lowest level of credibility of all media. Did you know that? If you had to pick one thing to not believe it should be a documentary. Documentaries are not designed to give you both sides. They are designed to mislead you into thinking that the thesis is the only thing that matters. Do you think they show the other side? Half of the content of this series was the journalist talking about how he keeps being criticized by traditional archaeologists and that they're closed-minded and they refuse to accept other alternatives. You know what you didn't see? What you didn't see is his critics in their own words telling you what they disagree with. Did you notice? Did you notice there was only one side of the story?

If you were convinced that's true because you watched that documentary, you're missing one of the most important things to know about how the world works. The documentary is the lowest of all forms of credibility. There's nothing lower than that. It's the number one least reliable information that is produced by humanity.

Now you might say to yourself Scott, Scott, Scott, fake news is worse than that. No it isn't. It's not even close. Fake news has a competing news business so if you want you can look at the fake news and you can see the other argument. You can make your own decision and the other argument isn't hidden that much even within our bubbles. You know you can just turn on Fox News or CNN and see the other side, right? But if you watch a documentary are you going to go do your own research? Probably not. Probably not.

Now if you don't believe me that a documentary is the least credible type of content, how many of the 2000 Mules have you seen lately? 2000 Mules. Not one of them came forward. Not one of them caught on film. It was a very, very convincing documentary wasn't it? Is an example not an analogy. Examples are good. Analogies are bad. So if I give you several examples of where a documentary was convincing but doesn't seem to have been proven.

All right now let's say that you're not convinced by that one. You think that 2000 Mules maybe it's still to come out and it might be. Could be. Now I'm not saying that all documentaries are incorrect. I'm not saying that surely some documentaries are totally correct. I'm saying that you can't tell the difference. So if you can't tell the difference it's the lowest level of credibility at the highest level of persuasion because they've got you for like an hour. If I can persuade you on anything and make you pay attention for an hour I will convince you. Getting you to pay attention for an hour is the hard part. If I can get that then the convincing is the easy part.

So I would say there were many signals of low credibility in the presentation. Many, many signals of low credibility. And mostly the dog not barking situation. You know the thing that you expect to hear you're like okay you brushed over that pretty quickly. You know that sort of thing. So I found it completely non-credible and I agree with them. And both. And that's not inconsistent. I believe his argument was just filled with things that I'm like I don't know about that. That's a little sketchy. But his main point was this. That there may have been higher technology back during the Ice Age and that we lost the trail. Like we don't understand why people were built. There's at least one site in his films in the series I guess there's at least one site where everybody seems to agree that they had the building techniques somewhere closer to the Ice Age like 9,000 years ago or something or 12,000 years ago. And that we don't know why they knew it tha