e'll get on it.

So I guess something happened recently with the Soros organization, the 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 basically said that the Soros organization wasn't going anywhere. The most important thing that I didn't write down. All right. Seriously. Oh yeah. His exact words. Alex Soros, they 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 this 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? That would be great." 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 Soroses appear to be determined to destroy Western civilization? A lot of you right now, I'm not saying that that's the true vision of the world. I'm saying that I often talk about two movies on one screen. We're still playing on one screen, but when a lot of people on the Trump-supporting side look at it, it does look that way, like the 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 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 maybe gaining power, maybe accomplishing some social goods. It might be a variety of things they think about, but they're not thinking, well I'll eat this egg 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 a part of it. I saw Elon say about Grokipedia. 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 Grokipedia. So that's Elon Musk's version of Wikipedia. It's still under work. 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 Grokipedia 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, you would come away from it thinking that Wikipedia was wrong and Grokipedia 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 the Gell-Mann amnesia.

Now Gell-Mann is a hyphenated last name of a physicist. G-E-L-L-M-A-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 were 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, 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 Gutfeld 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 Gell-Mann amnesia effect. It was like, wait a minute. What are the odds that the only stories that are fake are John Belushi 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 show, Gutfeld, 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 Grokipedia stuff is simply that more people understand what Gell-Mann 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 that's just 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. Somebody's saying that Dr. Drew has mentioned Gell-Mann. 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 Gell-Mann 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, etc. 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.

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 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 as the truth. The other half of the country trained to identify 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 that 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 that 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 know what that meant because again, "too 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 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 Grokipedia becomes sort of the standard, and I think it will become the standard for checking things, then Elon will 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 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 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 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, it becomes your go-to. So 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 win 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, 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 JP Morgan Chase. They are 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, hm, 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 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'd 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 flowing through JP 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 it 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 the 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?

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. Blackmail, everybody knows how to blackmail. Blackmail is the simplest thing you could ever do. Just threaten that if he doesn't do everything you want, you'll release the tapes. That's it."

To which I say, 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 him? 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.

Yeah, 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 or I look at the screen like 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 of advice for you. Run. Run.

According to the New York Post, there's a new report that warns that the Muslim Brotherhood has infi