Episode 1342 Scott Adams - The War on Imaginary People, Microchips in Your Body, More Police Problems
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: ----------- - Photoacoustic imaging - Microchip that senses COVID in your body - Version 1: Daunte Wright shooting - Afghanistan meth production - All major news stories make somebody rich - Staying safe during traffic stops ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
What took me so long? My goodness, my natural sense of timing is off by a full minute, and I don't think that's acceptable. So I apologize for keeping you waiting. It won't ever happen again. And if you'd like t
View segment →o enjoy this to the maximum potential — and why wouldn't you, really? — all you need is a copper mug or glass, a tankard, a 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 everythin…
View segment →offee is making you healthier, let me talk about the other things that will make you healthier. Would you like to hear some good news? Why not? Because good news makes the day better. So here's some good news. While we were sleeping, people who are smart were working hard to make health care better…
View segment →mean, that doesn't even feel like that could even be real, but if it is, how cool. So you've got your blood pressure, your blood sugar. I think they already have mobile blood drawing service someplace, but you'll see more of it. So imagine you could just use your app and dial up a mobile blood-taki…
View segment →rned into a zombie slave, but we are going to be there. I mean, you will be. You are part machine already, and it hasn't killed you so far. So we have to watch out for this, of course, because there's a dark way it could go, and it could easily go the dark way. But not necessarily. I would, if I had…
View segment →s. They think they're using the facts, and they'll tell you they're using the facts. But there's a real difference between a fact-based jury, where they're really going to just follow the law, they're really going to make sure the facts are the facts, and they're only going to stick to that — 10 to…
View segment →ovies on the same screen. We think we're looking at the same thing, but we're interpreting it as completely different movies. And you see it in all kinds of contexts. But one of the ways you know if your movie is the right one — and I hesitate to even say right. Let me adjust that. Not the right one…
View segment →know the details of this situation, and so it's like we're just guessing at this point. But how perfect is this that it happened in Minnesota, right? And it happened during the George Floyd trial. It's a little too perfect. Now does this sort of thing happen so often that of course it was going to…
View segment →about all the stories about China ramping up in the South China Sea and Iran building nukes and everything? Well, the entire military-industrial complex makes money from that. What about climate change? Well, you've got all the green businesses would make money on that. Now here's something you nee…
View segment →ed. Now of course you'd also have to comply, right? But here's what makes this a vaccination. And you're going to say to yourself, I think, "Well, Scott, look at that stop that just happened where the guy got fired for the policeman got fired for using the pepper spray. A perfect example of a perso…
View segment →ent data or something. But mostly, 95 percent of the time at least, when people think they're disagreeing with me, they're disagreeing with some imaginary person that they think is me. And that imaginary person either doesn't know the real information or is trying to get one over or trying to make m…
View segment →in front of your eyes. It's kind of fun to watch. And you watch him just adding layers to his stack. And as he added layers right in front of you, you watched his career develop while we all watched. And then he got all the way to the Rush Limbaugh qualification and he just did everything right. An…
View segment →What took me so long? My goodness, my natural sense of timing is off by a full minute, and I don't think that's acceptable. So I apologize for keeping you waiting. It won't ever happen again.
And if you'd like to enjoy this to the maximum potential — and why wouldn't you, really? — all you need is a copper mug or glass, a tankard, a 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. It's called the simultaneous sip. It happens now. Go.
While that coffee is making you healthier, let me talk about the other things that will make you healthier. Would you like to hear some good news? Why not? Because good news makes the day better.
So here's some good news. While we were sleeping, people who are smart were working hard to make health care better and cheaper. There's a new device called photoacoustic imaging. It's still in the laboratory. They're developing it, but apparently the technology works. And what it is is a really cheap, non-invasive way to get an image like an X-ray, like an MRI, except that you could build it so it's sort of a portable, almost use-it-at-home kind of device.
Apparently you can tune it to see all kinds of different things. You can tune it to see your veins and arteries. You can tune it to see your bones. And apparently it's just kind of amazing, and it's probably not too far away — a few years away.
So imagine this world. Here are the things that are sort of coming together in different ways to make health care cheaper. One is this device. Let's say if you could just go to a central place and rent it from the library and say, "Hey, I want to borrow this imaging device. Ten bucks." Look at your thing, send it to your doctor, who is a telehealth doctor. Might be a doctor in some other part of the world. So you've got your doctor on your phone. That's cheap.
You've got your portable imaging. That's cheap. You've got your phone apps that are monitoring your heart. I saw a device that seemed to indicate it could check your blood sugar without sticking you. Is that real? I don't think it's integrated necessarily with your phone yet, but it's a handheld device that you just put on you and it can tell your blood sugar. I mean, that doesn't even feel like that could even be real, but if it is, how cool.
So you've got your blood pressure, your blood sugar. I think they already have mobile blood drawing service someplace, but you'll see more of it. So imagine you could just use your app and dial up a mobile blood-taking person who just shows up and takes your blood, gives it to the lab, and next you know you've got all kinds of information.
Then imagine also you have mobile nurses, because there's a whole bunch of stuff you don't need a proper doctor for. Sometimes you do. You need a bandage. You need something checked that just requires a physical manipulation. So maybe you just dial up a mobile nurse just like you'd get an Uber.
And then if there's more drug competition, we could maybe get drugs down. That's a tougher one. But all of these things put together — they're all happening sort of in their own domain, but you can sort of see them starting to come together in what I would call the poor person's health care. A health care that would be so inexpensive you wouldn't even necessarily need insurance for the basic stuff. You still need insurance for the catastrophic stuff. Anyway, there's good news there.
Here's the scary news of the day. Pentagon scientists invent a microchip which can be inserted in your body. No problems yet, right? It senses COVID-19 in the body. And when I tweeted about this story, you would not be surprised that a lot of people said, "You're not turning me into any cyborg." I told you this was coming. I could see this a mile away. The government wants to put a chip in you. Pretty soon they'll be reading your thoughts, maybe controlling your body directly through the microchip. Privacy gone. So pretty bad, right?
Because the last thing you'd want is for the government to turn you into a cyborg where you're part machine, part human. You certainly wouldn't want a microchip running your body and your life, would you? Yeah, I certainly wouldn't want to be connected to any kind of microchip-like device in a way that it would be very, very hard to disconnect me from it. Because what if that device could have the power, hypothetically — and this is a strange, dangerous future. I barely want to talk about it, it's so scary — but what if the microchip and the device that was now part of your body permanently for all practical purposes, what if it could control your thoughts? What if it could erase your privacy because it can listen to you, it can know where you are, it can know what you're buying, what you're doing, what you're interested in. It can know what you're afraid of. It can know what you say. It can know how you speak.
Boy, you wouldn't want any kind of a device like that anywhere near you, would you? Yeah, that would be a scary future. So I think we could all agree we'd like to stay away from any kind of a future that would pair a microchip with your body.
If you're listening to this on audio only, you missed a hilarious component in which I had my smartphone held up to my face the entire time. And now if you audio-only people put it all together — put it all together, okay? I'll wait. Yes. The point is you're already a cyborg. That's not your future. That already happened.
So you can decide if it's good or bad, but it already happened. So do you like being controlled by private industry? Because that's the current situation. Is the government going to be worse? You know, whose chip will win? Will the government's chip hypothetically win, or will Elon Musk's Neuralink win, or will it be your phone? Will Apple win?
You're going to have a lot of microchips in your body. Some of them will be sort of adjacent to your body but working with you, such as your phone. Some of them will actually be embedded in your bones and your skin, maybe like this Pentagon one, maybe like Elon Musk's Neuralink in the future.
But here's what I say about all of this. I'm not really afraid of it. I guess I should be, right? Because everybody else is afraid of it. Why am I not afraid of it? I don't know the answer to that question, but none of it sounds scary to me. To me it just seems like a continuation of the obvious. There's nothing we can do about it. We will use products that make us happier, and we will give up privacy to do it, and we will give up control, and we will give up free will because it wasn't real anyway. So we're going to be there.
It doesn't mean that you're going to be turned into a zombie slave, but we are going to be there. I mean, you will be. You are part machine already, and it hasn't killed you so far. So we have to watch out for this, of course, because there's a dark way it could go, and it could easily go the dark way. But not necessarily. I would, if I had to predict, far more likely the technology integrated in our body will be positive, just like up till now.
Now, are you a cyborg if you're part chemically altered? You're a cyborg if part of your body is a microchip or any mechanical device, by definition. But what if you were born as a regular human but now you're a human plus whatever vaccinations and chemical alterations have been added to you? Aren't you always that new modified thing after a vaccination? I feel like we're already chemical cyborgs too. So just being a chemical cyborg in the future doesn't mean that it will be worse, because we're already chemical cyborgs now.
I'm not going to tell you that I know. Whenever I talk about a topic and I don't act critical enough, somebody's going to say, "Why are you supporting putting chips in people?" Nothing like that happened. If you imagined I just supported putting a chip in a person, that didn't happen. I simply didn't criticize it. I'm simply talking about it. I don't know if this will be bad. It easily could be. It would be pretty easy to imagine it becoming bad, right? But that would be true of everything. Almost everything that we enjoy today, you could have easily imagined it would turn bad, right?
What about China boiling the frog? What is not a slippery slope? Isn't that the issue? See, my problem with this slippery slope is that there's nothing that's not a slippery slope. And if everything is a slippery slope, it just becomes sort of meaningless.
All right, well, we don't want the dictators to control us with microchips, but I'm less worried about that than you are. Maybe irrationally. I don't know.
The Floyd trial is going to enter a new phase, I guess, maybe today or tomorrow. The defense will be presenting its case. Now, did you know that the defense hasn't really done its full case yet? So if you were to look at what you believe about the Floyd and Chauvin situation today, it's based on mostly seeing the prosecutor's best evidence. We think it's the best. What happens when the defense really digs in? Probably in the next 48 hours, if you're following it, you're going to say to yourself, "Whoa, there were some surprises. I really thought that prosecution had a good case, but now that I've listened to the defense, it changes everything."
Now, there's nothing more humbling than thinking you understand the law and then listening to an actual lawyer set you straight. So yesterday I was listening to Alan Dershowitz's podcast about the trial, and I was also listening to Viva Frei and Robert Barnes. And by the way, you should follow them on Locals and on YouTube for anything legal, especially. They do some of the best easy descriptions of what's going on with new stuff you didn't understand before.
But here's one of the things that both of them told me yesterday that I hadn't heard in the news. So here's something that mainstream news, as far as I know, is not even reporting, but it seems like an important fact. It goes like this: that if the moment of death of George Floyd is sort of indicated by the prosecution — and it has been, that there's testimony that you can tell the moment of his death — the problem with that, according to legal experts, and I didn't see this one at all, this was invisible to me, is that you can't be guilty of killing somebody after they're dead.
Now that makes sense, right? You can't murder a dead person. But here's where it gets technical in the Floyd-Chauvin case, because there's some of the evidence, a good deal of it, that makes Chauvin look the worst happened after the prosecution has told the jury that he was already dead.
Now you say to yourself, "Yeah, but that would tell you a lot if the way he's acting after Floyd is dead, if he didn't know he was dead." Your common sense says, "Well, it doesn't matter if he knew he was dead. You're still learning a lot about who he is and what his intentions were by what he's doing, because he didn't know, right?" But apparently the law sees it differently. The law says that whatever brutality he did or did not inflict after somebody's dead, it can't be against the law. At least it's not murder. It might be some other law.
And so all of the video evidence, the video evidence that happened after that presumed moment of death, which might be like three minutes — it could be a pretty big amount of the nine minutes that Floyd was on the ground controlled — and it turns out that that last three minutes might be some of the worst part of it. So that legally it could be tossed out. But does that matter? That's a technical thing I didn't know, and I was kind of surprised actually, kind of surprised to find out that that would be meaningful in this case.
However, both Robert Barnes and Alan Dershowitz make the following point, and I think Barnes did it the best. He said that in his experience — and probably research too, I don't know — that only 10 to 20 percent of juries look at the facts to make their decisions. Now of course they all look at the facts. They think they're using the facts, and they'll tell you they're using the facts. But there's a real difference between a fact-based jury, where they're really going to just follow the law, they're really going to make sure the facts are the facts, and they're only going to stick to that — 10 to 20 percent.
How are the rest of the trials decided if not on the facts? How they feel, right? So it doesn't matter if you think that the defense has destroyed the factual part of the case. There's only a 10 to 20 percent chance it will make any difference. How scary is that? 10 to 20 percent chance that the facts of the case will determine the outcome. That's based on two experienced people in this case, Dershowitz and Barnes. I didn't know it was that bad. I certainly knew that people are making decisions based on emotion, not facts, but I didn't think it was that bad in the context of a trial where somebody's life is at stake. That's scary.
And Alan Dershowitz had said a few weeks ago that there is no way that Chauvin could get a fair trial where they're holding it. So no matter what happens, isn't it an immediate appeal? I mean, it feels like the appeal is just guaranteed. So you're going to have some kind of result, but if that result is a prosecution or a guilty on any of those counts, I feel like it's going to be appealed.
Now I was also thinking, somewhat incorrectly, that the odds of a hung jury were high. Now a hung jury, which would result in a mistrial, means that at least one person just won't go with the rest of them, because whether it's an acquittal or a guilty, you've got to have all 12 people on the same side. And I thought to myself, how in the world do you get 12 people to agree on anything really in this world, but especially this, because it so puts you into your team corner? How could you ever get any 12 people to agree? And it doesn't even matter what evidence they see, right, because we already know that that's not going to matter.
But when I was listening to Robert Barnes talking about it — or was it Dershowitz? But I think they would agree on this point — that if you've got, let's say, one holdout, that they don't just send you home. The judge says go back, and then you deliberate for hours and hours and hours, and you come back and you say we can't get there, we still have a holdout, and the judge says go back. So basically the judge will create a situation in which the other jurors can put pressure on the lone holdout such that usually they'll break.
Now sometimes — and this is scary too — that lone holdout will negotiate. Oh, I hate this, but apparently it's a thing. The lone holdout will say, "Look, I can't go along with your larger charges. You want to get them for, let's say, just hypothetically, 11 people wanted second-degree murder. The holdout says I can't give you second-degree murder. I also don't think it's manslaughter, but I'll give you manslaughter if the rest of you will come down. I'll meet you halfway." What a messed-up system that is. But apparently that can happen, right? And it wouldn't even be illegal. It would just be what the jurors decided was the best fairness they could produce, right?
So the system is a hot mess, and it's amazing that we respected it at all. But it seems to work because, yeah, society marches forward. So let's keep an eye on that. I think everything we know about that trial will change. In my opinion, the facts strongly suggest acquittal. But as anybody who understands persuasion knows, the facts won't necessarily have much to do with anything.
All right. Remember, I tell you often — too often maybe — that we're all watching different movies on the same screen. We think we're looking at the same thing, but we're interpreting it as completely different movies. And you see it in all kinds of contexts. But one of the ways you know if your movie is the right one — and I hesitate to even say right. Let me adjust that. Not the right one. Some movies predict better. That doesn't mean you're right. It just means you predict better for some reason.
And every now and then I like to say, okay, how did your movie do? Did it predict? So there are two movies on this question of the gigantic problem in this country with white supremacy. One movie says it's a giant problem. White supremacists under every bed, and they're more active than ever. And maybe something about Trump stirred them up, and now it's the biggest problem in the country. So that's one movie.
The other movie is I don't think that's true. I don't know where they are. Because could you imagine — just imagine all the things I've been accused of. Imagine all the things that people have said about me. Imagine all the people I've had contact with during this political thing. Many of them would be considered the most scurrilous of the deplorables, right? Imagine all the people I've had detailed conversations with. I don't know where these white supremacists are.
Definitely racism exists everywhere. It's just pervasive everywhere. And I definitely agree that there's structural, systemic racism. You can see it. I mean, the way it's defined as some sort of a semi-permanent disadvantage for one group. Yeah, you can see that. That's subjective. But when you say there's a whole bunch of white supremacists, I haven't met one. Now I can't say they don't exist. I'm just telling you that in my movie, I don't know where the hell they are.
So when I heard — or really after the fact I heard, but I would have predicted — that there was this White Lives Matter event that was being organized for nationwide, various places around the country, in which the white supremacists were going to show up and protest for White Lives Matter. If you would ask me how do you think that's going to go, I would have said I don't know if anybody is going to show up, because in my movie those people don't exist.
Now people who would want to just sort of push back on Black Lives Matter with White Lives Matter, they exist, right? But they're just more people in the political realm who want to push their points, etc. No more or less racist than the average person, in my opinion. But what happened? Basically nobody showed up. A handful of people.
Now that matches my movie. Doesn't mean mine's right. This is very important. One bit of evidence doesn't mean you got the right movie, but it's compatible with my movie. So if it's not compatible with your movie, how do you explain it? What's your explanation about why all these people didn't show up? I don't know. Maybe they didn't want to get caught. But if these people are afraid to even be in public, I don't know that it's the biggest problem in the world. Doesn't feel like a big old trend that's going to sweep the country if all you can get is a handful of people in the whole freaking country.
Other examples of this would be my movie is that whenever there's an anonymous source, that's my movie. So every time I see an anonymous source, I say in public, "Nope, you're never going to see any evidence to support that anonymous source." How often am I right? Well, every time that I can think of. I mean, I'm sure I've been wrong, but it feels like just about every time. They were afraid of being attacked by Antifa. Yeah, were they? Do you think these armies of white supremacists which we're told exist, you think that they were afraid of these 90-pound Antifa folks? Maybe. Maybe you can't rule it out, but it doesn't seem right now in our big old simulation here.
Have I told you that there's something weird about how problems come in immediately behind the last problem, or things look a little too much like other things? There's just something about our reality, especially lately. And I am aware that this is a perceptual thing, right? But does it not look like the coincidence of stories just doesn't look coincidental anymore? It just feels like you knew this was going to happen.
What am I talking about? Well, first of all, we had the story of the Windsor police officer in which one pepper-sprayed the service member who was afraid to get out of his car. He didn't want to reach down to take his seatbelt off because he thought he'd get shot. He was afraid of the police. And I said when I saw the video that, well, somebody's got to get fired. I mean, one of those police officers needs to be fired like immediately. And he was.
So in my movie, I saw somebody acting badly. I said, well, that person should get fired, and they were. But here's what's wrong with the story. It's not quite perfect, because the guy who got fired is Joe Gutierrez. It's not the whitest name, is it? Joe Gutierrez. So the guy who got pepper-sprayed was part Black, part Hispanic, but he got pepper-sprayed by the Hispanic guy. So just when you thought you were going to get this perfect little George Floyd companion story, just coincidentally, just sort of perfectly matching the headline, but it didn't. Yeah, darn it. The guy who acted the worst was named Gutierrez. So it kind of ruins that narrative.
Oh, but don't worry. Don't worry. It was backfilled immediately, because that's what the simulation does. And tragically there is yet another shooting of yet another young Black man. And nothing I say about this should be construed as a joke, okay? Can we agree on that? Nothing I say, even if you feel like it was, it's not. That's not my intention. Tragedy is a tragedy.
But honest to God, when I saw this story that somebody named — is it Duante or Dante? D-A-U-N-T-E, right? When I saw that a man with that name had been shot by police, I thought this was an old story. Because I swear to God there's something about his name that makes it exactly like the name of somebody who should be in this story. Am I wrong? Doesn't this feel a little too on the nose, just his name? It feels — oh, I'm being helped here in the comments. Duante, Dante. Doesn't Dante sound exactly like somebody you heard of in the news who was shot by police in a sketchy situation? It just feels like a made-for-the-news name, which is weird.
Again, that's probably just psychological priming on my part, but I swear to God when I saw the news I thought they were talking about something that happened some years ago. But unfortunately it's new.
And what's the first thing we heard about it? The first thing we heard is that the police shot him, or they stopped him because he had some kind of issue with his air freshener, and then he got killed for having an air freshener. So that's the first version of the story. Does that sound like it's real? No. The first version of the story in this kind of situation, whatever it is, the first version is never real, right? It doesn't matter if it's exculpatory or damning to the police. The first version is never real.
Now we're learning that maybe he had a warrant for his arrest. We're hearing that he tried to get back in the car when he wasn't supposed to. What if you're a police officer and you have somebody that you think is resisting arrest? We don't have that in evidence, right? So I'm speaking hypothetically. We don't know anything about this case really. But it's reported that the person who allegedly was resisting arrest turned to get back into his car when he wasn't supposed to.
Now if you're a police officer and you think somebody's dangerous — let's say there's a warrant for the arrest, who knows if a weapon was involved and whatever the warrant was from, who knows if even that the warrant part is real — but if somebody turns their back to a police officer in the context of resisting arrest and their back is turned and they're leaning into their car, we just heard of somebody getting shot for doing exactly that, right? And the person who did exactly that was reaching for a knife. We heard. Who knows if that's true. But if somebody's resisting arrest and they turn to get something and you can't see their hands, you're creating a very dangerous situation.
Do I think he should have been shot? Probably not. Probably not. My first reaction is the police should have done something different or better. But we certainly don't know the details of this situation, and so it's like we're just guessing at this point. But how perfect is this that it happened in Minnesota, right? And it happened during the George Floyd trial. It's a little too perfect.
Now does this sort of thing happen so often that of course it was going to happen in Minnesota, of course during the Floyd trial, because it happened so often? Yeah, I'm just confused about whether it's the simulation just giving this to us because it wants some riots. I don't know. It's weird.
Here's another scary story. It turns out that Afghanistan is becoming a hotspot for making meth, because there's a plant that grows there wild and plentiful which they've recently learned they can turn into meth. Now the way you make meth in the United States is you might take illegally gotten over-the-counter Sudafed or whatever it is, and you boil it down and you add chemicals and you cook it until you've created meth. But it turns out there's a simple way that uses just household chemicals, and you don't need any kind of special meth lab. And you just take this plant and you can chemically turn it into meth fairly easily.
And apparently there's reports that maybe Iran or China was helpful in teaching the locals how to do this. Thank you, China. Thank you, Iran. I don't know if that's true, but who knows. But now there's going to be an enormous meth wave that will hit this country, and it's coming. I don't see anything that would stop it, because apparently the plant just grows wild. So you couldn't even bomb the farms where it grows because it's just growing in the mountains everywhere. So this is bad. We'll see what happens there.
Have you noticed that most of our major news stories have a weird element to them, which is that it makes somebody rich? Start looking for this pattern and see how often you see it. For example, in the news would be the George Floyd situation. Who does that make money for, especially if it goes in the direction of a riot, which seems guaranteed at this point? Who is that good for? The news business. The news industry will make way more money if there's a riot. And does their news coverage seem exactly designed to create exactly the situation that would be profitable for the news? Yes.
Now could that be a coincidence? Well, it could be. How about the virus? Is there anybody who will get rich off the news that there are new variants of the virus and you might have to take vaccinations forever, and you know it's not the beginning or the end of the vaccinations, your vaccinations just forever? Does anybody make any money from that? Yeah, pharma, right? So there's somebody making billions on the virus. That's a big story.
What about all the stories about China ramping up in the South China Sea and Iran building nukes and everything? Well, the entire military-industrial complex makes money from that. What about climate change? Well, you've got all the green businesses would make money on that.
Now here's something you need to know about the news business. As the profits for the news business shrink, they go from being investigative units because they can afford it — they've got a lot of money, they can send out long-term investigative units and stuff — as their profits shrink, they have fewer and fewer investigative stories. Those are expensive. And more and more, let's just say, writing down what somebody told you. Sort of a scribe for somebody else.
And in this kind of a world where profits are low and the writers need to produce a story to get paid, they will take a story from anywhere. In other words, if the PR people for any one of these industries comes up with a little package story, they can bring it to a member of the press who is lazy like all people — right, not especially lazy, but they're lazy like all people. If somebody hands them a story — look, here's your source, here's the angle, here's what turns it into something interesting, here you go, and here are six people who we already know will talk to you about the story — that story gets published, right? Because it's easy. It's just packaged up for you.
And once you realize that what makes it into the news is what has been packaged by industry people and presented to the news, then you understand there are no coincidences. Of course our major news stories coincidentally will make somebody rich. Where do you think the story came from? Same people. It's the people who get rich. They're the ones who create the news, they package it, and they hand it to a reporter. And the reporter says, well, I could work really hard or I could do this one. That's your system.
Now I'm not going to say that every one of these things is because of money, but when you see the pattern that there's always somebody making money and that's how the news business works — it takes packaged stories and turns them into what you think are their stories — you gotta wonder.
So there's the weirdest war happening in the Middle East right now between Iran and Israel. And I would say that they're at war, but it's a weird little war. And I'll call it the "not me" war. And it goes like this. Iran will fire a missile or their proxies will fire a missile, and some Israeli asset or American asset will be destroyed. And we'll say, "Iran, damn you for funding them or making that happen." And Iran will say, "What? Not me. What are you talking about? That wasn't me. Not me."
And then today we hear a story that at the Natanz, I guess it's the Iranian nuclear facility, the biggest one, that something blew up that turned off the power to the entire facility. That could set them back nine months. Or Natanz, as I pronounce it. And when anybody asked Israel, "Hey Israel, were you behind this? Were you behind blowing up this power plant?" Israel says, "What? Not me. Not me."
So it's like the "not me" war, where they're just — it's an active hot war, but they just both say it's not happening. "Mommy, something blew up." "Oh, so sad." I saw a tweet by Tom Cotton, you know, just saying it was so sad that something blew up in Iran there. And I think everybody's just winking at it, and Iran knows it was an operation. So but it's weird that we just pretend it's not happening.
So I would like to offer you a vaccination to keep you healthy at traffic stops. Now it's very offensive, isn't it? I think we'd all agree it's offensive to be talking about how you could keep yourself safe at a traffic stop the same day that a young Black man was killed by police at a traffic stop. Probably shouldn't pair these together because it accidentally makes you think that I'm saying, well, it's his fault. The person who stopped — I'm not saying that. We don't know the details of that situation, so I'm not going to suggest that if the person who had stopped had acted differently it would be a different outcome. So we won't be talking about those specifics.
I'm going to give you a sentence which in my belief is that this sentence would vaccinate you from death if you got stopped. It's the first thing you say to the police officers when they approach you in the car. Now I know what you're going to say. You know, "Hey, whitey, you don't know what it's really like on the streets and it's really racism and all that." But I would propose the following experiment, which will never happen. I believe that nobody who uses this sentence will ever be killed by the police. All right, so that's my challenge. Nobody who uses this sentence in the way that I'm going to explain will ever be killed by the police. Nobody's ever going to use it except you know maybe three of you someday, but nobody will ever be killed by the police after this vaccinating sentence which you would say to the police officer first upon being stopped.
Are you ready? This is the sentence. "Officer, how can I keep you safe today and me too," while showing your hands. So your hands have to be visible. You say, "Officer, how can I keep you safe today and me too." If that person gets killed, I'll be amazed.
Now of course you'd also have to comply, right? But here's what makes this a vaccination. And you're going to say to yourself, I think, "Well, Scott, look at that stop that just happened where the guy got fired for the policeman got fired for using the pepper spray. A perfect example of a person fully complying. His hands were out the window and he was saying that he didn't want to reach down for his seatbelt because he didn't want his hands to be concealed and get shot. So wasn't he complying, Scott? Obviously that doesn't work." No, he was not complying. He was very much not complying. That was the problem. He was complying the way he wanted to comply. He didn't comply the way the police wanted him to comply. That's different, right?
So I'm suggesting that if you say this first sentence — "Officer," calling him officer suggests that you have respect for the situation, right? So the very first word is "Officer," or you know, "Good afternoon, officer," if you wanted to spice it up. And then you say a question, not a statement. A question always goes down better than a statement. You could ask a police officer a question. That's not going to make them mad, right, if it's a good question, right? You're not just being a jerk. But asking a question does not escalate. And asking this question, "How can I keep you safe," is a pretty good question to ask somebody to reframe their opinion of what's going on. And then you say "and me too," so you're making it perfectly clear you're not being manipulative. You're trying to stay alive, but you'd also like the officer to stay alive. All right, it's a win-win.
Then what about the situation where you're being asked to reach for something and you don't want to reach for it? How would you handle that? Here's how I would have handled it. I always said, you know, that when they say take off your seatbelt and get out of the car, I say, "Officer, from your angle I'm concerned you can't see my hands. So if you wouldn't mind, could you take a better viewing angle so that you can see both of my hands when I take off my seatbelt?" What's the police officer going to do? Say no? You're just offering him a better view. Of course you say yes. So I say, "Okay, if you stand over there," taking off the seatbelt, getting out of the car.
Now am I saying that it is the fault of the person who gets stopped? No, don't misinterpret. I'm not saying it's the fault of the person who gets stopped, because the police officers are more experienced. It's sort of more on them to make sure that the situation is handled right. So I feel like the police have something to answer for here in all these situations. But in my opinion those two things — asking the police officer to observe your hands and asking how you can keep him safe or her safe — would guarantee that you're safe. Guarantee. 100%. Not one person will ever be killed if they do this.
CNN is reporting that Trump turned down Matt Gaetz for a meeting. Matt Gaetz is reporting that that's fake news. What do you think? Is that fake news? Who knows? Probably. But Glenn Greenwald has waded into this situation and done a better job than I have. And one of the things he points out is that you can't talk about the system without some idiot saying that you're supporting a sex trafficker.
Now first of all, we've seen no evidence that Matt Gaetz is guilty of anything. You know that, right? Do you know that the public has not even seen a whiff of evidence like a victim, you know, a specific? We've only heard this, you know, rumors stuff. And you know we live in a world where that's not reliable. So as Glenn points out quite bravely, you can't even talk about the system of how he's being treated without it looking like you're in favor of God knows what crimes, which may not have ever happened anyway.
And I just like that he weighed in there because I've been feeling a little bit alone in this. Because whenever I try to defend the system — the system being shouldn't we show evidence before we convict somebody — so the system would be I'd like to see some evidence and I'd like you to treat him fairly and I'd like to know what he has to say and I'd like to know the data before we make a decision. Is that supporting a terrible criminal? No. First of all, we don't know he's done anything wrong. And secondly, you can support the system without supporting the person.
And so when I or I guess Glenn probably too, you are accused of supporting Gaetz, it's actually two levels away from reality. Because first of all, neither of us are supporting him specifically. We're talking about the system. And secondly, there's no evidence of a crime. So it's a thing with no evidence which people like me are being blamed of being in favor of. It's like two levels away from reality. It's just the weirdest situation.
And have you noticed how many of the stories in the news involve people who don't actually exist? Have you noticed that? Let me give you some examples. A lot of this happened just this morning to me. Have you noticed how often someone will say, "Well, you Republicans or Democrats, doesn't matter, you Republicans, you think that you like X but then you don't like Y. How could that be true? How could you say X is good but Y is not good?" And the answer is there's nobody like that. There isn't anybody. That's an imaginary person. The imaginary person is complaining about, you know, Y but not X. Not a real person. A real person is complaining about both of them or not complaining about both of them.
So most of the debate on Twitter is literally imaginary people. I was trying to think today, what is the last time I saw somebody disagree with my opinion while also understanding it? And it's pretty rare. It can happen if you have different priorities or different data or something. But mostly, 95 percent of the time at least, when people think they're disagreeing with me, they're disagreeing with some imaginary person that they think is me. And that imaginary person either doesn't know the real information or is trying to get one over or trying to make money some way. But it's not me. It's an imaginary person.
So most of the news and most of the conversation involves completely imaginary people. How about the Matt Gaetz story? The Matt Gaetz story says that there's a 17-year-old girl. We haven't heard any specifics about that. I don't know if that person exists. How about any story about an anonymous source? Does the anonymous source really exist and really said that? Probably not. How about the big white supremacist rally which nobody showed up, or a handful in the whole country? I guess turns out that's a lot about imaginary people. A lot about imaginary people.
What about all the cops who are killing people just because they're Black? Do they exist? There's certainly this belief that it's happening, but have you seen one where you could say to yourself, "Oh yeah, that's just killing because of being racist"? They always have this other quality, which is there was some actual police reason. Something happened. It's all imaginary people all the way down. Even yeah, somebody's saying Joe Biden's imaginary in a way. In a way.
All right. Let's see what else we got going on here. Got imaginary people, meth in Afghanistan, and that is just about what's happening today. Somebody says, "You clearly didn't watch Tucker. He didn't admit girl you are fake." You know what would have been better? To write a sentence that made sense. Try that. Try that next time you comment.
Let's say hit the trolls. Oh, let me see this comment. This is the nicest thing. So Slob says, "I often listen to you with headsets because your voice is so smooth and clear I sometimes fall asleep." Do you know how much that means to me? Since I literally couldn't speak for three and a half years. And when you hear my new audiobook — I just this last week I finished recording "How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big" — so that you'll have a choice of hearing in my voice. The original was done by a voice artist. But I talk about my voice issues on that, and you might like it.
Somebody says Gaetz admitted the girl existed to Tucker. But if the girl exists, but does a girl exist who is a victim of this crime? So that part does not exist. I assume that Matt Gaetz did not say there's a victim that exists. I assume he said there's a person who's 17 who exists. That's not the story. The story is that there's a victim. So that part's not evidence.
Now I'm not saying that none of these stories will turn out a real person. I'm saying that when you hear the story it's all about imaginary people until a real person appears.
About the island and the volcano. So what I've said about passports is that passports will not survive any competitive environment. In other words, restaurants are going to have a hard time because if you're a foursome and one of you maybe has antibodies because you were infected but you never got the vaccination, you can't eat at the restaurant because you're not vaccinated. It's just not going to work. If somebody can go to the restaurant next door because that restaurant will say, "Hey, I'll just take you. I need some money."
Where passports could be a problem is in a non-competitive situation. And this Saint Vincent's island with the volcano is exactly that. It is a completely non-competitive environment. It's an emergency, and the people who owned the boats got to do whatever they wanted. There weren't the other boats that said, "Oh yeah, just come over here." So in a non-competitive environment, passports are a big problem, right?
But if you're worried about your gym or your restaurants, I just can't get worried about that. I think it'll work its way out. It's only when the government requires it for some government function they have a monopoly, or in this emergency. I think it was just handled wrong. So if you say to yourself the problem was the passports, I can see why you'd say that, or the vaccinations in that case. But keep in mind that those vaccinated people, I don't think had passports, did they? I mean they didn't have vaccination passports. So the very situation that you're using of the boats wouldn't take somebody unless they're vaccinated — there were no passports and the problems still existed. So is it the passport that's the problem, or was it that there were some people who made some decisions that you don't think they should have made?
Now my belief is that — and first of all, it wasn't the boat captains who made the decisions. They were just going to transport them to other islands, and it was the islands who didn't want to take them. So the islands not wanting to take them was the larger problem. It wasn't vaccinated or unvaccinated, right? Because if those islands could have kept them in a quarantine, I don't think they would have had an issue. They just couldn't.
All right. What else? You've got no friend would not help because of passport. See, you gotta use sentences that actually mean something. Idiots are posting their passports online where other people could just copy down their number. That's funny.
Yeah, you know this. There's this weird story about — how do you say the name of the guy who's writing these stories? Somebody say his name in the comments. Ta-Nehisi Coates or something. I don't want to say it wrong. It'll sound like I'm being inconsiderate, but I just don't know his proper name. But anyway, there's a story about somebody using Jordan Peterson as the personality for an evil character. Ta-Nehisi Coates. Okay, I hope I got that right.
Talk about Jake Novak. There's nothing really to talk about there. Everything you know about that is all there is to know. Anyway, I think it was an interesting choice. And does Jordan Peterson try to do anything except make people's lives better? It's the damnedest thing watching the trouble that he attracts, because I'm pretty sure if there's somebody who has no bad intentions it's got to be him, right? Has anybody ever suggested he has any bad intentions anywhere or that people are not benefiting from the things he's saying? It's just the damnedest thing that he would be the subject of attack.
All right. Have you noticed that a lot of our stories are kind of small? Yeah, without Trump we don't have these big stories anymore, or at least the news doesn't treat them like they're big. When will Kamala become president? My prediction is that Joe Biden has to serve at least one year, and I think that would just be out of respect for Biden. Less than a year doesn't feel like you should have run for president, but one year feels like, okay, you did your job, you handed off. It was a clean job. You did a year. I feel like it's got to be a year.
The brain is the battlefield of the future. That is correct. I don't need to watch that to know that's true. Yeah, persuasion is everything now. Do you remember in 2016, 2015, when I was talking about persuasion being the sort of dominant variable in our world? And that felt a little weird, didn't it, when you first heard me talking about how important persuasion is? But now it's kind of everything, isn't it? It's really pretty much what I told you was the clearer way to look at the world, as a persuasion machine. And once you see it, you can't unsee it.
Of walking people to the door of Nazism. Who are they accusing of that? Would you host a red pill or RSD pillow show? I don't know what that means. A lot of your questions I don't understand at all.
Somebody's saying that Kamala needs to — if she goes more than two years she can't run twice. So it'd have to be between one year and two years that she took over. No, she can't be president as a replacement for more than two years, so she'd have to wait two years. That's a reasonable assumption.
Any update on dual Twitter broadcast? I don't think I'm going to broadcast on Twitter per se because it's non-monetized. Let me talk about monetization for a moment. There may be something that's confusing you. Number one, I've told you that I have fuck-you money and I don't have to do this for money. Now that's true, but money influences everything. And so the more my message is monetized in whatever way anybody wants to do it, the more powerful my voice becomes. In other words, the more people who follow me on YouTube, the more influence my way of thinking will have on the world.
So if you want the stuff I say to have more influence on the world, the way to do that is to join Locals where it's a subscription service or to watch it on YouTube where it can be monetized. Right now the Twitter feed doesn't have a monetization model. And so while more people might see it, the monetization is what allows me to pay my assistant so the production quality is better. We can put it on more platforms. So basically there's a certain amount of money that becomes like a vote but also allows me to do a better job and present it more places. And it also keeps me interested because honestly the fact that it's monetized — how many times have I told you that people can quite honestly say they're not doing something for the money but it's just never true?
This is one of the most important concepts of economics. People can literally tell you and be not lying, "No, I'm not doing this because of the money," and they're still sort of doing it for the money, right? There's no such thing as not being influenced by money. And even when I tell you, just to be fully transparent, if I tell you that I don't need the money, it doesn't mean it doesn't influence me. It completely influences me. In fact, if people were not interested enough to go along with monetizing models, I probably wouldn't be here. So yeah, it makes a big difference even though intellectually if you ask me what's the main reason I'm doing it, I wouldn't say that. And I wouldn't be lying. It's just, you know, you always have to be careful. Money's always there.
Actually here's the perfect example. Rush Limbaugh. Because he had so much reach, part of that, his monetization allows his reach to be so big. Yeah, he was more powerful.
Now by the way, I'd like to back up to something I said a long time ago. It's my understanding that Dan Bongino is going to be getting the Rush Limbaugh radio spot. That's true, right? Fact-check me on this. And do you remember that long before that happened I had taken some time on my live stream to point out that Dan Bongino is one of the great examples of a talent stack guy. Somebody who if you looked at any one of his talents you'd say, well, that one talent is not like the best in the world compared to other people who do this work. But man, does he have a lot of them. It's the lot of talents that makes him get the Rush Limbaugh job, right? He doesn't have one talent. He has a whole bunch of them that you can see that he has methodically — you can just watch his career forming right in front of your eyes. It's kind of fun to watch.
And you watch him just adding layers to his stack. And as he added layers right in front of you, you watched his career develop while we all watched. And then he got all the way to the Rush Limbaugh qualification and he just did everything right. And every time you see somebody who simply succeeds by doing everything exactly the way it should be done and then it works, that's always good to see because that's very inspiring for anybody who is saying, "How do I succeed?" Well, do it that way. Figure out what set of talents you need to put together and then methodically just go add them and add them and add them until you've got something special, which he did.
Somebody said but he could not win a congressional seat. Boy, that's the loser way to look at it. How much did he learn running for Congress and losing, right? That's the big part of the system too, is they don't all win. I mean, I don't imagine every job he tried to get he got. But somebody says Bongino is not getting Rush's show, but I'm talking about the radio spot, not the show.
Somebody says it would be lonely to not have grandchildren in my big house. Well, what makes you think I won't? I would expect to see some grandchildren running around in this house eventually.
What's your take on the Variety hit piece on Gutfeld? One of the fascinating things about Greg Gutfeld's new show — so now he's competing at that 11 p.m. slot, at least on the East Coast. It runs at 8 p.m. every night on the West Coast. But what's great about it is that because the conservative-leaning world doesn't have as many options as the Democratic-leaning world, the Gutfeld show immediately went to the top of the ratings. They gotta hate that.
Now one of the things that Greg does better than just about anybody is he understands his audience. You'll rarely see somebody who understands his audience as well as he does. And so it's no surprise that his show is successful because he knows his audience and he's been serving them for a long time. And watching the hit pieces is just funny because you know that what's behind them is not so much, "Hey, let us do a public service because the public would really like to see our criticism of the Greg Gutfeld show." It's they're just hit pieces. They're just jealous people who are not as successful.
So when you see somebody who's sort of in that same entertainment-relative business — you know, they're artists or writers — and they're complaining about somebody who's succeeding at the highest level in that same sort of general domain, it doesn't mean anything. It just means there's some losers who are jealous of his success. That's all it is. I wouldn't take any of it too seriously.
Yes, in the comments somebody said this is going on about nothing, and you are right. And so I'm going to end now. I'll see you tomorrow.
what took me so long my goodness my natural sense of timing is off by a full minute and i don't think that's acceptable so i apologize for keeping you waiting won't ever happen again and and if you'd like to enjoy this to the maximum potential and why wouldn't you really all you need is a copper mug or glass a tanker jealous or steiner canteen jug 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 hit of the day the thing that makes everything better it's called the simultaneous but it happens now go ah well while that coffee is making you healthier let me talk about the other things that will make you healthier would you like to hear some good news why not because good news makes the day better so here's some good news um while we were sleeping people who are smart were working hard to make health care better and cheaper there's a new device called a photo acoustic imaging and it's it's still in the laboratory they're they're developing it but apparently the technology works and what it is is a really cheap non-invasive way to get an image like an x-ray like a like an mri except that you could build it so it's sort of a portable almost use-it-a-home kind of device and apparently you can you can tune it to see all kinds of different things you can tune it to see your veins and arteries you can tune it to see your bones and apparently it's just kind of amazing and it's probably not too far away a few years away so imagine this world so here are the things that are sort of coming together in different ways to make health care cheaper one is this device let's say if you could just go to uh essential place and just rent it and just you know rent it from the library and say hey i want to borrow this imaging device 10 bucks rent it from the library look at your thing send it to your doctor who is a telehealth doctor might be might be a doctor in some other part of the world so you've got your doctor on your phone that's cheap you've got your portable imaging that's cheap um you've got your phone apps that are monitoring your heart i saw a device that seemed to indicate it could check your blood sugar without sticking you is that real i don't think it's integrated necessarily with your phone yet but it's a handheld device that you just put on you and it can tell your blood sugar i mean that doesn't even feel like that could even be real but if it is how cool so you got your blood pressure your blood sugar i think they already have mobile blood drawing service someplace but you'll see more of it so imagine you could just use your app and dial up a mobile blood taking person who just shows up and takes your blood gives it to the lab and next you know you've got all kinds of information then imagine also you have mobile nurses because there's a whole bunch of stuff you don't need a proper doctor for sometimes you do you need a bandage you need you know some something checked that just requires a physical manipulation so maybe you just dial up a mobile nurse just like you'd get an uber and then if there's more drug competition we could maybe get drugs down that's a tougher one but all of these things put together they're all happening sort of in their own domain but you can sort of see them starting to come together in what would be i would call the the poor person's health care a health care that would be so inexpensive you wouldn't even necessarily need insurance for the basic stuff you still need insurance for the catastrophic stuff anyway there's good news there uh here's the scary news of the day pentagon scientists invent a microchip which can be inserted in your body no problems yet right it senses covet 19 in the body and when i tweeted about this story you would not be surprised that a lot of people said you're not turning me into any cyborg i told you this was coming i could see this a mile away the government wants to put a chip in you pretty soon they'll be reading your thoughts maybe controlling your body directly through the microchip privacy gone so pretty bad right because the last thing you'd want is for the government to turn you into a cyborg where you're you're part you know part machine party human you certainly wouldn't want a microchip running your body in your life would you yeah i certainly wouldn't want to be connected to any kind of microchip like device in a way that it would be very very hard to disconnect me from it because what if that device could have the power hypothetically and this is a strange dangerous future i i barely you know want to talk about it it's so scary but what if the microchip and the device that was now part of your body permanently for all practical purposes what if it could control your thoughts what if it could erase your privacy because it can listen to you you can know where you are it can know what you're buying what you're doing what you're interested in you can know what you're afraid of it can know what you say you can know how you speak boy you wouldn't want any kind of a device like that anywhere near you would you yeah that would be a scary future so i think we could all agree we'd like to stay away from any kind of a future that would pair a microchip with your body if you're listening to this on audio only you missed a hilarious component in which i had my smartphone held up to my face the entire time and now if you audio only people put it all together put it all together okay i'll wait yes the point is you're already a cyborg that's not your future that already happened so you know you can decide if it's good or bad but it already happened so do you like being controlled by private industry because that's the current situation is the government going to be worse you know whose chip will will win will the government's chip hypothetically will that win or will uh elon musk's link will that win or will it be your phone will apple win you're going to have a lot of microchips in your body some of them will be sort of adjacent to your body but working with you such as your phone some of them will actually be embedded in your bones and your skin maybe like this pentagon one maybe like elon musk's neurolink in the future but here's what i say about all of this i'm not really afraid of it i guess i should be right because everybody else is afraid of it why am i not afraid of it i don't i don't know the answer to that question but none of it sounds scary to me to me it just seems like a continuation of the obvious there's nothing we can do about it we will use products that make us happier and we will give up privacy to do it and we will give up control and we will give up free will because it wasn't real anyway so we're going to be there it doesn't mean that you're going to be turned into a zombie slave but we are going to be there i mean you will be you are part machine already and hasn't killed you so far so we have to watch out for this of course because there's a there's a dark way it could go and it could easily go the dark way but not necessarily i would if i had to predict far more likely the technology integrated in our body will be positive just like up till now now are you a cyborg if you're part chemically altered your cyborg if part of your body is a microchip or any mechanical device by definition but what if you're what if you were born as a regular human but now you're a human plus whatever vaccinations and chemical alterations have been added to you aren't you always that new modified thing after a vaccination i feel like we're already chemical cyborgs too so just being a chemical cyborg in the future doesn't mean that it will be worse because we're already chemical cyborgs now i'm not going to tell you that i know whenever i talk about a topic and i don't act critical enough somebody's going to say why are you supporting putting chips in people not nothing like that happened if you imagined i just supported putting a chip in a person that didn't happen i simply didn't criticize it i'm simply talking about it i don't know if this will be bad easily could be it would be pretty easy to imagine it becoming bad right but that would be true of everything almost everything that we enjoy today you could have easily imagined it would turn bad right uh what about china boiling the frog well what is it what is not a slippery slope isn't that the the issue see my problem with this slippery slope is that there's nothing that's not a slippery slope and if everything is a slippery slope it just becomes sort of meaningless all right well we don't want the dictators to control us or microchips but i'm less worried about that than you are maybe irrationally i don't know um the floyd trial is going to enter the new phase i guess maybe today or tomorrow the defense will be presenting its case now did you know that the defense hasn't really done its full case yet so if you were to look at how what you believe about the floyd and shaven chauvin situation today it's based on mostly seeing the prosecutor's best evidence we think it's the best what happens when the the defense really digs in probably in the next 48 hours you if you're following it you're going to say to yourself whoa there were some surprises i really thought that prosecution had a good case but now that i've listened to the defense it changes everything now there's nothing more humbling than thinking you understand the law and then listening to an actual lawyer set you straight so yesterday i was listening to uh ellen dershowitz's podcast about the the trial and i was also listening to uh aviva fray and robert barnes and by the way you should follow them on locals and on youtube for anything legal especially that they they do some of the best uh easy descriptions of what's going on with new stuff you didn't understand before but here's one of the things that both of them told me yesterday that i hadn't heard in the news so here's something that mainstream news is as far as i know not even reported but it seems like an important fact it goes like this that if the moment of death of george floyd is sort of uh indicated by the prosecution and it has been that that there's a there's testimony that you can tell the moment of his death the problem with that according to legal experts and i didn't see this one at all this was invisible to me is that you can't be guilty of killing somebody after they're dead now that makes sense right you can't murder a dead person but here's where it gets technical in the floyd floyd chauvin case because there's some of the evidence a good deal of it that makes chauvin look the worst happened after the prosecution has told the the jury that he was already dead now you say to yourself yeah but that that would tell you a lot if the way he's acting after floyd is dead if he didn't know he was dead your common sense says well it doesn't matter if he knew he was dead you're still learning a lot about you know who he is and what his intentions were by what he's doing because he didn't know right but apparently the law sees it differently the law says that whatever brutality he did or did not inflict after somebody's dead it can't be against the law at least it's not murder it might be some other law and so all of the video evidence the video evidence that happened after that presumed moment of death which might be like three minutes right it could be a pretty big amount of the the nine minutes that uh floyd was on the ground controlled and it turns out that that last three minutes might be some of the worst part of it so that legally it could be tossed out but does that matter like that's a that's a technical thing i didn't know and i was kind of surprised actually kind of surprised to find out that that would be meaningful in this case however both robert barnes and ellen dershowitz make the following point and i think barnes did it the best he said that in his experience and probably research too i don't know that only 10 to 20 percent of juries look at the facts to make their decisions now of course they all look at the facts that they think they're using the facts and they'll tell you they're using the facts but there's a real difference between a fact based jury where they're really going to just follow the law they're really going to make sure the facts are the facts and they're only going to stick to that 10 to 20 percent how are the rest of the trials decided if not on the facts how they feel right so so it doesn't matter if you think that the defense has destroyed the factual part of the case there's only a 10 to 20 percent chance it will make any difference how scary is that 10 to 20 percent chance that the facts of the case will determine the outcome that's based on an experienced you know well two experienced people in this case dershowitz and and barnes i don't i didn't know it was that bad you know i certainly knew that people are making decisions based on emotion not facts but i didn't think it was that bad in the context of of a trial where somebody's life isn't at a stake that's scary and ellen dershowitz had said a few weeks ago that there is no way that chauvin could get a fair trial where they're holding it so no matter what happens isn't it an immediate appeal i mean it feels like the appeal is just guaranteed so you're going to have some kind of result but if that result is a prosecution or a guilty on any of those counts i feel like it's going to be appealed now i was also thinking somewhat incorrectly that the odds of a hung jury were high now hung jury which would result in a mistrial means that at least one person just won't go with the rest of them because whether it's an acquittal or a guilty you've got to have all 12 people on the same side and i thought to myself how in the world do you get 12 people to agree on anything really in this world but especially this because it's so is so puts you into your your team corner how could you ever get any 12 people to agree and it doesn't even matter what evidence they see right because we already know that that's going to not going to matter but when i was listening to robert barnes talking about it or or was it dershowitz but i think they would agree on this point that if you've got let's say one hold out that they don't just send you home the judge says go back and then you you deliberate for hours and hours and hours and you come back and you say we can't get there we still have a hold down and the judge says go back so basically the ju the judge will create a situation in which the other jurors can put pressure on the loan hold out such that usually they'll break now sometimes and this is scary too that lone holdout will negotiate oh i hate this but apparently it's a thing the lone holdout will say look i can't go along with you know your larger charges you want you want to get them for let's say just hypothetically let's say 11 people wanted second degree murder the other the hold down says i can't get you to give you second degree murder i also don't think it's manslaughter but i'll give you manslaughter if the rest of you will come down i'll meet you halfway what a messed up system that is but apparently that can happen right and it's not it wouldn't even be illegal it would just be what the jurors decided was the best fairness they could produce right so the system is a is a hot mess and it's amazing that we it's amazing that we respected it at all but it seems to work because yeah society marches forward um so let's keep an eye on that i think everything we know about that trial will change in my opinion the facts strongly suggest acquittal but as anybody who understands persuasion knows the facts won't necessarily have much to do with anything all right remember i tell you often too often maybe that we're all watching different movies on the same screen we think we're looking at the same thing but we're interpreting it as completely different movies and you see it in all kinds of contexts but one of the ways you know if your movie is the right one and i hesitate to even say right let me adjust that not the right one some movies predict better that doesn't mean you're right it just means you predict better for some reason and every now and then i like to say okay how did your movie do did it predict so there are two movies on this question of the gigantic problem in this country with white supremacy and one movie says it's a giant problem white supremacist under every bed and and they're more active than ever and maybe something about trump stirred them up and now it's it's the biggest problem in the country so that's one movie the other movie is i don't think that's true i don't know where they are because could you imagine just imagine all the things i've been accused of imagine all the things that people have said about me imagine all the people i've had contact with during this political thing many of them would be considered you know the the most scurrilous of the deplorables right imagine all the people i've had detailed conversations with i don't know where these white supremacists are definitely racism exists everywhere it's just pervasive everywhere and i definitely agree that there's a structural systemic racism you can see it i mean the way it's defined defined as some sort of a semi-permanent disadvantage for one group yeah you can see that that's subjective but when you say there's a whole bunch of white supremacists i haven't met one now i can't say they don't exist i'm just telling you that my movie i don't know where the hell they are so when i heard or really after the fact i heard but i would have predicted that there was there was this white lives matter uh event that was being organized for nationwide various places around the country in which the white supremacists were going to show up and and protests for white lives matter if you would ask me how do you think that's going to go i would have said i don't know if anybody is going to show up because in my movie those people don't exist now people who would want to just sort of push back on black lives matter with white lives matter they exist right but they're they're just more you know people in the political realm who want to push their points etc no more or less racist than the average person in my opinion uh but what happened basically nobody showed up a handful of people now that matches my book me doesn't mean mine's right right that this is very important one bit of evidence doesn't mean you got the right movie but it's compatible with my movie so if it's not compatible with your movie how do you explain it like what what's your explanation about why all these people didn't show up i don't know maybe they didn't want to get caught maybe but if these people are afraid to even be in public i don't know that it's the biggest problem in the world doesn't feel like a big old trend that's going to sweep the country if you all you can get is a handful of people in the whole whole freaking country all right um you know other examples of this would be my movie is that whenever there's an anonymous source it's that's my movie so every time i see an anonymous source i say in public nope you're never going to see any evidence to support that anonymous source how often am i right well every time that i can think of i mean i'm sure i've been wrong but feels like just about every time they were afraid of being attacked by antifa yeah were they yeah do you think these these uh these armies of white supremacists which were told exist you think that they were afraid of uh these 90 pound antifa folks maybe maybe you can't rule it out but it doesn't seem seem like it's right now in our uh in our big old simulation here have i told you that there's something weird about how problems come in immediately behind the last problem or or things look a little too much like other things there's just something about our reality especially lately and i am aware that this is a perceptual thing right but does it not look like the coincidence of stories just doesn't look coincidental anymore it just feels like you knew this was going to happen what am i talking about well first of all we had the story of the windsor police officer in which one pepper sprayed the service member who was afraid to get out of his car he didn't want to reach down to his take his seatbelt off because he you know thought he'd get shot he was afraid of the police and i said when i saw the video that well somebody's somebody's got to get fired i mean one of those police officers needs to be fired like immediately and he was so in my movie i saw somebody acting badly i said well that person should get fired and they were but here's what's wrong with the story it's not quite perfect because the guy who got fired is joe gutierrez it's not the whitest name is it joe gutierrez so the guy who got pepper sprayed was a part black part hispanic but he got pepper sprayed by the hispanic guy so just when you thought you were going to get this perfect little george floyd uh let's say companion story just coincidentally just just sort of perfectly matching the headline but it didn't yeah darn it the the guy who acted the worst was named gutierrez so kind of ruins that narrative oh but don't worry don't worry it was backfilled immediately because that's what the simulation does and tragically there is yet another shooting of yet another uh young black man and uh um nothing i say about this should be construed as a joke okay can we agree on that nothing i say even if you feel like it was it's not that's not my intention uh tragedy is a tragedy but honest to god when i saw this story that somebody named uh is it duante or dante d-a-u-n-t-e right when i saw that this that a man with that name had been shot by police i thought this was an old story because i swear to god there's something about his name that makes it exactly like the name of somebody who should be in this story am i wrong doesn't this feel like a little too on the nose just his name it feels uh oh i'm being helped here in the comments uh doante dante doesn't dante write sound exactly like somebody you heard of in the news who was shot by police in a sketchy situation it just feels it just feels like a made for the news name which is weird um again that's probably just psychological priming on my part but i swear to god when i saw the news i thought they were talking about something that happened you know some years ago but unfortunately it's new the first and what's the first thing we heard about it the first thing we heard is that the police shot him or they stopped him because he had some kind of issue with his air freshener and then he got killed for having an air freshener so that's the first version of the story does that sound like it's real no the first version of the story in the in this kind of situation whatever is the first version no that version is never real right it doesn't matter if it's exculpatory or damning to the police the first version is never real now we're learning that maybe he had a warrant for his arrest we're hearing that he tried to get back in the car when he wasn't supposed to what if you're a police officer and you have somebody that you think is resisting the rest we don't have that in evidence right so i'm speaking hypothetically we don't know anything about this case really but it's reported that the person who allegedly was uh resisting arrest turned to get back into his car when he wasn't supposed to now if you're a police officer and you think somebody's dangerous let's say there's a warrant for the arrest who knows if a weapon was involved and whatever the warrant was from who knows if even that the warrant part is real but if somebody turns their their back to a police officer in the context of resisting arrest and their back is turned and they're they're leaning into their car we just heard of somebody getting shot for doing exactly that right and the the person who did exactly that was reaching for a knife we heard who knows if that's true but if somebody's resisting arrest and they turn to get something and you can't see their hands you're creating a very dangerous situation do i think he should have been shot probably not probably not my first reaction is the police should have done something different or better but we certainly don't know the details of this situation and so it's like there's you know we're just guessing at this point but how perfect is this that it happened uh in in minnesota right and it happened during the george floyd trial it's a little too perfect now does this sort of thing happen so often that of course it was going to happen in minnesota of course during the floyd trial because it happened so often yeah i'm just confused about whether it's the simulation just just giving this to us because it wants some riots i don't know it's weird here's another scary story it turns out that afghanistan is becoming a a hot spot for a bill for making meth because there's a plant that grows there wild and plentiful which they've recently learned they can turn into meth now the way you make meth in the united states is you might take you know illegally get over the counter sudafed or whatever it is and you you boil it down and you add chemicals and you cook it until you've created meth but turns out there's a simple way that uses household just household chemicals and you don't need any kind of special meth lab and you just take this plant and you can chemically turn it into meth fairly easily and apparently there's reports that maybe iran or china was helpful and teaching the locals how to do this thank you china thank you iran i don't know if that's true but who knows but now there's going to be an enormous meth wave that will hit this country and uh it's coming i don't see anything that would stop it because apparently the plant just grows wild so you can't even you couldn't even bomb the the farms where it grows because it's just growing in the mountains everywhere so this is bad we'll see what happens there um have you noticed that most of our major news stories have a weird element to them which is that it makes somebody rich start looking for this pattern and see how often you see it for example in the news would be the the george floyd situation um who does that make money for especially if it goes in the direction of a riot which seems guaranteed at this point who is that good for the news business the news industry will make way more money if there's a riot and does their news coverage seem exactly let's say designed to create exactly the situation that would be profitable for the news yes now could that be a coincidence well it could be how about the virus is there anybody who will get rich off the uh the news that there are new variants of the virus and you might have to take vaccinations forever and you know it's not the beginning or the end of the vaccinations your vaccinations just forever does anybody make any money from that yeah pharma right so there's somebody making billions on the virus that's a big story um what about all the stories about china ramping up in the south china sea and iran building nukes and every and everything well the entire military-industrial complex makes money from that what about climate change well you've got all the green businesses would make money on that now here's something you need to know about the news business as the the profits for the news business shrink they go from being investigative uh units because they can afford it they've got a lot of money they can send out long-term investigative units and stuff as their profits shrink they have fewer and fewer investigative stories those are expensive and more and more let's just say writing down what somebody told you yeah sort of uh a scribe for somebody else and in this kind of a world where profits are low and the writers need to produce a story to get paid they will take a story from anywhere in other words if the pr people for any one of these industries comes up with a little package story they can bring it to a member of the press who is lazy like all people right not especially lazy but they're lazy like all people if somebody hands them a story look here's your source here's the angle here's what turns it into something interesting here you go and here are six people who uh we already know will talk to you about the story that story gets published right because it's easy it's just packaged up for you and once you realize that what makes it into the news is what has been packaged by industry people and presented to the news then you understand there are no coincidences of course our major news stories coincidentally will make somebody rich where do you think the story came from same people it's the people who get rich they're the ones who create the news they package it and they hand it to a reporter and the reporter says well i could work really hard or i could do this one that's your system now i'm not going to say that every one of these things is because of money but when you see the pattern that there's always somebody making money and that's how the news business works it takes package stories and turns them into what you think are their stories you gotta wonder so uh there's the weirdest war happening in the middle east right now uh between iran and israel and i would say that they're at war but it's a weird little war and i'll call it the not me war and it goes like this iran will fire a missile or their proxies will fire a missile and some some israeli asset or american asset will be destroyed and we'll say iran damn you for funding them or making that happen and iran will say what does iran say not me what are you talking about that's that wasn't me not me and then today we hear a story that at the nance i guess it's the iranian nuclear facility the biggest one that uh something blew up that turned off the power to the entire facility that could set them back nine months or nathan's nathan's as i pronounce it nathan's um and when anybody asked israel hey israel were you behind this were you behind blowing up this power plant israel says what not me not me so it's like the not me war where they're just it's an active hot war but they just both say it's not happening mommy something blew up oh so sad i saw a tweet by tom cotton you know just saying it was so sad that something blew up in iran there and i think i think everybody's just winking at iran and iran knows it was uh an operation so but it's weird that we just pretend it's not happening so i would like to offer you a vaccination to keep you healthy at traffic stops now it's very offensive isn't it i think we'd all agree it's offensive to be talking about how you could keep yourself safe at a traffic stop the same day that a young black man was killed by police at a traffic stop probably shouldn't pair these together because it accidentally makes you think that i'm saying well it's his fault the the person who stopped i'm not saying that we don't know the details of that situation so i'm not going to suggest that if the person who had stopped had acted differently it would be a different outcome so we won't be talking about those specifics i'm going to give you a sentence which in my uh my belief is that this sentence would vaccinate you from death if you got stopped it's the first thing you say to the police officers when they approach you in the car now i know what you're going to say you know hey whitey you don't know what's what it's really like on the streets and it's really racism and all that but i would uh propose the following experiment which will never happen i i believe that nobody who uses this sentence will ever be killed by the police all right so that's my challenge nobody who uses this sentence in the way that i'm going to explain will ever be killed by the police nobody's ever going to use it except you know maybe three of you someday but nobody will ever be killed by the police after this vaccinating sentence which you would say to the police officer first upon being stopped are you ready this is the sentence officer how can i keep you safe today and me too while showing your hands so your hands have to be visible you say officer how can i keep you safe today and then be too if that person gets killed i'll be amazed now of course you'd also have to you know comply right but here's what makes this a vaccination and you're saying you're going to say to yourself i think well scott look at that stop that just happened where the the guy got fired for the policeman got fired for using the pepper spray a perfect example of a person fully complying his hands his hands were out the window and he was saying that he didn't want to reach down for his seatbelt because you know he didn't want his hands to be concealed and get shot so wasn't he complying scott obviously that doesn't work no he was not complying he was very much not complying that was the problem he was complying the way he wanted to comply he didn't comply the way the police wanted him to comply that's different right so i'm suggesting that if you say this first census officer calling him officer suggests that you have respect for the situation right so the very first word is officer or you know good afternoon officer if you wanted to spice it up and then you say a question not a statement a question always goes down better than a statement you could ask a police officer a question that's not going to make them mad right if it's a good question right you're not just being a jerk but asking a question does not escalate and asking this question how can i keep you safe is a pretty good question to ask somebody to reframe their opinion of what's going on and then you say and me too so you're making it perfectly clear you're not being manipulative you're trying to stay alive but you'd also like the officer to stay alive all right it's a win-win then what about the situation where you're being asked to reach for something and you don't want to reach for it how would you handle that here's how i would have handled it i always said you know that when they say take off your seatbelt and get out of the car i say officer from your angle i'm concerned you can't see my hands so if you wouldn't mind could you take a better viewing angle so that you can see both of my hands when i take off my seatbelt what's the police officer going to do say no you're just offering him a better view of course you say yes so i say okay if you stand over there taking off the seat belt getting out of the car now am i saying that it is the fault of the person who gets stopped no don't misinterpret i'm not saying it's the fault of the person who gets stopped because the police officers are more experienced it's sort of more on them to to make sure that the situation is handled right so i i feel like the police have something to to answer for here in all these situations but um in my opinion those two things asking the police officer to observe your hands and asking how you can keep him safe or her safe would guarantee that you're safe guarantee 100 not one person will ever be killed if they do this all right um cnn is reporting that trump turned down matt gates for a meeting matt gates is reporting that that's fake news what do you think is that fake news who knows probably but glenn greenwald has waded into this situation and done a better job than i have and one of the things he he points out is that you can't talk about the system without some idiot saying that you're supporting a sex trafficker now first of all we've seen no evidence that matt gates is guilty of anything you know that right do you know that the public has not even seen a whiff of evidence like a victim you know a specific we've only heard this you know rumors stuff and you know we live in a world where that's not reliable so as glenn points out quite bravely you can't even talk about the system of how he's being treated without it looking like you're in favor of god knows what crimes who which may not have ever happened anyway and i just like that he weighed in there because i i've been i've been feeling a little bit alone in this because whenever i try to defend the system the system being shouldn't we show evidence before we before we convict somebody so the system would be i'd like to see some evidence and i'd like you to treat him fairly and i'd like i'd like to know what he has to say and i'd like to know the data before we make a decision is that supporting a terrible criminal no first of all we don't know he's done anything wrong and secondly you can support the system without supporting the person and that um so when i'm when i or i guess glenn probably too you are accused of supporting uh gates it's actually two levels away from reality because first of all neither of us are supporting like him specifically we're talking about the system and secondly there's no evidence of a crime so it's a thing with no evidence which were people like me are being blamed of being in favor of it it's like two levels away from reality it's just the weirdest uh situation and have you noticed um how many of the stories in the news involve people who don't actually exist have you noticed that let me give you some examples a lot of this happened just this morning to me have you noticed how often someone will say well you republicans or democrats doesn't matter you you republicans uh you think that uh you like x but then you don't like why how could that be true how could you say x is good but y is not good and the answer is there's nobody like that there isn't anybody that's an imaginary person the imaginary person is complaining about you know why but not x not a real person a real person is complaining about both of them or not complaining about both of them so most most of the debate on twitter is literally imaginary people i was trying to think today what is the last last time i saw somebody disagree with my opinion while also understanding it and it's pretty rare it can happen if you have different priorities or different data or something but mostly 95 percent of the time at least when people think they're disagreeing with me they're disagreeing with some imaginary person that they think is me and that imaginary person either doesn't know the real information or is trying to get one over or trying to make money some way but it's not me it's an imaginary person so most of the news and most of the conversation involves completely imaginary people how about the matt gates story the matt gay story says that there's a 17 year old girl is there we we haven't heard any specifics about that i don't know if that person exists how about any story about an anonymous source does the anonymous source really exist and really said that probably not how about the big white supremacist rally which nobody showed up or a handful in the whole country i guess turns out that's a lot about imaginary people a lot about imaginary people um what about all the cops who are uh who are killing people just because they're black do they exist there there's certainly this belief that it's happening but have you seen one where you could say to yourself oh yeah that's just killing because of our being racist they always have this other quality which is there was some actual police reason something happened it's all imaginary people all the way down even yeah somebody's saying joe biden's imaginary in a way in a way um all right uh let's see what else we got going on here got imaginary people meth in afghanistan and that is just about what's happening today um somebody says you clearly didn't watch tucker he didn't admit girl you are fake huh um you know what would have been better to write a sentence that made sense try that try that next time you comment let's say uh hit the trolls oh let me let me see this comment ah this is the nicest thing so slob says i often listen uh to you with headsets because your voice is so smooth and clear i sometimes fall asleep do you know how much that means to me since i literally couldn't speak for three and a half years and when you hear my new audio book i just this last week i finished recording had a failed almost everything and still win big so that you'll have a choice of hearing in my voice the original was done by a voice artist but um i talk about my voice issues on that and you might like it uh oh somebody says gates admitted the girl existed to tucker but as as the if the girl exists but does a girl exist who is a victim of this crime so that part does not exist i assume that matt gates did not say there's a victim that exists i assume he said there's a person who's 17 who exists that's not the story the story is that there's a victim so that part's not evidence now i'm not saying that none of these stories will turn turn out a real person i'm saying that when you hear the story it's all about imaginary people until they until a real person uh appears oh um about the yeah somebody people wanted me to talk about the island and the volcano so what i've said about passports is that passports will not survive any competitive environment in other words restaurants are going to have a hard time because if you're a foursome and one of you you know maybe has antibodies because yeah you were infected but you never got the vaccination you can't eat at the restaurant because you're not vaccinated it's just not going to work if somebody can go to the restaurant next door because that restaurant will say hey i'll just i'll take you i need some money where where passports could be a problem is in a non-competitive situation and this saint vincent's island with the volcano is exactly that it is a completely non-competitive environment it's an emergency and the people who owned the boats got to do whatever they wanted like there wasn't there weren't the other boats that said oh yeah just come over here so in a non-competitive environment passports are a big problem right but if you're if you're worried about your gym or your restaurants i just can't get worried about that i think it'll work its way itself out it's only when the government requires it for some government function they have a monopoly or in this emergency i think it was just handled wrong so if you say to yourself the problem was the passports i can see why you'd say that or the the vaccinations in that case but keep in mind that those vaccinated people i don't think had passports did they i mean they didn't have vaccination passports so the the very situation that you're using of the boats wouldn't take somebody unless they're vaccinated there were no passports and the problems still existed so is it the passport that's the problem or was it that there were some people who made some decisions that you don't think they should have made now my belief is that and first of all the it wasn't the boat captains who made the decisions they were just going to transport them to other islands and it was the islands who didn't want to take them so the islands not wanting to take them was the larger problem it wasn't vaccinated or unvaccinated right because if those violent if those islands could have kept them you know in a quarantine i don't think they would have had an issue they just couldn't all right what else you've got no friend would not help because of passport see you gotta you gotta use sentences that actually uh mean something idiots are posting their passports online where other people could just copy down their number that's funny yeah you know this there's this weird story about uh how do you say the name of the the guy who wrote who's writing these stories somebody say his name in the uh in the comments taisee coats or something i don't want to say it wrong it'll sound like i'm being sound like i'm being uh inconsiderate but i just don't know his proper name but anyway there's a story about somebody using jordan peterson as the personality for an evil character uh tan ahisi is pronounced tan nahisi but isn't there a last name tanehisi coates okay i hope i got that right um talk about jake novak there's nothing really to talk about there everything you know about that is all there is to know um anyway i i think it was an interesting choice uh and uh you know does jordan peterson try to do anything except make people's lives better it's it's the damnedest thing watching the the trouble that he attracts because i'm pretty sure if there's somebody who has no no bad intentions it's got to be him right has anybody ever suggested he has any bad intentions anywhere or that people are not benefiting from you know the things he's saying it's just the damnedest thing that he would be the subject of attack all right um have you noticed that a lot of our stories are kind of small yeah without trump we don't have these big stories anymore or at least the news doesn't treat them like they're big when will kamala become president my prediction is that joe biden has to serve at least one year and i think that would just be out of respect for biden less than a year doesn't feel like you should have run for president but one year feels like okay you did your job you handed off it was a it was a clean job you did a year i feel like it's got to be a here um the brain is the battlefield of the future that that is correct i don't need to watch that to know that's true yeah persuasion is everything now do you remember in 2016 2015 when i was talking about persuasion being the sort of dominant uh variable in our world and that felt a little weird didn't it when you first heard me talking about how important persuasion is but now it's kind of everything isn't it it's it's really pretty much what i told you uh was the cleaner way to look at the world is as a persuasion machine and once you see it you can't unsee it of walking people to the door of nazism who are they accusing of that um would you host a red pillow show what's that or rsd pillow show i don't know what that means a lot of you a lot of your questions uh i don't understand at all oh somebody's saying that kamala needs to if she goes more than two years she can't run twice so it'd have to be between one year and two years that she took over no she has to she can't be president as a replacement for more than two years so she'd have to wait two years that's a reasonable reasonable assumption uh any update on dual twitter broadcast i don't think i'm going to broadcast on twitter per se because it's non-monetized let me talk about monetization for a moment there may be something that's confusing you number one i've told you that i have fu money and i don't have to do this for money now that's true but money influences everything and so the more my message is monetized in whatever way anybody wants to do it the more powerful my voice becomes in other words the more the more people who follow me on youtube the more the more influence my way of thinking will have on the world so if you want the stuff i say to have more influence on the world the way to do that is to join locals where it's a subscription service or to watch it on youtube where it can be monetized right now the twitter feed doesn't have a monetization model and so while more people might see it the monetization is what allows me to pay my assistant so the production quality is better we can put it on more platforms so basically there's a certain amount of money that becomes like a vote but also allows me to do a better job and you know present it more places and it also keeps me interested because honestly the the fact that it's monetized yeah i how many times have i told you that people can quite honestly say they're not doing something for the money but it's just never true this is one of the most important concepts of economics people can literally tell you and be not lying no i'm not doing this because of the money and they're still sort of doing it for the money right there's there's no such thing as not being influenced by money and even when i tell you just to be fully transparent if i tell you that i don't need the money it doesn't mean it doesn't influence me it completely influences me in fact if people were not interested enough to you know go along with monetizing models i probably wouldn't be here so yeah it makes a big difference even though intellectually if you ask me what's the main reason i'm doing it i wouldn't say that and i wouldn't be lying it's just you know you always have to be careful money's always there yeah actually here's the perfect example uh rush rush limbaugh because he had so much reach part of that his monetization allows his reach to be so big yeah he was more powerful now by the way i'd like to back up to something i said a long time ago it's my understanding that dan bongino is going to be getting the the rush limbaugh radio spot that's that's true right fact check me on this and do you remember that long before that happened i had taken some time on my live stream to point out that um dan bonginu is one of the great examples of a talent stack guy somebody who if you looked at any one of his talents you'd say well that one talent is you know not like the best in the world compared to other people who do this work but man does he have a lot of them it's it's the lot of talents that makes him get the the rush limbaugh job right he doesn't have one talent he has a whole bunch of them that you can see that he has methodically you can just watch his career forming right in front of your eyes it's kind of fun to watch and you watch him just adding you know layers to his stack and as he added layers right in front of you you watched his career develop you know while we all watched and then he got to he got all the way to the rush limbaugh qualification and he just did everything right and every time you see somebody who simply succeeds by doing everything exactly the way it should be done and then it works that's always good to see because that's very inspiring for anybody who is saying how do i succeed well do it that way figure out what set of talents you need to put together and then methodically just go just adam and adam and adam until you've got something special which he did somebody said but he could not win a congressional seat boy that's the loser way to look at it how much did he learn running for a congress and losing right that's the big part of the the system too is they don't all win i mean i don't imagine every job he tried to get he got but um somebody says bungie knew is not getting russia's show but i'm talking about the radio spot not the show somebody says it would be lonely to not have grandchildren in my big house well what makes you think i won't i would expect to see some grandchildren running around in this house eventually uh what's your take on the variety hip piece on gotfeld what one of the fascinating things about greg goffel's new show so now he's competing at that 11 p.m slot at least on the east coast it runs at 8 pm uh every night on the west coast but what's great about it is that because the conservative-leaning world doesn't have as many options as the democratic leaning world that the guffield show immediately like went to the top of the ratings they gotta hate that now one of the things that greg does better than just about anybody is he understands his audience you'll rarely see somebody who understands his audience as well as he does and so it's no surprise that his his show is successful because he knows his audience and he's he's been serving them for a long time and uh watching the hit pieces is just funny because because you know that what's behind them is not so much hey let us do a public service because the public would really like to see our criticism of the greg phillips show it's they're just hit pieces they're just jealous people who who are not as successful so when you see somebody who's sort of in that same entertainment relative business you know they're artists or writers and they're complaining about somebody who's succeeding at the at the highest level in that same sort of general domain it doesn't mean anything it just means there's some losers who are jealous of his success that's all it is i wouldn't take any of it too seriously uh yes in the comments somebody said this is going on about nothing and you are right and so i'm going to end now i'll see you tomorrow
what took me so long
my goodness my natural sense of timing
is off by a full minute
and i don't think that's acceptable
so i apologize for keeping you waiting
won't ever happen again
and
and if you'd like to enjoy this to the
maximum potential and why wouldn't you
really all you need is a copper mug or
glass
a tanker jealous or steiner canteen jug
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 hit of the day
the thing that makes everything better
it's called
the simultaneous but it happens now go
ah
well while that coffee is making you
healthier let me talk about the other
things that will make you healthier
would you like to hear some good news
why not
because good news makes the day better
so here's some good news
um while we were sleeping people who are
smart were working hard to make health
care better and cheaper
there's a new device called a photo
acoustic
imaging and it's it's still in the
laboratory they're
they're developing it but apparently the
technology works
and what it is is a really cheap
non-invasive way to get an image like an
x-ray
like a like an mri except
that you could build it so it's sort of
a portable
almost use-it-a-home kind of device
and apparently you can you can tune it
to see all kinds of different things you
can
tune it to see your veins and arteries
you can tune it to see your bones
and apparently it's just kind of amazing
and it's probably not too far away a few
years away
so imagine this world so here are the
things that are sort of coming together
in different ways
to make health care cheaper
one is this device let's say if you
could just go to uh
essential place and just rent it and
just you know rent it from the library
and say hey i want to borrow this
imaging device
10 bucks rent it from the library look
at your
thing send it to your doctor who is a
telehealth
doctor might be might be a doctor in
some other
part of the world so you've got your
doctor on your phone that's
cheap you've got your portable imaging
that's cheap
um you've got your phone
apps that are monitoring your heart i
saw a device
that seemed to indicate it could check
your blood sugar without
sticking you is that real
i don't think it's integrated
necessarily with your phone yet but it's
a handheld device
that you just put on you and it can tell
your blood sugar
i mean that doesn't even feel like that
could even be real but if it is
how cool so you got your blood pressure
your blood sugar
i think they already have mobile blood
drawing
service someplace but you'll see more of
it so imagine you could just
use your app and dial up a mobile
blood taking person who just shows up
and takes your blood
gives it to the lab and next you know
you've got all kinds of information then
imagine also you have mobile
nurses because there's a whole bunch of
stuff you don't need a proper doctor for
sometimes you do you need a bandage you
need you know some
something checked that just requires a
physical manipulation
so maybe you just dial up a mobile nurse
just like you'd get an uber and then if
there's more drug competition we could
maybe get drugs down that's a tougher
one but
all of these things put together they're
all happening sort of in their own
domain
but you can sort of see them starting to
come together in what would be
i would call the the poor person's
health care
a health care that would be so
inexpensive
you wouldn't even necessarily need
insurance for the basic stuff
you still need insurance for the
catastrophic stuff
anyway there's good news there uh here's
the scary news of the day
pentagon scientists invent a microchip
which can be inserted in your body
no problems yet right it senses
covet 19 in the body and
when i tweeted about this story
you would not be surprised that a lot of
people said
you're not turning me into any cyborg i
told you this was coming
i could see this a mile away the
government wants to put a chip in you
pretty soon they'll be reading your
thoughts maybe controlling your body
directly through the microchip privacy
gone so pretty bad right
because the last thing you'd want is for
the government to turn you into a cyborg
where you're you're part you know part
machine party human
you certainly wouldn't want a microchip
running your body in your life would you
yeah i certainly wouldn't want to be
connected to any kind of
microchip like device in a way that
it would be very very hard to disconnect
me from it
because what if that device
could have the power hypothetically and
this is a strange dangerous future
i i barely you know want to talk about
it it's so scary
but what if the microchip and the device
that was now part of your body
permanently
for all practical purposes what if it
could control your thoughts
what if it could erase your privacy
because it can listen to you you can
know where you are it can know what
you're buying what you're doing
what you're interested in you can know
what you're afraid of
it can know what you say you can know
how you speak
boy you wouldn't want any kind of a
device like that anywhere near you would
you
yeah that would be a scary future
so i think we could all agree we'd like
to stay away from
any kind of a future that would pair a
microchip with your body
if you're listening to this on audio
only
you missed a hilarious component in
which i had my
smartphone held up to my face the entire
time
and now if you audio only people put it
all together put it all together okay
i'll wait yes the point is
you're already a cyborg
that's not your future that already
happened
so you know you can decide if it's good
or bad
but it already happened so
do you like being controlled by private
industry because that's the current
situation
is the government going to be worse
you know whose chip will will win will
the government's chip
hypothetically will that win or will uh
elon musk's
link will that win or will it be your
phone will apple win
you're going to have a lot of microchips
in your body
some of them will be sort of adjacent to
your body but working with you
such as your phone some of them will
actually be embedded in your bones and
your skin
maybe like this pentagon one maybe like
elon musk's
neurolink in the future
but here's what i say about all of this
i'm not really afraid of it i guess i
should be
right because everybody else is afraid
of it why am i not afraid of it
i don't i don't know the answer to that
question but none of it sounds scary to
me
to me it just seems like a continuation
of
the obvious there's nothing we can do
about it
we will use products that make us
happier and we will give up privacy to
do it
and we will give up control and we will
give up free will because it wasn't real
anyway
so we're going to be there it doesn't
mean that you're going to be
turned into a zombie slave but we are
going to be there
i mean you will be you are part machine
already
and hasn't killed you so far so we have
to watch out for this of course because
there's a there's a dark way it could go
and it could easily go the dark way
but not necessarily i would if i had to
predict
far more likely the technology
integrated in our body
will be positive just like up till now
now are you a cyborg if you're part
chemically altered your cyborg if part
of your body is a microchip
or any mechanical device by definition
but what if you're what if you were born
as a regular human
but now you're a human plus whatever
vaccinations and chemical
alterations have been added to you
aren't you always that new modified
thing after a vaccination
i feel like we're already chemical
cyborgs too
so just being a chemical cyborg
in the future doesn't mean that it will
be worse
because we're already chemical cyborgs
now i'm not going to tell you that
i know whenever i talk about a topic and
i don't act critical enough
somebody's going to say why are you
supporting putting chips in people
not nothing like that happened if you
imagined i just supported putting a chip
in a person
that didn't happen i simply didn't
criticize it
i'm simply talking about it i don't know
if this will be bad
easily could be it would be pretty easy
to imagine it becoming bad right
but that would be true of everything
almost everything that we enjoy
today you could have easily imagined it
would turn bad
right uh what about china
boiling the frog well what is it what is
not a slippery slope
isn't that the the issue see my problem
with this slippery slope
is that there's nothing that's not a
slippery slope
and if everything is a slippery slope it
just becomes sort of meaningless
all right well we don't want the
dictators to control us or microchips
but
i'm less worried about that than you are
maybe irrationally i don't know
um the floyd trial is going to
enter the new phase i guess maybe today
or tomorrow the defense will be
presenting its case now did you know
that the defense hasn't really
done its full case yet so if you were to
look at
how what you believe about the floyd and
shaven chauvin situation today
it's based on mostly seeing the
prosecutor's best evidence
we think it's the best what happens when
the
the defense really digs in probably
in the next 48 hours you if you're
following it
you're going to say to yourself whoa
there were some surprises
i really thought that prosecution had a
good case
but now that i've listened to the
defense it changes everything
now there's nothing more humbling
than thinking you understand the law and
then listening to an actual lawyer
set you straight so yesterday i was
listening to uh
ellen dershowitz's podcast about the the
trial
and i was also listening to uh
aviva fray and robert barnes and by the
way you should follow them on locals
and on youtube for anything legal
especially
that they they do some of the best uh
easy descriptions of what's going on
with new stuff you didn't understand
before but here's one of the things that
both of them told me yesterday that i
hadn't heard in the news
so here's something that mainstream news
is as far as i know
not even reported but it seems like an
important fact
it goes like this that if the moment of
death
of george floyd is sort of uh
indicated by the prosecution and it has
been
that that there's a there's testimony
that
you can tell the moment of his death the
problem with that
according to legal experts and i didn't
see this one at all
this was invisible to me is that you
can't be guilty
of killing somebody after they're dead
now that makes sense right you can't
murder a dead person
but here's where it gets technical in
the floyd floyd
chauvin case because there's some of the
evidence
a good deal of it that makes chauvin
look the worst
happened after the prosecution has told
the
the jury that he was already dead
now you say to yourself yeah but that
that would tell you a lot
if the way he's acting after floyd is
dead
if he didn't know he was dead your
common sense says
well it doesn't matter if he knew he was
dead you're still learning a lot about
you know who he is and what his
intentions were by what he's doing
because he didn't know right but
apparently the law sees it differently
the law says that whatever brutality he
did or did not
inflict after somebody's dead it can't
be against the law
at least it's not murder it might be
some other law
and so all of the video evidence
the video evidence that happened after
that presumed moment of death
which might be like three minutes right
it could be a pretty big
amount of the the nine minutes that uh
floyd was on the ground controlled and
it turns out that that last three
minutes might be some of the worst part
of it
so that legally it could be tossed out
but does that matter
like that's a that's a technical thing i
didn't know
and i was kind of surprised actually
kind of surprised to find out that that
would be
meaningful in this case however both
robert barnes and
ellen dershowitz make the following
point and i think barnes did it the best
he said that in his experience and
probably research too i don't know
that only 10 to 20 percent of juries
look at the facts to make their
decisions
now of course they all look at the facts
that they think they're using the facts
and they'll tell you they're using the
facts
but there's a real difference between a
fact based jury
where they're really going to just
follow the law they're really going to
make sure the facts are the facts and
they're only going to stick to that
10 to 20 percent how are the rest of the
trials
decided if not on the facts
how they feel right so
so it doesn't matter if you think that
the defense has
destroyed the factual part of the case
there's only a 10 to 20 percent chance
it will make any difference
how scary is that 10 to 20 percent
chance
that the facts of the case will
determine the outcome
that's based on an experienced you know
well two experienced people in this case
dershowitz and
and barnes i don't i didn't know it was
that bad
you know i certainly knew that people
are making decisions based on emotion
not facts
but i didn't think it was that bad in
the context of of a trial where
somebody's life isn't
at a stake that's scary
and ellen dershowitz had said a few
weeks ago that there is no way
that chauvin could get a fair trial
where they're holding it
so no matter what happens isn't it an
immediate appeal
i mean it feels like the appeal is just
guaranteed so you're going to have some
kind of result
but if that result is a prosecution or a
guilty on any of those counts i feel
like it's going to be appealed
now i was also thinking somewhat
incorrectly
that the odds of a hung jury were high
now hung jury which would result in a
mistrial
means that at least one person just
won't go with the rest of them because
whether it's an acquittal
or a guilty you've got to have all 12
people on the same side
and i thought to myself how in the world
do you get 12 people to agree on
anything really in this world but
especially this
because it's so is so puts you into your
your team corner how could you ever get
any 12 people to agree and it doesn't
even matter what evidence they see right
because we already know that that's
going to not going to matter
but when i was listening to robert
barnes
talking about it or or was it dershowitz
but i think they would agree on this
point
that if you've got let's say one hold
out
that they don't just send you home the
judge says
go back and then you you deliberate for
hours and hours and hours and you come
back and you say we can't get there
we still have a hold down and the judge
says
go back so basically the ju the judge
will create a situation in which the
other jurors
can put pressure on the loan hold out
such that usually they'll break
now sometimes and this is scary too
that lone holdout will negotiate
oh i hate this but apparently it's a
thing
the lone holdout will say look i can't
go along with you know your larger
charges you want
you want to get them for let's say just
hypothetically let's say
11 people wanted second degree murder
the
other the hold down says i can't get you
to give you second degree murder
i also don't think it's manslaughter but
i'll give you manslaughter
if the rest of you will come down i'll
meet you halfway
what a messed up system that is
but apparently that can happen right and
it's not it wouldn't even be illegal
it would just be what the jurors decided
was
the best fairness they could produce
right
so the system is a is a hot mess
and it's amazing that we it's amazing
that we respected it at all
but it seems to work because yeah
society marches forward um
so let's keep an eye on that i think
everything we know about that trial will
change
in my opinion the facts strongly
suggest acquittal but
as anybody who understands persuasion
knows the facts won't necessarily have
much to do with anything
all right remember i tell you
often too often maybe that we're all
watching different movies
on the same screen we think we're
looking at the same thing
but we're interpreting it as completely
different movies and you see it in
all kinds of contexts but one of the
ways you know if your movie is the right
one
and i hesitate to even say right let me
adjust that
not the right one some movies predict
better that doesn't mean you're right it
just means you predict better
for some reason and every now and then i
like to say okay
how did your movie do did it predict
so there are two movies on this question
of the gigantic
problem in this country with white
supremacy
and one movie says it's a giant problem
white supremacist under every bed and
and they're more active than ever and
maybe something about trump
stirred them up and now it's it's the
biggest problem in the country
so that's one movie the other movie is
i don't think that's true
i don't know where they are because
could you imagine
just imagine all the things i've been
accused of
imagine all the things that people have
said about me
imagine all the people i've had contact
with during this
political thing many of them would be
considered you know the
the most scurrilous of the deplorables
right
imagine all the people i've had detailed
conversations with
i don't know where these white
supremacists are definitely racism
exists
everywhere it's just pervasive
everywhere and i definitely agree that
there's
a structural systemic racism
you can see it i mean the way it's
defined
defined as some sort of a semi-permanent
disadvantage for one group yeah you can
see that that's subjective
but when you say there's a whole bunch
of white supremacists
i haven't met one
now i can't say they don't exist i'm
just telling you that my movie
i don't know where the hell they are so
when i heard or really after the fact i
heard but i would have predicted
that there was there was this white
lives matter
uh event that was being organized for
nationwide various places around the
country
in which the white supremacists were
going to show up and
and protests for white lives matter if
you would ask me how do you think that's
going to go
i would have said i don't know if
anybody is going to show up
because in my movie those people
don't exist now people who would want to
just sort of push back on black lives
matter with white lives matter they
exist
right but they're they're just more you
know
people in the political realm who want
to push their points etc
no more or less racist than the average
person in my opinion
uh but what happened basically nobody
showed up a handful of people
now that matches my book me doesn't mean
mine's right
right that this is very important one
bit of evidence
doesn't mean you got the right movie but
it's compatible with my movie
so if it's not compatible with your
movie how do you explain it
like what what's your explanation about
why all these people didn't show up
i don't know maybe they didn't want to
get caught
maybe but if these people are afraid to
even be in public
i don't know that it's the biggest
problem in the world
doesn't feel like a big old trend that's
going to sweep the country
if you all you can get is a handful of
people in the whole whole freaking
country
all right um
you know other examples of this would be
my movie is that whenever there's an
anonymous source it's
that's my movie so every time i see an
anonymous source i say in public
nope you're never going to see any
evidence to
support that anonymous source how often
am i right
well every time that i can think of i
mean i'm sure i've been wrong but
feels like just about every time
they were afraid of being attacked by
antifa yeah
were they yeah do you think these these
uh
these armies of white supremacists which
were told exist
you think that they were afraid of uh
these 90 pound antifa
folks maybe
maybe you can't rule it out but it
doesn't seem
seem like it's right now in our uh
in our big old simulation here have i
told you that
there's something weird about how
problems come in
immediately behind the last problem or
or things look a little too much like
other things there's just something
about our reality especially lately
and i am aware that this is a perceptual
thing right
but does it not look
like the coincidence of stories just
doesn't look coincidental anymore
it just feels like you knew this was
going to happen what am i talking about
well first of all we had the story of
the windsor police officer
in which one pepper sprayed the
service member who was afraid to get out
of his car
he didn't want to reach down to his take
his seatbelt off
because he you know thought he'd get
shot he was afraid of the police
and i said when i saw the video that
well somebody's
somebody's got to get fired i mean one
of those police officers needs to be
fired like
immediately and he was so in my movie
i saw somebody acting badly i said well
that person should get fired and they
were
but here's what's wrong with the story
it's not quite perfect because the guy
who got fired
is joe gutierrez
it's not the whitest name is it joe
gutierrez
so the guy who got pepper sprayed
was a part black part hispanic
but he got pepper sprayed by the
hispanic guy
so just when you thought you were going
to get this perfect little
george floyd uh let's say companion
story
just coincidentally just just sort of
perfectly matching the headline but it
didn't
yeah darn it the the guy who acted the
worst was named gutierrez
so kind of ruins that narrative oh but
don't worry
don't worry it was backfilled
immediately
because that's what the simulation does
and tragically there is yet another
shooting
of yet another uh young black man
and uh um nothing i say about this
should be construed as a joke okay
can we agree on that nothing i say even
if
you feel like it was it's not that's not
my intention
uh tragedy is a tragedy
but honest to god when i saw this story
that somebody named uh is it duante or
dante
d-a-u-n-t-e right
when i saw that this that a man with
that name had been shot by police
i thought this was an old story
because i swear to god there's something
about his name
that makes it exactly like the name of
somebody who should be in this story
am i wrong doesn't this feel like a
little too on the nose
just his name it feels uh oh i'm being
helped here in the comments
uh doante dante
doesn't dante write sound exactly like
somebody you heard of in the news
who was shot by police in a sketchy
situation it just feels
it just feels like a made for the news
name
which is weird um again that's probably
just
psychological priming on my part but i
swear to god when i saw the news i
thought they were talking about
something
that happened you know some years ago
but unfortunately it's new
the first and what's the first thing we
heard about it
the first thing we heard is that the
police shot him
or they stopped him because he had some
kind of issue with his air freshener
and then he got killed for having an
air freshener so that's the first
version of the story
does that sound like it's real
no the first version of the story
in the in this kind of situation
whatever is the first version
no that version is never real right
it doesn't matter if it's exculpatory or
damning to the police
the first version is never real
now we're learning that maybe he had a
warrant for his arrest
we're hearing that he tried to get back
in the car when he wasn't supposed to
what if you're a police officer and you
have somebody
that you think is resisting the rest we
don't have that in evidence right
so i'm speaking hypothetically we don't
know anything about this case
really but it's reported that the person
who
allegedly was uh resisting arrest
turned to get back into his car when he
wasn't supposed to
now if you're a police officer and you
think somebody's dangerous let's say
there's a warrant for the arrest
who knows if a weapon was involved and
whatever the warrant was from
who knows if even that the warrant part
is real
but if somebody turns their their back
to a police officer
in the context of resisting arrest
and their back is turned and they're
they're leaning
into their car we just heard of
somebody getting shot for doing exactly
that
right and the the person who did exactly
that was reaching for a knife we heard
who knows if that's true but if
somebody's resisting arrest
and they turn to get something
and you can't see their hands
you're creating a very dangerous
situation do i think he should have been
shot
probably not probably not my first
reaction is
the police should have done something
different or better
but we certainly don't know the details
of this situation
and so it's like there's you know we're
just guessing at this point
but how perfect is this that it happened
uh
in in minnesota right and it happened
during the george
floyd trial it's a little too perfect
now does this sort of thing happen
so often that of course it was going to
happen
in minnesota of course during the floyd
trial because it happened so often
yeah i'm just confused about whether
it's the simulation just
just giving this to us because it wants
some riots
i don't know it's weird here's another
scary story
it turns out that afghanistan is
becoming a
a hot spot for a bill for making meth
because there's a plant that grows there
wild and plentiful
which they've recently learned they can
turn into meth
now the way you make meth in the united
states is you might take you know
illegally get
over the counter sudafed or whatever it
is
and you you boil it down and you add
chemicals and you cook it until you've
created meth
but turns out there's a simple way that
uses household
just household chemicals and you don't
need any kind of special meth lab
and you just take this plant and you can
chemically turn it into meth fairly
easily
and apparently there's reports that
maybe iran or china was
helpful and teaching the locals how to
do this
thank you china thank you iran i don't
know if that's true but
who knows but now there's going to be
an enormous meth wave that will hit this
country
and uh
it's coming i don't see anything that
would stop it
because apparently the plant just grows
wild so you can't even
you couldn't even bomb the the farms
where it grows because it's just growing
in the mountains everywhere
so this is bad
we'll see what happens there um have you
noticed that most of our major news
stories have a weird
element to them which is that it makes
somebody rich
start looking for this pattern and see
how often you see it
for example in the news would be the the
george floyd situation
um who does that make money for
especially if it goes in the direction
of a riot which
seems guaranteed at this point who is
that good for the news business
the news industry will make way more
money if there's a riot and
does their news coverage seem exactly
let's say designed to create
exactly the situation that would be
profitable for the news
yes now could that be a coincidence well
it could be
how about the virus is there anybody who
will get rich
off the uh the news that
there are new variants of the virus and
you might have to take vaccinations
forever and
you know it's not the beginning or the
end of the vaccinations your
vaccinations just forever
does anybody make any money from that
yeah pharma right
so there's somebody making billions on
the virus
that's a big story um what about all the
stories about china
ramping up in the south china sea and
iran
building nukes and every and everything
well the
entire military-industrial complex makes
money
from that what about climate change well
you've got all the green businesses
would make money on that now here's
something you need to know about the
news business
as the the profits for the news business
shrink they go from being investigative
uh units because they can afford it
they've got a lot of money they can send
out
long-term investigative units and stuff
as their profits shrink
they have fewer and fewer investigative
stories those are expensive
and more and more let's just say
writing down what somebody told you yeah
sort of uh
a scribe for somebody else and
in this kind of a world where profits
are low
and the writers need to produce a story
to get paid
they will take a story from anywhere in
other words if the
pr people for any one of these
industries
comes up with a little package story
they can bring it to a member of the
press who is lazy
like all people right not especially
lazy but they're lazy like all people
if somebody hands them a story look
here's your source
here's the angle here's what turns it
into something interesting
here you go and here are six people who
uh we already know will talk to you
about the story
that story gets published right because
it's easy
it's just packaged up for you and once
you realize that what makes it into
the news is what has been packaged
by industry people and presented to the
news
then you understand there are no
coincidences
of course our major news stories
coincidentally will make somebody rich
where do you think the story came from
same people
it's the people who get rich they're the
ones who create the news
they package it and they hand it to a
reporter and the reporter says well i
could work
really hard or i could do this one
that's your system now i'm not going to
say that every one of these things
is because of money but when you see the
pattern
that there's always somebody making
money and that's how the news business
works
it takes package stories and turns them
into what you think are their stories
you gotta wonder so
uh there's the weirdest war happening in
the middle east right now
uh between iran and israel and i would
say that they're at war
but it's a weird little war and i'll
call it the not me war
and it goes like this iran will
fire a missile or their proxies will
fire a missile and
some some israeli asset or american
asset
will be destroyed and we'll say iran
damn you for funding them or making that
happen
and iran will say what does iran say
not me what are you talking about that's
that wasn't me not me
and then today we hear a story that
at the nance i guess it's
the iranian nuclear facility the biggest
one
that uh something blew up that turned
off the
power to the entire facility that could
set them back
nine months or nathan's nathan's as i
pronounce it nathan's um
and when anybody asked israel hey israel
were you behind this
were you behind blowing up this power
plant israel says
what not me
not me so
it's like the not me war where they're
just it's an
active hot war but they just both say
it's not happening
mommy something blew up
oh so sad i saw a tweet by tom cotton
you know just saying it was so sad that
something blew up in iran there and i
think i think everybody's just winking
at iran
and iran knows it was uh
an operation
so but it's weird that we just pretend
it's not happening
so i would like to offer you a
vaccination
to keep you healthy at traffic stops
now it's very offensive isn't it
i think we'd all agree it's offensive to
be talking about how you could keep
yourself
safe at a traffic stop the same day that
a young black man was
killed by police at a traffic stop
probably shouldn't pair these together
because it accidentally
makes you think that i'm saying well
it's his fault the
the person who stopped i'm not saying
that we don't know the details of that
situation
so i'm not going to suggest that if the
person who had stopped had acted
differently it would be a different
outcome so we won't be talking about
those specifics i'm going to give you a
sentence
which in my uh my belief
is that this sentence would vaccinate
you from death
if you got stopped it's the first thing
you say to the police officers
when they approach you in the car now i
know what you're going to say
you know hey whitey you don't know
what's
what it's really like on the streets and
it's really racism and all that but
i would uh propose the following
experiment which will never
happen i i believe that nobody who uses
this sentence will ever be killed
by the police all right so that's my
challenge
nobody who uses this sentence in the way
that i'm going to explain
will ever be killed by the police
nobody's ever going to use it except you
know maybe three of you someday
but nobody will ever be killed by the
police after this
vaccinating sentence which you would say
to the police officer first upon being
stopped
are you ready this is the sentence
officer
how can i keep you safe today and me too
while showing your hands so your hands
have to be visible
you say officer how can i keep you safe
today and then be too
if that person gets killed i'll be
amazed
now of course you'd also have to you
know comply
right but here's what makes this a
vaccination
and you're saying you're going to say to
yourself i think well scott look at that
stop that just happened where the
the guy got fired for the policeman got
fired for
using the pepper spray a perfect example
of a person fully complying his hands
his hands were out the window and he was
saying that he didn't want to reach down
for his seatbelt
because you know he didn't want his
hands to be concealed and get shot
so wasn't he complying scott obviously
that doesn't work
no he was not complying
he was very much not complying that was
the problem
he was complying the way he wanted to
comply
he didn't comply the way the police
wanted him to comply that's different
right so i'm suggesting that if you say
this first census
officer calling him officer suggests
that you have respect for the situation
right so the very first word is officer
or you know good afternoon officer if
you wanted to spice it up
and then you say a question not a
statement
a question always goes down better than
a statement
you could ask a police officer a
question
that's not going to make them mad right
if it's
a good question right you're not just
being a jerk
but asking a question does not escalate
and asking this question
how can i keep you safe is a pretty good
question to ask somebody
to reframe their opinion of what's going
on
and then you say and me too so you're
making it perfectly clear you're not
being manipulative
you're trying to stay alive but you'd
also like the officer to stay alive
all right it's a win-win then what about
the situation where you're being asked
to reach for something
and you don't want to reach for it how
would you handle that
here's how i would have handled it i
always said you know that when they say
take off your seatbelt and get out of
the car i say officer from your angle
i'm concerned you can't see my hands so
if you wouldn't mind could you take a
better viewing angle so that you can see
both of my hands when i
take off my seatbelt what's the police
officer going to do
say no you're just offering him a better
view
of course you say yes so i say okay if
you stand over there
taking off the seat belt getting out of
the car
now am i saying that it is the fault of
the person who gets stopped
no don't misinterpret i'm not saying
it's the fault of the person who gets
stopped
because the police officers are more
experienced it's sort of more on them
to to make sure that the situation is
handled right so i
i feel like the police have something to
to answer for here
in all these situations but um
in my opinion those two things asking
the police officer to observe your hands
and asking how you can keep him safe or
her safe
would guarantee that you're safe
guarantee 100
not one person will ever be killed if
they do this
all right um cnn is reporting that
trump turned down matt gates for a
meeting matt gates is reporting that
that's fake news
what do you think is that fake news who
knows
probably but glenn greenwald has waded
into this
situation and done a better job than i
have
and one of the things he he points out
is that you can't talk about
the system without some idiot saying
that you're supporting a sex trafficker
now first of all we've seen no evidence
that matt gates is guilty of anything
you know that right do you know that the
public
has not even seen a whiff of evidence
like a victim you know a specific
we've only heard this you know rumors
stuff and
you know we live in a world where that's
not reliable
so as glenn points out quite bravely you
can't even talk about the system of how
he's being treated
without it looking like you're in favor
of god knows what crimes
who which may not have ever happened
anyway
and i just like that he weighed in there
because i i've been
i've been feeling a little bit alone in
this because whenever i try to defend
the system
the system being shouldn't we show
evidence before we before we convict
somebody
so the system would be i'd like to see
some evidence
and i'd like you to treat him fairly and
i'd like i'd like to know what he has to
say
and i'd like to know the data before we
make a decision is that supporting
a terrible criminal no first of all we
don't know he's done
anything wrong and secondly you can
support the system
without supporting the person and
that
um so when i'm when i or
i guess glenn probably too you are
accused of
supporting uh gates it's actually two
levels away from reality
because first of all neither of us are
supporting
like him specifically we're talking
about the system
and secondly there's no evidence of a
crime
so it's a thing with no evidence
which were people like me are being
blamed of being
in favor of it it's like two levels away
from reality
it's just the weirdest uh situation
and have you noticed um
how many of the stories in the news
involve
people who don't actually exist
have you noticed that let me give you
some examples
a lot of this happened just this morning
to me
have you noticed how often someone will
say well
you republicans or democrats doesn't
matter you
you republicans uh you think that uh
you like x but then you don't like why
how could that be true how could you say
x is good but y is not good
and the answer is there's nobody like
that
there isn't anybody that's an imaginary
person the imaginary person is
complaining
about you know why but not x
not a real person a real person is
complaining about both of them
or not complaining about both of them so
most
most of the debate on twitter is
literally imaginary people
i was trying to think today what is the
last last time i saw somebody
disagree with my opinion while also
understanding it and it's pretty rare
it can happen if you have different
priorities or different data or
something
but mostly 95 percent of the time
at least when people think they're
disagreeing with me
they're disagreeing with some imaginary
person that they think is me
and that imaginary person either doesn't
know the real information
or is trying to get one over or trying
to make money
some way but it's not me it's an
imaginary person
so most of the news and most of the
conversation
involves completely imaginary people how
about the matt gates story
the matt gay story says that there's a
17 year old girl is there
we we haven't heard any specifics about
that
i don't know if that person exists how
about any story about an anonymous
source
does the anonymous source really exist
and really said that
probably not how about the
big white supremacist rally which nobody
showed up
or a handful in the whole country i
guess turns out
that's a lot about imaginary people a
lot about imaginary people
um what about all the cops who are
uh who are killing people just because
they're black
do they exist there there's certainly
this belief that it's happening
but have you seen one where you could
say to yourself oh yeah that's just
killing because of our being racist
they always have this other quality
which is there was some
actual police reason something happened
it's all imaginary people all the way
down even yeah
somebody's saying joe biden's imaginary
in a way
in a way um
all right uh let's see what else we got
going on here
got imaginary people meth in afghanistan
and that is just about what's happening
today
um
somebody says you clearly didn't watch
tucker he didn't admit
girl you are fake huh
um you know what would have been better
to write a sentence that made
sense try that try that next time you
comment
let's say uh
hit the trolls oh let me let me see this
comment
ah this is the nicest thing so
slob says i often listen uh
to you with headsets because your voice
is so smooth and clear
i sometimes fall asleep do you know how
much that means to me
since i literally couldn't speak for
three and a half years
and when you hear my new audio book i
just
this last week i finished recording had
a failed almost everything
and still win big so that you'll have a
choice of hearing in my voice
the original was done by a voice artist
but um i talk about my
voice issues on that and you might like
it
uh oh somebody says gates admitted the
girl
existed to tucker but as as
the if the girl exists but does a girl
exist
who is a victim of this crime so that
part
does not exist i assume that matt gates
did not say
there's a victim that exists i assume he
said there's a person who's 17 who
exists
that's not the story the story is that
there's a
victim so that part's not evidence
now i'm not saying that none of these
stories will turn
turn out a real person i'm saying that
when you hear the story it's all about
imaginary people
until they until a real person uh
appears
oh um about the yeah somebody people
wanted me to talk about the
island and the volcano so
what i've said about passports is that
passports will not survive
any competitive environment in other
words restaurants are going to have a
hard time
because if you're a foursome and one of
you
you know maybe has antibodies because
yeah you were infected but you never got
the vaccination
you can't eat at the restaurant because
you're not vaccinated
it's just not going to work if somebody
can go to the restaurant next door
because that restaurant will say hey
i'll just i'll take you i need some
money
where where passports could be a problem
is in a non-competitive situation
and this saint vincent's island with the
volcano is exactly that
it is a completely non-competitive
environment
it's an emergency and the people who
owned the boats got to do whatever they
wanted
like there wasn't there weren't the
other boats that said oh yeah just come
over here
so in a non-competitive environment
passports are a big problem
right but if you're if you're worried
about your gym or your restaurants
i just can't get worried about that i
think it'll work its way
itself out it's only when the government
requires it
for some government function they have a
monopoly or in this emergency
i think it was just handled wrong so if
you say to yourself the problem was the
passports
i can see why you'd say that or the the
vaccinations in that case
but keep in mind that those vaccinated
people i don't think had passports did
they
i mean they didn't have vaccination
passports
so the the very situation that you're
using
of the boats wouldn't take somebody
unless they're vaccinated
there were no passports and the problems
still existed
so is it the passport that's the problem
or was it
that there were some people who made
some decisions that you don't think they
should have made
now my belief is that
and first of all the it wasn't the boat
captains who made the decisions
they were just going to transport them
to other islands and it was the islands
who didn't want to take them
so the islands not wanting to take them
was the larger problem
it wasn't vaccinated or unvaccinated
right because if those violent
if those islands could have kept them
you know in a quarantine
i don't think they would have had an
issue they just couldn't
all right
what else you've got no friend would not
help because of
passport see you gotta you gotta use
sentences that actually
uh mean something
idiots are posting their passports
online where other people could just
copy down their number
that's funny yeah you know this there's
this weird story
about uh
how do you say the name of the the guy
who wrote
who's writing these stories
somebody say his name in the uh in the
comments
taisee coats or something i don't want
to say it wrong it'll sound like i'm
being
sound like i'm being uh inconsiderate
but i just
don't know his proper name but anyway
there's a story about
somebody using jordan peterson as the
personality for an evil character
uh tan ahisi
is pronounced tan nahisi but isn't there
a last name
tanehisi coates okay i hope i got that
right um
talk about jake novak there's nothing
really to talk about there
everything you know about that is all
there is to know
um anyway
i i think it was an interesting choice
uh and uh
you know does jordan peterson try to do
anything except
make people's lives better it's it's the
damnedest thing watching
the the trouble that he attracts
because i'm pretty sure if there's
somebody who has no
no bad intentions it's got to be him
right has anybody ever suggested he has
any bad intentions anywhere
or that people are not benefiting from
you know the things he's saying
it's just the damnedest thing that he
would be the subject of
attack
all right um
have you noticed that a lot of our
stories are kind of small
yeah without trump we don't have these
big stories anymore
or at least the news doesn't treat them
like they're big
when will kamala become president
my prediction is that joe biden has to
serve at least one year
and i think that would just be out of
respect for biden
less than a year doesn't feel like you
should have run for president
but one year feels like okay you did
your job
you handed off it was a it was a clean
job you did a year
i feel like it's got to be a here
um the brain is the battlefield of the
future
that that is correct i don't need to
watch that to know that's true
yeah persuasion is everything now do you
remember
in 2016 2015 when i was talking about
persuasion being the sort of dominant
uh variable in our world and that felt a
little weird didn't it
when you first heard me talking about
how important persuasion is
but now it's kind of everything isn't it
it's it's really pretty much what i told
you uh
was the cleaner way to look at the world
is as a persuasion machine and once you
see it you can't unsee it
of walking people to the door of nazism
who are they accusing of that
um would you host a red
pillow show what's that or
rsd pillow show i don't know what that
means
a lot of you a lot of your questions uh
i don't understand at all
oh somebody's saying that kamala needs
to
if she goes more than two years she
can't run twice
so it'd have to be between one year and
two years that she took over
no she has to she can't be president
as a replacement for more than two years
so she'd have to wait two years
that's a reasonable reasonable
assumption
uh any update on dual twitter broadcast
i don't think i'm going to broadcast on
twitter per se
because it's non-monetized let me talk
about monetization for a moment
there may be something that's confusing
you number one
i've told you that i have fu money and i
don't have to do this for money
now that's true but money
influences everything and so the more
my message is monetized in whatever way
anybody wants to do it the more powerful
my voice becomes
in other words the more the more people
who follow me on youtube
the more the more influence my
way of thinking will have on the world
so if you want
the stuff i say to have more influence
on the world the way to do that
is to join locals where it's a
subscription service
or to watch it on youtube where it can
be monetized
right now the twitter feed doesn't have
a monetization
model and so while more people might see
it
the monetization is what allows me to
pay my assistant
so the production quality is better we
can put it on more platforms
so basically there's a certain amount of
money that becomes like a vote but also
allows me to do a better job and
you know present it more places
and it also keeps me interested because
honestly the
the fact that it's monetized yeah i
how many times have i told you that
people can quite honestly say they're
not doing something for the money
but it's just never true this is one of
the most important concepts of economics
people can literally tell you and be not
lying
no i'm not doing this because of the
money
and they're still sort of doing it for
the money right there's
there's no such thing as not being
influenced by money
and even when i tell you just to be
fully transparent
if i tell you that i don't need the
money it doesn't mean it doesn't
influence me
it completely influences me in fact if
people were not
interested enough to you know go along
with monetizing
models i probably wouldn't be here so
yeah it makes a big difference
even though intellectually if you ask me
what's the main reason i'm doing it i
wouldn't say that
and i wouldn't be lying it's just you
know you always have to be careful
money's always there
yeah actually here's the perfect example
uh rush
rush limbaugh because he had
so much reach part of that his
monetization allows his reach to be so
big
yeah he was more powerful now by the way
i'd like to back up to something i said
a long time ago
it's my understanding that dan bongino
is going to be getting the
the rush limbaugh radio spot that's
that's true right
fact check me on this and do you
remember that long before that happened
i had taken some time on my live stream
to point out that um
dan bonginu is one of the great examples
of a talent stack
guy somebody who if you looked at any
one of his talents
you'd say well that one talent is you
know not like the best in the world
compared to other people who do this
work but man does he have a lot of them
it's it's the lot of talents that makes
him
get the the rush limbaugh job right he
doesn't have one talent he has a whole
bunch
of them that you can see that he has
methodically
you can just watch his career forming
right in front of your eyes it's kind of
fun to watch
and you watch him just adding you know
layers to his stack
and as he added layers right in front of
you you watched his career develop
you know while we all watched and then
he got to
he got all the way to the rush limbaugh
qualification
and he just did everything right and
every time you see somebody who simply
succeeds by doing
everything exactly the way it should be
done and then it works
that's always good to see because that's
very inspiring for anybody who
is saying how do i succeed well do it
that way
figure out what set of talents you need
to put together
and then methodically just go just adam
and adam and adam until you've got
something special
which he did somebody said but he could
not win a congressional seat
boy that's the loser way to look at it
how much did he learn
running for a congress and losing right
that's the big part of the the system
too is they don't all win
i mean i don't imagine every job he
tried to get he got
but um
somebody says bungie knew is not getting
russia's show but
i'm talking about the radio spot not the
show
somebody says it would be lonely to not
have grandchildren in my big house
well what makes you think i won't
i would expect to see some grandchildren
running around in this house eventually
uh what's your take on the variety hip
piece on
gotfeld what one of the fascinating
things about greg goffel's new show so
now he's competing at that 11 p.m slot
at least on the east coast it runs at 8
pm uh
every night on the west coast but what's
great about it is that
because the conservative-leaning world
doesn't have as many options as the
democratic
leaning world that
the guffield show immediately like went
to the top of the ratings
they gotta hate that now one of the
things that greg does better than
just about anybody is he understands his
audience
you'll rarely see somebody who
understands his audience as well as he
does
and so it's no surprise that his his
show is successful
because he knows his audience and he's
he's been serving them for a long time
and uh watching the hit pieces
is just funny because because you know
that what's behind them is not
so much hey let us do a public service
because the public would really like to
see our criticism of
the greg phillips show it's they're just
hit pieces they're just jealous people
who
who are not as successful so when you
see somebody who's sort of
in that same entertainment relative
business
you know they're artists or writers and
they're complaining about somebody who's
succeeding at the at the highest level
in that same sort of general domain it
doesn't mean
anything it just means there's some
losers
who are jealous of his success that's
all it is
i wouldn't take any of it too seriously
uh yes in the comments somebody said
this is going on about nothing and you
are right and so i'm going to end now
i'll see you tomorrow
