Episode 2041 Scott Adams - Closing Mexico, J6 Lies, Reparations, A Persuasion Lesson And More

do do good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of civilization wow it's good to be alive isn't it seems like we're in the middle of all this swirling chaos of Badness but maybe that's just our perception maybe things are going great let's talk about that but first we need to prepare our minds uh if you have something a home that will prepare your mind better than coffee well go nuts but uh for the rest of us all you need is a cup of under a glass of tanker jealous of Stein a canteen Joker flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine here today the thing that makes everything better it's called this simultaneous sip it's famous around the world and maybe a little bit more famous this week and it happens now go oh yeah that's good favorite foreign well let's talk about all the things there's some funny things and some other things I heard it's International women's day is that right today or is it like a month or something all right well we'll talk about that so I saw a tweet from John quakes you said that as of December 2021 at least according to One Source China is building more nuclear capacity that's already planned then the entire world put together and apparently the USA is like this little Little Dot how in the world can the United States compete in the future with inferior energy sources I'm not positive that what I'm going to say is 100 true but I'll bet it is you know I have had to bat I'll bet it's true has any country ever lost a war when they had the most abundant energy sources in modern times in modern times the one with the most energy sources wins everything right I think so and I would think that nuclear would be a big part of of making you a safe country here's the thing the United States maybe everybody does wrong but maybe maybe China does it right actually because they have more of a comprehensive view of uh War you know I've heard I'm no China expert but I've heard you know that China has the concept of Total War that you know the economy is War uh influences or all that stuff is war but in the United States because the way we like to lump things and Report things you know literally the news has somebody who covers the military stuff and then the different person covers the economy am I right the way our news is organized is that the economy is separate from military it just it's easier to talk about it and although it's easier to talk about it it also gives you a completely misleading idea of what defense is military defense's economy military defense is energy because energy is basically your economy you know it that's an oversimplification you could call it hyperbole I've been known to use it but uh nobody would disagree who knows anything about the world that the that the economy is basically your military you know I mean it's almost a one-to-one correspondence and that energy is pretty much your economy so energy is your Homeland Security you have and that's the thing that Trump got right right Trump was the one who said you got to get rid of that pipeline from Russia to Germany because that's a military problem essentially he is the first one I remember framing it correctly I I might be wrong um she said I was I was listening to uh Russell Brand talk about the fact that blowing up the nordstream pipeline was more about economics than any kind of you know military security to which I said Russell Brand you can't separate those things now it his point that there might be a not might his point that some people would have a purely Financial reason for it for sure I mean that's completely right some some people in the larger drama would have a purely financial interest surely those people exist in in power too but as soon as you say that you're doing it for one reason you've really lost you've sort of lost the bigger picture the bigger picture is that taking Europe away from dependence on energy from you know a potential adversary was the smartest security thing you can do even if it's really expensive in the long run you've got to get your energy under control and not under your not under your uh adversaries control that's just the dumbest thing you could ever do so I just want to add that frame I guess that would be called a reframe so instead of thinking that the military and the economy are two separate questions they're always the same and then the third thing is that energy equals economy they end up basically being a proxy for the other well let's uh challenge your IQs here uh uh let's see if you can get the answer before I ask the question go people on the there you go that is the correct answer very good very good this is the only audience that can answer a question accurately accurately before the question is asked am I right have you ever seen any audience that can get the answer before the question is asked and here was the question according to Rasmussen what was the congress's perform or approval let's say in December they have an update but as a oh you're right 25 25 that's right so Congress had a 25 approval in December but uh rasmussen's update is it's up to 28 percent 28 that's uh that's roughly that's roughly 25.

so a quarter of the country thinks that uh Congress is killing it wow I love Congress I like what they're doing now do you ever wonder how that conversation goes yeah the conversations we're most used to are smart people talking to each other because you see them on TV you see the pundits arguing but in the real world the 25 of the public the voting public this is voting public ly voters just make it a little worse this isn't the General Public this is the elite part of the public that votes and the the 25 of them think Congress is is uh they're really putting up some good numbers do you wonder how that conversation goes it's like well uh I feel that goes like this You Know Carl I've been noticing that Congress has really been killing it lately yeah was that so Eric um you know like what would be an example of that well uh there was that time they approved the budget did they approve the budget I don't know but other things a lot of other things they did they're pretty darn good yeah a lot of other things a lot of other things pretty darn good I feel like it went like that like like there wasn't a lot of depth of the conversation see what I'm saying not a lot of depth there were not layers what I'm saying is there were not layers upon layers of complexity probably not all right well that's good approval Congress is up I am enjoying watching CNN try to give something embarrassing out of the the personal not personal but the uh the communications within Fox news about Dominion during the aftermath of the election and there are lots of emails that you could consider maybe embarrassing I'm not even sure that's the right word because they're being sort of presented as embarrassing but when I read them I'm having the opposite conclusion like they're trying to say look you know they they knew that uh they knew the coverage was wrong and that they knew that the election was rigged but they said otherwise and then they show the email and I read it and it says I don't say that I see them I see them wanting to serve Their audience to give their audience the news that the audience is most interested in as citizens of the United States is that nothing is it nothing that there's an enormous audience that has an intense interest and a specific story that's not nothing now even no matter what your personal feelings were as long as you were talking about the facts you know and opinions around facts I think it's perfectly appropriate to give the the audience the news they crave the most they're the country the audience is the country you have half of it or a third of it or something so like how is that embarrassing but they they try to make it there's the newest one um apparently uh Tucker Carlson was reported in some email to somebody else or something that he you would be basically glad that Trump was out of the scene because these sacred reporting on them and they he quote passionately hates Trump he passionately hates them now keep in mind that the context was immediately right in the right in the middle of trump complaining about the election which sort of put Fox News in a bad situation um now here's here's the thing is that embarrassing is it embarrassing that uh you know maybe the most you know a prominent Fox News opinion person uh let me just finish the reframe here 's my reframe somehow I didn't know that I didn't know that I watched Tucker Carlson during that entire period And I did not know that he had a bias against Trump like a personal bias and I guess Tucker went on to say that he hadn't accomplished much now how is that an insult how is that embarrassing in what world is it embarrassing that his audience couldn't even tell and I couldn't tell I didn't see a bias I I thought he reported Trump right down the middle you know as his opinion you know matched up with the facts I I feel like that was almost a compliment the fact that the audience couldn't tell that he had a a very serious bias uh how do you how do you do better than that like what's the level above that I mean to me they just reported he's the Pinnacle of objective reporting yeah not objective uh about his own opinion because he's an opinion guy but objective about who was the president of the United States I I don't know to me that's like worthy of Applause and that's the best of the CNN can come up with all right um I'm going to give you um oh and here's another one I think they were trying to embarrass Murdoch or something Murdoch must have testified and I guess the lawyer said quote you've never believed that Dominion was evolved in an effort to delegitimize and Destroy votes for Donald Trump correct that was a Dominion lawyer asking Rupert Murdoch and Murdoch says uh quote I'm open to persuasion but no I've never seen it okay that's why he's rich is that not the perfect answer how do you beat that answer am I right that is the perfect answer see he's he starts the answer with yeah probably assuming that this would get out he starts the answer by respecting his by respecting his audience that is respectful of the audience I'm open to persuasion but I haven't but I haven't seen the evidence you can't beat that and they're they're reporting it like it's a maybe it's a little embarrassing or something no if Murdoch were my boss I'd be pretty darn happy about that that's a good answer especially so this is a persuasion lesson as well saying you're open to persuasion doesn't even say you know it's necessarily going to be facts that change people's minds that's like the the highest level you can talk about is like we can be persuaded but I haven't seen anything that persuades me what a perfect answer that is that's the way you should answer questions like that so respect the you know respect who you need to respect say you're open-minded talk about the evidence can't beat it all right here's your next uh persuasion lesson this one comes to us courtesy of uh uh Newsome Governor Gavin Newsom in California now I've talked about this before I'm going to add a little add a little flavor to it so apparently um there's a so as you know reparations is a big question and Gavin Newsom told the people interested in reparations to form a little committee and come back with a recommendation now I've told you already that that's a brilliant way for any bureaucracy or any boss to make an idea go away without saying no you you just make them go away into a committee all right so that's the first persuasion lesson but I'm going to go deeper so if the only thing the Gavin Newsom did was tell the reparations people yeah I'm open to persuasion I'm open to persuasion right just like Rupert Murdoch I'm open to persuasion can you go show me the facts you know give me give me something I can say yes or no to see it that's good technique he's respecting his public saying you know go go form a committee and they're like yes finally we're being taken seriously good technique but here's the brilliant part it's not just about the fact that it will die in bureaucracy and infighting it's about the fact that in the end they have to put it in writing they have to put it in writing here's your persuasion lesson if somebody has an idea that just doesn't hang together and couldn't possibly work and I think reparations is one of those no matter what you think about you know the the morality of it as a practical matter we're Way Beyond the part the way that you could you could insert that into current society and get that yeah and not cause a revolution or something I mean it can't work so you also can't price it you can't figure out who should get it can't figure out who should not get it so here's what I would do if I were if I were in charge of this and I wanted to persuade it and of existence I would respect my audience that say all right you have a moral argument and it's not it's not unlike reparations that have been paid for other things in the past so that would be respected in the audience right there are people who care about it you've got a moral argument it's not unlike things we've talked about before let's talk about it but then I would go further and say you need to come up with a number but because this is so racially charged I wanna you need to break it down by uh by race not just in terms of who would receive it but how the tax burden would be distributed so I'd like to know for example if you're recommending I think they went from recommending two hundred twenty thousand dollars per black Californian they've upped that to 360 000 per black California and and keep in mind there was no slavery in California by the way but that doesn't mean that people you know didn't come from places where they were there were um here's how I would uh ask them to do it I'd say I want you to come up with the number and so let's say that's 360 000.

figure out what the how much that is you know per year or what that does to the budget and then figure out what each ethnic group will be contributing to it so you would say Okay white people you make a lot of money so you'd be paying I don't know 40 of it 60 and it'd be like uh Hispanic Americans now this would be your share and then Asian Americans here's how much you're going to pay uh for black reparations and then you publish it and you say here's the recommendation from our reparations group and then you let the public do the rest all you have to do is ask somebody to write it down just write it out and if they don't write down you know of course they would leave out anything embarrassing to their case you just say all right you know you've got to do both the pros and the cons I don't want to put the cons on top of your idea you're the experts so give us both the pros and the cons tell us who benefits what it costs who's who's paying and just really map out some details here so you know if I come out that the average uh Hispanic immigrant who came across the border on Tuesday would you know maybe be on the hook for some of those reparations too and then you'd have to you'd have to deal specifically with what about people who live here but are not residents what about that what if somebody's not a resident of California but they do live here you know they might not have changed the residency yet do they get paid because if they do then what about people who move here just temporarily to get some reparations do they get some reparations how about that so you simply asked the people to describe their plan in a little more detail make sure that they've got the pros and the cons so there's an argument both but here's the argument you would be sure to ask them to include and I saw this today equal opportunity activist Ward carnally as he was asked some California Board and he got up and he spoke and he said that there's only one way to stop all the the crime and that's to uh he said there's only one thing that would stop our children from busting into these liquor stores there's only one thing that would stop our kids from busting into these jewelry stores stealing watches and jewelry and that's reparations so I would say make sure you include that argument like right up in the summary you want to put that right up top um and not only that but I would highlight this and have you ever heard me say Embrace and amplify I would Embrace this and I would amplify it because there might be a lot of other places we could use this concept of paying large amounts of money to criminals so that there will be disincented from from a crime what what's that there's a word for that so there's a word for that what's the word for when you pay somebody money not to do something bad to you what's what's it oh extortion extortion right so the plan here is to sort of morph from the crimes which none of us want I mean none of us want anybody breaking into jewelry stores and liquor stores and stuff we'd like that then but if we could just convert that into more of an extortion kind of a model that might be something that we could use in other ways for example uh we keep talking about using the military in Mexico but that was before I heard this idea we probably could just pay the cartels not to do crimes that would be more expensive but so is war so is war so why don't we use the word currently idea of paying reparations to Black Californians as a way to stop the uh the attacks on stores because once they had some money they would have no reason to do it so sort of one plus one equals two basic logic but you could just extend that to all crime really why why would we stop it there one of the things I like is if you try something small and it works hey let's pay criminals extortion so they don't they don't Rob us and we should just get rid of Prisons there is some amount of money if we save all that prison money we'll just give all of our money to the criminals and then they're going to let us go and I think that would be one way to defund police is just pay the criminals directly until they have no reason to rob a liquor store now they still might rob a liquor store because it's easier than taking out your wallet and apparently there's no penalty for it so it might you know the convenience factor still has to be factored in because it might be just more convenient to pick up the liquor and just walk directly out the door especially if there's like one or two people in line don't you hate that like you want to pay for something you plan to pay for it but there's two people in line and you're like what time is it I want to get and drink my liquor so just cut the line walk out the door we don't have law in California so that would be a good idea but anyway the point is that all of that should be in the reparations recommendation because you don't want to you don't want people to think you didn't think it through you know people need to think you thought it through so that's your persuasion tip for today uh also um there's a big unreported thing if you I'm a little bit disgusted with all of the uh videos that we see that are sort of lopsided you know race wise you know especially in Fox News and on the right right side of uh social media you see a lot of videos of it seems like they're they're focusing only on the few videos of black people hitting non-black people all right white or Asian American or stuff like that and if you if you think about all the videos that they're suppressing it really makes you wonder about these algorithms for example I've never seen a video of an orthodox Jew beating up a black person you know they exist but it's probably an algorithm thing so the other thing is when you watch when I watch those videos I always have the same feeling do you and I know it's we get so biased because it's only one type we're saying it's just one type we're saying one type one type and there's no way that doesn't affect your brain and make you more biased and when I watch them I just think the same thing every time whoever talks about all the hand injuries to the attackers every time I see one of them I see people using their bare hands and Punchy people into these hard skulls and they're usually hitting like the hardest part of the body they're not even hitting soft Parts like the soft parts are usually using their boots but with a they're hitting bare-handed there's a reason the boxers wear those big Gloves did you know that that's like to protect their hands and they're professionals professional boxers are protecting their hands with these big things so if you're an amateur and you just you're sort of spontaneously get into one of these fights there have to be a lot of hand injuries and nobody's talking about that nobody's talking about that so I thought we should talk about that all right vivik uh here's some Vivek ramaswamy persuasion about January 6.

so he's using a analogy here he says if you're prosecuted for an alleged bank robbery you get to see all the video footage of what happened not just the time your face is caught on camera at the site that's basic constitutional Law And Criminal procedure no one should ever be convicted of a crime without seeing all potential exculpatory evidence this is not a right wing or a left-wing issue Justice demands it High Ground High Ground maneuver That's The High Ground maneuver yeah so I I love the fact that he changes the frame to uh really a constitutional thing that every person would agree with basically literally nobody would disagree right the thing that makes it a high ground maneuver is that there is no argument against it did you notice that see there are tons of professional politicians who will make an argument when there's an argument against it now sometimes you can't avoid that right but if you have a choice and you can make your argument in a way that nobody can argue well that's the best you could do you can't beat that like by definition you can't beat something that ever just shuts everybody down who exactly is going to argue that the the accused should not have access to the evidence most basic thing in America right you can't get more basic than that so yeah that's so that's what ramaswamy brings to the game and I think he's going to make all of the Republicans better because he once again once again this is like how many times have you seen it he set the standard for how to talk about it and I think that Republicans have done a poor job in the past in finding frames that are The High Ground they they go to the uh the partisan stuff now the partisan stuff is how you win stuff in the past but nobody's ever tried to use a high ground where everybody could be happy politicians typically don't know how to do it it's actually a rare skill so if you think this is an accident this isn't an accident Rama Swami actually knows how to do this right you know who else was good at it for a while Obama was good at it for a while yeah he got a little more partisan but uh for a while he was gonna all right so Tucker talked to a security guard who was working on the January 6th day and everything about January 6 is disgusting am I right like everything about it is not just wrong or inaccurate not just fake news not partisan it's disgusting it's just disgusting and I'd have to say that should be the one thing we could agree on right left and right that everything about this is just disgusting how happy am I that uh violent people there were some violent people right we don't know the percentage but how happy am I that people that I would identify I would have identified as roughly on my team at the time and they they go and like ruin ruin things for all of us I'm disgusted by that the violence disgusting right violence is bad enough all violence is terrible but this is violent and disgusting the way the news treated it is disgusting the way Congress you know did their special hearing and you know at least some part of it was total is disgusting they were sending Americans to jail knowing that they were apparently if you if you were to take the current reporting at face value it does look like there's a good argument for evidence was uh withheld I mean I guess that's a fact right I think we could say it's a fact that the defendants did not have access to this video so that's just the fact right that's not an opinion so that's that's the end of the story that should be the end of the story right why in the world is anybody keeping these people in jail at this point whether or not they committed a crime can't be the the question that we cannot reframe this as did they commit a crime the and again I'm only talking about the non-violent ones everybody understands that right a hundred percent of us I think oppose the the violence whether you're left or right you know close to 100 of us um but you know the the left wants to make it whatever the violence is characterize the entire thing which is totally disgusting just that's disgusting but it might be no more disgusting than you know the right characterized black lives matter what so here's a question for you the question of the day what percentage of a crowd of protesters would have to be violent and or destroying property let's say before you would say it's a violent uh protest what percent of actual participants in violent because it doesn't need to be that big you know and I think this is where the bias comes in I think if you're on the right and you see black lives matter and one percent of them are violent it's going to feel like 30 because that's what was on the news and you're gonna say that's too much but you wouldn't know what percentage it was I have no idea if you said Scott gun to your head you must you must come up with an estimate of what percentage of the black lives matter rioters were actually destroying things or violent and I'd have to say first of all I have no idea do you like I I couldn't even guess if you put the gun to my head I'd say one percent gun to add one percent and that's that's maybe something in that in that neighborhood if we round if you round it's probably around one percent for these protesters as well what would you say some are saying up as high as 25 for um black lives matter if 25 of those crowds were violent and destroying things the rate of Destruction would be Way Beyond what we've seen I think but that that's without data that's just sort of living in the world it has that feeling about it you know what I mean sort of sort of my collective experience of the world says that if 25 of those crowds were destroying things there would be no cities left I think it's one percent but I don't know so before you decide that black lives matter was or was not violent in their protests or the January Sixers were or were not violent you're going to have to figure out what percentage you would say makes them violent and then also it would be fair if you treated both sides roughly the same that would be fair in your thinking it would be fair so I'd love to know that anyway um so Tucker talks to the security guard and uh it's important to the story that you know he was a black guy he's a Biden voter Biden voter and the way he was treated is disgusting now we may we may be missing some facts but the facts that are reported based on his his story is that he was there that day he was a capital police guy um he says they were not informed that the protest was going to be as big as it was so he thought that his management failed him for reasons he doesn't know and what happened was he says that as he was uh walking through the crowd somebody put a Maga hat on his head and he quickly realized that that was the safest thing he could do to walk through the crowd yeah he must have still had his uniform on but once he had the Maga hat on you and he's and he's black right so if you see a black guy in a capital uniform with a magi hat in the middle of the protest I'm guessing that makes you completely safe would you agree like that hat would be like a force field so he puts on this hat in the middle in the middle of this dangerous chaos right very unpredictable dangerous chaos then violence was happening he puts on the hat to keep himself safe clearly not a supporter clearly not a supporter just just thinking fast and being smart I mean how would you just I can't describe that anyway other than smart that's that's the only description right he got fired for it he got fired because there's a picture taken of him in the Hat um and and then he wasn't interviewed by the January 6 people I think oh I'm sorry yeah I'm uh I'm getting the story a little bit wrong somebody's correcting me here he was put on some kind of leave indefinitely and then he quit during the leave which lost his pension or something like that suspended suspended put on leave something like that yeah so basically he would he got a penalty for doing a smart thing and I don't know if there's a counter argument I just feel like everybody turned into a turd at the same day like the Press you know all everybody talking about it practically we all turned bad one way or another it was like everything was bad from top to bottom like it was this moment of you know just extraordinary disgusting ugliness that swept over everybody for a little while it was like a like a mass hysteria that took too many people in and I'd just like to forget the whole thing yeah I guess we can't forget it we have to figure out what happened but uh the faster we get past that the better all right um got it of all of all the many terrible things this one bothered me the most because he got punished for doing something smart like that just that hurts my head so hard as the creator of the Dilbert comic right like that that's right in my fields I hate that all right and then I guess this video now Tucker has that the uh the narrative about Brian sicknick by some people and I don't know who had it right and who had it wrong in the media uh was wrong I feel as if the media was a little more accurate that he was not killed by the protesters but I feel that the politicians kept conflating his death as if the protesters did it does that feel right to you New York Times tells the fake story so on Twitter there was a community notes put up on a tweet that said the Washington Post and I think somebody else Reuters maybe reported it correctly which would mean some of the media got it right but I haven't confirmed that so my my best guess is that the media some got it right someone got it wrong and as long as some of the media got it wrong that gave that politicians cover to intentionally get it wrong I think that's what happened now what do you think of that now I don't mind so much that the media got a story wrong because you know you have to live in a world where stories are wrong sometimes case in point um but I don't know it's just it's just hideous hideous Behavior by Congress uh they should be in jail the the January six people who perpetrated this hoax now I'm going to call it a hoax because they left out they did not provide the exculpatory or potentially exculpatory I think with the Q Anon Shaman the video is highly exculpatory highly I don't know how much it is for the other people but at least a little bit probably so yeah this is just disgusting all right so I'm revising my opinion about the uh the cartel violence on a car of four Americans who went into Mexico some cartel shot about killed two tragically my first thing was that they knew they were Americans so when in the initial reporting I felt like they knew they were Americans and they took them hostage that didn't happen it looks like they were mistaken for a Haitian gang looks like they were black so they'd mistaken them mistook them there might they might have avoided maybe avoided a checkpoint after they went through or something so there's something that didn't look right and the cartel guards who apparently there's two checkpoints you get across the border legally and then as soon as you're over the cartel checks you a second time did you know that did you know that the cartel has its own its own guard post at the border if you didn't know that um so this is the sort of thing that might spark a war but my take was if there would brazenly kidnap Americans you just have to turn up the heat to 100 and not 100 but you got to turn it up to laser quality uh but it apparently they did not however there do seem to be lots of actual other American kidnapping cases they're probably cartel cases too so I wouldn't make my case for attacking Mexico based on this event as tragic as it was but um it does make everybody's brains think you know in a more aggressive fashion I think so Lindsey Graham's getting serious about this now uh cartels or the Congress seems to be changing but I was watching the five yesterday they had a graphic about how many cities in the U.S the cartels have already set up shop uh don't ever look at that graphic if you have a choice it will mess up your brain I don't know the real size of the problem because it could be you know five people in the city count as MS-13 or something I don't know what it takes to count as having a foothold but it's a lot of cities it looked like 100 cities it's taken like the bottom two-thirds of the country basically and yeah but I don't know if they're influencing the police departments yet presumably if they grow they would you know there's some rumor that they're taking over from other gangs I don't know the extent of that uh but it's I I think I think the country is getting pretty serious about uh doing something about it for a change uh however I do take Council from Geraldo Rivera who's you know anti sounds like he's anti-using military in Mexico and here's the argument against it Wars never work and they never end so that would be the argument against it it's just another way for the military-industrial complex to make money it'll never end and it'll never work now that's not terrible that's not a terrible opinion I actually found myself persuaded because there's such a long history of Wars not working for America anyway and so I think you have to take that seriously however as Greg duffel pointed out on the same show they're killing a hundred thousand a year now how much worse could it be would it be worse I don't know it might be worse in a different way because you'd expect some pushback but I don't know my my instinct is that if you do nothing the hundred thousand gets bigger and it's already you know completely yeah and if and of any reasonable range of tolerance I mean it's so far away from anything you would tolerate but let's consider the alternative full legalization would that just make the cartels own a legal business and that's the only change they would just figure a way to make it legal and then they'd still be in business or would it only work if the government provided the drugs for free or at the same price let's say could you drive the cartels out of business by taking away the source the trouble is we only have ideas that can't work so here are the here are the three ideas that can't work do nothing that can't work go to war it might work but you know the odds are not as good as you'd like uh or legalize it which would probably in the short run cause way more deaths but it would put the cartels on a business after we've addicted more people I don't know you know does the supply and demand actually cause more people to be addicted if it's um easier and safer to get or is that just that the people who want to be addicted already have access it wouldn't make any difference at all so it feels like every path doesn't work doesn't it it just feels like all of them don't work but doing nothing seems like the dumbest you know if if the war makes it worse I suppose we can stop doing it but we never do so I don't know I'd be tempted to Annex Mexico that I mean I suppose you could try getting permission to use special forces and stuff but I don't know would that make any difference we'll see I think uh military is inevitable at this point here's what we the world needs the world needs what I call a zoom government or government in a box for situations in which a government would be temporarily without a government usually because of a war or revolution or something so wouldn't it be good and I'll just use the Swiss as my Universal neutral country imagine you had a Swiss entity that was like organized as already a government and they would go in and they would act as a government for a six-month period for any country that temporarily didn't have one there would be let's say under U.N supervision something like that you know just so there's a little bit of credibility but the deal is they have to leave in six months they have to there's just no option gotta leave in six months even if they haven't fixed anything right even if they haven't fixed anything because if you can't get something going in six months yeah probably you never will right so I think we need something like that I saw a bunch of people yelling no what what's the what's the argument against it well you could make it an International Group just just people who are just a safe competent maybe they're older it'd be good if they're older so they don't want to stay there forever they just take over for a while keep the keep the lights on and then you phase them out uh willingly if there will if they're well paid it would be not too big of a risk that they would try to stay and I don't think I don't think that a foreign power could control the military very easily right so I wouldn't worry about the government in a box coming in and then taking over the country because they wouldn't have the Loyalty of the military the military at best would say all right we got a problem here see if you can work it out in the next six months and then turn it back over to us economic collapse well it would be better than no government at all um let's check in on the Biden competency for handling this Mexico Mexico fentanyl problem and MS-13 to check competency we'll check in with John Pierre uh see what she said spokesperson is she said that fentanyl is currently at historic lows historic levels under the Biden presidency all right so the Biden Administration according to the spokesperson can't tell the difference between how much they catch and how much is getting in they actually can't tell the difference between measuring how much you catch and knowing how much actually got in that you didn't catch as if they can't tell the difference and that that's who's in charge of it right now if you say to me Scott Scott that's the spokesperson that's just a spokesperson she she sometimes has a gaff she's been saying this for a long time it wasn't just yesterday am I am I right she's been saying the same thing for a long time they act as though they're not just lying that they can't tell the difference that they actually can't tell the difference like actually that's what it looks like I mean you could say yeah it's just spin but it doesn't look like it it looks like they can't tell the difference all right don't know I don't want to read her mind maybe she can't tell the difference that would be even worse has anybody seen this new Beauty filter on Tick Tock where all you do is turn on the filter and in real time you look like a beautiful version of yourself it's it's scary oh and there's a pedo one where a man could be a beautiful woman and stuff like that right so basically you can turn into anything and you can't tell anymore what's different about it is you can't tell you actually can't tell and there's like good news and bad news the good news is um I'm going to look a lot younger in about a year because it seems to me that zoom and you know these all of these services at the very least they would have a makeup option am I right so there's somebody like me who doesn't want to put makeup on to do a live stream I would just hit a button and it would you know just give me a look as if I had TV makeup on and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference it would there wouldn't be any you know pixels floating or anything it would just look exactly like me but better and I um and I could make myself younger I could remove wrinkles anything I want apparently so what's that going to do to podcasting when you're looking at somebody who's a perfect reproduction but the better version I guess you could argue that's what movies and TV have always been right yeah if you see the real movie star they don't quite look like they look in the movies although I I heard one exception there's one exception to that so when Angelina Jolie was in her her let's say movie making Prime I don't want to say her prime I'll say her movie career Prime did you see how cleverly I dance around that Don Lemon take a lesson Don Lemon so when she was in her movie making Prime I I was photographed by somebody who had just photographed her not too long ago so and I asked him about that apparently she I think she showed up alone like at sort of the height of her Fame she showed up to a photo shoot alone didn't need anybody and he said that she was the most like the stunning person in person he'd ever seen so apparently her her movie Charisma perfectly translated into a one-on-one private situation like he couldn't say he couldn't stop talking about what it was like to be in the same room like and he was he was a celebrity photographer so he'd done he'd done all the actresses and models and stuff but she was the one who said yeah that it's the same in the room that was interesting all right um here's a thing that I just figured out today and maybe some of you already knew this forever I've been asking you what's the deal with everybody hating Soros right and everybody gets mad at me but people wouldn't explain why now of course there's the vague you know Jewish thing so I think oh it's anti-semitic right it's just an anti-semitic Trope but I couldn't get any more knowledge or information about where it comes from why him specifically you know what's this business and I finally I finally we went down the conspiracy theory Rabbit Hole to figure out what's going on how many of you knew the following thing that when uh not everybody right most of my generalizations are not everybody but when people on the right not all the people on the right some of the people on the right when they talk about Marxism they're really talking about Jewish people trying to take over the world do I have that right but nobody's willing to say that out loud that's the conspiracy theory right that from from some document I'm not going to name from like 1920 there was a fake document that said that Marxism was really a cover for the you know some kind of Jewish takeover of the world now is that why you're trying to not tell me because you don't want to say that out loud by the way there's no evidence of that it would be crazy now let me tell you if there's anybody on here right some there are a few guesses most of you are saying no but there are some yeses right so just look at the other comments there are some yeses that means that some people were aware of this and I just I just heard this this Theory yesterday actually uh and finally pieced it together so I was always confused why people would use the word Marxist do you know why because I don't think it's a persuasive word and I kept wondering why does everybody say you know she's a Marcus Marxist they're a Marxist BLM is a Marxist I never understood it because if you're calling somebody a Marxist when I hear that I go it's a different economic theory whoa like why why are you using that word right um so I just wondered how much of a like anti-Semitic variable is built into that when people use that word because I would I don't think I'd ever use that word I'm not there's something going on all right so here's my take on conspiracy theories here's how to tell what is not a conspiracy theory when too many people are allegedly involved that's never a conspiracy theory never never this is never a conspiracy theory so this whole worldwide you know Marxist are really it's really a Jewish plan to take over the world is imagines that there's like plotters everywhere and every you know nobody's talking about it but they're all connected that's never a thing that is never a thing I guarantee you that's not a thing but if you told me that 50 Intel people who knew each other signed a document and conspired to lie about hunter's laptop I'd say 50 is a lot but if they were all Intel people who knew each other I could see that right so that's not too many people given that they're Intel people who know each other but as soon as you say worldwide like that there's nothing like that yeah nobody can nobody can maintain a worldwide you know 100 year plan now that doesn't mean that there's nobody who ever said it you know 100 years ago it doesn't mean there there aren't people who you know actually have that belief but there's somebody who has every belief so I feel like the whole uh we don't like Marxism thing even if it's the exact correct word it's not persuasive and it has this tinge of the anti-Semitism on it that doesn't seem persuasive like why would you use a word that's that's already slimed by uh anti-Semitism you wouldn't you wouldn't want to use that word it's not persuasive so I don't know what the alternative is because Marxism covers like a a description of a larger thing but not Marxism yeah let me uh let me speculate a few things if you changed it to systems over goals it gets closer like marriage having a traditional family is a system isn't it whereas Marxism I have a goal of everybody being treated equally um free markets are a system whereas Marxism of course both have systems but Marxism is goal oriented like to get to a place where I don't know the government controls everybody if you have that point of view or get to a place where everybody's equal or something like that so instead of Marxism versus I don't know free markets or capitalism I would go with something like systems that were and systems that don't and the ones that don't are always the same reason the systems that don't are either focused backwards you know my big point of the week they're either backwards looking at victimization or they don't take into account um incentives so you know you could almost uh say uh systems with incentives versus systems without you could say people who have systems that are well designed versus systems that are designed to fail yeah maybe that's the way to go we favor systems that are designed to work and have always worked they're based on human incentives and everybody getting a fair access Fair access that's a system that works A system that doesn't work is removing incentives you know baby there's another way to say that but here here's my big persuasion thing as long as Republicans and conservatives are using the word Marxist they are on a scale of one to ten their persuasion is a one that that's my opinion a scale of one to ten saying marxists they're all Marxist on one to ten that's just a one it's probably hurting you more than it's helping you it's so bad but there there have to be better ways to do that uh the story about musk mocking the disabled employee do you believe that happened do you believe that headline musk mocked a disabled employee is your first instinct that that's exactly right and there's no context that needs to be added would it would it change your mind if you knew that musk had no idea that the person was uh disabled nor did anybody else because they had the conversation in public on Twitter he found out later and when he found out later and he also made some other assumptions about the guy uh he apologized in public and people were saying how dare you be so insulting to the disabled guy my God here's here's my standard for Behavior do I judge people from by making mistakes nope I never have because everybody makes mistakes that's a ridiculous standard this is a reframe as well judging people by the mistakes and this is in the book that just got unpublished uh making mistakes is what everybody does I try as hard as possible not to judge people by the mistakes but rather to judge them by how they handle their mistake because that that's more thought is put into it and more more character is you know exhibited so musk learned what the real facts were and apologized in a completely adequate way in my opinion um that's as good as it gets again he's being criticized for a behavior that I don't you know nobody nobody let's say nobody condones a mistake it's just it's kind of dickish to condemn it like it's not it's not so out of range of things that we've all done and thought Oh I better go fix that right it's not like he ate a baby or something but it was pretty funny I like that he defaults to the funniest approach to everything no you I feel like part of uh Elon musk's operating system is that if there are two things you can do and they look you know sort of equally you know risky in terms of risk reward they'll always take the funny one and I think he said something that suggests maybe that's actually in his mind all right I saw a good theory today that uh some some person who had inside knowledge about Putin the Putin has a young mistress who's basic basically like a wife and has kids or kid I think kids and so he has a young family and he has you know great mansions and everything he wants and so the argument is he's not crazy so the odds of him launching a nuclear war which would kill his young family that you know I saw pictures of him looking at the the woman who was apparently confirmed as his mistress he looks in love like the way he's looking in the pictures is that look like I'm not going to lose this and and she's not like uh I mean she just she just looks like somebody who had a genuine connection with him just based on a few photographs so that's a pretty good argument and that was the argument that I made without without the details that it wouldn't be rational for him to start a nuclear war it would never be good for him personally all right the problem with statistics do you know why the why statistics is even a thing that people have to learn depending on their career why why was statistics even invented well let me answer that question for you it's because our common sense fools us routinely common sense is so opposite of what statistical truth is that we end up getting in you you saw in the last week without getting into details again there's a bunch of argument about whether a poll was accurate or not the people who criticized the poll said oh it's such a small sample therefore cannot tell us anything and then I would say well it only has an eight percent margin of error even at that small number assuming that the sample was corrected you know was collected appropriately and I would just get like stunned silence because eight percent wouldn't have changed any conclusion from it so it's not that's not obvious and what people would say is how can 130 people represent 100 million people and I would I would sort of have to just hold my tongue because I wanted to answer sarcastically how can how can a small sample represent a large population that's called statistics and polling and that's exactly the description of it and the yeah yeah and then the confidence interval tells you how confident you should be based on how small your size is so really really basic stuff people don't know about statistics but this brings me to Charles Barkley disagreeing with um a let's see ESPN commentator named Kendrick Perkins and Kendrick Perkins suggested that there was racial bias in the MVP votes because since 1990 uh the only people who won MVP without being in the top ten of scoring now that sounds a little suspicious on a Surface doesn't it that somebody could be the MVP of the entire league ever and not be in the top ten of scoring doesn't that sound suspicious to you and the only time it's ever happened is with three white players but but honestly you don't think there's scoring would be sort of five to one of importance compared to all of the other things because remember it's fans voting right or no is it fans voting or is it the professionals voting who votes for the MPP the of fans and and the Press who covers it so Sports writers no fans I'm getting mixed messages here uh Sports writers so we think it's Sports writers who do it okay so what it seems suspicious to you that three the only three times that it wasn't they weren't in the top ten of scoring they're all white guys and there's another one um there's another one that's up for it I guess or got one and then Barkley says uh you can't tell me because the numbers don't make sense does he know how many vote does he know how many voters are white actually or did he pull 80 percent of that of his ass so I guess Kendrick must have said 80 of the voters on that are white uh my point is if only five white guys have one MVP in the last 30 years that makes zero sense his argument zero sense because if that was if that was the case we'd have a lot more white MVPs wouldn't the numbers be way way worse so Barclays sort of statistical you know instinct is that if if 80 percent of the voters were white uh and racial bias is in it that um that we see like mostly white winners does that make sense to you that makes sense to you neither of these arguments make any damn sense neither side makes any sense right because neither of them have any data neither of them have any data and if they did would the data tell you anything probably not let me tell you why the data wouldn't tell you anything um and I'm going to surprise you I'm going to surprise I'm going to side with Kendrick Perkins I'm not going to side with Berkeley I like what Barclay's doing I think what Barclay's doing is trying to just take race out of the out of it which I love which is why Charles Barkley is like way on the top of my list of people I would want to vote for if he ran for politics like he would be way at the top of my list I just love that he's lived a life where he can sort of laugh about racial stuff but you never think he takes it seriously that's like such a good like place to start so I like his instinct to try to take the energy out of it and stuff like that but here's what I think if you were the uh let's say most of them were white nobody knows if it's 80 but if if most of the writers who were were voting every year do you think that white people would have the following thought and I'm going to speak as one white person who would think the following way but I'm not going to say that they do all right so I'm not going to say that somehow I uh that somehow uh represent white people here's what I would have done if I were in that group I'd say to myself what's good for what's good for the game and then I would have voted appropriately if I were a sports writer especially white but maybe also black I'm not sure why it would especially be different but if I were voting I would vote for what's good for the game and sometimes what's good for the game is that a few white people win sometimes because maybe if you only did the top scorers it would be nothing but black winners and you have probably way more white audience and to me it seems like the writers were some somewhat subconsciously subconsciously balancing it out so that it would it would sort of look like um something closer to balanced and it might be that you know maybe it's been since Larry Bird that like a white guy should have won I don't know if that's true but I would have to say it does look a little suspicious to me that the the white guys are the ones who win without being in the top ten of scoring that's not a bad point is it is that a bad point but I don't think it's exactly the way he's describing it I think I think you could allow for two types of racism one type of racism is the bad kind where people are just voting based on race the other kind is also incorporating race but more trying to find a balance of just what's good for the game it'd be good if some white people won once in a while because there are a lot of white fans is the sort of same sort of thinking if if the situation were reversed now that's how probably how I would devote I have to admit I probably would vote based on if I thought there was some unfairness or inequity I might vote in a way that would fix it I can imagine that I don't know if I would just be like oh who had the best stats because it's not really even about the best stats is it because because beyond the stats some some players consistently make their team win when they're on the field that's actually the best stat the best stat is how they score when that one person is playing that's that's the one I like the best all right so I guess we don't know I guess my only point is that without data and without uh being statisticians and none of us in the story are statisticians that I don't think Kendrick Perkins idea is crazy I would just say it might be more of a good purpose to it or at least good intention than bad intention but probably there's a racial component to that a walk agenda might be banned in Iowa so the House of Representatives is looking at something to ban uh the Dei bureaucracies and our institutions of higher education do you think that'll pass Iowa's solidly Republican are they no they're not is is Iowa in the legislature they're not right yeah so does it have a chance wouldn't you need a solid Republican legislature to have a chance with something like that so I don't know what the odds are I guess I guess I should have brought it up uh so here's a just latest update on me but I'm not going to go into any detail on this now so the Chris Cuomo interview I did about my um my so-called racist rant TM trademark should I try to get a trademark on racist rant no probably too soon but nearly half a million people have viewed it and the best criticism that came out of it was from Dan Abrams who said that I can't have it both ways I can't say that my statement was hyperbole but also out of context um yes I can't the statement I made was a sentence of hyperbole and the reason that I did it was the context that was left out it's pretty easy to do both of those at the same time now consider the fact that that was the best objection there were other objections but the other objections were based on things I didn't even say or didn't even feel or was mind reading right the best objection was that you can't have it both ways when obviously you can very easily obviously you could have it both ways it's just two things it's not two opposite things it's just two things I can have an apple and an avocado at the same time do you know what I can't have I can't have an apple and not an Apple at the same time that would be a you know if uh Dan Abrams made that point and said he says he can have an apple and not an Apple at the same time and he just can't do that no Dan I can have an avocado and an apple same time no conflict so you tell me your opinion I've asked this on the locals platform I'm going to talk to them privately in a minute but uh on You.

Tube has the narrative about my little drama shifted in my direction once you realize that all the the adjutants you know the people who just like to make trouble The Click Horrors and the trolls once they get bored with it does it look like things started moving my way or no so I'll ask both of you so people are seeing different things so what you should say is that some people see it and some people don't which is what it looks like so best case scenario because you it's not possible to persuade everybody not everybody sees everything but for the people who have been exposed to the context everything looks pretty good so I'm gonna leave that the reason here's a little media tip if I didn't give you this one the reason I'm leaving uh that one interview up there and I'm turning down others is that as soon as you have more than one it turns into a court case you know what I mean so the the Cuomo interview hit all the points I needed to hit so I was just leaving it there as one consistent thing because the moment I talk to somebody else somebody is going to illegitimately say you said two different things even if I don't more likely they're going to miss the context and because they miss the context on one they're going to say well you're lying because you said this and this one but you said this and this one and it won't be true both of them will be completely consistent but the news only has to tell you they're inconsistent and you go down so I just leave it you know leave it with one story as long as possible and the next thing the next part of the play is I want to see if there's any uh let's say semi-legitimate news organization who decides to tell the whole story like as a story so in other words would uh I don't know New York Times or something say actually there's a way more interesting story here that connects to a larger Trend which is the whole thing I was trying to do is connected to a larger trend will anybody tell the whole story of why I did it how I felt about it from my perspective not guessing you know no mind reading and then describe my strategy for handling it my intention for doing it and also how I reframed once I had your attention I reframed from all the backwards looking strategies for success to forward-looking ones and then also reframe from you know looking at the big picture of systemic racism which you have to work on rather focusing on individual success so even if you don't fix systemic racism you can just slice through it like a hot poker through butter and there's a reason I always repeat that one because it's visual and it's repetition so you'll know if I won here's how you'll know if I won if you hear anybody in the media refer to strategy as looking backwards strategy a rear view mirror strategy or planning for the past and then they compare it to looking forward and how can we work together how can you learn the tools of success Etc if you see anybody in in the public eye who starts using that frame that would be probably for me because it's sticky and it's The High Ground of maneuver all right that's all for now You.

Tube I will talk to you tomorrow bye for now

do do

good morning everybody

and welcome to the highlight of

civilization wow it's good to be alive

isn't it seems like we're in the middle

of all this swirling chaos of Badness

but maybe that's just our perception

maybe things are going great let's talk

about that but first we need to prepare

our minds

uh if you have something a home that

will prepare your mind better than

coffee well go nuts but uh for the rest

of us all you need is a cup of under a

glass of tanker jealous of Stein a

canteen Joker flask a vessel of any kind

fill it with your favorite liquid

I like coffee

and join me now for the unparalleled

pleasure of the dopamine here today the

thing that makes everything better it's

called this simultaneous sip it's famous

around the world and maybe a little bit

more famous this week

and it happens now go

oh yeah that's good favorite

foreign

well let's talk about all the things

there's some funny things and some other

things I heard it's International

women's day

is that right

today or is it like a month or something

all right well we'll talk about that

so I saw a tweet from John quakes

you said that as of December 2021 at

least according to One Source China is

building more nuclear capacity

that's already planned then the entire

world put together

and apparently the USA is like this

little Little Dot

how in the world can the United States

compete in the future

with inferior energy sources

I'm not positive that what I'm going to

say is 100 true

but I'll bet it is you know I have had

to bat I'll bet it's true has any

country ever lost a war

when they had the most abundant energy

sources

in modern times

in modern times the one with the most

energy sources wins everything right

I think so and I would think that

nuclear would be a big part of

of making you a safe country here's the

thing the United States maybe everybody

does wrong but maybe maybe China does it

right actually because they have more of

a comprehensive view of uh War

you know I've heard I'm no China expert

but I've heard you know that China has

the concept of Total War that you know

the economy is War uh influences or all

that stuff is war

but in the United States because the way

we like to lump things and Report things

you know literally the news has somebody

who covers the military stuff

and then the different person covers the

economy am I right the way our news is

organized is that the economy is

separate from military

it just it's easier to talk about it

and although it's easier to talk about

it it also gives you a completely

misleading idea

of what defense is

military defense's economy

military defense is energy

because energy is basically your economy

you know it that's an oversimplification

you could call it hyperbole

I've been known to use it

but uh nobody would disagree who knows

anything about the world that the that

the economy is basically your military

you know I mean it's almost a one-to-one

correspondence and that energy is pretty

much your economy

so energy is your Homeland Security

you have and that's the thing that Trump

got right

right

Trump was the one who said you got to

get rid of that pipeline from Russia to

Germany because that's a military

problem essentially he is the first one

I remember framing it correctly I I

might be wrong

um

she said I was I was listening to uh

Russell Brand

talk about the fact that blowing up the

nordstream pipeline was more about

economics than any kind of you know

military security

to which I said Russell Brand you can't

separate those things

now it his point that there might be a

not might his point that some people

would have a purely Financial reason for

it

for sure I mean that's completely right

some some people in the larger drama

would have a purely financial interest

surely those people exist in in power

too

but as soon as you say that you're doing

it for one reason

you've really lost

you've sort of lost the bigger picture

the bigger picture is that taking Europe

away from dependence

on energy from you know a potential

adversary

was the smartest security thing you can

do even if it's really expensive in the

long run you've got to get your energy

under control and not under your not

under your uh adversaries control that's

just the dumbest thing you could ever do

so

I just want to add that frame I guess

that would be called a reframe

so instead of thinking that the military

and the economy are two separate

questions they're always the same and

then the third thing is that energy

equals economy they end up basically

being a proxy for the other

well

let's uh challenge your IQs here uh

uh let's see if you can get the answer

before I ask the question go

people on the there you go that is the

correct answer very good very good this

is the only audience that can answer a

question accurately

accurately

before the question is asked am I right

have you ever seen any audience that can

get the answer before the question is

asked

and here was the question

according to Rasmussen what was the

congress's perform or approval

let's say in December they have an

update but as a oh you're right 25 25

that's right so Congress had a 25

approval in December but uh rasmussen's

update is it's up to 28 percent

28 that's uh

that's roughly

that's roughly 25.

so a quarter of the country

thinks that uh Congress is killing it

wow I love Congress

I like what they're doing now

do you ever wonder how that conversation

goes

yeah the conversations we're most used

to are smart people talking to each

other

because you see them on TV you see the

pundits arguing but in the real world

the 25 of the public the voting public

this is voting public

ly voters

just make it a little worse this isn't

the General Public

this is the elite part of the public

that votes

and the the 25 of them think Congress is

is uh they're really putting up some

good numbers

do you wonder how that conversation goes

it's like well uh

I feel that goes like this

You Know Carl

I've been noticing that Congress has

really been killing it lately

yeah

was that so Eric

um you know like what would be an

example of that

well uh

there was that time they approved the

budget

did they approve the budget

I don't know

but other things a lot of other things

they did they're pretty darn good

yeah a lot of other things a lot of

other things

pretty darn good

I feel like it went like that

like like there wasn't a lot of depth of

the conversation

see what I'm saying not a lot of depth

there were not layers what I'm saying is

there were not layers upon layers of

complexity

probably not

all right well that's good

approval Congress is up

I am enjoying watching CNN try to give

something embarrassing out of the the

personal not personal but the uh the

communications within Fox news about

Dominion during the aftermath of the

election

and there are lots of emails that you

could consider maybe embarrassing

I'm not even sure that's the right word

because they're being sort of presented

as embarrassing

but when I read them I'm having the

opposite conclusion

like they're trying to say look you know

they they knew that uh they knew the

coverage was wrong and that they knew

that the election was rigged but they

said otherwise and then they show the

email and I read it and it says

I don't say that I see them I see them

wanting to serve Their audience

to give their audience the news that the

audience is most interested in as

citizens of the United States

is that nothing

is it nothing that there's an enormous

audience that has an intense interest

and a specific story

that's not nothing

now even no matter what your personal

feelings were as long as you were

talking about the facts you know and

opinions around facts

I think it's perfectly appropriate to

give the the audience the news they

crave the most they're the country the

audience is the country you have half of

it or a third of it or something

so like how is that embarrassing but

they they try to make it there's the

newest one

um

apparently uh Tucker Carlson was

reported in some email to somebody else

or something

that he

you would be basically glad that Trump

was out of the scene because these

sacred reporting on them and they he

quote passionately hates Trump

he passionately hates them now keep in

mind that the context was immediately

right in the right in the middle of

trump complaining about the election

which sort of put Fox News in a bad

situation

um now here's here's the thing is that

embarrassing

is it embarrassing that uh you know

maybe the most

you know a prominent Fox News opinion

person uh let me just finish the reframe

here

's my reframe

somehow I didn't know that

I didn't know that

I watched Tucker Carlson during that

entire period And I did not know

that he had a bias against Trump like a

personal bias

and I guess Tucker went on to say that

he hadn't accomplished much

now how is that an insult

how is that embarrassing

in what world is it embarrassing that

his audience couldn't even tell and I

couldn't tell I didn't see a bias I I

thought he reported Trump right down the

middle

you know as his opinion

you know matched up with the facts

I I feel like that was almost a

compliment

the fact that the audience couldn't tell

that he had a a very serious bias

uh how do you how do you do better than

that like what's the level above that

I mean to me they just reported he's the

Pinnacle

of objective reporting

yeah not objective uh about his own

opinion because he's an opinion guy but

objective about who was the president of

the United States

I I don't know to me that's like worthy

of Applause and that's the best of the

CNN can come up with all right um

I'm going to give you

um oh and here's another one I think

they were trying to embarrass Murdoch or

something Murdoch must have testified

and I guess the lawyer said quote you've

never believed that Dominion was evolved

in an effort to delegitimize and Destroy

votes for Donald Trump correct

that was a Dominion lawyer asking Rupert

Murdoch and Murdoch says uh quote I'm

open to persuasion but no I've never

seen it

okay that's why he's rich

is that not the perfect answer

how do you beat that answer

am I right that is the perfect answer

see he's he starts the answer

with yeah probably assuming that this

would get out he starts the answer by

respecting his by respecting his

audience

that is respectful of the audience I'm

open to persuasion

but I haven't but I haven't seen the

evidence

you can't beat that

and they're they're reporting it like

it's a maybe it's a little embarrassing

or something no

if Murdoch were my boss I'd be pretty

darn happy about that that's a good

answer

especially so this is a persuasion

lesson as well

saying you're open to persuasion doesn't

even say you know it's necessarily going

to be facts that change people's minds

that's like the the highest level you

can talk about is like we can be

persuaded but I haven't seen anything

that persuades me

what a perfect answer that is that's the

way you should answer questions like

that

so respect the you know respect who you

need to respect

say you're open-minded talk about the

evidence can't beat it

all right here's your next uh persuasion

lesson this one comes to us courtesy of

uh

uh Newsome Governor Gavin Newsom in

California now I've talked about this

before I'm going to add a little add a

little flavor to it

so apparently

um

there's a

so as you know reparations is a big

question and Gavin Newsom told the

people interested in reparations to form

a little committee and come back with a

recommendation now I've told you already

that that's a brilliant way for any

bureaucracy or any boss to make an idea

go away without saying no

you you just make them go away into a

committee all right so that's the first

persuasion lesson but I'm going to go

deeper

so if the only thing the Gavin Newsom

did was tell the reparations people yeah

I'm open to persuasion

I'm open to persuasion

right just like Rupert Murdoch I'm open

to persuasion

can you go show me the facts you know

give me give me something I can say yes

or no to

see it that's good technique he's

respecting his public

saying

you know go go form a committee and

they're like yes finally we're being

taken seriously good technique

but here's the brilliant part it's not

just about the fact that it will die in

bureaucracy and infighting

it's about the fact that in the end

they have to put it in writing

they have to put it in writing

here's your persuasion lesson

if somebody has

an idea that just doesn't hang together

and couldn't possibly work

and I think reparations is one of those

no matter what you think about you know

the the morality of it as a practical

matter we're Way Beyond the part the way

that you could you could insert that

into current society and get that yeah

and not cause a revolution or something

I mean it can't work

so you also can't price it you can't

figure out who should get it can't

figure out who should not get it so

here's what I would do if I were

if I were in charge of this and I wanted

to persuade it and of existence I would

respect my audience

that say all right you have a moral

argument and it's not it's not unlike

reparations that have been paid for

other things in the past

so that would be respected in the

audience right there are people who care

about it you've got a moral argument

it's not unlike things we've talked

about before

let's talk about it

but then I would go further and say you

need to come up with a number

but because this is so racially charged

I wanna you need to break it down by uh

by race

not just in terms of who would receive

it

but how the tax burden would be

distributed so I'd like to know for

example if you're recommending I think

they went from recommending two hundred

twenty thousand dollars per black

Californian

they've upped that to 360

000

per black California

and

and keep in mind there was no slavery in

California

by the way but that doesn't mean that

people you know didn't come from places

where they were there were

um here's how I would uh ask them to do

it I'd say I want you to come up with

the number and so let's say that's 360

000. figure out what the how much that

is you know per year or what that does

to the budget

and then figure out what each ethnic

group will be contributing to it

so you would say Okay white people you

make a lot of money so you'd be paying

I don't know 40 of it 60 and it'd be

like uh Hispanic Americans now this

would be your share and then Asian

Americans here's how much you're going

to pay uh

for black reparations

and then you publish it and you say

here's the recommendation from our

reparations group

and then you let the public do the rest

all you have to do is ask somebody to

write it down

just write it out and if they don't

write down you know of course they would

leave out anything embarrassing to their

case you just say all right you know

you've got to do both the pros and the

cons I don't want to put the cons on top

of your idea you're the experts so give

us both the pros and the cons tell us

who benefits what it costs who's who's

paying and just really map out some

details here

so you know if I come out that the

average uh Hispanic immigrant who came

across the border on Tuesday

would you know maybe

be on the hook for some of those

reparations too

and then you'd have to you'd have to

deal specifically with what about people

who

live here but are not residents

what about that what if somebody's not a

resident of California but they do live

here

you know they might not have changed the

residency yet do they get paid

because if they do

then what about people who move here

just temporarily to get some reparations

do they get some reparations

how about that

so you simply asked the people to

describe their plan in a little more

detail make sure that they've got the

pros and the cons so there's an argument

both but here's the argument you would

be sure to ask them to include and I saw

this today

equal opportunity activist Ward carnally

as he was asked some California Board

and he got up and he spoke and he said

that there's only one way

to stop all the the crime

and that's to uh he said there's only

one thing that would stop our children

from busting into these liquor stores

there's only one thing that would stop

our kids from busting into these jewelry

stores stealing watches and jewelry and

that's reparations

so I would say make sure you include

that argument like right up in the

summary

you want to put that right up top

um

and not only that but I would highlight

this and have you ever heard me say

Embrace and amplify

I would Embrace this

and I would amplify it

because there might be a lot of other

places we could use this concept of

paying large amounts of money to

criminals so that there will be

disincented from

from a crime what what's that there's a

word for that so there's a word for that

what's the word for when

you pay somebody money not to do

something bad to you

what's

what's it oh extortion extortion right

so the plan here is to sort of morph

from the crimes which none of us want I

mean none of us want anybody breaking

into jewelry stores and liquor stores

and stuff we'd like that then but if we

could just convert that into more of an

extortion kind of a model that might be

something that we could use in other

ways for example

uh we keep talking about using the

military in Mexico

but that was before I heard this idea

we probably could just pay the cartels

not to do crimes

that would be more expensive but so is

war so is war so why don't we use the

word currently idea of paying

reparations to Black Californians as a

way to stop the uh the attacks on stores

because once they had some money they

would have no reason to do it so sort of

one plus one equals two basic logic but

you could just extend that to all crime

really

why why would we stop it there

one of the things I like is if you try

something small and it works hey let's

pay criminals extortion so they don't

they don't Rob us and we should just get

rid of Prisons

there is some amount of money if we save

all that prison money we'll just give

all of our money to the criminals and

then they're going to let us go

and I think that would be one way to

defund police

is just pay the criminals directly until

they have no reason to rob a liquor

store

now they still might rob a liquor store

because it's easier than taking out your

wallet and apparently there's no penalty

for it so it might you know the

convenience factor still has to be

factored in because it might be just

more convenient to pick up the liquor

and just walk directly out the door

especially if there's like one or two

people in line don't you hate that

like you want to pay for something you

plan to pay for it but there's two

people in line and you're like what time

is it I want to get and drink my liquor

so just cut the line walk out the door

we don't have law in California so that

would be a good idea but anyway the

point is that all of that should be in

the reparations recommendation because

you don't want to you don't want people

to think you didn't

think it through

you know people need to think you

thought it through

so that's your persuasion tip for today

uh also

um there's a big unreported thing if you

I'm a little bit disgusted with all of

the uh videos that we see that are sort

of lopsided you know race wise

you know especially in Fox News and on

the right right side of uh social media

you see a lot of videos of it seems like

they're they're focusing only on the few

videos of black people hitting non-black

people all right white or Asian American

or stuff like that and

if you if you think about all the videos

that they're suppressing

it really makes you wonder about these

algorithms for example I've never seen

a video of an orthodox Jew beating up a

black person

you know they exist

but it's probably an algorithm thing

so

the other thing is when you watch when I

watch those videos

I always have the same feeling do you

and I know it's we get so biased because

it's only one type we're saying it's

just one type we're saying one type one

type and there's no way that doesn't

affect your brain and make you more

biased and

when I watch them I just think the same

thing every time

whoever talks about all the hand

injuries to the attackers

every time I see one of them I see

people using their bare hands and Punchy

people into these hard skulls

and they're usually hitting like the

hardest part of the body they're not

even hitting soft Parts like the soft

parts are usually using their boots

but with a they're hitting bare-handed

there's a reason the boxers wear those

big Gloves did you know that that's like

to protect their hands and they're

professionals

professional boxers are protecting their

hands with these big things so if you're

an amateur and you just you're sort of

spontaneously get into one of these

fights

there have to be a lot of hand injuries

and nobody's talking about that

nobody's talking about that

so

I thought we should talk about that all

right vivik uh here's some Vivek

ramaswamy persuasion

about January 6.

so he's using a analogy here he says if

you're prosecuted for an alleged bank

robbery you get to see all the video

footage of what happened

not just the time your face is caught on

camera at the site

that's basic constitutional Law And

Criminal procedure no one should ever be

convicted of a crime without seeing all

potential exculpatory evidence this is

not a right wing or a left-wing issue

Justice demands it High Ground High

Ground maneuver

That's The High Ground maneuver yeah so

I I love the fact that he changes the

frame to uh really a constitutional

thing that every person would agree with

basically literally nobody would

disagree right the thing that makes it a

high ground maneuver is that there is no

argument against it

did you notice that

see there are tons of professional

politicians who will make an argument

when there's an argument against it

now sometimes you can't avoid that right

but if you have a choice

and you can make your argument in a way

that nobody can argue

well that's the best you could do you

can't beat that like by definition you

can't beat something that ever just

shuts everybody down

who exactly is going to argue

that the the accused should not have

access to the evidence

most basic thing in America right you

can't get more basic than that

so yeah that's so that's what ramaswamy

brings to the game and I think he's

going to make all of the Republicans

better

because he once again

once again this is like how many times

have you seen it he set the standard

for how to talk about it and I think

that Republicans have done a poor job in

the past in finding frames that are The

High Ground they they go to the uh

the partisan stuff now the partisan

stuff is how you win stuff in the past

but nobody's ever tried

to use a high ground where everybody

could be happy

politicians typically don't know how to

do it it's actually a rare skill so if

you think this is an accident

this isn't an accident

Rama Swami actually knows how to do this

right you know who else was good at it

for a while

Obama was good at it for a while yeah he

got a little more partisan but

uh for a while he was gonna

all right so Tucker talked to a security

guard who was working on the January 6th

day and

everything about January 6 is disgusting

am I right like everything about it is

not just wrong or inaccurate not just

fake news not partisan it's disgusting

it's just disgusting and I'd have to say

that should be the one thing we could

agree on right left and right that

everything about this is just disgusting

how happy am I that uh violent people

there were some violent people right we

don't know the percentage but how happy

am I that people that I would identify I

would have identified as roughly on my

team at the time and they they go and

like ruin ruin things for all of us I'm

disgusted by that the violence

disgusting right violence is bad enough

all violence is terrible but this is

violent and disgusting

the way the news treated it

is disgusting

the way Congress you know did their

special hearing and you know at least

some part of it was total

is disgusting

they were sending Americans to jail

knowing that they were apparently if you

if you were to take the current

reporting at face value it does look

like

there's a good argument for evidence was

uh withheld I mean I guess that's a fact

right I think we could say it's a fact

that the defendants did not have access

to this video

so that's just the fact right that's not

an opinion

so that's that's the end of the story

that should be the end of the story

right

why in the world

is anybody keeping these people in jail

at this point whether or not they

committed a crime can't be the the

question

that we cannot reframe this as did they

commit a crime the and again I'm only

talking about the non-violent ones

everybody understands that right a

hundred percent of us

I think

oppose the the violence whether you're

left or right you know close to 100 of

us

um

but you know the the left wants to make

it whatever the violence is characterize

the entire thing which is totally

disgusting

just that's disgusting

but

it might be no more disgusting than you

know the right characterized black lives

matter

what so here's a question for you the

question of the day what percentage of a

crowd of protesters would have to be

violent and or destroying property let's

say before you would say it's a violent

uh protest what percent of actual

participants in violent

because it doesn't need to be that big

you know and I think this is where the

bias comes in I think if you're on the

right and you see black lives matter and

one percent of them are violent it's

going to feel like 30 because that's

what was on the news and you're gonna

say that's too much but you wouldn't

know what percentage it was

I have no idea if you said Scott

gun to your head you must you must come

up with an estimate of what percentage

of the black lives matter rioters were

actually destroying things or violent

and I'd have to say first of all I have

no idea

do you

like I I couldn't even guess

if you put the gun to my head I'd say

one percent

gun to add one percent

and that's that's maybe something in

that in that neighborhood if we round

if you round it's probably around one

percent for these protesters as well

what would you say

some are saying up as high as 25 for

um black lives matter if 25 of those

crowds were violent and destroying

things

the rate of Destruction would be

Way Beyond what we've seen I think but

that that's without data that's just

sort of living in the world it has that

feeling about it you know what I mean

sort of sort of my

collective experience of the world says

that if 25 of those crowds were

destroying things there would be no

cities left

I think it's one percent but I don't

know so before you decide that black

lives matter was or was not violent in

their protests or the January Sixers

were or were not violent you're going to

have to figure out what percentage you

would say makes them violent and then

also it would be fair if you treated

both sides roughly the same

that would be fair

in your thinking it would be fair

so I'd love to know that

anyway

um so Tucker talks to the security guard

and uh it's important to the story that

you know he was a black guy he's a Biden

voter Biden voter and

the way he was treated is disgusting now

we may we may be missing some facts but

the facts that are reported based on his

his story is that he was there that day

he was a capital police guy

um he says they were not informed that

the protest was going to be

as big as it was so he thought that his

management failed him for reasons he

doesn't know and what happened was he

says that as he was uh walking through

the crowd somebody put a Maga hat on his

head

and he quickly realized that that was

the safest thing he could do to walk

through the crowd

yeah he must have still had his uniform

on but once he had the Maga hat on you

and he's and he's black right so if you

see a black guy in a capital uniform

with a magi hat in the middle of the

protest

I'm guessing that makes you completely

safe

would you agree

like that hat would be like a force

field

so he puts on this hat in the middle in

the middle of this dangerous chaos

right very unpredictable dangerous chaos

then violence was happening he puts on

the hat to keep himself safe clearly not

a supporter

clearly not a supporter just just

thinking fast and being smart I mean how

would you just I can't describe that

anyway other than smart

that's that's the only description right

he got fired for it

he got fired

because there's a picture taken of him

in the Hat

um

and and then he wasn't interviewed by

the January 6 people

I think oh I'm sorry yeah I'm uh I'm

getting the story a little bit wrong

somebody's correcting me here he was put

on some kind of leave

indefinitely and then he quit

during the leave which lost his pension

or something like that

suspended suspended put on leave

something like that yeah so basically he

would he got a penalty for doing a smart

thing and I don't know if there's a

counter argument I just feel like

everybody turned into a turd at the same

day like the Press you know all

everybody talking about it practically

we all turned bad one way or another it

was like everything was bad from top to

bottom like it was this moment of

you know just extraordinary disgusting

ugliness

that swept over everybody for a little

while it was like a like a mass hysteria

that took too many people in

and I'd just like to forget the whole

thing

yeah I guess we can't forget it we have

to figure out what happened but uh the

faster we get past that the better

all right um

got it of all of all the many terrible

things this one bothered me the most

because he got punished for doing

something smart like that just that

hurts my head so hard as the creator of

the Dilbert comic

right like that that's right in my

fields

I hate that

[Applause]

all right and then I guess this video

now Tucker has that the uh the narrative

about Brian sicknick by some people

and I don't know who had it right and

who had it wrong in the media uh was

wrong I feel as if the media was a

little more accurate that he was not

killed by the protesters

but I feel that the politicians kept

conflating his death as if the

protesters did it does that feel right

to you

New York Times tells the fake story so

on Twitter there was a community notes

put up on a tweet that said the

Washington Post and I think somebody

else Reuters maybe reported it correctly

which would mean some of the media got

it right

but I haven't confirmed that

so my my best guess is that the media

some got it right someone got it wrong

and as long as some of the media got it

wrong that gave that politicians cover

to intentionally get it wrong

I think that's what happened

now what do you think of that

now I don't mind so much that the media

got a story wrong because you know you

have to live in a world where stories

are wrong sometimes

case in point

um

but

I don't know it's just it's just hideous

hideous Behavior by Congress uh they

should be in jail

the the January six people who

perpetrated this hoax now I'm going to

call it a hoax because they left out

they did not provide the exculpatory or

potentially exculpatory I think with the

Q Anon Shaman the video is highly

exculpatory

highly I don't know how much it is for

the other people but at least a little

bit probably

so yeah this is just disgusting all

right so I'm revising my opinion about

the uh

the cartel violence on a car of four

Americans who went into Mexico some

cartel shot about killed two tragically

my first thing was that they knew they

were Americans so when in the initial

reporting

I felt like they knew they were

Americans and they took them hostage

that didn't happen

it looks like they were mistaken for a

Haitian gang looks like they were black

so they'd mistaken them mistook them

there might they might have avoided

maybe avoided a checkpoint after they

went through or something so there's

something that didn't look right and the

cartel guards who apparently there's two

checkpoints

you get across the border legally and

then as soon as you're over the cartel

checks you a second time

did you know that

did you know that the cartel has its own

its own guard post at the border

if you didn't know that

um

so

this is the sort of thing that might

spark a war but my take was if there

would brazenly kidnap Americans you just

have to turn up the heat to 100 and not

100 but you got to turn it up to laser

quality uh but it apparently they did

not

however

there do seem to be lots of actual other

American kidnapping cases they're

probably cartel cases too

so I wouldn't make my case for attacking

Mexico based on this event as tragic as

it was but

um it does make everybody's brains think

you know in a more aggressive fashion I

think so Lindsey Graham's getting

serious about this now uh cartels or the

Congress seems to be changing but I was

watching the five yesterday they had a

graphic about how many cities in the U.S

the cartels have already set up shop

uh don't ever look at that graphic if

you have a choice

it will mess up your brain

I don't know the real size of the

problem because it could be you know

five people in the city count as MS-13

or something I don't know what it takes

to count as having a foothold

but it's a lot of cities

it looked like 100 cities

it's taken like the bottom two-thirds of

the country basically

and

yeah but I don't know if they're

influencing the police departments yet

presumably if they grow they would you

know there's some rumor that they're

taking over from other gangs I don't

know the extent of that

uh

but it's I I think I think the country

is getting pretty serious about uh doing

something about it for a change

uh however I do take Council from

Geraldo Rivera

who's you know anti sounds like he's

anti-using military in Mexico

and here's the argument against it

Wars never work and they never end

so that would be the argument against it

it's just another way for the

military-industrial complex to make

money it'll never end and it'll never

work

now that's not terrible

that's not a terrible opinion I actually

found myself persuaded because there's

such a long history of Wars not working

for America anyway

and

so I think you have to take that

seriously however

as Greg duffel pointed out on the same

show

they're killing a hundred thousand a

year now

how much worse could it be

would it be worse

I don't know it might be worse in a

different way because you'd expect some

pushback but I don't know my my instinct

is that if you do nothing the hundred

thousand gets bigger

and it's already you know

completely

yeah and if and of any reasonable range

of tolerance I mean it's so far away

from anything you would tolerate but

let's consider the alternative

full legalization

would that just make the cartels own a

legal business and that's the only

change they would just figure a way to

make it legal and then they'd still be

in business

or would it only work if the government

provided the drugs for free

or at the same price let's say

could you drive the cartels out of

business by

taking away the source

the trouble is we only have ideas that

can't work

so here are the here are the three ideas

that can't work

do nothing

that can't work

go to war

it might work but you know the odds are

not as good as you'd like

uh or legalize it which would probably

in the short run cause way more deaths

but it would put the cartels on a

business

after we've addicted more people

I don't know

you know does the supply and demand

actually cause more people to be

addicted if it's um

easier and safer to get

or is that just that the people who want

to be addicted already have access it

wouldn't make any difference at all

so it feels like every path doesn't work

doesn't it it just feels like all of

them don't work

but doing nothing seems like the dumbest

you know if if the war makes it worse I

suppose we can stop doing it but we

never do

so I don't know I'd be tempted to Annex

Mexico

that I mean I suppose you could try

getting permission to use special forces

and stuff but

I don't know would that make any

difference

we'll see I think uh military is

inevitable at this point

here's what we the world needs the world

needs what I call a zoom government or

government in a box for situations in

which a government would be temporarily

without a government usually because of

a war or revolution or something so

wouldn't it be good and I'll just use

the Swiss as my Universal neutral

country imagine you had a Swiss entity

that was like organized as already a

government

and they would go in and they would act

as a government for a six-month period

for any country that temporarily didn't

have one

there would be let's say under U.N

supervision something like that you know

just so there's a little bit of

credibility but the deal is they have to

leave in six months

they have to there's just no option

gotta leave in six months even if they

haven't fixed anything right even if

they haven't fixed anything because if

you can't get something going in six

months yeah

probably you never will right so

I think we need something like that I

saw a bunch of people yelling no what

what's the

what's the argument against it

well you could make it an International

Group just just people who are just a

safe competent maybe they're older it'd

be good if they're older so they don't

want to stay there forever

they just take over for a while keep the

keep the lights on

and then you phase them out uh willingly

if there will if they're well paid it

would be not too big of a risk that they

would try to stay and I don't think I

don't think that a foreign power could

control the military very easily right

so I wouldn't worry about the government

in a box coming in and then taking over

the country because they wouldn't have

the Loyalty of the military

the military at best would say all right

we got a problem here see if you can

work it out in the next six months and

then turn it back over to us

economic collapse well it would be

better than no government at all

um

let's check in on the Biden competency

for handling this Mexico Mexico fentanyl

problem and MS-13 to check competency

we'll check in with John Pierre uh see

what she said spokesperson is she said

that fentanyl is currently at historic

lows historic levels under the Biden

presidency all right

so the Biden Administration according to

the spokesperson

can't tell the difference between

how much they catch and how much is

getting in

they actually can't tell the difference

between measuring how much you catch

and knowing how much actually got in

that you didn't catch

as if they can't tell the difference

and that that's who's in charge of it

right now

if you say to me Scott Scott that's the

spokesperson that's just a spokesperson

she she sometimes has a gaff

she's been saying this for a long time

it wasn't just yesterday am I am I right

she's been saying the same thing for a

long time

they act as though

they're not just lying that they can't

tell the difference

that they actually can't tell the

difference

like actually

that's what it looks like I mean you

could say yeah it's just spin but

it doesn't look like it it looks like

they can't tell the difference

all right don't know I don't want to

read her mind maybe she can't tell the

difference

that would be even worse

has anybody seen this new Beauty filter

on Tick Tock where all you do is turn on

the filter and in real time you look

like a beautiful version of yourself

it's it's scary oh and there's a pedo

one where

a man could be a beautiful woman and

stuff like that right so basically you

can turn into anything and you can't

tell anymore

what's different about it is you can't

tell

you actually can't tell

and

there's like good news and bad news the

good news is

um I'm going to look a lot younger in

about a year

because it seems to me that zoom and you

know these all of these services at the

very least they would have a makeup

option

am I right so there's somebody like me

who doesn't want to put makeup on to do

a live stream I would just hit a button

and it would you know just

give me a look as if I had TV makeup on

and you wouldn't be able to tell the

difference it would there wouldn't be

any you know pixels floating or anything

it would just look exactly like me but

better

and I um and I could make myself younger

I could remove wrinkles anything I want

apparently

so what's that going to do to podcasting

when you're looking at somebody who's a

perfect reproduction but the better

version

I guess you could argue that's what

movies and TV have always been right

yeah if you see the real movie star they

don't quite look like they look in the

movies

although I I heard one exception there's

one exception to that so when Angelina

Jolie was in her her let's say movie

making Prime I don't want to say her

prime I'll say her movie career Prime

did you see how cleverly I dance around

that Don Lemon take a lesson Don Lemon

so when she was in her movie making

Prime

I I was photographed by somebody who had

just photographed her not too long ago

so and I asked him about that apparently

she I think she showed up alone like at

sort of the height of her Fame she

showed up to a photo shoot alone didn't

need anybody and he said that she was

the most like the stunning person in

person he'd ever seen

so apparently her her movie Charisma

perfectly translated into a one-on-one

private situation like he couldn't say

he couldn't stop talking about what it

was like to be in the same room like and

he was he was a celebrity photographer

so he'd done he'd done all the actresses

and models and stuff but she was the one

who said yeah that it's the same in the

room

that was interesting all right

um here's a thing that I just figured

out today

and maybe some of you already knew this

forever I've been asking you what's the

deal with everybody hating Soros

right and everybody gets mad at me

but

people wouldn't explain why now of

course there's the vague you know Jewish

thing so I think oh it's anti-semitic

right it's just an anti-semitic Trope

but I couldn't get any more

knowledge or information about where it

comes from why him specifically you know

what's this business and I finally I

finally we went down the conspiracy

theory Rabbit Hole to figure out what's

going on

how many of you knew the following thing

that when uh not everybody

right most of my generalizations are not

everybody

but when people on the right not all the

people on the right

some of the people on the right when

they talk about Marxism they're really

talking about Jewish people trying to

take over the world

do I have that right but nobody's

willing to say that out loud

that's the conspiracy theory right that

from from some document I'm not going to

name from like 1920 there was a fake

document that said that Marxism was

really a cover for the you know some

kind of Jewish takeover of the world

now is that why you're trying to not

tell me because you don't want to say

that out loud by the way there's no

evidence of that it would be crazy now

let me tell you if there's anybody on

here right some there are a few guesses

most of you are saying no

but there are some yeses

right so just look at the other comments

there are some yeses that means that

some people were aware of this

and I just I just heard this this Theory

yesterday actually

uh and finally pieced it together

so

I was always confused why people would

use the word Marxist do you know why

because I don't think it's a persuasive

word

and I kept wondering why does everybody

say you know she's a Marcus Marxist

they're a Marxist BLM is a Marxist I

never understood it

because if you're calling somebody a

Marxist when I hear that I go it's a

different economic theory

whoa like why why are you using that

word

right

um so I just wondered how much of a like

anti-Semitic

variable is built into that when people

use that word because I would I don't

think I'd ever use that word I'm not

there's something going on

all right so here's my take on

conspiracy theories

here's how to tell what is not a

conspiracy theory

when too many people are allegedly

involved that's never a conspiracy

theory

never never this is never a conspiracy

theory so this whole worldwide you know

Marxist are really it's really a Jewish

plan to take over the world is imagines

that there's like plotters everywhere

and every you know nobody's talking

about it but they're all connected

that's never a thing

that is never a thing

I guarantee you that's not a thing but

if you told me that 50 Intel people who

knew each other signed a document and

conspired to lie about hunter's laptop

I'd say 50 is a lot

but if they were all Intel people who

knew each other I could see that right

so that's not too many people given that

they're Intel people who know each other

but as soon as you say worldwide

like that there's nothing like that yeah

nobody can nobody can maintain a

worldwide you know 100 year

plan

now that doesn't mean that there's

nobody who ever said it you know 100

years ago it doesn't mean there there

aren't people who you know actually have

that belief

but there's somebody who has every

belief

so I feel like the whole uh we don't

like Marxism thing

even if it's the exact correct word it's

not persuasive

and it has this tinge of the

anti-Semitism on it that doesn't seem

persuasive like why would you use a word

that's that's already slimed by uh

anti-Semitism you wouldn't you wouldn't

want to use that word it's not

persuasive

so I don't know what the alternative is

because Marxism covers like a a

description of a larger thing

but not Marxism

yeah let me uh

let me speculate a few things

if you changed it to systems over goals

it gets closer

like marriage having a traditional

family is a system

isn't it

whereas Marxism I have a goal of

everybody being treated equally

um

free markets are a system

whereas Marxism of course both have

systems but Marxism is goal oriented

like to get to a place where I don't

know the government controls everybody

if you have that point of view or get to

a place where everybody's equal

or something like that so instead of

Marxism versus I don't know free markets

or capitalism I would go with something

like systems that were

and systems that don't

and the ones that don't are always the

same reason the systems that don't are

either focused backwards you know my big

point of the week they're either

backwards looking at victimization

or they don't take into account

um

incentives

so you know you could almost uh say

uh

systems with incentives versus systems

without

you could say people who have systems

that are well designed

versus systems that are designed to fail

yeah maybe that's the way to go we favor

systems that are designed to work and

have always worked they're based on

human incentives and everybody getting a

fair access Fair access that's a system

that works

A system that doesn't work is removing

incentives

you know baby there's another way to say

that but here here's my big persuasion

thing as long as Republicans and

conservatives are using the word Marxist

they are on a scale of one to ten their

persuasion is a one

that that's my opinion a scale of one to

ten saying marxists they're all Marxist

on one to ten that's just a one

it's probably hurting you more than it's

helping you it's so bad but there there

have to be better ways to do that

uh the story about musk mocking the

disabled employee do you believe that

happened

do you believe that headline

musk mocked a disabled employee

is your first instinct that that's

exactly right and there's no context

that needs to be added

would it would it change your mind if

you knew that musk had no idea that the

person was uh disabled nor did anybody

else because they had the conversation

in public on Twitter

he found out later

and when he found out later and he also

made some other assumptions about the

guy

uh he apologized in public

and people were saying how dare you be

so insulting to the disabled guy my God

here's here's my standard for Behavior

do I judge people from by making

mistakes

nope

I never have because everybody makes

mistakes that's a ridiculous standard

this is a reframe as well judging people

by the mistakes and this is in the book

that just got unpublished uh making

mistakes is what everybody does I try as

hard as possible not to judge people by

the mistakes but rather to judge them by

how they handle their mistake because

that that's more thought is put into it

and more more character is you know

exhibited so musk learned what the real

facts were and apologized

in a completely adequate way in my

opinion

um

that's as good as it gets again

he's being criticized for a behavior

that I don't you know

nobody nobody let's say nobody condones

a mistake it's just

it's kind of dickish to condemn it like

it's not it's not so out of range of

things that we've all done and thought

Oh I better go fix that right

it's not like he ate a baby or something

but it was pretty funny I like that he

defaults to the funniest approach to

everything

no you I feel like part of uh Elon

musk's operating system is that if there

are two things you can do and they look

you know sort of equally you know risky

in terms of risk reward they'll always

take the funny one

and I think he said something that

suggests maybe that's actually in his

mind

all right

I saw a good theory today that uh some

some person who had inside knowledge

about Putin

the Putin has a young mistress who's

basic basically like a wife and has kids

or kid I think kids and so he has a

young family

and he has you know great mansions and

everything he wants and so the argument

is he's not crazy so the odds of him

launching a nuclear war which would kill

his young family

that you know I saw pictures of him

looking at the the woman who was

apparently confirmed as his mistress he

looks in love

like the way he's looking in the

pictures is that look like I'm not going

to lose this

and and she's not like

uh I mean she just she just looks like

somebody who had a genuine connection

with him just based on a few photographs

so that's a pretty good argument and

that was the argument that I made

without without the details that it

wouldn't be rational for him to start a

nuclear war it would never be good for

him personally

all right the problem with statistics

do you know why the why statistics is

even a thing that people have to learn

depending on their career why why was

statistics even invented well let me

answer that question for you it's

because our common sense

fools us

routinely

common sense is so opposite of what

statistical truth is that we end up

getting in you you saw in the last week

without getting into details again

there's a bunch of argument about

whether a poll was accurate or not

the people who criticized the poll said

oh it's such a small sample therefore

cannot tell us anything

and then I would say well it only has an

eight percent margin of error even at

that small number assuming that the

sample was corrected you know was

collected appropriately

and I would just get like stunned

silence

because eight percent wouldn't have

changed any conclusion from it

so

it's not that's not obvious

and what people would say is how can 130

people represent 100 million people

and I would I would sort of have to just

hold my tongue

because I wanted to answer sarcastically

how can how can a small sample represent

a large population

that's called statistics and polling and

that's exactly the description of it and

the yeah yeah and then the confidence

interval

tells you how confident you should be

based on how small your size is

so really really basic stuff people

don't know about statistics but

this brings me to Charles Barkley

disagreeing with

um a let's see ESPN commentator named

Kendrick Perkins

and Kendrick Perkins suggested that

there was racial bias in the MVP votes

because since 1990

uh the only people who won MVP without

being in the top ten of scoring

now that sounds a little suspicious on a

Surface doesn't it that somebody could

be the MVP of the entire league ever

and not be in the top ten of scoring

doesn't that sound suspicious to you and

the only time it's ever happened is with

three white players

but but honestly you don't think there's

scoring would be sort of five to one of

importance compared to all of the other

things because remember it's fans voting

right or no is it fans voting or

is it the professionals voting

who votes for the MPP the of fans and

and the Press who covers it so Sports

writers no fans

I'm getting mixed messages here

uh Sports writers

so we think it's Sports writers who do

it okay so what it seems suspicious to

you

that three the only three times that it

wasn't they weren't in the top ten of

scoring they're all white guys

and there's another one

um

there's another one that's up for it I

guess or got one

and then Barkley says

uh you can't tell me because the numbers

don't make sense does he know how many

vote does he know how many voters are

white actually or did he pull 80 percent

of that of his ass so I guess Kendrick

must have said 80 of the voters on that

are white

uh my point is if only five white guys

have one MVP in the last 30 years that

makes zero sense his argument zero sense

because if that was if that was the case

we'd have a lot more white MVPs wouldn't

the numbers be way way worse

so Barclays sort of statistical you know

instinct is that if if 80 percent of the

voters were white

uh and racial bias is in it

that

um

that we see like mostly white winners

does that make sense to you

that makes sense to you

neither of these arguments make any damn

sense

neither side makes any sense right

because neither of them have any data

neither of them have any data and if

they did would the data tell you

anything

probably not let me tell you why the

data wouldn't tell you anything

um

and I'm going to surprise you I'm going

to surprise I'm going to side with

Kendrick Perkins

I'm not going to side with Berkeley I

like what Barclay's doing

I think what Barclay's doing is trying

to just take race out of the out of it

which I love which is why Charles

Barkley is like way on the top of my

list of people I would want to vote for

if he ran for politics like he would be

way at the top of my list I just love

that he's lived a life where he can sort

of laugh about racial stuff but you

never think he takes it seriously that's

like

such a good like place to start so I

like his instinct to try to take the

energy out of it and stuff like that but

here's what I think

if you were the uh let's say most of

them were white nobody knows if it's 80

but if if most of the writers who were

were voting every year do you think that

white people would have the following

thought

and I'm going to speak as one white

person who would think the following way

but I'm not going to say that they do

all right so I'm not going to say that

somehow I uh that somehow uh represent

white people here's what I would have

done if I were in that group I'd say to

myself what's good for what's good for

the game

and then I would have voted

appropriately

if I were a sports writer

especially white but maybe also black

I'm not sure why it would especially be

different

but if I were voting I would vote for

what's good for the game

and sometimes what's good for the game

is that a few white people win sometimes

because maybe if you only did the top

scorers it would be nothing but black

winners and you have probably way more

white audience

and to me it seems like the writers were

some somewhat subconsciously

subconsciously

balancing it out so that it would it

would sort of look like

um something closer to balanced

and it might be that you know maybe it's

been since Larry Bird that like a white

guy should have won

I don't know if that's true but I would

have to say it does look a little

suspicious to me that the the white guys

are the ones who win without being in

the top ten of scoring that's not a bad

point is it

is that a bad point

but I don't think it's exactly the way

he's describing it I think I think you

could allow for two types of racism one

type of racism is the bad kind where

people are just voting based on race

the other kind is also

incorporating race but more trying to

find a balance of just what's good for

the game

it'd be good if some white people won

once in a while

because there are a lot of white fans

is the sort of same sort of thinking if

if the situation were reversed now

that's how probably how I would devote I

have to admit I probably would vote

based on if I thought there was some

unfairness or inequity I might vote in a

way that would fix it I can imagine that

I don't know if I would just be like oh

who had the best stats because it's not

really even about the best stats is it

because because beyond the stats some

some players consistently make their

team win when they're on the field

that's actually the best stat the best

stat is how they score when that one

person is playing that's that's the one

I like the best

all right so I guess we don't know I

guess my only point is that without data

and without uh being statisticians and

none of us in the story are

statisticians that I don't think

Kendrick Perkins idea is crazy I would

just say it might be more of a good

purpose to it or at least good intention

than bad intention but probably there's

a racial component to that

a walk agenda might be banned in Iowa so

the House of Representatives is looking

at something to ban uh

the Dei bureaucracies and our

institutions of higher education

do you think that'll pass

Iowa's solidly Republican are they no

they're not

is is Iowa

in the legislature they're not right

yeah so does it have a chance

wouldn't you need a solid Republican

legislature to have a chance with

something like that

so I don't know what the odds are I

guess

I guess I should have brought it up

uh so here's a just latest update on me

but I'm not going to go into any detail

on this now so the Chris Cuomo interview

I did about my

um

my so-called racist rant TM trademark

should I try to get a trademark on

racist rant

no probably too soon but nearly half a

million people have viewed it

and the best criticism that came out of

it was from Dan Abrams

who said that I can't have it both ways

I can't say that my statement was

hyperbole but also out of context

um

yes I can't

the statement I made was a sentence of

hyperbole

and the reason that I did it was the

context that was left out

it's pretty easy to do both of those at

the same time now consider the fact that

that was the best objection there were

other objections but the other

objections were based on things I didn't

even say

or didn't even feel or was mind reading

right the best objection was that you

can't have it both ways when obviously

you can

very easily obviously

you could have it both ways it's just

two things it's not two opposite things

it's just two things

I can have an apple and an avocado at

the same time do you know what I can't

have I can't have an apple and not an

Apple at the same time

that would be a you know if uh Dan

Abrams made that point and said he says

he can have an apple and not an Apple at

the same time and he just can't do that

no Dan I can have an avocado and an

apple

same time no conflict

so

you tell me your opinion I've asked this

on the locals platform I'm going to talk

to them privately in a minute but uh

on YouTube

has the narrative about my little drama

shifted in my direction

once you realize that all the the

adjutants you know the people who just

like to make trouble The Click Horrors

and the trolls once they get bored with

it

does it look like things started moving

my way or no

so I'll ask both of you

so people are seeing different things

so what you should say is that some

people see it and some people don't

which is what it looks like so best case

scenario because you it's not possible

to persuade everybody not everybody sees

everything

but for the people who have been exposed

to the context

everything looks pretty good

so I'm gonna leave that the reason

here's a little media tip if I didn't

give you this one the reason I'm leaving

uh that one interview up there and I'm

turning down others is that as soon as

you have more than one it turns into a

court case

you know what I mean

so the the Cuomo interview hit all the

points I needed to hit so I was just

leaving it there as one consistent thing

because the moment I talk to somebody

else

somebody is going to

illegitimately say you said two

different things even if I don't more

likely they're going to miss the context

and because they miss the context on one

they're going to say well you're lying

because you said this and this one but

you said this and this one and it won't

be true

both of them will be completely

consistent but the news only has to tell

you they're inconsistent and you go down

so I just leave it

you know leave it with one story as long

as possible and the next thing the next

part of the play

is I want to see if there's any uh let's

say semi-legitimate news organization

who decides to tell the whole story

like as a story

so in other words would uh I don't know

New York Times or something say actually

there's a way more interesting story

here that connects to a larger Trend

which is the whole thing I was trying to

do is connected to a larger trend

will anybody tell the whole story

of why I did it

how I felt about it from my perspective

not guessing you know no mind reading

and then

describe my strategy for handling it my

intention for doing it and also how I

reframed

once I had your attention I reframed

from all the backwards looking

strategies for success to

forward-looking ones and then also

reframe from you know looking at the big

picture of systemic racism which you

have to work on rather focusing on

individual success so even if you don't

fix systemic racism you can just slice

through it like a hot poker through

butter

and there's a reason I always repeat

that one because it's visual

and it's repetition

so you'll know if I won

here's how you'll know if I won

if you hear anybody in the media refer

to

strategy as looking backwards strategy a

rear view mirror strategy or planning

for the past

and then they compare it to looking

forward and how can we work together how

can you learn the tools of success

Etc if you see anybody in in the public

eye who starts using that frame

that would be probably for me

because it's sticky

and it's The High Ground of maneuver all

right that's all for now YouTube I will

talk to you tomorrow

bye for now