the machinery behind the glass facade.

And of course we've lost all trust in our institutions. As Joel says on Twitter, they have these "what you need to know" sections every now and then. There'll be a topic that Twitter helpfully summarizes. You know "what you need to know" is usually some bullet points. So I sure hope I wrote that down. Oh yes I did. Here it is. The "what you need to know." So there were one, two, three, four bullet points. So these would be four things that are so obviously true they could just be putting a bullet point to straighten you out.

All right, I'm going to read them and then tell me if you don't see the machinery behind this. "What you need to know." The Department of Justice found no evidence of voter fraud that could have changed the outcome of the 2020 election according to former AG William Barr. That's one.

Number two: Election officials at the Department of Homeland Security said the 2020 election was the most secure in American history.

Number three: Voter fraud of any type is extremely rare in the U.S. according to AP and Reuters and Reuters and Reuters. Reuters might come up again today. Remember that. Reuters is one of the sources for "voter fraud of any type is extremely rare in the U.S." Reuters. Just hold that in your mind for a while. That'll be relevant. It's called foreshadowing. Foreshadowing.

All right, and then the last one is 44 states already have in place some form of post-election audit, the National Conference on State Legislatures website notes.

Now do I even have to go through what's wrong with all of these statements? You can see the machinery, right? Well I'll do it quickly just in case you missed anything. The first one: all right, the Department of Justice found no evidence of voter fraud, right, because they didn't look for it. That's what's left out. They didn't look for it. They were the wrong vehicle for judging it. They could only judge the things brought to them in too short of a time window to be useful. That entire context is left out. This is clearly propaganda. So you can see the propaganda machinery just so clearly now.

Number two: Election officials at the Department of Homeland Security said the election was the most secure in American history. And they know that how? Do they know that? Wouldn't that be a case of them knowing the unknown? Do they know that the election of 1940 was fraudulent? Well I think what they're saying is that they have the most, I would guess my interpretation would be that they have the most let's say guardrails in place to keep us safe. Okay, now that would be a reasonably good thing to know. We have the most in history guardrails and procedures in place to keep it fair.

Here's some context I'd like to know. Is that enough? Doesn't it sort of matter? Sort of binary, isn't it? I don't care if it's the best it's ever been. Is it enough? That the most basic question is left out. Is it good enough? Are you saying we doubled it from 10% good enough to 20% good enough? The entire context is missing. Obviously propaganda.

Voter fraud of any type is extremely rare in the U.S. according to AP and Reuters. Reuters, hold that thought. Reuters. We'll do the next one. 44 states already have in place some form of post-election audit. Is it enough? Yeah, okay, they have some form of post-election audit. What form? Does it include any of the digital part? Doesn't include somebody looking at the code, I don't think so. Some form. Now isn't it obvious that somebody who would write a sentence like this is not meaning to inform? It is quite clear with the four of these that they are designed for propaganda, for manipulation.

And let me ask you, was it not obvious to every one of you when I read it to you? I mean I primed you for it but you saw it right away, right? At least my audience does, I think.

Now let me be clear. I am also not aware of any fraud in the 2020 election. I have to say that because first of all it's true. I personally am aware of no fraud whatsoever. I'm not even aware of any small fraud because if there were any stories like that I wouldn't have paid attention anyway. Somebody says yes you are. No, I'm aware of small irregularities but I don't like to remember the details because they weren't important if they were small. But I'm aware that people have reported them, so maybe that's what you're looking for.

All right, what is true? Let's get into what is true. And I'll take a little example. Do you remember the famous incident, and of course you know that all the news has to go through the Joe Rogan filter now, so it doesn't matter what you're talking about, it's got to have a Joe Rogan reference to it and we're gonna have plenty.

Do you remember one of the big blow-ups was when Joe Rogan had the Australian guy journalist on and they disagreed about whether the vaccination or the virus itself would cause more myocarditis in a certain age group. And that it looked like maybe the journalist said something wrong but then Joe Rogan disagreed. But then on the show it looked like Joe Rogan saw a source that agreed with the journalist but then we looked at it later it looked like maybe Joe Rogan was right after all. But then I listened to another video of a cardiologist who said when he really dug into it to find out which of them was right after all that you can't tell. That's the bottom line.

So is the last cardiologist that I listened to the one who's right or is Joe Rogan right or was the Australian guy right or two of the three of them right? I don't know. But I will tell you if you listen to a YouTube video of a cardiologist talking about how they decided risk and what data they had and the quality of the data, you will walk away from it saying I'm pretty sure we can't tell. But it also doesn't matter. And the doesn't matter part is that whatever the risk is it doesn't matter even which one's bigger. It's so small it's not part of the decision.

So even something as basic as what you thought about that story, I don't even know if we know that. So our understanding of what is true and what can be known is completely different after the pandemic, isn't it? Everything you thought about the experts, everything you thought about the quality of the data, it's not the same as before the pandemic. Now you think that even the most basic clear story, and this one should have been one, this one should have been two people weren't sure of some data but then after the episode aired the experts looked at it and said well here's what's going on and then they all agreed because we're all looking at the same data. But things aren't that clear apparently. Not at all.

All right, here's, let's talk about Joe Rogan's video response. So many of you have seen it but you don't need to have seen it in order for me to talk about it. So he did a little handheld sort of a self-made video that I saw on Instagram and I guess it's on all the social platforms by now in which he talked about the accusations that he's spreading misinformation about COVID stuff and the Spotify problem of blah blah, you know, and what's his name, Neil Young. I didn't do that intentionally but that pretty much summed up the whole story right there. Neil Young wanting his music to be taken off because he thinks Joe Rogan's spreading misinformation.

All right, so I listened to Joe Rogan's thing and my first take, which I tweeted but I'm going to revise in a moment, is that it's the best response I've ever seen to a public relations problem. That was my first response. The best response I've ever seen to a public relations brouhaha. I now revise that opinion. It is the second best response I've ever seen. And I don't think it's a coincidence but that's just a guess. Now it would be fun to hear him confirm or deny this.

So I have a hypothesis and I'm going to tell you who number one was and see if you can draw a connection. Number one was Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs. When he had his public relations problem it was one of the early iPhone models. If you put your hand in a certain place on the phone it would touch the antenna and it would cut off the call. Imagine having a handheld device that you couldn't hold in your ha