to me on LinkedIn and send me a message and what are the odds I would read your message? Almost a hundred percent.

So what are the odds that I would read a message if you put it on Instagram? I only have about six thousand Instagram followers. I'd probably see everyone. What are the odds I would see a message if you sent it to me on the Patreon app? So I'm on Patreon. I collect funds to spread my Periscopes into other realms to turn them into podcasts and stuff so I use that money for that. How many of you would know that you could send me a message on the app that's used for that, Patreon, and that I would almost certainly, close to a hundred percent, see your message?

So people who are comfortable with technology now they can get a personal message to me through probably six to ten different channels and the odds of me seeing it are pretty high. So if you can get a message to me, I have 278 thousand Twitter followers so I'm a blue check. I'm a verified blue check but on the small side. Having a few hundred thousand followers is still smallish. But what I do have is larger blue check accounts that do follow me and they would certainly see my work if something I tweeted was popular.

All right so if you've got a good idea your ability to get to me or people like me which are the smaller blue check accounts it's close to a hundred percent. Almost anybody could get to me or somebody who has a small blue check account. If we like the idea we have filtered it once meaning that it was good enough that we retweeted it. If we retweet it it's always going to be at least noticed by the bigger blue check accounts. You've seen this in my case. If I tweet something and it has some quality that people want to spread you'll see it command the larger accounts. It doesn't happen often and it shouldn't happen often because most of my tweets are not worthy of the entire world seeing them but some are.

So now the blue checks tweet it. Now what happens when you have this much visibility? Once you reach this much visibility there's somebody on the president's social media team who's gonna see it and they can tell how popular it is when they see it because they'll see how many retweets, they'll see how many likes, they'll see what kinds of comments people made. So you saw this with the jobs not mobs idea. I don't know who actually came up with it. It was a citizen. So some citizen said you know a good slogan would be jobs not mobs. I saw that on the Internet and I made a comment about it that jobs not mobs would be a good slogan and it works on a number of levels and it's persuasion correct and doesn't have any downside. So I said that and it took a very short time for other larger Twitter accounts and for lots of other people to retweet it. It took six days I counted from the time that I saw a citizen with a good idea to the time it percolated up and came out of the president's Twitter account.

This is not the first time that you've seen this happen and I think there is something special about this administration because obviously the tools have been here for a while but there's something about this administration that makes you think participating matters because the president does this so often. You can feel, here's the key point, because the president so often will take a good idea that comes from the base and amplify it you can feel the connection. It's like a real thing. It's not a concept that could work in theory. It's something we observe on a regular basis. So you're watching the most connected president you've ever seen in your life who is essentially A/B testing on a continuous basis and he's part of the system that does it for him. So the bad ideas don't go very far because I won't retweet them and then these people never see them and he just never sees them. But if it's good enough to get the attention of somebody with a smallish account it could make it all the way to the top.

So that is a big, big change in society. It unleashes the best ideas in the world that could be coming from the people who are closest to the problem. So when you see me doing these Periscopes, and I know some of you are complaining that you've seen too much on the opioid situation, the ideas that I'm putting forth are that we should be trying everything on the opioid crisis. And if that's true, if my suggestion that we should be trying as many things as possible is valid, then some of the things that come through the system to me are gonna make their way up.

So when I asked about Suboxone it's because there was somebody on the internet who had an experience with Suboxone curing, essentially being a very easy path to getting off of opioids. But I didn't know if that was something that other people could experience too. It might have been something specific about this person. And so I raised the question because it was such a good question. That doesn't mean it's the answer but it was such a good question that I raised it.

So now you're seeing me do it at my level. I've put out the call: can somebody tell me about Suboxone? Can we look at the question of whether tapering off makes sense? Because there's some suggestion that doctors are recommending Suboxone as a permanent drug so you're just getting off of one drug and getting onto another. And so the question is does it have to be permanent or could you wean yourself off it? And as I explained earlier the real question is could you do a small test of that or has somebody already done a test of it? And I would just find out that.

But watch the power of this system. That idea just came to me this week, the question about Suboxone and whether it could help. I raised it. So far it's trapped here. So far the idea has filtered up to here and there's nobody with a larger account who's picked it up and said yeah that's a good idea. Now probably nobody will. Most ideas don't go that far. But the system is really strong. If it doesn't go that far it might be because the idea didn't have enough legs. It might be it's not quite the right idea but we get to test it and find out fairly quickly.

This is all new. This effect is pretty new or at least it's becoming something that works better under this president. It's not entirely new. Society is not always ready for an idea. Well there are also persuasive people in this stack so persuading people to get ready for an idea is part of the process.

How many of you, let me just ask this question, is this model that I just explained about how easy it is to get from a good idea to the leader of the country, did that seem new to you? Because it's a big, big deal. It's a super big deal. And I've argued before that the citizens, at least until the algorithms take over, the citizens are really in control of the country in a way that's never been true before because of this. Good ideas have now for the first time in history, it's never been true before that a good idea could take on its own life and could just rise. Before a good idea would be sort of trapped in your own little bubble of non-influence but now a good idea can rise and there's nothing to stop it.

This is the Golden Age my friends. The Golden Age is when we realize that resource constraints are not the big problem anymore. Resource constraints were a problem all through history but now it's the good idea that's what we lack. And the president has weaponized the process of getting a good idea from somebody who knows something, somebody who's close to the problem or just somebody who has a good idea. He's weaponized the Twitter path to get them to him so he can amplify them. And by the way when an idea gets to the president and he tweets it that doesn't mean it's done. That just means he's still testing it. He's just testing it at the highest level. What do you think? He gets a lot of input. If it's good he does more of it. If the input is bad he does less of it. This is a good system.

How about the idea of prosecuting Soros for the caravan? I am a Soros skeptic. I can be convinced that Soros is some kind of an enemy to the world. My current impression, because I've asked a lot of people who should know, tell me why Soros is the enemy of the country, and I find that people get a little vague about that. Clearly his organization is funding some things but you have to connect a lot of dots to make him trying to destroy the country. So I would say I'm agnostic on Soros but I lack the kind of facts or argument that would make me anti-Soros. I'm not pro-Soros. I'm just concerned that so many people have a strong opinion and nobody can explain it to me in a way that sounds even a little bit convincing. And I don't know what's up with that.

Do we have other problems that can't even be explained? Because I'm not saying Soros did or did not do anything. I'm saying that nobody can explain what he did. What is his intention? What was he trying to accomplish and what did he do to accomplish it?