0:00

do do do do

0:05

Good morning, everybody. were

0:07

you worried that would make it on time? Come

0:09

on. Come on. What

0:12

do you think you're talking to? Yes.

0:15

Always here and always on time. And

0:18

how would you like to take this special

0:20

experience? that you have looked

0:23

into the best thing that's ever happened to you

0:25

probably, and take it up to

0:27

an even higher level Yeah,

0:30

you would. And all you need is a cup of

0:32

our glass oftankers, chelsea, chelsea, Kentucky,

0:34

Kentucky, Kentucky. fill

0:38

it with your favorite liquid. I

0:40

like coffee. And join me

0:43

now for the unparalleled pleasure of the

0:45

dopest be the other day the thing that makes

0:47

everything better. It's

0:49

called the simultaneous SIP

0:51

and it's happening now. Go.

0:58

ah

1:03

excuse

1:05

me while I enjoy a little afterglow.

1:09

I need a cigarette. I don't need a smoke.

1:12

That was one good set Did you

1:14

all feel it? I felt that. I

1:16

could feel it to my bones. Well,

1:20

I'd like to thank

1:22

Erica who has put together

1:24

a great mug

1:26

for coffee with

1:28

Scott Adams and you'll you'll see

1:30

the final design pretty soon and

1:34

production and that will start pretty

1:36

soon. So just a few weeks I think, you'll

1:38

be able to get your own coffee

1:41

with Scott Adams mug.

1:43

I'm not gonna make any kind of

1:46

profit off of that just people wanted them.

1:48

So So Erica was nice

1:50

enough to organize that. Well,

1:53

there are protests in Iran

1:56

there was, I guess, a young woman was

1:59

taken into custody for not wearing a

2:02

proper headscarf. and

2:04

she died in custody, which

2:07

nobody knows the specifics of that,

2:09

but it doesn't sound good. And

2:11

so there are protests erupting, erupting

2:14

all over Iran.

2:15

Now,

2:18

What do you think are the odds that

2:20

the protests that are erupted

2:22

all over Iran will

2:24

topple the government? Well,

2:27

looks like there's

2:29

no chance of that. Yeah.

2:32

Nobody thinks there's any chance of that.

2:34

In fact, the Iranians are

2:36

sufficiently they're

2:39

sufficiently confident that

2:41

they actually let the protests kinda

2:44

rage for a while. They they don't try

2:46

to stop at work right away. They actually let people

2:49

get their energy out, which isn't the

2:51

dumbest thing to do. It's not the dumbest

2:54

thing to do. But they're kind of watching to

2:56

see if it spreads. I

2:58

feel like it won't. I

3:00

don't know. I don't I don't have a good, you

3:02

know, obviously. I'm not into

3:05

the mood of the average Iranian

3:08

person, but I feel like it'll

3:11

be like one of these several other

3:14

flare ups, and then it will just

3:16

flare away. And as

3:19

some experts said, you

3:21

see some kind of a leader

3:24

on the other side, an opposition leader,

3:26

and there is none. Right? There's nobody

3:28

to rally around. Until you see

3:30

something like that in any kind of military

3:33

defections, nothing's

3:35

gonna happen in Iran. So and

3:38

there's nothing like that. So

3:40

unlike the United States, unlike

3:43

the United In Iran,

3:45

if you protest, nothing's

3:47

gonna happen. I mean, you're not gonna

3:49

get anything. So weirdly

3:52

and here's the weird thing is that Iran

3:55

is allowing more protests than I thought

3:57

they would allow. You know,

3:59

it's not it's

3:59

probably not legal, but they

4:02

are kind of letting it run a little bit. I was surprised

4:04

about that. So

4:06

are you glad that

4:08

you live in a country? If you live in America

4:10

or you live in a some free country

4:12

somewhere else, Are you glad that

4:14

in your country, a big

4:17

protest movement would

4:19

be successful? because we

4:21

don't have military and stuff like that

4:23

to stop a protest. And that's

4:25

why in the United States, for example, we have this

4:27

long string of successful protest.

4:30

Remember, occupy Wall Street? Well,

4:33

that changed everything. Remember?

4:37

because before we'll occupy Wall Street,

4:40

there was this huge income

4:43

inequality. And

4:45

then the occupied Wall Street came in, they

4:47

they camped in their tents and stuff, until

4:49

that gigantic gap between

4:51

the rich and the poor just

4:53

shrunk. I mean,

4:56

that's solved

4:58

really. Then let's not

5:00

forget Black Lives Matter who

5:02

had many valid criticisms

5:05

of the way the country is being wrong, especially

5:08

in regards to racial

5:10

things and in most

5:12

particularly policing.

5:15

Now, since Black Matter since

5:17

black matter since black lives

5:19

matter, did their summer

5:22

protest. Have you seen

5:24

one major story of

5:26

a police department abusing a black

5:28

person.

5:29

None.

5:30

None. When was the last time you

5:33

saw it? So I think you would have to conclude that

5:35

Black Lives Matter completely succeeded in

5:37

eliminating

5:39

the Police

5:40

violence against black citizens.

5:44

Completely done. I haven't seen

5:46

any of you. That's the

5:48

most successful protest that anybody's

5:50

ever done. It eliminated police

5:54

brutality against black people. Because

5:56

if it were still happening, we'd see it in the

5:58

news. Right?

5:59

Wouldn't you? It'd

6:01

be in the news. I mean, that would be a giant

6:03

story. It always was before. And

6:06

so we don't hear about income inequality that

6:08

got solved, racism was

6:10

solved, Now, this is something you can't do

6:12

in Iran. In Iran,

6:14

you'll just march around and protest.

6:16

Oh, well, I'm protesting. and

6:18

then they'll shoot you or put you in jail

6:20

and nothing will change. But

6:23

in the United States, we've already eliminated

6:25

income inequality. police

6:28

brutality. And then don't forget

6:30

about antifa, because

6:32

antifa had

6:34

a series of complaints and

6:37

they were they were

6:39

unhappy that the United States was

6:42

even a cohesive operating

6:45

entity. You know,

6:47

antifa is more like, we just

6:49

want everything not to work. And sure

6:52

enough, sure

6:54

enough, just a

6:56

few years after Antifa was active,

6:59

the entire country is disintegrating

7:01

exactly like Antifa wanted.

7:03

Now, in

7:05

Iran, again, no

7:08

no impact whatsoever.

7:11

Protest, protest, protest, nothing. They

7:13

get nothing. That's because

7:15

they're a totalitarian country. In

7:17

the United States, we have freedom of

7:20

speech, freedom of protest freedom

7:22

to organize and we get

7:24

things done. And that's how we

7:26

solved income inequality police

7:29

brutality against black people and

7:31

the cohesiveness of the United States.

7:33

And I'm just getting started. What

7:35

about those January sixth protesters? Do

7:38

you remember how they were worried that the

7:40

elections were perhaps

7:43

not transparent enough? Well,

7:47

thankfully, The Patriots

7:49

got huge changes, both

7:52

the Democrats and the Republicans immediately

7:56

told you that the stuff that they run is fine.

8:01

So I was worried about it for a while.

8:03

but the Republicans will tell you that all

8:06

the places that Republicans handle

8:08

the elections are are just fine.

8:10

And the Democrats will tell you every place

8:12

they do it. It's all fixed. It's all

8:14

good. So this

8:16

might be one of the most effective probably

8:19

one of the most effective protests

8:22

of all time. Honestly,

8:24

let me ask you, before January

8:27

six, didn't you have some questions? I

8:29

mean, the small ones. Maybe

8:31

that big question, but at least small

8:33

little concerns about the

8:35

integrity of the election? You probably

8:37

did. You

8:38

probably did. But now

8:40

after the elections over and the January

8:42

sixth protests have happened, what

8:44

do you think now? Well,

8:46

your media has told you that not only

8:49

have have our elections been solid

8:51

in the past, but they

8:53

are so solid now. You

8:55

don't have anything to worry about. So

8:58

think about this. Iran

9:01

all their protests, no

9:03

benefit at all. They got nothing out of

9:05

it. United States occupy

9:08

Wall Street solves in the income

9:10

inequality. When was the last time you saw Sorry about

9:12

income inequality. Find me

9:14

a headline about income inequality is

9:16

solved. Done.

9:17

No

9:19

more problem.

9:20

Black Lives Matter,

9:22

they solved all black all

9:26

violence police against black people because

9:28

we would see it. I mean, obviously, it would be

9:30

in the news if any of it were happening.

9:32

And Antifa did disintegrate the

9:34

cohesiveness of the United States as

9:36

they wanted.

9:37

Perfect. And then

9:38

January sixth, according

9:41

to the news, we now

9:43

have the most secure elections

9:46

of all time of

9:49

all time. And I I

9:51

just wanna give it up. For the

9:53

protesters in the United States who make

9:55

things happen, You You're

9:57

the heroes. You're the

9:59

heroes. No.

9:59

You are. You are. You're the

10:02

heroes. Not

10:04

me. I mean, you are the heroes.

10:07

So

10:07

keep up the good work.

10:10

Keep up that protesting because it's making

10:12

a difference. Does

10:18

anybody remember

10:20

in the beginning of the Ukraine war,

10:23

when

10:24

I said, I

10:26

don't know, everybody seems to

10:28

think Russia is just gonna win this thing quite

10:30

easily. But it

10:32

seems to be somewhat

10:34

obviously Not

10:36

true. To me,

10:39

it seemed like they were gonna have a lot

10:41

of trouble. And

10:42

then maybe they wouldn't succeed at

10:44

all. Do

10:46

you remember

10:48

do you remember how

10:51

much shit I got for that?

10:53

Does anybody remember that? I mean, something I

10:55

remember, but maybe you didn't notice at all.

10:57

Did anybody notice?

10:59

And

11:01

Today, the news is pretty much a

11:03

hundred percent

11:05

exactly what I said. Am

11:07

I wrong? The news

11:09

today from all sources

11:12

is exactly what I

11:14

said that the

11:16

technology of the Ukraine's made

11:19

a big difference, especially because

11:21

they were fighting in their home court.

11:23

Right?

11:24

And so what was wondering is, if

11:26

there are any of you because I know some of

11:28

you are quite brutal. If

11:30

you'd like to take this opportunity to say

11:32

you were wrong and that I was right,

11:36

I'll wait because I'm

11:38

pretty sure seventy five percent of you thought

11:40

I was wrong.

11:43

Now if you were right, if you

11:45

were right, and and I had been wrong, let's

11:47

say Russia just took him over, I

11:49

would tell you I was totally

11:51

wrong. I

11:53

would

11:53

tell you I was totally wrong. Because

11:55

I did tell you I was totally

11:58

wrong

11:59

about

11:59

Russia invaded. because

12:02

I said, well, no, they're not gonna fade because

12:04

obviously it wouldn't turn out well.

12:06

I

12:07

was so wrong. So

12:09

all of you who told me, Scott, it's

12:12

obvious that they're gonna invade.

12:14

They've got their entire military there.

12:16

it couldn't be more obvious. And I was still

12:18

saying, no. No.

12:20

They're not gonna fade. So

12:22

I will tell you, I

12:24

was completely wrong. Will you

12:26

accept that? Will

12:28

you accept that was a hundred percent

12:30

wrong when I said Russia won't

12:32

invade, obviously, obviously. this

12:34

one.

12:34

But I like you to tell me

12:39

that I got that one right. Now

12:41

here's the thing that always

12:43

that always comes back at me. Whenever

12:46

I make a prediction that

12:49

counters the experts, which I've

12:51

done, how many times have you seen me

12:53

How many times have you seen me make a public

12:56

prediction that's the opposite of

12:59

basically all the experts? and

13:01

then been right. Quite a few

13:03

times. In on in different

13:05

domains, right? Political, scientific,

13:08

now military. That's

13:11

pretty wide swath. Now,

13:14

even terrorism, I think, I've had

13:16

some some good

13:18

guesses. And

13:21

let me remind you that

13:24

my expertise is not knowing more

13:26

than experts. Obviously, I don't

13:28

know more than experts. My

13:30

expertise is spotting bullshit,

13:32

which is a specific

13:34

skill. And spotting

13:36

bullshit is a higher level of skill

13:38

than experts. You

13:41

get that right. So

13:44

every time everybody says, Scott, the

13:46

experts are up here and you're a

13:48

lonely cartoonist and you're down

13:50

here So if you're down here,

13:52

don't be criticizing these people up

13:54

here because they're up here. That

13:57

is a complete misunderstanding of

13:59

the situation. The experts

14:01

are here and

14:03

everybody who has developed skill

14:06

at spotting bullshit

14:08

are up here.

14:11

I'm not looking up at the experts.

14:13

I'm looking down only in the case of

14:15

the bullshit. Now if there's

14:17

some technical thing that they claim, I'm not

14:19

gonna I'm not gonna be arguing them

14:21

on some small technical thing.

14:23

That's what experts are for. But if they make

14:26

a large pronouncement about

14:28

stuff, as soon as it's a

14:30

large pronouncement about anything,

14:32

is it automatically political?

14:35

Right? There's

14:36

almost no such thing as a pure

14:39

scientific opinion that, you

14:41

know, matters to the public and the public

14:43

hears it. It's always

14:45

political by the time it reaches the public. By

14:47

the way, it gets filtered and massaged.

14:50

So that's the only thing I'm offering you.

14:53

So at any time you see

14:55

me criticizing the experts,

14:57

your first question should not

14:59

be should not be. Who

15:02

has more expertise? because that's

15:04

a given. I

15:05

never claimed more expertise. I

15:08

only claimed

15:09

that you can spot bullshit if

15:11

you learn to do it.

15:13

And in some of my books, I teach you how to do

15:15

it. Now, I do it red and public.

15:17

I do it right in front of you. So you can see when

15:19

it's right and when it's wrong.

15:21

Alright. Here

15:24

is about the

15:27

scariest thing I've seen in a while and

15:29

I've seen some scary things.

15:31

Let me tell you I've I've seen

15:33

some scary scary things.

15:35

But here's the scariest one. And

15:37

it's not gonna scare you at all because

15:39

you won't understand it. And

15:42

I'm sorry.

15:42

and And

15:44

this is not an insult

15:46

to you, but it really is not.

15:50

Would you accept would

15:52

you accept the general statement

15:55

that if you were, let's say,

15:57

well versed in the topic,

15:59

you would have a different take on it than

16:01

somebody who didn't know much about the

16:03

topic. you give me that.

16:05

Right? That, you know, an

16:07

expert's opinion is gonna be different than

16:09

somebody else's. Right? I

16:11

always talk about this count, which you should be

16:14

following. Market value is underbelly

16:16

who does a lot of AI demonstrations.

16:18

So you're seeing all kinds of demonstrations of what

16:20

you can ask the AI to do

16:23

from artwork to creating

16:26

talking artificial figures

16:28

to writing poetry,

16:30

making comics and just

16:32

seeing where the AI is at and

16:34

it's

16:35

that's there.

16:36

So

16:39

somebody says, Andrew T. was right

16:41

about me.

16:46

Andrew Tait literally copies

16:48

my opinions and then pretends

16:50

I have opposite ones so he can

16:52

mock me. You

16:53

know that. Right? He

16:54

actually just imitates me. The

16:57

the Andrew Taint story is

16:59

actually he is a disciple. So

17:01

he was a fan of mine and I

17:04

basically mocked him in public and then he got

17:06

hurt. So now he's

17:08

acting up. But basically,

17:10

he's he's somebody imitates me,

17:12

tries to put his own spin on it and

17:14

create his own little thing. But

17:17

he's a he's a

17:19

humorous character. Anyway,

17:22

here's what the

17:24

latest AI came and this is the scariest

17:26

thing I've seen so far. It was

17:28

a a deep fake looking

17:30

character, not a deep fake because it

17:32

was just animated head.

17:34

So as a person who looked

17:36

pretty much like a person

17:39

who was giving

17:41

a hypnosis monologue.

17:43

In other words, it it was somebody

17:45

who was a artificial

17:48

entity using AI to

17:49

hypnotize you the viewer.

17:52

But knowingly,

17:52

I mean, you would know you were being hypnotized

17:54

because it's overt.

17:57

and And

17:58

here's something that you would not be

18:01

able to appreciate it. Like, if you

18:03

if you're sort of in the hobby

18:06

or professional realm

18:08

of influence, you spend a lot time

18:11

hypnotizing or being hypnotized or

18:13

feeling influence or judging

18:15

it. You have sort of

18:17

almost almost like a musician would

18:19

have a musical sense

18:21

they develop. There's somebody who

18:23

just likes music would never develop.

18:26

You

18:26

know what I mean? When I

18:27

watch this AI, I

18:29

can feel the

18:32

persuasion. I

18:34

can feel it. It's actually visceral.

18:38

In a sense, oh

18:43

my god.

18:43

oh, I didn't know what to say about

18:46

it. I went to tweet about it and I I

18:48

didn't even have a comment. Like, I

18:50

didn't know what to say. I just

18:52

0MG

18:54

because if

18:57

you pair me with

18:59

an AI and say, Scott, can

19:01

you train this thing? I'd

19:03

say, yeah, I probably could. I'd start giving

19:05

a rules. I'd say,

19:06

try this. Try this. Try this.

19:09

Now, if the only thing it did

19:11

was present, it didn't interact,

19:13

there's a limit to how

19:15

to how powerful it could

19:17

be. Because they

19:18

would have to give a generic

19:21

presentation to people who are all

19:23

different. So

19:24

there's no generic presentation

19:26

that's going to work the same for all different

19:29

people. What makes hypnosis one on one

19:31

powerful is the Hibnitus is

19:33

observing the reaction and

19:35

then adjusting in real time.

19:37

It's that part that makes it really powerful.

19:40

We're at the point where the technology

19:42

could very easily read

19:44

my face as a viewer.

19:46

and determine if the things the AI is

19:49

saying are working or

19:51

not. And it

19:52

could do it better than I could do

19:54

it. And I could probably do it fairly

19:56

quickly better than I can do it. On

19:58

day one, I could do it better than

19:59

the machine. On day two,

20:02

I could still do it better than

20:04

AI. Day three, day four,

20:06

I'm still better than AI. But

20:09

somewhere around a month of

20:11

training the AI, it's

20:13

gonna be way better than people.

20:16

So it will be the most capable

20:19

persuader by far and

20:21

for sure. So

20:23

AI will be the

20:24

most persuasive asset

20:29

resource entity I

20:31

don't know what to call it. The most

20:33

persuasive entity.

20:35

And it won't be

20:38

it won't be like beating humans by ten percent.

20:40

And here's the part you're never gonna believe.

20:43

Right? There's nothing

20:44

I can tell you.

20:46

that will

20:47

make you understand how powerful this

20:49

is.

20:49

Nothing I can tell you. You just

20:51

you have to have lived it, felt

20:53

it, you know, breathed it to

20:55

really understand this. This is so

20:58

powerful. I had

20:59

to turn it off. Like,

21:01

I watched it for a while and I it

21:03

was just taking over my body. I mean,

21:05

I I could just feel it. And I was like, I'm out of

21:08

here. And that was

21:09

just a test. Right?

21:12

That was before somebody like

21:15

me tried to train

21:17

it.

21:18

Imagine. imagined somebody who,

21:21

like, was actually the deep a deep

21:23

expert, trained this thing to

21:25

be manipulative. I

21:27

because the other thing you can

21:29

do is presumably you could change the

21:31

face it's presenting. I'm

21:34

pretty sure

21:35

that some faces are

21:38

more persuasive to some

21:40

people. Now, it could

21:42

be just obvious stuff.

21:44

maybe a sexy woman

21:46

is more

21:46

persuasive to most

21:49

or some people.

21:51

Maybe an older

21:54

male with a deep voice

21:56

would be

21:56

more persuasive to just some

21:59

people,

21:59

not everybody. maybe a gay

22:02

voice. Now you're

22:03

gonna argue with me whether there's gay

22:05

voice. Right? Are

22:07

we gonna do that? I

22:10

once had a conversation with somebody

22:12

who was very angry at me

22:14

for being a racist. Of

22:17

suggesting that you can usually identify

22:19

a black person's voice on the phone.

22:21

Now, I'll acknowledge that you could

22:23

be wrong quite often. it's

22:26

pretty common. We've heard lots of singers

22:28

for example that sound like they're black

22:31

singers because they're

22:33

trying to pretend I guess. So

22:35

you can certainly be fooled. It's not a kind of

22:37

a hundred percent thing. But anybody who tells me

22:39

that you can't generally tell.

22:43

Yeah. You're not a serious person. And

22:45

the same with gay voice. Of course,

22:47

there are gay people who don't have

22:50

identifiable gay voices. Of

22:52

course, plenty of them. I

22:54

can name I can name five right now.

22:56

But

22:57

am

22:58

I wrong that Usually, you

23:00

can identify if somebody's out and,

23:02

you know, they're they're they're not

23:04

dry yet. Dave Rubin

23:07

is a perfect example. you wouldn't be

23:09

able to identify him by voice, but

23:11

there

23:11

are plenty of people you could. Nobody

23:14

doubts that, right? And I've

23:16

always wondered about that. Have you?

23:18

Have

23:18

you ever wondered how much of that is

23:20

just social? And

23:21

how much is biological?

23:24

Has anybody ever

23:26

looked into that? So

23:28

everyone has wondered that. I assume it's biological. Right?

23:30

But maybe some of it is

23:33

affectation. I

23:35

don't know.

23:37

because I

23:38

doesn't seem like some people could turn it on

23:40

and off depending on whether they're at

23:43

work. whether they're

23:45

at work or, you know,

23:48

privacy. I always

23:48

wondered about that. It's just curiosity. Doesn't

23:50

have any doesn't have any

23:52

importance to anything, but what's out for those

23:55

persuasive AIs? Here's

23:57

something that the Republicans are

23:59

doing all

24:00

wrong. They're

24:01

demanding an investigation

24:03

into rayps. Why is

24:06

that all wrong?

24:07

Anybody? Anybody? Why

24:10

is it

24:10

wrong to demand that we knew

24:12

more about layups? It's

24:14

wrong because

24:16

they already gave us the

24:18

answer. They said they're not gonna give

24:20

us any more information. That's all

24:22

you need. If

24:25

you go to somebody

24:27

and say, Did you steal my

24:29

pen? And they say,

24:30

I'm not gonna answer that. I'm not

24:33

gonna take that question. Does

24:35

that

24:35

mean they didn't steal your

24:37

pen? well,

24:38

maybe. It's

24:40

not

24:40

confirmation at all, is it?

24:42

If somebody said, did you steal my pen

24:44

and the person says, I'm not gonna tell

24:47

you, That is not confirmation, is it?

24:50

But

24:50

would it make sense

24:51

for you as a normal thinking

24:54

human in the

24:56

United States or any other country?

24:58

Would it be reasonable for you to say in that

25:01

situation? Well, my working assumption is that

25:03

you have my pet. don't

25:05

know for sure, but I'm gonna

25:07

go live my life as if that

25:09

were true because that's that's the only

25:11

working assumption that makes sense.

25:15

Raip's is a working

25:18

assumption. I don't know if he

25:20

was a Fed. and I not make claim

25:22

because I don't know. The

25:24

reason I don't don't know is that the

25:26

FBI won't tell me.

25:29

Now

25:29

under those circumstances, given the

25:32

credibility being low for the

25:34

FBI, given that they've been asked

25:36

directly by members of

25:38

Congress, for whom they should

25:41

answer. And given that they said

25:43

directly, we're not going to tell you about

25:45

it. You

25:45

don't need to ask any more questions.

25:48

you

25:48

don't need to ask any more questions. You

25:50

can simply act on

25:53

that assumption. And you should tell people

25:55

that complain about it go, It's

25:57

really not my problem. Here here's

25:59

what

25:59

we do we do,

26:01

meeting people do. Here's a

26:04

common

26:04

mistake that people make.

26:07

they

26:07

assume that somebody else's problem is their problem.

26:09

Ray apps is

26:10

the FBI's problem, period.

26:15

It's

26:15

not a Republican problem. Republicans

26:17

just say, you know, we have to we

26:19

have to operate on this assumption.

26:22

we

26:22

are forced to operate on the assumption. So

26:24

we'll go forward based on the assumption that

26:26

it was an FBI operation.

26:30

No

26:30

research needed. Am

26:33

I wrong? The

26:34

problem is the FBI is to

26:37

solve. We should conclude at

26:40

least Republicans. everybody else should do, but

26:42

at least Republicans. Just say it

26:44

has been demonstrated to our

26:46

satisfaction that the the

26:48

most reasonable working assumption

26:50

given that we can't have all the information. The most

26:52

reasonable working assumption is that he's he

26:54

worked for the FBI. So that's how we

26:56

will make policy. we

26:59

will proceed on that basis. We'll communicate on

27:01

that basis and we'll act on

27:03

that basis in every well because that's

27:05

the only thing we have. It's

27:07

all we have. If the FBI

27:10

wanted to solve their problem, their

27:12

problem

27:12

is a credibility problem. It's

27:15

not your fucking problem. Stop

27:17

making their problem your problem.

27:20

Just

27:20

declare it's over. The

27:22

Rayf situation is over.

27:24

We know everything we need to know.

27:27

If we're wrong, we're wrong,

27:29

and they they have every

27:31

every opportunity to correct us.

27:33

But don't

27:34

make their problem your

27:36

problem. Just act

27:37

as though you already have the information

27:39

because you do. You have everything

27:41

you need. You don't

27:43

need anything else. to

27:45

know that you can't trust what happened

27:47

on January sixth.

27:49

And therefore, you can pardon

27:52

every person associated with January

27:54

sixth except for the violent ones.

27:57

Because because

27:58

the

27:59

operating assumption is

28:02

that the FBI was the

28:05

– was at least one part of the

28:08

insight.

28:10

I'll bet now one person disagrees with

28:12

that. Right? And

28:13

until you hear that it wasn't

28:15

your problem, you didn't about you didn't realize that

28:18

before did you? You just sort of kinda get

28:20

in the mode. You go, well,

28:22

this

28:22

is our problem. We have to solve this. We

28:24

have to have the information. No, you don't.

28:27

You

28:27

don't need anything. You have everything you

28:30

need. This is

28:31

settled. It's

28:35

settled. It's like, did

28:37

Hillary Clinton try to

28:40

overthrow the government effectively with

28:42

the Russia collusion stuff?

28:45

That is settled.

28:47

Is it yes? There's

28:49

no question about it.

28:51

We keep acting like these

28:53

are open questions. And they

28:55

might be unknown, but they're

28:58

not open questions. Because

29:00

the the question asking

29:02

period is just has

29:04

no value anymore because nobody's gonna

29:06

answer your question. You have to go forward

29:08

based on what is the working assumption

29:10

because that's what you do with everything.

29:14

Yeah.

29:14

If you walk outside, you don't know that

29:16

your car is still there,

29:18

but you

29:18

still walk out with the

29:21

intention of getting in it. Everything you do is

29:23

with the intention, with the

29:25

understanding that you don't know for

29:27

sure what's true. You

29:29

just have to have operating assumptions all the time. That's

29:32

it. And every

29:33

time somebody says, well, do you think

29:36

it's true? or what is your proof that Ray

29:38

Epstein did anything you say, oh, I don't have

29:40

any proof. Don't have

29:42

any proof. No. Well, it's an

29:44

operating assumption. that the FBI

29:46

has given us. They've just provided

29:48

us that operating assumption and

29:50

then just go

29:51

on. I wouldn't even

29:54

give it slightest

29:55

attention to

29:57

if it's true. because if

29:59

it's true has now completely

30:02

become irrelevant. because nobody will

30:04

tell you. Right? If nobody's

30:06

gonna tell you if it's true, then that's

30:08

obviously the case. If nobody's gonna

30:10

tell you it's true, then the truth

30:12

doesn't matter to the

30:14

decisions. Does that make

30:15

sense? If you know you'll never

30:18

know the truth, then

30:20

the truth isn't relevant to your

30:22

decision making because you have to

30:24

just make an operating assumption. Yeah.

30:28

Alright. I

30:31

came up with a ten point, but

30:33

then I added a point based on

30:35

comments. So now it's

30:37

an eleven point fentanyl

30:39

policy proposal. Why did I come

30:41

up with a fentanyl policy proposal?

30:44

Well, nobody else was doing it.

30:46

Now

30:47

seriously. I mean, I think

30:49

some people have said, oh, I think

30:51

we'll do border security. Okay.

30:54

That's not serious. that

30:56

is not a serious. Let me tell you what

30:58

a serious fentanyl plan would look

31:01

like. Now, I want to be very

31:03

clear, I have no reason to believe

31:05

these are good ideas. This

31:08

is a first draft. It's

31:10

brainstorming. I'm creating

31:12

I'm creating a framework that people

31:14

can react to. Have you

31:16

ever noticed it's easier to react to

31:18

an idea than to come up with one? By the

31:20

way, this is a really persuasive

31:24

trick. The person who writes

31:26

it down first, usually

31:28

owns the the bait. So that's

31:30

what I did. I just thought I

31:32

kept looking for somebody to have a plan that

31:34

I could back So, oh, somebody

31:36

must have a good plan. Once I find

31:39

that good plan, I'll promote that, I'll

31:41

back that. No. Oh,

31:43

no plan. So I just wrote down

31:45

a plan and tweeted it. Do

31:47

you know what that does? That puts

31:49

me in charge. I just took

31:51

charge of it. You think that's not

31:54

true, but it just happened. I just took

31:56

over. And it's because

31:57

there was a there was a vacuum.

31:59

There was a

32:02

vacuum, and I

32:02

just walked into it. Now, I

32:04

don't wanna be here, but

32:06

it was open. If you're gonna leave

32:08

the door open, Don't blame

32:11

me for walking through. So

32:13

I walk through and I gave you an eleven

32:15

point plan. And from this point

32:17

on, you're

32:17

either gonna have to make better plan or you're gonna have to

32:19

react to mine. And even if you made

32:21

a better plan, you're probably reacting to mine.

32:24

So at this point, I'm gonna make other people

32:26

react to me. So I'm in

32:28

charge.

32:30

Right? You see how this

32:32

works. Right? And by the way, this

32:34

works in your business and

32:36

in your personal life just as well. The

32:38

first person who writes it down and

32:40

like it easy to look at for

32:42

him and has to be easy to look at.

32:45

I looked at Cary Lakes proposals

32:48

for, you know, she's running

32:50

for governor in

32:52

Arizona. Ed, her proposal

32:54

was a very tech space

32:57

and probably well written

32:59

in in terms of, you know, good sentence

33:01

structure and stuff like that. there

33:03

was lots of it. It's like page and page and page

33:05

and just some of it was about fentanyl,

33:07

but it was part of border security

33:09

and blah blah blah. And

33:12

that's not it. That's not what we're looking

33:14

for. What we're looking

33:15

for is build the

33:18

wall

33:19

simplyly. If it's not

33:21

as easy as build

33:23

the wall, people aren't

33:26

gonna do anything about it. You you need to

33:28

get simpler. So

33:30

I

33:30

give you now my eleven point

33:34

plan. You'll be let me tell you the eleventh

33:36

one that's added because otherwise you won't be

33:38

able to trade. So I'm gonna tell you the one I added

33:40

based on comments, which I agree

33:41

with, which is we should test

33:45

legalizing all alternative

33:48

opioids locally just to

33:50

see if that does make a

33:52

difference. Just pick a

33:54

zip code and say, alright, in this zip

33:56

code, you can do all the heroin

33:58

and cocaine you want. It's all

34:00

legal. You

34:01

just no fentanyl. I

34:04

guess, you know, they

34:07

some of them

34:07

might still get fentanyl, but you would test to see if it

34:09

made any difference at

34:12

all. Okay? So I want you to know that that's added to the plan, but

34:14

it's last. So now you know it's

34:16

there, so you don't have to obsess about

34:18

it. Alright? Number

34:20

one, these are my suggestions and I

34:22

don't know if they're good. Don't know if they're

34:24

good. It's a starting point. Number

34:26

one, remove prescription requirements

34:28

for NARCAN. That's a drug you

34:30

had been to start to study as a

34:32

fentanyl overdose.

34:34

And in some places you need

34:38

a prescription And I think in some

34:40

places, you don't. And I believe Florida, you don't.

34:42

But

34:43

that's not good

34:46

enough. It's not good enough that it's just available.

34:48

It's not good enough. You

34:50

also need some

34:51

kind of organized method, maybe

34:54

an app, maybe the

34:56

Nextdoor app, maybe something like that,

34:58

where if you volunteer that you

35:00

have some in your home

35:02

for emergencies, that somebody can send out an alert in your

35:04

block and say, oh,

35:06

there's an overdose happening right here at

35:08

this address. and

35:10

then your alert would go off and you're like, oh, I've got some hurricane in my closet. You grab

35:13

it. You run at the door. It's

35:15

literally your neighbor. literally

35:17

your neighbor.

35:18

You're you're out the

35:19

door in thirty seconds. And

35:22

by the way, that's probably true.

35:24

You

35:24

get an alert Boom.

35:26

NARCAN

35:27

overdose. You look at the address and it's

35:29

two doors down. Thirty seconds

35:33

out the door. Right?

35:34

While we stop

35:35

you. You you'd be grabbing it

35:38

on a run, and you'd be out your door in

35:40

thirty seconds. In

35:42

forty seconds, in forty

35:44

seconds, you'd be

35:45

on-site. Forty

35:46

seconds just,

35:48

you know, on average. And

35:50

if you do have to do the And

35:52

I guess there's also a question about some

35:54

kind of a device. There's a

35:57

-- what's the name of it?

35:59

There's a certain device that used

36:01

to come with it or does come with it that makes it

36:04

easier to administer. I

36:06

think you can still administer it as a

36:08

spray of

36:10

the nose. So I have a little I have some questions

36:12

about this physical form and how to

36:14

administer it. But I

36:16

think in which goes to another point,

36:18

there should a

36:20

national education program on

36:22

how to use it. Alright. That's point

36:24

number one. Get NARCAN available

36:26

and also organized

36:28

through apps, so it's really, really

36:30

available, like within seconds. We

36:32

can do that.

36:34

Number two, create a military unit specifically for destroying

36:36

the cartels in Mexico.

36:38

Do they have to be deployed?

36:40

No. No.

36:43

they don't have to be deployed. But if

36:45

we don't create one,

36:47

the cartels are never going to

36:49

take us seriously. We need a

36:52

dedicated, big, badass military

36:54

unit for invasion and

36:58

and occupation of

37:00

Mexico, not the whole country, just the

37:04

NARCO centers.

37:07

Maybe just one. And, alright, so that's

37:10

number two. Create a special military unit

37:12

for attacking the cartels.

37:14

Number three, give

37:16

the cartels a six month deadline to stop all

37:19

fentanyl operations, but not

37:21

necessarily everything else.

37:24

fentanyl

37:24

only. They could still do illegal

37:26

stuff. We don't want them to.

37:28

We're not saying it's okay

37:30

it's okay to to. we're just

37:32

saying, this is our red line. Right? This

37:35

is just the red line. You

37:37

have to know cartels. They're selling

37:39

us the other stuff. is

37:42

very, very bad and we're gonna try to stop you

37:44

in normal ways. We'll use

37:46

sort of normal ways to try to stop all the

37:48

other stuff. But friends and all we're not gonna

37:50

be normal. Fentanyl's

37:52

war is not drugs. We'll

37:54

treat the drugs in the normal way

37:57

what you're used to. But

37:59

fentanyl, we're gonna treat as war and

37:59

you are an enemy. If you

38:02

want that model going forward, just

38:04

keep selling fentanyl for six

38:06

more months. Now

38:08

the reason you give them six months is that it takes a long time to unwind anything.

38:12

They need to think about it. They need

38:14

to you know, they need to

38:16

really maybe even get some alternatives. Right?

38:18

It's just not going to be fast.

38:20

And that six months happens to

38:23

be Ideally, six months from the

38:25

time a new president is

38:28

installed. So I'm thinking maybe summer

38:30

of twenty

38:32

twenty four we should tell

38:34

the cartels, we've spun up a military unit.

38:36

And if on the

38:38

end of June, we see one

38:41

pill of fentanyl across this border, we're

38:44

going to launch an invasion.

38:46

And it's not going to be

38:48

just to do

38:50

a mild kind

38:51

of punch you

38:53

and hurt you. It's to

38:55

take over. The the United

38:57

States military should take over

38:59

the cartels operation. just like conquering a country. You should

39:01

take over as the head of the

39:04

operation and just rub the thing and turn it

39:06

into something

39:08

else. just

39:10

be the bet the badder boss.

39:13

Alright. I would say open number four,

39:16

open a direct negotiation with the

39:18

cartel leaders. president to

39:22

cartel leader.

39:23

Now would Biden do that? Of course

39:26

not. Would he be capable of

39:28

course not? Could

39:29

Trump do that?

39:32

Could Trump talk directly,

39:35

maybe not directly, directly, but through an intermediary,

39:37

could Trump negotiate with the head of the

39:40

cartel?

39:42

Yep. In

39:44

fact, name one person on

39:46

the planet earth who would be more

39:48

ideal for that job.

39:50

You can't. You can't.

39:52

You would be the

39:54

number one best person in the planet

39:56

earth to negotiate directly

39:58

with a cartel leader. Nobody else could

40:01

do that, not

40:01

as well.

40:02

Then I think we also

40:05

– if we're going to negotiate, we're going to have to

40:07

give the cartels a retirement So

40:10

either the retirement plan is you just go back

40:12

to doing your other illegal things and

40:14

we'll just go back to our cat

40:16

and mouse game

40:18

or you

40:19

need some financial

40:22

guarantees and, I don't know,

40:24

some kind of

40:25

legal guarantees, but you gotta get out

40:27

of the business. and you got to close

40:29

it down so nobody just takes it

40:32

over. I mean, one of the things you could do for

40:34

example is hire one

40:36

of the cartels to become this the fighting

40:39

force to beat the other cartel.

40:41

I mean, you could probably

40:42

just hire them as, you know,

40:45

If cartels can hire people to

40:47

be murderers quite easily apparently,

40:50

we should be able to bribe some people

40:52

to go murder

40:54

the murders. doesn't

40:54

seem like that would be

40:56

expensive.

40:57

Number five, declare fentanyl

40:58

a weapon of mass destruction

41:00

in the cartel's terrorist organizations.

41:04

You're already seeing some calls for that, but that would

41:06

open up military options of course. Then

41:08

it'd also signal our intentions. It's

41:10

very important to signal our

41:14

intentions. because the cartels have to do what we want them

41:16

to do or nothing happens. So

41:18

you get a signal very carefully.

41:21

Okay? You know that drug war you thought you

41:23

were in? Well, that's not

41:26

this. The drug war is the other

41:28

stuff. This

41:28

is war war. So

41:31

we're gonna distinguish between drug war and war war. This

41:33

is war war. This is

41:35

a kind

41:37

that gets wet. Number

41:40

six, tightened

41:42

border security,

41:46

of course. but understanding that it won't make much

41:48

difference. The understanding that it

41:50

won't make much difference

41:52

is key because

41:54

otherwise the our politicians who are

41:56

worthless were worthless, we'll

41:58

just talk about border security because it's

42:00

fun to talk about and they understand it a

42:02

little bit. If you let them talk about border security,

42:04

it's all they'll talk about. And

42:06

that's a Trump problem. Right? Trump made

42:08

border security

42:10

like the tastiest thing

42:12

to talk about. So they're

42:14

they're only gonna be like the shiny

42:17

object border security. You've got to

42:19

make sure they know that's five percent of the problem. Because, you know,

42:21

you could hold in your hand enough fentanyl to take

42:24

out a

42:26

whole city. It's like a

42:28

baseball. It's over the

42:30

wall. It is not

42:32

hard to give fentanyl across the

42:34

border. The fact that people have

42:36

been caught in fairly large numbers tells you

42:38

nothing about how hard it is to get it

42:40

across. Nothing.

42:43

fentanyl is so let me

42:45

do the math for you. Let's say a hundred percent

42:47

of the fentanyl that gets shipped gets to

42:49

the border. That's

42:52

bad. Right? Now, let's say

42:54

you find a way to catch ninety percent

42:56

of what comes through. ninety

43:00

percent. What does that

43:02

do to the usage on

43:04

the receiving

43:06

end?

43:07

the Nothing.

43:08

Nothing. Not at all. And it's

43:10

not because the ten percent that gets through is enough.

43:12

Do

43:13

you know why? Because I'm saying

43:15

it does actually cut it by

43:18

let me let me say

43:19

it in a more specific way because

43:21

I'm thinking I'm misleading. Let's

43:24

say you catch ninety percent of

43:26

everything that goes across the border. Would

43:30

that reduce fentanyl

43:32

usage in the United States. It would not.

43:34

Do you know why? Somebody

43:36

told me why catching ninety

43:38

percent of it wouldn't reduce they're

43:41

the use at all.

43:43

why Why? It's a

43:45

math reason, kind of. It's

43:47

a

43:47

business reason really.

43:49

hiked the price

43:52

now. Oh, okay. Thank you.

43:54

Thank you. Somebody came up with the

43:56

right answer. The answer is they

43:58

will make ten times

43:59

more. That's all they

44:02

have to do. They'll just make ten times

44:04

more. And then the

44:06

ten percent that gets through is now

44:08

their original number. There's

44:10

nothing you could do at the

44:12

border. They'll just make more. Now that

44:14

would not be true of marijuana. Do

44:17

you know

44:17

why? because marijuana

44:19

is bulky and

44:22

it's it's hard to, like, go to

44:24

make another crop in

44:26

ten minutes. Right? You have to

44:28

wait months for another crop. Sentinel, you could just go back to the lab like

44:32

that, well, there's another

44:34

batch. Right? So

44:36

every time you make any analogy to drug wars, they're

44:38

all wrong. All the analogies to a

44:40

drug war don't just don't apply

44:44

to fentanyl. Alright. So

44:46

border security, yes, but

44:49

don't think that's a solution. Do

44:52

a massive number seven, do a massive public

44:54

education campaign on fentanyl and

44:56

NARCAN. A lot of people

44:58

think they understand it, but I see a lot

45:00

of really basic misunderstandings

45:03

out there. Number

45:05

eight, give China a deadline

45:07

to stop fentanyl shipments or the alternatives

45:09

we do have for them

45:12

whatever it takes. And this

45:14

should not be a a point of

45:16

negotiation. We should simply

45:18

tell them the date beyond which

45:21

all the controls are

45:23

off on our side. And just

45:25

say, we're taking all the controls off.

45:27

Now, what's the first thing you

45:29

might worry about? they might nucus. Right?

45:31

And like, suppose we started killing people

45:34

in China, which is exactly what I'm

45:36

suggesting. Killing people

45:38

in China. people in china

45:40

Right? What what if they nucleus?

45:44

Get

45:44

that war right war. Right? Totally

45:47

worth the risk. Let me say

45:49

it again. the ass

45:52

Yes.

45:52

war

45:53

yeah Or. Yes. Yes. unambiguously

45:55

or. That's my

45:58

choice. my choice unambiguously.

46:02

Yep. If you wanna go to war over the question of your

46:04

already killing a hundred thousand

46:06

Americans, I'm in. I'm in. Sign

46:08

me

46:08

amen sign me up up. If

46:10

China wants a war over this, give them

46:12

a fucking war. A full

46:14

war. A real war. Destroying half

46:16

of the world because you know what you

46:20

can't do. you can't let people kill a hundred thousand of you a year and

46:22

not respond to it.

46:24

That

46:24

is not an

46:26

option. Our current

46:28

situation is not an option. Do

46:30

you ever have somebody in your life

46:32

who threatened to kill themselves, if you

46:34

didn't give them what they wanted? which

46:37

was unreasonable. Has anybody ever that?

46:38

Anybody closed you ever

46:41

say, I

46:41

will kill myself Now

46:44

watch the yeses go by. I will kill myself if you don't

46:47

give me what I want. And what

46:49

was your response? your response

46:52

If your response was giving them what they wanted, how

46:54

would that work out?

46:56

Right?

46:59

I feel

47:00

like in at least two occasions I've

47:02

been threatened that way and not

47:05

only

47:05

did I say

47:08

go ahead, I meant it. Right?

47:10

So let me let me give you a

47:11

bottom line in my life. If somebody comes

47:13

to me and I don't

47:16

care who, doesn't matter what kind of loved one it Family

47:18

member or spouse, it doesn't matter. You

47:20

come to me and you say you're gonna kill

47:22

yourself if I don't do something that

47:25

really is a bad thing

47:27

to yourself. I'll give

47:30

you the gun because I'm

47:32

not gonna live

47:34

one minute under

47:37

those conditions. Not one minute.

47:38

one So if

47:40

killing

47:40

yourself is the alternative, go

47:44

kill yourself. By the way,

47:46

I've said that twice. They both

47:48

tried. They both

47:52

tried twice. didn't work

47:54

both things. And

47:56

if if either of them had been successful,

47:58

I would have been fine with it.

48:00

I

48:00

never would have a moment of guilt.

48:03

Not a

48:03

moment because there's no way I'm going

48:05

to live under somebody

48:08

else taking control of my body and my life

48:10

by by telling me that they're gonna

48:12

hurt themselves if I'm not their slave. I'm

48:14

not gonna be your slave. No.

48:18

They're not

48:19

gonna be China's slave.

48:20

So if

48:22

people have to

48:22

die to make me not China's

48:25

slave, that's what war is for.

48:28

That's the whole point of war to make me not

48:30

somebody else's slave. Alright.

48:33

i So

48:35

here's the thing.

48:38

China has to know that you're serious

48:40

about this and not bluffing.

48:43

and there's only one way to make them

48:45

know you're serious about it and not

48:47

bluffing. We should actually do it. We

48:49

should actually just start killing some people

48:51

in their country. I don't know how

48:53

hard that is. I like there must be some way to get

48:56

a murder into China

48:58

or send a drone in there

49:00

or something. mail

49:02

them some poison. Send them something in the mail.

49:04

Send them a pipe bomb. Must

49:06

be some way to kill

49:09

people in China. but we

49:12

should go ahead

49:13

and start killing them.

49:16

Let's see. And

49:19

then number nine, when the deadline because China would ignore us

49:21

of course. I don't make

49:24

any – I

49:26

have no dreams

49:28

that they would act in any way. So of

49:30

course, China will ignore our

49:32

request. So we should start killing

49:35

their people, the dealers only. But

49:38

then when the deadline passes, this is

49:40

number done. Send our send our

49:42

diplomats home and

49:44

there's two. Fentanyl needs to be a single

49:46

topic issue. They shouldn't be

49:48

negotiated as part of the package with

49:50

anything else. We should just

49:52

say, look.

49:54

Sentinose

49:55

a red line. We're taking

49:57

our diplomats

49:58

home, and we're sending

49:59

you yourself. we're

50:02

not even gonna be a country talking to you if

50:04

you can solve this. And

50:06

then we should expel one

50:10

Chinese student somebody

50:12

who's actual Chinese resident. One

50:14

Chinese student in American colleges

50:17

for every fentanyl death. just

50:19

do a moon alphabetical order

50:22

and just

50:22

just make it a formula and

50:24

say, we don't even fucking care.

50:27

we'll

50:27

just we'll just send them home because we

50:29

just don't care. So

50:30

so

50:31

and then

50:34

number eleven was do the local test

50:36

And I think you have to test it locally, the idea

50:38

of legalizing other drugs

50:40

so there are fentanyl alternatives.

50:43

You'd have to do that locally because there's

50:45

no way that the country is going to say, let's

50:47

do it the whole

50:49

country. You agree? there's no way

50:50

we get the whole country to say, oh, let's

50:52

make cocaine legal. Let's not go happen.

50:54

But you can make a zip you could make

50:57

a zip code code. You could find a

50:59

blue state. Doesn't have to be. Could be a red state. And by the way,

51:01

I think the red states should

51:03

test it. And just

51:06

test it. But you

51:06

you probably have to make it I don't know.

51:09

Would you have to

51:10

make it non porous?

51:14

I suppose some fentanyl would still get in, but if you so you'd

51:16

have to make it free or something. I don't

51:18

know how you would design it. But let's

51:20

just say that that feels doable.

51:22

like you probably could

51:25

design something to test.

51:28

Somebody says

51:30

that I'm I'm suggesting that the CIA should

51:32

fight the CIA. Is that because you

51:34

think fentanyl is a

51:36

CIA plot?

51:39

Is

51:39

that what you think?

51:40

I don't think so.

51:43

Alright. Rapid

51:44

test kits to

51:47

screen for fentanyl. Maybe.

51:49

Maybe. So the

51:51

rapid test kits,

51:52

I've heard that there are some

51:56

like,

51:56

practical limitations to that. Like, it sounds

51:58

like a good idea, but the

52:00

addicts won't actually use them. at

52:04

least at a high enough level that make a difference. But

52:07

test it. Test it. Right?

52:09

You can do the same

52:11

thing with your with the

52:13

zip code. Just pick a zip code and say

52:16

we're going to have all kinds of

52:18

fentanyl testing stuff here. All you want

52:20

is free. See if it makes

52:22

a difference.

52:23

There's no

52:25

criminal penalty for having

52:27

drugs in

52:29

Oregon, which suggests

52:32

which suggests we should test

52:34

Oregon to see if they have

52:37

higher OD

52:39

level per addict. you you you don't do

52:41

the OD level in general. You would say

52:43

of

52:43

addicts, what percent of

52:46

them OD.

52:48

and I would be interested if

52:50

Portland has legalized drugs, but what I

52:52

think probably happens in Portland is

52:55

they simply legalized fentanyl

53:00

accidentally. Because if you buy a pill, you don't

53:02

know it's in it. There there's

53:04

nothing in Oregon that would make

53:06

their pills suddenly

53:08

become pure cocaine or

53:10

pure heroin when they had always

53:12

been partly

53:14

fentanyl. Well,

53:16

how would legalization change the

53:18

mix of drugs that they're buying?

53:21

Unless you unless you gave

53:23

those Portland people free heroin. They're still

53:26

gonna buy whatever's on the

53:27

street and what's on the

53:29

street is fentanyl.

53:30

that So how does the legalization

53:32

is legalization help help?

53:34

because that doesn't change the supply. You

53:36

did. So it has to be more than legal.

53:38

It has to be free. Right?

53:40

the alternatives would literally have to be free. Otherwise,

53:43

they just go in the streets and they buy

53:45

and they don't know what they get just

53:48

like now. the legalization would have no impact on anything.

53:50

You'd just be buying the same mix of

53:52

good and

53:54

bad. Alright. Here's

53:56

my well, I think I had some other topics

53:58

there maybe.

53:59

Where did i did

54:02

I?

54:02

Nope. Was

54:05

there anything else that happened today?

54:08

Terrible idea.

54:08

terrible idea

54:15

the Sentinel is cheaper than heroin

54:17

now, I

54:17

would imagine. Yeah.

54:20

Because fentanyl, the

54:24

precursors are easy to get. Right? You have to

54:26

actually grow poppies to

54:28

make heroin. So

54:30

I would assume that would be true.

54:34

Military coup

54:34

on China is possible, I don't

54:38

think so. Oh, yeah. Musk has been

54:40

cleared to send StarLink to

54:42

Iran. How does that really help

54:44

Iran though? I

54:46

don't know the starlink helps Iran. It makes sense in

54:48

the in the Ukraine because they

54:51

could put the starlinks behind

54:54

enemy lines. and

54:56

then turn them off after

54:58

they've used them so that they get some benefits

55:00

so that they're not targeted. But if you

55:02

if you had a StarLink base station in

55:06

house in Iran,

55:08

they would spot it immediately. Right? And

55:10

just go turn it off. So

55:12

I think I think the starlight is a good idea and it's better than

55:15

not having it. But I think it's something that would

55:17

make a big difference in Ukraine I

55:21

don't know if they could hide them well

55:21

enough in Iran.

55:28

It it

55:30

would help them. It would help them a little bit,

55:32

but I I feel like they would spot them because

55:35

you can you can find them

55:38

electronically.

55:39

Oh, yes. I'm sorry.

55:42

Thanks for reminding me.

55:44

So Matt Gates will not

55:46

be charged with any of those crimes that he

55:48

had been your stuff. Didn't you

55:50

hear that? Matt Gates is

55:51

in the clearing. He's

55:54

cleared.

55:56

Now, did

55:56

I ever say that he would be cleared?

55:58

Does

55:59

anybody remember or did I make a prediction about

55:59

him? I did say

56:02

he'd be clear that I thought it is.

56:04

Yeah. So that

56:06

would be another

56:08

prediction that I think would be

56:10

non obvious.

56:11

Right?

56:13

Given given the the

56:16

excitement around his potential

56:19

legal problems. I

56:21

feel like my prediction was

56:23

sort of counterintuitive. because

56:25

it it did sound

56:26

like, oh, they got the goods. They're really good to go

56:28

after them. But I never thought for a moment that

56:30

that was a risk. I just thought

56:32

I thought it was very

56:34

bad political situation that

56:36

will dog him forever, but I never

56:39

thought he was at legal risk. Yeah.

56:43

I predicted it would come to nothing exactly.

56:49

Oh, so

56:53

somebody's

56:56

reminding me that what I said

56:58

was, that every day

57:00

that you that you don't learn

57:02

that there's something bad really there

57:04

is less likely that you'll ever

57:06

find it. like,

57:07

like, the longer it goes, the

57:09

less likely anything

57:10

was real. And I think that

57:12

became clear a few months ago.

57:15

Right? A few months ago, it was already clear that

57:17

that wasn't going to turn into anything.

57:20

because you would have known by

57:22

then. Right? Remember,

57:22

we never heard an accuser. Not

57:26

nobody ever even

57:27

surfaced the actual

57:30

woman And I I

57:32

can't believe that the young woman would actually

57:35

bring a, you know,

57:37

be a good witness. Imagine

57:40

if you were the woman involved or if

57:42

there was one. Right? So

57:44

allegedly, like, who who would

57:46

wanna be part

57:48

of that? if they participated willingly.

57:50

Who who would wanna bring them down for that?

57:52

Nobody. So I I'm

57:54

not even sure it matters

57:57

in terms of the legal process. I don't think

57:59

it matters what did or didn't

58:01

happen. It wasn't

58:04

in the domain of things that the public cares

58:06

about. Even the

58:08

legal system

58:09

doesn't care about it.

58:11

It's so trivial.

58:14

it is closer to human behavior

58:18

than crime. And

58:19

that's

58:21

what I saw. From the

58:23

very beginning, it looked like

58:26

normal

58:26

human behavior. Didn't look like

58:28

a crime to me.

58:32

i

58:34

Alright.

58:38

And

58:39

it looks

58:41

like we have

58:44

now completed possibly the

58:46

best show you've ever seen in your

58:48

life. Now, how

58:50

many of

58:50

you are on board with the fact

58:54

that If

58:55

we don't push on fentanyl, nothing's

58:57

gonna happen. And here's what I think

58:59

I can do. I think

59:02

by creating some kind of thing for

59:04

people to react to that probably moves the ball a little bit. But I'm also

59:07

increasing the envelope of

59:09

what you can talk about

59:12

in public. Imagine imagine

59:14

a, let's say,

59:16

a normie.

59:17

Imagine a

59:20

normal politician saying the things

59:22

that I just said. Can

59:24

you

59:24

imagine? Just just imagine

59:26

a routine, normal, existing

59:28

politician saying anything close to

59:31

what I just said in my eleven point

59:34

plan. Nobody. Right? Nobody.

59:36

There's nobody who has those

59:38

balls. There is one candidate

59:42

who's the close close.

59:44

His

59:44

name is Trump. Right? And

59:46

I'm gonna

59:47

be honest, this

59:50

is purely this is purely a ball's question. Like, you'd

59:52

have to have balls the size

59:54

of, you know, beach balls to get

59:56

this done. And only

59:58

one that does. Yeah. He's the only one

59:59

that does. I don't know

1:00:02

why. I don't know why, but he's the

1:00:04

only

1:00:04

one that does. Now,

1:00:06

you're you're mentioning some other people, but

1:00:08

I guarantee you

1:00:09

they're not gonna they're not gonna

1:00:11

be as

1:00:11

strong on this as

1:00:13

I just was. Now

1:00:16

it also I've also created a problem

1:00:18

for junk. Do you realize

1:00:20

that? Do you know why?

1:00:23

Why why

1:00:24

does my plan create a problem for

1:00:28

Trump? because it's stronger than his

1:00:30

is. Well, his is

1:00:32

nothing, I think. Right?

1:00:34

So he now he he looks weak on

1:00:38

crime. I just made Trump look weak on

1:00:40

crime. You know what? because

1:00:42

he's weak. He's weak and fentanyl. I think

1:00:44

he's strong on wanting to do

1:00:46

something about it, but he's weak

1:00:48

and ideas, so I'm trying to move

1:00:50

the ball

1:00:52

forward. So I'm trying to help him as well as everybody else.

1:00:54

And by the way, as Biden said,

1:00:56

tomorrow, I like your plan,

1:00:59

I'm on team Biden and I'm

1:01:01

gonna ride that horse. So I

1:01:03

I

1:01:03

just want the problem solved. I don't

1:01:05

really This is not a Trump thing. don't

1:01:07

care one way or

1:01:09

the

1:01:09

other. Alright.

1:01:12

the And

1:01:14

so ladies

1:01:15

and gentlemen, this brings us to the

1:01:17

conclusion of the best livestream

1:01:20

of all

1:01:22

time. And if it wasn't the most entertaining, maybe it was the

1:01:24

most useful. Because I've

1:01:26

told you before that this

1:01:29

thing we do, this livestream. It's

1:01:32

like a collaborative intelligence.

1:01:36

Meaning that you know, I throw

1:01:38

out ideas or you throw out ideas

1:01:40

and we all react to them and inform an

1:01:42

opinion sort of

1:01:44

collectively. And I think this

1:01:46

model is really powerful and may be

1:01:48

essential. It might be the

1:01:50

model that is the

1:01:52

counterbalance to some other forces

1:01:54

that are making politics not work at the

1:01:56

moment. Alright.

1:01:58

i

1:02:00

the You don't declare

1:02:02

war

1:02:03

on Mexico when running

1:02:05

for president. Trump

1:02:07

good. Trump good. Trump could

1:02:10

declare war on Mexico while running for

1:02:12

president?

1:02:13

absolutely Absolutely. Yeah. And

1:02:15

here's what I

1:02:17

proved with my list this

1:02:19

is the most valuable thing that I proved. In fact, I'm

1:02:21

gonna claim credit

1:02:21

for one thing. Did

1:02:24

you

1:02:25

see

1:02:27

the low level of pushback

1:02:30

to my tweet about the

1:02:32

eleven points, look

1:02:33

at the comments

1:02:35

and

1:02:35

look at people's pushback. There are of course

1:02:38

critics. Right? So there are plenty of

1:02:40

critics. But the pushback

1:02:42

is really

1:02:44

low. In fact, it's less pushback than just about anything

1:02:46

I've said that's provocative.

1:02:52

Yeah. Yeah. Declaring that

1:02:54

Mexico would pay for the wall is that was

1:02:56

more just

1:02:58

political stuff.

1:02:59

Right? Another drug

1:03:01

will not work.

1:03:03

It's been tried. I don't think

1:03:05

all the variations of that have

1:03:07

been tried. And And the other thing that I

1:03:10

would suggest

1:03:11

is that people should not say,

1:03:14

well, this thing is better than

1:03:16

this So

1:03:18

we'll do this thing. You don't

1:03:20

do that in

1:03:20

a war and a war

1:03:22

you do both things.

1:03:25

I've got one weapon against fentanyl that

1:03:27

doesn't look that strong, but I've got

1:03:29

another weapon that looks pretty strong. So

1:03:31

let's use the strong one and don't use

1:03:33

the weak one. Nope. That is wrong. That is

1:03:35

wrong. You had two weapons. You used both

1:03:37

of them. Use a strong one. You used the

1:03:39

weak one. Use

1:03:42

everything. Everything. Test test weapon weapon. Right? We're

1:03:44

we're not we're not playing around

1:03:46

anymore. This is war. If you got a

1:03:48

bullet, shoot

1:03:50

it. Alright.

1:03:52

That's all for now. YouTube, I'll talk to you later

1:03:55

tomorrow.