Episode 1358 Scott Adams - Fake News, Propaganda, Burgers, Bill Gates, Drone Wars and More
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: ----------- - Democrats and human motivation - Bill Gates motivation - Fake news, burgers and state secrets - Cartel drone bombs - COVID cases exploding in India - New mask guidance ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Hey everybody, come on in. Come on in. Some of you are really on the ball this morning. You're here so early. Well, I guess you don't want to miss a thing. And how would you like to take it up a level? Of course you would. Of cours
View segment →e you would. All you need is a coffee mug or a glass, a tankard, a chalice or a stein, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It'…
View segment →that's good stuff. I'd like to start by reading a joke I just read on Twitter from Juanita Broaddrick. Now, I don't know if she made this joke up because it's a little bit too good, but I'll read it to you anyway. You should know that she's not much of a fan of Democrats. So Juanita says, "Went int…
View segment →mocrats don't recognize incentives and motivation, and that we think we have some kind of a political difference in the world. You know, we think that there are some people who are on the left and some people who are on the right. I'm not so sure. Somebody says that's an old joke. It looks like it…
View segment →we need based on economics. But I get the other argument, right? I just prefer this one. This is one of those where there really isn't another argument. This isn't like the other stuff. This is purely a psychological phenomenon. Has nothing to do with how smart you are, how much you know. Probably…
View segment →s that there's a man who is totally not resisting arrest, had his hands on his steering wheel, and was in a controlled environment, and that the police just opened fire and executed him. Is there any chance that's true? Again, think of the story that you believed, if some of you did, about being li…
View segment →hrase cognitive dissonance? What do you think is happening to that? Well, it turns out that the searches for that term have been increasing every year for I don't know 10 or 12 years. But around the election of Trump and then around the next election, the search terms peaked and it's still going up.…
View segment →tell you, those Caitlyn and the entire Kardashian group, they sure know how to get attention, don't they? They really know how to get attention. So good luck to Caitlyn Jenner running as a Republican. I have no idea what kind of policies are involved there, but this is a fun situation. On the oppos…
View segment →now we still don't understand China, do we? I still don't understand how China is escaping this. That doesn't make sense, does it? If you saw that China managed to get coronavirus under control and keep it that way, and then you also saw that India did that, which would have seemed impossible in bot…
View segment →do think there's a tipping point coming. Feels like we're almost there. The tipping point being I just don't see the public putting up with it. Now in my town people are back to playing basketball in the public park without masks. But I don't know if it's just not being enforced or if it's legal now…
View segment →an the person you're talking to, that's a pretty tough conversation. Call your doctor. Kaiser is giving them. Well, they say they're not. So I only know what they say. Says don't call your doctor. All right, so that's all for now and I will talk to you tomorrow.
View segment →Hey everybody, come on in. Come on in. Some of you are really on the ball this morning. You're here so early. Well, I guess you don't want to miss a thing. And how would you like to take it up a level? Of course you would. Of course you would.
All you need is a coffee mug or a glass, a tankard, a chalice or a stein, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. And if you haven't tried it yet, I feel a little bit bad for you, but today's your day. Come on, come on. Go. Ah, yeah, that's good stuff.
I'd like to start by reading a joke I just read on Twitter from Juanita Broaddrick. Now, I don't know if she made this joke up because it's a little bit too good, but I'll read it to you anyway. You should know that she's not much of a fan of Democrats. So Juanita says, "Went into a bookstore to ask if they had Trump's book on illegal immigration." Clerk said, "Get the hell out of here and don't come back." I smiled and said, "Yes, that's the one. Do you have it in paperback?"
It's pretty funny, right?
Getting back to my major theme that Democrats don't recognize incentives and motivation, and that we think we have some kind of a political difference in the world. You know, we think that there are some people who are on the left and some people who are on the right. I'm not so sure.
Somebody says that's an old joke. It looks like it was a professional joke, so I don't think Juanita came up with it because she does not work in that industry. But it's a good joke.
So anyway, I've said that Democrats don't recognize motivation, so they don't work into their idea of how to build a society that humans have motivation, whereas Republicans consistently get that part right. And that's the big difference. But we think it's some kind of weird philosophical difference or it's a difference in priorities. And there's some of that, but mostly it's not. Mostly it's that Democrats don't know that human motivation is an important variable in building a system. That's what it looks like to me.
But let's take this hypothesis a little bit further. There's a new Rasmussen poll saying that 55 percent of likely voters think politicians' criticisms of police make it more dangerous for them to do their jobs. Do you buy that? That when politicians criticize the police, it makes it more dangerous for the police?
Now, what kind of person would believe that? What kind of person would believe that something that politicians are saying would have an impact on how dangerous it is to be a police officer? Well, everyone who understands human motivation thinks that, right? Anybody who understands how human beings work would probably think this is true.
But when you do a poll by conservative versus liberal to see what they think of it, 72 percent of conservatives agree with the idea that politicians criticizing the police makes it more dangerous to the police. But only 25 percent of liberals, only 25 percent of liberals, think this has an impact on how dangerous it is to be a police officer.
This is not really a philosophical difference, is it? Do you see? Do you see what's happening? It's just one group thinks that human motivation is a factor, and the other one acts like it just doesn't exist. That you can make a decision that's somehow free of how humans are wired. That seems to be the basic difference between the left and the right, and it gets confused with all these other topics. So we think it's something else.
Somebody says, is it an IQ difference? I don't think so. I don't think so at all. In fact, I don't think there's any evidence for that. It's definitely not intelligence. I think I can say that for sure.
Now, do you think it's only the liberals who are a little bit crazy? Well, let me give you a test case. The marvelous case of Bill Gates. And I know what some of you just said: "Oh, don't talk about that again, Bill Gates." But almost everything you need to know about humans and how we view the world can be understood by the way we look at just this one person, Bill Gates. And I have a pretty strong opinion about this.
All right, and it is that if you think that Bill Gates is up to no good or he's in it for the money, it's the worst opinion on social media. In other words, there are lots of opinions that I could disagree with, but I also acknowledge that the other side has something to the argument, right? In most cases, you know, look, for example, take any topic. I'm in favor of good control of the border, but I certainly understand the argument on the other side. I happen to prefer the other argument to keep good border security, and then we can open it up as much or as little as we need based on economics. But I get the other argument, right? I just prefer this one.
This is one of those where there really isn't another argument. This isn't like the other stuff. This is purely a psychological phenomenon. Has nothing to do with how smart you are, how much you know. Probably doesn't have anything to do with any of that. But let's walk through it.
My hypothesis is this: If you believe that Bill Gates is in it for the money, the power, or the control, you do not have a wise opinion. I'm not saying you're right or wrong. That's different. I'm saying you're not even smart enough to be in the conversation yet. And I shouldn't say smart because I don't think it's necessarily an IQ issue. I think that it's a talent stack issue.
I was looking at the people who were pushing back on my statement that the worst take on the internet is that Bill Gates is in it for the money. I was looking at all the pushback, and the first thing you do is you check the background of the people saying it. Now, the first thing I note, and I don't know why this is, there are a lot of people who seem to be professional trolls who get involved in any kind of a Bill Gates comment online. So I looked at a bunch of them. They're, you know, they have zero followers and seven followers and stuff, and they immediately pile in to say bad things about Bill Gates. Why? Why do apparently organized trolls, why do they care about this? And I don't know the answer. That doesn't make sense to me.
But there are other people who don't seem to be trolls. They've had accounts for a while. They comment on other things, and they also say that Bill Gates is clearly in it for the money or the control or to make things his way or his ideology. To which I say, let's sort that out a little bit. Are there any philanthropists who are not pursuing a philosophy? No, no, no. All philanthropists have some kind of philosophy, either helping the poor. Maybe they have a philosophy that the people who have the most should help the most. But they all have some philosophy. So that doesn't make sense as a criticism unless the philosophy is bad.
I heard one critic say they don't like it because Bill Gates is supporting critical race theory. To which I say, watch me not Google this. Okay, here's me not googling to find out if Bill Gates supports critical race theory. I don't have to check it. He doesn't. All right? And I'm saying that with full risk of embarrassment. I haven't checked it. I have no idea if I checked it what I would find. But I'm pretty confident that I'm not going to find he's in favor of or funding critical race theory, at least not directly. He might give to somebody who somehow is involved, but I don't have to check. That's so ridiculous because he's not that guy. He's not the guy pushing social issues. He's the guy pushing scientific issues. He's pushing what he thinks is just an obvious greater good.
Is anybody arguing that people should be saved from malaria if we can do it? It's not really a political issue. Does anybody think that it would be a bad idea for Africans to have working sanitation so that they don't use their water supply as their bathroom, which apparently is a gigantic problem? Is that a political thing? I mean, the things that Bill Gates works on are so outrageously non-political. You couldn't even get less political than the stuff he does.
I think people conflate him with Soros, and Soros seems to do more, at least as far as I can tell, more political, philosophical things. Bill Gates is just trying to make stuff work. He just wants water to be clean, air to be clean, that sort of thing. You know, people not dying of disease. So there's just no...
And when you read the articles, the arguments against him, I want to read them to you just so you see how they sound. Because it's the sound of them that really is the tick off. The key. They hear that there's something going on, some cognitive dissonance or something.
Let me see. I just want to look at my own tweet and we won't bore you much longer. All right, so just here's some of the pushback. All right, says Roly Poly, talking about Bill Gates, "He's corruptable just like everyone else." No, he's not. He's the opposite of that. He's not corruptable like everyone else. That's the entire point, is that you can't corrupt this guy because he doesn't need more money and he doesn't even need you to like him. Think about this. Bill Gates never has his back against criticism. He doesn't even care if you like him. Doesn't need the money. Doesn't care if you like him. All right, so he's definitely not corruptable because what do people like? They want reputation, money, power. He doesn't need any of that.
All right, let's see what else. The main thing that troubles me is how soft he is toward the CCP. He said that talking about the CCP cover-up is a distraction. Well, I agree with that. It is a distraction because whether we knew that they had done it or not, it wouldn't make any difference. That's what a distraction is. A distraction is that even if you could solve it, it wouldn't make any difference. What difference would it make? We know that major countries are experimenting with weaponizing stuff like this. We know we're doing it. We know they did it. We know I'm sure Russia is doing it. We know that everybody wants that stuff not to get out of the lab, right? Would China have a different opinion? Yeah, if hypothetically if this had gotten out of their lab, is China thinking, "Oh, well, let's let another one get out of the lab"? That's not happening.
Bill Gates is right. There's nothing that could come of knowing whether they did it or not because nobody would act differently. Nobody would act differently if we knew the answer to that. You know what? We'd push back a little bit, but it wouldn't make any difference. It wouldn't make any difference.
So all right, here's another one. "He's in it to win it. Question is, what is it? He looks like he's winning so far. His winning looks like humanity losing." What kind of a comment is that? He's in it to win it, but we don't know what he wants to win. I feel like it's pretty obvious. He's helping build and design toilets in Africa, solving malaria, you know, trying to work on solving climate change with nuclear energy, et cetera. I don't think it could be more obvious what he's in it for: to help humanity.
Now, what if helping humanity is good for his ego? Then is it really about his ego? Who cares? Who cares? Do you care if he's only in it for his ego if all the things he does are good for the greater good? Now, you might disagree that this is for the greater good, but the point is I don't think that matters. He's doing it for his health? No. I assume he wants the praise, admiration, and sense of accomplishment. Okay, okay. You've certainly seen me do things for you or for the public that seem to be more for other people, right? They're more examples of generosity. But nobody's kidding themselves that I don't get something out of it too, right? Aren't you all smart enough to know that no matter who you are, if you do something for other people, that you also get something out of that? What you usually get out of it is you feel good or it's good for your reputation or something like that. But what's wrong with that? Those are good things. True altruism probably doesn't exist, but altruism in which the person who's the giver feels good about themselves, that definitely exists. I do it all the time.
All right, and you can think of it as selfish or think of it as giving, but it ends up being the same thing.
Somebody else says that Bill Gates is a puppet. Really? You think Bill Gates is somebody's puppet? Who has control of Bill Gates? I don't think that's the thing. There's no evidence of it.
How about he's in it for the power because the power is addictive? So and that's a problem because the power he seems to want has nothing to do with politics. The power he seems to want is the power to fix things. Do you want to deny him the power to make things better or the power to maybe work on the next challenge because he did a good job on the first one? Why? Why would you want to deny him that power?
And Charlie says, "What began with the love of money ends in pride." Really? Really? The whole reason that Bill Gates is doing this is for pride? What evidence of that? You have to look at these comments to realize how whack they are.
And Bonnie says, "I will stop watching if we continue down this road." Bonnie, I'm going to solve this for you. You're going to stop watching now. Goodbye. I think that only puts your comments in timeout. I don't like threats. So feedback is great, but if you put your feedback in the form of a threat, I'd rather you just leave. So goodbye.
All right, we'll talk about cognitive dissonance a little bit more in a minute here. Let me give you some propaganda alerts, which you call news.
Remember I told you that Fox News was reporting that Biden's climate plan would make you eat no more than one burger a month? And I told you you don't really need to look into that to know that's not true. If you needed to do research to know that it was never true that Biden was going to limit you to one hamburger a month, you have to question yourself. I mean, seriously, take a look at yourself. Did you really need to look, wait for the fact check on that one? I mean, seriously, just step away from it for a moment. Just give yourself some distance. Imagine you're just looking down on it like it's a story about other people. And somebody said that somebody has a plan to limit you to one hamburger a month, and the person who wants to limit you to one hamburger a month is in a party that likes to get reelected. Do those two things fit? Can you make those two things work in your head? It's a party, Democrats, who like to get reelected, and they've got a plan to limit you to one hamburger a month. This could never have been true. If you needed to Google it to find out it wasn't true, seriously, you have to ask yourself what kind of stuff are you believing?
I mean, if you believe that, if even for a moment you thought that could be true, you really have to step back and see what's happened to all of us. I mean, the fact that that was even a little bit suggestive of something that could have been true, you really have to ask yourself what's happened to us all.
All right, so it turns out that John Roberts on Fox News basically did a correction on that and said that that was not accurate. By the way, I always make this distinction and I think it's worth making. If you see the news people report something wrong, get fact-checked, and then just say directly this was wrong, I don't have a problem with that at all. Now, I get the argument that people hear the rumor but they don't hear the correction. But I would say in this case the correction was given in exactly the highest form. I mean, it was an anchor on the news talking about his own network getting a story wrong. That's about as big a correction as you can make. And it was done on air and then it became a story itself. So I'm going to give him the, not just John Roberts but Fox News, I'll give them the 48 hours correction clarification. And I would say that that is acceptable, but it certainly will fool a lot of people.
There's another story in the news about a man named, his last name is Brown, and he was killed in North Carolina a week recently. Are you having the same problem I am that you can't keep all the black people killed by police straight in your head anymore? Because there's a lot of news about police killing black people, like way too much, in the sense that it's making your hair catch on fire. Like, what's going on? Now, I'm not saying that all of these stories tell you the story that the narrative tells. I'm not saying that they all feed into that. But the story is that there's a man who is totally not resisting arrest, had his hands on his steering wheel, and was in a controlled environment, and that the police just opened fire and executed him. Is there any chance that's true?
Again, think of the story that you believed, if some of you did, about being limited to one hamburger per month. And if you stepped away from it, you should have been able to know that was not true from the first moment. Do that with this one too. Just do the same thing. Just step away from it for a moment. Imagine you'd never seen any Floyd stuff. Imagine you weren't biased by any of the news. Imagine you were not left or right. You're just looking at the story. And that story is that a man who is fully controlled and was causing no trouble at all, police opened up on him and just executed him where he was. Is there any chance that's true? I mean, is there even one percent chance that the story the way it's being reported is even close to true? No, right? It's like the hamburger story. You don't have to Google this one. You don't have to Google it. It didn't happen. I mean, at least the way it's being reported. There's something else happening here that would explain why we saw what we saw. Could be a mistake. Could be, you know, maybe they thought he was resisting arrest. Maybe they thought he was reaching for something. Who knows? But it's definitely not a story about a black man being executed by police. It's not that.
So anyway, be careful what you believe.
All right, here's another fake news. This one from Fox. So in case you're wondering, do I only call out the fake news on the left? Nope. Fox has some explaining to do. So here's another one. Fox News is reporting that John Kerry shared some secrets, military secrets, with Iran. Here are the details. So there was this secret recording of the foreign minister Zarif in Iran. And in it, he said that he learned from John Kerry but had not learned even from his own government in Iran that Israel had attacked over 200 sites in Syria that were Iranian-backed sites.
And so the way Fox News is covering this, and it's just fake news, is that John Kerry gave up military secrets to Iran. Now again, just like the hamburger story, just take a little distance, right? Because when you first hear this you say, "My God, we heard it on the video." I'm sorry, we heard it on the audio. There's no doubt about it. We heard Zarif say that John Kerry gave him military secrets. It's right on the audio, so it can't be not true. We saw the transcript of the audio, right?
Can anybody tell me in the news why this is obviously fake news? Go. Let's see if I have to tell you the answer to this. Can you see this one? You got it, Rupert? No, I don't think the audio was necessarily edited in any bad way. Somebody says it's too on the nose. No, that's not what I'm looking for. Leaked tapes. You're wondering maybe why they were leaked. Too on the nose? No, that's not it. Thank you, Bill. Bill Blodgett got it.
So when I tell you, yeah, some of you are getting the right answer now. It wasn't a secret. Do you think that Iran's military was unaware that they had been attacked 200 times? I don't think so. Do you think that Soleimani, the general who is supporting all of these various Iranian proxies and everything, do you think he was unaware that Israel had attacked them 200 times? Of course not. Of course not. The story is about Zarif being out of the loop. That's the story. The story is not that John Kerry gave him secret military information. The story is Zarif was the last one to find out in his own country. Fox News turned this into some kind of a story about John Kerry giving away military secrets. That's not in the story. There's no evidence of that. There's only evidence that Zarif was so out of the loop he didn't know that his own country or their resources had been attacked 200 times. That's the story.
Now, when I point these things out, are any of you saying, "Oh my God, you're right. Of course Iran knew, just Zarif didn't know. That's it. That's the whole story."
All right, so there's that fake news.
There's another big story. Was this on CNN? I think it was on CNN, probably other places too, where there's some zoning, local zoning commission guy who got fired or quit or something for refusing to call a black woman on a Zoom call with other people "doctor," even when she clarified that she had a doctoral degree and would like to be called doctor. He called her Mrs. whatever her last name was, and that was considered very racist. And so he quit or got fired or something. I think he quit.
But let me put the positive spin on this. What was the racist part of this? This was the racism story of the day? That's it? There's not even any racism in the story. There's no racism in the story. Yet this is the best we can come up with for a national story to show how racist we are. And there's none in it. If the best story about racism that you can come up with doesn't have any, you're in pretty good shape. Because I'm pretty sure the entire news industry is scouring the nation for really good stories of racism, and this is it. A story of somebody who didn't want to call somebody a doctor because they weren't a medical doctor, presumably didn't think it was important, didn't like being corrected. But where was the part about her being black? There was no evidence that they had anything to do with this guy's actions.
If you had said, is it because she's a woman? I would have said, well, you know, maybe that's a little bit more of an argument. But there's also no evidence of that. Although I don't think a man would have treated another man the way he treated her. But that's speculation too. Again, that's in my head. I don't know that he would have treated a man differently, but it did look like you wouldn't talk to a man that way. I have to say, usually you don't talk to a man that way because even on Zoom, because, Ben, can you correct me on this? If a man talked to another man like that even on Zoom, wouldn't he feel like he'd be causing some trouble? Somebody says George says I would. Yeah, maybe you would. Anyway, if that's the worst we have, we're in pretty good shape.
Here's what Salon wrote about Bill Gates. This is the headline: "Bill Gates says no to sharing vaccine formulas with global poor to end pandemic." Wow, that's pretty bad, this headline. "Bill Gates says no to sharing vaccine formulas with global poor to end the pandemic." Why does Bill Gates hate the poor according to this headline? Why does he not want to end the pandemic according to this headline?
Do you know what the story says? Do you think the story will support this headline that Bill Gates says no to sharing vaccines with poor countries? What do you think? When you read the story, will the story support that headline? Again, hamburger, one per month. You don't have to Google it. You don't even need to read this story to know this headline isn't true. Why? Because Bill Gates would never say this. He wouldn't. Nobody would say that.
But if you read the story, what is the real story? The real story is that even if you give them the formulas, they don't have the resources to make the vaccine. So what he was saying is there's no point in giving them the formulas because they can't use them. There's no factory that is up to the standards they would need to produce them. Well, so if you give them the formulas and they produce them in substandard factories, did you come out ahead? Because maybe you made a bunch of vaccines that kill people because they might be hurrying and it might be worse for them than if they unfortunately waited.
So if you read the story, he has perfectly good reasons that you say, "Oh, that's a pretty good reason." What's the point of giving them the formula if they can't use it or if they did use it they would use it in such a speedy way that they couldn't do it right and it'd be more dangerous? Don't you think that should have been the headline? Don't you think the headline should have been "Bill Gates explains that sharing the formula won't help as much as you think"? Wasn't that the headline? "Bill Gates explains sharing the formula won't help as much as you think it would." Instead, "Bill Gates says no to sharing formula with poor people so that they'll die in the freaking pandemic." That's what Salon said.
Once you see how much the media is abusing this guy, Bill Gates, it's hard to unsee it. You'll see it everywhere.
All right, Project Veritas has filed a lawsuit against CNN. This is pretty interesting. I would not place any bets on them winning this lawsuit, but the fact that they're turning it into a case is in and of itself good constructive pushback. I do think the media needs pushback, and I do think people need to sue them when there's something that seems way over the line. And I think you could argue this is way over the line.
So here's the setup. Twitter took Project Veritas off over some video that regarded CNN, a CNN insider saying some bad things about CNN. And the reporting on CNN about that from Ana Cabrera said Twitter took them down for posting other people's private information. Now, was that true? Well, it turns out that CNN has done exactly the same thing and Twitter never took them down, which is showing somebody on their own front lawn. Apparently that's too private. So we know that Twitter did not apply the standard the same. CNN can do it. Project Veritas got taken down.
Then also CNN reported, and it was in a tweet I think from Ana Cabrera, that the problem was really repeated violations of privacy information as opposed to, I think the first reporting was that they had too many inaccuracies or it was false statements or something. So now CNN has tried to misreport this at least two times. Stelter said that Veritas got taken down from Twitter for violating multiple rules, but Project Veritas is only aware of one rule that they violated. And it was the same one that CNN violated. So CNN's reporting on this is just pure fake news. Pure fake news. I mean, just the purest of fake news. Just a fact that's not true. They just report it like it's true. That's not even trying to be accurate. And I think the evidence suggests there's no real intention to be accurate from CNN. But I don't know if being intentionally inaccurate is enough to cause Project Veritas to win their suit because it's pretty hard to prove intention. All right, we'll see.
Richard Grenell tweeted that, you know, why is Joe Biden not walking from Marine One to the White House? Apparently they had a car service picking him up from the helicopter and taking him to the White House. And you remember of course that Trump famously would always be walking across that span. You'd see all the video of that. And so Richard Grenell is asking, huh, why is Joe Biden not walking that short span that everybody else walks?
Well, here's the fun part. Are you ready? Do you think we could push this question of why Joe Biden was not walking from Marine One until CNN is forced to run another manly video package of Joe Biden? Because remember Project Veritas showed us that one of the technical directors admitted that they were trying to make Biden look manly and vital by showing video of him riding a bike and video of him in his classic sports car and riding up and down the driveway and wearing his aviator glasses and stuff. But I wonder if we could make CNN create another manly package for Biden just by talking about this a lot. Because if social media ramps up Richard Grenell's question of why Joe Biden had to be walked, aren't it? Won't CNN just have to respond with another propaganda package about him chopping wood or fighting a grizzly bear? I want to see if we can get a video on CNN of Joe Biden wrestling with something like wrestling with a grizzly bear or something. Let's see if we can do that.
In other news, that's scary. The cartels, the Mexican cartels, are using their own drones, the quadrotor ones, the ones with like four little helicopter rotors. And they're strapping the C4 to it and using them as basically guided missiles. So cartels have their own flying bombs now that they're killing each other with.
And so I ask you this question. What is our technology for identifying the operator of a drone? Can somebody help me out here on the technology? If a state actor knocks down a drone, can we tell who the operator was? You might be able to tell who owned it at one time or where it was purchased, but could you know who is actually on the controls at the moment the bad thing happened? I don't know that you could right now.
If you can't tell who's at the controls, what does that tell us about the future? Well, it at least opens up the possibility that private people will be funding mercenaries to run drones to take out the cartels. Now, I'm not suggesting it. I'm predicting it. So cartels don't need to come after me. I'm just predicting it. How long will it be before there's some kind of a mercenary group that says, look, you can go on your computer and you can make our, you know, we'll sign you up and you can operate one of our drones and you can bomb the cartels yourself and nobody will ever know. You could be the one who personally kills, takes out the cartel.
What if you don't need to be operating them but rather you just put in a little GPS coordinate and you send off your drone and it just flies to its designated place and blows up? Well, you know that's coming. There's nothing that's going to stop that from happening. So at the moment you still need a person and you need to be close enough that the person is controlling it with their controls. But the next obvious step is you just put a GPS destination in it, throw it in the air and go have lunch, and the thing flies for five miles, finds its destination, comes straight down. Boom.
And I feel as though the cartels have opened up a can of worms here in which superior forces will be using this weapon against them fairly soon. So I think that the cartels will be destroyed by mercenary drone armies. That's my prediction. Cartels will be destroyed by mercenary drone stuff.
Somebody says it's illegal. Yeah, I know it's illegal. Yeah, I know that.
I did a search for on Google Trends for cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance. What do you think the trend of how often people are googling the phrase cognitive dissonance? What do you think is happening to that? Well, it turns out that the searches for that term have been increasing every year for I don't know 10 or 12 years. But around the election of Trump and then around the next election, the search terms peaked and it's still going up.
So here's my question. Did I have anything to do with that? Because a lot of you heard the term or at least heard it in common use about politics from me, I think. But I saw just there's a video of Rose McGowan. Apparently she just appeared on Fox News and people give her a hard time for it. And she's she said in response to that that she sparked cognitive dissonance.
Now, when you hear somebody who's in the entertainment field using a phrase like that, do you say to yourself, huh, this has now entered the mainstream? Cognitive dissonance is a term that most of the world didn't understand 10 years ago. But I would say at the moment a celebrity can use that term in public and expect enough people to understand it that it doesn't sound weird, right? So I think I told you before that Trump entering politics back in 2015, I famously said that he was going to change more than politics. I said he was going to change how we understand reality itself. Do you remember that prediction? That Trump would change how you understand reality itself? And this is it.
This is the signal that somebody in the entertainment industry, not a psychologist, not a scientist, can use the term cognitive dissonance properly. And by the way, she used it properly, used it in exactly the right way in the right exact context. And that it's just normal conversation now. It's a big deal. That's a really big deal.
Somebody says there's no cognitive dissonance. But that's sarcasm.
All right, now here's a real question. So this morning somebody accused me of having cognitive dissonance about I don't know Bill Gates or something. And I ask you this question. If you think I have cognitive dissonance on a topic but you hear me say I think you have it, how can you sort that out? If two people, let's say it's not you and it's not me, it's just two people, and one says you have cognitive dissonance and that's why you're seeing this wrong, and the other says no, you're the one with cognitive dissonance. If you are the objective observer, how can you sort it out? Well, the one thing you couldn't do is say, well, which one do I agree with? Because you might have the cognitive dissonance too. So you can't just say which one is smarter or which one I agree with. That doesn't work. And you can't ask them because they both think it's the other one. And the way cognitive dissonance works is when you have it, you don't know that's what it is. You don't know.
So here is what I would suggest. Number one, look for the trigger. There's no cognitive dissonance unless there's a trigger. And the trigger is very specific. It has to be something that you thought was true that is proven to be untrue, but you couldn't accept the new truth. And so you created a weird world where you patched together some ill logic to make it all hold together. That's cognitive dissonance.
So if you don't see a trigger for one person but the other person's trigger is obvious, let's say some new information came out, that would be a strong indication that the one with the new information that violated their prior beliefs probably has it. Not proof. Somebody's saying the prediction. Yeah, whoever can predict better is likely to be the more accurate worldview. But that takes a while, right? You have to wait for the predictions. So that, yes. So prediction would be one of them and finding the trigger would be the other.
But I'd like to introduce a third one today, which is the breadth of your talent stack. So let's say you have two people. One is a poet and the other is a scientist with an MBA and lots of economics and business and quantitative stuff. And the two of them disagree. One has a talent stack in poetry and the other has a talent stack in all kinds of quantitative things, statistics, economics. But they disagree. Which one has the cognitive dissonance? Can't tell, right? You really can't tell. But it's more likely that the person who can see a topic from more angles has a better view, right? It doesn't guarantee that the more educated person doesn't have it. But if you're going to try to guess from the outside, I would usually give a little more weight to the person who has at least enough experience.
And you see this with the Bill Gates stuff. I have an experience that is rare, and my experience is going from not rich to rich. If you haven't done that journey, there's something missing in your experience that I have. And what I have is that once you get a certain amount of money, everybody's different, right, but a certain amount of money, your motivation changes. And I felt it in myself. Now, if you haven't experienced that, where you just don't need more money, so you start looking outward. You say, okay, well, what can I do? I made my money. What can I do for somebody else? Bill Gates is the ultimate example that he made his money. It's not going anywhere. He has more than he could ever spend. He's trying to give it away, right? His motivation is very unlikely making more money. Very unlikely. And I know that because I just have exposure to this very unique situation of going from poor and knowing that all I wanted was more money to going to rich where suddenly your motivation changes.
So look for the talent stack or the experience.
I guess the Governor Newsom recall is on. Got enough signatures for that. So he will be in a recall race. And one person running against him will be Caitlyn Jenner as a Republican. How much do you love the fact that Caitlyn Jenner will be running as a Republican in California? I love everything about this story. Now, I don't think Caitlyn Jenner will win, but I love that this is going to be part of our context.
And I got to tell you, those Caitlyn and the entire Kardashian group, they sure know how to get attention, don't they? They really know how to get attention. So good luck to Caitlyn Jenner running as a Republican. I have no idea what kind of policies are involved there, but this is a fun situation.
On the opposite of fun, the very opposite of fun, India has some estimates say up to a half a billion cases of COVID. And India is really one of these situations that should make you question your ability to understand anything. Because didn't India go from, "Hey, India is doing great and we don't know why. Maybe it's because they're all taking hydroxychloroquine"? Right? Do you remember when we thought, is it because they're all taking hydroxychloroquine because they have malaria issues? Well, I never believed that because I couldn't believe there would be enough that even if it worked it would make any difference. But the hospitals are being overrun. They're running out of oxygen or have run out in some places. And things in India went exactly the way we'd expect, but it took much longer than we thought. And I don't know if that's just because they were slow on testing or just the data was always bad. We know that data was bad. But did you ever think that India was going to escape this?
And so now we still don't understand China, do we? I still don't understand how China is escaping this. That doesn't make sense, does it? If you saw that China managed to get coronavirus under control and keep it that way, and then you also saw that India did that, which would have seemed impossible in both cases. I mean, China getting it under control just seems impossible, but somehow did. India doing it seemed also impossible, but now we know they didn't. So at least India makes sense, right? Your common sense about the virus is now compatible with the data coming out of India, but it wasn't compatible before. Don't know why.
Somebody says makes total sense. Well, even if you factor in that India has less obesity, a young population, lots of vitamin D, even if you factor all that in, it shouldn't have been enough. And now we know it wasn't enough to keep them safe. So you got that going.
Are all of you having the same Trump withdrawal problem that I am? That every day I wake up and the news is just not that interesting anymore. Have you noticed that? In fact, most of the news is just propaganda now. Maybe it always was.
Lockdowns are starving India. Okay, so I guess Biden's coming out with a new mask guidance today. Yesterday I was driving around and I was observing the people where I live to see how many people who are walking outdoors completely alone wore masks. What do you think was the percentage in my neighborhood? People walking completely alone. And when I say alone, I don't just mean there's nobody walking with them. I mean there's nobody else on the sidewalk. You know, where I live you could walk for a great distance without encountering another person on the sidewalk. About half. Yeah, about half of the people completely alone, like isolated in the middle of nothing outdoors, about half of them were wearing full masks. People were exercising, running in masks, biking in masks. Yeah, you can almost see people's IQ at this point by mask wearing outdoors.
Now, I will make an exception. I saw some elderly people who were masked outdoors. I'll give them that. I don't think it makes any difference, but if you were elderly and you hadn't had your vaccination and you were just concerned, well, throw on a mask if it makes you feel better. But I don't think it would make any statistical difference.
No more mask talk. Yeah, this was my point. We need Trump to give us more fake controversies so we have other things to talk about besides masks.
One in ten here. Somebody says one out of ten. Yeah, we do live in dumb times. So we'll see what's happening.
You know, Tucker Carlson I guess was encouraging people to get in the faces or be critical of people wearing masks outdoors, especially if a child is masked outdoors. And I wouldn't go that far, but I do think there's a tipping point coming. Feels like we're almost there. The tipping point being I just don't see the public putting up with it. Now in my town people are back to playing basketball in the public park without masks. But I don't know if it's just not being enforced or if it's legal now. I don't know the difference. But I see people playing in the park without masks every day now. So don't know what the situation is.
All right, and still as far as I know I still don't have access to the vaccine. I believe it's fake news that the vaccine is sort of available for people in my age group. There's definitely lots of people getting it, but available would suggest that I could go to a website and sign up and stuff. But right now we just have websites where you can fill out all your information and then it will tell you it's not available. That's all we have. I'm hoping that changes soon.
The last person I talked to waited five hours for a vaccine in line. So since I'm not going to do that, I say it's not available.
All right, somebody says the definitive definition of IQ means that fifty percent are below a hundred. Yeah. Have you ever had a conversation with somebody whose IQ is below 100? We must have, right? Because a lot of people in that category. But if you're 40, let's just say 40, smarter than the person you're talking to, that's a pretty tough conversation.
Call your doctor. Kaiser is giving them. Well, they say they're not. So I only know what they say. Says don't call your doctor.
All right, so that's all for now and I will talk to you tomorrow.
hey everybody come on in come on in some of you are really on the ball this morning you're here so early well i guess you don't want to miss a thing and how would you like to take it up a level of course you would of course you would all you need is a copper marker glass a tanker jealous or steiner canteen jogger flask a vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid i like coffee join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine of the day the thing that makes everything better it's called the simultaneous sip and if you haven't tried it yet i feel a little bit bad for you but today's your day come on come on go ah yeah that's good stuff i'd like to start by reading a joke i just read on twitter from juanita broderick now i don't know if she made this joke up because it's a little bit too good but i'll read it to you anyway you should know that she's uh not much of a fan of democrats so juanita says went into a bookstore to ask if they had trump's book on illegal immigration clerk said get the hell out of here and don't come back i smiled and said yes that's the one do you have it in paperback it's pretty funny right um getting back to my major theme that democrats don't recognize incentives and motivation and that we think we have some kind of a political difference in the world you know we think that there are some people who are on the left and some people are on the right i'm not so sure i'm somebody says that's an old joke it looks like it was a professional joke so i do i don't think uh i don't think juanita came up with it because she does not work in that industry but it's a good joke so anyway so i've said that democrats don't recognize motivation so they don't work into their idea of how to build a society the humans have motivation whereas republicans consistently get that part right and that's the big difference but we think it's some kind of weird philosophical difference or it's a difference in priorities and there's some of that but mostly it's not mostly it's that democrats don't know that human motivation is an important variable in building a system that's what it looks like to me but let's uh take this hypothesis a little bit further there's a new rasmussen poll saying that uh 55 percent of likely voters think uh politicians criticisms of police make it more dangerous for them to do their jobs do you buy that that when politicians criticize the police it makes it more dangerous for the police now what kind of person would believe that what kind of person would believe that something is happening with what politicians are saying would have an impact on how dangerous it is to be a police officer well everyone who understands human motivation thinks that right right anybody who understands how human beings work would probably think this is true but when you do a poll by conservative versus liberal to see what they think of it 72 percent of conservatives agree with the idea that politicians criticizing the police makes it more dangerous to the police and but only 25 percent of liberals only 25 percent of liberals think this has an impact on how dangerous it is to be a police officer this is not really a philosophical difference is it do you see do you see what's happening it's just one group thinks that human motivation is a factor and the other one acts like it's just doesn't exist that you can make a decision that's somehow free of how humans are wired that seems to be the basic difference between the left and the right and it gets confused with all these other topics so we think it's something else somebody says is iq difference i don't think so i don't think so at all in fact i don't think there's any evidence for that it's definitely not intelligence um i think i can say that for sure now do you think it's only the liberals who are a little bit crazy well let me give you a test case the marvelous case of bill gates and i know what some of you just said oh don't talk about that again bill gates but almost everything you need to know about humans and how we view the world can be understood by the way we look at just this one person bill gates and i have a pretty strong opinion about this all right and it is that if you think that bill gates is up to no good or he's in it for the money it's the worst opinion on social media in other words there are lots of opinions that i could disagree with but i also acknowledge that the other side has something to the argument right in most cases you know look for you taking take any topic i'm in favor of a good control of the border but i certainly understand the argument on the other side i i happen to prefer the other argument to keep a you know good border security and then we can open it up as much or little as we need based on economics but i get the other argument right i just prefer this one this is one of those where there really isn't another argument this isn't like the other stuff this is purely a psychological phenomenon has nothing to do with how smart you are how much you know probably doesn't have anything to do with any of that but let's let's walk through it my hypothesis is this if you believe that bill gates is in it for the money the power or the control you do not have a wise opinion i'm not saying you're right or wrong that's different i'm saying you're not even smart enough to be in the conversation yet and i shouldn't say smart because i don't think it's necessarily an iq issue i think that it's a talent stack issue i was looking at the people who were pushing back on my statement that that the worst to take on the internet is that bill gates is in it for the money i'm looking i was looking at all the pushback and the first thing you do is you check you check the background of the people saying it now the first thing i note and i don't know why this is there are a lot of people who seem to be professional trolls who get involved in any kind of a bill gates comment online so look at a bunch of them they're you know they have zero followers and seven followers and stuff and they immediately pile in to say bad things about bill gates why why why do apparently organized trolls why do they care about this and i don't know the answer that doesn't make sense to me but there are other people who don't seem to be trolls they've had accounts for a while they comment on other things and they also say the bill gates is clearly in it for the money or the control or to make things his way or his ideology to which i say let's sort that out a little bit are there any philanthropists who are not pursuing a philosophy no no no all philanthropists have some kind of philosophy either helping the poor maybe they have a philosophy that the people who have the most should help the most but they all have some philosophy so that's that doesn't make sense as a criticism unless the philosophy is bad i heard one critic say they don't like it because bill gates is supporting critical race theory to which i say watch me not google this okay here's me not googling to find out if bill gates supports critical race theory i don't have to check it he doesn't all right and i'm saying that i'm saying that with full risk of embarrassment i haven't checked it i have no idea if i checked it what i would find but i'm pretty confident that i'm not going to find he's in favor of or funding critical race theory at least not directly he might give to somebody who somehow is involved but i don't have to check that's so ridiculous because he's not that guy he's not the guy pushing social issues he's the guy pushing scientific issues he's pushing what he thinks is just an obvious greater good is anybody arguing that people should be saved from malaria if we can do it it's not really a political issue does anybody think that it would be a bad idea for africans to have you know working sanitation uh so that they don't use their water supply as their bathroom which apparently is a gigantic problem is anybody is that a political thing i mean the things that bill gates works on are so outrageously non-political you couldn't even get less political than the stuff he does i think people conflate him with soros and sorrow seems to do more at least as far as i can tell more political philosophical things bill gates is just trying to make stuff work he just wants water to be clean air to be cleaned that sort of thing you know people not dying of disease so i there's just no uh i and when you read the article the arguments against them i want to read them to you just as you see how they sound because because it's the sound of them that that really is the tick off the key they hear that there's something going on some cognitive dissonance or something let me see i just want to look at my own tweet and uh we'll bore you much longer all right so just here's some of the pushback all right says roly-poly talking about bill gates he's corruptable just like everyone else no he's not he's the opposite of that he's not corruptable like everyone else that's the entire point is that you can't corrupt this guy because he doesn't need more money and he doesn't even need you to like him think about this bill gates never his back against criticism he doesn't even care if you like him doesn't need his money doesn't care if you like him all right so he's definitely not corruptable because what do people like they want reputation money power he doesn't need any of that all right let's see what else um the main thing that troubles me is how soft he is toward the ccp he said that talking about the ccp cover-up is a distraction well i agree with that it is a distraction because whether we knew that they had done it or not it wouldn't make any difference that's what a distraction is a distraction is that even if you could solve it it wouldn't make any difference what difference would it make we know that major countries are experimenting with um with uh weaponizing stuff like this we know we're doing it we know they did it we know i'm sure russia is doing it we know that everybody wants that stuff not to get out of the lab right would china have a different opinion yeah if hypothetically if this had gotten out of their lab is china thinking oh well let's let's let another one get out of the lab that's not happening bill gates is right there's nothing that could come of knowing whether they did it or not because nobody would act differently nobody would act differently if we knew the answer to that you know what we'd push back a little bit but it wouldn't make any difference it wouldn't make any difference so all right here's another one uh he's in it to win it question is what is it he looks like he's winning so far his winning looks like humanity losing what kind of a comment is that he's in it to win it but we don't know what he wants to win i feel like it's pretty obvious he's helping build and design toilets in africa solving malaria you know trying to work on solving climate change with nuclear energy et cetera i don't think it could be more obvious what he's in it for to help humanity now is what if helping humanity is good for his ego then is it really about his ego who cares who cares do you care if he's only in it for his ego if all the things he does are good for the greater good now you might disagree that this is for the greater good but the point is i don't think that matters he's doing it for his health no um i assume he wants the praise admiration and sense of accomplishment okay okay you you've certainly seen me do things for you or for the public that seem to be um more for other people right they're more examples of generosity but nobody's kidding themselves that i guess something out of it too right aren't you all smart enough to know that no matter who you are if you do something for other people that you also get something out of that what you usually get out of it is you feel good or it's good for your reputation or something like that but what's wrong with that those are good things true altruism probably doesn't exist but altruism in which the person who's the giver feels good about themselves that definitely exists i do it all the time all right and and i you know you can think of it as selfish or think of it as giving but it ends up being the same thing um somebody else says that bill gates is a puppet really you think bill gates is somebody's puppet who who has control of bill gates i don't think that's the thing there's no evidence of it how about he's in it for the power because the power is addictive so and that's a problem because the power he seems to want has nothing to do with politics the power he seems to want is the power to fix things do you want to deny him the power to make things better or the power to maybe work on the next challenge because he did a good job on the first one why why would you want to deny him that power and charlie says what began with the love of money ends in pride really really the the whole reason that bill gates is doing is for pride what evidence of that you have to you have to look at these comments to realize how whack they are and bonnie says i will stop watching if we continue down this road bonnie i'm going to solve this for you you're going to stop watching now goodbye i think that only puts your comments in timeout i don't like threats so you know feedback is great but if you put your feedback in the form of a threat i'd rather you just leave so goodbye um all right let's we'll talk about cognitive dissonance a little bit more in a minute here let me give you some propaganda alerts which you call news um remember i told you that fox news was reporting that biden's climate plan would would make you eat no more than one burger a month and i told you you don't really need to look into that to know that's not true if you needed to do research to know that it was never true that biden was going to limit you to one hamburger a month you have to question yourself i mean seriously take a look at yourself did you really need to look wait for the fact check on that one i mean seriously just step away from it for a moment just just give yourself some distance you know imagine you're just looking down on it like it's a story about other people and somebody said that somebody has a plan to limit you to one hamburger a month and the person who wants to limit you to one hamburger a month is in a party that likes to get reelected do those two things fit can you make those two things work in your head it's a party democrats who like to get reelected and they've got a plan to limit you to one hamburger a month this could never have been true if you needed to google it to find out it wasn't true seriously you have to ask yourself what kind of stuff are you believing i mean if you believe that i'm the first the first exposure to it if even for a moment you thought that could be true you really have to step back and see what's happened to all of us i mean the fact that that was even a little bit suggestive of something that could have been true you really have to ask yourself what's happened to us all all right so it turns out that john roberts on fox news basically did a did a correction on that and said that that was not accurate by the way uh i always make this distinction and i think it's worth making if you see the news people report something wrong get fact-checked and then just say directly this was wrong i don't have a problem with that at all now i get the argument that people hear the rumor but they don't hear the the correction but i would say in this case the the correction was given in exactly the highest form i mean it was an anchor on the news talking about his own network getting a story wrong that's about as big a correction as you can make and it was done on air and then it became a story itself so i'm going to give him the not not just john roberts but fox news i'll give them the 48 hours correction clarification and i would say that that is acceptable but it certainly will fool a lot of people um there's another story in the news about uh there's that there's a man named his last name is brown and he was killed in north carolina a week recently are you having the same problem i am that you can't keep all the black people killed by police straight in your head anymore because there's a lot of news about police killing black people like way too much uh in the sense that it's you know it makes your hair catch on fire like what's going on now i'm not saying that um all of these stories tell you the story that you know that the narrative tells i'm not saying that they all feed into that but the story is that there's a man who is totally not resisting arrest had his hands on his steering wheel and was in a controlled environment and that the police just opened fire and executed him is there any chance that's true again think of the story that you believed if some if some of you did about being limited to one hamburger per per month and if you stepped away from it you should have been able to know that was not true from the first moment do that with this one too just do the same thing just step away from it for a moment imagine you'd never seen any floyd stuff imagine you know you weren't biased by any of the news imagine you were not left or right you're just looking at the story and that story is that a man who is fully controlled and was causing no trouble at all police opened up on him and just executed him where he was is there any chance that's true i mean annie just is there even one percent chance that the story the way it's being reported is even close to true no right it's like the hamburger story you don't have to google this one you don't have to google it it didn't happen i mean at least the way it's being reported there's something else happening here that would explain why we saw what we saw could be a mistake could be you know maybe they thought he was arrested resisting rest maybe they thought he was reaching for something who knows but it's definitely not a story about a black man being executed by police it's not that um so anyway be careful what do you believe all right here's another fake news this one from uh fox so in case you're wondering do i only call out the fake news on the left nope fox has some explaining to do so here's another one fox news is reporting that john kerry shared some secrets military secrets with iran here are the details so there was this uh secret recording of the foreign minister zarif in iran and in it he said that he learned from john kerry but had not learned even from his own government in iran that israel had attacked over 200 sites in syria that were iranian-backed sites and so the way fox news is covering this and it's just fake news is that john kerry gave up military secrets to iran now again just like the hamburger story just take a little distance right because when you first hear this you say my god we heard it on the video i'm sorry we heard it on the audio there's no doubt about it we heard zarif say that john kerry gave him military secrets it's right on the audio so it can't be not true we we we saw the transcript of the audio right can anybody tell me in the news why this is obviously fake news go let's see if i have to tell you the answer to this can you can you see this one you got rupard no no i don't think we don't know but i don't think the audio was necessarily edited in any bad way somebody says it's too on the nose no that's not what i'm looking for uh leaked tapes you're wondering maybe why they were leaked two on the nose no that's not it thank you bill bill blodgey got it so uh when i tell you yeah yeah some of you are getting the right answer now it wasn't a secret do you think that uh do you think that iran's military was unaware that they had been attacked 200 times i don't think so do you think that solomon a the the general who is supporting all of these uh you know various iranian proxies and everything do you think he was unaware that israel had attacked them 200 times of course not of course not the story is about zarif being out of the loop that's the story the story is not that john kerry gave him secret military information the story is as reef was the last one to find out in his own country fox news turned this into some kind of a story about john kerry giving away military secrets that's not in the story there's no evidence of that there's only evidence that zarif was so out of the loop he didn't know that his own country or their resources had been attacked 200 times that's the story now when i point these things out are any of you saying oh my god you're right of course iran knew just zarif didn't know that's it that's the whole story all right so there's that fake news um there's another big story uh was this on cnn i think it was on cnn probably other places too where there's some zoning local zoning commission guy who uh got fired or quit or something for refusing to call a black woman on a zoom call with other people doctor even when she clarified that you know she had a doctoral degree and would like to be called doctor he called her mrs whatever her last name was and that was considered very racist and so he um he quit or got fired or something i think he quit but let me put the positive spin on this what was the racist part of this this was it the this was the thing that this is the racism story of the day that's it there's not even any racism in the story there's no racism in the story yet this is the best we can come up with for a national story to show how racist we are and there's none in it if the best story about racism that you can come up with doesn't have any you're in pretty good shape because i'm pretty sure the entire news industry is scouring the the nation for really good stories of racism and this is it a story of somebody who didn't want to call somebody a doctor because they weren't a medical doctor presumably didn't think it was important didn't like being corrected but where was the part about her better being black there was no evidence that they had anything to do with this guy's actions if you had said is it because she's a woman i would have said well you know maybe that's a little bit more of an argument but there's also no evidence of that although i don't think a man would have treated another man the way he treated her but that's speculation too again that's in my head i don't know that he would have treated a man differently but it did look like you wouldn't talk to a man that way i have to say usually you don't talk to a man that way because you even on zoom because ben can you correct me on this if if if if a man talked to another man like that even on zoom wouldn't he feel like he he'd be causing some trouble somebody says george says i would yeah maybe you would anyway if that's the worst we have we're in pretty good shape um here's what uh salon wrote about bill gates this is the headline bill gates says no to sharing vaccine formulas with global poor to and pandemic wow that's pretty bad this headline bill gates says no to sharing vaccine formulas with global poor to end the pandemic why does bill gates hate the poor according to this headline why does he not want to end the pandemic according to this headline do you know what the story says do you think the story will support this headline that bill gates says no to sharing vaccines with poor countries what do you think when you read the story will the story support that headline again hamburger one per month you don't have to google it you don't even need to read this story to know this headline isn't true why because bill gates would never say this he wouldn't nobody would say that but if you read the story what is the real story the real story is that even if you give them the formulas they don't have the resources to make the vaccine so what he was saying is there's no point in giving them the formulas because they can't use them there's no factory that that is up to the standards they would need to produce them well so if you give them the formulas and they produce them in substandard factories did you come out ahead because maybe you made a bunch of vaccines that kill people because they they might be hurrying and it might be worse for them than if they unfortunately waited so if you read the story he has perfectly good reasons that you say oh that's a pretty good reason what's the point of giving them the formula if they can't use it or if they did use it they would use it in such a speedy way that they couldn't do it right and it'd be more dangerous don't you think that should have been the headline don't you think the headline should have been bill gates explains that sharing the formula won't help as much as you think wasn't that the headline bill gates explains sharing the formula won't help as much as you think it would instead bill gates says no to sharing formula with poor people so that they'll die in the freaking pandemic that's what salon said once you see how much the media is abusing this guy bill gates it's hard to unsee it you'll see it everywhere all right project veritas has filed a lawsuit against cnn this is pretty interesting um i would not place any bets on them winning this lawsuit but the fact that they're um they're turning it into a case is in and of itself good constructive pushback i do think the media needs pushback and i do do think people need to sue them when there's something that seems way over the line and i think you could argue this is way over the line so here's here's the setup that twitter took um project veritas off over some video that regarded cnn um a cnn insider saying some bad things about cnn so the uh and the reporting on cnn about that from anna cabrero cabrera um that uh said twitter took them down for posting other people's private information now was that true well it turns out the cnn has done exactly the same thing and twitter never took them down which is showing somebody on their own front lawn apparently that's too private so we know that twitter did not apply the standard the same cnn can do it uh project veritas got taken down then also cnn reported and it was in a tweet i think from anna cabrera that the problem was really repeated violations of privacy information as opposed to i think the first reporting was that they had too many inaccuracies or it was false statements or something so now cnn has tried to misreport this at least two times stelter said that veritas got taken down from twitter for violating multiple rules but project veritas is only aware of one rule that they violated and it was the same one the cnn violated so cnn's reporting on this is just pure fake news pure fake news i mean just the purest of fake news just a fact that's not true they just report it like it's true that's you know that's not even trying to be accurate and i think i think the evidence suggests there's no real intention to be accurate from cnn but i don't know if being intentionally inaccurate is enough to cause project veritas to win their suit because it's pretty hard to prove intention all right we'll see richard grinnell tweeted that you know why is joe biden not walking from marine one to the white house apparently they had a car service picking him up and from the helicopter and taking him to the white house and you remember of course that uh trump famously would always be walking across that span you'd see all the video of that and so richard grenell is asking huh why why is joe biden not walking that short span that everybody else walks well here's the fun party ready do you think we could push this question of why joe biden was not walking from marine one until cnn is forced to run another manly video package of joe biden because remember project veritas showed us that one of the technical directors admitted that they were trying to make biden look manly and vital by showing video of him you know riding a bike and video of him in his his classic sports car and riding up and down the driveway and you're wearing his aviator glasses and stuff but i wonder if we could make cnn create another manly manly package for biden just by talking about this a lot because if social media ramps up the richard grinnell's question of why joe biden had to walk aren't it won't cnn just have to respond with another propaganda package about him chopping wood or you know fighting a grizzly bear i want to see if we can get a video on cnn of joe biden wrestling with something like wrestling with a grizzly bear or something let's see if we can do that in other news that's scary the cartels the mexican cartels are using uh their own drones the quadrotor ones the ones with like four four little helicopter rotors and they're strapping the c4 to it and using them as basically guided missiles so cartels have their own flying bombs now that they're killing each other with and so i ask you this question what is our technology for identifying the operator of a drone can somebody help me out here on the technology if if let's say a state actor knocks down a drone can we tell who the operator was you might be able to tell who owned it at one time or where it was purchased but could you know who is actually on the controls at the moment the bad thing happened i don't know that you could right now if you can't tell who's at the controls what does that tell us about the future well it at least opens up the possibility that private people will be funding mercenaries to run drones to take out the cartels now i'm not suggesting it i'm predicting it all right so cartels don't need to come after me i'm just predicting it how long will it be before there's some uh some kind of a mercenary group that says look you can go on your computer and you can make our you know we'll sign you up and you can operate one of our drones and you can bomb the cartels yourself and nobody will ever know you you could be the one who personally kills takes out the cartel what if you don't need to be operating them but rather you just put in a little gps coordinate and you send off your drone and it just flies to its designated place and blows up well you know that's coming there's nothing that's going to stop that from happening so at the moment you still need a person and you need a you need to be close enough that the person is controlling it with their controls but the next obvious step is you just put a gps destination in it throw it in the air and go have lunch and the thing flies for five miles finds its destination comes straight down boom and i feel as though the cartels have opened up a can of worms here in which um superior forces will be using this weapon against them fairly soon so i think that the the cartels will be destroyed by uh mercenary drone armies that's my prediction cartels will be destroyed by mercenary drone uh stuff somebody says it's illegal yeah i know it's illegal yeah i know that um i did a search for on google trends for cognitive dissonance um cognitive dissonance what do you think the trend of how often people are googling the phrase cognitive dissonance what do you think is happening to that well it turns out that the searches for that term have been increasing every year for i don't know 10 or 12 years and but around the election of of trump and then around the next election um the search terms you know it peaked and it's still going up so here's my question did i have anything to do with that because a lot of you heard the term or at least heard it in common use about politics from me i think but um i saw just there's a video of uh rose mcgowan apparently she just appeared on fox news and people give her a hard time for it and uh she's she said in response to that that she sparked cognitive dissonance now when you hear somebody who's in the entertainment field using a phrase like that do you say to yourself huh this has now entered the mainstream cognitive dissonance is a term that most of the world didn't understand 10 years ago but i would say at the moment a a celebrity can use that term in public and expect enough people to understand it that it doesn't sound weird right so i think i told you before that trump entering politics back in 2015 i famously said that he was going to change more than politics i said he was going to change how we understand reality itself do you remember that prediction that trump would change how you understand reality itself and this is it this is the the signal that somebody in the entertainment industry not a psychologist not a scientist can use the term cognitive dissonance properly and by the way she used it properly use it in exactly the right way in the right exact context and that it's just normal conversation now it's a big deal that's a really big deal somebody says there's no cognitive dissonance uh but that's sarcasm all right now um here's a real question so this morning somebody accused me of having cognitive dissonance about i don't know bill gates or something and i ask you this question if if you think um i have cognitive dissonance on a topic but you hear me say i think you have it how can you sort that out if two people let's say it's not you and it's not me it's just two people and one says you have cognitive dissonance and that's why you're seeing this wrong and the other says no you're the one with cognitive dissonance if you are the objective observer how can you sort it out well the one thing you couldn't do is say well which one do i agree with because you might have the cognitive distance too so you can't just say which one is smarter or which one i agree with that doesn't work and you can't ask them because they both think it's the other one and the way cognitive dissonance works is when you have it you don't know that's what it is you don't know so here is what i would suggest number one look for the trigger there's no cognitive dissonance unless there's a trigger and the trigger is very specific it has to be something that you thought was true that is proven to be untrue but you couldn't accept the new truth and so you you created a weird world where you patched together some ill logic to make it all hold together that's cognitive dissonance so if you don't see a trigger for one person but the other person's trigger is obvious let's say some new information came out that would be a strong indication that the one with the new information that violated their their prior beliefs probably hasn't not proof oh somebody's saying the prediction yeah whoever can predict better is likely to be the more accurate worldview but that takes a while right you have to wait for the predictions so that yes so prediction would be one of them and finding the trigger would be the other but i'd like to introduce a third one today which is the breadth of your talent stack so let's say you have two people one is a poet and the other is a scientist with an mba and lots of economics and business and you know quantitative stuff and the two of them disagree one has a talent stack in poetry and the other has a talent stack in all kinds of quantitative things statistics economics but they disagree which one has the cognitive dissonance can't tell right you really can't tell but it's more likely that the person who can see a topic from more angles has a better view right it doesn't guarantee that the more educated person it doesn't have it but if you're going to try to guess from the outside i would usually give a little more weight to the person who has at least enough experience and you see this with the bill gates stuff i have an experience that is rare and my experience is going traveling from not rich to rich if you haven't done that journey there's something missing in your experience that i have and what i have is that once you get a certain amount of money that everybody's different right but a certain amount of money your motivation changes and i felt it in myself now if you haven't experienced that where you you just don't need more money so you you start looking outward you say okay well what can i do right i made my money what can i do for somebody else bill gates is the ultimate example that he made his money it's not going anywhere he has more than he could ever spend he's trying to give it away right his motivation is very very unlikely making more money right very unlikely and i know that because i just have um exposure to this very unique situation of going from poor and knowing that all i wanted was more money to going to rich where suddenly your motivation changes right so look for the talent stack of the experience i guess the governor newsom recall is on got enough signatures for that so he he will be in a recall race and one person running against him will be caitlyn jenner as a republican how much do you love the fact that caitlyn jenner will be running as a republican in california i love everything about this story now i don't think caitlyn jenner will win but i love that this is going to be you know part of our our context and i got to tell you those uh you know caitlyn and the entire kardashian uh group they sure know how to get attention don't they they really know how to get attention so uh good luck to caitlyn jenner running as a republican i don't have no i have no idea what kind of policies are involved there but this is this is a fun a fun situation uh on the opposite of fun uh the very opposite of fun india has some estimates say up to a half a billion cases of covet and india is really one of these situations that should make you question your ability to understand anything because didn't india go from hey india is doing great and we don't know why maybe it's because they're all taking hydroxychloroquine right do you remember when we thought is it because they're all taking hydroxychloroquine because they have malaria issues well i never believed that because i couldn't believe there would be enough that even if it worked it would make any difference but um the hospitals are being overrun they're running out of oxygen or have run out in some places and things in india went exactly the way we'd expect but it took much longer than we thought and i don't know if that's just because they were slow on testing or just the data was always bad we know that data was bad but did you ever think that india was going to escape this and so now we still don't understand china do we i still don't understand how china is escaping this that doesn't make sense does it if you saw that china managed to get coronavirus under control and keep it that way and then you also saw the indian did that which would have seemed impossible in both cases i mean china getting it under control just seems impossible but somehow did they india doing it seemed also impossible but now we know they didn't so at least india makes sense right your common sense about the the virus is now compatible with the data coming out of india but it wasn't compatible before don't know why yeah somebody says makes total sense well even if you factor in the india has less obesity a young population lots of vitamin d even if you factor all that in it shouldn't have been enough and now we know it wasn't enough to keep them safe so you got that going um are all of you having the same uh trump withdrawal problem that i am that every day i wake up and the news is just not that interesting anymore have you noticed that in fact most of the news is just propaganda now maybe it always was uh lockdowns are starving india okay so i guess biden's coming out with a new mask guidance today um yesterday i was driving around and i was observing the people where i live to see how many people who are walking outdoors completely alone wore masks what do you think was the percentage in my neighborhood people walking completely alone and when i say alone i don't just mean there's nobody walking with them i mean there's nobody else in the sidewalk you know you could where i live you could walk for a great distance without encountering another person on the sidewalk about half yeah about half of the people completely alone like isolated in the middle of nothing outdoors about half of them were wearing full masks people were exercising running in masks biking in masks yeah you can almost see people's iq at this point by by mask wearing outdoors now i will make an exception i saw some elderly people who were masked outdoors i'll give them that i don't think it makes any difference but if you were elderly and you hadn't had your vaccination and you you you were just concerned well throw on a mask if it makes you feel better but i don't think it would make any any statistical difference uh no more mass talk yeah this was my point we need trump to give us more fake controversies so we have other things to talk about besides masks um one and a ten here somebody says one out of ten yeah we do live in dumb times so we'll see what's happening you know tucker carlson i guess was encouraging people to uh get in the faces or or be critical of people wearing masks outdoors especially if a child is masked outdoors and i wouldn't go that far but i do think there's a tipping point coming feels like we're almost there the tipping point being i just don't see the public putting up with it now in my town people are back to playing basketball in the public park without masks but i don't know if it's just not being enforced or if it's legal now i don't know the difference but i see people playing in the park without masks every day now so don't know what the situation is all right and still as far as i know i still don't have access to the vaccine i believe it's fake news that the vaccine is sort of available for people in my age group it's there's definitely lots of people getting it but available would suggest that i could go to a website and sign up and stuff but right now we just have websites where you can you can fill out all your information and then it will tell you it's not available that's all we have i'm hoping that changes soon um the last person i talked to waited five hours for a vaccine uh in line so since i'm not going to do that i say it's not available all right somebody says the definitive definition of iq means that fifty percent are below a hundred uh yeah have you ever had a conversation with somebody whose iq is below 100 we must have right because a lot of people in that category but if you're 40 let's just say 40 smarter than the person you're talking to that's pretty tough conversation uh call your doctor kaiser is giving them well they say they're not so i only know what what they say says don't call your doctor all right so that's all for now and i will talk to you tomorrow
hey everybody
come on in come on in some of you are
really
on the ball this morning you're here so
early
well i guess you don't want to miss a
thing
and how would you like to take it up a
level
of course you would of course you would
all you need is a copper marker glass a
tanker jealous or steiner canteen jogger
flask a vessel of any kind
fill it with your favorite liquid i like
coffee
join me now for the unparalleled
pleasure the dopamine of the day the
thing that makes everything
better it's called the simultaneous sip
and if you haven't tried it yet
i feel a little bit bad for you but
today's your day
come on come on go
ah yeah that's good stuff
i'd like to start by reading a joke i
just read
on twitter from juanita broderick
now i don't know if she made this joke
up because it's a little bit too good
but i'll read it to you anyway you
should know that she's
uh not much of a fan of democrats
so juanita says went into a bookstore to
ask if they had trump's book on
illegal immigration clerk said get the
hell out of here and don't come back
i smiled and said yes that's the one do
you have it in paperback
it's pretty funny right
um getting back to my major theme that
democrats
don't recognize incentives and
motivation
and that we think we have some kind of a
political difference in the world
you know we think that there are some
people who are on the left and some
people are on the right
i'm not so sure i'm somebody says that's
an old joke
it looks like it was a professional joke
so i do
i don't think uh i don't think juanita
came up with it
because she does not work in that
industry but it's a good joke
so anyway so i've said that democrats
don't recognize
motivation so they don't work into their
idea of how to build a
society the humans have motivation
whereas republicans consistently get
that part right
and that's the big difference but we
think it's some kind of weird
philosophical difference or
it's a difference in priorities and
there's some of that
but mostly it's not mostly it's that
democrats
don't know that human motivation is an
important variable
in building a system that's what it
looks like to me
but let's uh take this hypothesis a
little bit further
there's a new rasmussen poll saying that
uh
55 percent of likely voters think uh
politicians criticisms of police
make it more dangerous for them to do
their jobs do you buy that
that when politicians criticize the
police it makes it more dangerous for
the police
now what kind of person would believe
that
what kind of person would believe that
something is happening with what
politicians are saying
would have an impact on how dangerous it
is to be
a police officer well
everyone who understands human
motivation thinks that
right right anybody who understands how
human beings work
would probably think this is true but
when you do a poll by conservative
versus liberal to see what
they think of it 72 percent of
conservatives agree with the idea
that politicians criticizing the police
makes it more dangerous to the police
and but only 25 percent of liberals
only 25 percent of liberals think this
has an impact on how dangerous it is to
be
a police officer this is not really a
philosophical difference is it
do you see do you see what's happening
it's just one group thinks that human
motivation is a factor
and the other one acts like it's just
doesn't exist
that you can make a decision that's
somehow free of how
humans are wired that seems to be the
basic difference between the left and
the right
and it gets confused with all these
other topics so we think it's something
else
somebody says is iq difference i don't
think so
i don't think so at all in fact i don't
think there's any evidence for that
it's definitely not intelligence um i
think i can say that for sure
now do you think it's only the liberals
who are a little bit crazy
well let me give you a test case the
marvelous case of bill gates
and i know what some of you just said oh
don't talk about that again bill gates
but almost everything you need to know
about humans and how we view the world
can be understood by the way we look at
just this one person
bill gates and
i have a pretty strong opinion about
this
all right and it is that if you think
that bill gates
is up to no good or he's in it for the
money
it's the worst opinion on social media
in other words there are lots of
opinions that i could disagree with
but i also acknowledge that the other
side has something to the argument
right in most cases you know look for
you taking take any topic i'm in favor
of
a good control of the border
but i certainly understand the argument
on the other side
i i happen to prefer the other argument
to keep a
you know good border security and then
we can open it up as much
or little as we need based on economics
but i get the other argument
right i just prefer this one
this is one of those where there really
isn't another argument
this isn't like the other stuff this is
purely a psychological phenomenon
has nothing to do with how smart you are
how much you know
[Music]
probably doesn't have anything to do
with any of that but let's let's walk
through it
my hypothesis is this if you believe
that bill gates is in it for the
money the power or the control
you do not have a wise opinion i'm not
saying you're right or wrong
that's different i'm saying you're not
even smart enough to be in the
conversation yet
and i shouldn't say smart because i
don't think it's necessarily an iq
issue i think that it's a talent stack
issue i was looking at the people who
were
pushing back on my statement that that
the worst to take on the internet
is that bill gates is in it for the
money i'm looking i was looking at all
the pushback
and the first thing you do is you check
you check the background of the people
saying it
now the first thing i note and i don't
know why this is
there are a lot of people who seem to be
professional trolls
who get involved in any kind of a bill
gates comment online
so look at a bunch of them they're you
know they have zero followers and seven
followers and stuff
and they immediately pile in to
say bad things about bill gates why
why why do apparently organized trolls
why do they care about this and i don't
know the answer that doesn't make sense
to me
but there are other people who don't
seem to be trolls they've had accounts
for a while they comment on other things
and they also say the bill gates is
clearly in it for the money
or the control or to make things his way
or his ideology
to which i say let's sort that out a
little bit
are there any philanthropists who are
not
pursuing a philosophy
no no no
all philanthropists have some kind of
philosophy
either helping the poor maybe they have
a philosophy that the people who have
the most
should help the most but they all have
some philosophy
so that's that doesn't make sense as a
criticism unless the philosophy is bad
i heard one critic say they don't like
it because bill gates is supporting
critical race theory to which i say
watch me not google this okay here's me
not googling to find out if bill gates
supports critical race theory
i don't have to check it he doesn't
all right and i'm saying that i'm saying
that with full risk of embarrassment
i haven't checked it i have no idea if i
checked it what i would find
but i'm pretty confident that i'm not
going to find he's in favor of or
funding
critical race theory at least not
directly he might give to somebody who
somehow is involved
but i don't have to check that's so
ridiculous
because he's not that guy he's not the
guy pushing
social issues he's the guy pushing
scientific issues he's pushing what he
thinks is just an obvious
greater good is anybody arguing that
people should be saved
from malaria if we can do it it's not
really a political issue
does anybody think that it would be a
bad idea for africans
to have you know working sanitation
uh so that they don't use their water
supply as their bathroom
which apparently is a gigantic problem
is anybody
is that a political thing i mean the
things that bill gates
works on are so outrageously
non-political
you couldn't even get less political
than the stuff he does
i think people conflate him with soros
and sorrow seems to do more at least as
far as i can tell
more political philosophical things
bill gates is just trying to make stuff
work he just wants
water to be clean air to be cleaned that
sort of thing you know people not dying
of disease
so i there's just no
uh i and when you read the article the
arguments against them
i want to read them to you just as you
see how they sound
because because it's the sound of them
that that really is the tick off
the key they hear that there's something
going on some cognitive dissonance or
something
let me see
[Music]
i just want to look at my own tweet and
uh we'll bore you much longer
all right so just here's some of the
pushback
all right says roly-poly talking about
bill gates
he's corruptable just like everyone else
no he's not he's the opposite of that
he's not corruptable like everyone else
that's the entire point
is that you can't corrupt this guy
because he doesn't need more money
and he doesn't even need you to like him
think about this
bill gates never his back against
criticism
he doesn't even care if you like him
doesn't need his money doesn't care if
you like him
all right so he's definitely not
corruptable because what do people like
they want
reputation money power he doesn't need
any of that
all right let's see what else um
the main thing that troubles me is how
soft he is toward the ccp
he said that talking about the ccp
cover-up
is a distraction well i agree with that
it is a distraction because
whether we knew that they had done it or
not it wouldn't make any difference
that's what a distraction is a
distraction is that even if you could
solve it
it wouldn't make any difference what
difference would it make
we know that major countries are
experimenting with
um with uh weaponizing stuff like this
we know we're doing it we know they did
it we know i'm sure russia is doing it
we know that everybody wants that stuff
not to get out of the lab
right would china have a different
opinion
yeah if hypothetically if this had
gotten out of their lab
is china thinking oh well let's let's
let another one get out of the lab
that's not happening bill gates is right
there's nothing that could come of
knowing
whether they did it or not because
nobody would act
differently nobody would act differently
if we knew the answer to that you know
what we'd
push back a little bit but it wouldn't
make any difference it wouldn't make any
difference
so all right here's another one
uh he's in it to win it question is what
is it he looks like he's winning
so far his winning looks like humanity
losing
what kind of a comment is that he's in
it to win it but we don't know what he
wants to win
i feel like it's pretty obvious he's
helping build and design
toilets in africa solving malaria
you know trying to work on solving
climate change with nuclear energy et
cetera
i don't think it could be more obvious
what he's in it for
to help humanity now is
what if helping humanity is good for his
ego
then is it really about his ego who
cares
who cares do you care if he's only in it
for his ego
if all the things he does are good for
the greater good
now you might disagree that this is for
the greater good but the point is
i don't think that matters he's doing it
for his health
no um i assume he wants the praise
admiration and sense of accomplishment
okay okay you
you've certainly seen me do things
for you or for the public that seem to
be
um more for other people right they're
more
examples of generosity but nobody's
kidding themselves that i guess
something out of it too right
aren't you all smart enough to know that
no matter who you are
if you do something for other people
that you also get something out of that
what you usually get out of it is you
feel good or it's good for your
reputation
or something like that but what's wrong
with that
those are good things true altruism
probably doesn't exist
but altruism in which the person who's
the giver feels good about themselves
that definitely exists i do it all the
time
all right and and i you know you can
think of it as selfish or think of it as
giving but it ends up being the same
thing
um somebody else says that
bill gates is a puppet really
you think bill gates is somebody's
puppet
who who has control of bill gates
i don't think that's the thing there's
no evidence of it
how about he's in it for the power
because the power is addictive
so and that's a problem
because the power he seems to want has
nothing to do with politics
the power he seems to want is the power
to fix things
do you want to deny him the power to
make things better
or the power to maybe work on the next
challenge because he did a good job on
the first one why why would you want to
deny him that power
and charlie says what began with the
love of money ends in pride
really really the the whole reason that
bill gates is doing
is for pride what evidence of that
you have to you have to look at these
comments to realize how whack they are
and bonnie says i will stop watching if
we continue down this road
bonnie i'm going to solve this for you
you're going to stop watching now
goodbye i think that only puts your
comments in timeout
i don't like threats so
you know feedback is great but if you
put your feedback in the form of a
threat i'd rather you just leave
so goodbye um
all right let's we'll talk about
cognitive dissonance a little bit more
in a minute
here let me give you some propaganda
alerts which you call news
um remember i told you that fox news was
reporting that biden's climate plan
would
would make you eat no more than one
burger a month
and i told you you don't really need to
look into that to know that's not true
if you needed to do research to know
that it was never true
that biden was going to limit you to one
hamburger a month
you have to question yourself i mean
seriously
take a look at yourself did you really
need to look
wait for the fact check on that one i
mean seriously just step away from it
for a moment
just just give yourself some distance
you know imagine you're just looking
down on it like it's a story about other
people
and somebody said that somebody has a
plan to limit you to one hamburger a
month
and the person who wants to limit you to
one hamburger a month
is in a party that likes to get
reelected
do those two things fit can you make
those two things work in your head
it's a party democrats who like to get
reelected
and they've got a plan to limit you to
one hamburger a month
this could never have been true
if you needed to google it to find out
it wasn't true
seriously you have to ask yourself what
kind of stuff are you believing
i mean if you believe that i'm the first
the first exposure to it if even for a
moment you thought
that could be true you really have to
step back
and see what's happened to all of us i
mean the fact that that was even a
little bit
suggestive of something that could have
been true
you really have to ask yourself what's
happened to us all
all right so it turns out that john
roberts on fox news
basically did a did a correction on that
and said
that that was not accurate
by the way uh i always make this
distinction and i think it's worth
making
if you see the news people report
something wrong
get fact-checked and then just say
directly
this was wrong i don't have a problem
with that at all
now i get the argument that people hear
the rumor but they don't hear the
the correction but i would say in this
case the
the correction was given in exactly the
highest form
i mean it was an anchor on the news
talking about his own network
getting a story wrong that's about as
big a correction as you can make and it
was done on air
and then it became a story itself so i'm
going to give him the
not not just john roberts but fox news
i'll give them the 48 hours
correction clarification and i would say
that that is
acceptable but it certainly will fool a
lot of people
um there's another story in the news
about uh
there's that there's a man named his
last name is brown
and he was killed in north carolina a
week
recently are you having the same problem
i am that you can't keep all the black
people
killed by police straight in your head
anymore
because there's a lot of news about
police killing black people
like way too much uh
in the sense that it's you know it makes
your hair catch on fire like what's
going on
now i'm not saying that um all of these
stories
tell you the story that you know
that the narrative tells i'm not saying
that they all feed into that but
the story is that there's a man who is
totally
not resisting arrest had his hands on
his steering wheel and was in a
controlled environment and that the
police just opened fire and executed him
is there any chance that's true again
think of the story that you believed if
some if some of you did
about being limited to one hamburger per
per month
and if you stepped away from it you
should have been able to know that was
not true from the first moment do that
with this one too
just do the same thing just step away
from it for a moment
imagine you'd never seen any floyd stuff
imagine you know you weren't biased by
any of the news imagine you were not
left or right you're just looking at the
story and that story is that a man
who is fully controlled and was
causing no trouble at all police opened
up
on him and just executed him where he
was
is there any chance that's true i mean
annie
just is there even one percent chance
that the story the way it's being
reported is even close to true
no right it's like the hamburger story
you don't have to google this one you
don't have to google it
it didn't happen i mean at least the way
it's being reported
there's something else happening here
that would explain why
we saw what we saw could be a mistake
could be
you know maybe they thought he was
arrested resisting rest maybe they
thought he was reaching for something
who knows but it's definitely not a
story about a black man being executed
by police
it's not that
um so anyway
be careful what do you believe all right
here's another fake news this one from
uh fox so in case you're wondering do i
only call out the fake news on the left
nope fox has some explaining to do
so here's another one fox news is
reporting that
john kerry shared some secrets
military secrets with iran here are the
details
so there was this uh secret recording of
the
foreign minister zarif in iran and in it
he said that he learned from john kerry
but had not learned even from his own
government
in iran that israel had attacked over
200
sites in syria that were iranian-backed
sites
and so the way fox news is covering this
and it's just fake news
is that john kerry gave up military
secrets to iran
now again just like the hamburger story
just take a little distance right
because when you first hear this you say
my god we heard it on the video i'm
sorry we heard it on the audio
there's no doubt about it we heard zarif
say
that john kerry gave him military
secrets
it's right on the audio so it can't be
not true we we we saw
the transcript of the audio right
can anybody tell me in the news why this
is obviously fake news
go let's see if i have to tell you the
answer to this
can you can you see this one
you got rupard no no i don't think
we don't know but i don't think the
audio was necessarily edited
in any bad way somebody says it's too on
the nose
no that's not what i'm looking for uh
leaked tapes you're wondering maybe why
they were leaked
two on the nose no that's not it thank
you bill
bill blodgey got it so uh when i tell
you
yeah yeah some of you are getting the
right answer now
it wasn't a secret do you think that
uh do you think that iran's military was
unaware that they had been attacked 200
times
i don't think so do you think that
solomon a the
the general who is supporting all of
these uh
you know various iranian proxies and
everything do you think he was unaware
that israel had attacked them 200 times
of course not of course not the story is
about zarif being out of the loop
that's the story the story is not that
john kerry gave him secret military
information
the story is as reef was the last one to
find out in his own country
fox news turned this into some kind of a
story about john kerry giving away
military secrets
that's not in the story there's no
evidence of that
there's only evidence that zarif was so
out of the loop
he didn't know that his own country or
their resources had been attacked
200 times that's the story
now when i point these things out are
any of you saying oh my god
you're right of course iran knew just
zarif didn't know that's it that's the
whole story
all right so there's that fake news
um there's another big story
uh was this on cnn i think it was on cnn
probably other places too
where there's some zoning local zoning
commission guy
who uh got fired or quit or something
for
refusing to call a black woman on a zoom
call
with other people doctor even when she
clarified that you know she had a
doctoral degree and would like to be
called doctor he called her
mrs whatever her last name was and
that was considered very racist and so
he
um he quit or got fired or something i
think he quit
but let me put the positive spin on this
what was the racist part of this
this was it the this was the thing that
this is the racism story of the day
that's it there's not even any racism in
the story
there's no racism in the story yet
this is the best we can come up with
for a national story to show how racist
we are
and there's none in it if the best story
about racism that you can come up with
doesn't have any you're in pretty good
shape because i'm pretty sure the entire
news industry is
scouring the the nation for really good
stories of racism
and this is it a story of somebody who
didn't want to call somebody a doctor
because they weren't a medical doctor
presumably didn't think it was important
didn't like being corrected but where
was the part about her
better being black there was no evidence
that they had
anything to do with this guy's actions
if you had said
is it because she's a woman i would have
said
well you know maybe that's a little bit
more of an argument
but there's also no evidence of that
although i don't think a man would have
treated another man the way he treated
her
but that's speculation too again that's
in my head
i don't know that he would have treated
a man differently
but it did look like you wouldn't talk
to a man that way i have to say
usually you don't talk to a man that way
because you even on zoom
because ben can you correct me on this
if if if if a man talked to another man
like that even on zoom
wouldn't he feel like he he'd be causing
some
trouble somebody says george says i
would
yeah maybe you would anyway if that's
the worst we have we're in pretty good
shape
um here's what uh salon
wrote about bill gates this is the
headline bill gates says no to sharing
vaccine formulas
with global poor to and pandemic
wow that's pretty bad
this headline bill gates says no to
sharing vaccine formulas with global
poor
to end the pandemic why does bill gates
hate the poor
according to this headline why does he
not want to end the pandemic
according to this headline do you know
what the story says
do you think the story will support this
headline that bill gates says no to
sharing vaccines with poor countries
what do you think when you read the
story will the story support that
headline
again hamburger
one per month you don't have to google
it
you don't even need to read this story
to know this headline isn't true
why because bill gates would never say
this
he wouldn't nobody would say that
but if you read the story what is the
real story
the real story is that even if you give
them the formulas
they don't have the resources to make
the vaccine
so what he was saying is there's no
point in giving them the formulas
because they can't use them there's no
factory
that that is up to the standards they
would need to produce them well
so if you give them the formulas and
they produce them in substandard
factories did you come out ahead because
maybe you made a bunch of vaccines that
kill people because they
they might be hurrying and it might be
worse for them
than if they unfortunately waited
so if you read the story he has
perfectly good reasons that you say
oh that's a pretty good reason what's
the point of giving them the formula if
they can't use it
or if they did use it they would use it
in such a
speedy way that they couldn't do it
right and it'd be more dangerous
don't you think that should have been
the headline don't you think the
headline should have been
bill gates explains that sharing the
formula won't help as much as you think
wasn't that the headline bill gates
explains
sharing the formula won't help
as much as you think it would
instead bill gates says no to sharing
formula with poor people so that
they'll die in the freaking pandemic
that's what salon said
once you see how much the media
is abusing this guy bill gates it's hard
to unsee it you'll see it everywhere
all right
project veritas has filed a lawsuit
against cnn
this is pretty interesting um i would
not
place any bets on them winning this
lawsuit but the fact that they're
um they're turning it into a case
is in and of itself good constructive
pushback i do think the media needs
pushback and i do
do think people need to sue them when
there's something that seems way over
the line
and i think you could argue this is way
over the line so here's here's the setup
that
twitter took um project veritas off
over some video that regarded cnn
um a cnn insider saying some bad things
about cnn
so the uh and the reporting on cnn about
that
from anna cabrero cabrera um
that uh said twitter took them down for
posting other people's private
information
now was that true well it turns out the
cnn has done
exactly the same thing and twitter never
took them down
which is showing somebody on their own
front lawn
apparently that's too private so we know
that twitter did
not apply the standard the same cnn can
do it
uh project veritas got taken down
then also cnn reported and it was in a
tweet i think from anna cabrera
that the problem was really repeated
violations of privacy information
as opposed to i think the first
reporting was that
they had too many inaccuracies or it was
false statements or something
so now cnn has tried to misreport this
at least
two times stelter said
that veritas got taken down from twitter
for violating multiple rules
but project veritas is only aware of one
rule
that they violated and it was the same
one the cnn violated
so cnn's reporting on this is just pure
fake news
pure fake news i mean just the purest of
fake news
just a fact that's not true they just
report it like it's true
that's you know that's not even trying
to be accurate and i think
i think the evidence suggests there's no
real intention to be accurate
from cnn but i don't know if being
intentionally inaccurate is enough to
cause project veritas to win their suit
because it's pretty hard to
prove intention all right we'll see
richard grinnell tweeted that you know
why is joe biden not walking from marine
one to the white house apparently they
had a car service
picking him up and from the helicopter
and taking him to the white house
and you remember of course that uh trump
famously would always be walking across
that span you'd see all the video of
that
and so richard grenell is asking huh why
why is joe biden not walking that
short span that everybody else walks
well here's the fun party ready
do you think we could push this question
of why joe biden was not walking
from marine one until cnn is forced to
run
another manly video package of joe biden
because remember project veritas showed
us that one of the technical directors
admitted that they were trying to make
biden look manly and vital
by showing video of him you know riding
a bike and
video of him in his his classic sports
car and
riding up and down the driveway and
you're wearing his aviator glasses and
stuff
but i wonder if we could make cnn
create another manly manly package for
biden
just by talking about this a lot because
if social media
ramps up the richard grinnell's question
of why joe biden had to walk
aren't it won't cnn just have to respond
with another propaganda package about
him
chopping wood or you know fighting a
grizzly bear
i want to see if we can get a video on
cnn of joe biden wrestling with
something
like wrestling with a grizzly bear or
something let's see if we can do that
in other news that's scary the cartels
the
mexican cartels are using uh their own
drones
the quadrotor ones the ones with like
four
four little helicopter rotors and
they're strapping the
c4 to it and using them as basically
guided missiles
so cartels have their own
flying bombs now that they're killing
each other with
and so i ask you this question what is
our technology for identifying the
operator
of a drone can somebody help me out here
on the technology
if if let's say a state actor
knocks down a drone can we tell who the
operator was
you might be able to tell who owned it
at one time or where it was purchased
but could you know who is actually on
the controls
at the moment the bad thing happened
i don't know that you could right now if
you can't tell who's at the controls
what does that tell us about the future
well it at least opens up the
possibility
that private people will be funding
mercenaries
to run drones to take out the cartels
now i'm not suggesting it i'm predicting
it all right
so cartels don't need to come after me
i'm just predicting it
how long will it be before there's some
uh
some kind of a mercenary group
that says look you can go on your
computer and you can make our
you know we'll sign you up and you can
operate one of our drones and you can
bomb the cartels yourself
and nobody will ever know you you could
be the one who personally kills
takes out the cartel what if
you don't need to be operating them but
rather you just put in a little gps
coordinate
and you send off your drone and it just
flies to its designated
place and blows up well you know that's
coming there's nothing that's going to
stop that from happening
so at the moment you still need a person
and you need a
you need to be close enough that the
person is controlling it
with their controls but the next
obvious step is you just put a gps
destination in it
throw it in the air and go have lunch
and the thing flies for
five miles finds its destination comes
straight down
boom and i feel as though the cartels
have opened up a can of worms here in
which
um superior
forces will be using this weapon against
them fairly soon
so i think that the the cartels will be
destroyed by
uh mercenary drone
armies that's my prediction cartels will
be destroyed
by mercenary drone
uh stuff somebody says it's illegal
yeah i know it's illegal
yeah i know that
um i did a search for on google trends
for cognitive dissonance
um cognitive dissonance what do you
think the trend
of how often people are googling the
phrase cognitive dissonance
what do you think is happening to that
well it turns out that
the searches for that term have been
increasing
every year for i don't know 10 or 12
years
and but around the election of
of trump and then around the next
election
um the search terms you know it peaked
and it's still going up so here's my
question
did i have anything to do with that
because
a lot of you heard the term or at least
heard it in common use
about politics from me i think but
um i saw just there's a video of uh rose
mcgowan
apparently she just appeared on fox news
and people give her a hard time for it
and uh she's she said in response to
that that she sparked
cognitive dissonance now when you hear
somebody
who's in the entertainment field
using a phrase like that do you say to
yourself
huh this has now entered the mainstream
cognitive dissonance is a term that most
of the world didn't understand
10 years ago but i would say at the
moment
a a celebrity can use that term in
public
and expect enough people to understand
it that it doesn't sound weird
right so i think
i told you before that trump entering
politics back in 2015 i famously said
that he was going to change more than
politics i said he was going to change
how we understand reality itself
do you remember that prediction that
trump would change how you understand
reality itself and this is it
this is the the signal that somebody in
the entertainment industry not a
psychologist not a scientist
can use the term cognitive dissonance
properly
and by the way she used it properly
use it in exactly the right way in the
right exact context
and that it's just normal conversation
now
it's a big deal that's a really big deal
somebody says there's no cognitive
dissonance
uh but that's sarcasm all right
now um here's a real question so this
morning somebody accused me of having
cognitive dissonance about
i don't know bill gates or something and
i ask you this question if
if you think um i have cognitive
dissonance on a topic
but you hear me say i think you have it
how can you sort that out
if two people let's say it's not you and
it's not me it's just
two people and one says you have
cognitive dissonance and that's why
you're seeing this wrong
and the other says no you're the one
with cognitive dissonance
if you are the objective observer how
can you sort it out
well the one thing you couldn't do is
say well which one do i agree with
because you might have the cognitive
distance too so you can't just say
which one is smarter or which one i
agree with
that doesn't work and you can't ask them
because they both think it's the other
one
and the way cognitive dissonance works
is when you have it
you don't know that's what it is you
don't know
so here is what i would suggest
number one look for the trigger
there's no cognitive dissonance unless
there's a trigger
and the trigger is very specific it has
to be something that you thought was
true
that is proven to be untrue but you
couldn't accept the new truth
and so you you created a weird world
where you patched together some ill
logic to make it all hold together
that's cognitive dissonance
so if you don't see a trigger for one
person but the other person's trigger is
obvious
let's say some new information came out
that would be a strong indication that
the one with the new information
that violated their their prior beliefs
probably hasn't
not proof oh somebody's saying the
prediction yeah
whoever can predict better is likely to
be the more accurate worldview
but that takes a while right you have to
wait for the predictions
so that yes so prediction would be one
of them and
finding the trigger would be the other
but i'd like to introduce a third one
today
which is the breadth of your talent
stack
so let's say you have two people one is
a poet and the other is a
scientist with an mba and
lots of economics and business and
you know quantitative stuff and the two
of them disagree
one has a talent stack in poetry and the
other has a talent stack in all kinds of
quantitative things statistics economics
but they disagree which one has the
cognitive dissonance
can't tell right you really can't tell
but
it's more likely that the person who can
see a topic from more angles
has a better view right it doesn't
guarantee
that the more educated person it doesn't
have it
but if you're going to try to guess from
the outside
i would usually give a little more
weight to the person who has at least
enough experience
and you see this with the bill gates
stuff
i have an experience that is
rare and my experience is going
traveling from
not rich to rich if you haven't done
that journey
there's something missing in your
experience that i have
and what i have is that once you get a
certain amount of money that everybody's
different right but a certain amount of
money
your motivation changes and i felt it in
myself
now if you haven't experienced that
where you
you just don't need more money so you
you start looking outward
you say okay well what can i do right i
made my money
what can i do for somebody else bill
gates is the ultimate example that he
made his money
it's not going anywhere he has more than
he could ever spend
he's trying to give it away right his
motivation
is very very unlikely making more money
right very unlikely and i know that
because i just have um exposure to this
very unique situation of going from poor
and knowing that all i wanted was more
money
to going to rich where suddenly your
motivation changes
right so look for the talent stack of
the experience
i guess the governor newsom recall is on
got enough signatures for that
so he he will be in a recall race
and one person running against him will
be caitlyn jenner
as a republican how much do you love the
fact
that caitlyn jenner will be running
as a republican in california
i love everything about this story now i
don't think caitlyn jenner will win
but i love that this is going to be you
know
part of our our context and i got to
tell you those
uh you know caitlyn and the entire
kardashian uh group
they sure know how to get attention
don't they
they really know how to get attention so
uh good luck to caitlyn jenner running
as a republican
i don't have no i have no idea what kind
of
policies are involved there but this is
this is a fun
a fun situation uh on the opposite of
fun
uh the very opposite of fun india has
some estimates
say up to a half a billion cases of
covet
and india is really one of these
situations
that should make you question your
ability to understand
anything because didn't india go from
hey india is doing great and we don't
know why
maybe it's because they're all taking
hydroxychloroquine
right do you remember when we thought is
it because they're all taking
hydroxychloroquine because they have
malaria issues well i never believed
that because i couldn't believe there
would be enough
that even if it worked it would make any
difference but
um the hospitals are being overrun
they're running out of oxygen or have
run out in some places
and things in india went exactly the way
we'd expect
but it took much longer than we thought
and i don't know if that's just because
they were slow
on testing or just the data was always
bad we know that data was bad but
did you ever think that india was going
to escape this
and so now we still don't understand
china do we
i still don't understand how china is
escaping this
that doesn't make sense does it if you
saw that china
managed to get coronavirus under control
and keep it that way
and then you also saw the indian did
that which would have seemed impossible
in both cases
i mean china getting it under control
just seems impossible
but somehow did they india doing it
seemed also impossible
but now we know they didn't so at least
india makes sense right
your common sense about the the virus is
now compatible with the data coming out
of india but it wasn't compatible before
don't know why yeah
somebody says makes total sense well
even if you factor in the india has
less obesity a young population
lots of vitamin d even if you factor all
that in
it shouldn't have been enough and now we
know it wasn't enough to keep them safe
so you got that going
um are all of you having the same uh
trump withdrawal problem that i am that
every day i wake up and the news is
just not that interesting anymore
have you noticed that in fact most of
the news is just propaganda now
maybe it always was
uh lockdowns are starving india okay
so i guess biden's coming out with a new
mask
guidance today
um yesterday i was driving around and i
was observing the people
where i live to see how many people who
are walking outdoors completely alone
wore masks what do you think was the
percentage
in my neighborhood people walking
completely alone
and when i say alone i don't just mean
there's nobody walking with them
i mean there's nobody else in the
sidewalk you know you could
where i live you could walk for a great
distance without encountering another
person on the sidewalk
about half yeah about half of the people
completely alone like isolated in the
middle of nothing outdoors
about half of them were wearing full
masks people were exercising
running in masks biking in masks
yeah you can almost see people's iq at
this point by
by mask wearing outdoors now i will make
an exception
i saw some elderly people who were
masked
outdoors i'll give them that i don't
think it makes any difference
but if you were elderly and you hadn't
had your vaccination
and you you you were just concerned well
throw on a mask if it makes you feel
better
but i don't think it would make any any
statistical difference
uh no more mass talk yeah
this was my point we need trump to
give us more fake controversies so we
have other things to talk about besides
masks
um
one and a ten here somebody says one out
of ten
yeah we do live in dumb times so we'll
see what's happening
you know tucker carlson i guess was
encouraging people to uh
get in the faces or or be critical of
people wearing masks outdoors especially
if a child is masked outdoors
and i wouldn't go that far but i do
think
there's a tipping point coming feels
like we're
almost there the tipping point being
i just don't see the public putting up
with it
now in my town people are back to
playing basketball in the public park
without masks
but i don't know if it's just not being
enforced or if it's
legal now i don't know the difference
but i see people playing in the park
without masks
every day now so don't know what the
situation is
all right and still as far as i know i
still don't have access to the vaccine
i believe it's fake news that the
vaccine is sort of available for people
in my age group
it's there's definitely lots of people
getting it but available would suggest
that i could go to a website and sign up
and stuff
but right now we just have websites
where you can you can fill out all your
information and then it will tell you
it's not available
that's all we have i'm hoping that
changes soon
um the last person i talked to waited
five hours for a vaccine
uh in line so since i'm not going to do
that
i say it's not available
all right somebody says the definitive
definition of iq
means that fifty percent are below a
hundred
uh yeah have you ever had a conversation
with somebody whose iq
is below 100 we must have
right because a lot of people in that
category
but if you're 40
let's just say 40 smarter than the
person you're talking to
that's pretty tough conversation
uh call your doctor kaiser is giving
them well
they say they're not so i only know what
what they say says don't call your
doctor
all right so that's all for now and i
will talk to you tomorrow
