g that's real if anything is.

So my prediction is this. There can never be a major story that has only one interpretation. You always, there could be exceptions of course, but let's say in general that the headlines will always tend toward two interpretations even when it's not just a Democrat-Republican thing. Because take vaccinations for example. You saw that a lot of, let's say, the Black population and the Republicans were often on the same page. So it wasn't even a left-right thing.

But every story has to have multiple interpretations because that's the only way you could program the simulation.

Let's talk about a few things that are happening now. One is the continuing of what I call the Roganization of the news. The Roganization of the news is another indication that we live in a simulation, that we're reusing themes because it's just simpler. It uses less resources.

So the way we saw the news used to be through a Trump filter and now we see it through a Joe Rogan filter. So if we talk about vaccinations we talk about Joe Rogan. If it's about ivermectin, Joe Rogan. You know, the government taking away our rights, Joe Rogan. Freedom of speech, Joe Rogan. And now even music and streaming, Joe Rogan.

Now some of it is just you get something in your mind and it sticks and he's gigantic in terms of his reach so it makes sense in the same way it made sense that we talked about everything through a Trump filter. But think about how that simplifies the programming. We all just think the same way. We just go through the same filter. It's a big simplification if you were going to program a simulation.

So here's what else is happening. The story is that the following four people, and before you fact-check me I'm going to fact-check myself when I'm done, that the following four people have said they don't want to be on Spotify, the streaming service, if that Joe Rogan is on there with his misinformation about health-related things.

So it started with Neil Young but now then we heard that Barry Manilow joined and then we heard that Peter Frampton was on board and then Joni Mitchell. How much of that story is true? It's like every story, right? There's a true version and a fake version.

And so here's the details. Barry Manilow came out and said, "I don't know. I don't know where that started. It didn't come from me. Didn't come from anybody who represents me." So the Barry Manilow part of the story was completely fake. So at least 25 percent of the story is fake.

And then there's a Peter Frampton tweet in which he said he's always been an Apple guy. So you know he uses Apple streaming. And I said to myself, wait a minute, is Peter Frampton saying he doesn't want to be on Spotify? Is he saying he's never been on Spotify? Or is he saying that he's not even talking as a creator anymore because I don't know the last time he published any music. But is he talking as a consumer? Is he just saying that he didn't use Spotify before to listen to music?

I feel like Peter Frampton trended just because he says he listens to music on a different streaming service. I think that's what happened. Now if that's true, if I'm interpreting it correctly, and again you know we're all going to have different stories, it has to be that way, that would be 50 percent of the story isn't real. So that would leave Joni Mitchell on the side of Neil Young.

And if you take Joni Mitchell's music off of Spotify, well you won't be able to go to Spotify to hear Joni Mitchell's big hit. Joni Mitchell's big hit, she was really big when I was young, had a lot of hits actually. She was very famous. And then her big hit was, I don't know, but I'm going to miss it. I'm going to miss it is what I'm saying.

I never used Spotify before. I was kind of a different streaming guy. But in case you want to put that in the headlines I think I should be trending. Wait a minute, I'm on Spotify aren't I? I'm on Spotify am I not? Can somebody confirm that? I think I am, right? Yeah I mean we, I just published the podcast wherever. I think so. I think it's on there.

Well why the hell did nobody ask me if I am willing to be on Spotify with my highly valuable podcast which probably gets roughly as many listens as Neil Young? But I feel that I've been overlooked. Am I wrong? Should I make a public statement now? I think I'm going to have to. I'm going to have to go on the record.

I think everybody who is on Spotify needs to give their Joe Rogan opinion. And I'm embarrassed to be on Spotify honestly now that I know that Barry Manilow is still on there. So I refuse. I refuse to be on Spotify. I would like my representation to pull all of my podcasts immediately because, you know, Copacabana. It's not really music is it? It's not music. It's sort of like an ear worm that gets in your head and makes you happy and you can't get it out.

Now I personally have spent many, many hours as a busboy in my early days when I was a busboy and we would clean the dining room all at the same time after all the guests had left. It was a hotel and they would play Copacabana over and over again through the ceiling speakers because we only had a few songs for whatever reason. And I've heard more Copacabana than any human has ever heard. And I don't know if I can be on Spotify with that man. Excellent music, very successful, but you got to draw the line somewhere.

Edward Snowden had a funny tweet. He said nobody has stronger opinions about Joe Rogan than people who have never listened to Joe Rogan. And I thought, you know I bet that's exactly true. You know this is one of those tweets where you say to yourself, well that's not, I'm sure that's not true completely. And then you think about it and then you think now that might be actually true for every single human in the conversation. It might literally be true of everybody who is against him is that you haven't heard the context.

Now I don't know how many of you could say the same but I feel like I've been following his career since the earliest days literally on NewsRadio. And do you remember that he had a show, I can't remember the name of the show, you'll probably tell me in which he looked into stuff like Bigfoot. He actually went looking for Bigfoot. Who remembers that? What was the name of the show? You'll remember. I think you'll remind me. No it wasn't Fear Factor. What was it? Come on it wasn't on for a long time. Oh, Joe Rogan Questions Everything. Was that it? Joe Rogan's Questions Everything, right?

So now I'm not going to characterize Joe Rogan's opinion about Bigfoot. You know who knows what he was thinking when or what. But if you know that part of his arc, you know, include literally being an actor, literally being a huge stand-up comic, and literally at one point searching for Bigfoot, all in the name of entertainment, right? If you understand that then don't you have a better appreciation of any other content that he presents? Which is that the larger context is if it's interesting I'm going to put it on.

I don't think there's any other criteria. Does he claim any other criteria for putting on entertainment? This just has to be good, right? Either it has to be funny, it has to be interesting, provocative, something. It just has to be good. So if you understand that the context is things that are interesting then you listen to the rogue doctor and you make your own decision. You're not watching it like the news.

But what if you've only seen clips of his show? You don't know anything about his history, his other work. You know maybe you don't even know he's a stand-up comic. Don't you think a lot of people, his critics, maybe you know vaguely know he's done that kind of work but don't know he would be one of the biggest in the country at the moment? So you know I think the context makes a big difference. Not only the context within the show but the larger context that if it's interesting he's going to let us see it. And who, how do you complain about that, right?

If you know the larger context, if it's interesting I think I'll show it to you. What the hell? How do you get mad at that? Form your own opinion. He's not telling you what to think. If he told you what to think that'd be a whole different conversation wouldn't it? But nowhere are you going to find anything in his record that tells you what to think. Fact-check me on that, right? I'm pretty sure if you scour his record you're not going to find him telling you how to think. He's just going to show you interesting and you make up your own mind. It's a good model.

Those of you who have experienced doing mushrooms, you know that you have a much better understanding of our reality as being a subjective reality. So even if you discard this simulation hypothesis you probably would agree that we are living in our own subjective reality in lots of different ways. And we'll talk about some of those ways.

Number one is many people have lived for the last two years in a subjective reality in which the elites are using COVID as a plot to take control for the great reset and it was never a problem etc. Others, and again I'm not, I don't have an opinion on that right now. I mean I have opinions but not right now. My larger point is that didn't we live in different worlds?

There are some people who just said hey there's a deadly virus. People doing the best they can but people are weasels and liars and so this is what you get. So that was my reality. My reality is just a whole bunch of weasels and liars doing the best they could usually for themselves and this is what you get when you have weasels and liars and a crisis along with lots of people trying to do the right thing. It wasn't like everybody was lying but it's not like everybody was telling the truth. It's not like everybody was trying to get an advantage on other people. Some people were literally just trying to help and nothing else.

And a lot of people, you know that's the best thing that came out of the pandemic by far is the kindness that was expressed pretty much universally at least by the citizens. So those are different worlds that we've been living in for the last two years.

How about what happens if we are a simulation and the way we think affects it? Here's something that worries me because I worry about weird things. What if we wish a new variant into existence? What happens if everyone in the world expects a new deadly variant just because we've been primed that way? Can we actually make that happen? Can we just will it into existence?

You know I worry about that like actually literally because I think our understanding of the reality we live in such as it is is so weak. You know what we actually understand about reality is so weak that I wouldn't discount seven billion people expecting exactly the same thing to happen having no causal effect. Like it might not have enough causal effect that I could believe but it's hard