Episode 80 - North Korea, ZTE and What’s Next

Date: 2018-06-14 | Duration: 44:47

Topics

When the biggest news is something that DIDN’T happen Spiteful gollums of the media President Trump critics have turned into what they dislike about him Louis Farrakhan comments about fake news attacks directed toward him Only President Trump realized the correct time to show Chairman Kim respect Ego as a tool, nobody does it better than Trump Ego ramp UP…toe to toe insult for insult Ego ramp DOWN…offer respect to achieve mutually desired results for both countries and the world ZTE, what should our opinion be? Contrast principle Leverage is owned by the one who “decides” vs one who only “wants” “Intellectual dark web” vs “free thinkers” Whenhub Interface ICO value and concept UK doesn’t have free speech like the US? Special appearance by Boo the Cat

Transcript

[0:09]

How’s my sound? I did something different with my microphone today, so if you can’t hear me, why don’t you tell me? But how would you know how to tell me you can’t hear me? Oh good, sound is good. Well, I think I’ve stalled long enough so that you can grab your beverage to get ready for the best part of your day—the part that kicks it all off, the part that makes this an amazing day. And it goes like this: it’s called the simultaneous sip, when you’re having coffee with Scott Adams.

Oh, that’s one of the best. Does it get better every single time? So, you hear a lot about this analogy—I’m not sure if it’s an analogy—but the dog that didn’t bark.

[1:09]

I talk about this a lot. It’s the news that is the big story, but because it’s a thing that didn’t happen, you don’t hear about it. If the biggest story is something that did not happen, nobody writes about it. Let me give you an example. This is an open question to you: how long has it been since the media has taken the President out of context with some horrible comment? Now, we can’t count the animal comment because the media actually did a mea culpa and said, “Okay, that wasn’t a real one.” So, not counting the time they incorrectly said he was calling immigrants animals, how long before that was the last time he said something outrageous?

[2:14]

It’s been a while, right? It seems to me that—now, the Paralympics was a fake one, so there’s two fake ones that are the most recent ones. Keep going back. How long has it been? Yeah, all the way to “shitholes.” Now, of course, “shitholes” was a fake one as well because he was talking about the countries, not the people. But that’s been a while on that, right? It’s been months. How long ago was it? And then Charlottesville was fake. Of course, Charlottesville was a hoax because he was talking about people on both sides of the statue question, and then the media tried to turn that into—well, successfully turned that into—“No, no, he’s talking about the white supremacists being fine people.” He didn’t say that.

[3:15]

He didn’t say that. It’s been a while. So here’s my point: what happens if President Trump goes, say, six months without being the person that everybody thought he was? It requires the media to keep inventing these new outrages that didn’t happen. Think of the ones that you just saw. There was the calling immigrants “animals,” which didn’t happen. It was reported that it happened, but it didn’t happen; he was talking about MS-13. There was the example you just gave at the Paralympics, where he said it was “hard to watch,” and people said, “My god, he’s saying it’s hard to watch people with disabilities.” But, of course, he didn’t say that. He was just saying it’s hard to watch because he’s President and he has other things to do. Anybody with the least bit of awareness would know that’s what he was saying.

[4:16]

Then there was the comment that was about the countries, not the individuals. Now, by the way, the trick that was used with that comment—you’ll see this used by the media quite a bit—and here’s how they do it. There are things that you can say to a friend or to a small group in a room that doesn’t sound as bad as if you were standing in front of the public. So what your enemies will do is take something you said that might have been edgy or provocative, but not really that bad for a private conversation, because privately we all say outrageous things. You put me in a small group, give me three people in my room right now and turn off the camera, I’m going to say something that I wouldn’t want the entire public to hear. And it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily something horrible.

[5:16]

It’s just that the way you talk privately is quite different than the way you measure your words if you know everybody’s watching. So the comment was almost entirely that—something that if you said it in person or with a few people that you knew well around the table, they know exactly what you’re talking about. You’re talking about the country, the socio-economic situation there that’s not producing as many scholars, for example—people who could add to the economy as some other country. As soon as you take that and say, “Well, imagine if this were said in public,” but it wasn’t. It wasn’t said in public.

My point here is it’s been a while since he did something outrageous. Now, I’m getting to a more interesting point. What is the single biggest complaint of the anti-Trumpers right now?

[6:19]

What would it be? We’ve seen a whole history of complaints before he got into office: “He’s crazy,” “He’s racist,” “He’s gonna be incompetent,” “There will be chaos.” But it’s been a while now, and he’s actually accomplished things that even his detractors would say, “Okay, that’s pretty good.” Pardoning Jack Johnson? Yeah, that’s pretty good. The economy? Well, that’s pretty good. ISIS? Yeah, that’s pretty good. North Korea looks like we’re making progress. Pretty good. So what is the biggest complaint about the President now? “Lies”—that might be the biggest, but I’m going to generalize that a little bit. Wouldn’t you say that the biggest problem is that he’s insulting? That the way he talks

[7:21]

coarsens the debate and is a giant problem because when you talk like that, it causes other people to be like that? Yeah, his personality, essentially. But have you noticed—if you look at, for example, the way he handled Kim Jong Un with his letter—very complimentary, very respectful? In fact, better than other people were handling the same situation. What’s happened is a complete reversal. Now, I don’t know if this is permanent, so what I’m going to say might not age well. In fact, what I’m about to say might not age well by this afternoon, the way things go, but at the moment it’s true. At the moment, the most polite, respectful person in the conversation—the conversation meaning everything about politics, everything about the

[8:21]

people who are talking about politics—the most respectful person is Trump. Now let’s look at his critics. Go onto Twitter and see how they talk. See how they talk about Trump supporters. What kind of language do they use? It is violent, awful, insulting language. Trump has turned all of his critics into the thing they’re criticizing. They’ve all become him. Or a better way to say it is they’ve all become what they thought he was.

Well, he became President. It seems like if we rerun our minds back a year and a half, two years, whatever—did it feel like candidate Trump and newly elected Trump was just a coarse personality saying bad things and making the debate worse in every way?

[9:21]

But the public? Well, the public were good people. There were good people saying, “My god, can’t we have more civil debate? Can’t we pay attention more to the facts? Can’t we concentrate on the facts, please?” And now fast forward: who is the most respectful person in the game right now? Could it be the person who spent 90 minutes shaking every hand of the graduates at the—which military academy was it? The Naval Academy. Could it be the person who pardoned Jack Johnson just because it was the right thing to do? Could it be the person who

[10:21]

wrote the most polite letter you’ve ever seen to another leader? President Trump. Respectful, kind, talks about love. Just today—this could all change tomorrow—I’m just telling you where we are today. His critics? Spiteful gollums. You all know the Gollum reference from Lord of the Rings. They’ve become, from what they imagine they used to be—which is protectors of the culture, the good people, the nice people. They were “nice people,” and then this President Trump monster person, he must be stopped. And he turned into a good guy at the moment, while they turned into something horrible. And we’re watching one domino at a time fall over.

[11:23]

Boop, boop, boop. Kanye says, “Maybe I can like that President.” Today we saw—let’s talk about Farrakhan. Louis Farrakhan, there’s a new video clip of him saying something to the effect that President Trump has become the biggest enemy of—I guess the way he put it was “black folks” in general—so that they now have the same enemies. And the way Farrakhan put it—and let me say what everybody says before they talk about Farrakhan: I’m not agreeing with anything that Farrakhan has said. I’m not supporting Farrakhan or anything like that before you get mad at me. I’m just reporting what happened. Farrakhan said that President Trump is the enemy of the

[12:23]

media, which is also historically the enemy of black people with the fake news. Farrakhan even talked about fake news because, apparently, Farrakhan has been the victim of fake news. By the way, do you know what happened when I saw Farrakhan agreeing that Trump is right to criticize the fake news? Do you know what happened to my mind when that happened? It just went right and I said to myself, “Wait a minute. I’ve read some terrible things about Louis Farrakhan in the news.” I mean, where else would I read it? I’ve read terrible, terrible things about Louis Farrakhan. And then I thought to myself, “Is it true, or is it all out of context?” Look at the things that President Trump has been accused of, all completely false. “Shitholes” was taken out of

[13:25]

context. Charlottesville was completely out of context. “Animals”—out of context. Paralympics—out of context. I could go on; I think I have about 12 more of them. But I’ve read these things which I believed to be true—true statements of hateful things, anti-Semitic things in particular, that Farrakhan has said. And after watching that clip, I had to sit back and say to myself, “Holy cow. I don’t know if any of that’s real.” I really don’t. I believed it because I believed what I read in the media. I don’t think I ever saw any media report that said the opposite. So it makes me wonder. Again, I’m not supporting Farrakhan, I’m not endorsing anything he’s ever said, because I don’t know the full body of things he’s ever said. But I gotta say, he

[14:29]

successfully flipped a bit in my head. Because when the people in the room in this video clip of Farrakhan were agreeing that he had been the victim of fake news, everybody in the room said, “Oh god, yes, totally victim of fake news.” And I said to myself, “We’ve seen this before.” I have to wonder how much of the criticism of his is real. I’m not defending him; I’m just wondering. So that was new to me. Farrakhan said that the enemies of black people—this is Farrakhan’s view—were the press, the Department of Justice, which of course Trump is criticizing, the FBI, and I forget who else he said. It fell very short of endorsing Trump. So Farrakhan,

[15:29]

we know he’s not pro-Trump by any means, but it was fascinating to hear him talk at least a little bit—I don’t know, open-mindedly or maybe higher awareness. I don’t know exactly how to characterize it, but when I heard him talk, I thought to myself, “Pretty good.” Somebody was saying that he’s intentionally lying because that’s allowed in his religion. I doubt that’s what was happening; it looked like he was saying his truth. But again, I’m not defending him in any way; he’ll have to defend himself.

So that gets us to—oh, I was scheduled to have Hawk on right now, but we haven’t connected this morning, so I’ll have to reschedule that. So let’s take

[16:33]

some guesses about what’s going to happen with North Korea. It seems to me that in the past, the place where everybody’s gone wrong—that President Trump did not go wrong—is the question about meeting Kim Jong Un in person. The old thinking, which was the wrong thinking in my opinion, was that we would not give him any legitimacy or deal with him or certainly not have a President meet with him until he had done some or most of the things that we wanted him to do—denuclearize or whatever. By contrast, the moment that Kim Jong Un said that he would be willing to meet with Trump without any preconditions, Trump said, “Yep, I’ll meet with him.” And you remember the criticism he got

[17:34]

for that. It’s like, “My god, you don’t meet with him before you’ve gotten some concessions.” And I remember thinking to myself at the time, “No, Trump is the only one playing this right.” All of the other people were wrong. They were all wrong. The only smart way to do this was to increase Kim Jong Un’s esteem—let’s say, to show respect for him and to raise him up to something like a peer level. Nobody’s really a peer with the United States or China—nobody’s quite a peer with the giant countries—but at least treat him like a peer you would treat as an ally. Because from a communication perspective, from a trust perspective, from a deal-making perspective, from a perspective of persuasion, from a perspective of everything that matters, that was the right first step. There is no step after

[18:37]

that that could work if you don’t get that one right. So if you look at this journey from being enemies to maybe someday reaching some situation where we’re all happy, the first step was always that: treat him like a peer for conversation purposes, at least. Only one person ever got that right. Why is it that President Trump got that right and nobody else got that right before? Well, I have been calling President Trump a Master Persuader—someone who simply is smarter about this kind of stuff. But going down a level, I think this also gets to that “ego as a tool” point that I’ve made before. If you can treat your ego as not

[19:39]

who you are, but rather something you can ramp up and ramp down as you need to, it becomes a tool as opposed to a liability. Imagine a prior president saying, “I’m gonna meet with Kim Jong Un.” That’s not good for his ego; it’s not good for the U.S. presidency ego because now he’s treating as a peer somebody that he would imagine everybody should see as lower than him on some level. That’s an ego problem extended also to the United States—protecting the brand and making ego a liability. That was part of the reason that we couldn’t meet with them—that we didn’t want our reputations to be anywhere near each other. What does President Trump do? As I’ve said many times, he treats ego as a tool that he can ramp up and ramp down. In this case, what did he do? Did President Trump ramp up his ego for the

[20:40]

whole North Korea saga—not just the letter that happened lately? Look at the whole episode. You saw him ramp up his ego when we first started talking. It’s like, “Hey, you’re gonna call me a dotard? If you’re gonna call me a dotard, I’m gonna call you short and fat or something.” So the first thing he did is sort of matched him. But the next thing he did is he stayed matched. He allowed his ego, at least for the purposes now, to be matched to somebody that the world considers a brutal dictator. That was an absolute necessary first step for anything else to work. No conversation can work, nothing else can work, until you do the hard part, which is use your ego as a tool—ramp it up when you need to, ramp it down when

[21:41]

you need to. You’re watching this in real time. And by the way, I’ve always been predicting that the North Korea conversation will end up well, but that there would be some walk-aways—at least one, which we saw. There might be more; you could see two or three more walk-aways before it’s done. But I believe history is going to look at this situation and start analyzing that everything that Trump did—from before we were even seriously talking to North Korea through the end—is going to be a masterclass on how everything should work. I think that’s going to be the case. I believe that this will be the greatest living example of how to do it right: how to turn an enemy into at least not an enemy. We don’t know if “friend” is possible, but I think you’re gonna see something that

[22:43]

people imagined was not even possible. And it’s because he just has a different skill level. He knows how to manage his ego: “Up—hey, I’m the greatest person you could ever have for President.” Up. “Let’s talk to somebody that you’re not supposed to treat as your peer, but you need to, to get something done.” Down. Watch how well he kept his ego in check for the letter that he dictated word-for-word to Kim Jong Un, which probably is a breakthrough letter. History will look at that letter, assuming things go well, and they might look at that and say, “You know, we didn’t know what to make of that at the time, but oh my god, that was good.” That was my impression when I read it. Kim called Pence a dummy? Well, I don’t think Kim called him that; I think that was one of his vice-somethings. Trump blindsided his

[23:47]

Foreign Secretary? It’s utter chaos.

You’re seeing situations in which Trump is acting without telling allies—and even people in this country—first. And the explanation given is that he doesn’t want things to leak. And it’s funny; I don’t know if those are really the reasons, but it’s such a good reason to use now because everybody believes leaking is a big problem.

Let’s talk about ZTE. The news is reporting that some people are saying, “Darn it, President Trump, how could you let ZTE stay in business when they’ve violated the sanctions with North Korea, when they maybe are spying on us with their technology, etc.?” To which I say: shut up. Shut up, because we don’t

[24:48]

know what President Xi of China and President Trump have agreed about trade and North Korea and what’s happening behind the scenes and all the secret stuff. We have no idea where ZTE fits in the bigger picture. So if you’re just looking at ZTE out of context of all the things that we can’t possibly—and shouldn’t—know what those conversations are about, there’s only one opinion you should have about ZTE: “I don’t know.” That’s it. There’s only one rational opinion you should have right now with what we know, which is very limited, which is: “Well, might be a good idea, might not be. How would we know?” We don’t know what conversations are happening that we’re not aware of.

Yeah, ZTE is related to North Korea, correct. So since everything is connected and we don’t know the secret

[25:48]

conversations behind anything, it’s too early to have any kind of an opinion. But here’s what I would say speculatively: I would say that it’s unlikely that we would have saved ZTE unless we got something in return, right? Clearly there’s some give-and-take going on, and we don’t know what’s giving and what’s taking, so we can’t really make an opinion on that.

ZTE is one more variable. Yeah, I’ve talked about “shaking the box” and adding variables. Every time the President shakes the box or adds a variable, he creates another way that things could just fall out in his direction. And if they don’t, he shakes it again and he adds another variable.

[26:49]

Sooner or later, things are gonna line up his way. So I have predicted in the past—and I will stick with my prediction—I believe that North Korea will not give up its nukes as quickly or in the way that we would want to. They might try to drag things out. If that happens, I think the U.S. will close down a Chinese bank first. We’ll go after the bankers. And if that’s not enough—and it probably won’t be—I think we’ll pick one of the four Chinese banks and we’ll figure out which one to crash, and we’ll just take out a bank.

Somebody says that’s the obvious prediction. Well, it’s the obvious alternative, meaning the alternative is to crash a Chinese bank or not. So it’s binary. And I’m saying that I think in the past, people would have assumed we never would have done something so extreme. Today, absolutely.

[27:53]

Not even a question. Remember this—this is the difference, and I keep seeing this in the language of people reporting about North Korea. People will say something like, “Well, what we’d really like is for them to get rid of their nukes,” or “We would prefer they get rid of the nukes,” or “Our best-case ending would be they get rid of the nukes.” Mmm, that’s all the wrong language now. The United States—I want to say this as clearly as possible—has decided that North Korea will end up with no nukes. We’ve decided. That’s never happened before. It’s one thing to want it and try to make it happen. That’s where we were in the past. Wanting and trying are good things; they’re helpful. But they’re not in the same class as deciding. Because when you want something and you’re trying to get it, when you hit a roadblock, you’ve got a roadblock. “I wanted

[28:56]

it, I tried, but I hit a roadblock. I asked them to get rid of their nukes, they said no. Nothing I can do now.” That’s what happens when you want something; you hit the wall, you say, “Yeah, I tried.” If you decide to do something, that’s a whole different path. Because if the way we get there is they just agree to be reasonable and say, “Yeah, we’d rather have a good economy and security guarantees; we’ll get rid of our nukes,” that’d be great. If they don’t, we’ll crash a Chinese bank. In the past, would we have ever considered that seriously? No. Today, would we want to do that? Absolutely not. We do not want to crash a Chinese bank. Let me tell you, we super-super don’t want to do that—like, that’s one of the things we most don’t want to do. But we will. Why

[29:56]

will we? Because we’ve decided. We’ve decided North Korea is going to end up without nukes. We would never, ever, ever want to have a war with North Korea, but would we if we had to? Yes. Why? Not because we want or don’t want, but because we’ve decided. We’ve decided how this ends. North Korea just has to decide how much pain they want to take to get there. There’s an easy path, and I think that’s what we’re doing also well, which is we’re saying, “Look, we’ll not only guarantee your security so you can start putting the money you were putting into the military into economic recovery—we’ll help you invest and we’ll make this really good for you.” And that’s that contrast principle, where you make the widest possible contrast between—I’m watching a comment here that’s very insightful, and I’m not gonna mention it because you know who you are. Now let’s

[30:58]

just say you’re very right. You know who you are.

Who has the leverage? Somebody who owns the debt—meaning China—or somebody who—yeah. So is it better to be the debtor or the—what’s the opposite of that? The lender? How come I can’t think of the opposites? You know what I mean. So China holds a lot of debt. Does that give them the leverage or us the leverage? And here’s my answer to that: the leverage is always the one who decided. Do you get that? Somebody’s saying, “Is it the borrower or the lender who has the leverage? If it’s trillions of

[31:58]

dollars, who’s got the power?” And my answer is: it’s the one who decided. We’ve decided that North Korea isn’t going to have nukes. All that other stuff doesn’t matter anymore. Because if we crash our own economy to denuclearize North Korea, we’re gonna do it. And we think we’ll recover, but we would crash our own economy somewhat to get rid of the nukes of North Korea. Would China crash their economy to preserve nukes that they probably don’t really want that much in North Korea? Not a chance. Not a chance. Now, things can happen that you end up in these bad situations that you didn’t want, but here’s a fight—let me tell you why I think I’ve never been in a serious fight. If you’re

[32:59]

male and you live in this—probably any other country—and you get to my age and you’ve never been in a serious fight where you’re both punching each other and it’s going to take a while and you’re really trying to hurt each other, I think here’s the reason: I would never get in a fight until I had decided to win. If I hadn’t decided to win, and I simply wanted to win, I would run away. Wanting to win a fight is a terrible reason to be in a fight. If you simply want to win a fight, run away. You don’t have the right mindset; you don’t have a winning mindset. I would never get in a fight until I had decided to win. What does “decided to win” look like? You get in the fight, you know—I’m not a big guy. I get the beat out of me, and then I come back with a weapon. And maybe I get arrested and I get 10

[33:59]

years in jail. I get out of jail, I get a better weapon, and I come back and I kill that guy. That’s a decision. So that’s a decision to win a fight. I would never be in a fight until I decided that it doesn’t matter how long this fight goes; if you don’t kill me, I’m coming back. That’s a decision. That’s different from wanting to win a fight. And I believe that I’ve been told I transmit that intention fairly effectively. So I’ve certainly been in a pre-fight where I’ve been in somebody’s face and vice versa, and I have told them as clearly as I just told you that I’ve decided to win. I don’t use those terms, but when you tell somebody you’ve decided to win, they don’t like to mess with you because they just want to win, right? So that’s the

[35:00]

fight we’re in. We’ve decided; the other side just wants. North Korea has not even decided whether they want to keep their nukes or not—I’m sure they have a strong preference, but they probably don’t know which way it’s gonna go. On the other hand, we do know which way it’s gonna go because we decided. And we do have the power: militarily, economically—doesn’t matter. The ending is now determined. All we’re working on is how much pain China wants to take, how much pain North Korea wants to take. We’ve already come to grips with our own pain. The United States has decided that if we have to take a hit, it doesn’t matter how big it is. That’s no longer a part of our calculation. 10% off our economy? Sure. 30% off our economy? Okay. Losing—risking a nuclear attack

[36:01]

on the West Coast? Yes, we’ve already decided. Will we reduce troop levels? I don’t fully understand the troop level variables. If the only thing in play was North Korea and U.S. and South Korea, then I’d say, “Well, of course we would reduce our troop levels when we don’t need them anymore.” But my understanding is that the one best place to keep a lot of troops is South Korea because it’s actually inexpensive for us—I think they help host—but it gives us a large military presence in a part of the world where, you never know, it might be useful to have a large military presence just in case. So they’re bigger variables: militarily, strategically. And I don’t know them all, so I’m not sure that I

[37:03]

would have a solid opinion about troop levels in South Korea. Now, almost certainly we could repurpose those troops so they’re not a direct threat to North Korea, assuming we come to some kind of a good accommodation. Sorry, I’d like you to meet Boo the cat, who has decided that whenever I do a Periscope, she likes to bother me. Like a cool dog.

Did you have any other questions before I go off and do something else today? The Intellectual Dark Web as a name? Well, I’ve been watching all the stories about the so-called Intellectual Dark Web and the

[38:05]

fact that “dark” was attached to the name. You know that I’ve talked about how, when candidate Clinton was saying that everything Trump did was “dark”—“that’s dark,” “this dark,” that—it’s one of those pre-suasion type words that really makes you think there’s something bad going on. Now, even though the Intellectual Dark Web—if you look at it on the surface, it doesn’t look like it’s an insult to the people who are in it—it’s like, “Oh, it’s a dark web. I don’t know what that means”—but just the fact that it says “dark” is an insult to the people who are in it because there’s something wrong with them; it’s “dark,” right? And I guess I’m glad that I was not included in any of those lists, because I would read the list and I would think, “Oh, this is the same bunch of folks that I usually get lumped with.” And I don’t know why I was not—I did not reach the level

[39:07]

of attention or something that would put me on the list. So since I’m not on the list, I’m a little less invested in it, but it would make sense to change that name. Here’s the name that I prefer: freethinkers. Eric Weinstein came up with the name “Intellectual Dark Web.” I would think Eric would know not to use “dark” in that label, but I don’t doubt it—it just doesn’t sound—the facts don’t seem like they fit too well. Somebody’s saying that yes, but he did. Well, I would suggest to Eric that it’s too late to take it back, but I’m gonna call myself a freethinker. You can call all the people of that group anything you want; I’m not in it.

Can I explain the

[40:11]

WhenHub Interface app? Yeah, so my startup WhenHub has an app called Interface in which anybody can sign up to be an expert on anything. An “expert” in this context just means that you know something more than other people. You don’t have to be, like, a world’s expert, but you just go in the app and you can either be an expert or find an expert. You can set your own price, and the payment initially is in the WHEN tokens—a cryptocurrency that we created for the app. Once we are listed on an exchange, the tokens that you earned within the app can be exchanged into other cryptocurrencies and cash, but we are not yet on an exchange. And as is typical for people who are going through our process, the risk you take in investing in the ICO or the tokens that we create—because separately you can invest in the ICO—

[41:14]

your risk is that you’re buying them cheap now with the hope that we can get listed on an exchange. How you calculate whether or not we’re likely—yeah, they’re ERC-20 tokens—the way you calculate whether they get on an exchange or not is how much traction you’re getting on the app. Let me show you how we’re doing. So, we’ve got thirty-four thousand experts enrolled. So that’s just people who signed up to just be experts. So that’s pretty good traction. If you are going to invest in an ICO, some of the questions you’d ask: have they already built the product? And we have, which is actually unusual. Most of the investments in ICOs are just for an idea, a white paper, and a team. We’ve actually built the product and you can use it right now. So it’s called Interface by WhenHub. If

[42:16]

you search for it at the app stores, it’s already there. And I was—I’m starting to use it to have people call in on these Periscopes. So that’s what that’s all about. Somebody says most ICOs are scams. I think that’s probably true. Now, one of the ways you can tell the difference between a scam and a legitimate ICO is: do they have an actual product? Some of the ones that don’t have an actual product are still legitimate—in fact, many of them are—but very few scams, maybe none, would have an actual built product that’s in an app store. I don’t know if that’s ever happened; maybe it has. I don’t know how to judge that risk, but I would think that the number of scams that build an actual working product that people like, and tens of thousands of people have signed up for, it’s probably pretty rare.

[43:20]

Who are your guests next week? I’ll give you more information next week. One expert on Korea, might have more of them.

A lot of you were asking me to comment on the Tommy Robinson issue going on. Apparently—I didn’t realize this, but the United Kingdom doesn’t have free speech. Did you know that? They don’t have freedom of speech. So there’s an issue that you can’t even talk about, and I’m not going to because I think there’s some legal implications there. But yeah, this Periscope goes all over the world, so I don’t know what kind of legal risk there is for me to even talk about it. In the United States, we have something a little bit closer to freedom

[44:21]

of speech. I was actually shocked that in the United Kingdom, they actually don’t have freedom of speech. I was like, “Wait, is that true?” They have sort of a version of free speech that allows you to talk about some things but not other things. Anyway, so that’s for them to sort out, not me. And we’ll talk to you later.