Episode 137 - Stormy Going Down, Shake the Box, Evolution, VSG, Layers and Putin

Date: 2018-07-12 | Duration: 55:53

Topics

Reframing former enemies as competitors - persuasion brilliance “Shaking the Box”, President Trump’s style Other leaders reacting to President Trump’s framing President Trump’s proactive leading attitude toward other world leaders Candace tweet: media programming hatred of our President “The news” tells us how to think about politics EVOLUTION is scientific fact…but not necessarily true Scientists will debunk evolution in our lifetime Simulation theory of civilization is mathematically solid

Transcript

[0:06]

Pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom pom. Hello everybody, come on in here. So many stories today, so many stories. But we can’t talk about those stories until we do something first. I think you know what that is. It’s called the simultaneous sip. It’s the best thing ever. I think you’ll enjoy it. Everybody’s talking about it. Everybody’s saying, “Did you have your simultaneous sip today?” Everybody loves it. All the experts agree it keeps you healthy, and it’s time now for the simultaneous sip.

Oh, good, good, good. So let’s talk about the stories. Number one, you may have seen that Stormy Daniels was arrested in Ohio for doing her normal stage act.

[1:09]

Apparently, she was bouncing her boobs against the sides of people’s faces, which I call a good time, but the state of Ohio calls illegal. And so she was arrested. So Stormy Daniels is going down for breaking that weird little law. She says it’s political. I think it might be. It would be hard to imagine it’s not. But guess what? She is political. I don’t approve of anybody being arrested for no good reason, and certainly not in this case, but she did inject herself into politics in a malicious way. When you inject yourself into politics in a malicious way—in other words, she wasn’t trying to make the world a better place—

[2:10]

she was trying to make the world a much worse place by mucking up our system. When you do that, karma might come calling. This sounds like karma did come a-calling. So, I don’t approve of her being arrested for trivial reasons. I can’t get behind that. But I gotta say, she decided to play the game. She certainly knew what the risks were, and those risks have come home, it appears.

Let’s talk about Putin. President Trump on his European visit was asked what he thinks of Putin. He said, “Well, I don’t know him well enough to be a friend,” but I think he called him a competitor. He said, “We compete. He competes to do what’s good for him; I compete to do what’s good for me.” I suggest that framing of our adversaries as

[3:13]

competitors is the most productive thing that’s happened in this century. That’s a big statement, right? So I’m going to say that the President’s framing of our past enemies as competitors is one of the biggest things that’s happened in a century. Once again, it’s one of those things that is so subtle to those who don’t follow persuasion or are not in that wavelength that it doesn’t look like anything. It just looks like he’s avoiding the question or he’s failing to get tough or something like that. But I think the President realizes that the days of a big country with a military simply taking over another country that has a standing military of any consequence is over. There is no scenario in which Russia

[4:15]

takes over France. It just can’t happen anymore. And if they took it, they couldn’t hold it. It would be impossible to hold that; their economy would be boycotted by everybody. It would be the end of them. So when you treat your enemy like an enemy, they will respond like an enemy. You get to define what the other person is.

Let me tell you a story from one of my books that gets to this point. Back when I was in college and I discovered this thing called marijuana, when I would smoke the marijuana back in my college days, it would feel to me like other people were being nicer to me. When I was not high, people were sometimes nice, sometimes not. But when I was high, it seemed to me that everybody was nice to me. For years, I wondered

[5:18]

about that weird little illusion. Because I said to myself, clearly I’m not affecting the world. The world is what the world is. Why is it that I see it so differently when I’m high than when I’m not? People can suddenly become nice just because I got high. Then years went by and I got smarter and I learned how things work, how people communicate, how we influence each other. I realized I was changing the people around me. And so do you.

People’s attitudes, their opinions, the way they feel, doesn’t come entirely from them and whatever they were doing before they got in the room with you. Some of it does—you could say a lot of it does—but how they feel when they’re in the room with just you and them has mostly to do, in that moment, with you. You cause other people’s moods. Now, it’s not a hundred

[6:21]

percent thing, right? People can come in in a bad mood and not be able to get out of it, or come in in a good mood and maybe it’s such a good mood it’s hard to ruin it. But in general, you create the moods of people you encounter. You recognize this is true, right? There’s nobody who’s doubting that statement that your mood is not something that just happens within you. You’re influenced by other people, and you can choose to manage that or not.

The Dale Carnegie method recognizes that. If you want to have a good personal encounter with somebody, you act a little bit nicer and a little bit more interested in them than maybe you actually are, because that actually makes them more interesting. It makes them like you; it makes the chemistry go up. So if you take the lead in a personal conversation, let’s say it’s somebody you’re meeting for the first time, you can actually manage the emotion up or

[7:22]

down just based on what you present. If the first thing you say to a stranger is, “I had a bad day, my commute was bad, everything went bad,” you’re going to bring that person’s mood down to your mood almost instantly. But if you come and say, “Hey, are you having a great day? Have you tried the appetizers? What are you drinking there? What’s your name?” Voilà. If you come at it with a positive attitude, the odds of you influencing their attitude up are very good.

Now, let’s take that to the international stage. What Trump has done and is doing is remarkable on a level that I think is invisible to most observers. And that is that he isn’t reacting to Putin. He isn’t reacting to Kim Jong Un. He isn’t reacting to President Xi. He is causing them. He’s creating them. He is

[8:26]

authoring them. President Trump is authoring Putin. Putin is his own person; he’s going to do what he does. It’s not a hundred percent control sort of a situation. But how the two of them deal with each other, and how the two countries deal with each other, is largely determined by how each of them acts toward the other.

President Trump has taken a proactive leading attitude. In other words, it wasn’t Putin who said, “Hey, we’re just competitors, why can’t we get along?” Maybe he did, I don’t remember seeing it anywhere. President Trump has defined the situation in a new way and a productive way. He said with North Korea, essentially—I’m paraphrasing lots of conversations—but essentially, “Wouldn’t it make more sense just to be friends? We could be very helpful.”

[9:27]

“We could be good friends.” Nobody else said that, and he said it first. He defined the situation. In a way, President Trump authored Kim Jong Un. Kim Jong Un is becoming, in part—he is his own person as well—but in part, he’s conforming to the expectations and the frame that President Trump created. He’s doing the same thing with Putin, and he did the same thing with President Xi.

By the way, if you’re tempted to say, “Hey, he’s manipulating other leaders,” you’re thinking of it completely wrong. Manipulation is when you do something that the other doesn’t want done, but you’ve convinced them to do it anyway. You could manipulate somebody into doing something against their best interests. But in none of my examples is anybody doing anything against their best interests. Indeed, they’re moving

[10:27]

toward their best interest with the help of President Trump’s authoring. So, he’s creating a scenario in which Putin can comfortably live as a competitor. That’s a pretty good frame, and it seems to me that you’re going to see him moving toward it. What I would look for is when Trump and Putin meet, look for Putin mirroring any of Trump’s frames. If Trump goes over there and says, “Hey, we’re going to be tough, but let’s just see each other as competitors,” if you see Putin use language like that, then you’ll see him entering the frame. It’s good for Russia to be our friend; it’s good for North Korea to be our friend; it’s good for China to be our friend and competitor. Even the competition part works perfectly. It makes the world a

[11:29]

better place. Everybody raises their game.

Now, I’ve talked before about what I call President Trump’s “Shake the Box” method of negotiating, but I feel as though I’ve never completed the loop on that. So I want to talk about that a little more. One of the things you see President Trump do consistently—he’s doing it with NATO now, he’s done it with North Korea, he’s done it with trade deals, he’s done it with running for office, he does it all the time—is he’ll take a stable situation in which people have been looking at this stable situation for a long time. They say, “These are the variables and this is how the variables line up, and that’s what we have to work with. All we have are these variables, that’s the way they’re lined up, we just have to deal with what we have.” President Trump comes into that situation, grabs the box that has all the variables, and he goes, “Now what do we

[12:30]

have?”

People watching this say, “My god, he’s just adding randomness and unpredictability. He’s all over the place, he’s saying one thing, he’s flip-flopping all over the place.” That’s the shaking of the box part. When it’s done, the variables have lined up in a different configuration. The President looks at it again and he says, “Hmm, yeah no, that’s not quite what I need yet.” Shakes it again. Now, in theory—let’s just talk about this conceptually—if you were the one shaking the box, and this is the important part I’ve never really said explicitly: if you’re the only person in the conversation who can pick up the box and shake it, how often will you win? Everybody else is playing different rules; they’re doing what they do. But if only one person in the conversation can actually shake the box, in the long run, how often does

[13:31]

the box shaker win? A hundred percent. He pursues a strategy that has a hundred percent chance of working in the long run.

It’s sort of like what I call the slot machine that you don’t have to put money into. Imagine you went to Vegas and you sit in front of a slot machine and, for some reason, it’s broken and it won’t take your money but it will pay out. Life is like the slot machine that won’t take your money but it will pay out as often as machines pay out. How often will you win on a machine that doesn’t take your money? You can just keep pulling it until you get a payout. How often will you win? 100% of the time, so long as nothing stops you from continuing to pull.

With the Shake the Box theory of management, the President just keeps shaking the box. You saw it with

[14:33]

immigration; you see it with everything. There’s a lot of box shaking going on until he gets the configuration he wants. Nobody else can shake that box, and then he’s done.

Analogies are not meant to persuade; they’re meant to illustrate a point, which is how I just used it. When people don’t understand what he’s doing, or they say it doesn’t look like there’s a strategy, or they say he’s changed his mind or he doesn’t understand the concept or he’s all over the place—it’s really all just the same thing. It’s all him just deciding when to shake the box, and then when he gets what he wants, he is done shaking.

Here’s another little observation that I just thought of for no reason. Did you notice that when the President announced Kavanaugh as

[15:33]

his nomination for the Supreme Court, did you notice that from beginning to end he was completely presidential? You noticed that, right? His mode was completely presidential. Then you noticed that when he does his rallies, he goes into stand-up comedian mode. What do stand-up comedians do to get laughs? They say things that are a little bit naughtier, a little bit more provocative, a little bit meaner than you think should be said in public. It’s almost like they’re saying, “Okay, nobody’s supposed to say this, so that’s why it’s funny because I’m saying the thing that nobody says.” That’s what triggers your, “Oh my god, there’s something wrong with this,” but he said it anyway.

That’s exactly what I think the President does. He uses the stage comedian’s method of exaggerating thoughts, exaggerating attitudes, etc. So when he

[16:35]

says stuff like, “You know that protester… in the old days we’d punch them and rough them up,” he is playing to the audience as a stand-up comedian does—saying something you shouldn’t say for effect because it makes the audience have a good time. Now, there is a danger in that because if you’re not quite in your right mind, you might think, “Oh, he’s telling us to go out and hurt somebody,” but we haven’t seen a lot of that happening. It makes me think that the people who attend the rallies understand the context. This is just for fun; that’s what the rallies are. The rallies are just for fun and he gets his message out through the media, but it’s mostly just for fun for the people who attend. At this point, it’s not for votes so much.

Then we see him change his mode for every situation. I loved watching the video of him dressing down NATO and watching everybody sit there

[17:36]

like they were being chastised. That mode where he’s completely in control of the room, he’s got a point to make, and he’s just laying it out there with not even the slightest amount of hesitation or embarrassment—there was just nothing. It was a complete unfiltered honesty that they just weren’t used to seeing. Now, some of that is frankly American. There’s a bluntness that’s typically American, and then on top of that, you have the New York attitude, and on top of that, you have President Trump’s own personality. That was a dose of bluntness that they’re not used to seeing. But you saw that he created—he became that character—for the purpose

[18:37]

of that meeting.

I just need to go and read one tweet because this makes me think of it. Let’s see if I can find President Trump’s tweet. There are so many of them; give me just a moment. It was the one about the “layer.” Let’s find it. Trump layer… yeah, all I did was search for “Trump” and “layer.”

You’ve heard the phrase that certain political sides have a narrative. They say, “Oh, the Democrats have a narrative about this story,” and “The Republicans have a narrative,” and “The news has a narrative.” Now, when you talk about a narrative, it’s a sort of figurative language that harkens back

[19:39]

to fiction, right? A novel has a narrative, a movie has a narrative. But on this tweet in which President Trump talks about the FBI, have you noticed that his tweets sound like a movie narration? Think about it. If you read his tweets, mostly about the FBI situation, the whole FBI situation reads sort of like a movie. His tweets define the situation just like a movie.

Here’s an example. This is the President’s tweet from July 10th. He goes: “I am on Air Force One flying to NATO,” and he reports that the FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are getting cold feet on testifying about the “rigged witch hunt headed by 13 angry Democrats and people that work for Obama for 8

[20:39]

years. Total disgrace!” But can you hear that? If you take away the fact he’s flying to NATO, which was just introduction, you can hear this in almost movie narration voice, can’t you? Here it is in movie narration voice: “FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are getting cold feet about testifying about the rigged witch hunt headed by 13 angry Democrats and people that work for Obama for eight years.”

If you read his other tweets, they all feel like movie narration, and I don’t think that’s an accident. He takes on his movie narration voice sometimes when he’s doing his tweets about that story, and it actually turns it into sort of a movie in our mind. Because stories and movies are very influential, he is creating the script—or interpreting the script—in movie form.

[21:41]

Because when he does that, it just becomes solid in your mind. You’re like, “Yeah, the 13 angry Democrats and the lovers Strzok and Page.” The fact that he keeps referring to them as lovers is a little bit about making the point that there was something unprofessional. It’s a little bit about that, but it’s a lot about turning it into actually a movie form that you’ll never be able to get out of your head. Amazing persuasion technique.

Let’s change the topic. Candace Owens did interesting tweets that I retweeted. Let me read her original tweets so that I don’t paraphrase it incorrectly. Candace says: “Objectively speaking, it’s quite terrifying to realize that a good portion of Americans quite literally hate our President simply because their

[22:44]

media programmed them to. What else might the media program them to do? How easily hacked is the human brain?”

So, Candace is taking it up a level. Now, of course, the big mistake that most people make—which I would say Candace did not make, although you have to watch for it—she did not make this mistake, but the big mistake people make is to think that one side is programming its viewers, like you’re reprogramming their brains, but the other side is just facts. “I’m glad I’m watching the one that has all the facts and those other people are getting reprogrammed.” I see my comments just disappeared. Oh, they’re

[23:44]

back.

Candace did not do that because she talked about the media programming us, etc. That’s a general enough statement that that’s the highest level of understanding. Right now, she’s talking specifically about them programming people to hate the President, so it’s a specific point. But the general concept she introduced is that we’re being programmed by the media. She keeps it general, which is the right way to do it.

Now, somebody on Twitter saw this and said, “No, most people have a bias and then they seek out a media that has the same bias because that’s the comfortable one. So it’s not the media programming the people; it’s people who are already like that finding the media they like best.” To which I say, I agree that’s how it starts. There are people who almost certainly have the same political

[24:46]

leanings as their parents and their town and their friends. People first get their bias. Maybe there’s some part of this that’s genetic. I think there’s a genetic component to things like risk-taking and need for protection versus being aggressive. So there may be some biological propensity—I’m not sure that’s true, but it feels like it might be. There might be something biological, and then on top of that, you get born into a family that indoctrinates you with however the family believes. Even if they’re not doing it intentionally, you pick it up from your parents and your family.

People come to the news with a bias that’s pretty baked in. But when they talk about a specific topic, as in “What is the headline today?”, that part—the specific way to interpret today’s

[25:47]

topic—that comes from the news. The news tells you how to think.

When was the last time—just think about this, and I’m pausing for effect—when was the last time you saw an individual not on TV, just somebody you know, it might be on Twitter but a real person, not a media person… when was the last time you saw a real person state a political opinion that did not exactly match their preferred news source? In other words, when was the last time you saw somebody with a whole new opinion where you said, “Whoa, I haven’t even heard that on the news. I don’t think either side is even saying that. You’re the only person saying that.”

Somebody says, “I do it all the time.” And you might, maybe. Dershowitz?

[26:47]

Yeah, Dershowitz is a special case. In Dershowitz’s case, he’s just following the law. It’s notable that he’s willing to be on the left or the right depending which way the law takes him. Dershowitz is amazing just in that sense—that he’s willing to follow the law instead of following the pack. But he still is just following the law, so I’m not sure that’s an independent opinion versus someone who knows what the law is. That feels like a special case there.

“Tucker breaks ranks sometimes.” I think that’s fair to say. So, the fact that you didn’t have many examples of it… some of you said “me.” Now, the reason you would say “me” probably has more to do with the

[27:49]

fact that I don’t belong to a political party, I sample both sides of the media, and I talk about persuasion. So it seems like I have a different niche. Yeah, so we can think of a few people. We’ll talk about evolution in a moment. Ann Coulter? Yeah, I think so. No, but the trouble is that Ann Coulter is the media. When Ann Coulter says something, she sort of is the media. Arguably, I am too at this point.

But when was the last time you heard an individual—just someone who was not on television, not periscoping, does not write about this for a living—who had just a completely different opinion? Most of you are just pointing out famous people who sometimes break ranks, and those are good examples. Joe Rogan is a good example of

[28:52]

that. But you rarely will see your coworker come up with an opinion you hadn’t heard before. It’s very rare, right? And that should tell you that people are getting their opinions somewhere. Most of us are programmed by the media.

Now, the question Candace asks, which is sort of the point of it, is: if you can make half the country hate a President and think that half of the country are Nazis, if you can do that, what is the limit to what you can do? How much can you program people? Let me answer the question: Hitler. I hate to use Hitler as an example, because whenever you use Hitler as an example, you say to yourself, “I’ve left the field of reason.” But in this one example, Hitler does serve as the extreme example of how

[29:53]

brainwashed you can make your own people. Certainly, the Nazis and the Germans and the people who were on Hitler’s side—the ones who actually believed in it—were effectively brainwashed into something amazing, and it wasn’t hard. It wasn’t hard for that to happen.

All right, here’s the controversial part of my Periscope. I save this for the end so that the people who are weak have already signed off, the people who don’t care, the people who don’t have my context, and the people who will not understand why… Oh, by the way, you’ve probably noticed on Twitter and other places that people disagree with me a lot. So you see people disagreeing with me all the time. But the number of those people who disagree with what I’ve actually said or what I actually believe accurately—this is very rare. Have you ever noticed that?

[30:53]

The number of people who say or act like they’re disagreeing with me is lots—every single day, lots of people pretend they’re disagreeing with me, and I don’t even know if they believe it. But they’re almost never on even the same point. It’s kind of weird, isn’t it? If you watch for it, sometimes they just come in to insult me. They’ll retweet something I said and they’ll say, “I’ve now lost all respect for you.” And there’s no reason—like, what part of the tweet did you disagree with?

Now, I know from experience that if I were to get that person in a conversation—the person who says, “I’ve lost all respect for you now”—and say, “What exactly is it?”, there’s nearly a hundred percent chance that what they would describe is their misinterpretation of what they think I’m

[31:54]

thinking. Almost every time. Close to a hundred percent of the time.

So let’s talk about evolution. When I talk about evolution, I get more angry comments about that than anything. Part of it is because nobody likes to hear an argument that makes their team look wrong. You’ll get hatred if you have a reasonable argument about why the other side was wrong.

Let me tell you something. I don’t know if I’ve ever admitted this, but I’m going to admit it for the first time. When I wrote my book “The Dilbert Future”—I think it was 1997—it came out and I had a number of predictions. I put one prediction in there that I knew would be

[32:56]

controversial. I did not know how controversial it would be. Nearly a hundred percent of the disagreement is angry disagreement with a misperception of what I said. For however many years this has been going on since I wrote that book, people have been so mad at me for things I don’t believe and did not say, but they think they understand it.

What I predicted was that the theory of evolution, which I consider a scientific fact… and when I say it’s a scientific fact, I mean that within the rules of science, as science has described its own domain, it calls a theory that has so much evidence for it a “fact.” In science, a theory doesn’t

[33:57]

mean something that might be true and might not be. In science, the word “theory” means it has already passed all of the checks and balances so that, within the theory of science, it could be called the fact. So when I say evolution is a scientific fact, I mean that internal to the way science works and how they use words, the word “fact” fits their own definition of what a fact is and what a theory is.

I accept that the scientific consensus is what science says. That is different from being true. Something can be a scientific theory with so much evidence that, for all practical purposes, scientists call it a fact. But because they call it that and because it has lots of evidence is slightly different from whether it’s true. Something could be false and have

[35:00]

plenty of evidence that maybe later they’ll find out wasn’t good evidence, but at the moment, it’s considered true within the theory of science.

I said my prediction in 1997-ish was that scientists would debunk evolution in my lifetime. Now let me tell you why I made that prediction. I made it—and this is the part I’ve never really said in public—that was a dartboard prediction. I simply took the least likely thing that would be debunked and then said it would be. My entire process here was: what is the least likely thing science will ever say, “Well, we were wrong, we got that wrong”? The least likely thing. And I thought, probably evolution. So I made

[36:02]

a prediction that the least likely thing, the thing that has the most evidence for it—I mean a tremendous amount of evidence—I said that the most certain thing in my lifetime will be shown to be false.

You can imagine how much criticism I got from that. People stopped reading Dilbert. I was just lampooned and completely destroyed in various skeptic magazines, etc. And then I waited. I knew that that would be controversial, but I figured I’ll just wait. The thinking behind it was that pretty much everything you’re positive about in science will probably be wrong in the future. When people say, “Why did you pick on evolution?”, it was because it was so unlikely to be

[37:03]

debunked. That’s why I said it would be debunked, because it would be the best example of this concept. The concept being that everything you think is true probably isn’t.

The things that are true are the things that you could test and say, “All right, if I let go of this ball, I believe that gravity is true and the ball will fall,” and then you let go of it and it falls. Evolution is one of those things where it’s true and it passes the tests of science, but mostly you’re looking backwards. It’s hard to evolve a lizard into a person in the laboratory to make sure you’re true because of the length of time involved. You can do small things and you can watch viruses evolve and stuff like that, but you can’t see the big stuff.

There are two things that have happened recently that are notable. One is the

[38:06]

simulation theory. Simulation theory, for those very few of you who haven’t heard it, is the idea that our reality as we experience it might be a computer-type simulation designed by a higher-level species. We think we’re real, but we’re just created in a virtual reality kind of way; we’re just programs. Now, if we were just programs, that would certainly explain why we don’t have free will, because free will wouldn’t be a thing within a computer game.

It doesn’t answer the question of if we were created by someone else, who created them? But I don’t need to answer that question because we’re just talking about us. The simulation theory simply says this: it seems almost guaranteed that our current civilization, whether it’s real or simulated, will create the ability to create other simulations that will act

[39:08]

in every way as though they’re real. Programmatically, internally, they will also have something called “feelings,” so that when you ask the simulation, “Do you feel something?”, the simulation will say yes. When you poke it with something—I guess you’d have to poke it with some computer code—the simulation will go “Wow.” So for all practical purposes, the simulation will be real to itself. It won’t be real to the observer, but it will believe itself real. It will feel and will act real. It will evolve.

If it’s possible for us to do it—and we’re right on the cusp of being able to do it—certainly in our lifetime we’ll be able to do it. As soon as that simulated civilization is created, it will start evolving to the point where it too can create a

[40:10]

simulation. So each simulation will create a new simulation, and it could happen at the speed of light because a computer program doesn’t have to live by the external world’s rules of physics. In all likelihood, since we know it will be possible to create such simulations, it’s probably a billion to one or a trillion to one that we’re an actual original species. For every original species, the number of simulations that it spawns might be somewhere between infinite and billions.

Purely on a mathematical basis, there’s a reason that the smartest people in the world—Elon Musk, for example, and other smart people who will not say it publicly—believe it. Trust me when I tell you that if I talk privately to the most brilliant people I know, almost all of them believe in the simulation theory. I know you don’t want to hear that, but if you take the people

[41:12]

who are not just in the top 1% of intelligence, but like crazy smart, and you talk to them privately, they’ll tell you: “Yeah, simulation. It’s the only one that makes sense just because of the math.”

Anyway, if simulation theory is true, then the theory of evolution as we understand it actually doesn’t even make sense. If simulation theory is true, what you’d expect, because the computer programmers need to conserve resources, is that you would have your “history on demand.” Meaning that we don’t necessarily have a real history; it’s just that when we need to have a history, it’s created as needed. Sometimes two people will have different memories, and that’s because two different histories were created and they didn’t match up. Then we negotiate and I say, “Well, you must be crazier than me, so why don’t you adopt my history? Oh wait, here’s an email

[42:14]

that proves that my history was right.” Then the other person says, “Oh, okay, I adopt your history.” It’s entirely possible—in fact, far more likely—that we are a simulation. And if we are, our history and all the evolution stuff is a perception. It’s not necessarily something that happened in the way a real world happens over time.

But there was something even more interesting lately. Even if you don’t believe the simulation hypothesis, something fascinating is happening within the scientific community that understands and works with evolution. What I’m going to talk about now is what scientists who deal with evolution are looking at. One of the things that they think they know—and this is mind-blowing—is that humans did

[43:16]

not start from one source. That an early human type may have started in several different, completely unrelated parts of the planet. These not-quite-human but humanoid creatures eventually populated and spread until they had contact with each other, and sometimes they couldn’t mate.

Hold on. Are you telling me? Yes, I am, Scott. The current people who are experts on evolution are saying that humanoids developed in completely different places, and still, when they got together, they could have a baby?

[44:26]

The old thinking about Neanderthals and humans—and I might have this wrong, there’s a good chance I have this wrong—I think the older thinking was that whether you were Denisovan or Homo erectus or Neanderthal, all of those came back to the same character. Maybe after the original creature, they spread out, but they were still close enough that they could have babies if they ran into each other. That makes sense, right? We were one kind of creature, we became a little bit different, but we never got so different we couldn’t have babies, and eventually that collapsed all of the different species into the winning species.

That makes sense. But it turns out that we didn’t all come from that one “Lucy” or whatever was the proto-human. If we started in all

[45:28]

different places, what are the odds that we evolved in a way that we can mate?

Now, this is preliminary, and everybody who will be my critic coming in here will say something which I will agree with. So I’m going to criticize myself first: people like me should not be talking about science. I’m not a scientist; I don’t know enough. So when you’re listening to anything I say, you should put that filter on it. “I’d better check this with somebody who knows what they’re doing.” I’m talking about it like a citizen, not a scientist. I allow that I could be completely off base on this.

But how do the evolutionists explain that these humanoids could be growing up in completely different parts of the planet and still be close enough

[46:30]

that they can have a baby? Keep in mind that dogs and cats look kind of close in a weird, approximate way, but they can’t have babies, right?

There is one theory that says that the aliens came down and they seeded various places just to see what would happen. Or maybe we’re just a simulation. The simulation theory explains everything because, in the simulation theory, there is not an actual history which we’re discovering, but rather it’s being written as we discover some bones. Somebody digs in the ground and they find some bones and they say, “Okay, how does this fit in? Oh, it doesn’t fit. Now I have to rewrite my history. Okay, now it fits.” Then you find another fossil and you’re

[47:30]

like, “Oh, the way I rewrote it doesn’t fit now. Now I gotta rewrite it again.” Simulation theory allows you to continually rewrite your history. Does it look like that’s what’s happening? Does to me.

Wolf and dog—wolf and dog came from the same source. If wolves and dogs had separately evolved from fish… so if in one part of the world there were fish and amphibians and they turned into wolves, and then in a completely other part of the world fish turned into amphibians that turned into dogs, is there any chance that the dog and the wolf could have a baby? Maybe, but doesn’t it seem unlikely?

All right, so that’s my observation on that. You all saw the

[48:32]

story yesterday—I did my Periscope on that—in which the President tweeted about “ex-FBI layer Lisa Page.” You might think it was supposed to be “lawyer.” You might think it was a typo. Yeah, maybe. But he meant it, and it was clever. As far as I know, it hasn’t been corrected, and certainly it would be corrected if he didn’t mean it or if he didn’t like the way it came out.

Either way, in my weird world—and you’d have to admit my world is pretty weird… and by the way, you have no idea how weird it is. Just imagine all the things that I talk about and then imagine ten times that are the things I can’t talk about. The amount of weirdness that comes into my life or passes through is mind-boggling. I

[49:36]

can only tell you 10% of it.

Was I talking about “layer”? So I tweeted about the President’s tweet in which he spelled “lawyer” as “layer,” intentionally or not. And then Don Jr. retweeted my tweet suggesting that it was intentional, and then the next thing I know, I’m part of the story. I’m looking at the Daily Caller—I’ve got a Google Alert that kicks up anytime I’m mentioned—and the Daily Caller has a story that’s at least a large part about me. Most of you are just watching the news, but can you imagine what a strange feeling it is to not just watch the news, but then I sort of become part of it? The news actually becomes the News Plus Me. It is the weirdest feeling, and you’ve seen it happen quite a bit with me.

[50:42]

“Evolution has never been tested in a lab.” Yes, but that doesn’t make it not true, and it doesn’t make it not a fact, and it doesn’t make it not a theory, which within science means it’s essentially a fact.

Somebody says, “I think you talk to the President on a regular basis as an unofficial adviser.” I have never spoken to the President. I have personally never received any message directly or indirectly, nor have I sent a message—like a private message of some kind—to the President. Everything I do is either public or, obviously, I talk to people who might be able to talk to people who matter. But that’s true of any anybody in the media, really.

“That was complete BS about evolution,” somebody says. Well, so you’re a good example of

[51:48]

the people who are experiencing cognitive dissonance. The people who complained about my comments on evolution, the people whose complaints are that “it’s complete BS, like every bit of it is wrong”—those are the people who have been actually triggered into cognitive dissonance. Now, if somebody said, “Oh, my complaint with what you said is this fact you got wrong, or this reason doesn’t follow from this,” then I would say to myself, “Oh well, let me look at that.”

Somebody says, “It’s just a theory, not a fact.” You must be coming in late. Within the realm of science, “theory” and “fact” are the same thing. That’s what the words mean if you’re talking about science. If you’re talking about what you and your friends are doing, “theory” means the opposite.

[52:48]

In your own personal life, “theory” means it’s not proven. When you’re talking about science, “theory” means it’s proven. So get the language right first. Don’t disagree if you can’t get the language right.

“Completely serious, where do you see the pyramids fitting into this, the simulation?” Well, the pyramids fit better into the theory that we were seeded by an alien race or races.

“Scientifically proven isn’t a thing.” Yeah, that could be fair, because science is always a moving target. But “theory” and “fact” are treated as the same within science, even though both the theory and the fact can be overturned. It doesn’t mean it can’t change; it’s just what it is at the moment.

[53:51]

Somebody’s saying, “Theory does not equal fact.” No. You’re “word-thinking.” If you’re telling me that theory does not equal fact, you might be an idiot. I don’t think I could say this any clearer: if you’re a scientist, you use words differently. They have different meanings than they do for ordinary people just talking about their daily life. If you can’t get that, don’t tell me theory doesn’t equal fact, because you’re not even putting any brainpower into this at all. I do get mad at just that one thing, because it feels like it’s as simple as one plus one equals two, and then I say it, and then some people say, “Well, one thing for sure, one plus one doesn’t equal two.” And I’ll say, “What the hell was I just saying? How could that not be as clear as day?”

So I do get

[54:53]

frustrated when people don’t even seem human, right? Whoever just said “theory does not equal a fact,” that doesn’t even strike me as a human response, because a human would understand that the word gets used differently in two different contexts, and that could not be easier to understand. You’d have to be a lawnmower not to understand that.

Who or what spawned the character Dilbert? Just sort of evolved; I don’t think it was any one thing. All right, I’m going to sign off for now. Today is going to be an awesome day. Interview Candace? Now, that’s a good idea. Maybe I will do that if she’s up for that. All right, talk to you later.