Episode 3065 CWSA 01/07/26

Good morning.

Oh, my voice is terrible this morning, but maybe it'll get better.

Well, come on in and grab a seat.

As soon as there are a thousand of you beautiful people, we're going to do this simultaneously.

you wouldn't miss it.

All right, just about there.

1,000.

All right, let's do this, people.

Kick it off.

I know why you're here.

You're here for the summer sip.

All you need is a copper mug or glasses tank or cher sign, a canteen jug or flask vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day.

The thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.

It happens now.

So good.

So good.

Well, I was watching the trigonometry um podcast and they had a guest on called uh called her name was Helen Andrews.

And Helen Andrews was explaining that she's got a thesis that wokeness is really just a feminine pattern of behavior and that women like consensus relationships making everybody happy and that she notices that whenever the number of women gets to a critical point in an organization, it flips to be woke.

Uh she talks about law schools tipping majority female in 2016.

The New York Times staff 55% female by 2018 and now managers are even 46% women.

So the question is is that a coincidence or a cause?

Well uh here's what I think.

I think women make it possible and introduce wokeness, but I think men also use it as a weapon.

For example, uh I I've often told you my stories of uh of my corporate life where I wasn't allowed to be promoted because I was white and male.

Do you think the women did that to me?

No.

the the men weaponized the whole DEI thing and said, "Oh, I'm working as hard as I can to get more DEI, so I'm the good guy." But they weaponized it against people like me.

So, if you were a white male and you were at the bottom of the totem pole, uh it was easy for the senior executives who are also white male to say, "There's nothing wrong with me.

Uh, look at all these women I'm hiring.

You know, look at all these LGBTQ I'm hiring.

So, women create wokeness and then men weaponize it.

If you look at the Democratic Party, you'll see that, you know, it became super woke.

At the same time, it became essentially a woman's party.

And then he noticed that the people who weaponized it would be people like Biden and Hakee Jeff and Chuck Schumer and all that.

Just in case you wondered, well, the Venezuelan narrative, as I'll call it, seems to be solidifying.

Do you remember the first day or two of the uh Venezuelan event, I'll call it?

People said, "Oh, it's about drugs.

It's not about drugs.

It's about oil.

It's not about oil.

It's about China.

It's not about China.

It's about Iran.

It's not about Iran.

And um there was a lot of disagreement about what was really happening.

But I would say by now the narrative has solidified and there's almost nobody who believes it was only about drugs.

Am I right?

Pretty much nobody says, "Oh, it was only about the drugs." How about the people who say it was only about the oil?

Well, nobody says it's only about capturing the oil, but they have a bigger narrative that it's about uh suppressing China and you know the belt and road initiative which would have been very correctly going through Venezuela and it's also about the Monroe Doctrine which plays into the whole you know keeping China out of our hemisphere.

Uh it seems to also be the general statement of agreement that um if you deny China all of the energy it wants or needs, it's going to slow them down for any kind of bad activity they do to us.

So it would weaken them militarily.

If they tried to buy more energy from Russia, Russia would be the pickle because Russia needs all the energy it can get.

So, it might be a way to uh diminish Russia's intentions, maybe get a a deal faster than we could have otherwise.

But at this point, doesn't it seem to you like the narrative has collapsed and all the smart people know exactly what's going on?

Would you say that's true?

Yeah.

And the the deeper you dig, the more good it looks for the United States.

Now, I will add this, and I think all the smart people are saying the same.

If if if Venezuela now falls apart and we can't put the pieces back together, we would not consider that a win or at least as big a win as it could have been.

But I do believe that Trump has a plan that appears to be working.

So he announced that uh Venezuela was going to give up to the United States 30 to 50 billion gallons of oil.

And Trump says it will be entirely up to him how that oil is used.

It will be sold on sold on the market of course.

But what Trump is doing in his Trumpian way is promising that some amount of that will directly benefit the Venezuelan people.

And that's very Trumpian.

You he likes to make deals where everybody wins and that would be a deal where everybody won except, you know, China, right?

Well, um, here's a little personal update.

I'm still working on what to do with all my intellectual property after I pass.

Obviously, it will be owned by my estate.

Um, but we've been experimenting.

Uh, Jay Plemens has been helping me to see if I can turn my regular refframes from my book into a video that looks like me uh, talking about the reframe.

and he did a uh he did some examples and they look pretty good.

You know, you can tell they're AI, but they're so close to the original, which would be me doing it that is I think it's completely workable.

So, I'm working on that.

We will have more updates as we see what's technically and practically possible you know because a big part of it is how do I protect my IP intellectual property uh at the same time let people have fun with it and put it in one place so that you know people know how to find it etc.

So, it'll have to be protected.

Um, but I want to make it as widely available as possible.

Speaking of me, uh, yesterday I guess it was, uh, Trump put a statement on the White House, um, I guess it was the website.

It was about the January 6 event.

And some people pointed out that the language that Trump used to describe it seems like it might have come from me.

Now, uh, not directly.

So, um, I'm not consulting for the White House or anything like that, but there are some things I say a lot.

And let me see if you can can identify things that you heard me say.

Um, I talked about the scripted TV spectacle that they used to reverse the reality.

Now, lots of people talked about the scripted TV production of it.

But what I added was um, well, let let me just read Trump's words.

He said, "The Democrats masterfully reversed reality." Do you remember how I kept saying that they reversed reality?

Uh, they masterfully reversed reality after January 6, branding peaceful patriotic protesters, that's a lot of P's, peaceful patriotic protesters as insurrectionists and framing the event.

Now, have you noticed that the word framing has become much more popular since I started following politics?

So framing and reframing, you always have to wonder, did that come from him?

So framing the event as a violent coup attempt orchestrated by Trump despite no evidence of armed rebellion or here's the part that counts, intent to overthrow the government.

Remember, I made a big deal about the fact that the entire January 6 committee and all the hearings and nobody in the news or in the hearings ever asked them, "What was your intention?" But Trump's on it.

He's noting that they never they never identified any intention.

There's nobody who said they were trying to overthrow the government.

Uh and and if you ask them what they were doing, they would have said they were trying to save the government.

and they would mean it because they believed it was an obviously rigged election.

Um, and then Trump says in truth it was the Democrats who staged the real insurrection by certifying a fraudridden election, ignoring widespread irregularities and weaponizing federal agencies to hunt down denters.

Does that sound like me?

Yeah, I I introduced the word haunting about um Republicans and despite no evidence of a intention and that the Democrats essentially reversed reality.

Now, here's here's where he sums it up.

Trump does on the web page.

He said this gaslighting narrative allowed them to persecute innocent Americans, silence opposition and distract them from their own role in undermining democracy.

So here are the concepts which I I probably introduced to the uh thought process.

It was a reversed reality that they got away with a scripted TV spectacle.

Uh they they reframed or framed the event as a violent coup and no evidence of insurrection intent for planning and that that they weaponized federal agencies to hunt down desenders.

Now, how much of that sounds like it came from me?

You have to tell me if I'm imagining this.

Are these concepts and the way he presents them, are they so obvious that he just sort of ended up in the same place I was because we're just both smart?

I don't know.

I I feel like the administration beginning in the first term of Trump I believe that a number of the insiders recognized that I was good at framing stuff and then I think they started paying attention so that they could look how I framed it and compare how they were going to frame it themselves and see if there's anything they can you know borrow from my framing.

It looks like they have successfully borrowed from my framing.

Well, apparently Russia sent him a submarine to protect that ref flagged empty tanker that was trying to escape America, escape the US Navy.

And so they set out a sub to maybe protect it.

But I believe that as of just a few minutes ago, the US forces actually took it.

So they boarded it and they they took it before before Russia could get any serious, you know, navy presence there.

But obviously we had to hurry because we didn't want to do it when there was a Russian submarine, you know, 10 ft away.

So, another success for the US military.

And my question is, what will Russian do now since we already boarded it?

Are they going to pull up the submarine that they have and say, "Oh, you better give it back." Or will they say, "Oh, don't do that again.

We got here a little late, but next time we might not be late.

We're gonna have to watch that one.

I do think that the issue is not nearly big enough for Putin to say, "All right, it's war now." Uh I think the only thing that's going to make sense is for Russia to say some tough words and then back off.

That's what I think.

Well, here's some science that if you persuade people and they did random tests, you if you persuade people to uh be more afraid of climate change, you can actually change their minds.

In other words, if you tried to scare them that the climate change is a big risk, you could move the needle and that, you know, people can be persuaded.

But what they did not find is that by moving the needle and making it look extra dangerous that there's a climate crisis that those same people did not open their wallets and donate more to change it.

Now, how strong is your belief that it's an existential threat if it makes no difference to what you donate money?

Because money kind of tells a story, right?

So, here's my take.

I think that um people are kind of tribal when it comes to climate change or anything else.

And so if you give them a good argument to be even more more tribal than they were, in other words, uh to be more fearful of it, it makes them more tribal, but it doesn't make them more uh believing it more.

So I'm not sure that they're really believing it more if they're not paying money for it.

Anyway, according to the Brownstone Institute, Roger Bait is writing about this.

The the Washington Post did a story recently showing that childhood vaccination rates uh in the US are falling sharply, especially for measles and blah blah blah.

And what uh Roger B points out is that the Washington Post doesn't do a good job of diagnosing why it's going down, why the vaccination rate is going down.

Now, wouldn't you say that the main reason it's going down is that people stop trusting the fake news and they stop trusting the Washington Post to tell them what's good for their health.

I think that's what's happening.

But the uh the observation by Roger Bait is that the Washington Post doesn't even take a stab at their own credibility as being part of the problem.

And it makes you wonder, do they really not know?

Does the Washington Post literally not know that they're a big part of the problem?

If if you think the problem is that there are fewer vaccinations, we we could obviously argue that having fewer vaccinations, a lot of people prefer that.

So I wonder if distrust in the media should be a class that they teach at school.

Wouldn't that be useful?

Imagine taking a class um that used my materials for example to teach all the tricks of finding you know BS that would be so useful and I wonder if AI is going to replace the fake news for a while there we thought ah as long as we have AI the AI will be able to pick out the fake news but that's not what's happening So far, the AI is making the fakeness more fake because it hallucinates.

Will we ever get to the point where the AI can fact check the fake news?

Well, it can definitely fact check fact check the fake news when it's from independent publishers.

Um, I think it was this morning and also yesterday I saw, you know, a story that was being promoted by some random account and I read the story.

I was like, "Wow, that's blowing my mind if that's real." But then I caught myself.

I said, "How would I know if it's real?" So I went to Grock and said, "Is this real?" and Grock said, you know, with no no uncertain terms, it was not real.

Now, I tend to be influenced by the last thing I hear.

So, I immediately ignored that post and I've now seen it pop up as being real.

So, I think Grock I think Grock got that one.

But how could I know that Grock will get the next one?

I mean, it hallucinates all kinds of things about me.

How would you know?

If you were trying to check a story about me and you went to AI, what are the odds it would be accurate?

Not really high.

And and that's that's with Grock being the best one in terms of accuracy, I think.

Well, according to the New York Post, uh, federal prosecutors are going to be coming hard for California fraudsters.

Something about the homeless services being frauded now.

Um, I don't know.

Do do you expect to see lots of arrests about California fraud?

I think Elon Musk was saying that the fraud in California would end up being way worse than the frauds in in Minnesota.

That doesn't feel good, but it seems necessary.

So, we'd like to see more prosecutors and we'd like to see him act faster because whatever we do, it always seems like, you know, he could be a lot he could have been a lot uh faster.

All right.

Uh, meanwhile, the Washington Examiner is reporting that Utah will be the first of its kind partnership uh, with I don't know, the medical community, I guess, that allows patients with long-term conditions to refill prescriptions using AI.

Now, how do you make that work if AI hallucinates?

I'm not saying they won't because if you narrow the domain, uh AI can do well.

And this would be a case of narrowing the domain, but um and it's only limited to people who have been getting the same prescriptions for a long time.

Uh sounds like a good idea.

Um, and then the AI could quickly check to see what, you know, was incompatible with their, you know, if there are other medications that change since they got a prescription.

They'd be able to have the AI tell them if it if anything's now incompatible.

But I think they have that already, don't they?

Doesn't your health care provider have some kind of a program that they've had for a while that would tell them if they prescribed one thing it might conflict with the other thing because I I mean I've had them tell me that by looking at a screen unless it's just that doctors are taught what doesn't go with what and that's all they need.

I doubt it though.

Um yeah, here we go.

According to Newsmax, one day after Tim MS announced he won't be running, um Trump set his sights on Governor Nuome and in a Trump in a truth truth social post TR I'm having so much trouble uh sluring my words because my mouth is so dry.

One second, please.

Downloading better software.

Oh, Pillfinder website already does that.

Yeah, that makes sense.

You wouldn't need that much AI to do it, I guess, or any.

So Trump said in a True Social that California led by Nuome is quote more corrupt than Minnesota and said of a fraud investigation has begun.

How in the world would uh Nome think he could win a presidential race at the same time the feds are coming down on him for you know massive um fraud fraud let's say they don't know that he did the fraud but he was in charge of enough things that were fraudulent I don't know how you how do you get that stink off you but the other possibility is that Newsome is way better at hiding his crimes.

It could be that Tim Mols is just incompetent at everything and he wasn't good at covering up his crimes.

But if Newsome gets through this without any charges, you'd have to assume he's better at it.

All right.

Times of India is writing about uh how to get rid of negative thoughts.

And the way that they want to approach it that works is that negative memories may lose or hold when they're gradually pushed out by positive ones, particularly during sleep.

Does that sound like my shelf space theory where I tell you you can't just make yourself think less about bad things.

You have to fill up whatever mental shelf space you have with positive things and then the negative thoughts will sort of atrophy.

So that is exactly my shelf space theory.

So I got there by knowing hypnosis.

Apparently there are studies that are getting there using meticulous meticulous studies about you know your thoughts.

But I got there first.

Um, so at the same time, according to Remix News, that the Ukraine peace talks are happening, uh, the Ukrainians are doing massive attacks on, uh, various buildings.

Now, I think Russia is doing the same.

So, they're they're they're going hard at each other.

at the same time some kind of peace talks that were happening.

So that would be Wickoff and Jared Kushner who are leading that who I do think are the best the best we have.

Um and they've been reporting that there's you know serious progress.

Uh we don't know if that serious progress translates into anything that could help us very much.

Um but but here's the shocker of the same story.

Uh according to a report by Ukrainian foreign intelligence.

Oh, okay.

Well, it's a war and we can't necessarily trust this, but um according to a report by Ukrainian foreign intelligence, the rural rural depopulation has accelerated in Russia.

So allegedly, you have to take this with a grain of salt.

Last year alone, 266 settlements in Russia were officially abolished and most of them were already completely uninhabited.

So the thinking is that Russia is not only producing a lot of new babies but because of the number of people who are dying in war mostly men that uh the population is decreasing.

And remember I tell you you can sort of predict the future by the fact that something is either growing or shrinking because things just never stay the same.

So if Russia is shrinking and it might be that would be a very strong indicator that things are going wrong.

But at the same time Ukraine uh is undoubtedly shrinking.

So you've got two shrinking countries and maybe it's maybe the winner will be who shrinks the last the least.

Well, according to the New York Times, uh Trump told his aids to give him give him an updated plan for acquiring Greenland, but Rubio says the plan is to buy it.

So that seems like the right way to go, doesn't it?

to at first make a legitimate effort to buy it.

But your negotiation for that would be strong under the condition that you're definitely going to take it by force if you have to.

Now that people believe, and I'm sure they do, that Trump would just march the Armenian and take it if they can't make a deal to sell it.

That puts them in a pretty strong negotiating position.

Now, you have to assume, of course, that Denmark and Greenland would vigorously object to handing over this property.

But I would say the uh the new Monroe doctrine supports Trump doing it, especially since he already said some version of who's going to stop him.

Who's going to stop him?

And as uh we saw Eric Weinstein say recently that international law probably doesn't even exist.

that what is really happening is whoever has the power exercises the power and then you know we we put some nice layer of narrative on top of it like oh we had an international reason to do it oh Greenland sold some fentinel to a dog yeah we'll make up something but I would say this is yet again my example of wanting versus deciding Trump has clearly moved out of the wanting phase and he's into the deciding phase and the decision has been made.

The decision is that the United States will buy or just take Greenland and it won't be forever from now.

Almost certainly would happen within the next three years.

And if we move at what I call Trump's speed, you know how everything Trump does is faster.

If you if you put the usual filter on it, you say, "Well, how many years is it going to take to negotiate it or you have a military reaction or something?" And the answer is, if this were a normal president, it might take longer than the president is even in office.

But in the world of Trump speed, Trump could get this done in six months.

And I'd say there's a good chance he will.

Not a 100% chance, but he's the only president who could say, "Starting now, we're going to own Greenland in six months and mean it and actually pull it off." All right.

So, um, Jonathan Turley, who's a great writer, by the way, I love his writing.

Uh, he says, "Are you not entertaining?

Democrats announced new impeachment games to draw midterm voters." And the funny part is that the thing he would be impeached for if it happened would be using the military without uh the kind of approval that you would want to have from Congress.

Uh but the awkward thing is that the so-called designated liars on the Democrat side uh have so recently had the opposite point of view than the one that they want to have.

What I mean by that is that um you know some of the some of the prominent Democrats have said that Maduro has to go and then when Maduro goes they're like well you know you did it wrong and they forget that there have been Democrat presidents who have also acted militarily um when it made sense to do so without Congress's approval.

So, if they were to impeach Trump for doing what they'd been in favor of and had been doing, I don't know how they pulled that off.

I mean, they would be using the designated liars, but that only works for TV.

You know, once you put the designated liars under oath, you know, there would be questions like, "Has any Democrat president ever used military force without Congress's approval?" And the answer would be, uh, yeah, bunch of times.

And were they impeached for it?

No.

No.

Never impeached for it.

So, it's going to be a an awkward and entertaining uh thing if they if they do that.

Anyway, um, so there's a new poll Daily Mail is reporting in which they're asking people about their opinion of the Venezuelan kidnapping action.

And what they found was, well, let's see if you could guess how many people in the poll said it was an outright failure what Trump did in Venezuela.

Outright failure.

What percent said that?

I'll bet you can get the answer.

Okay, you know the answer.

25%.

25%.

If you're new to me, I'm always teasing the fact that in any poll on any topic, 25% will have the stupidest answer.

Just batshit crazy.

Now, I could understand if your opinion was, you know, we shouldn't have done it.

You know, you you can make an argument for that because that would be based on history and a regime change not working out.

Not crazy to be on the other side of it, right?

But there will always be 25% who just are bashing crazy and can't see the difference between a big win and a big loss.

Here it is again, 25%.

And I always wonder if you see somebody in that 25%.

What else do they get wrong?

Do they get wrong all kinds of stuff all the time and we just don't notice?

Are they Are they wrong about every other topic?

Are they literally the stupid ones?

Oops.

Cat, get away from my food.

I got to protect Got to protect my food.

Thank you.

Unfortunately, I have a cat wrangler here.

Multiple cat wranglers.

All right.

There's a Stanford writing program that's been accused of uh putting ideology over core skills.

The New York Post is reporting on this.

So apparently if you took a a reading course it would incorporate anti- ice stuff, racial identity politics and all male drag shows uh resulting in criticism from a leading education watchdog.

Now of course the uh people behind it are not going to call it that.

They're not going to call it the we're going to make you more woke class.

But it looks like that's what it is.

So they've got courses with names such as language, identity, and power where students are instructed according to the uh website to explore this intersection across spheres such as politics, education, medicine, and media spaces intertwined with forces like globalization, immigration, and the rapid development of new technologies.

You know, it's hard for me to believe a human wrote that.

Doesn't that just sound like some a robot would say?

Anyway, so if you dreamed of DEI and wokeness being destroyed by the Trump administration, that didn't happen.

But the wokeness just burrowed itself deeper into the systems.

However, what is different is that people like me can point it out.

So we have enough free speech that we can say, hey, you know, that set of courses is total That's something, you know, it's not nothing.

Well, let's see how the leading lights of the Democrat party are getting along.

Jasmine Crockus says, "F you to the Supreme Court over Texas redistricting." Fox News is reporting that.

Hm.

FU to the Supreme Court.

That's another example where Democrats followed Trump's um his pattern of swearing, but they don't know how to do it right.

Once again, she just inserts a swear word where it's not really helping that.

And she acts like the dumbest person in the Democrat party, but I'm sure she's not.

Yeah, I think she's got some advanced degrees and stuff, but she sure acts dumb and can't even swear.

Right.

Well, I got to take a sip before I give you this one.

This is a beauty.

You should take a sip, too.

I'm not making this up.

Uh Candace Owens is telling about her longunning conspiracy theory that there are sentinel human hybrids because she watched the X-Men cartoons as a child.

So what she's saying is that there are some people among us who are part human and part machine already.

She goes better.

She also names names.

She claims Elon Musk, Peter Teal, Mark Zuckerberg, Palmer Lucky, etc., and other Renaissance men are half machine.

She's not sure if they bleed.

Uh, but she can tell that they don't they don't know how to act like human beings.

Have you heard that before?

Well, here's my take.

Candace Owens is so entertaining.

If you accept her her hypothesis as some kind of fact, you know, you're probably not on board at all.

But if you look at her entire package of content and you say, "What's the what's the most entertaining thing you could hear?" Well, she's really good at that.

She knows how to make something entertaining.

And sure enough, once again, she did.

I I could not look away as soon as I saw the title of it.

Oh, I'm going to click on that.

Now, what you don't know is that I was also influenced by the X-Men.

And you probably noticed that uh that I'm now a duplicate of Professor X.

I'm a wheelchairbound bald guy.

that people listen to.

So, I might be an X-Men.

How else could you describe my incredible predictions?

All right, here's one that's got too many names in it.

Wall Street apes is reporting this that the Heritage Foundation um exposed the fact that Hugo Chavez, see too many names already, was working with Nicholas Maduro, three names, to fund political descents in America and provide the money to start Black Lives Matter, four names.

So the claim is that when Chavez was alive, he gave one of the founders of BLM a million dollars for street protest in America and that after receiving the money uh just months later BLM was founded and started creating unrest in America and that BLM directly works with Democrats even using the act blue fundraiser thing.

up like five names.

That means that regimes in Cuba and Venezuela worked with democratic operatives to fund chaos and protest in America.

Uh which suggests that the Democratic Party is literally working to bring down America, not just to win, but to bring down America.

And the Venezuelan cartel that was headed by Maduro before he was arrested was trying to create problems inside the United States.

It was a Cuban plan.

Okay, there's another name to flood our streets with narcotics to undermine America from within.

So Hugo Chabas Black Lives Matter aided by Act Blue.

that might be sketches and then uh Cuba and Venezuela working with Democrats to take down America.

That's the sort of story that I would not have understood or andor believed a few years ago.

I'm not going to say that I completely believe this because it's a little bit, you know, a little bit on the nose kind of stuff, but it looks very believable.

In terms of credibility, I would say, well, maybe because we live in that weird world where anything could have happened.

Anything could happen.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, I seem to have stayed awake until the end of my prepared remarks.

Um, I'm going to shut down a little bit early uh only from the uh uh only from the main feed, but I'll be talking privately to my beloveds on locals.

So, locals, let's do a little more brainstorming.

We were doing some brainstorming before.

And the rest of you, I hope to see you tomorrow.

I hope you got something out of this.

Good morning.

Oh, my voice is terrible this morning,

but maybe it'll get better.

Well, come on in and grab a seat.

As soon as there are a thousand of you

beautiful people, we're going to do this

simultaneously.

you wouldn't miss it.

All right,

just about there.

1,000.

All right, let's do this, people. Kick

it off. I know why you're here. You're

here for the summer sip. All you need is

a copper mug or glasses tank or cher

sign, a canteen jug or flask vessel of

any kind. Fill it with your favorite

liquid. I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparalleled

pleasure of the dopamine of the day. The

thing that makes everything better is

called the simultaneous sip. It happens

now.

So good. So good.

Well, I was watching the trigonometry

um podcast and they had a guest on

called uh

called

her name was Helen Andrews.

And Helen [clears throat] Andrews was

explaining

that she's got a thesis that wokeness is

really just a feminine pattern of

behavior

and that women like consensus

relationships making everybody happy and

that she notices that whenever the

number of women gets to a critical point

in an organization, it flips to be woke.

Uh she talks about law schools tipping

majority female in 2016. The New York

Times staff 55% female by 2018 and now

managers are even 46%

women. So the question is is that a

coincidence

or a cause?

Well uh here's what I think. I think

women make it possible

and introduce wokeness, but I think men

also use it as a weapon.

For example,

uh I I've often told you my stories of

uh of my corporate life where I wasn't

allowed to be promoted because I was

white and male. Do you think the women

did that to me? No. the the men

weaponized the whole DEI thing and said,

"Oh, I'm working as hard as I can to get

more DEI, so I'm the good guy." But they

weaponized it against people like me.

So, if you were a white male and you

were at the bottom of the totem pole, uh

it was easy for the senior executives

who are also white male to say, "There's

nothing wrong with me. Uh, look at all

these women I'm hiring. You know, look

at all these LGBTQ I'm hiring. So,

women create wokeness and then men

weaponize it. If you look at the

Democratic Party, you'll see that, you

know, it became super woke. At the same

time, it became essentially a woman's

party. And then he noticed that the

people who weaponized it would be people

like Biden and Hakee Jeff and Chuck

Schumer and all that.

Just in case you wondered,

well, the Venezuelan narrative, as I'll

call it, seems to be solidifying.

Do you remember the first day or two of

the uh Venezuelan event, I'll call it?

People said, "Oh, it's about drugs. It's

not about drugs. It's about oil. It's

not about oil. It's about China. It's

not about China. It's about Iran. It's

not about Iran. And

um there was a lot of disagreement

about what was really happening. But I

would say by now the narrative has

solidified

and there's almost nobody who believes

it was only about drugs. Am I right?

Pretty much nobody says, "Oh, it was

only about the drugs." How about the

people who say it was only about the

oil?

Well, nobody says it's only about

capturing the oil, but they have a

bigger narrative that it's about uh

suppressing China and you know the belt

and road initiative which would have

been very correctly going through

Venezuela

and it's also about the Monroe Doctrine

which plays into the whole you know

keeping China out of our hemisphere.

Uh it seems to also

be the general statement of agreement

that um if you deny China all of the

energy it wants or needs, it's going to

slow them down for any kind of bad

activity they do to us.

So it would weaken them militarily. If

they tried to buy more energy from

Russia, Russia would be the pickle

because Russia needs all the energy it

can get.

So, it might be a way to uh diminish

Russia's intentions, maybe get a a deal

faster than we could have otherwise. But

at this point, doesn't it seem to you

like the narrative has collapsed and all

the smart people know exactly what's

going on? Would you say that's true?

Yeah.

And the the deeper you dig,

the more good it looks for the United

States. Now, I will add this, and I

think all the smart people are saying

the same. If if if

Venezuela

now falls apart and we can't put the

pieces back together, we would not

consider that a win

or at least as big a win as it could

have been. But I do believe that Trump

has a plan that appears to be working.

So he announced that uh Venezuela was

going to give up to the United States 30

to 50 billion gallons of oil. And Trump

says it will be entirely up to him how

that oil is used. It will be sold on

sold on the market of course. But what

Trump is doing in his Trumpian way is

promising that some amount of that will

directly benefit the Venezuelan people.

And that's very Trumpian.

You he likes to make deals where

everybody wins

and that would be a deal where everybody

won except, you know, China,

right?

Well, um, here's a little personal

update.

I'm still working on what to do with all

my intellectual property after I pass.

Obviously, it will be owned by my

estate.

Um, but we've been experimenting.

Uh, Jay Plemens has been helping me to

see if I can turn my regular refframes

from my book into a video that looks

like me uh, talking about the reframe.

and he did a uh he did some examples and

they look pretty good. You know, you can

tell they're AI,

but they're so close to the original,

which would be me doing it that is I

think it's completely workable. So, I'm

working on that.

We will have more updates as we see

what's technically and practically

possible you know because a big part of

it is how do I protect my IP

intellectual property uh at the same

time let people have fun with it and put

it in one place so that you know people

know how to find it etc. So, it'll have

to be protected.

Um, but I want to make it as widely

available as possible.

Speaking of me,

uh, yesterday I guess it was, uh, Trump

put a statement on the White House, um,

I guess it was the website. It was about

the January 6 event. And some people

pointed out that the language that Trump

used to describe it seems like it might

have come from me.

Now, uh, not directly. So, um, I'm not

consulting for the White House or

anything like that, but there are some

things I say a lot. And let me see if

you can can identify things that you

heard me say.

Um,

I talked about the scripted TV spectacle

that they used to reverse the reality.

Now, lots of people talked about the

scripted TV production of it. But what I

added was um, well, let let me just read

Trump's words.

He said, "The Democrats masterfully

reversed reality."

Do you remember how I kept saying that

they reversed reality?

Uh, they masterfully reversed reality

after January 6, branding peaceful

patriotic protesters, that's a lot of

P's, peaceful patriotic protesters as

insurrectionists and framing the event.

Now, have you noticed that the word

framing

has become much more popular since I

started following politics?

So framing and reframing, you always

have to wonder, did that come from him?

So framing the event as a violent coup

attempt orchestrated by Trump despite no

evidence of armed rebellion or here's

the part that counts, intent to

overthrow the government. Remember, I

made a big deal about the fact that the

entire January 6 committee and all the

hearings and nobody in the news or in

the hearings ever asked them, "What was

your intention?"

But Trump's on it. He's noting that they

never they never identified any

intention. There's nobody who said they

were trying to overthrow the government.

Uh and and if you ask them what they

were doing, they would have said they

were trying to save the government.

and they would mean it because they

believed it was an obviously rigged

election.

Um,

and then Trump says in truth it was the

Democrats who staged the real

insurrection by certifying a fraudridden

election, ignoring widespread

irregularities

and weaponizing federal agencies to hunt

down denters.

Does that sound like me?

Yeah, I I introduced the word haunting

about um Republicans

and despite no evidence of a intention

and that the Democrats essentially

reversed reality. Now, here's here's

where he sums it up.

Trump does on the web page. He said this

gaslighting narrative allowed them to

persecute innocent Americans, silence

opposition and distract them from their

own role in undermining

democracy.

So here are the concepts

which I I probably introduced to the uh

thought process. It was a reversed

reality

that they got away with a scripted TV

spectacle.

Uh they they reframed or framed the

event as a violent coup

and no evidence of insurrection intent

for planning and that that

[clears throat] they weaponized federal

agencies to hunt down desenders.

Now, how much of that sounds like it

came from me?

You have to tell me if I'm imagining

this.

Are these concepts and the way he

presents them, are they so obvious that

he just sort of ended up in the same

place I was because we're just both

smart?

I don't know. I I feel like the

administration beginning in the first

term of Trump I believe that a number of

the insiders recognized that I was good

at framing stuff and then I think they

started paying attention so that they

could look how I framed it and compare

how they were going to frame it

themselves and see if there's anything

they can you know borrow from my

framing.

It looks like they have successfully

borrowed from my framing.

Well, apparently Russia sent him a

submarine

to protect that ref flagged empty

tanker that was trying to escape

America, escape the US Navy. And so they

set out a sub to maybe protect it. But I

believe that as of just a few minutes

ago, the US forces actually took it. So

they boarded it and they they took it

before before Russia could get any

serious, you know,

navy presence there.

But obviously

we had to hurry [laughter]

because we didn't want to do it when

there was a Russian submarine, you know,

10 ft away.

So, another success for the US military.

And my question is, what will Russian do

now since we already boarded it? Are

they going to pull up the submarine that

they have and say, "Oh, you better give

it back."

Or will they say, "Oh, don't do that

again. We got here a little late, but

next time we might not be late.

We're gonna have to watch that one. I do

think that the issue is not nearly big

enough for Putin to say, "All right,

it's war now." Uh I think the only thing

that's going to make sense is for Russia

to say some tough words and then back

off.

That's what I think.

Well, here's some science

that if you

persuade people and they did random

tests, you if you persuade people to uh

be more afraid of climate change, you

can actually change their minds. In

other words, if you tried to scare them

that the climate change is a big risk,

you could move the needle and that, you

know, people can be persuaded. But what

they did not find is that by moving the

needle and making it look extra

dangerous that there's a climate crisis

that those same people did not open

their wallets and donate more to change

it. Now, how strong is your belief that

it's an existential threat

if it makes no difference to what you

donate money?

Because money kind of tells a story,

right? So, here's my take. I think that

um people are kind of tribal when it

comes to climate change or anything

else. And so if you give them a good

argument to be even more more tribal

than they were, in other words, uh to be

more fearful of it, it makes them more

tribal, but it doesn't make them more uh

believing it more.

So I'm not sure that they're really

believing it more if they're not paying

money for it.

Anyway,

according to the Brownstone Institute,

Roger Bait is writing about this. The

the Washington Post did a story recently

showing that childhood vaccination rates

uh in the US are falling sharply,

especially for measles and blah blah

blah. And what uh Roger B points out is

that the Washington Post doesn't do a

good job of diagnosing why it's going

down, why the vaccination rate is going

down. Now, wouldn't you say that the

main reason it's going down is that

people stop trusting the fake news and

they stop trusting the Washington Post

to tell them what's good for their

health. I think that's what's happening.

But the uh the observation by Roger Bait

is that the Washington Post doesn't even

take a stab at their own credibility as

being part of the problem. And it makes

you wonder, do they really not know?

Does the Washington Post literally not

know that they're a big part of the

problem? If if you think the problem is

that there are fewer vaccinations, we we

could obviously argue that having fewer

vaccinations,

a lot of people prefer that.

So I wonder if distrust in the media

should be a class that they teach at

school.

Wouldn't that be useful? Imagine taking

a class

um that used my materials for example to

teach all the tricks

of finding you know BS

that would be so useful

and I wonder if AI

is going to replace the fake news for a

while there we thought ah as long as we

have AI the AI will be able to pick out

the fake news but that's not what's

happening

So far, the AI is making the fakeness

more fake because it hallucinates.

Will we ever get to the point where the

AI can fact check the fake news? Well,

it can definitely fact check fact check

the fake news when it's from independent

publishers.

Um, I think it was this morning and also

yesterday I saw, you know, a story that

was being promoted by some random

account and I read the story. I was

like, "Wow, that's blowing my mind if

that's real." But then I caught myself.

I said, "How would I know if it's real?"

So I went to Grock and said, "Is this

real?" and Grock said, you know, with no

no uncertain terms, it was not real.

Now, I tend to be influenced by the last

thing I hear. So, I immediately

ignored that post and I've now seen it

pop up as being real. So, I think Grock

I think Grock got that one. But how

could I know that Grock will get the

next one? I mean, it hallucinates all

kinds of things about me.

How would you know? If you were trying

to check a story about me and you went

to AI, what are the odds it would be

accurate?

Not really high. And and that's that's

with Grock being the best one in terms

of accuracy, I think.

Well, according to the New York Post,

uh, federal prosecutors are going to be

coming hard for California fraudsters.

Something about the homeless services

being frauded

now. Um,

I don't know. Do do you expect to see

lots of arrests

about California fraud? I think Elon

Musk was saying that the fraud in

California would end up being way worse

than the frauds in in Minnesota.

That doesn't feel good,

but it seems necessary. So, we'd like to

see more prosecutors and we'd like to

see him act faster because whatever we

do, it always seems like, you know, he

could be a lot he could have been a lot

uh faster.

All right.

Uh, meanwhile, the Washington Examiner

is reporting that Utah will be the first

of its kind partnership

uh, with I don't know, the medical

community, I guess, that allows patients

with long-term conditions to refill

prescriptions using AI.

Now,

how do you make that work if AI

hallucinates? I'm not saying they won't

because if you narrow the domain, uh AI

can do well. And this would be a case of

narrowing the domain,

but um and it's only limited to people

who have been getting the same

prescriptions for a long time.

Uh sounds like a good idea.

Um, and then the AI could quickly check

to see what, you know, was incompatible

with their, you know, if there are other

medications that change since they got a

prescription. They'd be able to have the

AI tell them if it if anything's now

incompatible. But I think they have that

already,

don't they?

Doesn't your health care provider have

some kind of a program that they've had

for a while that would tell them if they

prescribed one thing it might conflict

with the other thing because I I mean

I've had them tell me that by looking at

a screen unless it's just that doctors

are taught what doesn't go with what and

that's all they need. I doubt it though.

Um

yeah, here we go. According to Newsmax,

one day after Tim MS announced he won't

be running, um

Trump set his sights on Governor Nuome

and in a Trump in a truth truth social

post TR

I'm having so much trouble uh sluring my

words because my mouth is so dry.

One second, please.

Downloading better software.

Oh, Pillfinder website already does

that. Yeah, that makes sense.

You wouldn't need that much AI to do it,

I guess, or any.

So Trump said in a True Social that

California led by Nuome is quote more

corrupt than Minnesota

and said of a fraud investigation has

begun.

How in the world

would uh Nome think he could win a

presidential race at the same time the

feds are coming down on him for you know

massive

um fraud fraud let's say

they don't know that he did the fraud

but he was in charge of enough things

that were fraudulent I don't know how

you how do you get that stink off you

but the other possibility

is that Newsome is way better at hiding

his crimes.

It could be that Tim Mols is just

incompetent at everything and he wasn't

good at covering up his crimes.

But

if Newsome gets through this

without any charges,

you'd have to assume he's better at it.

All right. Times of India is writing

about uh

how to get rid of negative thoughts.

And the way that they want to approach

it that works is that negative memories

may lose or hold when they're gradually

pushed out by positive ones,

particularly during sleep. Does that

sound like my shelf space theory where I

tell you you can't just make yourself

think less about bad things. You have to

fill up whatever mental shelf space you

have with positive things and then the

negative thoughts will sort of atrophy.

So that is exactly my shelf space

theory. So I got there by knowing

hypnosis.

Apparently there are studies that are

getting there using meticulous

meticulous studies about you know your

thoughts. But I got there first.

Um, so at the same time, according to

Remix News, that the Ukraine peace talks

are happening,

uh, the Ukrainians are doing massive

attacks on,

uh, various buildings. Now, I think

Russia is doing the same. So, they're

they're they're going hard at each

other. at the same time some kind of

peace talks that were happening. So that

would be Wickoff and Jared Kushner who

are leading that who I do think are the

best the best we have.

Um and they've been reporting that

there's you know serious progress. Uh we

don't know if that serious progress

translates into anything that could help

us very much. Um but but here's the

shocker of the same story. Uh according

to a report by Ukrainian foreign

intelligence. Oh, okay. Well, it's a war

and we can't necessarily trust this, but

um

according to a report by Ukrainian

foreign intelligence, the rural rural

depopulation has accelerated in Russia.

So allegedly, you have to take this with

a grain of salt. Last year alone, 266

settlements in Russia were officially

abolished and most of them were already

completely uninhabited.

So the thinking is that Russia is not

only producing a lot of new babies but

because of the number of people who are

dying in war mostly men that uh the

population is decreasing.

And remember I tell you

[clears throat] you can sort of predict

the future by the fact that something is

either growing or shrinking because

things just never stay the same. So if

Russia is shrinking

and it might be that would be a very

strong indicator that things are going

wrong. But at the same time Ukraine

uh is undoubtedly shrinking. So you've

got two shrinking countries and maybe

it's maybe the winner will be who

shrinks the last the least.

Well, according to the New York Times,

uh Trump told his aids to give him give

him an updated plan for acquiring

Greenland,

but Rubio says the plan is to buy it. So

that seems like the right way to go,

doesn't it?

to at first make a legitimate effort to

buy it.

But your negotiation for that would be

strong

under the condition that you're

definitely going to take it by force if

you have to.

Now that people believe, and I'm sure

they do, that Trump would just march the

Armenian and take it if they can't make

a deal to sell it.

That puts them in a pretty strong

negotiating position.

Now, you have to assume, of course, that

Denmark

and Greenland would vigorously object to

handing over this property. But I would

say the uh the new Monroe doctrine

supports Trump doing it, especially

since he already said some version of

who's going to stop him. Who's going to

stop him? And as uh

we saw Eric Weinstein say recently that

international law probably doesn't even

exist. that what is really happening is

whoever has the power exercises the

power and then you know we we put some

nice layer of narrative on top of it

like oh we had an international reason

to do it oh Greenland sold some fentinel

to a dog yeah we'll make up something

but I would say this is yet again

my example of wanting versus deciding

Trump has clearly moved out of the

wanting phase and he's into the deciding

phase and the decision has been made.

The decision is that the United States

will

buy or just take

Greenland and it won't be forever from

now. Almost certainly would happen

within the next three years. And if we

move at what I call Trump's speed,

you know how everything Trump does is

faster.

If you if you put the usual filter on

it, you say, "Well, how many years is it

going to take to negotiate it or you

have a military reaction or something?"

And the answer is, if this were a normal

president, it might take longer than the

president is even in office. But in the

world of Trump speed, Trump could get

this done in six months.

And I'd say there's a good chance he

will. Not a 100% chance, but he's the

only president who could say, "Starting

now, we're going to own Greenland in six

months and mean it and actually pull it

off."

All right.

So,

um, Jonathan Turley,

who's a great writer, by the way, I love

his writing. Uh, he says, "Are you not

entertaining? Democrats announced new

impeachment games to draw midterm

voters."

And the funny part is that the thing he

would be impeached for if it happened

would be using the military without uh

the kind of approval

that you would want to have from

Congress. Uh but the awkward thing is

that the so-called designated liars on

the Democrat side uh have so recently

had the opposite point of view than the

one that they want to have. What I mean

by that is that um you know some of the

some of the prominent Democrats have

said that Maduro has to go

and then when Maduro goes they're like

well you know you did it wrong and they

forget that there have been Democrat

presidents who have also acted

militarily

um when it made sense to do so without

Congress's approval. So, if they were to

impeach Trump

for doing what they'd been in favor of

and had been doing, I don't know how

they pulled that off. I mean, they would

be using the designated liars, but that

only works for TV.

You know, once you put the designated

liars under oath, you know, there would

be questions like, "Has any Democrat

president ever used military force

without Congress's approval?" And the

answer would be, uh, yeah, bunch of

times.

And were they impeached for it? No. No.

Never impeached for it. So, it's going

to be a an awkward and entertaining

uh thing if they if they do that.

Anyway,

um, so there's a new poll Daily Mail is

reporting in which they're asking people

about their opinion of the Venezuelan

kidnapping action. And what they found

was, well, let's see if you could guess

how many people in the poll said it was

an outright failure what Trump did in

Venezuela. Outright failure. What

percent said that? I'll bet you can get

the answer.

Okay, you know the answer. 25%.

25%.

If you're new to me, I'm always teasing

the fact that in any poll on any topic,

25% will have the stupidest answer.

Just batshit crazy. Now, I could

understand if your opinion was, you

know, we shouldn't have done it.

You know, you you can make an argument

for that because that would be based on

history and a regime change not working

out. Not crazy to be on the other side

of it, right? But there will always be

25%

who just are bashing crazy and can't see

the difference between a big win and a

big loss. Here it is again, 25%.

And I always wonder if you see somebody

in that 25%.

What else do they get wrong?

Do they get wrong all kinds of stuff all

the time and we just don't notice? Are

they Are they wrong about every other

topic? Are they literally the stupid

ones? Oops.

Cat, get away from my food.

I got to protect

Got to protect my food.

Thank you. Unfortunately, I have a cat

wrangler here. Multiple cat wranglers.

All right.

There's a Stanford writing program

that's been accused of uh putting

ideology over core skills. The New York

Post is reporting on this. So apparently

if you took a a reading course it would

incorporate anti- ice stuff, racial

identity politics and all male drag

shows

uh resulting in criticism from a leading

education watchdog.

Now of course the uh people behind it

are not going to call it that. They're

not going to call it the we're going to

make you more woke class.

But it looks like that's what it is. So

they've got courses with names such as

language, identity, and power where

students are instructed according to the

uh website to explore this intersection

across spheres such as politics,

education, medicine, and media spaces

intertwined with forces like

globalization, immigration, and the

rapid development of new technologies.

You know, it's hard for me to believe a

human wrote that.

Doesn't that just sound like some

a robot would say? Anyway, so

if you dreamed of DEI and wokeness being

destroyed by the Trump administration,

that didn't happen. But the wokeness

just burrowed itself deeper into the

systems.

However, what is different is that

people like me can point it out. So we

have enough free speech that we can say,

hey, you know, that set of courses is

total

That's something, you know, it's not

nothing.

Well, let's see how the leading lights

of the Democrat party are getting along.

Jasmine Crockus says, "F you to the

Supreme Court over Texas redistricting."

Fox News is reporting that.

[clears throat]

Hm.

FU to the Supreme Court. That's another

example where Democrats followed Trump's

um his pattern of swearing, but they

don't know how to do it right. Once

again, she just inserts a swear word

where it's not really helping

that. And she acts like the dumbest

person in the Democrat party, but I'm

sure she's not. Yeah, I think she's got

some advanced degrees and stuff, but she

sure acts dumb

and can't even swear. Right.

Well, I got to take a sip before I give

you this one.

This is a beauty.

You should take a sip, too.

I'm not making this up.

Uh Candace Owens

is telling about her longunning

conspiracy theory that there are

sentinel human hybrids because she

watched the X-Men cartoons as a child.

So what she's saying is that there are

some people among us who are part human

and part machine already.

She goes better. She also names names.

She claims Elon Musk, Peter Teal, Mark

Zuckerberg, Palmer Lucky, etc., and

other Renaissance men are half machine.

She's not sure if they bleed.

Uh, but she can tell that they don't

they don't know how to act like human

beings.

Have you heard that before?

Well, here's my take.

Candace Owens is so entertaining.

If you accept her her hypothesis as some

kind of fact, you know, you're probably

not on board at all. But if you look at

her entire package of content and you

say, "What's the what's the most

entertaining thing you could hear?"

Well, she's really good at that. She

knows how to make something

entertaining. And sure enough, once

again, she did.

I I could not look away as soon as I saw

the title of it. Oh, I'm going to click

on that.

Now, what you don't know is that I was

also influenced

by the X-Men.

And you probably noticed

that uh that I'm now a duplicate of

Professor X.

I'm a wheelchairbound

bald guy.

that people listen to.

So, I might be an X-Men.

How else could you describe my

incredible predictions?

All right, here's one that's got too

many names in it.

Wall Street apes is reporting this that

the Heritage Foundation

um exposed the fact that Hugo Chavez,

see too many names already, was working

with Nicholas Maduro, three names, to

fund political descents in America and

provide the money to start Black Lives

Matter, four names. So the claim is that

when Chavez was alive, he gave one of

the founders of BLM a million dollars

for street protest in America and that

[clears throat] after receiving the

money uh just months later BLM was

founded and started creating unrest in

America and that BLM directly works with

Democrats even using the act blue

fundraiser thing. up like five names.

That means that regimes in Cuba and

Venezuela

worked with democratic operatives

to fund chaos and protest in America.

[clears throat]

Uh which suggests

that the Democratic Party is literally

working to bring down America,

not just to win, but to bring down

America.

And the Venezuelan cartel that was

headed by Maduro before he was arrested

was trying to create problems inside the

United States. It was a Cuban plan.

Okay, there's another name to flood our

streets with narcotics to undermine

America from within.

So

Hugo Chabas

Black Lives Matter

aided by Act Blue. that might be

sketches

and then uh Cuba and Venezuela working

with Democrats to take down America.

That's the sort of story that I would

not have understood or andor believed a

few years ago. I'm not going to say that

I completely believe this because it's a

little bit, you know, a little bit on

the nose kind of stuff, but it looks

very believable.

In terms of credibility, I would say,

well,

maybe because we live in that weird

world where anything could have

happened.

Anything could happen.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, I seem

to have stayed awake until the end of my

prepared remarks.

Um, I'm going to shut down a little bit

early

uh only from the uh

uh only from the main feed, but I'll be

talking privately to my beloveds on

locals. So, locals, let's do a little

more brainstorming. We were doing some

brainstorming before. And the rest of

you, I hope to see you tomorrow.

I hope you got something out of this.