oxytocin, and maybe your serotonin too. And it goes like this. So good.

All right, let's talk about the news today. We're going to start with a theme. The theme is, wait for it, how smart this audience is. You're going to be amazed at yourselves. Stop it, stop it. You're answering the questions before I even ask them. How do you do it? But we're going to take it out of the realm of just polling to see if you can generalize this ability to other things, not just polling. Because I know you can guess poll answers miraculously. If you don't believe that this audience can guess the result of a poll without seeing it, I'm going to demonstrate it now. Watch.

Rasmussen did a poll, a brand new poll, talking about Biden's age and what percentage of the respondents who were likely voters don't think Biden's age poses a serious problem for his re-election chances. How did you do that? You're all correct. It's 25 percent. 25 percent. Wow. All right, but that was an easy one. That was an easy one. Don't get too cocky. I want to see if you can do this next one. Okay. The news is reporting that the ocean has warmed up considerably, a very unusual amount of warming somewhere suddenly. Here's your next question. Did the climate models predict this recent warming? Well, how did you know that? No, they didn't. But how did you know that? Oh, how do you do this? How are you all right? Yes, the scientists are baffled because their models did not see this coming. All right, so that's happening.

There was a top progressive prosecutor who quit in St. Louis. So this is one of your progressive prosecutors who's getting a lot of pushback for being soft on crime, according to her critics. So this is Ms. Gardner. Ms. Gardner said she's going to quit. The pressure from the public and politicians was too great, and she's out of there. Now, interesting side note: Ms. Gardner was the city's first black circuit attorney. Here's the question for you. All right, this is going to be tougher. Each of these questions will get harder than the one before. Did she claim that the real problem was racism against her? You're three for three. How do you do it? You've got to teach me how you do this. Every one of these stories was a complete mystery to me. I had no idea how many people would think Joe Biden's age had no difference whatsoever, but it was 25 percent. And then I didn't see this coming. These are all surprises to me.

All right, let's talk about Bud Light. So apparently the pushback against the Anheuser-Busch company was pretty strong. I didn't realize how strong it was, but some of it is not advised, including a bomb threat on one of their facilities. I guess Anheuser-Busch is giving bonuses to their drivers because the delivery people are losing money because there aren't as many orders of Bud Light. I guess two top executives lost their jobs over the pushback because they made the special can for Dylan Mulvaney, trans activist, I guess you'd say, or a trans celebrity or something. And so I guess this raises another question. Do men have any fight left in them? Yes. Turns out men have some fight left in them. Were you worried? Did it seem like men just gave up? Because I feel like we've gone through a period where men just said, well, you can have whatever you want. All right, sure. Just leave me alone. All right, you can have that. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I don't like that, but you can do that. Yeah, yeah. Okay, you can take something from me. Yeah, I don't mind. Yeah. 2023, I'm going to declare as the "you" year. This is the year that men said "you." This is the year that men said we're going to put the brakes on. Went too far. Too far. I will quit my job to make this point. Tucker Carlson might have some things to say. Bud Light is finding out that they pushed too far. Just too far. It's too far. Congratulations.

All right, here's another one. See if you can guess. There's a new study about test scores. Do you think, all right, so there's a new result about test scores for eighth grade students in the U.S. You haven't seen the story probably, but see if you can guess. Did scores improve or get worse? Improve or get worse? You did it again. They got worse. It's amazing. I don't even think we need AI anymore. Clearly you're all advanced intelligence because you know the news before any of it is even reported. How do you do it? Yeah, it's way worse. Now, one of the things that is not reported in this, but I can throw this in the mix from my own experience. Now this may be a California thing more than other places, but remember California and some of the southern states, Florida for example, even New York, big immigration destinations, and they're big population centers. Now I can tell you that in the local schools where I live there are a number of new immigrant students who don't speak English. You know, they're trying to learn English at the same time they're trying to go to school. Now obviously they're not going to do as well. Obviously, right? Through nobody's fault. Well, maybe Biden's fault, but I didn't see that calculated into the news. But I can verify that at least locally it's a big drag on the average scores. Why would you leave that out of the reporting? Now I don't know if that accounts for a little of it or a lot. I don't know. But it's very obviously in effect. If you put a bunch of people who can't speak English into English-speaking classes, what are you going to expect? It's going to be exactly what you think it is.

Now that doesn't mean there's any problem. It actually doesn't, because the immigrants tend to be good citizens. Maybe it takes a generation before they catch up, but they're very intent on catching up, right? The people I don't worry about are the people who went to school, started from behind, but have every intention of improving their lives. Give me all of those. I'll take all the people who are very intent on improving their lives and willing to make great risks and sacrifices to do it. I like that. Give me some more of that. It is very expensive in the short run, but they're good people who are going to add a lot. So that's my opinion.

All right. Glenn Beck had an interesting comment about the firing of Tucker Carlson. Although he's technically not fired, he's just not on a show. And I didn't know this before, but BlackRock, as you know, BlackRock, the enormous financial entity, is the big promoter of ESG, right? So ESG would be equity, racial equity, other kinds of equity as well, and also environmental stuff. Now what I didn't know is that BlackRock owns 45 million shares of Fox News. Is that a lot? 45 million shares, is that enough to influence Fox News? Because what Glenn Beck left off is what percentage of the company that is. 45 million, a lot? Would that give them some kind of control over management? I don't know. I actually don't know the answer to that. I don't know if that's a lot or not. I mean it's a lot in raw money. I don't know if it's a lot in terms of control of the company.

Okay, I knew this wouldn't take long. So people are doing the math already. I have such a smart audience. So people are saying 15 percent, 9 percent, somewhere in that range. That's somewhere in that range is definitely where they can start influencing management. Would you agree? If you own that much stock you probably do have some little bit of control. No, I haven't mentioned Tucker's plans yet. So does this seem like a coincidence to you? Because Glenn Beck is surfacing this, and I think this is really good journalism, if I could call it that, because this is what I needed to know. Like this is right on point for understanding what's happening. Now it might not be the big variable, so I'm not saying it's the one thing that caused things to happen. I'm just saying that if you were BlackRock and the biggest problem you had with your ESG was, what was the single biggest problem that BlackRock had? Tucker Carlson. He was their single biggest problem because he was on a nightly basis injecting skepticism into climate and ESG, and he was the only one brave enough, you know, to walk out on that limb. So what did BlackRock do fairly recently? I don't know how many months or years ago, but fairly recently they bought up all this stock in Fox News, and then Tucker Carlson went away. Is that a coincidence? The entity which he criticized the most bought an interest in his company, and then he was let go. I don't know. I mean I think you can make an argument that it's not related. You can make the argument. But follow the money is just so predictable, you know.

I'll remind you of this again. The weird thing about saying "follow the money," and I write about this in my upcoming book, is that it works when it shouldn't work. Like your logic says, okay, I understand money is part of the story, but there's no way that the money is driving the story because there's so many other bigger elements than money, right? There's the saving the world and the future of the planet and the children, and yeah, they're much bigger interests than just the money. But why does the money always predict what's going to happen if it's not the biggest variable? I don't know why. It's just an observation over the course of my life that people will argue any lofty ideals, but then if you want to predict where it's going to end up, just look at their wallet. It's all there. It goes where their wallet goes. People follow their wallet. They don't talk like it, but they do. So I'm not going to go so far as to say that this is the whole explanation of the Tucker Carlson thing.

Oh, I'm just getting news that BlackRock has bought Locals. No, that's not true. I'm just, so a comment there, that's not true, but it'd be funny if it happened. All right, so I'll keep an eye on that. There is reporting, rumors, I say just rumors because I'm not sure that Tucker Carlson's made any decisions. He's probably just examining his options. But the rumors say that he's considering hosting some kind of forum for the GOP presidential candidates, or maybe just candidates, not necessarily just presidential. And what would you think of that? Suppose he does an interview show in which he focuses on Republicans. Because why would he have to focus on Republicans? Because the Democrats won't show up. I'm sure he's going to invite them, don't you think? But realistically they're not going to go. Now what if he could get some, you know what, it'd be interesting. I'll bet he could get AOC. I bet he could. Do you know why? I saw an article on this. It was a, I forget where it was, Politico maybe or The Hill, someplace. But the article suggested that Tucker is kind of an outlier because he does things that are clearly popular with progressives, which is, you know, doubting the elites. So Tucker has pushed back on the elites in the corporate power centers. It's very similar in kind to the progressives who also want to push back on the elites and the power centers and the Wall Street people. So he has a weird Venn diagram. The Venn diagrams, I love Venn diagrams. So he has a weird intersection at least with his Venn diagram with some progressives. Enough, enough possibly there's somebody like AOC who would say, yeah, I'll come on there and talk about how big companies are bad. He might actually get progressives to go on the show. Now I don't think he could have done that on Fox News as readily, because imagine if Tucker platformed a bunch of Democrats on his show on Fox News. The audience would have revolted. They would put up with a little bit of it as long as he was tough on them, but they wouldn't put up with it as a regular event. But maybe now he has that option. I don't know if he's building his own audience. Apparently he totally controlled the 25 to 55 demographic. So that'll be interesting.

And apparently he's talked to President Trump about hosting some, say, a debate. But I don't know about that. Would you watch a debate between, let's say, Ramaswamy and Trump hosted by Tucker Carlson? Hell to the yeah. How could you not watch that? Are you kidding me? Now do you think that Trump would agree to it? Because Trump has some risks there. He has some risk. Yeah. I don't know that it would be a tough call. So here's what Trump would have to decide. On one hand he loves publicity and it would be the biggest event of the year. Am I wrong? I think it'd be the biggest event of the year, news event of a scheduled program. So how does Trump avoid the biggest news event of the year? Because at the moment Tucker is wildly popular with his base, wouldn't you say? And as we know that Tucker has been tough on Trump because we've seen his private messages. But we've also heard that they've lately gotten along. And both Tucker and Trump are an odd kind of person. There's one thing they both have in common. See if you'd agree. Now I don't know them well enough to know that this is true, but from the outside, from the outside it appears they have this in common. They can talk to anybody. Am I right? Tucker and Trump can talk to anybody, and they would treat them with respect until, you know, something changed of course. And they would actually listen to them, actually fully give respect to their opinion before disagreeing if they did. But they're very unusual like that. They're two people who can walk into the lion's den and the lion has to worry. You know what I mean? I'm going to say that again because I liked it so much. Tucker and Trump are two people who can walk into a lion's den and the lion is the one that gets nervous. It's very unusual. There's not a lot of people who you could describe that way. All right, so I think they're a natural pair at least for publicity and for career reasons. So I'd watch it.

All right. New York Times and others reporting that there is a surprising number of new jobs. So the economists were expecting things not to be so good, maybe the economy cooling down. But instead of cooling down as the Fed would like it to cool down, the reason the Fed raises rates is to slow down the economy. The reason they slow down the economy is to keep inflation capped at some level. Does everybody understand that? I know I have the smartest audience in the world, but I always think that whenever the Fed comes up, 80 to 90 percent of the audience goes, uh, I'll wait till this is over because I don't know what the Federal Reserve is. I don't think anybody knows what the Federal Reserve is. I have a degree in economics, so I still look at it and go, I don't know what this is. I honestly don't know what it is. I can tell you what they do. I can tell you their function. But it all just seems hard to understand even if you know what they do. It's hard to understand. It's weird. So it makes me very suspicious of the whole thing. But I don't have any specific accusations anyway.

Here's your next question. So the number of jobs was 253,000 in April, which was a pretty big upswing. Nobody expected it. Question: Will the job numbers be revised downward in future months? Will the numbers be revised upwards or downwards? You're right again. Now I can't see the future, but generally they get revised down, and that's been the pattern lately. So we'll wait. I've got a feeling that you're going to be brilliantly on point once again. I think you nailed it. But here's the good news. America probably has some of the top economists in the world. I'm not saying the best in the whole world, but among the best economists in the world would be Americans. How many of those Americans correctly estimated that employers would be adding jobs in April? Well, not too many. Not too many. 25 percent? No, I don't know the number. I don't know the number so I can't check that. But here's what's great. All those professional economists, they could not predict employment one month in the future. But you can thank your lucky stars that you live in the country, or at least a civilization, where our scientists can predict the temperature in 30 years. Boom. How about that? Yeah. Economists, they're way overwhelmed. They cannot predict even the most basic variable of the economy one month out. You know why? It turns out the economy is a really complex system. Very complex. Unlike climate change. Climate change is pretty simple. Just look out the window. Looks like it's warm out there. Boom, you're done. No, I'm kidding. They're both complex systems. But one of them we can't guess at all even next month. But the other one, lucky us, lucky us, we can predict that mofo three decades in advance. Boom. So that's all completely believable and makes sense to me.

All right, I'm going to give you a tale of two coups. Tale of two coups. And I want you to see if you can predict which of these two entities got prosecuted. One of them was Antony Blinken and the 50 intel professionals who signed the letter saying that the Hunter laptop was probably Russian disinformation. All right, so that's the first coup attempt because people who know what they're talking about say that probably did affect the vote because polls do say people would have voted differently. So that's one. And the second one is the Proud Boys, a group that's a bunch of racists who are led by a black guy. I don't know, we'll talk about that, but seems weird. And so there I guess there's a result in their trial for January 6. So was it, let's see if you can guess this one, was it Blinken and the 50 intel officers who got prosecuted for their coup attempt to influence the election, or was it the Proud Boys, a racist group led by a black guy, for reasons that people can understand? You all, you're right. You got it again. It's the Proud Boys. Well now that was just a 50-50 jump ball, so maybe you got lucky on this one. Yeah, I'm not going to give you this one. You might have gotten lucky because it was just a 50-50, even though every single one of you got it right, which is good work.

So yes, I was reading in the press how they were trying to explain that the Proud Boys were this alleged white supremacist organization. How do they explain that their leader identifies as Afro-Cuban? How do they explain that? Well let me give you a little bit of a, oh first you should know that the defense of the Proud Boys offered the following defense. Apparently they had planned a concert for their members on the night that January 6 happened. So they actually had a plan, a written organized plan for something that was completely different than attacking on January 6. Their plan was not to attack. Their plan was to have a concert. And then things changed when Trump said he was going to go down there, and then things turned dark. So there were definitely some people who did some bad things who need the Department of Justice to handle them. No doubt about that. But the narrative that they were all part of this big conspiracy? Nope. Turns out that it was more like they had planned the concert but things went a different way.

So I saw Jack Posobiec was saying that it seems clear now that the bad guys are going to try to get Trump for a seditious conspiracy because that's what they got the Proud Boys for, seditious conspiracy. You know what that is, right? Seditious conspiracy. It's almost like the public doesn't even know what that means, so it's like it's safe to use that.

All right, here's CNN trying to explain the Proud Boys and how they have this Afro-Cuban leader and they have other people of color. So he's not the outlier. There are other people of color who are members of the group. And CNN's trying to explain their own reporting, which is this big racist group, but they're trying to explain why they keep reporting they're all racists at the same time they're reporting that an Afro-Cuban guy is their leader and nobody has any problem with that whatsoever. Do you think that's hard to explain? It's a little hard to explain, isn't it? It's a little bit hard to explain. But I'll tell you how they did it. Let's see if you can find something that looks like word salad. Because some would say that this is a perfect setup for cognitive dissonance. Now cognitive dissonance happens when you have a firm opinion of something. Let's say your opinion is that the Proud Boys are a racist organization and you're sure that's true. But then there's a fact which clearly refutes it, which is they have people of color in it and their leader is identified as Afro-Cuban and everybody's fine with that. So how do you explain these two things? Well normally that would trigger you into cognitive dissonance. And a tell for that or a signal would be that if you start talking in word salad, big words kind of put together to form sentences but when you're done you're not sure what it said. So let's see if CNN did that.

I'm going to read you how they explained this dichotomy of this racist group with an Afro-Cuban leader. Here is a sentence I took from their reporting. "The story of how a self-described western chauvinist organization came to be led by an opportunistic Afro-Cuban as Tarrio identifies reveals the way, here it comes, misogyny, violence, perceived grievance and mainstream political connections coalesced within an elastic extremist group and across the extreme fringes of the far right." Was that word salad or was that like a real good description of what's happening? No, it's word salad. Yeah, that's a classic word salad. This is cognitive dissonance in the news. Now how many of you would have recognized that? Would you have recognized the word salad without me pointing it out? You're becoming trained, right? I've trained a lot of you to recognize it. You should have seen this one in the wild without me spotting it.

But it gets better. So this is from CNN also. Quote, "In the Proud Boys' early days, founder Gavin McInnis made his views on white suprem