I think it's a little bit too much. Yeah if you focus on the anecdotal it ends up feeling like the entire community is somehow painted with the same brush and I resist that. We don't need to do that. Statistics should get to the same place.

Rasmussen reports says that 65% of voters, likely voters, say the feds were likely provoked the January 6 Capitol riot. So roughly two-thirds of Americans think this January 6 thing was an op. How did we get all the way to two-thirds? Is it because they've learned more since then and they trust the government less? This surprises me. I would have thought that the number who would have said the feds likely provoked the January 6 Capitol riot I would have said that would be mid-30s if I'd never seen any polling. But 65% think this is sketchy. Maybe America's just wising up.

64% believe the FBI is politically weaponized. Yes. And 53% say the FBI is used as quote Biden's personal Gestapo. 53%. Now that obviously is mostly Republicans but they still picked up some independents.

Wall Street Mav is reporting that the government's revising their economic numbers that made Biden look so good but it turns out they're all fake. So the government initially reported in second quarter of 2024 that they had gained 653,000 jobs but actually they lost jobs. Now that's what I call a revision. From up 653,000 jobs to it's actually negative. Did we say it was positive? It was actually negative. Not negative 653 but it was negative. They also revised the 800,000 jobs that allegedly were gained last year. And Wall Street Mav says they falsified the data to help Biden-Harris. And Elon Musk responded to that post and he said quote how can the data systems be so bad? How can the data systems be so bad?

So you know me I've been saying that all data is fake if it matters. If it's random data that nobody cares about and there's no stakes involved it might be right it might be. But if it's important data such as the number of jobs created so you can determine what president you want to pick, like really important stuff like climate change and the economy and the climate and immigration numbers, those are all fake. And I've never done a good job of explaining why all the data that matters is fake. It's not a coincidence. Here's why. Because if data matters it matters to somebody's money or it matters to their power or both. So data that doesn't matter doesn't need to be falsified because why would you do that? You know it might be wrong accidentally but you're not going to falsify it intentionally. No point. It's not even important. But if it's the difference between your party winning and you having a job and getting rich versus getting nothing, oh yeah you'll fake the data and you will reliably do it pretty much every time. And all you have to do is fiddle with the assumptions and the data follows. So design is destiny.

If you create a system in which you don't get punished for lying with data this is the important the key. So remember this part. If the system doesn't punish anyone for wrong data and there are gigantic advantages to intentionally creating wrong data which you can always hide your intention by saying I just made some different assumptions than other people but I can defend my assumption because you can defend a lot of assumptions, the system as it's designed is guaranteed to make all the data that matters fake. The system guarantees it in every domain. Not just healthcare not just finance not just climate change. The current system guarantees that all important data is fake.

Now there's one exception. The one exception would be if it's internal company data and the people who created the data did it to make more money. If using accurate data helped you make more money and get more power then you would do that. So if it's all within a company and you're an engineer and you're collecting some data you want the right answer right. The right answer is what's going to help your career. The company itself might want to lie but as an engineer you just want the right answer. So in those cases the data is correct but it's localized to the company. As soon as the CEO starts talking he might say something that's a little different from the engineer. And if the CEO said something that's not true and people invested because of it and he just said oops I guess I had some data wrong, does the CEO get fired? No. Does a CEO go to jail? No. Do any of the people who were involved in these revisions of numbers, somebody had to make a mistake, do any of them get punished? No. So why would they ever stop doing it if it works and nobody ever gets punished? You should expect it would be universally applied eventually.

So I don't know how many ways I can say this. If the data matters it also matters to people's money and their power and under those situations you could expect them to lie about the data every time as long as they knew they wouldn't be punished and that's the case. They won't be punished. I would go further and say that if the government was lying about jobs and it was part of a coordinated effort to keep Trump out of office it feels like it contributes to a RICO case. You know if I look at the way the Democrats operated over the last several years it just looks like a criminal organization and I don't see the same thing on the Republican side nor is anybody even accusing them as far as I know.

On the Republican side I can name some names. I probably won't. No I will. Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham. So if Mitch McConnell or Lindsey Graham say something that sounds sketchy to me where they come up with some data I'm not really going t