tupid or evil and you don't think you're stupid and you don't think you're evil. That's what triggers cognitive dissonance. When there's a disconnect between what you're doing or experiencing and what you believe to be true. And then your brain spontaneously comes up with a story that usually sounds ridiculous to observers.

So here's the test. Are the MSNBC hosts experiencing the situation in which there's strong indication that they are the bad guys? Have they created a situation where it's becoming somewhat obvious that they're the bad guys and that they might be stupid and they might be evil? Would you agree that that's sort of becoming obvious now? What would smart people with normal brains, you don't need any mental illness, just a normal brain, what would they do in that situation? Well, they would hallucinate that the real problem is something else so that they're off the hook. And so they snapped to grid on Trump. It's like why do you have a bunion on your toe? Trump. Trump. Why does it look like it's going to rain today? Trump. So you've got this little Trump reflex that they've developed because everything's Trump's fault.

But the tell, the way you can tell it's cognitive dissonance as opposed to just a different opinion, is that the people who are not experiencing the cognitive dissonance look at it and they say, "Are you drunk? I mean are you on mushrooms or something? Because your opinion is so disconnected from any kind of reality that surely you can tell that you're completely on the wrong page." But they act like they can't. And that's cognitive dissonance. They're probably not acting. They're probably actually having an experience in which their brain has calculated somehow that they're innocent.

So here's the test. When they say that the reason that that guy killed Charlie Kirk is because of Trump's rhetoric, does that sound, well, maybe that could be true? Is that how you think of it? And even if his rhetoric is what caused people to get worked up, what rhetoric is that? Is it where he said, "I'm going to protect you people in the United States by sealing the border"? Is that the part? How about the part where he said, "I'm going to reduce crime for all you poor people, especially poor Black people living in DC and now Memphis"? Is that the part? You know, what was the dangerous rhetoric?

So anyway, yeah, cognitive dissonance. And then of course we're all trying to keep score and the people on the right are positive that the political violence is almost but not completely limited to the left, right? How many of you believe that to be true? That the political violence is largely, not 100%, but largely on the left. Well, I'm not even sure yet because these stories are all a little, you know, the various stories all have a little wrinkle to them.

For example, the guy who tried to kill Governor Shapiro in Pennsylvania, he tried to burn his house down and probably wanted to kill his family. That was somebody who was mad about him being pro-Israel or anti-Israel, being maybe too pro-Israel. But it was something about Israel. So it wasn't even about left or right, you know, because the left and the right are kind of mixed on Israel. It wasn't even that. So how do you score that one? Is that the left or the right when it really was a specific issue?

What about the guy who dressed as a police officer and killed or shot two different families, right, that were both in politics? But that was over, I think that was over a specific issue, wasn't it? Was it over abortion or something? But I'm not sure. Do you count the ones where somebody is mad at a specific issue like Israel or like Ukraine or like abortion? Is that the same as saying it's a leftist or is that just somebody who's got this real issue with this one issue? I don't know. But it feels like the violence is coming from the left. I don't know if the people on the right feel like it's coming from the right. They might. They have different news, so maybe they think that. I don't know.

But we don't really have, if anybody's done it yet, I'd like to see it, but a really good accounting of how much of this is from the left versus the right. It seems to me, and let me ask you this question. I asked my Locals subscribers earlier, but I'm going to put it out to the rest of you. Who is the first person in sort of the political talking head world, who's the first person you ever heard say if the Democrats keep talking about Hitler and fascists that it's going to turn violent? Who's the first person who told you that's going to happen? Might have been me. It might have been me. And that would be informed by my background in hypnosis. If the words start to converge in a certain way, the words cause action. You know, words are thoughts and thoughts become action.

And then Greg Gutfeld was saying it on The Five and on his show. Gutfeld has the bigger platform. So he's the one who made it a common thought. But now it's the only thing we're arguing about. It's the number one issue in the country is that that rhetoric is causing violence.

Now, you remember when I told you that when Trump back in 2015, I predicted that Trump would change more than politics, that he would change our very view of reality. This is one of those times. Once you understand that words are the basis of your brain, you know we think in words, that if you change the words you change the thinking, that's why people are always arguing use my definition of the word. I say it's a genocide. If they can get you to accept their word then it changes your thinking. So words change thinking. The way you think of it is that you think and then you come up with the words to describe what you think. Not the case. We're a lot like AI and large language models. The words come first. If your brain has a certain set of words in it that it accesses more easily or first, that's where your thinking is going to end up. It'll end up where your words are. So that's a hypnotist take. So yes, this rhetoric is absolutely lethal.

MSNBC is going all in on this, Trump's fault. And then you've got Jasmine Crockett, Democrat Jasmine Crockett. She falsely claimed, I guess she was on The Breakfast Club maybe yesterday, and she says that both attempted Trump assassins were registered Republicans and had not voted Democrat. Now that is completely made up. That's not true. How in the world did she imagine that the attempted assassins were Republicans? So I believe she got fact-checked on that. I think Charlamagne may have fact-checked her on that. Then she doubled down on calling Trump a quote wannabe Hitler. She said it again. She said it yesterday while Charlie Kirk is in a box. He's not even in the ground yet. And she decided that that was all right. I'll say that again. And she argues that calling Trump a Nazi Hitler kind of guy is no worse than when Trump said I could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.

Everybody who heard him say that knew that he was making a hyperbole, a statement. Not a single person said, "Hey, I've got an idea. Why don't we shoot people on Fifth Avenue because our leader thinks he can do it, so why don't we do it? Let's go shoot some people on Fifth Avenue." No. Not a single person in the whole world thought that that was a call to violence. And listening to Jasmine Crockett, the stupidest person in the Democrat party, I do think she might be the dumbest person in the entire party. But at least Charlamagne tha God, who is the host of The Breakfast Club, he admitted on the show where Jasmine was that he has engaged in rhetoric that could be determined as inciting violence against Trump. He said, "I think we all incite whether we think we do or not." And what I mean by that is I've definitely called that regime fascist. And he said if you hear somebody call him Hitler, if there's somebody that thinks, "Oh, Hitler." And then they look at a lot of actions that are going on, they're like, "Well, let's prevent this before a million people get killed." So I can understand how it all incites violence.

Good for you. I have to say I have continuous mixed feelings about Charlamagne tha God. I certainly agree with some of his takes and I appreciate that he's taking the both obvious and the honest take that there is something about our language that probably causes some action we don't w