ur brain. Your brain is physically different if you do a lot of ayahuasca, but apparently it's a positive.

But it did not help, and this part surprised me, it didn't help anxiety, depression, or general mood in the long run, probably in the short run. But the other hallucinogens like the mushroom type, I think that there's more indication that they last. But the ayahuasca will make you more emotionally resilient, which would be an amazing quality to have if you could build it. I don't recommend it. I'm just telling you what's out there.

Well, X is apparently going to make a change so that you can tell what country the poster is from. I feel like that would be really helpful. Wouldn't you like to know if the post came from China or Israel or some other country that's in the news? That seems like a good idea to me. I'd like that. They're going to have to do a lot more to make the comments trustable, but that would probably help.

You may have seen this already that the percentage of people claiming to be trans among young people, so this is only a poll of young people, the number of people who claim to be trans is plunging. It's gone way down. But the number of people claiming to be gay or lesbian, somewhat unchanged. What does that tell you? If the trans identifiers have gone way down, far less of them just in the last year or two, but the gay and lesbian stayed the same. Well, it tells me that gay and lesbian is real. And trans was always a mass hysteria.

How many of you knew from the beginning that the trans thing was a mass hysteria? And mass hysteria might be slightly wrong description, but you know what I mean, that there was a psychological phenomenon and not a biological phenomenon. Pretty much all of you knew that, right? For some of you, this might be your first identifiable mass hysteria. The more of these you see, the easier it is to spot them. And I've been trying to teach you how to do this for years. But TDS is of course another mass hysteria. And even TDS is starting to give way because of Trump's recent successes and the fact that you just sort of get used to his personality and then it becomes just part of the show.

I think Trump's personality went from "Oh my God, we can't have a president who says and does things like that. No, no, look what he said again. Oh my God, did he say that?" And then you just get used to it. And now we're at the point where he says outrageously provocative things and even his critics just sort of give up on it. It's like, yeah, okay, that's just what he does. Does it work? Well, apparently there's more upside than downside for Trump being Trump. So yeah, you'll learn to spot these mass hysterias.

However, let's see if you think this is a competing number or not. So if you knew that trans is way down and you knew that gay and lesbian was stable, what would you make of the fact that at Brown University one in three people identify as LGBTQ? Do you know why the number is so big? That one in three people at Brown are LGBT? Well, one hypothesis which I think is right on is that young females still find it trendy. I feel like it's trendy. It's not a mass hysteria. It's just trendy to say that, well, you know, I'm a little bit bisexual. If I met a woman that I fell in love with, you know, I could imagine that maybe something would happen there. So I think it has to do with women, young women saying, "Yeah, no problem. If I fell in love with somebody of the same sex, you know, I'm not exactly gay or bi, but if it happened, it happened." So I think that's what's happening. The one in three is mostly young women.

All right. Let's talk about Letitia James. So Letitia James, you all know who she is. She's the one who tried to lawfare Trump into jail, but she's got her own lawfare problems with alleged banking fraud for her several mortgages. Anyway, she appeared in front of some group and got like a hero's welcome. And I thought to myself, how do you get a hero's welcome for being accused of being a gigantic fraud while also being the attorney general? Like, how? But apparently she had lots of supporters and she was quite happy to raise her hand and what if she were Elon Musk, they would call a Nazi salute, but instead she was just waving to the crowd.

But Jonathan Turley, one of my favorite observers of anything, had a good comment on X about her. Jonathan Turley says, "Letitia James declared yesterday, this was at the event, that her indictment is nothing more than a desperate weaponization of our justice system." And Turley says, "It is like Katie Porter objecting to a hostile workplace." That's a good line. The fact that the audience applauded rather than laughed is the ultimate test of rage politics. Yeah, that's a perfect comment, Jonathan Turley. I'm going to mention him again later. He's so good.

You remember Jack Smith? What do you call him? A special counsel or whatever he was. So he was investigating Trump and he went on MSNBC. He was talking to Andrew Weissmann, who Molly Hemingway reminds us was the architect of the Russia collusion hoax. Now, what two people could be less credible than Jack Smith talking to Andrew Weissmann on MSNBC? If you were to try to come up with a movie plot of the two least credible people in the least credible place saying the least credible things, it would look a lot like that.

So Jack Smith actually said in real words that the idea that politics would play a role in his cases against Trump is quote "absolutely ludicrous." It's ludicrous to imagine that politics had anything to do with lawfaring Trump. No, it's ludicrous. What are you crazy? Stop looking at me like that. That's crazy talk. And not only do I know it's crazy talk, but Andrew Weissmann would totally agree with me on MSNBC. So that was wonderfully insane.

In other funny news, Representative Anna Paulina Luna, I don't know exactly what her role is in Congress, but apparently she's been given the portfolio of all the secrets, stuff like UFOs and secret files. So she has some kind of role with the government secrets. But as part of that, she was offered and has accepted, I think she already has them, a bunch of files from Russia on the topic of their own investigation of who killed JFK. Now, how much would you trust Russia's assessment of who killed JFK? Does that seem like something credible to you? Especially in today's day and age, it's possible. But even if they're telling the truth, how much truth do they know? Would Russia have access to more accurate information or simply be willing to say it whereas maybe the US people would lie about it? I don't know.

But I haven't seen the details, but I saw a suggestion that the Russians thought LBJ and the CIA conspired to kill Kennedy. Now, that's what I think. I mean, that this sort of matches my opinion. Other people will say Israel is behind it because we say Israel's behind everything. I don't know about that. I know the argument. The argument is that Kennedy was doing things that Israel didn't like, such as trying to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. Well, that would be a very big risk to murder our president because they didn't like something. So I'm generally going to say that I just don't believe a foreign country is going to take a chance of murdering our president if there's any chance of getting caught. And there's always a chance of getting caught. You can't murder somebody in public and then just assume you won't get caught because you rapidly killed the shooter itself. I mean, there's just no way you could assume you wouldn't get caught. But you could imagine CIA and LBJ thinking maybe they could cover it up because that would be an inside job. But if i