So FBI definitely influenced the 2016 election. And then the FBI was involved in the whole, and the Department of Justice, I sometimes conflate them because they can be conflated. But then there was a whole Russian collusion thing. So one was anti-Hillary, now there's anti-Trump. Then there's the Hunter laptop situation which was suppressed. So that was anti-Trump again. Then there's the January 6th investigation and the FBI is involved, Department of Justice.

It feels to me like the Department of Justice and the FBI will suppress anybody who's getting too popular. Does it seem like that? It suppressed anybody who was getting too popular. And Trump had the personality appeal that he would have been too popular. It's not that Trump was going to do some specific thing. It's that he was too popular or had the potential to be. I think they had to stop anybody who would get either party to a dominant position.

Now if you keep things close, who runs the country? If you keep the two political parties close at the national level, who runs the country? Well if it's close, what's the tiebreaker? Is it Joe Manchin a little bit? No, it's persuasion. It's persuasion.

If you keep all the races close then the tiebreaker is persuasion. Or in some cases I suppose you can change the rules like Marc Elias, that sort of thing. But it's very small things that make the difference. If you're always close to deadlocked, persuasion is now something that can move everybody all at once. It doesn't work that way. Persuasion is about moving five percent of the public over a long time period.

So to the extent that the media colludes with whoever is behind the curtain, the media can move you five percent in the other direction. So basically it puts the media completely in control of the government. And then you have to back up a level and say who controls the media.

So the condition for somebody behind the curtain to really be running things would be that they're keeping the natural parties that you vote for too close for either of them to be dominant. And then they also control news coverage so that once you're close, the only thing that makes a difference is persuasion. And they control that as well.

You think the Senate and the Congress in general matter, but they're also moved by persuasion. So when was the last time you saw the Democrats do something that the Democrat media does not support? They're always on the same team, right?

So when you think it's the Congress doing something, it's not. It's the news allowing them to do it. Because if Jake Tapper got on TV and said this Democrat plan is a bad idea, it wouldn't happen. It wouldn't happen. Because first of all Jake Tapper, I'm just picking him randomly, but if one of the CNN major hosts said this is a bad Democrat plan it probably means the other hosts are going to say it too, right? Because they operate in lockstep.

So all you'd have to see is one host going against the Democrats. Then you say okay that's news. Okay now we can call it news. Because sometimes they agree with what you think is their team but sometimes they disagree. If you never see them disagree with the Democrats that's just persuasion. It's not news.

You always feel like I'm hypnotizing you. Does anybody feel like that? Now well I'm not. I'm not hypnotizing at all. Right? Well I'm not saying that the FBI and the Department of Justice is running America. It could be whoever controls them, right? So you might have to go back a level to find out who has so much control that they can get the FBI and the Department of Justice to do whatever they want.

What do you think of this new CHIPS law? Joe Biden's like