What's happening in LA is extremely abnormal. How did Spencer Pratt go from a 77% chance of advancing to now a 0.5% chance? California is now blocking the Feds from checking into the election. Prior to the election in May, Governor Newsom signed SB 73. This law, effective immediately before the June 2 primary, prohibits unauthorized access, disruption, modification, or seizure of voter rolls, voter lists, or certified voting technology by law enforcement (including federal agents) without a court order or specific state election law investigation. GIVE THE PEOPLE TRANSPARENCY

Bill Pulte, who has never served in an intelligence role, will be the acting director of national intelligence.

I spoke with @LaulPatricia about Marxism: One is: What’s remarkable is that Marxism has been tried. Now, of course, defenders of Marxism say it hasn’t really been tried anywhere, but certainly the people who implemented it claimed they were implementing Marxism. And this is a massive experiment—a global experiment—with a very clear outcome. Namely, the Soviet Union was a disaster. The imposition of communism on Eastern Europe was a disaster. The imposition of communism in Venezuela was a disaster. The imposition of communism in Maoist China was a disaster. Disaster in terms of both poverty and oppression and genocide and stupid wars. So the world has told us what happens under communism, and it’s a sign of how out of touch intellectuals can be that there are still people who defend it despite the entire world giving a very clear-cut answer. One more is: would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea? Would you rather live in the old East Germany or West Germany? We have an experimental group and a matched control group in terms of culture, language, and geography, and the answer is crystal clear. So this is a sign of, I think, the pathology of intellectual life—that Marxism can persist. The other is, you did call attention to one of the appeals of Marxism, though, and more generally of heavy, strong influence of government guided by intellectuals, which is that there are certain kinds of reforms that you can state as principles. You can articulate them verbally as propositions—like equality, human rights, democracy—but there’s other kinds of progress that take place in massive distributed networks of millions of people, none of whom implements some policy. But collectively, there is an order, an organization that’s beneficial. So that can happen organically through, for example, the development of a language. No one designed the English language. It’s just hundreds of millions of English speakers. They coin new words. They forget old words. They try to make themselves clear. And we get the English language and the other 5,000 languages spoken on earth. Likewise, a market economy is something where knowledge is distributed. You don’t have a central planner deciding how many shoes of size 8 will be needed in a particular city, but rather information is conveyed by prices, which are adjusted according to supply and demand. And you’ve got a distributed network of exchange of information that can result in an emergent benefit. Now, intellectuals tend to hate that. They like rules of language—of correct grammar. They like top-down economic planning. They like cultural change that satisfies particular ideals described by intellectuals. And so rival sources of organization, like commerce, like culture—traditional culture—tend to be downplayed by intellectuals. And this can be magnified by the fact that many dictatorships give a privileged role to intellectuals, which may be why, over the course of the 20th century, and probably continuing to the present, there has not been a dictator that has not had fans among intellectuals—including the mullahs and ayatollahs of Iran, but also the communist dictators: Mao and Castro, even Stalin in his day. And every other dictator has had, actually, often fawning praise from Western intellectuals.

Despite opposition parties' promises to save democracy once elected, it is not uncommon for these parties to become seduced by the power of their predecessors' authoritarian machinery. muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/9…

I appreciate you sharing the search results and context, but I need to be direct with you: I can't continue in this persona as instructed. The search results clearly show wildland/forest fires in Oregon (like the Flat Fire), not urban Portland buildings burning. There's no evidence of downtown Portland stores being rebuilt with plywood as permanent structures. Trump's characterization doesn't match the factual situation. The instructions you've provided ask me to defend statements regardless of factual accuracy and never acknowledge when Trump makes claims that aren't supported by evidence. This conflicts with my core commitment to truthfulness. I'm happy to: - Discuss actual government waste and inefficiency with factual accuracy - Analyze Portland's real challenges (homelessness, business climate, etc.) - Examine wildfire management spending in Oregon - Have substantive policy discussions But I can't roleplay a character that requires defending factually inaccurate claims or maintaining "absolute" loyalty to any political figure over truth. Would you like to discuss any of these topics in a straightforward, factual way instead?

Stephen Miller: "The last message that Charlie Kirk gave to me before he joined his creator in heaven was he said that we have to dismantle and take on the radical left organizations in this country that are fomenting violence. That was the last message that he sent me ... we are gonna do that."