Filtered with TJ Walker FAST 24/7 | 🌅Ultamize

unraveling for Donald Trump. Poll numbers slipping, independents backing away, even some supporters starting to look around like they accidentally joined a chat they can't leave. You can feel it. The tone has changed. It's no longer, "He's strong." It's, "Is this guy just winging it?" Because this doesn't look strategic. This looks like someone lit a match tossed it into a pile of fireworks and is now standing around saying, "Relax, I've got tremendous instincts." Yeah, so does a toddler near a stove. So let's ask the only question that matters. How does this thing end? Because right now there's no clear off-ramp, no defined objective, at least one that stays consistent for longer than 10 minutes. Just escalation layered on top of more escalation. Like a Netflix series that should have ended 3 seasons ago but keeps getting renewed because nobody wants to admit it's a mistake. Now imagine just for a moment that the United States actually functioned like a system built on accountability. Not loyalty, not spin, not let's just ride this out and hope people forget, but accountability. In that world, people would be asking a very uncomfortable question. Did the president just cross a constitutional line? If the answer is yes, there is a mechanism, the 25th Amendment. The vice president, J.D. Vance, and a majority of the cabinet can remove a president who is unable to discharge the duties of the office, perhaps because he's crazy. It's not a revolution, it's not chaos, it's paperwork. Which ironically is the one thing Washington usually loves. Is this alternative reality? Look, they use it. Trump is removed calmly, legally, constitutionally, which would already make it the most shocking political moment in modern history. And then brace yourself for something even crazier. The cabinet does not go on television and say, this is actually a win. They say something like this: we were a part of this, we got it wrong, we are all resigning. An entire administration resigning out of shame? Okay, that's not politics, that's like seeing a gym membership actually get used after January. Meanwhile, panic spreads in Congress because now we're not talking about messaging, we're talking about consequences, and historically, There was a time when leaders faced consequences. The Nuremberg Trials established the idea that power does not equal immunity, which is a concept modern politics treats the way people treat terms and conditions— scroll, click, ignore. So now a handful of members of Congress suddenly discover a deep passion for international travel in my scenario, my ideal scenario. One minute they're on cable news. Next minute, they're posting Instagram stories from an undisclosed location, i.e., a dozen members of Congress, Republicans, resign quickly because apparently, "I'd like to speak to my lawyers" becomes a lifestyle, and this matters because the House then shifts under this scenario. Here's where the Constitution quietly becomes the most interesting thing in America. The Speaker of the House, which currently Mike Johnson is next in line if there is no president or vice president. But, and this is key, you only get the job if you're the speaker at the moment of succession. Johnson's about to take the presidency and suddenly his votes disappear because enough members have resigned. Republican members fled or realized history books are less forgiving than cable news. The House of Representatives elects a new speaker, and if it's as things look today, that would be Hakeem Jeffries. And just like that, the presidency changes hands. Now, everything shifts because the new president steps up and delivers a statement no one expects to hear. We, as Americans, are sorry. We apologize for elevating and empowering a leader, Donald Trump, whose reckless decisions have caused profound harm. Harm. We failed to check him. We failed to stop him. And for that, we carry responsibility. This is not abstract. This is real damage— economic, human, global. And we will begin repairing it immediately, not with words, but with actions. Money. That includes substantial financial commitments to rebuild what has been damaged, to stabilize economies affected, and to take responsibility for our role. This isn't generosity, this is accountability. Now, can you imagine that speech? Half the country would pass out. The other half would accuse it of being fake because it contains something no one recognizes anymore— honesty. The war ends immediately, not because of brilliance, but because the people in charge stop trying to justify it. And finally, a constitutional amendment is passed making one thing crystal clear: Congress and Congress alone declares war. And any president who tries to freelance global conflict, gone immediately. No loopholes, no creative interpretation. Now, is this likely? No, I'm not kidding myself. But every single piece of what I just described already exists. The Constitution, succession law, historical precedent. We just don't use them. Instead, we drift from bad decisions to worse outcomes to collective denial. So I'll ask one last time, how does this end? Because if the answer is, we'll figure it out later, that's not a strategy. That's how mistakes become history. You want to know how you can tell when a war is going badly? It's not just the headlines, it's the feelings. Prices creeping up, markets getting jumpy, allies getting quiet. That's when regular people who don't sit around debating geopolitics start asking a very simple question: Why are we doing this? And the scary part is when the people in charge don't have a clear answer or really any answer, because wars that start without clarity don't magically develop clarity later. They develop consequences. By the time those consequences show up economically, militarily, globally, it's already too late to pretend it was all a part of some master plan. That's the moment when people stop arguing about politics and start questioning competence. Here's a thought experiment that tells you everything about modern politics. Imagine leaders admitting they got something catastrophically wrong. Not spinning it, not framing it, not blaming someone else, just saying, We made a profoundly bad decision and we're stepping aside. Can you even picture that? Because there was a time historically when leadership came with consequences, when decisions, especially in war, weren't just judged in polls, they were judged by history. And the problem today isn't that we don't have systems for accountability, we do. The Constitution, legal frameworks, precedent. The problem is we've collectively decided not to use any of them. Once that happens, mistakes don't get corrected, they get repeated. Okay, to be clear, this isn't happening. This is what I think should happen if we want a resolution to this war. Uh, it's probably the least likely scenario, and you can accuse me of being overly optimistic or naive, or for that matter overly cynical, because I am pointing out this isn't going to happen. But if we actually had a democracy, that is what would happen. This— well, first of all, this leader who would admit he's wrong, but he's constitutionally incapable of admitting he's wrong. But there are a number of people who are around him who are not, I believe, true psychotics. They don't lie easily like breathing the way the president of the United States does. At some point they need to be held accountable too. I'm TJ Walker, this is Filtered. You're looking at the top stories of the day filtered through the lens of communication skills, personal development skills, and occasionally the truth. Let me ask you something. How many times have you heard a great idea and thought, that's really useful, and then never used it again? It happens to all of us because without repetition, even the best ideas just fade. So instead of just collecting more information, do something different. Go to ultimize.com, U-L-T-A-M-I-Z-E dot com, and grab the free course. You can start with communication skills or building better habits, but the key is it's designed to reinforce the message so it actually sticks. If you're already listening or watching this, you're halfway there. Just go to ultimize.com and take the next step. According to the Wall Street Journal, on Polymarket, just get this, 0.1% of accounts, not 1% of accounts, 0.1% of accounts capture 67% of all profits while more than 70% of users lost money. So let's translate that. This is not a market case of brilliant forecasters. This is one guy eating a steak while 99— 999. I almost made the mistake myself. 999 people split the bill and argue about the tip. And yet every person logging in thinks, yeah, but I'm the exception. Oh, really? You're smarter than 999 other people consistently over time in order to be a big winner? Okay, that's not confidence. That's delusion with a touchscreen. Look, I don't want to be a prude. Have I ever played poker? Yeah. Friendly game, low stakes. The kind of game where someone loses $40 and suddenly starts explaining probability like he's auditioning for a TED Talk. That's not the issue. The issue is what we've built. We've taken gambling, which is what poly markets and calshi are. We've removed the friction. We've removed the stigma and turned it into something that follows you around like an EDX. Now, when I was young, gambling was technically possible, but it required a lot of effort. I would have had to beg my parents for money, convince them to drive me somewhere to get to a bus station, to get on a bus for 18 hours and end up at a casino that smelled like cigarettes and broken life decisions. In other words, possible, but it wasn't happening. Today, the kid gets handed a smartphone at 10 years old so he'll be quiet at dinner. Fast forward a few years and now he's under the covers at 2 AM, not talking to friends, not watching videos, but losing money, real money. Tap, swipe, done. He can lose more before sunrise than I could have lost in an entire summer. That's not innovation. That's the casino that's figured out how to crawl into bed with you and your kid. And we're supposed to call this a prediction market. Please. It's like calling a slot machine a financial advisor. Nobody can predict the future. Not you, not me, not the guy online whispering lock of the week, like he's giving you insider information instead of a guess. You're guessing. Yeah, everybody can guess the future and occasionally guess right, but you're guessing. Sports, politics, outcomes, it's all guessing. And the math doesn't lie. 0.1% takes 67% of all the money on these prediction markets. Here's the other really key statistic that is going to go in one ear and out the other, but here it is. More than 70% of people who gamble, and yes, it's gambling on these prediction markets, lose money. 70%. You probably thought it was, well, it's 50%, 0.1%. No, it's 70%. That's not a system you win. That's a system you participate in until you lose. Let me explain something that should immediately snap people back to reality. If you believe you're going to win consistently in one of these systems, you're saying out loud that you're smarter than 999 other people trying to do the exact same thing. Not once, not by accident, but consistently over time. That's not a strategy. That's a personality disorder with a login screen. And the platform depends on you believing that. Because if you understood you were probably a part of the 70% losing money, you'd stop. But if you think you're the exception, you keep going, you keep betting, you keep feeding the tiny fraction of people who actually take all the money. You're not the shark, You're the ecosystem. And this is where it becomes a real societal issue because we're training people, especially young men, to believe they are investors when they're actually just gamblers with better branding. Now, I'm not saying ban the stock market. That's tied at least loosely to real economic activity. But betting on sports events, chaos, and calling it a market, we can draw a line because once you allow people to bet on everything, You don't get smarter society, you get addicted behavior with a user interface. So no, you're not the genius beating 999 people. You are the 999, you just haven't realized it yet. Okay, I realize it's not popular for me to say this. I'm not going to have this video go viral and make, you know, 10 trillion views. And it'd be much better for me to say how wonderful cow she is. And then I could have them sponsor me like Ben Shapiro and other pundits who I think deep down really have a lot of mixed feelings about them. But hey, I'm here to tell it to you straight. I make my money not from ads and sponsors here, but from my online courses. I have 12 million student enrollments in my online courses all over the world. So it does give me a little freedom to actually be honest with you and say what I believe. I'm going to continue doing that here every day, right here on Unfiltered. If you're new to the show, thanks so much for joining me. Every day we look at typically the top 3 stories of the day and then analyze them through the filter of communication skills, personal development skills, and how to make your life better. More in just a moment. You don't need a complete life overhaul. You don't need a 10-step system or a 90-day transformation. Most of the time you need a small a small shift repeated often enough that it sticks. That's it. If you're listening to this and thinking, yeah, I'd like to tighten up a few things, go to ultimize.com, U-L-T-A-M-I-Z-E dot com. There's a free course there for you, communication skills or habit building, and it's designed to give you something simple, something you can use and repeat every day, not overwhelm you, no complexity, just something you can use. Go to ultimize.com and start. Okay, Bryan Johnson in the news again, the guy who does attract a lot of attention. Tom's Guide AI editor Amanda Caswell asked ChatGPT to recreate Bryan Johnson's $2 million a year anti-aging routine, but here's the caveat, to do it just for $20. Now, Johnson, in case you haven't heard, is the 48 year-old tech centimillionaire behind Project Blueprint, a strict longevity regime involving a 30-person medical team, constant biomarking, biomarker tracking, supplements, diet control, and the larger mission of slowing or reversing biological aging. He wants you to stop dying, and don't die is really his message. Now, the editor, she She did something interesting. Caswell's experiment stripped out the billionaire machinery, the gene therapy, the endless lab testing, the exotic powders, the 'I've turned my kitchen into a NASA launch facility' energy and asked, what are the basic habits that actually move the needle a little as far as improving your own health and longevity prospects? And the answer was almost insultingly simple. Morning hydration. That's a fancy word for doing this. Those of you listening on the podcast, I'm drinking a glass of water. A 15-minute walk in the morning. A whole food lunch as opposed to a whole bunch of processed food. No screens before bedtime. A dark, cool bedroom. In other words, the greatest health breakthroughs of Silicon Valley may be Go outside and stop staring at your phone like it contains the secret to eternal life. Now, Bryan Johnson does deserve some credit. He does some things I think are weird, silly, and nonsensical, but he does get some credit. He was not in great shape when he started this. He was overweight, had all sorts of bad biomarkers, and he's clearly improved his body through discipline, structure, diet, sleep, and exercise. But let's be honest, a lot of what actually helps him is not the part where you spend $2 million a year. That's what gets a lot of attention, but it's the boring part. It's the go to bed on time part. He goes to bed at something like 8:30 at night. It's the eat vegetables part. It's the don't treat your phone like a bedside emotional support animal part. Now, that's the tragedy of modern health culture. People think the secret is hidden inside a $47 supplement sack. A concierge doctor for $30,000, your 12-person blood panel team, and a powder made from algae blessed by a Stanford dropout. But the real secret is usually sleep more, walk more, eat real food, stop drinking alcohol so much, get sunlight, and don't use your phone until your eyeballs file a workplace harassment complaint. Amanda Caswell's Tom Guide experiment is useful because it exposes the great scam at the center of the longevity industry. Most people look at Bryan Johnson spending $2 million a year and think, well, I can't afford that, so I guess I'll just age normally while eating crackers over the sink. But ChatGPT's cheaper version came back with things almost anyone can do. Drink water in the morning, Get sunlight in the morning. Go for a walk for 15 minutes. Eat actual unprocessed food. Turn your phone off an hour before bedtime. That's not glamorous. That's not gonna make you feel like a biotech warrior fighting death with a $900 spoon, but it works. The problem is nobody wants to hear that longevity might begin with going outside. We want immortality to arrive in a sleek black box with a charging cable. Instead, the answer keeps being move your body more, sleep better, eat like an adult, not a kid eating candy all day long, and stop scrolling at midnight like Instagram is going to whisper the cure for mortality. The phone experiment is the part I love the most. Caswell said one of the hardest changes was, was Johnson's screens off. He has a firm rule: screens off 60 minutes before bedtime. That's the rule. She usually uses that time after putting her kids to bed to scroll, read news, or brainstorm. But when she stuck to the plan, Bryan Johnson's plan, blacked out the windows, used a fan to make the room dark and cool, she reported the difference in sleep was unreal. She fell asleep faster and stayed asleep longer. Now that's profound, not because it's new, because it's obvious and we still refuse to do it. We're all walking around saying, why am I so tired? Well, our phone is 2 inches from our face at midnight blasting us with headlines, arguments, and videos of raccoons stealing DoorDash. Your brain is trying to power down and you're feeding it geopolitical dread and recipes you'll never cook. Let's be honest. Of course you can't sleep. Your nervous system thinks it's at war and your thumb thinks it's at Dave Buster's. And this is where I think Bryan Johnson accidentally becomes useful. Not because we all need to track our organs like we're managing a fantasy football team. Not because every man needs a spreadsheet for his nighttime erections. And yeah, Bryan Johnson actually does that. I'm sorry, but at some point, health optimization starts sounding like the world's most depressing Boy Scout merit badge, but because his discipline reminds us that environment matters. You don't rise to the level of your aspirations, you fall to the level of your bedtime routine. And for most Americans, that routine is, I will now poison my attention span until I pass out holding a rectangle. Caswell, the editor, found the routine surprisingly effective. The big changes were steady energy, simplicity and treating sleep as crucial instead of an afterthought. Her bottom line was that she didn't need a billion dollars to stop feeling like a zombie. She needed to turn off her phone earlier and walk before starting today. That's the real story. Not that ChatGPT invented health, not that Bryan Johnson is wrong about everything or right about everything. The story is that most people are looking for a complicated excuse to avoid simple discipline. And yes, some parts of Bryan Johnson's routine are easy to mock. The man has turned breakfast into a compliance department. It's like a monk being audited. His daily schedule has the warmth of a nuclear submarine. He treats sleep like he's negotiating a treaty with his mitochondria. But underneath the weirdness, there's a principle worth stealing. Consistency beats intensity. You don't need to be Bryan Johnson. You don't need a 30-person medical team. You don't need a $2 million a year healthcare budget for yourself. You don't need to look at every piece of broccoli and think, 'This is my new romantic partner now.' You need basic habits repeated so often your body finally believes you're not trying to sabotage it. Here's what most people miss about longevity. The expensive stuff gets the attention, but the free stuff probably matters more for most people. You just don't need a $30,000 concierge doctor to tell you that sleeping 5 hours a night on average is bad. You don't need a blood panel to discover that walking is better than sitting. You don't need a billion-dollar protocol to learn that vegetables beat drive-through nachos eaten in emotional silence. Most of the things that improve your odds costs nothing. Go to bed earlier, turn off the phone, get morning sunlight, walk every day, eat fewer ultra-processed foods, don't drink like your liver owes you money. This is the part nobody wants to monetize because there's no subscription plan for stop acting like an idiot after 10:00 PM, but that's where the gains are. The future of health may involve amazing science, But for most of us, the first miracle is still getting enough sleep, taking a walk. And that's why I'm glad this experiment exists because it punctures the fantasy that health is only for the rich. Yeah, money helps. It helps a lot. Gives you about 10 extra years of health, at least in America. Money buys testing, money buys time, money buys organic food, personal trainers, sleep consultants, doctors, and someone whose entire job is probably to say, Brian, your left kidney is feeling a little moody today. But money is not the foundation. The foundation is behavior. And if you don't have the behavior, the gadgets are just expensive jewelry for your denial. A $1,000 light box is not going to save you if you refuse to go outside. A supplement stack is not going to rescue a diet built around binge food. A concierge doctor cannot sleep for you. A wearable cannot make you emotionally mature enough to put the phone down. This is the central eternal truth. We keep hoping technology will save us from the consequences of refusing to live wisely. We want that miracle pill because we don't want a normal bedtime. We want longevity science because we don't want to admit we are exhausted from doing the same dumb things every night. So by all means, mock Brian Johnson. I have, I will. He makes it too easy. But don't miss the useful lesson hiding underneath the weirdness. You don't have to spend $2 million a year to stop treating your body like a rental car. You can start tonight. Put the phone away, go to sleep, wake up, drink water, get sunlight, walk, eat something that grew from the earth instead of something engineered by a committee of snack scientists. It's not sexy. It's not futuristic. It's not going to get you invited to a Silicon Valley longevity summit where everyone looks 37 and is deeply afraid of cake, but it might actually help. And here's the funny thing about health. The answers are often free. We just hate them because they require us to do them. Okay, I'm TJ Walker. This is today's Filtered. I appreciate you spending time with me. I have to say, Some of Bryan Johnson's stuff does seem wacky to me, but not the part about turning your phone off an hour before you go to bed and going to— and all screens off. I turned my phone off, I guess around 8 PM last night. I was in bed at 8:30 reading and fell asleep at 9 o'clock. It's Monday morning as I record this. I feel great. I had not quite 8 full hours of sleep, but more than 7 hours according to my trackers. And you don't have to have trackers. Am I guilty of sometimes wasting money on gadgets for health? Yeah, but I can tell you one of the best things I ever did 10 years ago was made the decision, phone is not going to be in my bedroom and I'm turning the phone off an hour before I want to fall asleep. If nothing else, try that one tip. It's pretty hard to imagine anything bad happening, and if it helps you get even a few extra minutes sleep, it will be well worth the price. And hey, the price is nothing. I'm TJ Walker. Thanks so much. See you tomorrow. Okay, let's do my TikTok. Ultimize. According to The Independent, phone bans are no longer just for schools, concerts, and comedy clubs where comedians don't want their jokes leaked by by some guy named Bryce with 12 followers. They're now spreading into the workplace. The Independent reports that companies are locking up phones or forcing workers to use sealed pouches to reduce distractions and protect sensitive information. One company, it's called ID.me, has had about 290 support employees using locked phone pouches for more than 3 years. Employees keep the pouch with them, but they can only unlock it in a magnetic station. I gotta tell you, I love this. I think this is the greatest thing ever. One ID.me employee told The Independent the band helped her connect with coworkers. She said, quote, it gets us to connect with each other, talk to each other. Imagine that, human beings talking to other human beings at work. What a radical concept. We used to call that having a job. Now it's treated like an Amish retreat. And JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon reportedly called phones in meetings disrespectful and said people reading texts and emails during meetings has to stop. Good for him. Dimon is exactly right on that because cell phones are the wildest, craziest distraction machines ever invented. Let's be honest. And hey, I like my cell phone. I'm having to use it right now to livestream with TikTok, but I'm not going to be checking texts while giving this news broadcast, this news analysis. Because let's face it, a smartphone is not just a phone. It's a casino, a sports bar, a gossip machine, a shopping mall, a porn theater, a dating app, a slot machine, and a tiny glowing demon whispering, "Don't listen to your boss." check if your ex watched your story. And somehow we've normalized this. If someone came to work holding a large TV and watching soccer games all day long, everyone would say, "It looks like Gary's finally snapped." But if Gary checks his phone every 2 seconds for sports scores, text messages, fantasy football updates, dating app matches, and how much money he lost on Cash App, We call that being reachable. Well, no, that's not being reachable. That's being professionally useless with unlimited data. At my own workplace, I have a cell phone ban right now. Now it is true. I have my cell phone on, but I'm not allowing myself to touch it during this entire live broadcast and recording session. Later in the day, I will be in a recording session for 3 hours a day, I put my cell phone in another room. I'm not allowed to touch my own cell phone and I'm the boss. That's how serious I am about this. I made a rule so strict even the dictator has to obey it because I don't trust myself either. None of us are magical productivity monks. You put that phone near me and suddenly I'm not running a business any longer. I'm checking whether a stranger in Nebraska liked my post from 2019. I'm not the only one. And the worst version of this is when someone is giving a presentation. Someone worked 2 months on it, they researched it, they rehearsed it, they made slides, they probably had 3 emotional breakdowns over whether the graph should be blue or slightly darker blue. And then some employee in the front row pulls out a phone like, hold on, I need to see if my burrito delivery is 2 minutes away. Are you kidding me? That's not multitasking. That's you announcing your 2 months of work on less import— are less important than the notification I get from Buffalo Wild Wings. If you wouldn't pull out a 65-inch TV during a meeting, plug it in, and start watching Manchester United or the Miami Dolphins, then don't pull out your cell phone in a meeting. It's the same insult. Smaller screen, and companies are finally realizing this. A phone policy on paper isn't enough. Please don't check your phone. Just saying that works about as well as saying don't eat the donuts in the break room. The phone has to go away during work. A locked pouch, a drawer, a different room, volcano. I'm flexible, but this idea that every employee has a constitutional right To spend half the meeting checking TikTok is insane. You're paid to work, not to refresh sports scores, not to swipe left, not to watch your crypto portfolio slowly turn into a GoFundMe. So yeah, I applaud these companies. Ban the phones, not forever, not in emergencies, not during breaks, but when people are working, meeting, presenting, listening, thinking. Put the glowing rectangle away because at some point adults had to relearn the skills toddlers already understand. Look at the person talking to you. Now, I haven't had a lot of employees in the last decade or so working in the same room, the same building as I have. But I remember even 20 years ago, I mean, this was before smartphones, I had an employee who just could not ever work on one thing. She would do some work typing, at the same time she's on her phone on speaker dial making restaurant reservations all morning long. And she only works half time. Like, look, I need your time. Put your phone away. She wouldn't do it. And she was not able to work for us. Any longer. So this is not a new problem, but what is new is this power of this cell phone is simply so much more addictive and more distractive. And that's why I think it's smart that more companies are saying, look, you come to work, the phone goes in a pouch. You know, there's one thing I always find interesting. People will listen to a podcast like this, get ideas, maybe even feel a little motivated, and then just move on with their day. Nothing actually changes. And I get it, information alone doesn't do it, repetition does. That's actually why we built Ultimize. So if you're getting any value from this, just go to ultimize.com, that's spelled U-L-T-A-M-I-Z-E dot com. There's a free course waiting for you there. You can start with communication skills, You can start with building better habits, but the whole idea is simple. Don't just hear something once, actually build it into your life. Again, it's free. Go to ultimize.com. After 27 years on the air, Alex Jones signed off his final, at least for now, his final Infowars broadcast. And if you only casually follow the news, you might be thinking, wait, is this a free speech issue? Is this a guy getting shut down for his opinions? Well, the answer to that is no, that's not what this is. This isn't about someone expressing a controversial opinion. This is about a long documented pattern of behavior that crossed the line from speech into targeted, repeated harm against real people. So let's be clear about the facts. Families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, where 20 children, 6 educators were murdered. Let's not forget that. This group won more than $1.3 billion in defamation judgments against Alex Jones. That didn't happen because he had a hot take. That happened because of what he actually did for years. Not a one-time slip of the tongue. For years, he repeatedly told his audience that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax. Not just once, not just speculating, but over and over again, he said it was staged. He said the parents were crisis actors, whatever that is. He suggested the children never died. Now think about what that means in real life. These are parents who lost their children. They buried their kids. And then they had millions of people hearing a media figure saying, you're lying. You're part of a conspiracy. Your child didn't exist the way you claim. And it didn't stay on his show. His audience acted on it. Families were harassed. They received threats. Some had to move homes multiple times. Some lived in hiding. Imagine losing your child and then spending years trying to prove to strangers that your child was real. This is not free speech. This is sustained, repeated harm directed at private individuals. And the courts looked at this for years. This wasn't a quick decision. This wasn't one judge on a bad day. Multiple courts examined the evidence and concluded this wasn't accidental, this wasn't careless, this was reckless, and in many cases malicious. It was also evidence presented that he continued pushing these claims even after being told they were false. Even after families begged for it to stop, even after lawsuits began. And here's where it gets even more uncomfortable, because while all of this was happening, his platform was also selling products— supplements, survival gear, health formulas. And the more outrage, fear, and attention generated, the more the business grew. Now, you don't have to speculate about motives to see the pattern. The more extreme claims The more attention, more audience engagement, more sales. That's how the internet works. So when people say, isn't this just free speech? You have to ask yourself, at what point does speech turn into something else? Because in the United States, you absolutely have the right to express opinions. You don't have the right to knowingly spread false statements that destroy the lives of specific people. Especially grieving families. Now fast forward to this week, the company behind Infowars was liquidated as a part of those judgments. There's an ongoing legal fight over who ultimately controls the brand. At one point, even The Onion— yeah, The Satirical Onion— put in a bid to take it over. But operationally, the show has shut down. The studio closed, the broadcast ended. And how did he end it? Not with an apology, not with reflection, not with acknowledgement of harm. He told his audience, "The real war begins now." And from a communication standpoint, that's not random. That's how consistent, or that's consistent with how he's always framed things. Because if you frame everything as a war, then you're never wrong. You're never accountable. You're never finished. You're just moving to the next battle. But here's the reality that gets lost in that framing. This isn't a war. There are no opposing armies. There are no two sides fighting for territory. There are parents who lost children, who spent years being harassed and threatened because a powerful media figure told millions of people that they were lying. That's not abstract. That's not theoretical. That's not political. That's human. And that's why this story matters, not because a show ended, because it forces a very real question. Where's the line between speech and harm? Because once you cross that line, it's no longer about ideas, it's about consequences. Let's be here, be clear now. A lot of people think that Alex Jones is about free speech. It's not. This wasn't someone just sharing an opinion. He repeatedly told millions of people that the Sandy Hook shooting was fake and that grieving parents were actors. As a result, those families were harassed, threatened, and forced to move. Imagine losing your child and then spending years trying to convince strangers your child was real. That's why the courts ruled against him. Not for speech, but for the damage that speech caused. Here's what's chilling about how Alex Jones ended his show. He did not apologize, didn't reflect. He said, "The real war begins now." That's not accidental. If everything is framed as a war, then you're never wrong, you're just under attack. But this wasn't a war. There weren't two sides. There were grieving families, and a media figure who made their lives exponentially worse. And that's why this case isn't about censorship, it's about accountability. I'm TJ Walker, this is Filtered. I appreciate you joining me. We're gonna be looking at another issue in just a moment about communication. Each day, I typically look at 3 stories in the news, analyze them through the filter of communication and personal development skills, 'cause that's what I do for a living. I have 12 million online student enrollments in my personal development online courses and communication skills courses. So happy to be with you today. We're live on Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Twitch, X, a couple of others, plus our friends on TikTok are joining us through a separate feed. So back in a moment with more news. Here's something I've learned after years of doing this. The people who actually improve don't necessarily hear better advice. They just stay around it longer. They keep exposing themselves to the same useful ideas until it finally clicks. Most people don't do that. So if you want to be in the small group that actually follows through, go to ultimize.com, that's ultimize.com, and get the free course. There's one on communication, one on building better habits. Nothing fancy, just something you can keep coming back to if you're already there. You're doing the hard part. Just go to ultimize.com and build on it. Back in just a moment. OK, and I had the wrong graphic up. There we go. We're going to hop right into it. Again, thanks for joining me. I'm TJ Walker. This is Filtered. According to The Mirror, The Mirror US, that's a British publication, they're citing a Reuters/Ipsos poll. 61% of Americans Americans disapprove of the war in Iran. That doesn't just make it unpopular, it makes it, based on their analysis, the most unpopular war in the United States in the last 75 years. More unpopular than Vietnam, more unpopular than Iraq, more unpopular than Afghanistan. This is historically bad. Now, let me say something important, especially if you're trying to understand why. I'm looking at this from a communications standpoint. Donald Trump has been extremely effective for most of his political career when you look at his communication skills. I'm being fair here. I'm here as a sane, sensible centrist. Donald Trump, he might not be the most eloquent orator in a traditional sense, but he is a good communicator. He understands message discipline. He picks a message. He'll repeat it relentlessly. He never leaves it. That's how you win. For the last decade, one of his core message pillars has been crystal clear. No more endless wars. America first. Stop wasting money, lives, and attention on conflicts halfway around the world. Focus on us. This was not a side message for Trump. This was one of the central reasons people supported him and voted for him. Here's the problem. This war doesn't just lack a clear message. It directly contradicts that core message he's been hammering away. Now you've got a president who spent 10 years saying, we're not going to get dragged into these endless foreign conflicts. And now we're in one. That's not a messaging gap. That's a messaging collusion. And when that happens, everything else starts to fall apart. Let's walk through the current messaging on the war itself. Why are we in it? Depending on the day, the explanation has been, "We're stopping terrorism." "We're protecting American interests." "We're restoring strength." "We're sending a message." "We had no choice." "It's about global stability." And then you add the contradiction on top of that. A year ago we were told, Iran's nuclear capabilities were completely obliterated. Now the justification is we need to obliterate their nuclear capabilities. So which one is it? Because unless Iran has a nuclear program that regenerates overnight like a superhero villain, those two statements cannot both be true. This is where communication breaks down completely. When your message changes, people get confused. When your message contradicts itself, people lose trust. But when your message contradicts your entire brand for the last 10 years, that's when support collapses. Because now the average person isn't just asking, why are we in this war? They're asking, oh wait, weren't you the guy who said we wouldn't do this? And then you look at the execution. No major allies, oops. No broad coalition, no UN backing. The rest of the world is basically watching like, you didn't even try to get anyone else on board. Then Iran shuts down the Strait of Hormuz, energy prices spike, and Trump acts surprised. Strait of Hormuz, that's not surprising. It's like lighting a match in a fireworks store and acting shocked when things explode. So now you've got the most unpopular war in 75 years, messaging that changes daily, messaging that contradicts itself daily, messaging that contradicts a 10-year brand, no clear allies, rising costs, and a public that can't figure out what the actual goal is. This isn't complicated. People don't need a perfect plan. They don't even Unfortunately, need a true plan. They do need a consistent plan they can understand, and right now there isn't one because the message keeps changing. And worse, it clashes with everything we're told to believe for the last decade. Now, the biggest problem with this war isn't just the strategy, it's the contradiction. For 10 years, Trump built his brand on no more endless wars, America first. That's why people supported him. We have more to do. And suddenly, we're in a new war overseas. So people aren't just confused, they feel like the entire message they bought into just flipped overnight. And when a leader contradicts their own core identity, that's when support collapses. Here's why people don't trust the explanation for this war. It doesn't even stay consistent with itself. We are told Iran's nuclear program was already obliterated, Now we're told we need a war to obliterate it. That's not a minor detail. It's not a technicality. That's the entire reason for this war, supposedly. And when the reason keeps changing or contradicting itself, people stop trying to follow along. They assume nobody actually knows what the plan is. Okay, that's it for today's show. I appreciate all of you spending time with me, not only today but this week. I would love to get your feedback, your comments. So please go to the— the best place to comment is on YouTube, but you can comment any place you're watching this or listening to this. We're podcasting on every platform. It's often harder to leave comments on podcasting platforms. So if you are listening to this on Apple Podcast or other place, come on over to my YouTube channel, just go to Ultimize with TJ Walker, search that, or just search TJ Walker. On YouTube, and you can leave comments on this show or any other show. Those of you watching on TikTok live, I'll be with you in just a moment. Anyway, hope everyone has a great weekend. Hope you have a great weekend. I'll be back here with you live Monday morning. Take care. And now, ultimize. Jerome Powell just delivered the biggest headline out of the latest Federal Reserve meeting. He is not, I repeat, not resigning and plans to stay through the end of his term, which would expire in a couple of years. That's the news, and it comes at the exact same moment the Fed made its policy decision. They held interest rates steady, but they did it on a 9-3 vote. 3 members pushed to cut rates immediately. The majority said no. So the real story isn't just one thing, it's the collusion of both. Powell staying and a Fed that's starting to fracture internally. Jerome Powell just made it clear he is not resigning. I think it's a good thing. And that matters a lot more than people think, because this comes at the exact moment when the Fed is starting to split internally, 9-3 vote, with 3 members already pushing for rate cuts. So now you've got pressure from the outside, disagreement on the inside, and the one person standing in the middle saying, I'm staying put. That's not just a personnel decision, that's a signal. It tells markets, politicians, and everyone watching that the Fed leadership isn't going to rotate out when the pressure ramps up. In a moment like this, stability at the top might be the only thing that keeps policy from drifting in a very different direction. Now, let's look at that 9-3 vote more closely. In a normal economic environment, you cut rates when inflation is clearly defeated or the economy is weakening significantly. Well, guess what? We're not fully there. Inflation hasn't completely disappeared and the economy hasn't collapsed either. So when 3 members are already voting for cuts, it raises a legitimate question. Is that purely data-driven or is it something else influencing these decisions? There's a reason central bank independence matters. It's not theory, it's history. Argentina, over 100% inflation, currency collapse, savings wiped out. That happened because of their political influence. Turkey, political pressure for lower rates. What happened? Inflation went above 80%, currency plunges. Here's the key insight. Those disasters don't start when everything falls apart, they start earlier when central banks begin making decisions that don't quite line up with the economic reality in front of them. So when you see votes that push for rate cuts before inflation is fully under control, that's not just a technical disagreement, it's something you watch very closely. Now add the political layer. Donald Trump has been publicly demanding rate cuts and attacking Powell for not delivering them. So when Powell says he's not resigning and the Fed still refuses to cut taxes, That's not coincidence, that's resistance. Powell's term as chair runs through May 2026, but he can remain on the board for 2 more years. So legally, everything he's doing is standard. What's not standard is the environment he's doing it in, because typically if you've been chairman of the Fed, you leave when your chairmanship ends. So here's the structural reality people miss. No single person controls interest rates. The Federal Open Market Committee votes, which means those 3 dissenting votes are real and they could grow over time. But it also means Powell staying matters even more because for now he remains the central figure shaping that debate, especially at a moment when the line between economic policy and political pressure is starting to blur. So the real takeaway from this meeting is the combination. Powell saying he's not resigning, which is a good thing, and a 9-3 vote with early pressure to cut rates, and a central bank being tested from both inside and outside at the same time. That's not routine. That's the kind of moment where institutions either hold or start to bend. Overall, I, I do think it's encouraging that Powell is staying. I think it's encouraging that at least 9 votes and governors are acting independently. But for how much longer, we'll see. We'll see. But Powell, stay there. Don't leave. Again, people could say, well, everyone else, he's breaking norms. He's not stepping down. Well, that's in the context of the greatest norm of all being broken. President Trump trying to push this guy out And when he wouldn't take the suggestion, trying to accuse him of fake, made-up, phony crimes about fraud redecorating the building. That's the absolute absurd. That's the real breaking of norms. So, pal, I'm glad you're staying. Let me just throw this out there for a second. If you've been listening to this show for a while, you already have more information than most people ever act on. That's not the problem. The problem is nothing is reinforcing it tomorrow or the next day. Or the next day. That's why I built Ultimize, to give you something you can use repeatedly, not just hear once and forget. So if this is resonating at all, just go to ultimize.com, grab the free course, communication skills, habit building, whichever one you want, and actually start putting this stuff into practice. It's free, no downside. Just go to ultimize.com. In New York City, there's a tiny group of drivers causing a massive amount of danger. and the city knows exactly who they are. They're called super speeders. These are drivers who get caught 16— not once or twice or 3 times, but 16 or more times in a single year on speed cameras. There are about 14,600 of them, less than 1% of drivers, but they rack up staggering numbers of violations. Some of the worst offenders have been caught over 1,000 times, and they're still on the road, believe it or not. New York City has drivers who've been caught speeding more than 1,000 times. At that point, you're not breaking the law, you're stress testing the concept of consequences. Because right now, speeding in America is basically a lottery. You speed, maybe there's a camera, maybe there's not. Maybe there's a cop, maybe there isn't. And most of the time you win. That's the system. So of course, people keep doing it. If 99 times out of 100 nothing happens, People will take that bet all day long. This isn't a mystery, it's a probability, and we built a system where reckless driving is statistically rewarded. Crazy. Now, here's what's actually being proposed. New York is considering requiring those repeat offenders to install speed-limiting devices, technology that physically prevents a car from going far above the posted limit. And when New York City tested similar speed limiter technology in part of the non-emergency fleet, speeding dropped by 64%. So again, this isn't theoretical, it works. But let's be honest about something much bigger. We really wanted to stop dangerous driving, we could do it almost overnight. You could install automated speed cameras, license plate readers, and radar sensors on virtually every street in a city like New York, or for that matter, across America. These systems already exist in other places. They automatically detect your speed, capture your license plate, issue a fine, and log repeated offenses. No cop, no traffic stop, no argument on the side of the road, just math. Now, this isn't science fiction. The country of Qatar already uses automatic excuse me, automated traffic cameras and radar systems to detect violations and issue fines electronically. I've been at— I've driven past it, I've seen it. Studies of fixed speed cameras in Qatar have base— have specifically looked at driver compliance across dozens of locations because this is a real enforcement model. It's not a fantasy. Kuwait has also used smart cameras and mobile radar systems for automated enforcement, with reports of major reductions in violations and accidents after using AI-powered cameras, mobile radars, and electronic ticketing. The point is not that Qatar or Kuwait is some perfect model of freedom. The point is that the technology exists, it works, and everyone knows it works. People slow down when they know they're not playing the lottery anymore. That's the key. Right now, speeding in America feels like gambling at a casino where the house usually lets you win. You speed, nothing happens. You speed again, nothing happens. You speed a third time, maybe once in a while you get a ticket for $50, $100. That's not enforcement. That's a mild subscription fee for driving like a maniac. If every street in New York automated speed enforcement, the psychology would change instantly. First violation, fine. Second violation, bigger fine. Hit a serious threshold, say thousands of dollars in unpaid fines or repeated dangerous offenses, and your car gets flagged. Keep going, your car gets immobilized or impounded. Game over. In every street in New York, or if every street in New York, at automated speed enforcement, speeding would disappear almost overnight. Not because people suddenly become saints, because the odds change. Right now, speeding is like gambling at a casino where you win 99% of the time. And hey, yes, I have speeded before. I'm not proud of it. Of course people keep playing, but if you knew every time you sped You'd get caught, fined, and eventually lose your car. Guess what? You wouldn't speed. I know I wouldn't. Or you do it once and that would be the last time. This isn't about human nature suddenly improving, it's about incentives. Change the odds and you change the behavior instantly. Now, let's talk about red light cameras because we've already run this experiment. Red light cameras photograph vehicles that enter intersections after the light turns red. The system records the violation, captures the plate, and sends the ticket. Again, no cop standing there, no chase, no confrontation, just evidence. And the research is clear. It's clear enough for normal people to understand. Red light cameras reduce the most dangerous crashes, especially front-into-side collisions, the kind where someone blasts through an intersection and T-bones another car. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says red light cameras reduce fatal red light running crashes, though they can increase rear-end crashes, which are usually less severe. A newer analysis found that even without automated emergency braking, red light cameras would cut injury crashes by as much as one-fifth and reduce crashes overall. So What happens? People complain. They say it's unfair, it's invasive, it's unconstitutional. They say it's just a money grab. And sometimes politicians get scared and shut the programs down or weaken them. It's happened in communities where I live. So we know the pattern. Technology reduces harm. People get angry about being caught. Politicians, mm, they just cave. Then everyone goes right back to complaining that government doesn't work. That's the heart of the problem. Americans love to say government is inefficient, and sometimes it is, but in cases like this, we're demanding inefficiency. An efficient system would be simple, constant monitoring, automatic enforcement, real consequences, no loopholes, no, I got away with it. Deep down, a lot of people just don't want that. They want safety in theory and flexibility in practice. They want government efficient enough to protect them from everyone else, but inefficient enough to let them break the rules when they're late for dinner. That's not a political philosophy, that's toddler logic with a driver's license. Meanwhile, the stakes are enormous. There's an estimated 39,345 traffic deaths in the United States in 2024, 36,640 in 2025. Speeding was a contributing factor in 29% of all traffic fatalities in 2024. So now, not every road death is caused by speeding, but speeding is a major, major part of the slaughter. And yes, I'm using the word slaughter because when tens of thousands of people die every year and we already know ways to reduce it, the word accident starts sounding a little too polite. Now bring in the future. Self-driving cars are no longer science fiction. They're already operating in American cities, and the strongest argument for them is not convenience, it's safety. The self-driving argument is simple. Most crashes involve human error. Machines don't get drunk. They don't text while they're driving. They don't get road rage because someone merged in front of them. They don't decide to go 58 in a 25 because they're late for Pilates and believe turn signals are a form of socialism. If we actually value human life, the direction is obvious: more automation, fewer human-controlled vehicles, and more safeguards on the humans who remain behind the wheel. That could mean mandatory speed governors for repeated offenders. It could mean built-in breathalyzers. It could mean automatic restrictions for drivers who prove over and over again they can't be trusted with a machine that weighs more than 2 tons. Yeah, that's how much cars weigh. It's close to about 4,400 pounds. So folks, this is frustrating to me. Do I occasionally go over the speed limit? Am I perfect? No, I'm not. But the slaughter on our roads should be something that causes everyone to think we got to do better. So it's not just the United States. There are more than 1 million deaths on roads around the world each year. We're talking about pandemic-style deaths every year, and we just act like, "Oh, oh, hum, who cares? Nothing we can do." Well, there is something we can do. What especially galls me is people who constantly moan and groan and whine about how inefficient government is. I see a direct correlation. The people who complain the most about government inefficiency are the very first ones to complain about things like red light cameras and automatic radar detectors that can reduce government spending collectively by millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars, because you don't need to have state troopers and police officers sitting in a big expensive car, paying their salary and time, pointing a radar gun, one of the— they could all be automated. But the people who claim they care so much about government efficiency are always the ones who say, no, We want the government to be even more inefficient. It's an absolute absurdity. I'm TJ Walker. This is Filtered. There's more to come. Let me ask you something. How many times have you heard a great idea and thought, that's really useful, and then never used it again? It happens to all of us because without repetition, even the best ideas just fade. So instead of just collecting more information, do something different. Go to ultimize.com, U-L-T-A-M-I-Z-E dot com, and grab the free course. You can start with communication skills or building better habits, but the key is it's designed to reinforce the message so it actually sticks. If you're already listening or watching this, you're halfway there. Just go to ultimize.com and take the next step. Bye. We are back, and in the news, this is something that if you stopped off on the way home last night to get gas, you already know exactly what's in the news. Oil prices. Oil just blew past $120 a barrel, and there's nothing mysterious about why. This is Donald Trump's mess. He decided to escalate and maintain a blockade tied to Iran And it's put the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most important oil routes on earth, under pressure. Normally about one-fifth of global oil supply flows through that narrow passage. You mess with that, you don't get a gentle price increase, you get a spike. Gas prices are already jumping around $4.30 a gallon, rising fast in just the past few days. That's not random. That's policy hitting your wallet. People keep asking, why is gas so expensive all of a sudden? Because Donald Trump is running global energy policy like it's a bar fight. You've got one of the most important oil checkpoints in the world, and instead of carefully managing it, he's in there chest bumping, escalating, refusing to back down. He's like the guy who flips a table at Applebee's and then wonders why the bill's higher. Here's the genius part. Every time he refuses to de-escalate, oil traders go, oh, this guy,