Episode 2966 Coffee With Scott Adams 9/22/25

Well, looks like uh Tesla stock is up three and a half points.

That's pretty good.

How was everybody?

Come on in, grab a seat, bring a beverage.

You know you'll need it.

All right, my allergies are out of control today because my allergy meds are out.

I'll have new meds by today, but I apologize in advance because I'm going to be doing that a lot.

All right, almost ready.

Don't you like live live streams where anything can go wrong?

Hold on.

I'm almost ready.

Good morning everybody and welcome to the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and you've never had a better time.

But if you'd like to take a chance on elevating your experience to levels that nobody can even understand with their tiny shiny human brains.

All you need for that is a copper mug or a glass of tanker chelstein, a canteen, jugger flask, a vessel of any kind.

Fill it with your favorite liquid.

I like coffee.

And join me now for the unparallel pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.

It's called the simultaneous sip.

And it happens now.

Go.

Delicious.

All right.

Well, apparently the uh uh let's say looks like in California Wait, what's going on here?

Did my notes print upside down?

No.

No, they didn't.

Everything's fine.

So Newsome uh they've got they've got a uh prohibition against ICE wearing masks now in California.

So I'm expecting that'll turn into a some kind of a uh big issue because the feds are going to do whatever they want because they can.

And we'll see if California can stop them.

But the funniest part about it was uh um Newsome doing his announcement.

So I'd like to do my impression of Newsome standing next to the sign reader.

So the sign reader was signing as he was talking.

But what's funny is that Newsome talks with his hands.

So when Newsome stands next to the side reader, it looks like they're competing with jazz hands because the side reader looked uh if you imagined that Newsome's words were coming out of his mouth.

He would talk just like he he was doing all the weird things like milking the cow and this stuff.

And I don't know sign language, so I'm positive those were real words.

I don't think he was pranking.

I think he was a real sign reader.

What do you call it?

Signer, sign language interpreter.

Interpreter, right?

Uh but then right next to him is Newsome and he's just talking in his normal way, but it looks like he's milking the cow and wrestling with a invisible person.

Anyway, he had to see it.

He had to be there.

Sorry, I I'm sorry I started with that one.

Well, according to Breitbart News, Lucas Nolan's writing that libraries are getting lots of requests for books that don't exist cuz AI apparently hallucinated some books and put them in newspapers as recommended books.

So, you thought the news was fake.

When you read the newspaper, you're like, you're looking at the world news and you think, "Huh, that might be fake." You look at the political news, you think, I think that's fake.

Then you look at the economic news and you think that might be fake.

But at least when you look at the the list of recommended books, at least the books are real, right?

Am I right?

At least the books are real.

And no, they're not real.

How bad was it?

Um, let's see.

Uh, in a recent blunder, the Chicago Times published a summer reading list for 2025 that had uh, see out of 15 recommended books.

Only five of them were real books.

Only five out of 15 were even real books.

All data is fake.

Well, just about every single day there's new video where somebody is trying to show you how AI can make you a movie just by talking to it.

But it's always like a little bit of clip or it's, you know, it it looks like you couldn't make a full movie out of it.

But maybe it's very impressive.

But there's a new one that uh really takes it to the next level.

However, as I've often been telling you, if you believe you can use one AI to make yourself a movie, you know, like just chat GPT and you just talk to it and then it forms a movie.

That doesn't look like it's ever going to happen because this particular movie called Skyland, it's an AI short film.

I saw this on a post by Dinda Preettio uh used I believe six different AI and nonAI apps.

So if you think you can just talk to your computer and make yourself a movie, long way away.

Probably it will always be multiple apps and you'll have to be an expert in each of the apps and know how each of the apps talk to the other apps and those apps will be getting updated faster than you can make your movies.

So you're continually going to have to say, "Oh, should use the other app.

Maybe I should use that instead." So, so if you believe that non-experts will be able to make movies, I don't think so.

I think it will always require a human expert, maybe several.

And uh but it might make good movies and it might be a lot cheaper than regular movies and it might require no actors whatsoever, but it won't be um talent free.

Yeah, you're going to have to have you would have to be massively talented to make a movie with or without AI.

Well, Gateway Pundits reporting that uh there's a former Texas Democrat House candidate charged with election fraud.

Apparently, he was uh what was he doing?

Uh I guess he was doing harvesting or something doing something with with ballots.

The interesting thing about this is not that it's this, you know, one smallish politician.

The interesting thing is I thought you couldn't cheat.

How did this one person cheat if cheating's not possible?

And did they cheat in a way I don't know the answer to this in which they were definitely guaranteed to get caught because we have the kind of system that catches anybody cheating.

I don't think so.

I'll bet you if you looked into it, you would find that the way he got caught had nothing to do with the design of the system.

Probably um somebody dropped a dime on him or, you know, something happened.

But I'll bet you I'll bet you there was nothing in the system that could have caught him.

All right.

If I'm wrong, let me know.

Okay, that's I'm putting my stick in the We got a cat visiting.

Come here.

Down to this level.

Well, I saw a uh saw a post by Zion Lights.

That's a human being's name in case you wondered.

Zion Lights, who is a big activist in the nuclear space, and points out that China and South Korea um can both now build nuclear power plants in five years.

Now, you know, the US, you know, We're like 25 years, so not really competitive.

However, the uh the big thing seems to be the the idea of building a new power plant on the same site as the old power plant because once it's approved for a nuclear power plant, probably it makes more sense to just put another one right next to it if if you need another one.

So, I believe we're looking at that in the US as well.

So that's going to be a huge thing.

So can we get the building of nukes down to five years?

I'll bet we can get it less if if they're small and modular.

The modulars should be under two years, you know, on once they're standardized and approved.

We should be able to just knock them out in a year or two.

Well, here's the latest news on the sale of Tik Tok.

Uh, we're totally buying Tik Tok.

Uh, and also we have no idea if we're going to buy Tik Tok.

So, both of those stories seem to be raging at the same time.

We're definitely buying it.

No, we're not.

No, we haven't agreed to anything.

So, here's what the sticking part is.

allegedly um there's a deal I think Axios was reporting on this that the uh algorithm would be leased to the American buyers and then over time they would they would uh you know transferred over to an American only version but in the short run uh Tik Tok wouldn't have to do anything different and the US wouldn't have to invent a new algorithm we would just lease theirs and then figure out over time how to get rid of the lease and build our own.

But it's not a bad idea.

However, Kyle Bass, who's pretty tapped into all things happening over in China, um says that the Chinese foreign minister uh is not entirely on board with giving up the Tik Tok algorithm.

So, just know that there's one good source that seems to be current uh that thinks that some part of China hasn't quite agreed with this whole algorithm thing, but there are details.

I mean, Axios has a pretty detailed report.

I doubt they made it up.

So, if I had to guess, it's probably like everything else in the world.

There's a little confusion going on, but it sure looks like it might happen now.

And I was pretty uh I was pretty skeptical that ever would happen.

Now, I'm going to stick with my original um prediction that we might get close to a deal, but we won't be able to close one.

So, I say we don't close it.

What do you say?

Every indication in the news is that we will get the deal done.

So, I would be the only person in the world who says it's not, you know, we might not close it.

But China is unpredictable.

So, we'll see.

Most of you probably every one of you knows there was a gigantic memorial for Charlie Kirk in uh State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.

If you watched any of it, uh you probably had the same impression I did, which was some version of, "Wow, wow, that was a lot of people." And you could actually feel um you know you you could just feel the the event.

It was it was like I was connected to it or something.

Um, and the power of that totally peaceful, respectful, law-abiding, but very determined, very determined group of people.

Did I mention very determined?

Now, what that turns into, we don't know yet.

But I've never seen that much determination.

all all seemingly organized.

Well, selforganized.

That's the amazing part is selforganized.

Um, but there was an immense amount of capability present.

Somehow they pulled off an amazing event in 10 days.

It was organized and executed in 10 days.

That was amazing.

I mean, that's really impressive.

And it looks like it went off without a flaw.

So that was amazing.

Um, and most of you know I'm not personally I'm not a believer, but even I could feel millions of souls mourning as one.

I could just feel it.

I don't know what that was about.

But if if you think this is a passing moment, you know, that we'll get over it and this is over and then yeah, everything will go back to the way it was.

Sure doesn't look like that.

Uh-oh.

Not on the keyboard, cat.

Not on the keyboard.

So, there's something big that happened.

We'll see if that turns into something.

Don't know.

But, uh, let's see what else we do.

Um and uh uh somebody said uh who said this?

Darn it.

Oh, Cynical Publus uh on X.

It's a great account to follow.

Cynical then space.

P U B L I U S.

Uh has real good thoughts pretty much every day.

But I want to read what he said because it uh it really captured it, I think.

All right.

So, he said, "Uh, I'm watching Charlie Kirk's memorial service.

It finally dawned on me why it is so important that the left lie about us." Oh my god, did that hit home?

Did you feel that, too?

Ju just think of this sentence and then think of what you observed yesterday.

It finally dawned on me why it is so important that the left lie about us.

He goes, "Our message is one of peace, love, equality of opportunity, tolerance, inclusion, justice, and liberty.

It is a message that when objectively understood, no decent American can help but embrace.

That embrace is what the left fears.

They know they must distort our message, otherwise they would have virtually no followers." Uhhuh.

That is why they must pretend we are racist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic, bigoted, fascist, Nazis.

If they don't lie about us, they lose everything.

That's why the Democrats are a hoaxy and that they run non-stop hoaxes.

That's why the fake news is fake.

Do you think that the people who do the news wouldn't prefer to tell you the truth?

Oh, all things being equal, of course they would.

Of course they'd rather tell you the truth, but not if it's bad for everything on the left.

And it is well, um, sort of the sort of a perfect, let's say, accent to the day.

Uh, they weren't the stars.

Obviously, Charlie Kirk and I would argue that the the attendees were the stars, but after Charlie and after his family and after the attendees the uh Trump and Musk um looks like they made up.

So they were up in the observation box.

Trump was up there, of course, and uh must stop by and the cameras caught them shaking hands and smiling and apparently burying the hatchet.

And Trump being, you know, the brilliant communicator that he is, of course, doesn't miss a moment.

And he posts a picture on X taken from the back that shows the two of their heads kind of leaning toward each other in a in a friendly conversation way, but you only see the backs of their heads.

You know who they are.

And then you see the the event that they're watching.

And uh on the uh on the post on X it just said POTUS times Elon Musk for Charlie.

In other words, they were inspired to make up because Charlie would have wanted that.

We all wanted it.

We all wanted it.

But if that's what it took, if if uh Charlie's, you know, tragic death uh caused them to make up for the benefit of the country, good.

Very well done.

Good.

Good job, guys.

Um Trump was Trump.

He gave a speech.

Uh I didn't hear his speech, but I saw some quotes.

One of the quotes is this is from Trump talking about Charlie.

He said, "He did not hate his opponents.

He wanted the best for them.

Trump said, "That's where I disagreed with Charlie." Trump says, "I hate my opponents and I don't want the best for them.

I'm sorry." It should be noted that Trump's opponents wanted to put him in jail.

Right.

If if your opponents want to put you in jail, you can hate them.

There's nothing wrong with that.

Yeah.

I don't think it's too uncchristian like to hate people who are trying to lawfare you, you know, out of your entire life.

So, you know, maybe maybe if Charlie knew what happened to him, he wouldn't be so happy about all of his haters.

But, uh, he went pure.

He went not hating his haters.

You got to respect that.

Um, So, I'm going to save this note for later.

So, I continue to be fascinated by the criticisms of Charlie Kirk because I wasn't aware of any of them.

I I don't know.

But apparently there's a on the left there's a well uh let's say I I don't want to say understood because I don't think they understand but a wellknown or they believe they know some things he said that they don't like.

And I thought I would dig into I tried to pick whatever I thought was the the worst thing he ever said.

I was looking into it and uh I think I'll cause some trouble by talking about that if you don't mind.

So no cat.

Sorry.

You okay?

Okay.

Half of my desk is on the floor now, but cat's okay.

That's the important part.

So, here's what uh Charlie said that caused people to say, "My goodness, what a bad person that Charlie Kirk is." Now, of course, things are a little out of context, etc.

So, I'll add the context so you can see what's going on here.

Uh, apparently, at some point, I and this I got from Grock, so Grock might be hallucinating a little bit, so you can fact check me on this.

Um, so I guess he Charlie Kirk at one point made some remarks as part of a broader conversation against you know woke policies and affirmative action all that.

So there was a larger context but within that context he said quote Martin Luther King was awful.

Martin Luther King was not a good person.

He was a fraud and the Civil Rights Act was a huge mistake because what happened?

Okay.

All right.

Now I can see why they might be a little bit mad at him.

Um, so the larger context here was that these things were meant to be positive, but they didn't work out for black people because nothing nothing is better.

I mean, things don't seem that much better.

Um, so the first thing you need to know is, do you think that Charlie Kirk did not want what was best for black Americans or really anybody else?

Who believes that Charlie Kirk in his secret mind was ever thinking anything negative about black Americans and and how they could do to, you know, have a good life?

Of course not.

Of course not.

He was not thinking, I want them to do poorly.

He wanted them to do well.

If you assume that he's a white supremacist, then everything he said, and I'm going to give you a little more details than this, everything he said would could easily be hammered into that.

Well, I mean, that's what bad people say.

Oh, yeah.

There he is with that that bad.

But if you assumed that he was only trying to help then it's completely different.

If he's trying to help, then he's saying those things that you thought were helping maybe had a downside that was much bigger than you thought.

That would be his point.

Now, here's where it gets interesting.

Uh, and you can fact check me on this, too.

One of the things he said uh I guess the bigger point was that Martin Luther King and civil rights were ways to sort of focus on color as being an important thing and he preferred a colorblind world where you know you want to get rid of all the bad stuff you know still get rid of all the discrimination and all that of course but uh that you didn't obsess about okay you're black I'm white we're all different um that you thought the world would be better if we just sort of everybody did the best they could and nobody gets discriminated against and you don't talk about race every single second.

So, there's something to be said for that, right?

That's not a that's not a bankrupt idea or anything, but uh apparently some of his argument was that uh homeownership used to be better for black Americans in the 60s.

So that would be sort of at the tail end of the Jim Crow era, I believe.

So do you believe that fact?

Do you believe that home ownership was higher for black Americans in the 60s than it is now?

I've been hearing that for years and I never looked it up.

I, you know, I just hear from everybody on social media.

According to Grock, that's not even close to true.

Now, so I would ask you to go research that because it does not look like home ownership for black Americans was higher in the 60s according to Grock.

Now, if you have a source that says the opposite, you should, you know, if you can find one who said that to me on X, I'll take a look at it.

I'm just sort of waiting into this, you know, for the first time, so I'm not too confident.

And I know some of you are now checking now.

Now, would that blow you away if you learned that that was never true?

Because I I believe Charlie used to say that and that would have been if true, that would have been telling us something that we should have paid attention to.

How about this?

Um, crime used to be lower during Jim Crow or in the 60s and for black Americans.

Do you believe that?

Do you believe that crime used to be lower when uh things were worse in terms of you know Jim Crow and discrimination?

Do you believe that?

Cuz I believe that Charlie claimed that as well.

That's not even close to true.

What's true is we have no idea because they didn't have good records back then.

and uh you know didn't have good records in the sense that I'm not sure that every crime against a black person got reported if you know what I mean you know for a variety of reasons you it might have been sometimes because of discrimination sometimes because they knew there was no point in even reporting it you know no good could come from it so apparently it is uh and and again I'm I'm using Grock as my source so I don't have high confidence in what I'm saying.

I'm just telling you where I got it.

If Grock says it, probably that means that the most common sources also say it, I'm guessing.

All right.

Now, so those are those are two facts that were somehow seemingly important to Charlie's opinion that the the uh uh that the changes since Jim Crow may have been well-intentioned but seem to have created a bad outcome.

And uh we also know this part I think is true that the number of intact black families went from something like 65% in the 60s to now about 30 35%.

That's devastating.

So the one thing I think both sides both sides I shouldn't say I shouldn't even say sides the the thing I think everyone would agree on uh is that uh family you know the the intact families took a hit.

So, that part doesn't seem to be under dispute, but the crime part is under dispute, and I think it's a reasonable dispute.

And the home ownership um is just I think it's just debunked.

Just wasn't true.

All right.

Now suppose you wanted to know for sure or get to the next level on whether or not Charlie's claims upon which he seemed to have built at least some part of his opinion.

There's more to it of course.

Um what would be the way to solve that problem where you've got this big prominent um conservative guy who's making a lot of noise and people don't like it.

They do not like it.

And he's saying things which they consider just flat out racist.

Oh my god.

How can you say things were better when when clearly the laws and everything else were just purely discriminatory?

How could that be better, Charlie Kirk?

Well, if two of the facts were the crime rate and the uh housing ownership, you know how you could maybe work through that?

How about a public debate on a college campus in which Charlie Kirk says, "You can ask me anything." And then maybe somebody could stand up there and say, "You say home ownership was better, but I talked to Grock and Grock says that's wrong." And I looked at a couple of sources and they say you're wrong.

Wouldn't that be exactly the right place to work that out?

a public debate, one of many, because it's an ongoing process, and you can invite anybody and they can ask anything.

Anything.

That would be perfect.

What about the crime rate?

Where would be the perfect place to find out if Charlie was full of on that one, you one point or did he have some some good point?

How about an open public debate in which everybody can come and ask anything they want and he'll he'll address it.

So on one hand um I appreciate the the push back on on those particular points.

I mean that seems like the right thing.

There's there's doubt about those points.

They're important to his point of view.

Little bit of push back.

But here's what I don't appreciate.

was that uh let's see the the types of um complaints against him use interesting words such as uh he's uh uh he's suggesting things.

So the people who are his critics and that would include the ADL and media matters.

The ADL and Media Matters.

What what do you know about those two entities?

The ADL and Media Matters.

They are not credible.

They they are both uh political.

So they're they're not credible at all.

You want an example?

the ADL uh the head of the ADL said in public that I'm a Holocaust denier recently recently 2023 now that so that's that's who is is blaming uh Charlie but they don't say he said something bad they say he suggested it say he romanticized those earlier times romanticized uh they say he might have promoted it that the old things were better and that quote the dynamics that are inseparable from segregation.

So he might have said some things that were a completely different point, but somebody thinks, well, it's inseparable from these other things you didn't mention, so you must have this opinion about the other inseparable things that you didn't mention.

But he probably didn't.

So, and that he was using quote white nationalist talking points.

Do you know how often people on the right get accused of using white nationalist talking points which also happen to be just normal things that people talk about.

All right.

So when you see that kind of attack with those kinds of words, it's like, well, he's suggesting and leaning toward and he's dog whistling.

Generally, that means it's made up.

Generally.

But um what was his point?

And is there anything there that's salvageable?

If you if you accept that he was wrong about crime being lower back then and if you accept that he was wrong about home ownership, is there anything that he did say about uh you know the the changes in laws and stuff that uh would be valid?

And here's what I think is valid.

I I think it's valid to say that we've had an obsession with focusing on race instead of being colorblind.

Now, does he have a good argument that if you just ignored all that stuff, you'd be ahead?

Well, I don't know if that's a good argument.

You know what would be a good way to determine if that was a good argument or not?

a series of debates on college campuses that are ongoing in which anybody could ask him any question and he would answer it.

So unless you believed that Charlie Kirk was secretly a white supremacist pretending to be a man of God.

None of this makes sense.

It it makes complete sense as somebody who was searching for the right answers and wanted the best for everyone and thought that if we could at least be on the same page and understand the same set of facts, we'd probably be way ahead in figuring out how to get to a better place.

If if you believe that he literally was this bad person, you can kind of talk yourself into, well, uh, he's a bad person.

He didn't say anything bad.

maybe inaccurate, but being inaccurate is not that's not racist, right?

That's just having a bad fact.

Um, but no, he he promoted and he uh suggested and he romanticized.

But if you don't think he's a monster, you don't see him romanticizing anything.

He He's just making sure that you understand the the argument and which parts he's looking at, which parts he's not.

That's not romanticizing anything to to call it romanticizing.

You're the problem.

Whoever said he's romanticizing it, you're the problem.

You are very much the problem.

If he had simply said he said or he was inaccurate about or his argument didn't hold together because, then I would say, whoa, that's that's some good stuff you have there.

That's a strong attack.

But that didn't happen.

Instead, the least credible entities in the world, the ADL and Media Matters, famously noncredible, famously biased, convinced half of the country that this man of God who loved everybody and didn't have a racist bone in his body was somehow this monster.

Now, here's what I think.

I think when he was talking about Martin Luther King, he may have been talking about his personal life, which is just a matter of history.

that his personal life was far from godly.

You all know that, right?

But does that matter?

You know, I I think you could argue that shouldn't matter.

Uh that his personal life was this or that.

It should matter that uh he was uh focusing on, you know, what would be better for everybody, I guess.

So, I don't know that his criticism about Martin Luther King moves us in the right direction, but that's what the debates are for.

Somebody could have asked, why do you say that, you know, he was a uh what do you call him?

Awful.

He was not a good person.

He was a fraud.

Now, I'm pretty sure, you know, Charlie is well read was well read.

I'm pretty sure if you read some history books about him or any other famous person, you know, white or black, doesn't matter their color, you could throw a dart and pick a famous person who was alive during those days and you would find some warts.

You know that by now there would be okay, you know, he's your favorite president, but did you know this?

Did you know this?

And uh if you're a man of God, you might really care about the hypocrisy of a man of God not acting like one.

Maybe that counted.

Um and as far as the Civil Rights Act, which he acted, oh, he said was a huge mistake.

Quote, because what happened?

If you don't end, if you don't figure out what he means by because what happened, could you agree or disagree with the Civil Rights Act being a huge mistake?

I don't think that he I don't think the Civil Rights Act was a huge mistake.

What What exactly did he even mean about that?

I'll tell you what he didn't mean.

He didn't mean that people should now have equal rights.

He didn't mean that.

Obviously, he didn't mean that he doesn't want what's best for black Americans.

Obviously, he doesn't mean that.

So, he had some point about unintended consequences.

And you can observe that black America is not doing as well as black America wants to.

So, certainly it didn't fix the problems.

But again, how would you get to the next level of understanding what he meant about that and whether he had any useful suggestions?

Well, how about a series of debates at colleges?

Yeah, you know where that's going.

So Charlie often said he wanted a colorblind world and uh that's not something that goes over well if you have gigantic industries of people who need it not to be colorblind because that's where they get their advantage, their paycheck, etc.

So of course that was controversial.

Um let's see.

Uh um so I would say this.

I would say that Charlie was what I call a systems guy.

He didn't have all the answers.

And if you asked him, Charlie, do you have all the answers?

Do you think you would have said yes?

Really?

Do you think you would have said, oh yeah, I got all the answers.

it's in the Bible or something?

Probably not because part of the reason for the debate thing, I assume, is that he would learn things as well as other people.

Do you do you believe that Charlie believed that the reason for the debates was only to win?

Only to win?

I doubt it.

That doesn't sound like him at all.

Sounds like he would um be trying to persuade, of course, but he was probably learning stuff, too.

Oh my god.

Oh, sorry.

Itchy nose.

Well, I'm going to give you my take on everything that's going wrong in in uh the world.

Uh I'm going to make a statement and then I want you to see how many of you would disagree with this.

All right.

Um, I believe that everyone who made the same choices I made in life generally, I mean, not the not the real specifics, but the choices would be um, I prioritized fitness early in my life.

I prioritized educational attainment early in life and really worked at it.

I was valid Victorian.

Um, I told myself that it was up to me to make money and nobody was going to help me.

And so I I acquired the skills that would allow me to get the kind of life I wanted.

I knew that I had to stay in a jail.

I need knew I needed to stay off the bad kind of drugs when I was young.

I didn't do any drugs when I was a young man.

And I made a whole series of choices which uh anybody could have made a list if you asked them what are all the things you should do to be successful.

Make a list.

I I just checked off all the boxes.

And none of that was secret.

Everybody I knew at my at my age, every single person knew what to do to be successful.

And they knew what to do not to be successful.

And uh my family didn't have a lot of money.

You know, we we had enough, but we weren't uh well off or even middle class.

I think we're lower middle class or something.

But none of that stopped me from succeeding.

And here's my statement, my provocative statement.

Everybody who made the choices I made did well.

They didn't become cartoonists because that you know I'm not talking about the detailed choices but I'm talking the big stuff the people who stayed in school and paid attention and um you know I was committed to continuous learning about how to be successful.

Eventually I wrote a book about it.

I I learned so much I was like oh put it in a book myself.

So I believe everybody who had that mindset did well whether you were black or white or anything else.

And so the real I would boil down the the question for black Americans to this and I would not provide an answer just the question.

Why do you make different choices?

That's it.

Why do you make different choices?

Everybody knows what works.

Everybody knows what doesn't work.

I didn't make a choice to join a gang.

Is the reason because I didn't live where there were gangs.

Maybe that that might be the only thing.

I'm maybe I'm not like some superior character or something.

I just didn't grow up where there were gangs.

But if I knew that, you know, that would suggest a solution.

Oh, uh, let's try to remove every kid who has a shot at making in the world, moving them away from where there might be a gang influence.

Just do that right away.

Maybe maybe uh even um help the family with the the expenses.

Just just get them out of there because it'll be more expensive for society if you know one more kid becomes a gang member when they could have become a pharmacist or something.

So, take it down to that.

Why do you make different choices?

But you don't need to tell me.

I'm I'm not the audience for that.

You need to figure out why you make different choices.

If if I try to help you with that, it'll make things worse.

It'll make things worse.

You don't want my opinion about why you're making different choices because it's gonna immediately turn into something that sounds racist even if you don't mean it that way.

So just stay out of that.

You know, black America figure out why you make different choices.

The the path for success is so well known to everybody that if you don't choose that path, I don't know why.

I don't know why and I'm not the one who will be able to solve that.

So figure that out and then we'll be in good shape.

And a lot of it I think is environment.

All right.

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said yesterday, I think that law enforcement is a sickness that doesn't make communities safer.

Town Hall is reporting on this.

So the law enforcement is a sickness that doesn't make communities safer.

Now he's making a choice, right?

So he's a black mayor and he's making a choice to deemphasize law enforcement, at least traditional law enforcement.

And as far as I know, he doesn't have a workable alternative idea.

Is that a choice you would have made?

Would you make that choice?

I wouldn't.

I wouldn't make that choice.

Right.

So again, for me to figure out why he's making that choice just turns into an absurdity.

I can't read his mind.

And I certainly wouldn't if I looked in there.

I don't know what I'd say.

Like why is he choosing this?

It's just the wrong choice.

It's a very wrong choice.

I don't know.

Why do people make wrong choices when they're when the choices are so obvious?

Well, you would not be surprised that the New York Times and NBC News are uh kind of downplaying the possibility that Charlie Kirk's shooter had some kind of a trans connection to a larger network of maybe bad actors.

And they say there's no evidence of any ties between the shooter and left-wing groups.

But you've lived in the world long enough that you know that the left-leaning media is a little bit desperate to not indicate that things went exactly the way the conservatives said they would, which is if you keep going in this direction, it's going to look like this.

And uh you know, the trans thing went too far and you know it's it's too accommodated, I think the right would say.

And uh the left of course can't say anything like that.

So they have to say there's no evidence found between the shooter and leftwing groups.

Do you think that'll stand?

Do you think when it's all done that there will be no connection between the trans and the trans partner?

And I I feel like the odds of that are low, but who knows?

You know, we're still in a fog of war.

So, I would say that just about anything you thought was true could be debunked.

Just about anything.

Um, but we'll see.

All right.

Uh, you know, there's a uh at least online there's a big controversy view brewing because people are saying, "How can there be an an exit wound in the front of his neck and no ex no entry or exit wound on the back of his neck?" like how is that?

That's not a thing.

It's not possible.

And with the the rounds that were used, it should have been small and maybe maybe almost invisible, but they would have found it during the autopsy.

Um entry wound in the back that could have potentially created the larger exit wound that we that we all saw to our horror.

Um, however, I did see a green beret and I think I saw some other people do this as well explain it perfectly.

So, I'm I'm convinced that I have exactly the correct explanation.

All right?

So, I'm going to tell you and maybe you'll have the same impression I did.

And by the way, I feel bad because the Green Beret member who did the video did a great job.

So, if anybody uh I think I may have posted it, but I'd love to say his name.

Uh, but I didn't write it down.

Didn't remember.

I didn't think I was going to talk about it necessarily, so I didn't write it down.

But here's what I learned.

All right.

Number one, are you aware that he was wearing a breastplate um a protective um you know, bulletproof thing for exactly this kind of risk.

The uh green brag guy said uh that there are two basic kinds of these protective plates that would go into your shirt.

One of them is kind of thick.

It wasn't one of those cuz it's too thick.

Every you would have seen it would be super obvious.

The other one is metal and it's thinner and you could sort of see from outlines of his shirt on certain pictures.

You could tell that there was a breast plate in there.

So, number one, I accept because you could see that there's something under there that he had a protective metal, not any other thing but metal breast.

breastplate.

Now, the breastplate also has at the top a little bit of a what would you call it?

It it curves in toward the body a little bit.

So, it's not flat flat.

It's it's flat and then it just sort of curves in at the top a little bit of a ridge.

Unfortunately, that ridge, if you hit it the exact ridge, uh the the round would fly up toward the head because it would ricochet.

And it looks like the the the round may have hit him at that at that bent part of the plate just in, you know, on his chest.

What the first time I saw it, I saw it hit the chest the chest plate first.

So, I saw it hit there.

I mean, I I thought I saw it.

So, it looks like it hit the curvy part of the chest plate, maybe on this side, and then came up into the neck.

And the reason that it didn't go through the neck is that it was, you know, sort of a ricochet that came off the chest plate.

It might have even been a piece of the chest plate as opposed to a round.

That's possible.

Or it could have been both.

or it could have been shrapnel.

Maybe it was just what's left of the bullet.

Now, the the thing that also didn't make sense is that we're told, and again, anything could be changed by tomorrow, but we're told that the the bullet was found in his neck.

Now, all the people who know firearms were saying that's not possible because because if he hit the neck directly, there's no way it stays in the neck.

It would be it would be sitting in the people behind him.

I mean, it would be in their body.

it wouldn't be in Charlie's body.

But if it was a ricochet, that may have taken a lot of the energy out of it and it may have, you know, been traveling a little bit more uphill, which would explain the larger, you know, entry wound, you know, because it wasn't coming straight in.

Now, to me, that is a it comes from a professional who knows all of these devices.

is he knows the guns, he knows the breastplates.

Uh he knows what he's talking about.

So I accept that as I'm going to say I'll put a 90% likely that he nailed it.

The the Green Beret I'm talking about.

So please, if you can come up with his name, I think he was impressive.

Uh all right, another topic and I I just I consider that closed.

Uh I'm completely satisfied that that expert opinion answered all my questions.

So uh it was a fluke.

I think according to Scypost Karina Petrova, a 40-year study finds that higher science funding happened under Republicans.

That's the whole story.

Apparently, historically over the last 40 years, Republicans are a better bet for science than Democrats.

Would you have known that?

Honestly, if somebody said, "Scott, you know, you always support all these Republicans all the time.

Uh, why don't they fund science as much?" I probably would have just accepted that as a fact because I hear it all the time.

Republicans are anti-science.

Republicans were anti-science.

Republicans uh don't believe in climate change, etc.

So, it wouldn't have surprised me if Republicans just thought that the government should be less involved in science and maybe private enterprise should be more involved or something like that.

But it turns out according to this one study, Republicans have always been the ones who funded science more.

Could it be there were just more Republican presidents in the last 40 years?

Maybe that's all it would take.

I don't know.

I don't trust this because all data is fake.

But it's surprising it didn't go the other way.

Um see there was something else I was going to mention.

Oh, so the uh the autism announcement is coming up today at 4 pm Eastern, I think.

And the tease is that pregnant women with who take Tylenol that might be implicated in some of the autism.

But I got questions.

Isn't it true that autism sometimes doesn't show up until the kid is, let's say, eight years old?

Yeah, not just eight.

But isn't it true they don't all have it at birth?

What are the odds that taking a drug while you're pregnant would cause a child to have a problem but not until 8 years old?

So after 8 years of not being exposed to Tylenol while somebody's pregnant, it would be after the 8 years you would get you would get the first symptoms.

Or maybe that's just the first diagnosis, but maybe it was always there.

And what about the people?

Always remember this.

Um, who is the explayboy playmate?

Jenny, Jenny, whatever.

Um, who had the child who she says I remember telling the story.

She says that she saw the, you know, the the life drain drain out of his eyes right after a vaccination.

So what about Oh, Jenny Mc.

Carthy.

Jenny.

Yeah.

Um, what about that?

Let me tell you what I'm worried about.

I'm worried that the pharma industry might throw a sacrificial calf.

uh into the conversation to protect themselves as in maybe they have to accept that there's some big pharma connection.

Maybe they just have to because they can't get away from it, but they don't want to they don't want to give up on uh vaccinations.

So, do you suppose that anybody, cuz remember this is all weasels and liars and uh thieves basically involved in all of this.

Do you think that they might be trying to guide the conversation?

So, you think, "Oh, yeah.

Well, we were right all along that it was pharma, but it turns out it was just this special case with just Tylenol and just pregnant women." And look how easy it is to fix that.

Isn't that interesting that that if that were the problem, you could fix it immediately with no implication for even the Tylenol people?

Because if the only people not taking it are pregnant women, well, that's not that many.

So, Tylenol would go on making money.

The the vaccine people would go on making money.

But still they could say well we looked really closely and we found that pharma was in fact the problem in this very very narrow way that we can easily make it go away just by telling people not to take it if they're pregnant.

It feels a little too convenient, doesn't it?

There's something about that that just screams there's more to the story.

And I don't know if they're going to sell this as the answer.

I doubt it.

Do Do you think they're going to say, "Well, we found it." Um, and you should also know, um, just only based on what I'm seeing on social media, there are claims that studies have debunked this already that there are existing studies because people suspected it before they did a big study and allegedly didn't find it.

Do you believe that?

Well, here's the problem.

All data is fake.

So, I don't believe the data that says they found it, and I don't believe the data that says they didn't find it.

You really we really can't believe either data.

So, I'd be very curious if um all of the moms who who have children on the spectrum, I'd love to hear from them.

I believe that they will probably coordinate to find out how many of them were taking Tylenol when they were pregnant.

And I think they're going to find out it wasn't most of them.

Although Tylenol is practically ubiquitous.

Maybe it's hard to avoid, but I feel like that the people, you know, the actual parents are going to come forward and say, "All right, uh, I know three people in my situation and, uh, three out of four of us say that we didn't take any Tylenol, so now explain what's going on." So, I feel like there's going to be some push back if the only thing they identify is Tylenol.

What they might do is say, "We found this for sure." Or sure enough that you know, you should avoid it and uh we're still looking cuz there there's no way that's the whole answer.

I don't think.

Well, uh, you know the story about Tom Hman who was accused of taking $50,000 in cash before Trump was in office and before we knew he would be and before Tom Hman was in his current job.

He was a consultant working in that border security area and apparently he allegedly took $50,000 from what he was presumably didn't know was an FBI's thing and they were going to pay him for him to give them some special access once Trump became president if he did.

But allegedly he took the 50,000 which I have not heard confirmed by him by the way.

I've not heard H Homeman say he did or did not ever accept 50,000 in cash for anything.

So, I don't even know if he did that.

But, um the story is that he did take the money, but that they never found out if he would do anything illegal because when Trump became president, his administration came in and they dropped they dropped this thing.

So if you look on social media, people will say, "See, I told you he was totally innocent because the charges were dropped with no evidence whatsoever of wrongdoing." You know, that's not exactly what happened, right?

So that's the Republican version that well it there must be nothing to it because uh Biden's people didn't charge him and then Trump's people didn't charge him.

Not even charging him.

So therefore there was nothing there, right?

No, you were completely misunderstanding the story.

There's nothing there, but there wasn't supposed to be.

First you pay the bribe, then you wait for Trump to take office.

Then you wait for that company to approach again and ask for special help.

And if they got it, and if they got it because they paid him, that's a crime.

But since they never got to the point where he was in office and also making decisions, never got to that point.

It was dropped before he could make any decisions.

So, would he have done something illegal?

Nobody can know.

I mean, I'm going to say, you know, innocent till proven guilty.

He's not been proven guilty.

By definition, he's innocent.

We should not assume they would have any bad intent.

But here's the here's the part that I've been laughing about.

Do you believe that Tom Holman could not spot an FBI sting?

of all people, Tom Hullman.

Tom Holman's been around.

Have you noticed?

He's experienced.

He's seen the the ugliest side of life like you and I will never see.

Do Do you believe that he did not have any suspicion whatsoever when somebody offered him $50,000 of cash?

Cash?

Didn't even write a check?

Was it literally cash?

like a bundle of cash.

Tom Hman.

Now, I could believe that, you know, if I if I randomly chose some of my audience here and said, "All right, I'm going to put you in this situation.

Somebody comes in with the 50,000 in cash, would you know it was an FBI's thing?" I would.

I'm pretty sure I would have spotted an FBI's thing or or I would have assumed it was.

Nobody gives you $50,000 in cash unless it's a sting or, you know, a cartel thing or whatever.

So, you know, I I will acknowledge that real criminals do also give large amounts of cash, but wouldn't you just assume that this would be too dicey to take the money?

And what if, so this is this is me just speculating because it's funny.

What if Tom Hman was not only suspicious, but he thought it would be hilarious to take the FBI's money because they weren't going to get it back and they would never find him doing any crimes because he was not inclined to do any crimes in the first place.

So, it's entirely possible that he totally suspected him and said, "All right, I'll take your $50,000, but you're not going to get anything in return." Maybe.

I don't know.

But if you tell me that Tom Hman can't spot a tra a trap that's that obvious, I don't believe that.

I I don't believe he couldn't spot that from the the jump.

Speaking of things like that, apparently Democrat uh oh, what's his name?

Quayer.

Henry Quay, Democrat from Texas.

So, he's under indictment for taking all kinds of bribes.

Uh, of course, he, you know, um, here's my question.

Uh, is it only Democrats that are doing all this bribery stuff and getting caught?

Is it possible that Republicans are doing as much crime as Democrats, but they don't get caught?

Or maybe my is the algorithm not feeding me those stories?

Cuz it sure seems like all the criminals are Democrats, the the government criminals.

Am I wrong?

It it seems like it's been a long time since a prominent Republican got arrested for any bribery.

But Democrats, yeah, every every week.

In other news, the percentage of Americans who say college is very important went from 70% thought it was very important in 2010 to this year it's 35%.

So college is half as desired as it was in 2010.

But I think that's the right answer and it has to do with colleges um not doing the job of remaining relevant.

Do you think people would say that if all the colleges were preparing people for useful careers?

I don't think so.

It It's not that people changed and now they don't want these educations.

It's that the educations were garbage and they figured it out.

So once you figure out that many of the majors are garbage and a waste of money, you should go from 70% to 35 and thinking it's worth it.

You should.

So that's not even bad in my mind.

The bad part is the the colleges are a ripoff.

That's the bad part.

All right.

Uh in the all data is fake category.

This will be the DEI chapter of that.

Um I saw a article by Amuse.

I always tell you to follow Amuse on X.

It's spelled just the way it sounds.

Amuse.

Um and he he's got some good writing and that goes with his posting.

And he tells us that uh back in uh 2020 there was a study claiming that black newborns were twice as likely to survive if the doctor was was black.

Now that's pretty shocking, right?

That the black newborn is twice as likely to survive if the doctor is black.

that would strongly suggest that the worst kind of discrimination was happening and the white doctors were I letting babies die or not trying hard enough to save them or you know your your brain goes everywhere on that.

Well, what do you think was the truth?

Well, the truth is it was fake data.

Not only was it fake, but the group of what Amuse calls black women who did the study knew it.

They actually knew it was fake.

They did it anyway because they wanted more u black candidates to get into college, which would require lowering the standards so that they could, you know, get in.

And that would make sense if this if that data were true that black babies were twice as likely to survive, then I would say, um, yeah, you're going to need to get some black doctors in here.

And uh you might even need to lower the standards a little bit.

I mean, this is such a big data point that if you could, you know, lower the standards 5% but save twice as many babies.

Yeah, of course.

But it was fake data just like all data is fake.

Um, so just know that and I guess uh even uh Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, she cited that study in an affirmative action case was never true and it became part of this Supreme Court opinion.

Oh, Katanji.

Um Putin is making some statements today.

I think he's already made them.

and he's uh concerned about Trump's Golden Dome missile protection system.

He thinks that will destabilize the balance of power and he calls it destructive steps undermining the foundation for dialogue among armed states and that uh if if that continues or things like that continue that Russia uh will have to respond in some vague way that we wouldn't like but at the same time uh Russia has offered to limit nukes and do some kind of a nuclear here limit deal um which might be similar to the deal that's already under the new start deal.

So there's some complications to this but Putin is concerned about the uh dome and uh wants to deal at least at least deal on nukes.

So maybe that's good.

Maybe that's more good than bad.

Well, Trump has nominated now a replacement senior prosecutor.

He got rid of the one who was not going to indict Leticia James.

U Leticia James is the one who lawfired Trump and uh Trump is putting in a new uh loyal lawyer person that he's worked with and uh will presumably go after Leticia James.

I do think that the goods are there.

There's probably enough to indict.

And I'm sure that Trump at this point, given that he got lawfared so hard by Leticia James, um I feel like he would be uh maybe not as happy as if she got, you know, put in jail, but he would be a little bit happy if at least she has to deal with the the cost of the legal hassle cuz that's what she did to him.

And so, uh, let me say it again.

I said before, I'm not really in favor of lawfare.

You know, I don't like to see my side doing lawfare against the other side.

The exception would be if you're using the lawfare against the exact person who tried to lawfare you, and that's what's happening.

So in this case, I would remove all controls that I I would say Trump, if you can destroy her career and her life and put her in jail, I believe that's the right answer.

I believe that justice requires that.

And so I'm 100% um in favor of Trump.

He he can fire every lawyer he needs to fire before he gets a, you know, gets a bite on her.

Uh but he needs to put the bite on her legally, but he has to, you know, he's got to exhaust every every tool, every path to get at her.

And if you don't do that, you're not really going to discourage that behavior in the future.

I want to know that if you're a um illegitimate lawfare proponent, that you can't just go in public and tell everybody you're doing it and then do it right in front of us.

I mean, she actually told us she was going to do it before she did it.

You can't do that.

I don't want to live in that world.

I I want that person in jail.

Um I mean, more than anybody else in the country, probably.

Probably more than anyone else in the country, I want Leticia James in jail.

I'm sure there's a murderer out there that I might want to jail more, but they're already in jail for the most part.

All right.

Um, you know, the big question about Trump is going to limit the H-1B visa workers and they got to pay $100,000, you know, just to get that visa.

Uh, those are the new changes.

But apparently the Wall Street Journal says that um a number of economists say that the H-1B visas the way it was was a benefit to America which would be you know a benefit to all workers indirectly.

Now do you believe that?

Do you believe that America and specifically American workers would be better off with the the way it is with the H-1B visa people coming in fairly massively?

Or do you think if you limit them, there will be enough Americans that can be trained to to fill in and everything's better because we not only fill the jobs, but we'd fill them with Americans.

Well, I have a correction.

Um, I know you like it when I do that.

So, I said something yesterday that was seriously wrong.

Like seriously wrong.

I think most of you caught it.

Uh, but maybe you didn't know why you caught it.

Here's what I said yesterday.

Um, I forget the number of the population of India, but let let's say there's a billion people there.

I said, 'If we have access to another billion people, I mean, that's so many people that if we could, you know, skim off the the best of their billion people, that would be a tremendous amount of people that were just really really qualified.

And how could that not be good for America?

And then uh somebody sent me an email and said, "You're forgetting the IQ difference." To which I said, "What?" and he pointed out and I had to check this myself but apparently it's true.

If you look at all of India, the whole country, their their average IQ is way less than the average in the United States.

So if you are limiting your population to just the people who are, let's say, above an IQ of 120, I just picked that randomly.

Uh, I think there would be like a few hundred,000 people that would even be possible, you know, that would be so smart that they'd be smarter than Americans.

So, it's actually it would be more like um smaller than Rhode Island basically.

So it would be more like trying to get your experts from a country as small as Rhode Island if you limit it just to the over 120 IQ which is rare in every country.

Every country is rare over 120.

So the correction is this.

It doesn't seem that just the raw number of Indians is a good argument.

Um, however, I will say that living and working in the Bay Area, um, I've seen a number of people born in India that came here that made such a difference in America.

I mean, I I don't need to name them.

You know, se several of them are, you know, uh, household names.

I don't want to me I don't want to lose them.

I don't want to lose them.

And I don't think it I'm not sure that they would be able to get here under the current system.

But there are some uh Indian-American contributors in Silicon Valley and elsewhere that their contributions are enormous.

Just enormous just so far so far out of the the norm of what you and I are doing.

So how do you not lose them?

I don't know.

So, I guess I guess I'm going to say I'm open-minded about whether this will work out.

If we can fill those jobs with people who would be every bit as good as the people I know personally who are beyond, you know, beyond good.

I mean, they're just crazy talented.

Uh, I don't know.

We'll see.

But we can reverse anything we have to reverse.

Uh the US Treasury is cracking down on the Sinaloa cartel's uh people who are getting money from the Sinaloa cartel freezing assets and whatnot.

Brebar News is reporting about this ill defense defenso Ortiz.

Now what I wondered is did we always know this?

Has the Treasury Department um has the Treasury Department always been able to find the people who are benefiting from or sending cartel money?

Have we always been able to do this or is this some brand new capability we just came up with?

Well, I'm in favor of it, but I don't understand why it's just coming up now.

Um, former Mexican president's sons uh are reportedly uh cartel mobbed up in the cartels.

So, the sons of uh former president uh Andreas Manuel Lopez Oberdor are allegedly tied to a large-scale cartel thing.

According to Breitbar News, uh, also Il Defanso Ortiz, but also Brandon Darby, who knows more about the border than any other living person.

Brandon Darby does.

Um, um, I'm trying to figure out there's at least one ex Mexican president who follows me on X.

Don't remember if it's Oberdor or someone else.

Um, so, President Maduro of Venezuela has offered to directly talk to Trump and have a, you know, direct face-to-face meeting.

Now, Trump considers Maduro the head of a cartel that just took over a country and doesn't consider him a, you know, real leader of a country.

He's just a cartel boss who uh took over a country.

But Maduro says, "No, no." Totally misunderstood.

Not only are we not allowing drugs through Venezuela, she says, "But only 5% of the drugs produced in Colombia shipped through there, of which 70% of those drugs, 70% of the 5% are neutralized or destroyed by Venezuelan authorities." Does that sound even a little bit true?

I don't know.

I don't know.

There there's no way to know.

But my guess is that he's closer closer to being ahead of a cartel than he is to somebody who's really stopping those cartels.

Well, update on Argentina.

MLE, the superstar new president who's fixing everything.

Um, he says the market is in panic mode.

Zero Hedge is reporting on this.

So, they've got some real, you know, currency meltdown problems going on over there.

So, I guess I'm gonna just double down on saying I never really believed all the hype about MLE.

He might still pull this out, but it it was the way people talked about him, the press, that never looked totally objective to me.

It just it just looked to me like, you know, they were building him up because he was sort of a colorful, interesting character.

I I was always skeptical that he had the miracle that they said.

Meanwhile, at Texas A&M University, the president had to resign uh after there was some big conversation locally about radical gender ideology.

So, President Mark Welsh has resigned.

fallout after some big debate over that topic.

And so people continue to lose jobs over being too woke.

Um a new study came out um it was a big one that says that uh depression is associated with low brain blood flow and function as opposed to a chemical imbalance.

You've probably heard uh in the news already that uh the idea that depression is a chemical imbalance and therefore if they give you the right chemical to balance it, you should be fine has never been demonstrated.

there there's no study that shows a chemical imbalance, but still that's the way it was being treated.

Oh well, there's no evidence of a chemical imbalance, but how about some drugs to fix your chemical imbalance?

But this new thing says that has something to do with how efficiently the the brain blood flow and function is.

Um uh I'm going to say again that it seems energy related.

I believe that we believe that depressed people have low energy and they certainly do.

But I feel like we think that the depression causes the low energy.

I'm I have a strong intuition that everybody who has high energy doesn't experience depression.

meaning that the energy level might be what causes the depression.

Oh my goodness, my cat is rubbing her little soft face against my bare arm.

It's the best feeling in the world.

Oh, keep doing that.

All right, we'll take a look at you.

All right.

Uh and then according to all day astronomy, there's a baffling phenomenon in the quantum world called the delayed choice quantum eraser.

And it's where the act of observing a particle can seemingly reach back in time to change what happened before the observation.

Which means that the present creates the past at least at the quantum level.

Now, as I often say, um, you could have just asked me because I've been saying for years that the present creates the past and it has to be true.

Not not because I did some experiments, it just has to be true.

Here's why.

Um, not only do we have to be a simulation, you know, trillion to one odds because for every for every simulation, now for every reality, there'll be lots of simulations.

So, we're almost certainly a simulation.

So, we start there.

Now, if you were going to code a simulation, would you make your program know every particle in the universe, everywhere in the universe, even though you knew that the people, you know, the the humans could never experience anywhere else in the universe because we can't get there.

You know, maybe we get to Mars, but that's about it.

But you wouldn't have to you wouldn't have to specify anything that we couldn't see.

So you wouldn't have to have details of like the center of a planet unless we dug a hole otherwise don't need it.

So the only way you could make a computer program that would have enough uh power to simulate our environment is if you did two things.

One, you made the past only appear when it was needed.

So you don't use all that processing.

And two, you allow people to experience different realities without having to solve which one was true.

So you and I can go do a thing and you'll have different memories than I do.

We'll do some politics and you'll think something bad happened.

I'll think something good happened.

We don't have to resolve that.

We can just say, "Well, you're wrong and I'm right." So we go through life with completely different ideas of what the reality was.

And that only makes sense if we're a simulation.

And the reason it's like that is to save resources.

Otherwise, we would all kind of just see the same stuff and have the same opinion, right?

So, we have to have different opinions of what we're seeing so that the the code doesn't have ever have to resolve it.

You can just leave that, you know, leave the disconnect.

And that's that's what we get used to.

There's always a disconnect.

We always disagree about what we saw and what happened and what's going to happen next.

And uh yeah, and you and you have to be able to change the past when you dig a hole.

So my understanding of the universe is that in my backyard, wherever nobody's ever dug a hole, nobody with a consciousness has ever dug a hole, that it's not determined.

But if I go out there with my shovel and I start digging, the hole will fill in ahead of me because that's the only time it needs to be there.

Doesn't need to be there until I dig.

So why would it be there?

It wouldn't make any sense.

So that's my view.

And my cat is on my notes.

Oh my goodness.

I thought that was Gary, but this is Roman.

Oh, Roman.

All right, that's all I got today.

Happy Monday.

Did I go long?

Oh my god, I went really long.

Sorry about that.

All right, I'm going to say hi to my beloved uh subscribers and uh the rest of you.

Thanks for joining everybody.

I will see you tomorrow.

Locals, stay tuned.

We'll talk to you a little bit.

Well, looks like uh Tesla stock is up

three and a half points. That's pretty

good. How was everybody? Come on in,

grab a seat, bring a beverage. You know

you'll need it. All right, my allergies

are out of control today

because my allergy meds are out. I'll

have new meds by today,

but I apologize in advance

because I'm going to be doing that a

lot. All right,

almost ready.

Don't you like live live streams where

anything can go wrong? Hold on.

I'm almost ready.

Good morning everybody and welcome to

the highlight of human civilization.

It's called Coffee with Scott Adams and

you've never had a better time. But if

you'd like to take a chance on elevating

your experience to levels that nobody

can even understand with their tiny

shiny human brains. All you need for

that is a copper mug or a glass of

tanker chelstein, a canteen, jugger

flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it

with your favorite liquid. I like

coffee. And join me now for the

unparallel pleasure, the dopamine hit of

the day, the thing that makes everything

better. It's called the simultaneous

sip. And it happens now. Go.

Delicious.

All right.

Well,

apparently the uh

uh let's say looks like in California

Wait, what's going on here?

Did my notes print upside down? No. No,

they didn't. Everything's fine.

So Newsome uh they've got they've got a

uh prohibition against ICE wearing masks

now in California.

So I'm expecting that'll turn into a

some kind of a uh big issue because the

feds are going to do whatever they want

because they can. And we'll see if

California can stop them.

But the funniest part about it was uh um

Newsome doing his announcement.

So I'd like to do my impression

of Newsome standing next to the sign

reader. So the sign reader was signing

as he was talking. But what's funny is

that Newsome talks with his hands. So

when Newsome stands next to the side

reader, it looks like they're competing

with jazz hands because the side reader

looked uh if you imagined that Newsome's

words were coming out of his mouth. He

would talk just like he he was doing all

the weird things like milking the cow

and

this stuff. And I don't know sign

language, so I'm positive those were

real words. I don't think he was

pranking. I think he was a real sign

reader. What do you call it? Signer,

sign language interpreter. Interpreter,

right? Uh but then right next to him is

Newsome and he's just talking in his

normal way, but it looks like he's

milking the cow and wrestling with a

invisible person. Anyway, he had to see

it. He had to be there. Sorry, I I'm

sorry I started with that one.

Well, according to Breitbart News, Lucas

Nolan's writing that libraries are

getting lots of requests for books that

don't exist

cuz AI apparently hallucinated some

books and put them in newspapers as

recommended books.

So, you thought the news was fake. When

you read the newspaper, you're like,

you're looking at the world news and you

think, "Huh, that might be fake." You

look at the political news, you think, I

think that's fake. Then you look at the

economic news and you think that might

be fake. But at least when you look at

the the list of recommended books, at

least the books are real, right? Am I

right? At least the books are real.

And no, they're not real.

How bad was it? Um, let's see.

Uh, in a recent blunder,

the Chicago Times published a summer

reading list for 2025

that had uh, see out of 15 recommended

books.

Only five of them were real books.

Only five out of 15 were even real

books.

All data is fake.

Well, just about every single day

there's new video where somebody is

trying to show you how AI can make you a

movie just by talking to it. But it's

always like a little bit of clip or

it's, you know, it it looks like you

couldn't make a full movie out of it.

But maybe it's very impressive. But

there's a new one that uh really takes

it to the next level. However, as I've

often been telling you, if you believe

you can use one AI to make yourself a

movie, you know, like just chat GPT and

you just talk to it and then it forms a

movie. That doesn't look like it's ever

going to happen because this particular

movie called Skyland, it's an AI short

film. I saw this on a post by Dinda

Preettio

uh used I believe six different AI and

nonAI apps.

So if you think you can just talk to

your computer and make yourself a movie,

long way away. Probably it will always

be multiple apps and you'll have to be

an expert in each of the apps and know

how each of the apps talk to the other

apps and those apps will be getting

updated faster than you can make your

movies. So you're continually going to

have to say, "Oh, should use the other

app. Maybe I should use that instead."

So, so if you believe that non-experts

will be able to make movies, I don't

think so. I think it will always require

a human expert, maybe several. And uh

but it might make good movies and it

might be a lot cheaper than regular

movies and it might require no actors

whatsoever, but it won't be um talent

free. Yeah, you're going to have to have

you would have to be massively talented

to make a movie with or without AI.

Well, Gateway Pundits reporting that uh

there's a former Texas Democrat House

candidate charged with election fraud.

Apparently, he was uh what was he doing?

Uh I guess he was doing harvesting or

something doing something with with

ballots. The interesting thing about

this is not that it's this, you know,

one smallish politician. The interesting

thing is I thought you couldn't cheat.

How did this one person cheat if

cheating's not possible? And did they

cheat in a way I don't know the answer

to this in which they were definitely

guaranteed to get caught because we have

the kind of system that catches anybody

cheating. I don't think so. I'll bet you

if you looked into it, you would find

that the way he got caught had nothing

to do with the design of the system.

Probably um somebody dropped a dime on

him or, you know, something happened.

But I'll bet you I'll bet you there was

nothing in the system that could have

caught him. All right. If I'm wrong, let

me know. Okay, that's I'm putting my

stick in the

We got a cat visiting. Come here. Down

to this level.

Well, I saw a uh saw a post by Zion

Lights. That's a human being's name in

case you wondered. Zion Lights, who is a

big activist in the nuclear space, and

points out that China and South Korea

um can both now build nuclear power

plants in five years.

Now, you know, the US, you know,

We're like 25 years, so not really

competitive. However, the uh the big

thing seems to be the the idea of

building a new power plant on the same

site as the old power plant because once

it's approved for a nuclear power plant,

probably it makes more sense to just put

another one right next to it if if you

need another one. So, I believe we're

looking at that in the US as well. So

that's going to be a huge thing. So can

we get the building of nukes down to

five years? I'll bet we can get it less

if if they're small and modular. The

modulars should be under two years, you

know, on once they're standardized and

approved. We should be able to just

knock them out in a year or two.

Well, here's the latest news on the sale

of Tik Tok.

Uh, we're totally buying Tik Tok.

Uh, and also we have no idea if we're

going to buy Tik Tok. So, both of those

stories seem to be raging at the same

time. We're definitely buying it. No,

we're not. No, we haven't agreed to

anything. So, here's what the sticking

part is.

allegedly

um there's a deal I think Axios was

reporting on this that the uh algorithm

would be leased to the American buyers

and then over time they would they would

uh you know transferred over to an

American only version but in the short

run uh Tik Tok wouldn't have to do

anything different and the US wouldn't

have to invent a new algorithm we would

just lease theirs

and then figure out over time how to get

rid of the lease and build our own. But

it's not a bad idea. However, Kyle Bass,

who's pretty tapped into all things

happening over in China,

um says that the Chinese foreign

minister

uh is not entirely on board with giving

up the Tik Tok algorithm.

So, just know that there's one good

source that seems to be current

uh that thinks that some part of China

hasn't quite agreed with this whole

algorithm thing, but there are details.

I mean, Axios has a pretty detailed

report. I doubt they made it up. So, if

I had to guess, it's probably like

everything else in the world. There's a

little confusion going on, but it sure

looks like it might happen now. And I

was pretty uh I was pretty skeptical

that ever would happen.

Now, I'm going to stick with my original

um prediction that we might get close to

a deal, but we won't be able to close

one.

So, I say we don't close it. What do you

say?

Every indication in the news is that we

will get the deal done. So, I would be

the only person in the world who says

it's not, you know, we might not close

it. But China is unpredictable.

So, we'll see. Most of you probably

every one of you knows there was a

gigantic memorial for Charlie Kirk in uh

State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.

If you watched any of it, uh you

probably had the same impression I did,

which was some version of, "Wow,

wow, that was a lot of people."

And you could actually feel

um you know you you could just feel the

the event. It was it was like I was

connected to it or something. Um, and

the power of that

totally peaceful, respectful,

law-abiding,

but very determined,

very determined group of people. Did I

mention very determined?

Now, what that turns into, we don't know

yet. But I've never seen that much

determination.

all all seemingly organized. Well,

selforganized. That's the amazing part

is selforganized.

Um, but there was an immense amount of

capability present. Somehow they pulled

off an amazing event in 10 days. It was

organized and executed in 10 days.

That was amazing. I mean, that's really

impressive. And it looks like it went

off without a flaw.

So that was amazing. Um,

and most of you know I'm not personally

I'm not a believer,

but even I could feel millions of souls

mourning as one. I could just feel it.

I don't know what that was about. But if

if you think this is a passing moment,

you know, that we'll get over it and

this is over and then yeah, everything

will go back to the way it was. Sure

doesn't look like that.

Uh-oh. Not on the keyboard, cat. Not on

the keyboard. So, there's something big

that happened. We'll see if that turns

into something. Don't know.

But, uh, let's see what else we do.

Um

and uh

uh somebody said uh who said this? Darn

it. Oh, Cynical Publus

uh on X. It's a great account to follow.

Cynical then space. P U B L I U S. Uh

has real good thoughts pretty much every

day. But I want to read what he said

because it uh it really captured it, I

think. All right. So, he said, "Uh, I'm

watching Charlie Kirk's memorial

service. It finally dawned on me why it

is so important that the left lie about

us." Oh my god, did that hit home?

Did you feel that, too?

Ju just think of this sentence and then

think of what you observed yesterday. It

finally dawned on me why it is so

important that the left lie about us.

He goes, "Our message is one of peace,

love, equality of opportunity,

tolerance, inclusion, justice, and

liberty. It is a message that when

objectively understood, no decent

American can help but embrace. That

embrace is what the left fears. They

know they must distort our message,

otherwise they would have virtually no

followers." Uhhuh. That is why they must

pretend we are racist, misogynist,

homophobic, xenophobic, bigoted,

fascist, Nazis. If they don't lie about

us, they lose everything.

That's why the Democrats are a hoaxy and

that they run non-stop hoaxes. That's

why the fake news is fake.

Do you think that the people who do the

news wouldn't prefer to tell you the

truth?

Oh, all things being equal, of course

they would. Of course they'd rather tell

you the truth, but not if it's bad for

everything on the left. And it is

well, um,

sort of the

sort of a perfect, let's say, accent to

the day. Uh, they weren't the stars.

Obviously, Charlie Kirk and I would

argue that the the attendees were the

stars, but after Charlie and after his

family and after the attendees

the uh Trump and Musk um looks like they

made up. So they were up in the

observation box. Trump was up there, of

course, and uh must stop by and the

cameras caught them shaking hands and

smiling and apparently burying the

hatchet. And Trump

being, you know, the brilliant

communicator that he is, of course,

doesn't miss a moment. And he posts a

picture on X taken from the back that

shows the two of their heads kind of

leaning toward each other in a in a

friendly conversation way, but you only

see the backs of their heads. You know

who they are. And then you see the the

event that they're watching. And uh on

the uh on the post on X it just said

POTUS times Elon Musk for Charlie.

In other words,

they were inspired

to make up because Charlie would have

wanted that. We all wanted it. We all

wanted it. But if that's what it took,

if if uh Charlie's, you know, tragic

death uh caused them to make up for the

benefit of the country, good. Very well

done. Good. Good job, guys.

Um Trump was Trump. He gave a speech. Uh

I didn't hear his speech, but I saw some

quotes. One of the quotes is this is

from Trump talking about Charlie. He

said, "He did not hate his opponents. He

wanted the best for them. Trump said,

"That's where I disagreed with Charlie."

Trump says, "I hate my opponents and I

don't want the best for them. I'm

sorry."

It should be noted that Trump's

opponents wanted to put him in jail.

Right. If if your opponents want to put

you in jail, you can hate them. There's

nothing wrong with that. Yeah. I don't

think it's too uncchristian like to hate

people who are trying to lawfare you,

you know, out of your entire life.

So, you know, maybe maybe if Charlie

knew what happened to him, he wouldn't

be so happy about all of his haters.

But, uh, he went pure. He went not

hating his haters. You got to respect

that.

Um,

So, I'm going to save this note for

later. So, I continue to be fascinated

by the criticisms of Charlie Kirk

because I wasn't aware of any of them. I

I don't know. But apparently there's a

on the left there's a well

uh let's say I I don't want to say

understood because I don't think they

understand but a wellknown

or they believe they know some things he

said that they don't like. And I thought

I would dig into I tried to pick

whatever I thought was the the worst

thing he ever said. I was looking into

it and uh I think I'll cause some

trouble

by talking about that if you don't mind.

So no cat. Sorry. You okay?

Okay. Half of my desk is on the floor

now, but cat's okay. That's the

important part.

So, here's what uh Charlie said that

caused people to say, "My goodness, what

a bad person that Charlie Kirk is." Now,

of course, things are a little out of

context, etc. So, I'll add the context

so you can see what's going on here. Uh,

apparently, at some point, I and this I

got from Grock, so Grock might be

hallucinating a little bit, so you can

fact check me on this. Um, so I guess he

Charlie Kirk at one point made some

remarks as part of a broader

conversation against you know woke

policies and affirmative action all

that. So there was a larger context but

within that context he said quote Martin

Luther King was awful.

Martin Luther King was not a good

person. He was a fraud and the Civil

Rights Act was a huge mistake because

what happened?

Okay. All right. Now I can see why they

might be a little bit mad at him. Um, so

the larger context here was that these

things were meant to be positive, but

they didn't work out for black people

because nothing nothing is better. I

mean, things don't seem that much

better. Um, so the first thing you need

to know is, do you think that Charlie

Kirk

did not want what was best for black

Americans or really anybody else?

Who believes that Charlie Kirk in his

secret mind was ever thinking anything

negative about black Americans and and

how they could do to, you know, have a

good life? Of course not. Of course not.

He was not thinking, I want them to do

poorly. He wanted them to do well. If

you assume that he's a white

supremacist, then everything he said,

and I'm going to give you a little more

details than this, everything he said

would could easily be hammered into

that. Well, I mean, that's what bad

people say. Oh, yeah. There he is with

that that bad. But if you assumed that

he was only trying to help

then it's completely different. If he's

trying to help, then he's saying those

things that you thought were helping

maybe had a downside that was much

bigger than you thought.

That would be his point. Now, here's

where it gets interesting. Uh, and you

can fact check me on this, too. One of

the things he said

uh I guess the bigger point was that

Martin Luther King and civil rights were

ways to sort of focus on color as being

an important thing and he preferred a

colorblind world where you know you want

to get rid of all the bad stuff you know

still get rid of all the discrimination

and all that of course but uh that you

didn't obsess about okay you're black

I'm white we're all different um that

you thought the world would be better if

we just sort of everybody did the best

they could and nobody gets discriminated

against and you don't talk about race

every single second. So, there's

something to be said for that, right?

That's not a that's not a bankrupt idea

or anything, but uh apparently some of

his argument was that uh homeownership

used to be better for black Americans in

the 60s. So that would be sort of at the

tail end of the Jim Crow era, I believe.

So do you believe that fact? Do you

believe that home ownership was higher

for black Americans in the 60s than it

is now? I've been hearing that for years

and I never looked it up. I, you know, I

just hear from everybody on social

media. According to Grock, that's not

even close to true.

Now, so I would ask you to go research

that because it does not look like home

ownership for black Americans was higher

in the 60s according to Grock.

Now, if you have a source that says the

opposite, you should, you know, if you

can find one who said that to me on X,

I'll take a look at it. I'm just sort of

waiting into this, you know, for the

first time, so I'm not too confident.

And I know some of you are now checking

now. Now, would that blow you away if

you learned that that was never true?

Because I I believe Charlie used to say

that and that would have been if true,

that would have been telling us

something that we should have paid

attention to.

How about this? Um, crime used to be

lower

during Jim Crow or in the 60s and for

black Americans. Do you believe that? Do

you believe that crime used to be lower

when uh things were worse in terms of

you know Jim Crow and discrimination? Do

you believe that? Cuz I believe that

Charlie claimed that as well. That's not

even close to true.

What's true is we have no idea because

they didn't have good records back then.

and uh you know didn't have good records

in the sense that I'm not sure that

every crime against a black person got

reported if you know what I mean you

know for a variety of reasons you it

might have been sometimes because of

discrimination sometimes because they

knew there was no point in even

reporting it you know no good could come

from it so apparently

it is uh and and again I'm I'm using

Grock as my source so I don't have high

confidence in what I'm saying. I'm just

telling you where I got it. If Grock

says it, probably that means that the

most common sources also say it, I'm

guessing. All right. Now, so those are

those are two facts that were somehow

seemingly important to Charlie's opinion

that the the uh uh that the changes

since Jim Crow may have been

well-intentioned

but seem to have created a bad outcome.

And uh we also know this part I think is

true that the number of intact black

families went from something like 65%

in the 60s to now about 30 35%.

That's devastating. So the one thing I

think both sides both sides I shouldn't

say I shouldn't even say sides the the

thing I think everyone would agree on

uh is that uh family

you know the the intact families took a

hit. So, that part doesn't seem to be

under dispute,

but the crime part is under dispute, and

I think it's a reasonable dispute. And

the home ownership um is just I think

it's just debunked. Just wasn't true.

All right. Now suppose you wanted to

know for sure or get to the next level

on whether or not Charlie's claims upon

which he seemed to have built at least

some part of his opinion. There's more

to it of course. Um what would be the

way to solve that problem where you've

got this big prominent

um conservative guy who's making a lot

of noise and people don't like it. They

do not like it. And he's saying things

which they consider just flat out

racist. Oh my god. How can you say

things were better when when clearly the

laws and everything else were just

purely discriminatory? How could that be

better, Charlie Kirk? Well, if two of

the facts were the crime rate and the uh

housing ownership, you know how you

could maybe work through that? How about

a public debate on a college campus in

which Charlie Kirk says, "You can ask me

anything."

And then maybe somebody could stand up

there and say, "You say home ownership

was better, but I talked to Grock and

Grock says that's wrong." And I looked

at a couple of sources and they say

you're wrong. Wouldn't that be exactly

the right place to work that out? a

public debate, one of many, because it's

an ongoing process, and you can invite

anybody and they can ask anything.

Anything. That would be perfect. What

about the crime rate? Where would be the

perfect place to find out if Charlie was

full of on that one, you one point

or did he have some some good point? How

about an open public debate in which

everybody can come and ask anything they

want and he'll he'll address it. So

on one hand

um I appreciate the the push back on on

those particular points. I mean that

seems like the right thing. There's

there's doubt about those points.

They're important to his point of view.

Little bit of push back. But here's what

I don't appreciate.

was that uh let's see

the the types of um complaints against

him use interesting words

such as uh he's uh

[Music]

uh he's suggesting things.

So the people who are his critics and

that would include the ADL and media

matters.

The ADL and Media Matters. What what do

you know about those two entities? The

ADL

and Media Matters. They are not

credible.

They they are both uh political. So

they're they're not credible at all.

You want an example? the ADL uh the head

of the ADL said in public that I'm a

Holocaust denier recently

recently

2023

now that so that's that's who is is

blaming uh Charlie but they don't say he

said something bad they say he suggested

it say he romanticized

those earlier times romanticized

uh they say he might have promoted it

that the old things were better and that

quote the dynamics that are inseparable

from segregation.

So he might have said some things that

were a completely different point, but

somebody thinks, well, it's inseparable

from these other things you didn't

mention, so you must have this opinion

about the other inseparable things that

you didn't mention. But he probably

didn't.

So, and that he was using quote white

nationalist talking points. Do you know

how often

people on the right get accused of using

white nationalist talking points which

also happen to be just normal things

that people talk about. All right. So

when you see that kind of attack with

those kinds of words, it's like, well,

he's suggesting and leaning toward and

he's dog whistling.

Generally, that means it's made up.

Generally.

But

um what was his point? And is there

anything there that's salvageable? If

you if you accept that he was wrong

about crime being lower back then and if

you accept that he was wrong about home

ownership,

is there anything that he did say about

uh you know the the changes in laws and

stuff that uh would be valid?

And

here's what I think is valid. I I think

it's valid to say that we've had an

obsession with focusing on race instead

of being colorblind. Now, does he have a

good argument that if you just ignored

all that stuff, you'd be ahead?

Well, I don't know if that's a good

argument. You know what would be a good

way to determine if that was a good

argument or not? a series of debates on

college campuses that are ongoing in

which anybody could ask him any question

and he would answer it.

So

unless you believed

that Charlie Kirk was secretly a white

supremacist pretending to be a man of

God.

None of this makes sense. It it makes

complete sense as somebody who was

searching for the right answers and

wanted the best for everyone and thought

that if we could at least be on the same

page and understand the same set of

facts, we'd probably be way ahead in

figuring out how to get to a better

place. If if you believe that he

literally was this bad person, you can

kind of talk yourself into, well, uh,

he's a bad person. He didn't say

anything bad. maybe inaccurate,

but being inaccurate is not that's not

racist, right? That's just having a bad

fact. Um, but no, he he promoted and he

uh suggested and he romanticized.

But if you don't think he's a monster,

you don't see him romanticizing

anything. He He's just making sure that

you understand the the argument and

which parts he's looking at, which parts

he's not. That's not romanticizing

anything to to call it romanticizing.

You're the problem. Whoever said he's

romanticizing it, you're the problem.

You are very much the problem. If he had

simply said he said or he was inaccurate

about or his argument didn't hold

together because, then I would say,

whoa, that's that's some good stuff you

have there. That's a strong attack.

But that didn't happen. Instead, the

least credible entities in the world,

the ADL and Media Matters, famously

noncredible,

famously biased, convinced half of the

country that this man of God who loved

everybody and didn't have a racist bone

in his body was somehow this monster.

Now, here's what I think. I think when

he was talking about Martin Luther King,

he may have been talking about his

personal life, which is just a matter of

history. that his personal life was far

from godly. You all know that, right?

But does that matter? You know, I I

think you could argue that shouldn't

matter. Uh that his personal life was

this or that. It should matter that uh

he was uh focusing on, you know, what

would be better for everybody, I guess.

So, I don't know that his criticism

about Martin Luther King moves us in the

right direction, but that's what the

debates are for. Somebody could have

asked, why do you say that, you know, he

was a uh what do you call him? Awful. He

was not a good person. He was a fraud.

Now, I'm pretty sure, you know, Charlie

is well read was well read.

I'm pretty sure if you read some history

books about him or any other famous

person, you know, white or black,

doesn't matter their color, you could

throw a dart and pick a famous person

who was alive during those days and you

would find

some warts. You know that by now there

would be okay, you know, he's your

favorite president, but did you know

this?

Did you know this? And uh if you're a

man of God, you might really care about

the hypocrisy of a man of God not acting

like one.

Maybe that counted. Um and as far as the

Civil Rights Act, which he acted, oh, he

said was a huge mistake. Quote, because

what happened? If you don't end, if you

don't figure out what he means by

because what happened,

could you agree or disagree with the

Civil Rights Act being a huge mistake?

I don't think that he I don't think the

Civil Rights Act was a huge mistake.

What What exactly did he even mean about

that? I'll tell you what he didn't mean.

He didn't mean that people should now

have equal rights. He didn't mean that.

Obviously, he didn't mean that he

doesn't want what's best for black

Americans.

Obviously, he doesn't mean that. So, he

had some point about unintended

consequences.

And you can observe that black America

is not doing as well as black America

wants to. So, certainly it didn't fix

the problems.

But again, how would you get to the next

level of understanding what he meant

about that and whether he had any useful

suggestions?

Well, how about a series of debates at

colleges? Yeah, you know where that's

going.

So Charlie often said he wanted a

colorblind world and uh that's not

something that goes over well if you

have gigantic industries of people who

need it not to be colorblind because

that's where they get their advantage,

their paycheck, etc. So of course that

was controversial.

Um

let's see. Uh

um

so

I would say this. I would say that

Charlie was what I call a systems guy.

He didn't have all the answers. And if

you asked him, Charlie, do you have all

the answers? Do you think you would have

said yes?

Really? Do you think you would have

said, oh yeah, I got all the answers.

it's in the Bible or something? Probably

not because part of the reason for the

debate thing, I assume, is that he would

learn things as well as other people. Do

you do you believe that Charlie believed

that the reason for the debates was only

to win?

Only to win? I doubt it. That doesn't

sound like him at all. Sounds like he

would um be trying to persuade, of

course, but he was probably learning

stuff, too. Oh my god. Oh, sorry.

Itchy nose.

Well, I'm going to give you my take on

everything that's going wrong in in uh

the world.

Uh I'm going to make a statement and

then I want you to see how many of you

would disagree with this. All right. Um,

I believe that everyone who made the

same choices I made in life

generally, I mean, not the not the real

specifics, but the choices would be um,

I prioritized fitness early in my life.

I prioritized educational attainment

early in life and really worked at it. I

was valid Victorian. Um, I told myself

that it was up to me to make money and

nobody was going to help me. And so I I

acquired the skills that would allow me

to get the kind of life I wanted. I knew

that I had to stay in a jail. I need

knew I needed to stay off the bad kind

of drugs when I was young. I didn't do

any drugs when I was a young man. And

I made a whole series of choices which

uh anybody could have made a list if you

asked them what are all the things you

should do to be successful. Make a list.

I I just checked off all the boxes. And

none of that was secret. Everybody I

knew at my at my age, every single

person knew what to do to be successful.

And they knew what to do not to be

successful.

And uh my family didn't have a lot of

money. You know, we we had enough, but

we weren't uh well off or even middle

class. I think we're lower middle class

or something. But none of that stopped

me from succeeding.

And here's my statement, my provocative

statement. Everybody who made the

choices I made did well. They didn't

become cartoonists because that you know

I'm not talking about the detailed

choices but I'm talking the big stuff

the people who stayed in school and paid

attention and um you know I was

committed to continuous learning about

how to be successful. Eventually I wrote

a book about it. I I learned so much I

was like oh put it in a book myself. So

I believe everybody who had that mindset

did well whether you were black or white

or anything else. And so the real I

would boil down the the question for

black Americans to this and I would not

provide an answer just the question.

Why do you make different choices?

That's it. Why do you make different

choices? Everybody knows what works.

Everybody knows what doesn't work.

I didn't make a choice to join a gang.

Is the reason because I didn't live

where there were gangs. Maybe that that

might be the only thing. I'm maybe I'm

not like some superior character or

something. I just didn't grow up where

there were gangs. But if I knew that,

you know, that would suggest a solution.

Oh, uh, let's try to remove every kid

who has a shot at making in the world,

moving them away from where there might

be a gang influence. Just do that right

away. Maybe maybe uh even um help the

family with the the expenses. Just just

get them out of there because it'll be

more expensive for society if you know

one more kid becomes a gang member when

they could have become a pharmacist or

something.

So, take it down to that. Why do you

make different choices? But you don't

need to tell me. I'm I'm not the

audience for that. You need to figure

out why you make different choices.

If if I try to help you with that, it'll

make things worse. It'll make things

worse.

You don't want my opinion about why

you're making different choices because

it's gonna immediately turn into

something that sounds racist even if you

don't mean it that way. So just stay out

of that. You know, black America figure

out why you make different choices. The

the path for success is so well known to

everybody that if you don't choose that

path, I don't know why. I don't know why

and I'm not the one who will be able to

solve that. So figure that out and then

we'll be in good shape.

And a lot of it I think is environment.

All right.

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson

said yesterday, I think that law

enforcement is a sickness that doesn't

make communities safer. Town Hall is

reporting on this.

So the law enforcement is a sickness

that doesn't make communities safer. Now

he's making a choice, right? So he's a

black mayor and he's making a choice to

deemphasize

law enforcement, at least traditional

law enforcement. And as far as I know,

he doesn't have a workable alternative

idea.

Is that a choice you would have made?

Would you make that choice? I wouldn't.

I wouldn't make that choice.

Right. So again, for me to figure out

why he's making that choice

just turns into an absurdity. I can't

read his mind. And I certainly wouldn't

if I looked in there. I don't know what

I'd say. Like why is he choosing this?

It's just the wrong choice. It's a very

wrong choice.

I don't know. Why do people make wrong

choices when they're when the choices

are so obvious?

Well, you would not be surprised that

the New York Times and NBC News are uh

kind of downplaying the possibility that

Charlie Kirk's shooter had some kind of

a trans connection to a larger network

of maybe bad actors. And they say

there's no evidence of any ties between

the shooter and left-wing groups. But

you've lived in the world long enough

that you know that the left-leaning

media is a little bit desperate to not

indicate that things went exactly the

way the conservatives said they would,

which is if you keep going in this

direction,

it's going to look like this. And uh you

know, the trans thing went too far and

you know it's it's too accommodated, I

think the right would say. And uh the

left of course can't say anything like

that. So they have to say there's no

evidence found between the shooter and

leftwing groups. Do you think that'll

stand? Do you think when it's all done

that there will be no connection between

the trans and the trans partner? And I I

feel like the odds of that are low, but

who knows? You know, we're still in a

fog of war. So, I would say that just

about anything you thought was true

could be debunked. Just about anything.

Um, but we'll see.

All right. Uh, you know, there's a uh at

least online there's a big controversy

view brewing because people are saying,

"How can there be an an exit wound in

the front of his neck and no ex no entry

or exit wound on the back of his neck?"

like how is that? That's not a thing.

It's not possible. And with the the

rounds that were used, it should have

been small and maybe maybe almost

invisible, but they would have found it

during the autopsy. Um entry wound in

the back that could have potentially

created the larger exit wound that we

that we all saw to our horror. Um,

however, I did see a green beret and I

think I saw some other people do this as

well explain it perfectly.

So, I'm I'm convinced that I have

exactly the correct explanation.

All right? So, I'm going to tell you and

maybe you'll have the same impression I

did. And by the way, I feel bad because

the Green Beret member who did the video

did a great job. So, if anybody uh I

think I may have posted it, but I'd love

to say his name. Uh, but I didn't write

it down. Didn't remember. I didn't think

I was going to talk about it

necessarily, so I didn't write it down.

But here's what I learned. All right.

Number one, are you aware that he was

wearing a breastplate

um a protective

um you know, bulletproof thing for

exactly this kind of risk. The uh green

brag guy said uh that there are two

basic kinds of these protective plates

that would go into your shirt. One of

them is kind of thick. It wasn't one of

those cuz it's too thick. Every you

would have seen it would be super

obvious. The other one is metal and it's

thinner and you could sort of see from

outlines of his shirt on certain

pictures. You could tell that there was

a breast plate in there. So, number one,

I accept because you could see that

there's something under there that he

had a protective metal, not any other

thing but metal breast. breastplate.

Now, the breastplate also has at the top

a little bit of a what would you call

it? It it curves in toward the body a

little bit. So, it's not flat flat. It's

it's flat and then it just sort of

curves in at the top a little bit of a

ridge. Unfortunately, that ridge, if you

hit it the exact ridge,

uh the the round would fly up toward the

head because it would ricochet.

And it looks like the the the round may

have hit him at that at that bent part

of the plate just in, you know, on his

chest.

What the first time I saw it, I saw it

hit the chest the chest plate first. So,

I saw it hit there. I mean, I I thought

I saw it. So, it looks like it hit the

curvy part of the chest plate, maybe on

this side, and then came up into the

neck. And the reason that it didn't go

through the neck is that it was, you

know, sort of a ricochet that came off

the chest plate. It might have even been

a piece of the chest plate as opposed to

a round. That's possible. Or it could

have been both. or it could have been

shrapnel. Maybe it was just what's left

of the bullet. Now, the the thing that

also didn't make sense is that we're

told, and again, anything could be

changed by tomorrow, but we're told that

the the bullet was found in his neck.

Now, all the people who know firearms

were saying that's not possible because

because if he hit the neck directly,

there's no way it stays in the neck. It

would be it would be sitting in the

people behind him. I mean, it would be

in their body. it wouldn't be in

Charlie's body. But if it was a

ricochet, that may have taken a lot of

the energy out of it and it may have,

you know, been traveling a little bit

more uphill, which would explain the

larger, you know, entry wound, you know,

because it wasn't coming straight in.

Now, to me,

that is a it comes from a professional

who knows all of these devices. is he

knows the guns, he knows the

breastplates.

Uh he knows what he's talking about. So

I accept that as I'm going to say I'll

put a 90% likely that he nailed it. The

the Green Beret I'm talking about. So

please, if you can come up with his

name, I think he was impressive.

Uh all right, another topic and I I just

I consider that closed. Uh I'm

completely satisfied that that expert

opinion answered all my questions. So uh

it was a fluke. I think

according to Scypost Karina Petrova, a

40-year study finds that higher science

funding happened under Republicans.

That's the whole story. Apparently,

historically over the last 40 years,

Republicans are a better bet for science

than Democrats.

Would you have known that? Honestly, if

somebody said, "Scott, you know, you

always support all these Republicans all

the time. Uh, why don't they fund

science as much?" I probably would have

just accepted that as a fact because I

hear it all the time. Republicans are

anti-science. Republicans were

anti-science. Republicans uh don't

believe in climate change, etc. So, it

wouldn't have surprised me if

Republicans

just thought that the government should

be less involved in science and maybe

private enterprise should be more

involved or something like that. But it

turns out according to this one study,

Republicans have always been the ones

who funded science more. Could it be

there were just more Republican

presidents in the last 40 years? Maybe

that's all it would take. I don't know.

I don't trust this because all data is

fake. But it's surprising it didn't go

the other way.

Um

see

there was something else I was going to

mention.

Oh, so the uh the autism announcement is

coming up today at 4 pm Eastern, I

think.

And the tease is that pregnant women

with who take Tylenol

that might be implicated in some of the

autism.

But I got questions.

Isn't it true that autism sometimes

doesn't show up until the kid is, let's

say, eight years old? Yeah, not just

eight. But isn't it true they don't all

have it at birth?

What are the odds

that taking a drug while you're pregnant

would cause a child to have a problem

but not until 8 years old?

So after 8 years of not being exposed to

Tylenol while somebody's pregnant, it

would be after the 8 years you would get

you would get the first symptoms. Or

maybe that's just the first diagnosis,

but maybe it was always there. And what

about the people? Always remember this.

Um,

who is the explayboy playmate?

Jenny,

Jenny, whatever. Um, who had the child

who she says

I remember telling the story. She says

that she saw the, you know, the the life

drain drain out of his eyes right after

a vaccination.

So what about Oh, Jenny McCarthy. Jenny.

Yeah.

Um,

what about that?

Let me tell you what I'm worried about.

I'm worried that the pharma industry

might throw a sacrificial calf. uh into

the conversation to protect themselves

as in maybe they have to accept that

there's some big pharma connection.

Maybe they just have to because they

can't get away from it, but they don't

want to they don't want to give up on uh

vaccinations.

So,

do you suppose that anybody, cuz

remember this is all weasels and liars

and uh thieves basically involved in all

of this. Do you think that they might be

trying to guide the conversation? So,

you think, "Oh, yeah. Well, we were

right all along that it was pharma, but

it turns out it was just this special

case with just Tylenol and just pregnant

women." And look how easy it is to fix

that. Isn't that interesting that that

if that were the problem, you could fix

it immediately with no implication for

even the Tylenol people? Because if the

only people not taking it are pregnant

women, well, that's not that many. So,

Tylenol would go on making money. The

the vaccine people would go on making

money. But still they could say well we

looked really closely and we found that

pharma was in fact the problem in this

very very narrow way that we can easily

make it go away just by telling people

not to take it if they're pregnant.

It feels a little too convenient,

doesn't it? There's something about that

that just screams there's more to the

story.

And I don't know if they're going to

sell this as the answer. I doubt it. Do

Do you think they're going to say,

"Well, we found it." Um, and you should

also know, um, just only based on what

I'm seeing on social media, there are

claims that studies have debunked this

already that there are existing studies

because people suspected it before they

did a big study and allegedly didn't

find it. Do you believe that?

Well, here's the problem. All data is

fake. So, I don't believe the data that

says they found it, and I don't believe

the data that says they didn't find it.

You really we really can't believe

either data.

So, I'd be very curious if um all of the

moms who who have children on the

spectrum, I'd love to hear from them. I

believe that they will probably

coordinate to find out how many of them

were taking Tylenol when they were

pregnant. And I think they're going to

find out it wasn't most of them.

Although Tylenol is practically

ubiquitous. Maybe it's hard to avoid,

but I feel like that the people, you

know, the actual parents are going to

come forward and say, "All right, uh, I

know three people in my situation and,

uh, three out of four of us say that we

didn't take any Tylenol, so now explain

what's going on." So, I feel like

there's going to be some push back if

the only thing they identify is Tylenol.

What they might do is say, "We found

this for sure." Or sure enough that you

know, you should avoid it and uh we're

still looking

cuz there there's no way that's the

whole answer. I don't think.

Well, uh, you know the story about Tom

Hman who was accused of taking $50,000

in cash before Trump was in office and

before we knew he would be and before

Tom Hman was in his current job. He was

a consultant working in that border

security area and apparently he

allegedly took $50,000 from what he was

presumably didn't know was an FBI's

thing and they were going to pay him for

him to give them some special access

once Trump became president if he did.

But allegedly he took the 50,000 which I

have not heard confirmed by him by the

way. I've not heard H Homeman say he did

or did not ever accept 50,000 in cash

for anything. So, I don't even know if

he did that. But, um

the story is that he did take the money,

but that they never found out if he

would do anything illegal because when

Trump became president, his

administration came in and they dropped

they dropped this thing.

So if you look on social media, people

will say, "See, I told you he was

totally innocent because the charges

were dropped with no evidence whatsoever

of wrongdoing."

You know, that's not exactly what

happened, right?

So that's the Republican version that

well it there must be nothing to it

because uh Biden's people didn't charge

him and then Trump's people didn't

charge him. Not even charging him. So

therefore there was nothing there,

right? No, you were completely

misunderstanding the story. There's

nothing there, but there wasn't supposed

to be. First you pay the bribe, then you

wait for Trump to take office.

Then you wait for that company to

approach again and ask for special help.

And if they got it, and if they got it

because they paid him, that's a crime.

But since they never got to the point

where he was in office and also making

decisions, never got to that point. It

was dropped before he could make any

decisions.

So, would he have done something

illegal?

Nobody can know.

I mean, I'm going to say, you know,

innocent till proven guilty. He's not

been proven guilty. By definition, he's

innocent. We should not assume they

would have any bad intent. But here's

the here's the part that I've been

laughing about.

Do you believe that Tom Holman could not

spot an FBI sting?

of all people, Tom Hullman. Tom Holman's

been around. Have you noticed? He's

experienced. He's seen the the ugliest

side of life like you and I will never

see. Do Do you believe that he did not

have any suspicion whatsoever when

somebody offered him $50,000 of cash?

Cash?

Didn't even write a check? Was it

literally cash? like a bundle of cash.

Tom Hman. Now, I could believe that, you

know, if I if I randomly chose some of

my audience here and said, "All right,

I'm going to put you in this situation.

Somebody comes in with the 50,000 in

cash, would you know it was an FBI's

thing?"

I would.

I'm pretty sure I would have spotted an

FBI's thing or or I would have assumed

it was. Nobody gives you $50,000 in cash

unless it's a sting or, you know, a

cartel thing or whatever.

So, you know, I I will acknowledge that

real criminals do also give large

amounts of cash, but wouldn't you just

assume that this would be too dicey to

take the money? And what if, so this is

this is me just speculating because it's

funny. What if Tom Hman was not only

suspicious, but he thought it would be

hilarious to take the FBI's money

because they weren't going to get it

back and they would never find him doing

any crimes because he was not inclined

to do any crimes in the first place.

So, it's entirely possible that he

totally suspected him and said, "All

right, I'll take your $50,000,

but you're not going to get anything in

return."

Maybe. I don't know.

But if you tell me that Tom Hman can't

spot a tra a trap that's that obvious,

I don't believe that. I I don't believe

he couldn't spot that from the the jump.

Speaking of things like that, apparently

Democrat uh

oh, what's his name? Quayer. Henry Quay,

Democrat from Texas. So, he's under

indictment for taking all kinds of

bribes.

Uh, of course, he, you know, um, here's

my question.

Uh,

is it only Democrats that are doing all

this bribery stuff and getting caught?

Is it possible that Republicans are

doing as much crime as Democrats, but

they don't get caught? Or maybe my is

the algorithm not feeding me those

stories? Cuz it sure seems like all the

criminals are Democrats, the the

government criminals. Am I wrong? It it

seems like it's been a long time since a

prominent Republican got arrested for

any bribery. But Democrats, yeah, every

every week.

In other news,

the percentage of Americans who say

college is very important went from 70%

thought it was very important in 2010 to

this year it's 35%. So college is half

as desired

as it was in 2010. But I think that's

the right answer and it has to do with

colleges

um not doing the job

of remaining relevant. Do you think

people would say that if all the

colleges were preparing people for

useful careers?

I don't think so. It It's not that

people changed and now they don't want

these educations. It's that the

educations were garbage and they figured

it out. So once you figure out that many

of the majors are garbage and a waste of

money, you should go from 70% to 35

and thinking it's worth it. You should.

So that's not even bad in my mind. The

bad part is the the colleges are a

ripoff. That's the bad part.

All right. Uh in the all data is fake

category. This will be the DEI chapter

of that. Um I saw a article by Amuse. I

always tell you to follow Amuse on X.

It's spelled just the way it sounds.

Amuse.

Um and he he's got some good writing and

that goes with his posting. And he tells

us that uh back in uh 2020 there was a

study claiming that black newborns were

twice as likely to survive if the doctor

was was black. Now that's pretty

shocking, right? That the black newborn

is twice as likely to survive if the

doctor is black. that would strongly

suggest that the worst kind of

discrimination was happening and the

white doctors were I letting babies die

or not trying hard enough to save them

or you know your your brain goes

everywhere on that. Well, what do you

think was the truth?

Well, the truth is it was fake data. Not

only was it fake, but the group of what

Amuse calls black women who did the

study knew it. They actually knew it was

fake. They did it anyway because they

wanted more u black candidates to get

into college, which would require

lowering the standards so that they

could, you know, get in. And that would

make sense if this if that data were

true

that black babies were twice as likely

to survive, then I would say, um, yeah,

you're going to need to get some black

doctors in here. And uh you might even

need to lower the standards a little

bit. I mean, this is such a big data

point that if you could, you know, lower

the standards 5% but save twice as many

babies. Yeah, of course.

But it was fake data just like all data

is fake.

Um, so just know that and I guess uh

even uh Justice Katanji Brown Jackson,

she cited that study in an affirmative

action case

was never true

and it became part of this Supreme Court

opinion.

Oh, Katanji.

Um Putin is making some statements

today. I think he's already made them.

and he's uh concerned about Trump's

Golden Dome missile protection system.

He thinks that will destabilize the

balance of power and he calls it

destructive steps undermining the

foundation for dialogue among armed

states and that uh if if that continues

or things like that continue that Russia

uh will have to respond in some vague

way that we wouldn't like but at the

same time uh Russia has offered to limit

nukes and do some kind of a nuclear here

limit deal

um

which might be similar to the deal

that's already under the new start deal.

So there's some complications to this

but Putin is concerned about the uh dome

and uh wants to deal at least at least

deal on nukes. So maybe that's good.

Maybe that's more good than bad. Well,

Trump has nominated now a replacement

senior prosecutor. He got rid of the one

who was not going to indict Leticia

James.

U Leticia James is the one who lawfired

Trump and uh Trump is putting in a new

uh loyal lawyer person that he's worked

with and uh will presumably

go after Leticia James. I do think that

the goods are there. There's probably

enough to indict. And I'm sure that

Trump at this point, given that he got

lawfared so hard by Leticia James, um I

feel like he would be uh maybe not as

happy as if she got, you know, put in

jail, but he would be a little bit happy

if at least she has to deal with the the

cost of the legal hassle

cuz that's what she did to him. And so,

uh, let me say it again. I said before,

I'm not really in favor of lawfare. You

know, I don't like to see my side doing

lawfare against the other side. The

exception would be if you're using the

lawfare against the exact person who

tried to lawfare

you, and that's what's happening. So in

this case, I would remove all controls

that I I would say Trump, if you can

destroy her career and her life and put

her in jail, I believe that's the right

answer. I believe that justice requires

that. And so I'm 100%

um in favor of Trump. He he can fire

every lawyer he needs to fire before he

gets a, you know, gets a bite on her. Uh

but he needs to put the bite on her

legally, but he has to, you know, he's

got to exhaust every every tool, every

path to get at her. And if you don't do

that,

you're not really going to discourage

that behavior in the future. I want to

know that if you're a um illegitimate

lawfare proponent, that you can't just

go in public and tell everybody you're

doing it and then do it right in front

of us. I mean, she actually told us she

was going to do it before she did it.

You can't do that. I don't want to live

in that world. I I want that person in

jail. Um I mean, more than anybody else

in the country,

probably. Probably more than anyone else

in the country, I want Leticia James in

jail.

I'm sure there's a murderer out there

that

I might want to jail more, but they're

already in jail for the most part. All

right. Um,

you know, the big question about Trump

is going to limit the H-1B visa workers

and they got to pay $100,000,

you know, just to get that visa. Uh,

those are the new changes. But

apparently the Wall Street Journal says

that um a number of economists

say that the H-1B visas the way it was

was a benefit to America

which would be you know a benefit to all

workers indirectly. Now do you believe

that? Do you believe that America

and specifically American workers would

be better off

with the the way it is with the H-1B

visa people coming in fairly massively?

Or do you think if you limit them,

there will be enough Americans that can

be trained to to fill in and

everything's better because we not only

fill the jobs, but we'd fill them with

Americans.

Well, I have a correction.

Um, I know you like it when I do that.

So, I said something yesterday that was

seriously wrong.

Like seriously wrong. I think most of

you caught it. Uh, but maybe you didn't

know why you caught it.

Here's what I said yesterday. Um, I

forget the number of the population of

India, but let let's say there's a

billion people there. I said, 'If we

have access to another billion people, I

mean, that's so many people that if we

could, you know, skim off the the best

of their billion people, that would be a

tremendous amount of people that were

just really really qualified. And how

could that not be good for America?

And then uh somebody sent me an email

and said, "You're forgetting the IQ

difference."

To which I said, "What?"

and he pointed out and I had to check

this myself but apparently it's true. If

you look at all of India, the whole

country, their their average IQ is way

less than the average in the United

States. So if you are limiting your

population to just the people who are,

let's say, above an IQ of 120, I just

picked that randomly. Uh, I think there

would be like a few hundred,000 people

that would even be possible, you know,

that would be so smart that they'd be

smarter than Americans. So, it's

actually it would be more like

um

smaller than Rhode Island basically.

So it would be more like trying to get

your experts from a country as small as

Rhode Island if you limit it just to the

over 120 IQ which is rare in every

country. Every country is rare over 120.

So the correction is this. It doesn't

seem that just the raw number of Indians

is a good argument.

Um, however, I will say that living and

working in the Bay Area, um, I've seen a

number of people born in India that came

here that made such a difference in

America. I mean, I I don't need to name

them. You know, se several of them are,

you know, uh, household names. I don't

want to me I don't want to lose them. I

don't want to lose them. And I don't

think it I'm not sure that they would be

able to get here under the current

system. But there are some uh

Indian-American

contributors in Silicon Valley and

elsewhere that their contributions are

enormous. Just enormous just so far so

far out of the the norm of what you and

I are doing.

So how do you not lose them? I don't

know. So, I guess I guess I'm going to

say I'm open-minded about whether this

will work out.

If we can fill those jobs with people

who would be every bit as good as the

people I know personally who are beyond,

you know, beyond good. I mean, they're

just crazy talented. Uh,

I don't know. We'll see.

But we can reverse anything we have to

reverse. Uh the US Treasury is cracking

down on the Sinaloa cartel's

uh people who are getting money from the

Sinaloa cartel freezing assets and

whatnot. Brebar News is reporting about

this ill defense defenso Ortiz.

Now what I wondered is did we always

know this?

Has the Treasury Department

um has the Treasury Department always

been able to find the people who are

benefiting from or sending cartel money?

Have we always been able to do this or

is this some brand new capability we

just came up with? Well, I'm in favor of

it, but I don't understand why it's just

coming up now.

Um, former Mexican president's sons

uh are reportedly uh cartel mobbed up in

the cartels. So, the sons of uh former

president uh Andreas Manuel Lopez

Oberdor

are allegedly tied to a large-scale

cartel thing. According to Breitbar

News,

uh, also Il Defanso Ortiz, but also

Brandon Darby, who knows more about the

border than any other living person.

Brandon Darby does. Um,

um, I'm trying to figure out there's at

least one ex Mexican president who

follows me on X. Don't remember if it's

Oberdor or someone else. Um, so,

President Maduro of Venezuela has

offered to directly talk to Trump and

have a, you know, direct face-to-face

meeting. Now, Trump considers Maduro the

head of a cartel that just took over a

country and doesn't consider him a, you

know, real leader of a country. He's

just a cartel boss who uh took over a

country. But Maduro says, "No, no."

Totally misunderstood. Not only are we

not allowing drugs through Venezuela,

she says, "But only 5% of the drugs

produced in Colombia shipped through

there, of which 70% of those drugs, 70%

of the 5% are neutralized or destroyed

by Venezuelan authorities."

Does that sound even a little bit true?

I don't know. I don't know.

There there's no way to know.

But my guess is that he's closer closer

to being ahead of a cartel

than he is to somebody who's really

stopping those cartels.

Well, update on Argentina. MLE, the

superstar new president who's fixing

everything. Um, he says the market is in

panic mode. Zero Hedge is reporting on

this. So, they've got some real, you

know, currency meltdown problems going

on over there. So, I guess I'm gonna

just double down on saying I never

really believed all the hype about MLE.

He might still pull this out, but it it

was the way people talked about him, the

press, that never looked

totally objective to me. It just it just

looked to me like, you know, they were

building him up because he was sort of a

colorful, interesting character. I I was

always skeptical that he had the miracle

that they said.

Meanwhile, at Texas A&M University, the

president had to resign uh after there

was some big conversation locally about

radical gender ideology.

So, President Mark Welsh has resigned.

fallout after some big debate over that

topic. And

so people continue to lose jobs over

being too woke.

Um a new study

came out um it was a big one that says

that uh depression is associated with

low brain blood flow and function as

opposed to a chemical imbalance. You've

probably heard uh in the news already

that uh the idea that depression is a

chemical imbalance and therefore if they

give you the right chemical to balance

it, you should be fine

has never been demonstrated. there

there's no study that shows a chemical

imbalance, but still that's the way it

was being treated. Oh well, there's no

evidence of a chemical imbalance, but

how about some drugs to fix your

chemical imbalance?

But this new thing says that has

something to do with how efficiently the

the brain blood flow and function is.

Um

uh I'm going to say again

that it seems energy related. I believe

that we believe that depressed people

have low energy and they certainly do.

But I feel like we think that the

depression causes the low energy. I'm I

have a strong intuition that everybody

who has high energy doesn't experience

depression.

meaning that the energy level might be

what causes the depression.

Oh my goodness, my cat is

rubbing her little soft face against my

bare arm. It's the best feeling in the

world. Oh, keep doing that. All right,

we'll take a look at you.

All right. Uh and then according to all

day astronomy,

there's a baffling phenomenon in the

quantum world called the delayed choice

quantum eraser. And it's where the act

of observing a particle can seemingly

reach back in time to change what

happened before the observation.

Which means that the present creates the

past at least at the quantum level.

Now, as I often say, um, you could have

just asked me because I've been saying

for years that the present creates the

past and it has to be true. Not not

because I did some experiments, it just

has to be true. Here's why.

Um, not only do we have to be a

simulation, you know, trillion to one

odds because for every for every

simulation, now for every reality,

there'll be lots of simulations. So,

we're almost certainly a simulation. So,

we start there.

Now, if you were going to code a

simulation,

would you make your program know every

particle in the universe, everywhere in

the universe, even though you knew that

the people, you know, the the humans

could never experience anywhere else in

the universe because we can't get there.

You know, maybe we get to Mars, but

that's about it. But you wouldn't have

to you wouldn't have to specify anything

that we couldn't see.

So you wouldn't have to have details of

like the center of a planet unless we

dug a hole otherwise don't need it. So

the only way

you could make a computer program that

would have enough uh power to simulate

our environment is if you did two

things. One, you made the past only

appear when it was needed. So you don't

use all that processing.

And two, you allow people to experience

different realities

without having to solve which one was

true. So you and I can go do a thing and

you'll have different memories than I

do. We'll do some politics and you'll

think something bad happened. I'll think

something good happened. We don't have

to resolve that. We can just say, "Well,

you're wrong and I'm right." So we go

through life with completely different

ideas of what the reality was. And that

only makes sense if we're a simulation.

And the reason it's like that is to save

resources. Otherwise, we would all kind

of just see the same stuff

and have the same opinion, right?

So, we have to have different opinions

of what we're seeing so that the the

code doesn't have ever have to resolve

it. You can just leave that, you know,

leave the disconnect. And that's that's

what we get used to. There's always a

disconnect. We always disagree about

what we saw and what happened and what's

going to happen next. And uh yeah, and

you and you have to be able to change

the past when you dig a hole. So my

understanding of the universe is that in

my backyard,

wherever nobody's ever dug a hole,

nobody with a consciousness has ever dug

a hole, that it's not determined. But if

I go out there with my shovel and I

start digging, the hole will fill in

ahead of me because that's the only time

it needs to be there. Doesn't need to be

there until I dig. So why would it be

there? It wouldn't make any sense. So

that's my view. And my cat is on my

notes. Oh my goodness. I thought that

was Gary, but this is Roman.

Oh, Roman.

All

right, that's all I got today.

Happy Monday. Did I go long? Oh my god,

I went really long. Sorry about that.

All right, I'm going to say hi to my

beloved

uh subscribers and uh

the rest of you. Thanks for joining

everybody. I will see you tomorrow.

Locals, stay tuned. We'll talk to you a

little bit.