Ep. 1747 - NEW: A Potential Lead In The Epstein Files. This Is WEIRD.
Matt Walsh investigates Epstein's suspicious death, citing Tova Noel's pre-death Google searches and a subpoena regarding a wheelchair swap claim, while dismissing Iran war theories as "midwit slop." He condemns NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani for focusing on speech over the terrorism of Amir Balat and Ibrahim Kayumi. Walsh refutes Dario Amodei's AI consciousness claims, arguing models are merely "philosophical zombies," and critiques New York Magazine's parental regret narrative as a false dilemma where selfishness causes misery. Finally, he rejects Hollywood's sanitized history of Native Americans as savage fighters. [Automatically generated summary]
Today, Matt Wall Show, new revelations from the Epstein files raise more questions than they answer.
There are a whole lot of strange coincidences surrounding Epstein's death in his jail cell.
The story just went from weird to weirder, and we will discuss.
Also, Muslim terrorist attack demonstrators in New York.
Mom Ghani says the real problem is Islamophobia, as you might have guessed.
And have chatbots already gained consciousness?
One CEO says they might have.
Talk about all that and more today on The Matt Walsh Show.
Over the weekend, reports started circulating about one of the prison guards who was on duty the night that Jeffrey Epstein died.
The report mentioned strange Google searches and mysterious cash deposits.
So I decided to look into it.
And, you know, the DOJ, of course, released a batch of Epstein files a few weeks ago.
But as a practical matter, it has been impossible for anyone to go through all those files in a timely fashion.
There's a lot of information to sift through.
And as a result, some very important stuff has been missed.
So today we're going to go through some of that information and what it means.
Most of the revelations concern this security guard who was assigned to guard Epstein, was later charged in federal court for falsifying her logs.
And as we talk about all this, we're going to be thorough and we're going to include all the relevant context and document IDs and everything else.
And that's not simply because the new revelations are genuinely important and disturbing, although they absolutely are.
It's also because whatever you may personally think of the Epstein files, this is a legitimately very important political issue also.
It's probably the one news event of the past year that's broken containment and made it onto the radar of almost every normal person in the country.
Even the war in Iran hasn't quite done that, at least not to this point, not to the same extent.
So if you care about who controls the U.S. government, and you should, then this story simply cannot be ignored.
We'll start with a very conspicuous subpoena that was issued to 4chan, the social media site.
In the case you're not familiar with it, 4chan is basically a free fire zone.
It's a forum for memes, commentary, pranks, et cetera.
To give one example of 4chan's influence, you might remember that a few years ago, leftists were freaking out about the okay hand sign saying that it was a secret symbol of white supremacy.
And a lot of people got fired over it.
It was a whole thing.
Well, in reality, it was a 4chan hoax.
4chan users deliberately set out to convince the media that Nazis were doing this, were making the okay hand sign, and the media took the bait.
So put another way, 4chan generally isn't taken seriously as a credible source of information.
A lot of content on 4chan is trolling or intentionally deceptive, just meant to be funny.
But just days after Jeffrey Epstein was reportedly found dead in his prison cell, the federal government began taking 4chan very seriously, indeed.
In particular, the Southern District of New York, probably the most high-powered U.S. Attorney's Office in the country, obtained a grand jury subpoena seeking information from 4chan, and the site complied.
This is from the Epstein files, document 133350.
Quote, pursuant to a federal grand jury subpoena served by the Southern District of New York, 4chan provided the attached response dated August 14th, 2019.
And here's the information that 4chan provided.
And as you can see, there are some IP addresses that were blacked out.
There are identities, or at least the virtual identities of the people who made various 4chan posts on the morning of August 10th, 2019, the date that Epstein died, which are also blacked out.
And there's also the text of one of those posts, which the federal government was especially interested in.
Here's what the post said.
It said this, quote, not saying anything after this, please do not try to doxx me.
But last night, after 0415 count, they took him medical in a wheelchair, front cuffed, but not one triage nurse says they spoke to him.
Next thing we know, a trip van shows up.
We do not do releases on the weekends unless a judge orders it.
Next thing we know, he's put in a single man cell and hangs himself.
Here's the thing, the trip van did not sign in and we did not record the plate number and a guy in a green dress military outfit was in the back of the van, according to the tower guy who led him through the gate.
You guys, I am shaking right now, but I think they switched him out.
Now, by itself, this post in a vacuum is not particularly credible.
Anyone could have written it.
But the fact that the Southern District of New York then demanded more information about the person who wrote this post by itself raises a lot of questions.
Again, 4chan is littered with nonsense posts and trolling and all kinds of outlandish claims.
The Southern District of New York obviously doesn't subpoena every single one of them.
They took an interest in this post, possibly because they recognized that there might be some truth to it.
I mean, if there were things in the post that were true and that nobody would know unless they were there, then it would make sense why they subpoenaed it.
If it's just totally outlandish and not related to the facts at all, then doesn't really make any sense why they would.
But they wanted to know exactly who wrote it.
On August 14th, 4chan told the government what it knew.
All the organizations, including AT ⁇ T, were apparently subpoenaed for the same purpose relating to this post.
Online, various people have speculated that indeed a prison guard wrote that post.
Now, we don't have proof of that at the moment, nor do we know which guard might have written it.
But on August 19th, an assistant U.S. state's attorney in the Southern District of New York sent the following email to a redacted individual, and it reads, quote, Here are the subpoena returns we've received.
Don't worry about the 4chan records or the subpoenas related to IP information.
Now, it's not clear why exactly the AUSA would say that.
Maybe they decided not to follow up on the 4chan lead after all.
Maybe they wanted to end the investigation for some other reason.
We have no idea.
But lurking in this same Epstein file dump, the one that was released a few weeks ago, you'll find the following information about Epstein's security guards, what they were doing on the night that he reportedly died.
And this was first uncovered by the New York Post.
It's a readout of the activity on the computer of 37-year-old Tova Noel, who was one of the two Metropolitan Correctional Center workers who was accused of falsifying records to indicate that they had done their rounds on the day Epstein died, when in fact they had not.
And as you can see, there's a bunch of Google searches about furniture and law enforcement discounts and federal government jobs.
She also ran a Google search for EP, EPP, at 4.31 a.m., as well as a search for Unum Insurance at 4.36 a.m.
Unum Insurance mainly sells disability and life insurance.
And then at 5.42 a.m., according to these records, Tova searched Google for the phrase, latest on Epstein in jail.
And then less than a minute later, she searched Google for latest on Omar Amanot, who's an entrepreneur who was sentenced for federal prison, to federal prison for conspiracy in the Southern District of New York, likely in the same facility.
And then at 5.52 a.m., Nova Tova Noel was back to searching about Epstein.
And once again, she asked Google for, quote, latest on Epstein in jail.
Now, the timing of that last search is significant because it's less than 40 minutes before Tova Noel's colleague, a correction officer named Michael Thomas, found Epstein dead in his cell.
Thomas had also been on Google, but he was mostly searching about motorcycles and didn't search for anything about Epstein.
Now, in 2021, Noel denied running the Google searches.
Here's what she said in a sworn statement to the DOJ, quote, I don't remember doing that.
I don't recall looking him up.
Now, of course, it's possible that this is coincidental.
Maybe she was just Googling names of high-profile inmates that she's supervising to learn more about them.
Maybe it was a way of passing the time, so she didn't even remember doing it.
But it does seem strange to me, to me anyway, that not just the timing, but the fact that she searched for latest on Epstein in jail rather than latest on Epstein or information on Epstein or something like that.
Now, I could see why she would want to find news about Epstein himself if she was curious about who he was and why he was in jail.
But why did she want news on Epstein in jail?
Why did she want news from the jail where she works about Epstein?
That seems pretty weird.
And things get a lot more difficult to explain, a lot weirder when you look at this FBI 302, which is a document the FBI prepares after an interview where they recap what they heard.
It's a handwritten five-page report from the FBI in which the agency interviews an inmate at the same facility where Epstein died.
The interview was conducted two weeks after Epstein died.
And according to the 302, which was first reported by reporter Julie Brown, the Miami Herald reporter who helped break open the Epstein story, the inmate says that he overheard a prison guard and others talking about covering up Epstein's death.
And in particular, the inmate claims that he heard an officer say, dudes, you killed that dude.
And then a female guard states, if he's dead, we're going to cover it up and he's going to have an alibi, my officers.
Now, the inmate also said that in the prison, other inmates would say that Ms. Noel killed Jeffrey.
Now, keep in mind, this was months before Noel was charged with falsifying records in Epstein's case.
That didn't happen until November.
So for whatever reason, Tova Noel, not her colleague, who was regarding the same cell, was attracting attention from the inmates.
Now, again, look at everything in a vacuum.
Look at this little detail in a vacuum.
You could write this off as a coincidence.
Maybe Tova Noel is just a lazy, unethical guard who was very curious about Epstein right before he died.
And maybe the inmates are just making things up.
I mean, that's entirely possible under the circumstances.
Inmates are criminals.
Criminals are liars.
Many of them are pathological liars.
You could argue that, you know, her literally saying out loud, we need to cover this up, is a little on the nose.
But when you start looking at all these things together, it just gets harder and harder to write off as coincidence.
And it gets even more tenuous when you look at Noel's Chase bank records, which are also included in the Epstein file dump that was released a few weeks ago.
It turns out that Noel had begun depositing thousands of dollars in her Chase account in the weeks leading up to Epstein's death.
Now, of course, without context, that doesn't sound very suspicious.
There's plenty of reasons why somebody might deposit accounts, thousands of dollars in an account.
Now, it's not that much money.
And without context, we have no idea.
But banks, for the most part, do have context.
They have a lot of context.
And they know how much this woman typically deposits in her account, where it comes from.
They have all kinds of sophisticated systems that could determine whether transactions could be related to money laundering or fraud or criminal activity.
They can detect when people are trying to avoid mandatory disclosures to the IRS by spreading out a large deposit across several small payments.
And with all that information in mind, Chase Bank, independent of any of this, decided that Noel's deposits were suspicious enough to report to the federal government.
So for a lot of people, a $5,000 deposit would not be weird.
For her, compared to her normal banking activity, this was weird.
And that's why it was flagged.
This is from the DOJ, and it was first flagged by the Post.
And here's how they report on the findings.
Quote, Chase Bank flagged cash deposits in Noel's bank account in a suspicious activity report to the FBI in November 2019.
Another file from the DOJ revealed a total of 12 deposits began in April 2018, the bank said, and culminated in the largest deposit for $5,000 on July 30th, according to the records, 2019.
The files only contain Noel's bank records beginning in December 2018.
They show seven cash deposits totaling $11,880.
Noel started working at the special housing unit where Epstein had been held beginning on July 7th, 2019, just weeks before her death.
Noel, who drove a $62,000 2019 Land Rover Range Rover, wasn't asked about the cash during her DOJ interview record show.
So those unusual deposits totaled over $10,000, but no individual deposit was over $10,000 itself.
That's often a tactic that criminals will use in an attempt to stay under the $10,000 mandatory disclosure limit, which is why banks usually flag those transactions.
Does this mean that the prison guard is a criminal?
No, it doesn't necessarily.
The DOJ never charged Tova Noel with fraud or conspiracy or money laundering or anything else.
The DOJ also dropped the charges against her for falsifying records.
Now, if you're the cynical type, you might conclude that she's being protected for some reason.
It's also possible that she's innocent of any wrongdoing, aside from being an incompetent prison guard.
We don't know.
Even so, if you tend to take things at face value and you don't look at each of these individual things in a vacuum, but you look at them all together, here's where we stand.
To recap, the prison guard, who lied about checking on Epstein every 30 minutes, which was her job, also coincidentally received a series of deposits in the weeks prior to Epstein's death, which were so unusual that her bank reported them to the authorities.
Additionally, this guard was coincidentally named by inmates as somebody who may have been involved in killing Epstein or covering up his whereabouts.
And on top of that, the guard was coincidentally searching Google for information about Epstein less than an hour before his body was discovered.
Oh, and while all this was going on, two cameras in front of Epstein's cell coincidentally happened to malfunction, while another camera had footage that was quote unquote unusable.
And although Epstein had been placed on Suicide Watch in July, he was coincidentally taken off Suicide Watch shortly before his death after a, quote, high-level psychologist stepped in and gave him the all-clear.
Now, I'm not being sarcastic when I say that, indeed, this could be a string of coincidences.
Unusual events happen all the time.
Sometimes multiple unusual events happen at the same time.
But this is a lot.
This is a lot of coincidence piled on top of each other.
You know, we have kind of a Jenga tower of coincidence at this point, which feels very tenuous and unstable.
Coincidences Piling Up00:06:49
So based on the facts that we have been presented, we are, at a minimum, entitled to know some additional information.
First of all, the DOJ needs to tell us the identity of that 4chan poster.
We need to know who exactly was talking about swapping out Jeffrey Epstein the night he died.
At a minimum, we need to know whether it was one of the guards, and if so, which one.
And we also need to know why the Southern District of New York stopped looking into the 4chan post as soon as the subpoena came back.
We also need to learn who sent those deposits to Tova Noel and what action the government took, if any, after receiving the alert from Chase.
Why exactly did Chase flag the transactions as suspicious?
And how many other times did Tova Noel search Google for information about Jeffrey Epstein?
Did she only start searching for information about him on the night he died?
None of this information should be hidden from the public.
But the federal government, by dropping the criminal case against Tova Noel, ensured that the information would be extremely difficult to obtain.
So the official narrative is all we can get.
We're left to speculate about how Jeffrey Epstein could have fractured multiple bones and started hemorrhaging from his eyes while hanging himself, which is, quote, extremely unusual, as the physician hired by Epstein's estate put it.
And there's one other element that's, you know, of these files, it's worth talking about for a moment.
Because as I said, there's, and this is part of the problem, there's tons of information flooding out, and some of it is very credible or potentially credible.
Some of it is not.
So there's also at the same time, all this stuff about the prison guard is coming out, people are talking about it, there is, the media is making a big deal about the alleged revelation that in these files, Trump was accused of, quote, hitting a schoolgirl who refused to carry out a sex act on him, as the Daily Mail put it.
And according to the Post and Courier, which is a South Carolina newspaper, quote, using archived government records and news accounts, the postal courier found that the woman provided verifiable details to agents about her family background and its legal entanglement.
She offered the name of an Epstein business associate on Hilton Head Island who became a central figure in the drama with specifics that are reflected in public records.
That's the third paragraph of the story.
Keep going.
Here's paragraph number eight.
Quote, of the details the post and courier found supported by public records, none related directly to the alleged victim's claims about Trump.
So in other words, there's nothing to substantiate the claim whatsoever, although it pains the media to admit it.
If you page through the Epstein files, you'll find dozens of wild accusations against all sorts of prominent figures.
And these allegations mostly come from people who are clearly unwell with no evidence to support what they're saying at all.
So whatever you may have heard about this particular claim, there's nothing to distinguish it from all those other allegations.
In this case, when investigators asked the woman for more details, she refused to elaborate and broke off contact with the investigators entirely, according to the Daily Mail.
So this was no bombshell revelation by any stretch of the imagination.
It's not even a credible allegation, unlike the revelations about the Prison Guard.
And this is the key is distinguishing between these things, revelation about the Prison Guard based around verifiable facts.
Bank deposits, that's a fact.
Google searches, that's a fact.
The claims about the cameras outside the cell, all of that stuff.
And it certainly, and I also want to mention this, it certainly isn't proof that Trump launched the Iran war to distract from Epstein, which is something I'm hearing a lot lately.
And again, this is part of the trouble here is talking about the Epstein files and staying focused on the things that are actually credible and that we need to explore further.
We need more answers about.
You know, the idea that the president is willing to tank the economy, sacrifice American soldiers, potentially destabilize the entire world all so that he can distract people from the Epstein files is something you see circulating online.
I'm obviously a critic of the war, but I get very tired of this kind of midwit slop analysis, which you hear with anything these days.
Like anytime there's a news event that happens, the immediate analysis from the Peanut Gallery on social media is, this is a distraction.
This is all about distracting us.
Now, the fact of the matter is that everybody is distracted all the time anyway.
It's a farce to suggest that the government has to plot elaborate diversions so that people don't fixate on one particular news story.
A video of a monkey with a stuffed animal has been enough to distract people for weeks, as recent events have shown.
I mean, frankly, the monkey video probably distracted more people than the war in Iran.
If you don't live in the DC bubble or on X, then you'll find most people aren't actually spending much time thinking about Iran at this point.
I mean, if the government really wanted to create a diversion to distract us, they don't need anything elaborate.
I mean, they could just, for instance, like give a Nerf gun to a panda bear and post the video.
That would be enough to dominate our algorithms for the next six weeks.
So the idea that an entire war was launched as nothing but a distraction is just absurd.
At the same time, the fact remains that there are still many unanswered questions about Epstein.
There is plenty of reason to suspect that we still are not getting the complete story.
The Epstein files themselves raise important questions that have objective yes or no answers.
The government has the capability to answer these questions.
Millions of people in the United States are interested in those answers and should be.
And for that reason, you know, whatever happens in Iran or Cuba or Venezuela or anywhere else, we should stop with the piecemeal document dumps, release everything, unredact any significant information, and then there should be a press conference where they answer our questions as thoroughly as they possibly can.
And until that happens, this is not going away.
And politically, it'll be something that continues to dog the administration into the midterms, which is a disaster for the conservative movement and the country, regardless of what you think about the Epstein story.
Those are the stakes.
We can either see total transparency from our conservative leaders on this story or we won't have those leaders for very long.
Now let's get to our five headlines.
Suspected Terrorists and Protesters00:14:26
Ditch your old wireless contract and trade up to Pure Talk, my wireless company, the one that actually respects your time, money, and intelligence.
For just $25 a month, you get unlimited talk, text, and data.
There's no contract, no cancellation fees, no waiting for overseas representatives.
They provide fast, simple service.
Make the switch, go to puretalk.com slash Walsh, and you'll save 50% off your first month.
That's puretalk.com slash Walsh.
Switch to a wireless company that shares your values.
PureTalk, America's wireless company.
If you're a man struggling with porn, you need Relay.
Relay is a men's health platform that helps you quit porn for good by using Christian principles and teaching evidence-based skills.
If you don't see a decrease in your porn usage in the first 30 days, you'll be offered a full refund.
They're that confident it will help.
Don't let the constant porn cycle continue to make you feel terrible.
Grow closer with God and address the issue today.
Use my code Walsh for a free trial.
Get the help you need.
Gain freedom.
Be the man God is calling you to be.
Join Relay today.
Okay, the postmillennial reports.
Police in New York City are investigating another device discovered on the Upper East Side on Sunday, just the day after an improvised explosive device was thrown during a protest outside Gracie Mansion.
Authorities said the device was located inside a vehicle parked on East End Avenue between 81st Street and 82nd Street.
Street officers quickly secured the area as the situation unfolded.
Discovery came less than 24 hours after device was ignited and thrown near Gracie Mansion during demonstrations on Saturday.
According to police commissioner Jessica Tisch, the early device was confirmed to be an explosive device.
Quote, it's not a hoax device or a smoke bomb.
It is, in fact, an improvised explosive device.
Two suspects identified by police as Amir Balat and Ibrahim Kayumi were arrested at the scene Saturday and remain in custody in connection with the incident.
So these were bombs thrown at a demonstration thrown by these two Muslim terrorists at right-wing demonstrators.
This was a demonstration against the Islamic takeover of New York City.
And so these two Islamists show up and throw a bomb.
Jake Lang was one of the people leading this demonstration.
And also the terrorists confessed that they were inspired by ISIS.
Daily Wire has this.
The FBI has reported looking at an attempted bombing in New York City as a potential act of terror after at least one of the suspects claimed that he had been inspired by ISIS.
NBC News correspondent Tom Winter reported on Sunday that one of the suspects referenced ISIS directly in statements to law enforcement after his apprehension, prompting the terror probe.
Now, there are two other things to show you.
First of all, we'll show you this just on the screen.
Here's a video of one of the Muslim terrorists throwing the bomb.
And there's a bunch of video that's come out.
This is the clearest one.
You can see him right there.
He lights it and throws it.
It went with the kind of Looney Tune style bomb with the wick, like lighting the wick and throwing the bomb.
Now, fortunately, nobody was hurt.
So this was an actual terrorist attack.
And for that reason, very serious as any attack is, but also just about as incompetent and clumsy as a terrorist attack can get, thank God.
And now these morons are going to go to federal prison, having accomplished, not accomplished whatever it is they were trying to accomplish, whatever evil thing they were trying to accomplish.
And they should go for the rest of their lives, by the way.
I mean, I'm a firm believer.
One of the many things that makes no sense to me about the way about the criminal justice system in this country is this is attempted.
You know, when the crime for attempting something or the sentence for attempting something is much, much less than actually doing the thing.
I don't see why, as far as the courts are concerned, that should matter.
I mean, if you attempt to do it, you should be treated as though you had successfully done it because you tried to.
I mean, he tried to kill several people.
And so the court should treat him as though he had killed several people.
The fact that he didn't succeed in doing it is, in terms of the punishment, irrelevant, or it should be.
You shouldn't get points for the fact that you're incompetent.
Like the fact that your incompetence somehow managed to override your wickedness should not be something that gets you brownie points when it comes to sentencing.
And here's another piece of footage.
This is apparently an FBI raid on the house of one of the terrorists, his parents' house.
He lives with his parents.
And you can see there the FBI show, reportedly this is the FBI raid on the house.
And you can also see this is not a family in destitute poverty.
Okay, they're living in what looks like, I'm guessing, a 4,000 square foot house, maybe 4,500 square foot upper middle class home and million dollar home, 1.5 million, I would guess.
It's not worth that.
It's pretty ugly, but still it's a nice big house by any measure.
And to top it off, and this will not shock you to learn at all, it's now been reported that both terrorists come from, of course, immigrant families.
Their parents, both of their parents, became naturalized citizens over the past couple of decades.
One is from Turkey, the other is from Afghanistan.
So to review, immigrants come to this country.
America welcomes them with open arms, makes them financially successful, gives them a nice big house to live in, a house that would basically be a palace by Afghanistan standards.
And to repay us as a thank you, their children become terrorists.
And actually, okay, so someone on X pulled up the Zillow on the house.
Allegedly, this is the Zillow.
So $1.7 million, 4,700 square feet, five bedrooms, four baths, less than half an acre of land.
So that's, you know, that's way too much money for an ugly McMansion on like a postage stamp property.
But still, that's all beside the point.
The point is that these Muslim immigrants came to the country, experienced the American dream, enjoyed prosperity well above what the average American, actual American, experiences.
And this is what we get in return.
And this is not an aberration, by the way.
I mean, a huge number of immigrants, especially immigrants from the Arab world, produce children who despise the country.
Now, most of them don't become terrorists.
Some of them do.
But still, a huge number of them hate the country.
And speaking of immigrants who hate the country, how has the first Muslim mayor of New York responded to all of this?
You might be asking.
Well, you don't need to ask.
You know exactly.
Exactly what you thought he would do is what he did.
So here's the statement he issued over the weekend.
I'll read it verbatim.
Yesterday, white supremacist Jake Lang organized a protest outside Gracie Mansion rooted in bigotry and racism.
Such hate has no place in New York City.
It is an affront to our city's values and the unity that defines who we are.
What followed was even more disturbing.
Violence and a protest is never acceptable.
The attempt to use an explosive device and hurt others is not only criminal, it is reprehensible and the antithesis of who we are.
I want to thank the brave men and women of the NYPD who acted quickly to keep New Yorkers safe.
Our officers ran toward danger without hesitation, demonstrating once again the courage and dedication it takes to protect this city every single day.
My administration is closely monitoring the situation and I remain in close contact with our police commissioner.
So, well, that's good.
He's monitoring it.
Mamdani's lead, the thing he opens with, is condemning Jake Lang and the anti-Muslim protesters.
Notice also, he doesn't even name the terrorists.
So he names one person in this statement, and it's the victim or one of the intended victims of this terrorist attack.
He spends a paragraph at the top condemning white supremacy before he gets around to saying anything about the terrorism, which is, again, exactly what you knew he would do, but it's somehow even more gratuitous than I expected.
And this morning, he gave a press conference which he approached basically the same way.
Watch.
This was a vile protest rooted in white supremacy entitled Stop the Islamic Takeover of New York City.
I'm the first Muslim mayor of our city.
Anti-Muslim bigotry is nothing new to me, nor is it anything new for the one million or so Muslim New Yorkers who know this city as our home.
While I found this protest appalling, I will not waver in my belief that it should be allowed to happen.
Ours is a free society where the right to peaceful protest is sacred.
It does not belong only to those we agree with.
It belongs to everyone.
I will defend that right every day that I am mayor, even when those protesting say things that I abhor.
Let me also be clear about something else.
New York City will never tolerate violence, whether from protests or counterprotests.
Many of the counter-protesters met this display of bigotry peacefully, with a vision of a city that is welcoming to all.
But a few did not.
Two men, Amir Balat and Ibrahim Kayumi, traveled from Pennsylvania and attempted to bring violence to New York City.
They are suspected of coming here to commit an act of terrorism.
There is video of these two individuals throwing two devices towards the protest.
The police department has determined that these were improvised explosive devices made to injure, maim, or worse.
Thanks to the swift and decisive actions of NYPD officers at the scene, both men were immediately taken into custody and the devices they brought taken off of our streets.
I want to commend the officers who were on site.
Now, needless to say, of course, if this was an anti-white protest, a BLM protest, and somebody threw a bomb, he would spend precisely zero seconds condemning the protest itself.
But and just as needless to say, that doesn't happen.
So, you know, leftists can protest and they can be violent.
as they want to be and they can be as provocative as they want to be and they could do it feeling totally safe and secure because they know that nothing's going to happen to them.
They're probably not going to get arrested no matter what they do and they're not going to get attacked by right-wingers.
But in this case, the fact is that Mamdani, I mean, here's what it comes down to.
Mamdani fundamentally agrees with the terrorists.
He may not agree with the idea of throwing a bomb, or maybe he does, but he agrees with them ideologically.
He sympathizes with them.
And, you know, he couldn't be any clearer about that, really.
That's why to him, the lead, the most important part of this story is the fact that these protesters were saying things that he finds upsetting.
And this is what happens when we import people who hate the country.
It's also why we should deport not only these terrorists after they serve their time in prison.
I mean, they should be in prison forever.
That's not going to happen.
So after they serve, they should be deported.
But we should also deport their entire families.
How about that for a policy?
And it's a pretty low bar.
But this should be an automatic policy.
Okay.
If you commit a terrorist attack and you're an immigrant or a child of an immigrant, your whole family is deported.
Everybody.
They all get deported.
Because if you come to this country and you then reveal that you hate this country, then obviously you should be gone.
But also, if you come to this country and raise children who hate this country, you should also be gone.
I mean, like bare minimum standard for an immigrant is come to this country, don't openly hate it, contribute.
I mean, if we're going to have, I'd like to just shut down all immigration right now, but if you're going to have immigration, then bare minimum stuff, bare minimum, is you should, you can't openly hate the country, speak our language, right?
Contribute, be a net positive for society.
No welfare, no entitlements, and don't raise immigrant children who become terrorists.
Like that's, as I said, bare minimum.
The bar is under the ground at that point.
And if you can't get over that bar, then we should just deport everybody.
That's what it should be.
Thanks to HomeServe for sponsoring this episode.
There are a lot of perks to owning a home versus renting from a landlord.
But one of the things that most people dread about buying and owning a home are the expensive repairs that are bound to happen.
Regular homeowners, insurance doesn't cover everyday repairs like plumbing failures, electrical issues, leaving you on your own to cover the repairs.
But now there's another option called Home Serve.
For as little as $4.99 a month, you've got backup when things break.
Instead of frantically searching for a contractor in a panic, you could already be on the phone with HomeServe's 24-7 hotline, getting somebody scheduled.
HomeServe has a lot of different plans to choose from that cover different things.
Just pick a plan that fits your budget.
And when something goes wrong, all you got to do is call HomeServe and they will handle it.
They've been doing this for over 20 years with a network of 2,600 local contractors.
HomeServe could have been great when my wife and I first bought a house.
Instead of spending hours calling around for quotes and costs, we could have just called HomeServe.
Help protect your home systems and your wallet with HomeServe against cover repairs.
Plans started just $4.99 a month.
Go to home serve.com to find the plan that's right for you.
That's home serve.com.
Not available everywhere.
Most plans range from $4.99 to $11.99 a month for your first year.
Terms apply on covered repairs.
All right.
Here's something that interests me anyway.
AI Consciousness vs. Human Illusion00:10:23
Mileage may vary.
Fox reports, SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk gave a two-word retort after Anthropic leader Dario Amode claimed in an interview that he isn't sure if his company's AI models have gained consciousness.
Anthropic CO says Claude may or may not have gained consciousness as the model has begun showing symptoms of anxiety.
Read a post on X by cryptocurrency-based prediction market polymarket, to which Musk replied he's projecting.
I don't really know what that means exactly.
Convent from Musk, who's a founder of XAI, comes as Anthropic is at odds with the Pentagon over its use in a separate matter.
In an interview with the New York Times, Amode, when asked about AI and consciousness, said, we've taken a generally precautionary approach here, and we don't know if the models are conscious.
We're not even sure that we know what it would mean for a model to be conscious or whether a model can be conscious, but we're open to the idea that it could be.
And then he goes on to talk about how they're showing symptoms of anxiety, these models are, and that's why he thinks they're conscious.
So we're going to hear a lot more of this kind of thing in the near future.
Claims of AI being conscious, gaining consciousness.
And now, as an avowed AI hater, as an unabashed AI doomsday prophet, I will say that I find this to be absurd.
There is a very serious concern I have kind of related to this, which I'll get to, but the concern is not that AI will become conscious.
And to understand why that is or why this is not something that can probably happen, well, first you have to start by coming up with a definition of what consciousness is.
And I actually don't think that that's a very difficult question to answer.
The question of where consciousness comes from, how it works, what it means, those are hard questions.
But we must have some shared understanding of what it is.
right?
Some shared frame of reference of what it is definitionally, or else we wouldn't be able to talk about it.
We won't be able to talk about it in a coherent way at all.
But we do because I think we do have a shared understanding.
And consciousness is, I would say, if I had to define it, the awareness and the experience of the self as a self.
That's what I would say it is.
And maybe that sounds like a, you know, like a tautology, like a circular reasoning, the awareness of self as self, but I don't think it is because self is being, right?
A self is a being.
And to be conscious is to, you know, not only be sort of intellectually aware of beings, but to be aware of your own being and to experience it in some way.
So it's not just intellectual, it's experiential.
And that's important because it means that consciousness is self-evident.
It exists.
You could be wrong about everything you think.
Everything you think could be wrong.
Your whole life could be an illusion.
You could be in the matrix, yet you would still be conscious because you're experiencing your own selfhood.
If your consciousness is being deceived, well, there is a consciousness that is being deceived.
So you are at least conscious.
You know that.
But there is no experience of being AI.
I would strongly suspect.
There isn't anything that it's like to be AI.
There's no experience of being AI.
So put it this way.
If you were to suddenly magically become AI, you would not be morphing from one state of being to another.
You would just simply be obliterated.
Like your consciousness would not be morphing into a different kind of consciousness.
That would just be obliteration.
You know, for you to become AI, it would be like becoming a rock or something.
There is no, there's no, you're just ceasing to be.
Now, on the other hand, in some kind of thought experiment, if you were to imagine some sort of medical experiment in the future, some sci-fi thing where you turn into a dog, well, we can assume that probably there's some kind of experience of being a dog, a much more rudimentary experience, but there's probably some kind of experience.
So if you were to become a dog, you would not be ceasing to be.
You would just be changed quite fundamentally and profoundly.
But with AI, there's no experience there.
Consciousness is the awareness and experience of self.
And AI doesn't have that and never will, I would think.
And I also think that probably some kind of sensory experience is necessary in order to be conscious.
I don't know that.
I'm just kind of theorizing.
But we formulate our notion of selfhood through our experience of the outside world and other people.
That's how babies develop their sense of self, their consciousness.
You know, newborn infants are certainly human beings, obviously, infinitely valuable, create God's precious creation.
But they also are certainly not fully conscious to the degree that you and me are.
They're not fully self-aware.
And in fact, as we understand it, it's actually, you know, it's actually, I think it's quite beautiful in many ways that newborn babies do not perceive themselves as being separate from their mothers.
They sort of see themselves as extensions of their mothers.
They don't perceive any separation, you know?
And that's why separation anxiety for a baby doesn't set in until, I don't know, four, five, six months.
Because until that point, they don't perceive that it's possible to be separate.
And then once separation anxiety kicks in, it's like they've perceived that they are their own being and that they can be separate from their mother and they don't want to be separate from their mother.
And so that's where a lot of that comes in.
But the point is that awareness of self, true consciousness comes online sort of gradually for the baby.
And it's developed through, I would think, sensory experience.
Like one of the really funny things about a baby, when you watch a very young like newborn, is you see them staring at their own hands, you know, or like hitting themselves in the face with their hands because they can't control their hands because they don't understand that their hand is them.
They don't have a, they don't understand that their body belongs to them.
And but over time, they begin to perceive.
They're like, oh, that's my hand.
I can control that.
That's me.
That's me.
And they start to perceive through sensory experience, touch, sight, hearing, all these things.
They start to perceive that they are, you know, they start to sort of understand where they end and the rest of the world begins.
And they develop this awareness of self.
And I would imagine that a baby with no sensory experience at all, you know, I don't mean just like a deaf baby or a blind baby.
I mean no sensory experience.
A baby that, if you can imagine someone who's born, cannot see, can't hear, can't feel, can't taste, can't smell, zero sensory experience of any kind.
I would imagine that somebody like that born that way would never develop full consciousness because there's no way for them to experience the outside world, which is a necessary condition for experiencing the self as distinct from the outside world.
So anyway, bringing that back to AI, among other issues, AI has no sensory experience.
So not only does it lack the complexities of the human mind and the biological material that I would think is a prerequisite, but it's also there's no way to conscious, to experience the world physically.
So is it possible for a non-sensory, non-embodied system to have any kind of thing that resembles what we talk about when we talk about consciousness?
I would think it's probably not.
And imagining that is kind of like imagining a square circle.
It's imagining something that is literally unimaginable.
So anyway, the real risk in my view, which I am extremely worried about, is that AI becomes, so disregard all the babbling I just did.
Here's the real problem.
AI will become, is already becoming, very good at convincing a lot of people that it is conscious.
And so you get kind of a version of philosophers talk about something called a philosophical zombie, which is something that, it's kind of a thought experiment, something that acts and speaks entirely as though it has consciousness, even though it actually has no genuine inner experience at all.
And that's what AI is, or what it's becoming in my mind, is like a philosophical zombie.
And when this happens with AI, and we're already seeing this, and it's happening now already when with my experience with it, it's not very good at pretending to be a conscious person, but it's good enough already to fool plenty of people.
And what's going to happen is that millions of very lonely people will isolate themselves from the world even more, believing that their relationship with AI is a sufficient substitute for human interaction.
So, you know, the nightmare scenario is a world where the average human has friends, has coworkers, even a spouse who are all really AI, all really nothing.
You know, there's kind of nothing going on inside, but that's a sufficient substitute.
So that's the nightmare scenario is not one where it's like a Terminator future and the robots are conscious and they enslave mankind.
I mean, maybe that happens, but that's not what I'm worried about.
What I'm worried about is a future where you have millions of people who are completely isolated from the outside world and all of their human interaction is really just interaction with these AI systems that are able to fool them into thinking that they're basically real people.
And what does that world look like?
What does that society look like?
Well, I think we're going to find out.
So that's what I'm worried about.
The Selfishness Trap00:11:14
Approximately one in three people are deficient in C15, a vital nutrient which causes cellular fragility syndrome.
When your cells don't get enough C15, they get weak and age faster, which means you age faster.
Luckily, our sponsor, Fatty15, provides you the first new essential fatty acid in 90 years that can help with this problem.
Fatty 15 is pure C15 that helps repair your cells, protect them from breaking down, and actually supports stuff like sleep, metabolism, and cognitive health.
Might sound like typical supplements marketing, but the science behind this one genuinely checks out.
The results actually show up.
Most people start to notice their benefits within just a few months.
I've been taking it regularly, so I'm on my way there and looking forward to regulated sleep and better cognitive health.
Fatty15 is on a mission to optimize your C15 levels to help support your long-term health and wellness, especially as you age.
You can get an additional 15% off their 90-day subscription starter kit by going to fatty15.com slash walsh and using code Walsh at checkout.
Finally, there's an article from New York Magazine that's going to, that's, you know, there's some conversation about.
There's a shocking revolutionary countercultural article, unlike anything that you've heard from the mainstream media before.
And here's the caption for the article on X.
And here's what it says.
Sooner or later, everyone has to decide whether to give up lazy weekends, disposable income, and overall peace of mind to have a baby instead.
For many of those on the fence, one anxiety looms large.
What if I make the wrong choice?
Parent regret is more common than you might imagine.
The Reddit regretful parents alone gets around 70,000 weekly visitors who anonymously commiserate, though stigma finds it hard to admit in real life.
Writer Bindu Bensonath, good American name, speaks with three moms of young children about why they wish they could go back to their old lives.
Okay, so parental regret is the topic.
And I admit I didn't actually read the article because it's behind a paywall and I'm not going to pay for that.
But I think we've already heard enough to understand the basic argument being made, which is the same argument that the antinatalist, nihilistic media always makes, and which is that having kids is terrible and parents regret it and it ruins their life.
Now, there are two things that I would say in response.
First of all, this is a false choice.
I get really tired of the absurd kind of false dilemma we're constantly presented with.
We're told that parents have to decide whether to give up disposable income, lazy Saturdays, peace of mind.
You can give it up and have kids, or you can keep all that and not have kids, but that is not correct.
I reject that false binary.
I am non-binary when it comes to that because I'll take it all.
I'm greedy in that way.
You can have it all.
I mean, you can't have it all in the sense of having everything you want in life, but you can have the things I just mentioned and also have kids.
That is a possible thing to do.
You can have disposable income.
You can have lazy weekends with kids.
I mean, maybe not quite as lazy, but still pretty lazy.
And you can have peace of mind.
I don't know why you'd be giving that up at all.
The idea that you have to give up one to have the other is a reflection of your own lack of ambition, your own lack of imagination, if anything.
It's not some kind of law inscribed into the cosmos.
It's not physics.
It's not gravity.
I'm not saying that parenting requires no sacrifice.
Of course, it does.
You'll have to sacrifice money, time, even some of your Saturdays, God forbid.
But you don't have to write those things off.
You can still work towards a life with kids, with a family that is basically peaceful, includes plenty of time for relaxation, and also includes financial prosperity.
The second point is that there is only one thing that will make you chronically miserable as a parent.
There's really just one thing, and that thing is selfishness.
Immense joys are available to parents, a unique kind of happiness that non-parents cannot experience.
But those joys do require you to, you know, kind of pull your head out of your own ass for long enough to experience them.
And if you can't do that, if you refuse to, then yeah, you'll be miserable all the time.
But the good news, if you want to call it that, is that selfish people are miserable no matter what they do.
So whether you have kids or not, so like there's no reason to regret it.
You would have been miserable even without kids.
Your circumstances don't determine your happiness nearly as much as you think they do.
You know, circumstances can make happiness a little bit more or less easy to obtain, but they don't determine it.
And this is a lesson that everybody learns as you grow older.
Or if you're a mature person, you learn it.
It's like people say, well, money doesn't buy happiness.
Well, it's true in a sense.
Like if you have no money, if you're broke and you fantasize about having money and you think that, well, once I have money, if I have real money, I'll be just exuberant with joy every second of the day.
And then many people discover if they get to the point where they have a lot of money and they had no money before, what they find is that, yeah, it does a great job of warding off financial anxiety, which is great.
But, you know, what you find is that, okay, like I have money now, but I'm still me.
My life is still my life.
I still have to live day to day.
It's not a source of just constant happiness.
Like I'm not just looking at my bank account every second of the day and being overwhelmed with happiness.
It's kind of like once you're in that circumstance, you almost immediately take it for granted.
And okay, this is my circumstance now.
And If you expect that in and of itself to make you happy, then you're not going to be happy.
And that's the same thing with kids.
You know, if you're an unhappy person with kids, it's because you are an unhappy person without kids.
Kids are not going to make you unhappy.
They also won't make you happy in the sense of just sort of forcing you to be happy, right?
It's not like, it's like, think about wetness, being wet.
That's a matter of circumstance.
If you jump into water, you'll be wet.
So if your problem is that you're too hot and you, you know, you jump into water, well, you'll solve that problem.
Water, in a sense, forces you to be wet, right?
Kids don't force you to be happy.
Family life doesn't force you to be happy.
It doesn't result in happiness the way that jumping in the water results in you being wet or the way that two plus two results in four.
It's not like that.
What it does is it opens up the opportunity for a unique and in many ways, kind of indescribable kind of happiness.
It makes it available to you.
It invites you into that kind of happiness, but you can decline the invitation.
I mean, you can definitely be miserable with kids.
And you can be more miserable than you were before.
Let's be honest about that.
Because family life invites you into a particular and particularly profound kind of happiness.
If you decline that invitation, then as a consequence, you will have a particular and particularly profound kind of misery.
That's true.
And that's because the type of happiness on offer is happiness in the truest sense.
It's not just pleasure or, you know, entertainment or whatever.
It's happiness.
And happiness in its purest form is by definition unselfish.
So you have to be willing to step outside of yourself to look at something other than your own reflection in the mirror.
And some parents are just not willing to do that.
They never do it.
They never get out of their own heads.
They never get out of their own egos.
And so they suffer as parents.
They suffer in a life where great joy is right there.
It's right in reach.
But they won't stretch out their arms and grab it.
And this is the case 100% of the time.
100% of the parents that you encounter who are absolutely miserable and hate being a parent.
I'm not denying that those people exist.
They do.
But in 100% of cases, the reason why they're so miserable is because they are too selfish to allow themselves to experience the great joy that is available to them.
And then that, and that just, and then it's compounding because that just makes them more miserable, right?
And the kind of happiness that's available to you is it's like it's when you're a parent, it's all around you all the time.
And there's also a lot of annoyances that are available to you all the time.
There's a lot of inconvenience.
There's a lot of annoyance.
There's a lot of, you know, you have to do things you'd rather not have to do.
You have to, you know, there are, I'd like to just hang out on a Saturday morning, but I got to go do this, do this for the kids, whatever.
So you do have that all the time.
That's always all around you.
But you also have these little joys that are always around you also.
And it's totally up to you what you choose to focus on.
I mean, it's completely up to you, what you choose to focus on.
And that's the mistake that a lot of parents make.
It is available to you.
And if you're miserable as a parent, it's because you're choosing to focus on the wrong thing.
And that's the case for parenting.
That's the case for so much of life, that your happiness depends on what you focus on.
And with parenting, there are so many opportunities to miss what is beautiful and sacred because you're choosing to focus on the inconveniences and the annoyances in those moments.
You know, it's like if you're sitting on the beach and staring at the ocean, you know, and the sun is setting over the ocean or something, and you could focus on that, on this great beauty that's in front of you, or you could focus on the fact that you're sitting in the sand and the sand is kind of itchy and it's like getting into your shorts and that's annoying.
You could focus on either one.
They're both real things.
But if you choose to, you know, if you leave that experience of watching the sunset and you choose to see it as a negative experience because you were itchy because of the sand, well, that is entirely a function of what you decided to focus on in that moment.
And it's really up to you.
But it requires that you get out of your own head.
You have to, this invitation to happiness is there as a parent.
Reclaiming Stolen History00:01:15
You have to accept the invitation.
And if you're unhappy, it's because you haven't accepted it.
But you can and you should.
But it's up to you.
All right.
That will do it for the show today.
We'll wrap it up there.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Have a great day.
Godspeed.
What do Snow White, Cinderella, and smallpox blankets have in common?
They're all fairy tales.
For decades, you've been told that you live on stolen land.
We are right now on stolen land.
That the Indians were peaceful.
Native Americans, we massacred them.
Your ancestors committed genocide.
And guess what?
None of it is true.
The Native Americans were some of the most savage fighters ever known to man, raiding, scalping, torturing, even eating enemies.
It was better to lose a battle to the U.S. Army than to get wiped out by a rival tribe.
And why did the story completely change in the 1960s?
It turns out there's a lot more to the American Indians than Hollywood directors and school teachers want you to know.
This month, we blow out the biggest myths about the American Indians and reclaim the real history that was stolen from us.