More about Charlie Kirk and Russia and Autism and other headlinesPolitics, Gavin Newsom, AI Movies, TX Election Fraud, Nuclear Power Plant Construction, TikTok Deal, Charlie Kirk Memorial, democrat Non-Stop Hoaxes, President Trump, Anti-Kirk Hoaxes, Race Focus, Mayor Brandan Johnson, Charlie Kirk Exit Wound Controversy, Anti-Science GOP Hoax, Big Pharma Autism Speculation, Tom Homan Setup Attempt, Black Newborns Survival Hoax, Golden Dome Putin Warning, Leticia James, H1B VISA Workers, Mass-Immigration IQ Factor, Border Cartels, Brandon Darby, Mark Welsh Resignation, Delayed-Choice Quantum Erasure, Simulation Multiple Realities, Scott Adams~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
Well, it looks like Tesla's stock is up three and a half points.
That's pretty good.
How is 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 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 and mugger and glass attacker, Chelsea, Steiner, Canteen, Jugger Flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope being the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Delicious.
All right.
Well, apparently the Let's see.
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 Newsom, they've got a prohibition against ICE wearing masks now in California.
So I'm expecting that'll turn into some kind of a big issue because the feds are going to do whatever they want because they can.
We'll see if California can stop them.
But the funniest part about it was Newsom doing his announcement.
So I'd like to do my impression of Newsom standing next to the sign reader.
So the sign reader was signing as he was talking.
But what's funny is that Newsom talks with his hands.
So when Newsom stands next to the sign reader, it looks like they're competing with jazz hands.
Because the sign reader looked, if you imagined that Newsom's words were coming out of his mouth, he would talk just like 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?
But then right next to him is Newsom, and he's just talking in his normal way.
But it looks like he's milking the cow and wrestling with an invisible person.
Anyway, he had to see it.
He had to be there.
Sorry, 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 because 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, well, I think that's fake.
Then you look at the economic news and you think, hmm, that might be fake.
But at least when you look at the list of recommended books, at least the books are real, right?
Am I right?
At least the books are real.
No, they're not real.
How bad was it?
Let's see.
In a recent blunder, the Chicago Sun-Times published a summer reading list for 2025 that had, 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 a 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 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 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 then 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 Presettio, used, I believe, six different AI and non-AI 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 movie.
So you're continually going to have to say, oh, should use the other app.
Maybe I should use that instead.
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.
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 talent-free.
You would have to be massively talented to make a movie with or without AI.
Well, Gateway Pundits reporting that there's a former Texas Democrat House candidate charged with election fraud.
Apparently he was, what was he, doing, I guess he was doing harvesting or something, doing something 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 somebody dropped a dime on him or something happened.
But I'll bet you, I'll bet you there was nothing in the system that could have caught him.
Sticking Points in Approval00:03:02
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, a post by Zion Lights.
That's a human being's name in case you wonder, Zion Lights, who is a big activist in the nuclear space and points out that China and South Korea can both now build nuclear power plants in five years.
Now, you know the U.S., we're like 25 years, so not really competitive.
However, the big thing seems to be 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 you need another one.
So I believe we're looking at that in the U.S. 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 they're small and modular.
The modulars should be under two years.
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 TikTok.
We're totally buying TikTok.
And also, we have no idea if we're going to buy TikTok.
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, there's a deal, I think Axios was reporting on this, that the algorithm would be leased to the American buyers.
And then over time, they would transfer it over to an American-only version.
But in the short run, TikTok wouldn't have to do anything different, and the U.S. 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, says that the Chinese foreign minister is not entirely on board with giving up the TikTok algorithm.
So just know that there's one good source that seems to be current that thinks that some part of China hasn't quite agreed with this whole algorithm thing.
Close But No Deal00:15:24
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 skeptical it ever would happen.
Now, I'm going to stick with my original 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, every one of you knows, there was a gigantic memorial for Charlie Kirk in State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.
If you watched any of it, 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, you know, you could just feel the event.
It was like I was connected to it or something.
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 seemingly organized, well, self-organized.
That's the amazing part is self-organized.
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.
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 you think this is a passing moment, you know, that we'll get over it and this is over and then 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 let's see what else we do.
And Somebody said, who said this?
Darn it.
Oh, Cynical Publius on X. It's a great account to follow.
Cynical Then Space Publius, P-U-B-L-I-U-S.
Has real good thoughts pretty much every day.
But I want to read what he said because it really captured it, I think.
All right.
So he said, 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?
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.
That is why they must pretend we are racist, misogynists, homophobic, xenophobic, bigoted, fascist Nazis.
If they don't lie about us, they lose everything.
That's why the Democrats are a hoaxocracy 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?
Well, 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, sort of the sort of a perfect, let's say, accent of the day.
They weren't the stars.
Obviously, Charlie Kirk, and I would argue that the attendees were the stars.
But after Charlie, and after his family, and after the attendees, Trump and Musk looks like they made up.
So they were up in the observation box.
Trump was up there, of course.
And Musk stopped by, and the cameras caught them shaking hands and smiling and apparently burying the hatchet.
And Trump, being 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 friendly conversation way.
But you only see the backs of their heads.
You know who they are.
And then you see the event that they're watching.
And on the post on X, he just said, PONUS 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 Charlie's tragic death caused them to make up for the benefit of the country, good.
Very well done.
Good job, guys.
Trump was Trump.
He gave a speech.
I didn't hear his speech, but I saw some quotes.
One of the quotes is, this is from Trump talking about Charlie.
He says, 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.
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 un-Christian-like to hate people who are trying to lawfare you out of your entire life.
So, you know, maybe if Charlie knew what happened to him, he wouldn't be so happy about all of his haters.
But he went pure.
He went not hating his haters.
You've got to respect that.
So I'm going to save this note for later.
So...
So I continue to be fascinated by the criticisms of Charlie Kirk because I wasn't aware of any of them.
I don't know.
But apparently there's on the left, there's a well, let's say, I don't want to say understood because I don't think they understand, but a well-known, 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 worst thing he ever said.
I was looking into it, and I think I'll cause some trouble by talking about that, if you don't mind.
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 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, et cetera.
So I'll add the context so you can see what's going on here.
Apparently, at some point, and this I got from Grock.
So Grok might be hallucinating a little bit, so you can fact-check me on this.
So I guess Charlie Kirk at one point made some remarks as part of a broader conversation against woke policies and affirmative action and 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.
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 is better.
I mean, things don't seem that much better.
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 how they could do to 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 on this, everything he said would easily be hammered into that, well, I mean, that's what bad people say.
Oh, well, yep, there he is with that bad say.
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.
And you can fact-check me on this too.
One of the things he said, 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 want to get rid of all the bad stuff, still get rid of all the discrimination and all that, of course.
But that you didn't obsess about, okay, you're black, I'm white, we're all different.
He 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 bankrupt idea or anything.
But apparently, some of his argument was that home ownership used to be better for black Americans in the 60s.
So that would be sort of at the tail end of the Jim Crow area, 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 just hear from everybody on social media.
According to Grok, 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 Grok.
Now, if you have a source that says the opposite, you should, you know, if you can find one who sent that to me on X, I'll take a look at it.
I'm just sort of wading 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 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?
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 things were worse in terms of Jim Crow and discrimination?
Do you believe that?
Because 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 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, for a variety of reasons.
It might have been sometimes because of discrimination, sometimes because they knew there was no point in even reporting it.
No good could come of it.
So apparently, it is, and again, I'm using Grok 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 Grok says it, probably that means that the most common sources also say it, I'm guessing.
Debating Romanticized Changes00:15:50
All right, now.
So those are two facts that were somehow seemingly important to Charlie's opinion that the changes since Jim Crow may have been well-intentioned, but seem to have created a bad outcome.
And 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 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 thing I think everyone would agree on is that family, you know, 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 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.
What would be the way to solve that problem where you've got this big, prominent 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 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 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 can stand up there and say, you say home ownership was better, but I talked to Grok and Grok 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 shit on that one point, or did he have some good point?
How about an open public debate in which everybody can come and ask anything they want, and he'll address it.
So, on one hand, I appreciate the pushback on those particular points.
I mean, that seems like the right thing.
There's doubt about those points.
They're important to his point of view, a little bit of pushback.
But here's what I don't appreciate.
Was it, let's see, the types of complaints against him use interesting words, such as he's suggesting things.
So, the people who were his critics, and that would include the ADL and Media Matters, the ADL and Media Matters.
What do you know about those two entities, the ADL and Media Matters?
They are not credible.
They are both political.
So, they're not credible at all.
You want an example?
The ADL, the head of the ADL, said in public that I'm a Holocaust denier recently, recently, 2023.
Now, so that's who is blaming Charlie.
But they don't say he said something bad.
They say he suggested it.
They say he romanticized those earlier times, romanticized.
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 what was his point?
And is there anything there that's salvageable 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 the changes in laws and stuff that would be valid?
And here's what I think is valid.
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 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 you believe that he literally was this bad person, you can kind of talk yourself into, well, 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.
But no, he promoted and he suggested and he romanticized.
But if you don't think he's a monster, you don't see him romanticizing anything.
He's just making sure that you understand the argument and which parts he's looking at, which parts he's not.
That's not romanticizing anything.
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 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 non-credible, famously biased, convinced half 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's 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 think you could argue that it shouldn't matter that his personal life was this or that.
It should matter that he was focusing on 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 he was a, 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, 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.
By now, there would be, okay, he's your favorite president, but did you know this?
Did you know this?
And if you were a man of God, you might really care about the hypocrisy of a man of God not acting like one.
Maybe that counted.
And as far as the Civil Rights Act, which he acted, oh, he said it 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 the Civil Rights Act was a huge mistake.
What exactly did he even mean about that?
I'll tell you what he didn't mean.
He didn't mean that people should not 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?
You know where that's going.
So Charlie often said he wanted a colorblind world.
And 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.
let's see uh um so 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 he would have said yes?
Really?
Do you think he 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 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 be trying to persuade, of course, but he was probably learning stuff too.
Oh, my God.
Sorry.
Itchy nose.
Well, I'm going to give you my take on everything that's going wrong in the world.
I'm going to make a statement, and then I want you to see how many of you would disagree with this.
All right.
I believe that everyone who made the same choices I made in life, generally, I mean, not the real specifics, but the choices would be: I prioritized fitness early in my life.
I prioritized educational attainment early in life and really worked at it.
I was falling Victorian.
I told myself that it was up to me to make money and nobody was going to help me.
And so 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 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 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 just checked off all the boxes.
And none of that was secret.
Everybody I knew at my age, every single person knew what to do to be successful, and they knew what to do not to be successful.
And my family didn't have a lot of money.
You know, we had enough, but we weren't 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 I'm not talking about the detailed choices, but I'll talk about the big stuff, the people who stayed in school and paid attention.
And, you know, I was committed to continuous learning about how to be successful.
Eventually, I wrote a book about it.
I learned so much, I was like, oh, I'll 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 I would boil down the question for black Americans to this, and I would not provide an answer, just the question.
Why Different Choices Matter00:09:16
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 are gangs?
Maybe.
That might be the only thing.
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, 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 even help the family with the expenses.
Just get them out of there.
Because it'll be more expensive for society if 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 not the audience for that.
You need to figure out why you make different choices.
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 going to 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 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 would 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 de-emphasize 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 see.
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 the choices are so obvious?
Well, you would not be surprised that the New York Times and NBC News are 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 the trans thing went too far, and it's too accommodated, I think the right would say.
And the left, of course, can't say anything like that.
So they have to say there's no evidence found between the shooter and left-wing 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 feel like the odds of that are low, but who knows?
You know, we're still in fog of war.
So I would say that just about anything you thought was true could be debunked, just about anything.
But we'll see.
All right.
You know, there's a at least online, there's a big controversy brewing because people are saying, how could there be an exit wound in the front of his neck and no entry or exit wound on the back of his neck?
Like, how's that?
That's not a thing.
It's not possible.
And with the rounds that were used, it should have been a small and maybe almost invisible, but they would have found it during the autopsy.
Entry wound in the back that could have potentially created the larger exit wound that we all saw to our horror.
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 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, I think I may have posted it, but I'd love to say his name, 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, a protective, you know, bulletproof thing for exactly this kind of risk?
The Green Beret guy said that there are two basic kinds of these protective plates that would go under your shirt.
One of them is kind of thick.
It wasn't one of those because it's too thick.
You would have seen it.
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 breastplate in there.
So, number one, I accept, because you can see that there's something under there, that he had a protective metal, not any other thing, but metal breastplate.
Now, the breastplate also has at the top a little bit of a, what would you call it?
It curves in toward the body a little bit.
So it's not flat-flat.
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, the round would fly up toward the head because it would ricochet.
And it looks like the round may have hit him at that bent part of the plate, just in, you know, on his chest.
The first time I saw it, I saw it hit the chest plate first.
So I saw it hit there.
I mean, I thought I saw it.
So it looks like he 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 a bullet.
Now, 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 bullet was found in his neck.
Now, all the people who know firearms were saying that's not possible because if it hit the neck directly, there's no way it stays in the neck.
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 been traveling a little bit more uphill, which would explain the larger entry wound, because it wasn't coming straight in.
Now, to me, that is a, it comes from a professional who knows all of these devices.
He knows the guns.
He knows the breastplates.
Tom And Tylenol Claims00:13:03
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 green beret I'm talking about.
So please, if you can come up with his name, I think he was impressive.
All right.
Another topic.
And I just consider that closed.
I'm completely satisfied that that expert opinion answered all my questions.
So it was a fluke, I think.
According to Scipos, 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.
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 are anti-science.
Republicans 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 trust this because all data is fake.
But it's surprising it didn't go the other way.
Let's see.
There was something else I was going to mention.
Oh, so the autism announcement is coming up today at 4 p.m.
Eastern, I think.
And the tease is that pregnant women 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?
You know, 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 the child to have a problem, but not until eight years old.
So after eight years of not being exposed to Tylenol while somebody is pregnant, it would be after the eight years 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?
I always remember this.
Who is the ex-Playboy playmate, Jenny, Jenny, whatever, who had the child who she says, I remember telling the story.
She says that she saw the life drain out of his eyes right after a vaccination.
So what about Jenny McCarthy?
Jenny McCarthy.
What about that?
Let me tell you what I'm worried about.
I'm worried that the pharma industry might throw a sacrificial calf 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 give up on vaccinations.
So do you suppose that anybody, because remember, this is all weasels and liars and 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 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 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 a 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 you think they're going to say, well, we found it?
And you should also know, 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.
We really can't believe either data.
So I'd be very curious if all of the moms 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, I know three people in my situation and 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 pushback if the only thing they identify is Tylenol.
What they might do is say we found this for sure, or sure enough that you should avoid it.
And we're still looking because there's no way that's the whole answer, I don't think.
Well, you know the story about Tom Homan, who was accused of taking $50,000 in cash before Trump was in office and before we knew he would be and before Tom Holman 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 sting.
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 Holman 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 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 the sting.
So if you look on social media, people will say, see, I told you he was totally innocent because 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, there must be nothing to it because Biden's people didn't charge him.
And then Trump's people didn't charge him, not even charging.
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'd 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 until 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 part that I've been laughing about.
Do you believe that Tom Holman could not spot an FBI sting?
Of all people, Tom Holman?
Tom Holman's been around.
Have you noticed?
He's experienced.
He's seen the ugliest side of life like you and I will never see.
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 Holman.
Now, I could believe that, you know, 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 sting?
I would.
I'm pretty sure I would have spotted an FBI sting, or I would have assumed it was.
Nobody gives you $50,000 in cash unless it's a sting or a cartel thing or whatever.
So 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 me just speculating because it's funny.
What if Tom Holman 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 them 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 Homan can't spot a trap that's that obvious, I don't believe that.
I don't believe he couldn't spot that from the jump.
Speaking of things like that, apparently Democrat what's his name, Quayar?
Henry Quayer, Democrat from Texas.
So he's under indictment for taking all kinds of bribes.
Of course.
You know, here's my question.
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?
Are Republicans Bribe-Free?00:03:51
Or maybe is the algorithm not feeding me these stories?
Because it sure seems like all the criminals are Democrats, the government criminals.
Am I wrong?
It seems like it's been a long time since a prominent Republican got arrested for any bribery.
But Democrats, yeah, 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 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'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% in thinking it's worth it.
You should.
So that's not even bad in my mind.
The bad part is the colleges are a ripoff.
That's the bad part.
All right.
In the all data is fake category, this will be the DEI chapter of that.
I saw an article by Amuse.
I always tell you to follow Amuse on X. It's spelled just the way it sounds, Amuse.
And he's got some good writing that goes with his posting.
And he tells us that back in 2020, there was a study claiming that black newborns were twice as likely to survive if the doctor was black.
Now, that's pretty shocking, right?
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 letting babies die or not trying hard enough to save them or 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 black candidates to get into college, which would require lowering the standards so that they could get in.
And that would make sense.
If that data were true, that black babies were twice as likely to survive, then I would say, yeah, you're going to need to get some black doctors in here.
And you might even need to lower the standards a little bit.
I mean, this is such a big data point that if you could lower the standards 5%, but save twice as many babies, yeah, of course.
But it was fake data, just like all data is fake.
So just know that.
And I guess even Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, she cited that study in an affirmative action case.
Was never true.
And it became part of the Supreme Court opinion.
Oh, Katanji.
Trump And Letitia James00:03:46
Putin is making some statements today.
I think he's already made them.
And he's concerned about Trump's golden dome missile protection system.
Thinks that will destabilize the balance of power.
And he calls it a destructive steps, undermining the foundation for dialogue among armed states.
And that if that continues or things like that continue, that Russia will have to respond in some vague way that we wouldn't like.
But at the same time, Russia is offering to limit nukes and do some kind of a nuclear limit deal, 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 dome and wants to deal at least at least deal on nukes.
So maybe that's good.
Maybe that's more good than bad.
Well, Trump is nominated now a replacement senior prosecutor.
He got rid of the one who was not going to indict Letitia James.
Letitia James is the one who lawfared Trump.
And Trump is putting in a new loyal lawyer person that he's worked with.
And we'll presumably go after Letitia 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 Letitia James, I feel like he would be maybe not as happy as if she got put in jail, but he'd be a little bit happy if at least she has to deal with the cost of the legal hassle.
Because that's what she did to him.
And so let me say it again, as 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.
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% in favor of Trump.
He can fire every lawyer he needs to fire before he gets a, you know, gets a bite on her.
But he needs to put the bite on her legally.
But he has to, you know, he's got to exhaust 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 an illegitimate lawfare proponent, 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 want that person in jail.
I mean, more than anybody else in the country, probably, probably more than anyone else in the country, I want Letitia James in jail.
I'm sure there's a murderer out there that I might want in jail more, but they're already in jail for the most part.
Want Letitia James In Jail?00:04:21
All right.
You know, the big question about Trump is going to limit the H-1B visa workers, and they've got to pay $100,000 just to get that visa.
Those are the new changes.
But apparently, the Wall Street Journal says that a number of economists say that the H-1B visas the way it was was a benefit to America, which would be 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 way it is, with the H-1B visa people coming in fairly massively?
Or do you think if you limit them, there'll be enough Americans that can be trained to fill in and everything's better because we'd not only fill the jobs, but we'd fill them with Americans.
Well, I have a correction.
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, but maybe you didn't know why you caught it.
Here's what I said yesterday.
I forget the number of the population of India, but 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 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 somebody sent me an email and said, you're forgetting the IQ difference, to which I said, 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 average IQ is way less than the average in the United States.
So if you were limiting your population to just the people who are, let's say, above an IQ of 120, I just picked that randomly.
I think there would be like a few hundred thousand 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 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 limited 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.
However, I will say that living and working in the Bay Area, I've seen a number of people born in India that came here that made such a difference in America.
I mean, I don't need to name them.
You know, several of them are household names.
I don't want to lose them.
I don't want to lose them.
And I don't think I'm not sure that they would be able to get here under the current system.
But there are some Indian American contributors in Silicon Valley and elsewhere that their contributions are enormous, just enormous, just so far, so far out of the norm of what you and I are doing.
So how do you not lose them?
I don't know.
So 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.
I don't know.
Treasury Department's Cartel Crackdown00:02:43
We'll see.
But we can reverse anything we have to reverse.
The U.S. Treasury is cracking down on the Sinaloa cartels, people who are getting money from the Sinaloa cartel, freezing assets and whatnot.
Breitbar News is reporting about this.
Il defend Defonso Ortiz.
Now, what I wondered is, did we always know this?
Has the Treasury Department 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.
Former Mexican president's sons are reportedly cartel mobbed up into cartels.
So the sons of former President Andres Manuel Lopez Oberdor are allegedly tied to a large-scale cartel thing.
According to Breitbar News, also Il DeFonso Ortiz, but also Brandon Darby, who knows more about the border than any other living person.
Brandon Darby does.
I'm trying to figure out there's at least one ex-Mexican president who follows me on X. I don't remember if it's Oberdor or someone else.
So President Maduro of Venezuela has offered to directly talk to Trump and have a 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 real leader of a country.
He's just a cartel boss who took over a country.
But Maduro says, no, no, totally misunderstood.
Not only are we not allowing drugs through Venezuela, he says, but only 5% of the drugs produced in Colombia are shipped through there, of which 70% of those drugs, 70% of the 5%, are neutralized or destroyed by Venezuelan authorities.
Chemical Imbalance Myth00:03:16
Does that sound even a little bit true?
I don't know.
I don't know.
There's no way to know.
But my guess is that he's closer to being ahead of a cartel than he is to somebody who's really stopping those cartels.
Well, update on Argentina, Millay, the superstar new president who's fixing everything.
He says the market is in panic mode.
Zero Edge is reporting on this.
So they've got some real currency meltdown problems going on over there.
So I guess I'm going to just double down on saying I never really believed all the hype about Millay.
He might still pull this out, but it was the way people talked about him, the press, that never looked totally objective to me.
It just looked to me like they were building him up because he was sort of a colorful, interesting character.
I was always skeptical that he had the miracle that they said.
Meanwhile, at Texas A ⁇ M University, the president had to resign 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.
A new study came out.
It was a big one.
It says that depression is associated with low brain blood flow and function as opposed to a chemical imbalance.
You've probably heard in the news already that 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'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 it has something to do with how efficiently the brain blood flow and function is.
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 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.
That's the best feeling in the world.
Past, Present, and Simulation00:02:52
Keep doing that.
All right.
We'll take a look at you.
All right.
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, 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 because I did some experiments.
It just has to be true.
Here's why.
Not only do we have to be a simulation, you know, trillion to one odds, because for every simulation, no, for every real 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 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 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 can make a computer program that would have enough 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.
Allowing Different Realities00:01:33
Right?
So we have to have different opinions of what we're seeing so that the code doesn't ever have to resolve it.
You can just leave that, you know, leave the disconnect.
And 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 yeah, and you'd 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.
It 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 subscribers.
And the rest of you, thanks for joining, everybody.