Episode 3052 CWSA 12/24/25

Good morning.

Happy Christmas Eve.

Jump on in here.

I'm doing a lozenge.

You all look happy.

Elastic in the comments.

A I love you too.

Great to see you everybody.

All right, we're gonna get ready for your comments.

Now, you know what the best thing to do today is?

Best thing to do today is to be wrapped in your presence while you're listening to this live stream.

So, I'm having a kind of a serious asthma problem this morning.

So, I can't promise how long I'll be able to go.

But if I have to bail out early, I'm going to turn the sound off so I can cough without bothering you.

And we're just going to hang out.

And then maybe I'll come back in, maybe I won't.

But today's hanging out, okay?

So, you can just put me on a device and I'll just be in your living room or wherever the hell you are.

And uh I may or may not be able to talk, but we'll hang out.

We'll do the best we can.

Okay, we got comments working.

We're definitely going to do the simultaneous sip because I know that's why you're here.

Just got to fix this a little bit.

A little better angle.

There we go.

Well, what do you what do you think you need for that?

copper mug or a glass of tank or shells of SL canteen jugger flask a vessel of a kind fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the unparallel pleasure of the dopamine hit the day the thing makes everything better it's called the simultaneous sip that happens now you know I could feel the simultaneity on that.

Hey, why is that still on?

All right, people.

Um, if you're just joining, I've got a little respiratory problem this morning, so we'll do as much as we can, but it might be a short show.

And if it is, I won't I won't turn it off.

I'll just hang with you, okay?

because I might need to use my my steamer on my lungs.

All right, so yesterday I mentioned a bunch of sources that influenced my show and I said I feel like I'm forgetting somebody and I just wanted to update that with uh one of my other trusted favorite sources is the Federalist.

So, anything by Molly Hemingway, anything by Shaun Davis, uh, that's good stuff.

So, I'm also influenced by that.

I think it's fun for you to know if you think I'm influential that I definitely take influence from, you know, other sources.

So, the, you know, the better they are, the more influential.

And the Federalist is right at the top of the list.

All right.

So, this is old news, but there's a funny update.

So, you probably heard over the summer that Joe Biden got a $10 million book deal.

Well, today somebody somebody was doing some engagement farming and asked what the title of that should be.

And uh what do you think?

What what should be the title of Joe Biden's upcoming book?

I would go with either you know the thing or a question.

I wrote a book.

I wrote a book or Hunter who do you have any ideas?

Put put them in the comments.

What should Joe Biden's book title be?

Or should it be what was that thing he said about pony soldiers?

Something about pony soldiers.

Oh, well it won't be auto pen, but president autoben.

Where am I?

How about where am I?

All right, that's enough of that.

So yesterday I had an interesting experience.

I don't know if any of you have experienced this yet, but have you ever have you ever talked to somebody immediately after their first experience with a Tesla self-driving?

There's sort of an analogy to that.

Uh, I told you a few years ago the first time I got on an ebike, um, I couldn't get the smile off my face because the difference between an ebike and a regular bike is just I mean one one of them just thrills you and the other is just a bicycle.

Uh, but I'll bet you there's something just like that for people who just got done doing their very first ride in a self-driving car.

So I saw it yesterday a few people who had just had their first ride just got out of the car and they done some self-driving you know just locally they can't get the smiles off their faces apparently that the first time you do it is just such an experience that uh you know it's like it's not like anything else apparently.

So watch for that.

Watch for people getting their first full self-driving.

When I say full self-driving, I mean they still have to pay attention, but they don't have to participate.

All right.

Well, the Nvidia director of robotics says that the Tesla self-driving uh is like an AI that passes the physical touring test.

Now, the touring test was passed a long time ago.

the the standard way, but um this would be a physical touring test, meaning that it acts like it's sensient um even though it's not.

And Elon Musk responded that the best real world AI is their Tesla AI, but he said, "You can sense the sentience." Now, I still have not been in a self-driving car, so I don't know if that comment hits or not.

But have any of you done the self-driving Tesla?

And would can you confirm that when you're doing it, you can feel the sentence or you know almost intelligence?

I don't want to say consciousness of the car.

Is that true?

The you can sense the sensience or not?

Oh no.

Oh, we got a lot of yeses.

You can sense it.

All right.

Good.

So, speaking of Tesla, so you know Tesla's building the Cyber Cab, which would be a dedicated vehicle just for self-driving, like a cab basically.

But the most shocking thing is that they've he's improved the uh production process so much that he thinks they'll be able to produce one of these cyber cabs every 5 seconds in one assembly line.

Every five seconds.

So obviously it's highly highly automated assembly line.

But he says you won't be able to get near the assembly line because you'll you'll be moving so fast.

Now, imagine a world where people like me, I, you know, I I don't think I'll necessarily ever be able to get into an auto cab or cyber cab, but wouldn't it be cool to just sit in what what would be like a little living room, basically just a tiny living room, and it just takes you where you want to go.

That is amazing.

And that's that's basically this year you end of this year.

All right, let's do what I like to do.

We're going to test your BS filters.

So, here's some science and you tell me if the science is BS or not.

According to the University of Texas at Austin, people who help other people, you know, they volunteer or help other people a few hours a week, it may slow the brain aging of the people who are doing the helping.

Do do you believe that study that the people who help other people will add to their longevity?

Well, maybe.

I think that's entirely possible.

But how do you rule out the the the more obvious possibility?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are not healthy people doing more of everything?

So if if you had, you know, great health and great vitality and great energy, wouldn't you do literally more of everything compared to people who are not healthy?

So, I can see why healthy people would volunteer more.

They' just be able to do it.

So, I'm going to say it might be true, but it certainly would work the other way.

All right, here's one.

Eric Dolan on Sidepost.

So, he's got there's some research now that shows that people prefer lower quality news on social media.

Does that sound like real science?

People prefer lower quality news.

Do you believe that?

To which I say maybe.

But you know what the biggest question is?

Who gets to decide what is lowquality news?

lowquality, lowquality news according to who?

If it's up to me, do I get to pick which one's lowquality?

I saw that one's BS.

All right.

Servich had a post on X today that I very much agree with.

He said, "All I want for Christmas is for everyone to know is free to set up a custodial account for your children." That would be like a uh an account where you could trade stocks and and have investments, but you would be in charge of it uh on behalf of miners uh and for and buy into the stock market.

We were talking dollars, not millions.

Um blah blah.

Now, um, I've been seeing a lot of that online.

Adam TSON's been talking about, for example, I talk about a little bit.

But the the big benefit here is not just that it creates wealth for the children 18 years later, which would be enough.

I mean, if that were the only benefit, it would be worth it.

But it teaches the kids the importance of money.

But it also gives them sort of a framework for how you manage it and would make them less, let's say, less intimidated by the financial world.

Because it turns out that just having an account on Charles Schwab and buying and selling some stocks, you could pretty much teach them some someone they needed to know in one hour and then, you know, reinforce it by by activity.

So, I've heard black Americans complain, rightfully so, that if they don't grow up in a family where somebody can teach them how to manage money, how are they how are you going to work it out on your own?

I mean, you're just going to work that out on your own is is not really something anybody can do.

But if your parents gave you just a little bit of exposure to managing money, such as having a custodial account, you would be less intimidated.

And even those things you didn't know how to do, it wouldn't scare you to go figure out how to do them.

Does that make sense?

So, uh, I've always been a stock investor since my 20s, and I don't believe I would have been except that my father talked about it all the time.

He was a very small investor, but we talked about it.

And so, I always thought, well, if my father's going to do it, it can't be that hard.

It can't be that hard if my fathers could do it.

because honestly it was not he was not really a high capability person.

Now later later in life I realized that he couldn't do it because he used a stock broker and the stock broker was absolutely ripping him off.

Now I didn't know that when I was a kid.

It was only later after I was a economics major and I'd learned how the world works.

Only then did I learn that he should have been putting his money in index funds.

And I'm I'm not talking about the managed index funds.

Well, no, they're not managed if they're index.

So, I'm not talking about a stock fund.

I'm talking about index fund where it's just a bag of stocks.

Stop eating.

Unfortunately, I can't get rid of this uh lozenge because I'd have to stop the live stream.

But I'm almost done with it.

I completely understand if the chewing is completely bothersome and I would recommend that you turn off the sound for maybe one to two minutes and then I'll be done with it.

But your comment is well taken.

Sorry, I'm just crunching the last of it.

All right.

Well, apparently the UK Met Office, Britain's Met Office, uh has recently discovered that a whole bunch of their temperature thermometer sites were fake news.

So, here's what they found out about their their temperature sites that are all all over the UK that are the basis for climate change decisions, right?

Or at least some of them.

So of uh let's see investigators discovered that over 80% of the temperature monitoring sites are classified as junk with measurement uncertainties of 2° C to 5 degrees C.

In other words, some of them don't exist and they're just making making up the numbers.

Others are in these uh what they call heat islands too close to concrete stuff and uh their entire their entire temperature measurement situation was completely fraudulent.

Does that surprise you?

How many times have I told you if you believe that humans can measure the temperature of the earth, you must be very young or or very inexperienced in the world.

If you've lived in a Dilbert world, sort of the, you know, the Dilbert filter on everything, you should not be surprised that humans cannot measure the temperature of the Earth, no matter how hard they try.

It's just something we will never be able to do.

It is ridiculous.

But we've been told for years, oh yeah, we can totally measure that temperature.

I will even go further and say, as I've said a number of times, this hasn't caught on at all.

There's something I say a lot on social media that I wondered if it would ever catch on, but not a single person is agree with me yet.

It goes like this.

All data that's important is fake.

You don't agree with that, right?

because you you think well I mean that's a little bit of hyperbole isn't it?

All data really all data that matters is fake.

Yep.

Now I would limit that to let's say the political economic realm.

It's not true that engineering data is all fake.

So if you're measuring let's say you know the reliability of a car or something that's not necessarily fake because maybe that's something that one company is doing for itself has no incentive uh and a real good way to measure it.

But everything in the political or economic domain and that would be climate change for sure.

You can guarantee without doing any research that the data is bad.

Guarantee it.

And the reason is it always is.

You don't you don't even need to know anything about the domain.

In every case, data is unreliable if it matters.

Medical data.

Um I heard recently an anecdote of someone who was a top brain surgeon.

I forget where was this.

I give credit to whoever said this, but um it's something I heard recently.

So, someone who is a top brain surgeon was asked how accurate the medical information is and he thought that less than half of what is taught in the medical arts is fake or just wrong.

Half.

So even if some of it is true, I guess that would be the other half.

How do you know which is the half that's right?

You know, unless you're this expert brain guy.

So the medical world um may not be as bad depending on how they're measuring it, but yeah, probably half of it is fake.

And then in the other direction the university or grad is saying that the climate models overestimate nitrogen availability.

So by this measurement they would over they would overestimate the CO2 levels or something.

And you know, even even though that's the opposite direction from maybe what the temperature problems are, it just shows you that for years you've been people have been telling me these climate models are real.

They couldn't possibly be.

They couldn't possibly be because they're they're wrong in both directions.

All right, here's a new statistic from the rabbit hole on X.

79% of refugees have vacationed in the country they fled from.

So if you were doing a count of the number of refugees that came into your country, the the ones that came there to save themselves from uh torture or whatever imprisonment, you would have found out that 79% of them were fake.

probably more but only 79% of them went back to their dangerous country on vacation.

So do you think that there's a reasonable number of the number of uh immigrants who are escaping their country for safety?

No.

Any number in that domain would be fake.

All right.

Here's one.

Uh, I guess Doge allegedly cut 9% in federal workers.

New York Post is reporting that.

Um, and then also there's some some positive reports that Doge massively improved the Social Security Administration's effectiveness.

So, they got 65% more uh business done through telephones and etc.

and 68 million colors served and at the same time the number of claims were driven way down by 35%.

So if these numbers were real it would suggest that Doge was just massively successful so far.

Yeah.

Imagine claims social security claims being driven down by 35%.

Does that mean that they would have been fraudulent or were those valid claims that just didn't get processed?

I don't know.

But then on top of that, there's reports that Doge uh saved $214 billion in taxpayer savings so far.

Um, if you read the counterpoints, I think it was Peter Baker or somebody I saw, um, he was debunking that number and saying that's not a real number.

Here's the reasons why.

Um, there was chaos, but there really wasn't savings, blah, blah, blah.

So, here's the big question.

I just told you that all numbers and all data that matters is fake.

Why would you believe the Doge numbers if you don't believe in any other numbers?

Now, I I trust the Doge people and I trust Musk to have the right intention about telling the truth, but do you believe this is the one thing that's accurate?

Because that would be surprising, wouldn't it?

because the numbers do matter and there is apparently you know more than one way to count everything.

So I would say it's probably moving in the right direction.

So in terms of you know directional change probably in the right direction but it might be a uh it might be an exaggeration how much has been saved so far.

Now, one of the things we would be able to count reasonably well would be the number of federal employees.

So, if the number of federal employees went down by 9%.

Probably believable, but far less believable would be the dollar amounts.

But like I said, it's all moving in the right direction, I think.

All right.

So every single day I wake up and I see news stories about California or Minnesota usually doing some additional form of massive fraud.

Makes you wonder, you know, how many of the blue states have the same problem.

But apparently California spent $ 24 billion to tackle homelessness, but they didn't have any system in place to track how they were doing.

So, they know they spent the money, but they don't know if it made any difference because they didn't track it.

Come on.

You could give somebody $24 billion and then not accurately track whether it worked.

Oh, man.

CBS is reporting on this.

Apparently, California has 171 people homeless, and that's 30% of all the homeless people in the entire US.

Now, that kind of makes sense.

If you live in California, you know that your odds of surviving outdoors are much better than most places.

You know, there are places that are warmer and they would be too warm, you know, like Arizona, for example.

But the the place you would most likely survive on the sidewalk would be California.

And then you add on top of that all the friendly policies toward the homeless.

Of course, we have 30%.

It's amazing that we don't have 100%.

Actually, probably the only reason we don't have 100% of the homeless is that they can't get here.

You know, they they haven't had to travel here.

But why would anybody go anywhere else?

So, that looks like a problem that's not going to get solved anytime.

So I guess the state water of California uh according to Kevin Kylie he's a congressman from California uh they issued this scathing report and they identified eight separate state agencies just in California as quote high risk which means they exhibit serious waste fraud abuse or mismanagement costing taxpayers billions.

Um, so have you ever heard the word auditor as much as you have in the last 30 days?

How many of you remember that I started hitting that word like crazy?

Audit, audit, audit, audit.

But audits are boring.

So it doesn't really catch on with the, you know, the public so much.

But I kept hammering on it.

Audit, audit.

And now um I I don't know if I had any influence in causing anything, but you will note that the number of times you hear the word audit and the number of times you hear somebody suggest auditing.

I think Chimath from the all-in pod did a post on this just yesterday or so and you know you mentioned the needs for audits and you know most of the stories are now audit related if they have to do with money.

So that is a step in the right direction.

But I'll tell you what, uh maybe you know the answer to this question.

So a couple of days ago, I saw a video that I don't know if it's AI or not.

And that's what's funny about it.

So it was a video of someone asking Governor Nuomo about, you know, his waste of federal money, I guess.

And Nome starts talking and you know justiculating as he does and it's it was so word salad but yet the sentences might have made sense but it was insanely incomprehensible.

Did anybody see that?

Was that an AI or was that actually him being presumably stoned out of his mind on something trying to answer a question and just just sort of word selling his way through it for like a minute and a half and it didn't it didn't end like he starts with the well this and that that it just kept going and going and going and going.

So, I'm curious.

Did any of you see that?

You You would know exactly what I'm talking about if you saw it.

And was that real?

Cuz it looked like it should have been AI.

Uh, well, I'm more interested in the AI technology than I am in his answer.

Is it is it so good that I was wondering if it's AI and I couldn't tell?

Right.

That'll be an opening question.

Well, you might know this Steve Hilton.

You remember him from Fox News.

He had a show on Fox.

Um, he's running for governor of California.

And he notes that Californians pay double the national average for electricity and that it's all based on bad policies and climate crisis stuff.

And if he becomes governor, he will cut in half your electric bill in California.

Now, that's a pretty strong pretty strong uh pitch because it has an actual number, 50%.

And he gives he gives an actual way that he can do it, which sounds quite doable.

you know, just cut out cut out the things that California has been doing wrong, which everybody can identify.

So, I saw a poll where he was actually leading.

Do you believe that a Republican could be leading in the polls to become a become governor of California?

I would have said no until this year.

Um, and I think that the way Hilton is doing it is the way to do it because the the big thing that Democrats are going to ask for is um affordability.

So, it's one thing to say, "Oh, vote for me.

I'll give you some affordability.

It's another thing to tell them exactly how much you're going to save." You know, half of your electric bill and tell you exactly how he's going to do it.

and you look at it, you go, "Yeah, that would work.

That would work." So, the more ways that Steve Filton can find to do that, this is what I'll save you.

This is how I'm going to do it, he might actually become governor.

So, he's smart enough.

It's just whether the machine will crush him or not.

So, are we still talking about that Barry Weiss CBS 60 Minutes piece about CCAT that got squashed or is that too boring?

I saw that Hillary Clinton weighed in on and then then Balli, the head of El Salvador, said, "Sure, we'll send back your prisoners if you take all of them." Which is a pretty strong lie.

You have to take all of them.

If you're not happy, if you're not happy with our prison, take all of them.

Now, it still seems to me that the way to approach that prison would be to say, "We want to use your prison.

Every prison has some abuses.

We need to, you know, we need to be a little more careful.

We're being a little less abusive." You know, at least at least wave your hands at the fact that you understand there's something going on there.

You don't have to face it because I think every prison is basically a torture place even in America.

But you should definitely wave your hands at hey maybe we should be doing something about this.

So yesterday uh you may have noticed that Elon Musk warned us that he was feeling especially based uh and then he started you know posting all day and uh you tell me is this based I guess The Atlantic said something bad that he didn't like, which is no surprise.

And uh Elon Musk posted, "The Atlantic is a fake publication kept alive only by Lorine Jobs using her dead husband and bunny for something he would despise.

Do you think that's true?

Do you think that Steve Jobs would have despised what his widow is doing with the uh basically being very political and very biased in the Atlantic?

I think that's true.

But then he goes further.

Elon goes further.

He goes once again reinforcing the point that balls deep woke white women are the doom of Western civilization.

boy, you can tell he's not married.

There I don't think any married man could say that.

Well, you know, if he were married to a white woman, I don't think any married man to a white woman could say that white women are the doom of Western civilization.

Um, is that something you've heard me say?

How many of you would agree that white women are the doom of western civilization?

I think it's true because if they didn't have a vote, and I'm not I'm not suggesting that you take away their vote.

I'm just, you know, working through the logic, we wouldn't have open borders.

You know, there's just a whole bunch of things that wouldn't have happened at all.

So, we're dying from uh this sort of forced empathy that's coming largely from one group of people who can't tell how to protect themselves basically.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Liberal white women.

Yes, you are correct.

Well, Minnesota doubling down.

They've got new requirements for this year that the K through six, no K through 12 classrooms uh have a mandatory ethnic studies.

Now, what do you think Minnesota's mandatory ethnic studies is going to be teaching their children?

Mandatory ethnic studies.

It's an anti-white course that is now required.

Now, they don't sell it as anti-white, but what else is it?

So, here are the things.

According to Wall Street Apes, students will learn transgender affirmation.

So, that that's not necessarily about the white part.

Uh, how to dismantle cisgender privilege.

There it is.

children are going to be taught how to dismantle cisgender privilege.

That's basically discriminating against white people as much as possible.

Um, they're going to learn Black Lives Matter principles years after it's been shown that Black Lives Matter was a fake organization uh and a scam.

Uh, they're going to learn distrust of the nuclear family.

Okay, that would destroy the world.

and they're going to watch a video about George Floyd Square produced by some leftist group.

So, I'll tell you, you need to uh get out of Minnesota if you're there.

Get out of Minnesota.

But the federal government is trying to fix things in these rogue states.

So, the SBA is gonna is gonna hold back money from Minnesota uh because they claim that Tim Walsh will just waste their money and there's not enough controls.

So, it's not a big amount of money there.

It's 5.5 million is being held back.

But, I love the I love the approach which is we're not going to give you a penny because you just waste it.

I've never seen that before, but it's so so supportable in terms of the facts that Minnesota is just stealing our tax money that yeah, I agree with this.

I would definitely not trust Minnesota to manage any of my money.

And even funnier, apparently, Republicans are going to consider a new legislation called the Walsa Act.

So that would be named after the governor Wals.

The Wals act to prevent Minnesota scale fraud from ever happening again.

So the anti-fraud bill is going to be named after a sitting governor because he's he's been the steward of so much fraud that they're going to name it after him while he's still governor of a state.

Now that's kind of funny.

That's kind of funny.

So Brandon Gil was talking about this.

He's he's pretty funny, too.

Republican.

So, he says, quote, "9 billion dollars in tax money was limited.

Congress has a role to ensure our programs aren't abused by left-wing governors like Wals." So he says that uh um that Minnesota had basically created what he calls a patronage system of taking our hard-earned tax dollars, giving it to his political allies uh by essentially by turning a blind eye to the the fraud uh and that he knew exactly what was going on the whole time.

What do you think?

Do you think that Tim Walsh was incompetent and had no idea how much fraud there was in his own state?

Or do you believe that he was he was deeply involved in promoting the lawlessness because some of that money came back to him and his allies?

What do you think?

I'm a little bit mixed on this.

I think it might be some part pure incompetence because he does seem incompetent honestly.

He he just gives off his incompetent vibe like crazy.

But also seems he must have turned a blind eye to a lot of it because it's hard to it's hard to imagine he wasn't aware of it because of the scale.

So I'm going to say blind eye definitely.

But on top of that, if he had wanted to stop it, he probably didn't have the skill.

I don't think he had any capability.

On top of that, I guess Trump was directed the Justice Department to investigate Act Blue.

Do you know what actual is?

So, ACL Blue is an organization that services Democrats and what they try to do is get lots of small donations from people uh that would add up to something big for elections.

But, uh they're accused of only pretending that the donations are small uh but actually raising, you know, big money from dark sources and then just pretending that it came from individuals.

They've also been accused of using people's names without their without their approval so that they could put a name to all the small donations that were not real.

Now I don't know how much of that is uh real but I suspect that ACL blue is essentially a criminal organization.

I don't know that.

But the hints are that it looks like it's just a criminal organization.

So now think let me ask you this.

Is it going too far if I said that the Democrats are a criminal organization?

The the entire entity.

Now I don't mean every voter.

You know voters probably are just, you know, going blah blah blah.

Everybody's bad.

Democrats have some problems.

Republicans have some problems.

But I prefer the Democrats.

So most voters, I think, are blissfully unaware of just how much crime is happening.

But if you look at it collectively, here are just some of the things.

So you've got thousands if not millions of NOS's and we know now that the NOS's are essentially money laundering operations.

So those would be mostly Democrat criminal organizations or at least you know they'd be involved in something that would be I I think you would call them money laundering.

We know that the SNAP funds were massively stolen and that that was primarily by Democrats.

We might find out that ACT Blue is a criminal organization.

I think we will.

Uh some people say that our elections were rigged primarily by Democrats.

That would be crime.

You you could argue how proven that is or not, but in my opinion, I think the rigging of elections is just a fact.

Uh and I think it leans heavily toward the Democrats.

Not that no Republicans ever cheated, but probably there's a pretty big difference in scale.

Then there's everything in California.

Basically, it seems like every dime that that California gets, it just disappears.

You know, the fire recovery money didn't go to the people who were recovering.

The bullet train never happened.

The money for the homeless didn't help anybody.

So, pretty much everything in California is even worse in Minnesota.

It's all criminal.

It to me it looks criminal.

And then you got this whole operation where the Democrats find ways to fund teachers who are all Democrats.

and then they donate to Democrat people.

So you got some, you know, some kind of cir circular money laundering thing.

Then you've got the the main Democrats who pulled the Russia collusion hoax.

You've got the Clinton what what is that big Clinton initiative that was probably just a money laundering thing.

So, pretty much every major story that involves gigantic fraud seems to be Democrats.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not giving Republicans a pass.

Maybe they're just better at it, right?

You know, it's hard to believe that all the crime is just on one side of the political aisle.

That would be weird, right?

But we don't really Yeah.

The Clinton Foundation.

Thank you.

Um, but am I wrong?

Am I in a bubble?

Am I in some kind of a bubble where I'm only seeing the Democrat bad behavior?

You know, I hear lots of accusations about Trump personally, but that stuff tends to be all transparent in public.

You know, he's not hiding it.

You know, it's it's in the news.

is you could you can tell he did this with crypto.

You could tell he did this with whatever.

So you could disagree or not like what Trump does.

But that's still not Republicans.

That would be something you don't like about Trump.

So am I wrong that this is so so imbalanced toward Democrats that if you said the Democrats are at least as a party not not the individual voters but it seems like a criminal organization and I mean that without any hyperbole.

All right.

wealth I think well Breitbart is reporting and lots of other people reporting that the GDP grew at a robust 4.3% when even the smartest people thought it would be 3.3 and if you went back a few months the smartest people were saying we're going to have a recession because of all these damn tariffs.

So it turns out that all the smartest um economists were wrong and the people who were right were Trump and Bessant and anybody who agreed with them.

Do you believe that?

Now if this is true that the people who got it right were the you know the the few but that the main economic experts all got it wrong just thousands and thousands of economists completely wrong.

What does that tell you about the the science of economics?

Now, I I'm an economics major and uh it seems to me that uh economics is mostly guessing.

You know, you can learn how things fit together if you learn economics, but if you think you can use that to predict, you really can't.

And I would argue that the inability to predict, you know, is kind of a a big knock on your profession, right?

If you were a scientist and you couldn't predict what was going to happen with your scientific theory, you would think, well, that's no good.

But economists could just make up all day long.

They can be completely wrong and then just come back tomorrow and make up some more Economics is barely a respectable profession.

Just barely, maybe not at all.

But getting back to my prior thought, do you think this number is real?

Because I already told you that uh all all data that matters is fake.

Well, this matters.

This will be important data.

Would I change my opinion that this is the rare accurate data?

What do you think?

I'm going to stick with my um earlier statements.

I do not believe yet.

I could be convinced, but I do not believe this is a stable predictive number.

It could be a blip because if all the economists were wrong up till now, what are the odds that they could they could calculate the GDP accurately?

If they didn't get anything else right.

So, do you believe they got everything wrong?

But boy, they're good at calculating that GDP.

If you put the Dilbert filter on it, uh I would say there's a healthy chance that this will be revised or, you know, won't be a consistent number or we'll find out that there was some special case about it that gave it a little bump.

So, do not be too enthusiastic.

But I got to say, if it's even directionally true, and it might be, that would be pretty impressive.

It would certainly put uh Trump investments looking good just before the end of the year.

But how about Canada?

If Canada also got a big bump, maybe that would tell us something.

Well, according to Statistics Canada, their GDP for October showed their economy shrank by 3/10en of 1%.

It's the biggest decline in almost three years.

Their manufacturing base decreased by 1.5%.

Blah blah blah.

So, how do you think Trump feels that he's got this amazing GDP, which we hope is real, at the same time that Canada is decreasing its GDP?

I'll tell you, you can't win much harder than that.

But he's not winning everything because the Supreme Court has ruled that Trump cannot use the National Guard uh in Illinois to reduce crime.

And I guess the Supreme Court said the government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois.

That was what one of the high court majority people wrote.

>> >> So, I don't know if that's the biggest problem in the world.

Um, but and there may be more to it.

There might be I don't know.

May there may be another angle that the feds can use.

We'll see.

But not the biggest story in the world.

So Trump is once again being Trump and instead of saying Merry Christmas and settling into the Christmas week uh on Truth Social, he ran a poll to see who was the worst late night host because that's important.

So instead of Merry Christmas, it's a a poll on who's the worst late night host.

And uh so he's he's got listed co Bear, Jimmy Kimmel or Jimmy Fallon.

And and then he furthermore he said that Stephen Coar was quote a dead man walking and he urged CBS to put late night host to sleep.

That that is so Trump.

The the the beauty of it is that what makes this extra provocative is that he's doing Christmas week.

So it's sort of a slow week even.

So, he's got all these successes like the the GDP uh and then he uses that time to slam on his uh his opponents.

So, at the same time, uh Poly Market, that's the online place where people bet on stuff.

Poly market says the number one suspect in the Epstein files is Stephen Colbear and that they estimate there's a 97% chance that Colbear is in the Epstein files.

Now I don't think that's true.

I do not think he's in the Epstein files, but it's funny to watch that, you know, be uh distorted.

So, I'm not sure I would use poly market to make my predictions if it's anything political.

All right.

But it's funny.

So, speaking of funny, apparently the latest dump of the Epstein files with lots of redactions, uh, the way they redacted it was with Adobe Acrobat, which is a two-step process.

So, first you you black out the line using Adobe Acrobat and then you run some other process to make sure that it it flattens the file and that the thing that's covering up the sentence really covers it up.

But it looks like somebody forgot to do that second part at least with some of the files.

So people could just take it reverse the redactions.

So people have been reversing the redactions.

They just take him off.

But here's the big story.

They didn't find anything.

Apparently, there wasn't anything provocative.

Maybe there was something that the victims didn't like, but they didn't find any smoking guns when they removed the uh removed the removal of the content.

So, a lot of people were chattering online saying, "Ha, uh, somebody in the FBI or Department of Justice, whoever was in charge of redacting, wanted us to know the truth, and so they pretended to redact knowing that it would be discovered that the redactions could be reversed." What do you think?

Do you think that somebody cleverly and intentionally made the redactions reversible or do you think it was purely a didn't do it right and didn't notice?

Well, you know, we're tempted to believe in conspiracy theories.

So, I know a lot of you think it was intentional.

I'm going to put the Dilbert filter, as I like to call it, on this situation.

And the Dilbert filter says far more likely it was a mistake.

Far more likely it was a mistake.

It's not it's not like impossible that somebody did it intentionally but I'd say it's 10 to one 20 to one more likely that uh it was just a mistake.

It feels intentional.

You might you might be right about that.

It feels intentional because it's kind of wacky that it happened at all.

But I don't know it in the real world, what is more likely?

Incompetence, right?

Incompetence or really clever play that would cost them their job?

Because whoever did the redactions is in a lot of trouble today.

And if unless they were planning to quit, it's not really something you would do to your own career on Christmas.

So I can't imagine anybody doing it intentionally because there'd be a 100% chance you would get in a lot of trouble.

We'll keep an eye on that one.

So Alan Dersuit says, no surprise here, that the latest drop from the Epstein stuff has a bunch of fake files, fake documents, false accusations.

There there was one that sounded really bad about Trump that turned out to be a total forgery.

I'm not even going to mention what the for what the fake was because you just don't want to hear it.

But it is known to be fake and a lot of the other stuff is now known to be fake.

So Dorsu is warning us about that.

Um so Schumer, you know Schumer, right?

Uh he he goes on some uh I guess some interview.

He said the the law was written very clearly and it did not allow all these redactions, this blacking out of everything.

It did not say you can dribble them out over a period of months.

These guys are quote full of They should simply release it all.

Now, now I refer to Schumer as the randomly cursing lizard guy.

He reminds me of a lizard, but when he randomly curses, it reminds us that they don't know how to curse.

Why?

Why did he need to curse there?

Compare that again.

Compare that to JD Vance telling people that they can eat for insulting his wife.

That's a good curse.

That's a good curse.

But why did why did Schumer have to just throw it in?

These guys are full of He didn't.

They just don't know how to do this.

Anyway, um I also saw a jank from the Young Turks.

He said something online that I couldn't tell if he was being sarcastic or not, but he said that he believed, I guess he believes there's stuff that would be bad for Trump in the files, but he said the only the only way that that can be blocked as long as it has been is if the intelligence agencies are behind the blocking of it.

Is that a sarcastic comment or does he believe as I do that we have all the proof we need that some intelligence entities are blocking the uh the more extensive uh release?

How many of you believe that there's a 100% chance we would have seen the files unless intelligence agencies blocked it and that there's nobody who simply powerful enough that they could have done it.

Um because both remember Democrats and Republicans have had access to the files and they both blocked it.

So, what would be the one entity that can make both Democrats and Republicans block something?

I feel like only the in the intel people.

So, at this point, I think there's I've said this before there there's no real hope that we're going to see everything we want to see.

There's no real hope of that because the intel people have the power to block it and apparently the motive.

If you have the motive and you have the power, it's pretty easy to predict.

So, I was waiting for this to happen, but the FCC is going to ban the purchase of Chinese-made drones because of national security concerns.

Now, I think the reason it took so long for them to ban Chinese drones um is because we didn't have a domestic manufacturing way to do it and we needed drones because the drones are really, you know, useful for farming a whole bunch of things.

So, it looks like I intuit it from this that enough manufacturing entities in the United States are making drones and they're doing it well enough now that we can we can just make that a domestic industry and uh we don't have to get the Chinese drones.

I wonder I am curious who the big drone makers are.

Um, I'm pretty sure that Anderil, that that would be the high-tech uh defense industry company.

I'm pretty sure they make a bunch of drones and anti- drone stuff, but I don't know how much volume they do.

Uh, perhaps they've reached some kind of volume thing.

But, you know, it's not just military drones.

Um, I wonder who's making the non-military drones.

Well, over in Belgium, apparently 73% of the children and teens in Brussels uh have a non-EU migration background and only 10.5% are Belgians of of Belgian origin.

So basically, Belgium um is now no longer Belgium.

Now, maybe that's good, maybe that's bad.

I don't know any Belgium people, but Belgium really just went away.

Um, you know, you could argue not yet, Scott, but it's guaranteed.

I mean, if if 73% of your children were not Belgium, you just have to wait and uh your country will look completely different.

Will it be better or will it be worse?

I don't know.

I'm not there.

Not my country.

Yeah, but it will give you a glimpse of what might be happening with the rest of Europe.

Well, there's a uh Israeli defense minister who says, believe it or not, that uh the Israel the Israeli military will never leave Gaza.

So, they never they never plan to withdraw their military from Gaza.

Um, is anybody surprised by that?

So, apparently the peace deal with Hamas said that Hamas would give up their weapons.

I think he said that and that Israel would remove its military.

It looks like neither of them are going to do that.

I don't think Hamas gave up his weapons and surrendered.

And I never thought that Israel would give up his military um control of Gaza.

So what are the odds of a two-state solution?

Is in my imagination or is the idea of a two-state solution never more than something to talk about because there is never a chance of it happening?

Was there ever did any of you ever have a time where you thought, you know what, I think that two-stage solution might actually happen?

Now, that's independent from whether you want it to happen.

We're we're not talking we're not talking about whether you think it's a good idea or a bad idea.

I'm just saying it's not really even possible because there's zero chance that Israel would ever go for that.

So, it feels like just something you say when you're negotiating, well, you know, if we do this or that, we'll be getting closer to a two-stage solution.

But meanwhile, they're, you know, they're going hog wild on building uh you know, building settlements, and there's not really any chance that could happen, is there?

So, well, anyway, I remind you that I'm neither pro nor anti-Israel.

I simply observe.

And sometimes they do things that look like they would work from their perspective.

And sometimes maybe they do things that I don't know why they do them.

But it's not my job to tell Israel what's good for Israel.

And it's not their job to tell America what's good for America.

So, I'll definitely give you opinions on American policy, but other countries just observe.

Sometimes predict because that's fun.

Uh, but I only care about America.

It's not that I don't care.

That's going too far.

is that if Israel is doing a good job of taking care of Israel, my impression of that is, hey, good job.

Everybody should do a good job of taking care of the country.

If part of their doing a good job is that it creates some situations that America doesn't like, then we should address that.

But I don't disrespect them for doing a good job influencing people.

They want influence.

Um, I could not like it, but I observe it.

Speaking of Israel, there's an Israeli company that found a a breakthrough that could reverse paralysis.

So, apparently has something to do with neural tissues.

And let's see what it is.

It uh it's a biotech company called Match Yourself.

and they've got this new spinal cord tissue that they grow from the patient's own cells and then they somehow squirt it back into you and you can regrow your your nerve cells that had been damaged.

Listen to this.

Do you believe this?

We generate stem cells from the patient's tissue.

Then the fatty tissue provides a scaffolding material that allows the cells to form functional neural networks.

Now I told you about another company that was doing this with 3D printing.

So they would 3D print the scaffolding.

This doesn't mention 3D printing, but anyway.

So apparently they've successfully tested this on paralyzed rats.

Listen to this next part.

They've tested it on paralyzed rats which were able to walk and run within days of treatment.

What?

What?

Are you telling me that they really took paralyzed rats and unparalized them within days?

They just squirted their own stem cells in there and had some kind of scaffolding and within days.

I don't believe that it doesn't it take like two months for nerves to even regrow Dave.

Yeah.

A little bit optimistic.

But anyway, I'm waiting in line behind the rats.

Soon as all the rats are fixed, I'm hoping they'll do me next.

Well, there's a publication called The Conversation in which Frank Shuraki is asking, "Is democracy always about truth and why we may need to loosen our views to heal our divisions?" So, what do you think?

Do you think that democracy could survive truth?

I don't.

Do you remember when Ben Shapiro was famous for saying that the facts don't care about your feelings?

And then I wrote my book Win Bigly and I tried to correct that notion by saying the feelings don't care about your facts.

Both of those are kind of true, but it's it's more predictive.

The feelings don't care about your facts.

Um, but just imagine what would happen to democracy if we knew the truth about everything.

You your first instinct is, well, that'd be better.

Wouldn't it be great we knew the truth?

You couldn't handle the truth or or or to go further, democracy itself, it can't handle the truth.

If you actually knew what was happening with your money, if you actually knew what the real real data was, you probably would not be in a happy place.

So my take on the world is that there are functional lies, there's functional propaganda, and sometimes you need that to hold the country together.

For example, is it good or bad for America if you spread the idea that Americans are better than other people, which is what I was raised to believe?

Well, I don't think it's true that Americans are better than other people.

But if you could convince me they were, would you get a better outcome?

And the answer is maybe.

Maybe.

So if you really drill down on all of our biggest issues, I think you'd find that there's a functional fiction for almost everything that works better than the truth.

A functional fiction.

So, uh, I could talk about that for a lot longer, but you could probably think of 10 examples yourself where you know something's not true, but it seems to hold people together, right?

Think about it.

That that'll be your Christmas uh uh debate with your family.

Do you want the truth or do you want a functional propaganda?

Well, I'll give you another example.

So, Trump is famously optimistic.

He's kind of a salesperson.

He uses hyperbole to uh try to push the country forward.

So, what would be better that every time Trump talked about the economy, he talked about what was wrong, but also what was right?

Now compare that to what he actually does which is he always says things are going great country is really huming you know wait till next year it'll be even better which one of those is a functional propaganda versus the truth the truth as close as you could come to it would be partly good partly bad but it wouldn't motivate you the same way if you could if you could convince the businesses that next year is going to be Even if you don't know that to be true, it would convince them to invest.

And then once they invest, it becomes true.

So I don't know how many examples I'd have to give you before I sell this to you, but uh optimism, which is not really always based on truth, is very functional, right?

It's very functional.

So, I would argue that democracy and capitalism specifically uh require some kind of enlightened propaganda, meaning that you're doing it for people's best interests.

You're not doing it for your selfishness, but you're doing it.

You're doing it.

Well, let's talk about Venezuela and Maduro.

Zero Hedge is reporting that Trump said that Maduro would be quote smart to get out.

Um, so he was asked about presumably asked about, you know, what next for Venezuela.

I guess Russians are reportedly uh evacuating their diplomats.

Do you think it's meaningful that Russia is evacuating their diplomats from Venezuela?

Well, if you believe that Russia probably has some good sources in the United States, spies and otherwise, why would they be doing it now?

If it's true, it might also be a fake report.

But if they are getting rid of their uh diplomats, that would suggest that Russia expects some military action.

Now, here's what else Trump said about that.

Um, when asked about whether he should leave, Trump said that's his decision.

But I think it would be smart for him to do that.

It would be smart for him to do that.

Maybe that's all Russia needed to hear because it sounds so warlike.

Well, he doesn't have to, but be smart for him to do that.

And then he says, Trump says, um, when asked about the possibility that the Venezuelan military might try to put up some resistance should the US military get more aggressive.

Um, Trump said, um, if he plays tough, it'll be the last time he's able to do so.

So, he's basically said if you resist us that he'll he'll jail you or kill you.

Now, he doesn't have to say it out loud, but that's what that means.

Obviously, you know, it's the last time he'd be able to do it.

So, what I'm wondering is, is the real strategy here that Trump is trying to scare Maduro into leaving?

Do you think he can simply frighten him into leaving and never have to fire a shot?

Probably not because I think Maduro would at the very least need to have someplace to go that would not be worse than putting up a stand.

So we don't know if he has any place to go.

Um but it does look like Trump would let him leave alive.

Um so here's the test.

The test is this.

Is Trump trying to win a war without firing a shot?

And I would say the answer is yes.

is trying to win the war that hasn't even started without firing a shot.

Is it possible?

Yes, it's actually possible that he could scare Maduro by being so convincingly scary that Maduro said, "Oh I'm I'm going to be, you know, I got no options left.

I better get out of here." That is very very very possible but I would still bet against it because yeah I would bet against it.

So one of the things that you could imagine Trump negotiating with Putin is asking Putin to make a safe haven for Maduro.

Wouldn't that be interesting?

Just as part of the overall Russian negotiations say look here's the deal.

One of the things we want from you, Putin, besides ending the war, one of the things we want is for you to make a home for Maduro so he can get the hell out and we can take over.

Might happen.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is all I have for my prepared remarks.

So, I told you that uh if I made it through and I'm surprised I made it through the entire show.

I was having quite some respiratory issues here.

Um but I made it.

Yay.

I told you I'd hang out with you a little bit.

So, what do you think?

Would you be okay if we just hang out just for a little bit?

Just for a few minutes.

You can keep doing what you're doing.

You could turn off the sound.

I I'll be like an extra family member just hanging out in your living room.

Okay.

All right.

That's the deal.

I am so crooked.

I'm going to fall over.

I did not believe I'd get through it.

Oh, that's good.

All right.

Tell me what you're doing.

Send me pictures.

Oh, you can only do that in locals.

But if you're on locals, send me pictures of what you're doing.

Show you wrapping gifts, playing with a dog.

I had a tough night last night not being able to breathe too much, but I'm feeling much much better right now and I am ready for breakfast.

So, when my breakfast gets here, I'll I'll take my leave.

Walking the dog or you just walk the dog.

Okay.

Your stepson's going back.

Did you hear that?

I'm ready for breakfast whenever.

>> No, no, I'm still live streaming.

But I told them I'd just hang out with them until I got breakfast because I know some of you are feeling a little lonely today, aren't you?

Is anybody feeling lonely in the holidays?

Well, I'm here.

Your bagel is toasted.

Back in your car and add it to your your daughters.

Nice.

Yeah, the steroids probably are helping, but I don't know what it would be like if I were not on them.

Show me your hands.

Why your hands?

You're not lonely.

You're overwhelmed.

Yeah, people are pretty busy today.

Oh, I just realized I just realized I have a healthcare worker who's going to stop by pretty soon.

So, I do I do need to take my leave cuz I got to eat before a health care worker shows up and gives me a sponge bath.

Some nice man is going to sponge bath me today.

If that's what it's called.

Oh, your friends have ts.

Bummer.

All right, everybody.

Get ready for Christmas.

Next time I see you, probably will be Christmas.

Hope you enjoyed the show.

Go say goodbye for now.

Bye for now.

Good morning.

Happy Christmas Eve.

Jump on in here. I'm doing a lozenge.

You all look happy.

Elastic in the comments.

A I love you too.

Great to see you everybody.

All right, we're gonna get ready for

your comments.

Now, you know what the best thing to do

today is?

Best thing to do today

is to be wrapped in your presence while

you're listening to this live stream.

So, I'm having a kind of a serious

asthma problem this morning.

So, I can't promise how long I'll be

able to go.

But if I have to bail out early,

I'm going to turn the sound off so I can

cough without bothering you. And we're

just going to hang out. And then maybe

I'll come back in, maybe I won't. But

today's hanging out, okay? So, you can

just put me on a device

and I'll just be in your living room or

wherever the hell you are. And uh I may

or may not be able to talk,

but we'll hang out. We'll do the best we

can. Okay,

we got comments working.

We're definitely going to do the

simultaneous sip

[sighs]

because I know that's why you're here.

Just got to fix this a little bit.

A little better angle.

There we go.

Well, what do you what do you think you

need for that?

copper mug or a glass of tank or shells

of SL canteen jugger flask a vessel of a

kind fill it with your favorite liquid

I like coffee and join me now for the

unparallel pleasure of the dopamine hit

the day the thing makes everything

better it's called the simultaneous sip

that happens now

you know I could feel the simultaneity

on that.

Hey, why is that still on?

All right, people.

Um, if you're just joining, I've got a

little respiratory problem this morning,

so we'll do as much as we can, but it

might be a short show. And if it is, I

won't I won't turn it off. I'll just

hang with you, okay?

because I might need to use my my

steamer on my lungs.

All right, so yesterday

I mentioned a bunch of sources that

influenced my show and I said I feel

like I'm forgetting somebody

and I just wanted to update that with uh

one of my other trusted favorite sources

is the Federalist.

So, anything by Molly Hemingway,

anything by Shaun Davis,

uh, that's good stuff. So, I'm also

influenced by that.

I think it's fun for you to know if you

think I'm influential

that I definitely take influence

from, you know, other sources. So, the,

you know, the better they are, the more

influential. And the Federalist is right

at the top of the list.

All right. So, this is old news, but

there's a funny update. So, you probably

heard over the summer that Joe Biden got

a $10 million book deal.

Well, today somebody somebody was doing

some engagement farming and asked what

the title of that should be.

And uh what do you think? What what

should be the title of Joe Biden's

upcoming book?

I would go with either you know the

thing

or a question. I wrote a book.

I wrote a book

or Hunter who

do you have any ideas?

Put put them in the comments. What

should Joe Biden's book title be? Or

should it be what was that thing he said

about pony soldiers?

Something about pony soldiers. Oh, well

it won't be auto pen, but

president autoben.

Where am I?

How about where am I?

All right, that's enough of that.

So yesterday I had an interesting

experience. I don't know if any of you

have experienced this yet, but have you

ever have you ever talked to somebody

immediately after their first experience

with a Tesla self-driving?

There's sort of an analogy to that. Uh,

I told you a few years ago the first

time I got on an ebike,

um, I couldn't get the smile off my face

because the difference between an ebike

and a regular bike is just I mean one

one of them just thrills you and the

other is just a bicycle.

Uh, but I'll bet you there's something

just like that for people who just got

done doing their very first ride in a

self-driving car. So I saw it yesterday

a few people who had just had their

first ride just got out of the car and

they done some self-driving you know

just locally

they can't get the smiles off their

faces

apparently that the first time you do it

is just such an experience that uh you

know it's like it's not like anything

else apparently. So watch for that.

Watch for people getting their first

full self-driving. When I say full

self-driving, I mean they still have to

pay attention, but they don't have to

participate.

All right.

Well, the Nvidia director of robotics

says that the Tesla self-driving

uh is like an AI that passes the

physical touring test. Now, the touring

test was passed a long time ago. the the

standard way, but um this would be a

physical touring test, meaning that it

acts like it's sensient

um even though it's not.

And Elon Musk responded that the best

real world AI is their Tesla AI, but he

said, "You can sense the sentience."

Now, I still have not been in a

self-driving car,

so I don't know if that comment hits or

not.

But have any of you done the

self-driving Tesla? And would can you

confirm that when you're doing it, you

can feel the sentence or

you know almost intelligence? I don't

want to say consciousness of the car. Is

that true? The

you can sense the sensience or not?

Oh no. Oh, we got a lot of yeses.

You can sense it.

[snorts] All right. Good.

So, speaking of Tesla, so you know

Tesla's building the Cyber Cab,

which would be a dedicated vehicle just

for self-driving, like a cab basically.

But the most shocking thing is that

they've he's improved the uh production

process so much that he thinks they'll

be able to produce one of these cyber

cabs every 5 seconds in one assembly

line.

Every five seconds. So obviously it's

highly highly automated assembly line.

But he says you won't be able to get

near the assembly line because you'll

you'll be moving so fast.

Now, imagine a world

where people like me, I, you know, I I

don't think I'll necessarily ever be

able to get into an auto cab or cyber

cab, but wouldn't it be cool to just sit

in what what would be like a little

living room, basically just a tiny

living room, and it just takes you where

you want to go.

That is amazing. And that's that's

basically this year you end of this

year.

All right, let's do what I like to do.

We're going to test your BS filters.

So, here's some science and you tell me

if the science is BS or not. According

to the University of Texas at Austin,

people who help other people, you know,

they volunteer or help other people a

few hours a week, it may slow the brain

aging of the people who are doing the

helping.

Do do you believe that study that the

people who help other people

will add to their longevity?

Well, maybe. I think that's entirely

possible. But how do you rule out the

the the more obvious possibility?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are not

healthy people doing more of everything?

So if if you had, you know, great health

and great vitality and great energy,

wouldn't you do literally more of

everything compared to people who are

not healthy?

So, I can see why healthy people would

volunteer more. They' just be able to do

it. So, I'm going to say it might be

true,

but it certainly would work the other

way.

All right, here's one. Eric Dolan on

Sidepost. So, he's got there's some

research now that shows that people

prefer lower quality news on social

media.

Does that sound like real science?

People prefer

lower quality news. Do you believe that?

To which I say maybe.

But you know what the biggest question

is? [snorts] Who gets to decide what is

lowquality news?

lowquality, lowquality news according to

who?

If it's up to me, do I get to pick which

one's lowquality?

I saw that one's BS.

All right. Servich had a post on X today

that I very much agree with.

He said, "All I want for Christmas is

for everyone to know is free to set up a

custodial account for your children."

That would be like a uh an account where

you could trade stocks and and have

investments, but you would be in charge

of it uh on behalf of miners

uh and for and buy into the stock

market. We were talking dollars, not

millions. Um blah blah. Now,

um, I've been seeing a lot of that

online.

Adam TSON's been talking about, for

example, I talk about a little bit. But

the the big benefit here is not just

that it creates wealth for the children

18 years later,

which would be enough. I mean, if that

were the only benefit, it would be worth

it. But it teaches the kids the

importance of money.

But it also gives them sort of a

framework for how you manage it and

would make them less, let's say, less

intimidated by the financial world.

Because it turns out that just having an

account on Charles Schwab

and buying and selling some stocks,

you could pretty much teach them some

someone they needed to know in one hour

and then, you know, reinforce it by by

activity. So,

I've heard black Americans complain,

rightfully so,

that if they don't grow up in a family

where somebody can teach them how to

manage money,

how are they how are you going to work

it out on your own? I mean, you're just

going to work that out on your own is is

not really something anybody can do.

But if your parents gave you just a

little bit of exposure to managing

money, such as having a custodial

account, you would be less intimidated.

And even those things you didn't know

how to do, it wouldn't scare you to go

figure out how to do them.

Does that make sense? So, uh, I've

always been a stock investor since my

20s,

and I don't believe I would have been

except that my father talked about it

all the time. He was a very small

investor, but we talked about it. And

so, I always thought, well, if my

father's going to do it,

[snorts and laughter]

it can't be that hard. It can't be that

hard if my fathers could do it. because

honestly it was not he was not really a

high capability person.

Now later later in life I realized that

he couldn't do it

because he used a stock broker and the

stock broker was absolutely ripping him

off. Now I didn't know that when I was a

kid.

It was only later after I was a

economics major and I'd learned how the

world works. Only then did I learn that

he should have been putting his money in

index funds. And I'm I'm not talking

about the managed index funds. Well, no,

they're not managed if they're index.

[snorts] So, I'm not talking about a

stock fund. I'm talking about index fund

where it's just a bag of stocks.

Stop eating. Unfortunately, I can't get

rid of this uh lozenge because I'd have

to stop the live stream. [clears throat]

But I'm almost done with it.

I completely understand if the chewing

is completely bothersome

and I would recommend that you turn off

the sound for

maybe one to two minutes and then I'll

be done with it.

But your comment is well taken.

Sorry, I'm just crunching the last of

it.

All right.

Well, apparently the UK Met Office,

Britain's Met Office, uh has recently

discovered that a whole bunch of their

temperature thermometer sites

were fake news.

So, here's what they found out about

their their temperature sites that are

all all over the UK that are the basis

for climate change decisions, right? Or

at least some of them.

So of uh let's see investigators

discovered that over 80%

of the temperature monitoring sites are

classified as junk with measurement

uncertainties of 2° C to 5 degrees C.

In other words, some of them don't exist

and they're just making making up the

numbers. Others are in these uh what

they call heat islands too close to

concrete stuff

and

uh their entire their entire temperature

measurement situation was completely

fraudulent.

Does that surprise you?

How many times have I told you if you

believe that humans can measure the

temperature of the earth,

you must be very young or or very

inexperienced in the world. If you've

lived in a Dilbert world, sort of the,

you know, the Dilbert filter on

everything, you should not be surprised

that humans cannot measure the

temperature of the Earth, no matter how

hard they try. It's just something we

will never be able to do. It is

ridiculous.

[gasps] But we've been told for years,

oh yeah, we can totally measure that

temperature. I will even go further and

say, as I've said a number of times,

this hasn't caught on at all. There's

something I say a lot on social media

that I wondered if it would ever catch

on, but not a single person is agree

with me yet. It goes like this.

All data that's important is fake.

You don't agree with that, right?

because you you think well I mean that's

a little bit of hyperbole isn't it? All

data really all data that matters is

fake.

Yep.

Now I would limit that to let's say the

political economic realm. It's not true

that engineering data is all fake. So if

you're measuring let's say you know the

reliability of a car or something that's

not necessarily fake because maybe

that's something that one company is

doing for itself has no incentive uh and

a real good way to measure it. But

everything in the political or economic

domain and that would be climate change

for sure. You can guarantee without

doing any research

that the data is bad. Guarantee it. And

the reason is it always is. You don't

you don't even need to know anything

about the domain. In every case,

data is unreliable if it matters.

Medical data. Um I heard recently an

anecdote of someone who was a top brain

surgeon. I forget where was this. I give

credit to whoever said this, but

um it's something I heard recently. So,

someone who is a top brain surgeon was

asked how accurate the medical

information is and he thought that less

than half of what is taught in the

medical arts is fake or just wrong.

Half.

So even if some of it is true, I guess

that would be the other half. How do you

know which is the half that's right? You

know, unless you're this expert brain

guy.

So the medical world um

may not be as bad depending on how

they're measuring it, but yeah, probably

half of it is fake.

And then in the other direction

the university or grad is saying that

the climate models overestimate nitrogen

availability.

So by this measurement they would over

they would overestimate

the CO2 levels or something. And you

know, even even though that's the

opposite direction from maybe what the

temperature problems are, it just shows

you that

for years you've been people have been

telling me these climate models are

real. They couldn't possibly be. They

couldn't possibly be because they're

they're wrong in both directions.

All right, here's a new statistic from

the rabbit hole on X. 79% of refugees

have vacationed in the country they fled

from.

So

if you were doing a count of the number

of refugees that came into your country,

the the ones that came there to save

themselves from uh torture or whatever

imprisonment, you would have found out

that 79% of them were fake. probably

more but only 79% of them went back to

their dangerous country on vacation.

So do you think that there's a

reasonable number of the number of uh

immigrants who are escaping their

country for safety? No.

Any number in that domain would be fake.

All right. Here's one. Uh, I guess Doge

allegedly cut 9% in federal workers.

New York Post is reporting that. Um,

and then also there's some some positive

reports that Doge massively improved the

Social Security Administration's

effectiveness.

So, they got 65% more

uh business done through telephones and

etc. and 68 million colors served and at

the same time the number of claims were

driven way down by 35%.

So if these numbers were real it would

suggest that Doge was just massively

successful so far. Yeah. Imagine claims

social security claims being driven down

by 35%.

Does that mean that they would have been

fraudulent

or were those valid claims that just

didn't get processed? I don't know.

But then on top of that, there's reports

that Doge uh saved $214 billion in

taxpayer savings so far.

Um, if you read the counterpoints,

I think it was Peter Baker or somebody I

saw, um, he was debunking that number

and saying that's not a real number.

Here's the reasons why. Um, there was

chaos, but there really wasn't savings,

blah, blah, blah. So, here's the big

question. I just told you that all

numbers and all data that matters is

fake.

Why would you believe the Doge numbers

if you don't believe in any other

numbers?

Now, I I trust the Doge people and I

trust Musk

to have the right intention about

telling the truth,

but do you believe this is the one thing

that's accurate?

Because that would be surprising,

wouldn't it? because the numbers do

matter and there is apparently you know

more than one way to count everything.

So I would say it's probably moving in

the right direction.

So in terms of you know directional

change

probably in the right direction but it

might be a uh it might be an

exaggeration how much has been saved so

far. Now, one of the things we would be

able to count

reasonably well would be the number of

federal employees.

So, if the number of federal employees

went down by 9%.

Probably believable, but far less

believable would be the dollar amounts.

But like I said, it's all moving in the

right direction, I think.

All right. So every single day I wake up

and I see news stories about California

or Minnesota usually

doing some additional form of massive

fraud.

Makes you wonder, you know, how many of

the blue states have the same problem.

But apparently California spent $ 24

billion to tackle homelessness,

but they didn't have any system in place

to track how they were doing. So, they

know they spent the money, but they

don't know if it made any difference

because they didn't track it. Come on.

You could give somebody $24 billion and

then not accurately track

whether it worked.

Oh, man. CBS is reporting on this.

Apparently, California has 171 people

homeless, and that's 30% of all the

homeless people in the entire US.

Now, that kind of makes sense.

If you live in California, you know that

your odds of surviving outdoors are much

better than most places. You know, there

are places that are warmer and they

would be too warm, you know, like

Arizona, for example. But the the place

you would most likely survive on the

sidewalk would be California. And then

you add on top of that all the friendly

policies toward the homeless. Of course,

we have 30%.

It's amazing that we don't have 100%.

Actually, probably the only reason we

don't have 100% of the homeless is that

they can't get here. You know, they they

haven't had to travel here. But why

would anybody go anywhere else?

So, that looks like a problem that's not

going to get solved anytime.

So I guess the state water of California

uh according to Kevin Kylie he's a

congressman from California uh they

issued this scathing report and they

identified eight separate state agencies

just in California as quote high risk

which means they exhibit serious waste

fraud abuse or mismanagement

costing taxpayers billions.

Um,

so have you ever heard the word auditor

as much as you have in the last 30 days?

How many of you remember that I started

hitting that word like crazy? Audit,

audit, audit, audit. But audits are

boring.

So it doesn't really catch on with the,

you know, the public so much. But I kept

hammering on it. Audit, audit. And now

um I I don't know if I had any influence

in causing anything,

but you will note that the number of

times you hear the word audit and the

number of times you hear somebody

suggest auditing. I think Chimath from

the all-in pod did a post on this just

yesterday or so and you know you

mentioned the needs for audits and you

know most of the stories are now audit

related if they have to do with money.

So that is a step in the right

direction. But I'll tell you what, uh

maybe you know the answer to this

question.

So a couple of days ago, I saw a video

that I don't know if it's AI or not. And

that's what's funny about it. So it was

a video of someone asking Governor Nuomo

about, you know, his waste of federal

money, I guess.

And Nome starts talking and you know

justiculating as he does and it's it was

so word salad

but yet the sentences might have made

sense

but it was insanely

incomprehensible.

Did anybody see that? Was that an AI or

was that actually him

being presumably stoned out of his mind

on something trying to answer a question

and just

just sort of word selling his way

through it for like a minute and a half

and it didn't it didn't end like he

starts with the well this and that that

it just kept going and going and going

and going.

So, I'm curious. Did any of you see

that? You You would know exactly what

I'm talking about if you saw it. And was

that real?

Cuz it looked like it should have been

AI.

Uh, well, I'm more interested in the AI

technology than I am in his answer. Is

it is it so good that I was wondering if

it's AI and I couldn't tell?

Right. That'll be an opening question.

Well, you might know this Steve Hilton.

You remember him from Fox News. He had a

show on Fox. Um, he's running for

governor of California. And he notes

that Californians pay double the

national average for electricity and

that it's all based on bad policies and

climate crisis stuff. And if he becomes

governor, he will cut in half

your electric bill in California. Now,

that's a pretty strong

pretty strong uh pitch because it has an

actual number, 50%.

And he gives he gives an actual way that

he can do it, which sounds quite doable.

you know, just cut out cut out the

things that California has been doing

wrong, which everybody can identify. So,

I saw a poll where he was actually

leading.

Do you believe that a Republican could

be leading in the polls to become a

become governor of California? I would

have said no until this year.

Um, and I think that the way Hilton is

doing it is the way to do it because the

the big thing that Democrats are going

to ask for is um affordability.

So, it's one thing to say, "Oh, vote for

me. I'll give you some affordability.

It's another thing to tell them exactly

how much you're going to save." You

know, half of your electric bill and

tell you exactly how he's going to do

it. and you look at it, you go, "Yeah,

that would work. That would work."

[snorts] So, the more ways that Steve

Filton can find to do that, this is what

I'll save you. This is how I'm going to

do it, he might actually become

governor.

So, he's smart enough.

It's just whether the machine will crush

him or not.

So,

are we still talking about that Barry

Weiss CBS 60 Minutes piece about CCAT

that got squashed

or [snorts] is that too boring? I saw

that Hillary Clinton weighed in on and

then then Balli, the head of El

Salvador, said, "Sure, we'll send back

your prisoners if you take all of them."

Which is a pretty strong lie. You have

to take all of them. If you're not

happy, if you're not happy with our

prison, take all of them. Now, it still

seems to me that the way to approach

that prison would be to say, "We want to

use your prison. Every prison has some

abuses. We need to, you know, we need to

be a little more careful.

We're being a little less abusive." You

know, at least at least wave your hands

at the fact that you understand there's

something going on there. You don't have

to face it because I think every prison

is basically a torture place even in

America.

But you should definitely wave your

hands at hey maybe we should be doing

something about this.

So yesterday uh you may have noticed

that Elon Musk warned us that he was

feeling especially based

uh and then he started you know posting

all day and uh you tell me is this based

I guess The Atlantic said something bad

that he didn't like, which is no

surprise. And uh Elon Musk posted, "The

Atlantic is a fake publication kept

[snorts] alive only by Lorine Jobs using

her dead husband and bunny for something

he would despise.

[snorts] Do you think that's true?

Do you think that Steve Jobs would have

despised

what his widow is doing with the uh

basically being very political and very

biased in the Atlantic? I think that's

true. But then he goes further. Elon

goes further. He goes once again

reinforcing [clears throat]

the point that balls deep woke white

women are the doom of Western

civilization.

boy, you can tell he's not married.

There I don't think any married man

could say that. Well, you know, if he

were married to a white woman, I don't

think any married man to a white woman

could say that white women are the doom

of Western civilization.

Um, is that something you've heard me

say?

How many of you would agree

that white women are the doom of

western civilization?

I think it's true because if they didn't

have a vote, and I'm not I'm not

suggesting that you take away their

vote. I'm just, you know, working

through the logic,

[clears throat] we wouldn't have open

borders. You know, there's just a whole

bunch of things that wouldn't have

happened at all.

So, we're dying from uh this sort of

forced empathy that's coming largely

from one group of people who can't tell

how to protect themselves basically.

Yeah.

Yeah. Liberal white women. Yes, you are

correct.

Well, Minnesota

doubling down. They've got new

requirements for this year that the K

through six, no K through 12 classrooms

uh have a mandatory ethnic studies.

Now, what do you think Minnesota's

mandatory ethnic studies is going to be

teaching their children?

Mandatory ethnic studies.

It's an anti-white

course that is now required. Now, they

don't sell it as anti-white, but what

else is it? So, here are the things.

According to Wall Street Apes, students

will learn transgender affirmation.

So, that that's not necessarily about

the white part. Uh, how to dismantle

cisgender privilege. There it is.

children are going to be taught how to

dismantle cisgender privilege. That's

basically discriminating against white

people as much as possible.

Um, they're going to learn Black Lives

Matter principles years after it's been

shown that Black Lives Matter was a fake

organization

uh and a scam.

Uh, they're going to learn distrust of

the nuclear family. Okay, that would

destroy the world. and they're going to

watch a video about George Floyd Square

produced by some leftist group.

So, I'll tell you, you need to uh

get out of Minnesota if you're there.

Get out of Minnesota.

But the federal government is trying to

fix things in these rogue states. So,

the SBA

is gonna is gonna hold back money from

Minnesota uh because they claim that Tim

Walsh will just waste their money and

there's not enough controls.

So, it's not a big amount of money

there. It's 5.5 million is being held

back. But, I love the I love the

approach

which is we're not going to give you a

penny because you just waste it.

I've never seen that before, but it's so

so supportable in terms of the facts

that Minnesota is just stealing our tax

money that yeah, I agree with this.

I would definitely not trust Minnesota

to manage any of my money.

And [snorts] even funnier, apparently,

Republicans are going to consider a new

legislation called the Walsa Act. So

that would be named after the governor

Wals. The Wals act to prevent Minnesota

scale fraud from ever happening again.

[gasps] So the anti-fraud bill is going

to be named after a sitting governor

because he's he's been the steward of so

much fraud that they're going to name it

after him while he's still governor of a

state. Now that's kind of funny.

That's kind of funny. So Brandon Gil was

talking about this. He's he's pretty

funny, too. Republican. So, he says,

quote, "9 billion dollars in tax money

was limited. Congress has a role to

ensure our programs aren't abused by

left-wing governors like Wals."

So he says that uh um

that Minnesota had basically created

what he calls a patronage system of

taking our hard-earned tax dollars,

giving it to his political allies

uh by essentially by turning a blind eye

to the the fraud

uh and that he knew exactly what was

going on the whole time. What do you

think? Do you think that Tim Walsh was

incompetent

and had no idea how much fraud there was

in his own state? Or do you believe that

he was he was deeply involved in

promoting the lawlessness because some

of that money came back to him and his

allies? What do you think?

I'm a little bit mixed on this. I think

it might be some part pure incompetence

because he does seem incompetent

honestly. He he just gives off his

incompetent vibe like crazy. But also

seems he must have turned a blind eye to

a lot of it because it's hard to it's

hard to imagine he wasn't aware of it

because of the scale.

So I'm going to say blind eye

definitely. But on top of that, if he

had wanted to stop it, he probably

didn't have the skill. I don't think he

had any capability.

On top of that, I guess Trump was

directed the Justice Department to

investigate Act Blue.

Do you know what actual is? So, ACL Blue

is an organization that services

Democrats and what they try to do is get

lots of small donations from people uh

that would add up to something big for

elections.

But, uh they're accused of only

pretending that the donations are small

uh but actually raising, you know, big

money from dark sources and then just

pretending that it came from

individuals. They've also been accused

of using people's names without their

without their approval so that they

could put a name to all the small

donations that were not real.

Now I don't know how much of that is

uh real but I suspect

that ACL blue is essentially a criminal

organization.

I don't know that. But the hints are

that it looks like it's just a criminal

organization.

So now think

let me ask you this.

Is it going too far if I said that the

Democrats are a criminal organization?

The the entire entity. Now I don't mean

every voter. You know voters probably

are just, you know, going blah blah

blah. Everybody's bad. Democrats have

some problems. Republicans have some

problems. But I prefer the Democrats. So

most voters, I think, are blissfully

unaware of just how much crime is

happening. But if you look at it

collectively,

here are just some of the things. So

you've got thousands if not millions of

NOS's and we know now that the NOS's are

essentially money laundering operations.

So those would be mostly Democrat

criminal organizations or at least you

know they'd be involved in something

that would be I I think you would call

them money laundering.

We know that the SNAP funds were

massively

stolen and that that was primarily by

Democrats.

We might find out that ACT Blue is a

criminal organization. I think we will.

Uh some people say that our elections

were rigged primarily by Democrats. That

would be crime. You you could argue how

proven that is or not, but in my

opinion, I think the rigging of

elections is just a fact. Uh and I think

it leans heavily toward the Democrats.

Not that no Republicans ever cheated,

but probably there's a pretty big

difference in scale.

Then there's everything in California.

Basically, it seems like every dime that

that California gets, it just

disappears. You know, the fire recovery

money didn't go to the people who were

recovering. The bullet train never

happened. The money for the homeless

didn't help anybody. So, pretty much

everything in California is even worse

in Minnesota. It's all criminal.

It to me it looks criminal.

And then you got this whole operation

where the Democrats find ways to fund

teachers who are all Democrats. and then

they donate to Democrat people. So you

got some, you know, some kind of cir

circular money laundering thing. Then

you've got the the main Democrats who

pulled the Russia collusion hoax. You've

got the Clinton

what what is that big Clinton initiative

that was probably just a money

laundering thing. So, pretty much every

major story

that involves gigantic fraud seems to be

Democrats.

Now, just to be clear, I'm not giving

Republicans a pass.

Maybe they're just better at it, right?

You know, it's hard to believe that all

the crime is just on one side of the

political aisle. That would be weird,

right? But we don't really Yeah. The

Clinton Foundation. Thank you. Um, but

am I wrong? Am I in a bubble?

Am I in some kind of a bubble where I'm

only seeing the Democrat bad behavior?

You know, I hear lots of accusations

about Trump personally,

but that stuff tends to be all

transparent in public. You know, he's

not hiding it. You know, it's it's in

the news. is you could you can tell he

did this with crypto. You could tell he

did this with whatever. So you could

disagree or not like what Trump does.

But that's still not Republicans.

That would be something you don't like

about Trump. So am I wrong that this is

so so imbalanced toward Democrats that

if you said the Democrats are at least

as a party not not the individual voters

but it seems like a criminal

organization and I mean that without any

hyperbole.

All right. wealth I think [snorts] well

Breitbart is reporting and lots of other

people reporting that the GDP

grew at a robust 4.3%

when even the smartest people thought it

would be 3.3

and if you went back a few months the

smartest people were saying we're going

to have a recession because of all these

damn tariffs. So it turns out that all

the smartest

um

economists were wrong and the people who

were right were Trump and Bessant and

anybody who agreed with them.

Do you believe that? Now if this is true

that the people who got it right were

the you know the the few but that the

main economic experts all got it wrong

just thousands and thousands of

economists completely wrong. What does

that tell you about the the science of

economics?

Now, I I'm an economics major and uh it

seems to me

that uh economics is mostly guessing.

You know, you can learn how things fit

together if you learn economics, but if

you think you can use that to predict,

you really can't.

And I would argue that the inability to

predict,

you know, is kind of a a big knock on

your profession, right? If you were a

scientist and you couldn't predict what

was going to happen with your scientific

theory, you would think, well, that's no

good. But economists could just make up

all day long. They can be

completely wrong and then just come back

tomorrow and make up some more

Economics is barely a respectable

profession. Just barely, maybe not at

all.

But getting back to my prior thought, do

you think this number is real?

Because I already told you that uh all

all data that matters is fake. Well,

this matters. This will be important

data. Would I change my opinion that

this is the rare accurate data?

What do you think? I'm going to stick

with my um earlier statements. I do not

believe yet.

I could be convinced, but I do not

believe this is a stable predictive

number.

It could be a blip because if all the

economists were wrong up till now, what

are the odds that they could they could

calculate the GDP accurately?

If they didn't get anything else right.

So, do you believe they got everything

wrong?

But boy, they're good at calculating

that GDP.

If [snorts] you put the Dilbert filter

on it, uh I would say there's a healthy

chance

that this will be revised or, you know,

won't be a consistent number or we'll

find out that there was some special

case about it that gave it a little

bump. So, do not be

too enthusiastic. But I got to say, if

it's even directionally true, and it

might be, that would be pretty

impressive. It would certainly put uh

Trump investments looking good just

before the end of the year.

But how about Canada? If Canada also got

a big bump, maybe that would tell us

something. Well, according to Statistics

Canada, their GDP for October showed

their economy shrank by 3/10en of 1%.

It's the biggest decline in almost three

years. Their manufacturing base

decreased by 1.5%.

Blah blah blah. So,

how do you think Trump feels that he's

got this amazing GDP, which we hope is

real, at the same time that Canada is

decreasing its GDP?

[snorts]

I'll tell you, you can't win much harder

than that.

But

he's not winning everything because the

Supreme Court has ruled that Trump

cannot use the National Guard uh in

Illinois to reduce crime. And I guess

the Supreme Court said the government

has failed to identify a source of

authority that would allow the military

to execute the laws in Illinois.

That was what one of the high court

majority people wrote.

>> [snorts]

>> So, I don't know if that's the biggest

problem in the world. Um,

but and there may be more to it. There

might be I don't know. May there may be

another angle that the feds can use.

We'll see. But not the biggest story in

the world.

So Trump is once again being Trump and

instead of saying Merry Christmas and

settling into the Christmas week uh on

Truth Social, he ran a poll to see who

was the worst late night host

because that's [clears throat]

important. So instead of Merry

Christmas, it's a a poll on who's the

worst late night host. And uh so he's

he's got listed co Bear, Jimmy Kimmel or

Jimmy Fallon. And and then he

furthermore he said that Stephen Coar

was quote a dead man walking and he

urged CBS to put late night host to

sleep.

That that is so Trump. The the the

beauty of it is that what makes this

extra provocative is that he's doing

Christmas week. So it's sort of a slow

week even. So, he's got all these

successes like the the GDP

uh and then he uses that time to slam on

his uh his opponents.

So, at the same time, uh Poly Market,

that's the online place where people bet

on stuff. Poly market says the number

one suspect in the Epstein files is

Stephen Colbear

and that [clears throat] they estimate

there's a 97% chance that Colbear is in

the Epstein files. Now I don't think

that's true. I do not think he's in the

Epstein files, but it's funny to watch

that, you know, be uh distorted.

So, I'm not sure I would use poly market

to make my predictions if it's anything

political.

All right. But it's funny.

So, speaking of funny, apparently the

latest dump of the Epstein files with

lots of redactions,

uh, the way they redacted it was with

Adobe Acrobat,

which is a two-step process.

So, first you you black out the line

using Adobe Acrobat and then you run

some other process to make sure that it

it flattens the file and that the thing

that's covering up the sentence really

covers it up. But it looks like somebody

forgot to do that second part at least

with some of the files. So people could

just take it reverse the redactions.

So people have been reversing the

redactions. They just take him off. But

here's the big story. They didn't find

anything.

Apparently, there wasn't anything

provocative.

Maybe there was something that the

victims didn't like, but they didn't

find any smoking guns when they removed

the uh removed the removal of the

content. So, a lot of people were

chattering online saying, "Ha,

uh, somebody in the FBI or Department of

Justice, whoever was in charge of

redacting, wanted us to know the truth,

and so they pretended to redact knowing

that it would be discovered that the

redactions could be reversed."

What do you think? Do you think that

somebody cleverly and intentionally made

the redactions reversible

or do you think it was purely a didn't

do it right and didn't notice?

Well, you know, we're tempted to believe

in conspiracy theories. So, I know a lot

of you think it was intentional. I'm

going to put the Dilbert filter, as I

like to call it, on this situation. And

the Dilbert filter says

far more likely it was a mistake.

Far more likely it was a mistake. It's

not it's not like impossible

that somebody did it intentionally but

I'd say it's

10 to one 20 to one more likely that uh

it was just a mistake. It feels

intentional. You might you might be

right about that. It feels intentional

because it's kind of wacky that it

happened at all. But I don't know it in

the real world, what is more likely?

Incompetence,

right? Incompetence or really clever

play that would cost them their job?

Because whoever did the redactions is in

a lot of trouble today. And if unless

they were planning to quit, it's not

really something you would do to your

own career on Christmas.

So I can't imagine anybody doing it

intentionally because there'd be a 100%

chance you would get in a lot of

trouble.

We'll keep an eye on that one.

So Alan Dersuit says, no surprise here,

that the latest drop from the Epstein

stuff has a bunch of fake files, fake

documents, false accusations.

There there was one that sounded really

bad about Trump that turned out to be a

total forgery. I'm not even going to

mention what the for what the fake was

because you just don't want to hear it.

But it is known to be fake and a lot of

the other stuff is now known to be fake.

So Dorsu is warning us about that.

Um so Schumer,

you know Schumer, right?

Uh he he goes on some

uh I guess some interview. He said the

the law was written very clearly and it

did not allow all these redactions, this

blacking out of everything. It did not

say you can dribble them out over a

period of months. These guys are quote

full of They should simply release

it all. Now, now I refer to Schumer as

the randomly cursing lizard guy. He

reminds me of a lizard,

but when he randomly curses, it reminds

us that they don't know how to curse.

Why? Why did he need to curse there?

Compare that again.

Compare that to JD Vance telling people

that they can eat

for insulting his wife. That's a good

curse. That's a good curse. But why did

why did Schumer have to just throw it

in? These guys are full of He

didn't. They just don't know how to do

this.

Anyway, um

I also saw a jank from the Young Turks.

He said something online that I couldn't

tell if he was being sarcastic or not,

but he said that he believed, I guess he

believes there's stuff that would be bad

for Trump in the files, but he said the

only the only way that that can be

blocked as long as it has been is if the

intelligence agencies are behind the

blocking of it. Is that a sarcastic

comment or does he believe as I do that

we have all the proof we need that some

intelligence entities are blocking the

uh the more extensive uh release?

How many of you believe

that there's a 100% chance we would have

seen the files unless

intelligence agencies blocked it and

that there's nobody who simply powerful

enough that they could have done it. Um

because both remember Democrats and

Republicans have had access to the files

and they both blocked it. So, what would

be the one entity that can make both

Democrats and Republicans block

something?

I feel like only the in the intel

people. [snorts] So, at this point, I

think there's I've said this before

there there's no real hope that we're

going to see everything we want to see.

There's no real hope of that because the

intel people have the power to block it

and apparently the motive. If you have

the motive and you have the power,

it's pretty easy to predict.

So, I was waiting for this to happen,

but the FCC is going to ban the purchase

of Chinese-made drones because of

national security concerns. Now, I think

the reason it took so long for them to

ban Chinese drones

um is because we didn't have a domestic

manufacturing way to do it and we needed

drones because the drones are really,

you know, useful for farming a whole

bunch of things. So,

it looks like I intuit it from this that

enough manufacturing

entities in the United States are making

drones and they're doing it well enough

now that we can we can just make that a

domestic industry and uh we don't have

to get the Chinese drones. I wonder I am

curious who the big drone makers are.

Um, I'm pretty sure that Anderil,

that that would be the high-tech

uh defense industry company. I'm pretty

sure they make a bunch of drones and

anti- drone stuff, but I don't know how

much volume they do.

Uh, perhaps they've reached some kind of

volume thing. But, you know, it's not

just military drones.

Um, I wonder who's making the

non-military drones.

Well, over in Belgium,

apparently 73% of the children and teens

in Brussels

uh have a non-EU migration background

and only 10.5% are Belgians of of

Belgian origin. So basically, Belgium

um is now no longer Belgium.

Now, maybe that's good, maybe

[clears throat] that's bad. I don't know

any Belgium people, but Belgium really

just went away.

Um, you know, you [clears throat] could

argue not yet, Scott, but it's

guaranteed. I mean, if if 73% of your

children were not Belgium,

you just have to wait and uh your

country will look completely different.

Will it be better or will it be worse? I

don't know. I'm not there. Not my

country.

Yeah, but it will give you a glimpse of

what might be happening with the rest of

Europe.

Well, there's a uh Israeli defense

minister who says, believe it or not,

that uh the Israel the Israeli military

will never leave Gaza.

So, they never they never plan to

withdraw their military from Gaza.

Um, is anybody surprised by that?

So, apparently the peace deal with Hamas

said that Hamas would give up their

weapons.

I think he said that and that Israel

would remove its military.

It looks like neither of them are going

to do that. I don't think Hamas gave up

his weapons and surrendered. And I never

thought that Israel would give up his

military

um control of Gaza.

So what are the odds of a two-state

solution?

Is in my imagination

or is the idea of a two-state solution

never more than something to talk about

because there is never a chance of it

happening?

Was there ever did any of you ever have

a time where you thought, you know what,

I think that two-stage solution might

actually happen? Now, that's independent

from whether you want it to happen.

We're we're not talking we're not

talking about whether you think it's a

good idea or a bad idea. I'm just saying

it's not really even possible

because there's zero chance that Israel

would ever go for that.

So, it feels like just something you say

when you're negotiating,

well, you know, if we do this or that,

we'll be getting closer to a two-stage

solution. But meanwhile, they're, you

know, they're going hog wild on building

uh you know, building settlements, and

there's not really any chance that could

happen, is there?

So, well, anyway, I remind you that I'm

neither pro nor anti-Israel.

I simply observe. And sometimes they do

things that look like they would work

from their perspective. And sometimes

maybe they do things that I don't know

why they do them. But it's not my job to

tell Israel what's good for Israel.

And it's not their job to tell America

what's good for America.

So, I'll definitely give you opinions on

American policy, but other countries

just observe. Sometimes predict because

that's fun. Uh, but I only care about

America.

It's not that I don't care. That's going

too far.

is that if Israel is doing a good job of

taking care of Israel,

my impression of that is, hey, good job.

Everybody should do a good job of taking

care of the country. If part of their

doing a good job

is that it creates some situations that

America doesn't like, then we should

address that. But I don't disrespect

them for doing a good job influencing

people. They want influence.

Um, I could not like it,

but I observe it.

Speaking of Israel, there's an Israeli

company that found a a breakthrough that

could reverse paralysis.

So, apparently has something to do with

neural tissues. And let's see what it

is. It uh

it's a biotech company called Match

Yourself.

and they've got this new spinal cord

tissue that they grow from the patient's

own cells and then they somehow squirt

it back into you and you can regrow

your your nerve cells that had been

damaged.

Listen to this. Do you believe this? We

generate stem cells from the patient's

tissue. Then the fatty tissue provides a

scaffolding material that allows the

cells to form functional neural

networks. Now I told you about another

company that was doing this with 3D

printing. So they would 3D print the

scaffolding. This doesn't mention 3D

printing, but anyway. So apparently

they've successfully tested this on

paralyzed rats. Listen to this next

part. They've tested it on paralyzed

rats which were able to walk and run

within days of treatment.

What?

What?

Are you telling me that they really took

paralyzed rats

and unparalized them within days?

They just squirted their own stem cells

in there and had some kind of

scaffolding and within days.

I don't believe that it doesn't it take

like two months for nerves to even

regrow

Dave. Yeah. A little bit optimistic. But

anyway, I'm waiting in line behind the

rats.

Soon as all the rats are fixed,

I'm hoping they'll do me next.

Well, there's a publication called The

Conversation

in which Frank Shuraki is asking, "Is

democracy always about truth and why we

may need to loosen our views to heal our

divisions?"

So, what do you think? Do you think that

democracy could survive truth?

I don't. Do you remember when Ben

Shapiro was famous for saying that the

facts don't care about your feelings?

And then I wrote my book Win Bigly and I

tried to correct that notion by saying

the feelings don't care about your

facts.

Both of those are kind of true, but it's

it's more predictive. The feelings don't

care about your facts.

Um, but just imagine what would happen

to democracy if we knew the truth about

everything.

You your first instinct is, well, that'd

be better. Wouldn't it be great we knew

the truth? You couldn't handle the truth

[gasps]

or or or to go further, democracy

itself,

it can't handle the truth. If you

actually knew what was happening with

your money, if you actually knew what

the real real data was,

you probably would not be in a happy

place. So my take on the world

is that there are functional lies,

there's functional propaganda, and

sometimes you need that to hold the

country together.

For example, is it good or bad for

America if you spread the idea that

Americans are better than other people,

which is what I was raised to believe?

Well, I don't think it's true that

Americans are better than other people.

But if you could convince me they were,

would you get a better outcome?

And the answer is maybe. Maybe.

So if you really drill down on all of

our biggest issues, I think you'd find

that there's a functional fiction

for almost everything that works better

than the truth. A functional fiction.

So,

uh, I could talk about that for a lot

longer, but you could probably think of

10 examples yourself where you know

something's not true, but it seems to

hold people together, right?

Think about it. That that'll be your

Christmas uh uh debate with your family.

Do you want the truth or do you want a

functional propaganda?

Well, I'll give you another example. So,

Trump is famously optimistic. He's kind

of a salesperson. He uses hyperbole to

uh try to push the country forward.

So, what would be better that every time

Trump talked about the economy, he

talked about what was wrong, but also

what was right?

Now compare that to what he actually

does which is he always says things are

going great country is really huming you

know wait till next year it'll be even

better which one of those is a

functional propaganda

versus the truth the truth as close as

you could come to it would be partly

good partly bad but it wouldn't motivate

you the same way if you could if you

could convince the businesses that next

year is going to be

Even if you don't know that to be true,

it would convince them to invest. And

then once they invest, it becomes true.

So I don't know how many examples I'd

have to give you before I sell this to

you, but uh optimism, which is not

really always based on truth, is very

functional,

right? It's very functional. So, I would

argue that democracy and capitalism

specifically uh require some kind of

enlightened

propaganda,

meaning that you're doing it for

people's best interests. You're not

doing it for your selfishness, but

you're doing it. You're doing it.

Well, let's talk about Venezuela and

Maduro.

Zero Hedge is reporting that Trump said

that Maduro would be quote smart to get

out.

Um, so he was asked about presumably

asked about, you know, what next for

Venezuela. I guess Russians are

reportedly uh evacuating their

diplomats.

Do you think it's meaningful that Russia

is evacuating their diplomats from

Venezuela? Well, if you believe that

Russia

probably has some good sources in the

United States, spies and otherwise, why

would they be doing it now?

If it's true, it might also be a fake

report. But if they are getting rid of

their uh diplomats, that would suggest

that Russia expects some military

action.

Now, here's what else Trump said about

that. Um,

when asked about whether he should

leave, Trump said that's his decision.

But I think it would be smart for him to

do that.

It would be smart for him to do that.

Maybe that's all Russia needed to hear

because it sounds so warlike. Well, he

doesn't have to, but be smart for him to

do that. And then he says, Trump says,

um,

when asked about the possibility that

the Venezuelan military might try to put

up some resistance should the US

military get more aggressive. Um, Trump

said, um, if he plays tough, it'll be

the last time he's able to do so. So,

he's basically said if you resist us

that he'll he'll jail you or kill you.

Now, he doesn't have to say it out loud,

but that's what that means. Obviously,

you know, it's the last time he'd be

able to do it. So, what I'm wondering

is, is the real strategy here that Trump

is trying to scare Maduro into leaving?

Do you think he can simply frighten him

into leaving and never have to fire a

shot? [snorts]

Probably not

because I think Maduro would at the very

least need to have someplace to go that

would not be worse than putting up a

stand. So we don't know if he has any

place to go. Um but it does look like

Trump would let him leave alive.

Um so here's the test. The test is this.

Is Trump trying to win a war without

firing a shot?

And I would say the answer is yes. is

trying to win the war that hasn't even

started without firing a shot. Is it

possible?

Yes, [laughter] it's actually possible

that he could scare Maduro by being so

convincingly

scary that Maduro said, "Oh I'm

I'm going to be, you know, I got no

options left. I better get out of here."

That is very very very possible but I

would still bet against it

because yeah I would bet against it.

So one of the things that you could

imagine Trump negotiating with Putin is

asking Putin to make a safe haven for

Maduro.

Wouldn't that be interesting? Just as

part of the overall Russian negotiations

say look here's the deal. One of the

things we want from you, Putin, besides

ending the war, one of the things we

want is for you to make a home for

Maduro so he can get the hell out and we

can take over.

Might happen.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, that is

all I have

for my prepared remarks.

So, I told you that uh if I made it

through and I'm surprised I made it

through the entire show. I was having

quite some respiratory issues here.

Um but I made it. Yay. I told you I'd

hang out with you a little bit. So, what

do you think?

Would you be okay if we just hang out

just for a little bit? Just for a few

minutes. You can keep doing what you're

doing. You could turn off the sound. I

I'll be like an extra family member just

hanging out in your living room. Okay.

All right.

That's the deal.

I am so crooked. I'm going to fall over.

I did not believe I'd get through it.

Oh, that's good.

All right. Tell me what you're doing.

Send me pictures. Oh, you can only do

that in locals.

But if you're on locals, send me

pictures of what you're doing.

Show you wrapping gifts, playing with a

dog.

I had a tough night last night not being

able to breathe too much, but I'm

feeling much much better right now

and I am ready for breakfast.

So, when my breakfast gets here, I'll

I'll take my leave.

Walking the dog

or you just walk the dog. Okay.

Your stepson's going back.

Did you hear that? I'm ready for

breakfast whenever.

>> No, no, I'm still live streaming. But I

told them I'd just hang out with them

until I got breakfast

because I know some of you are feeling a

little lonely today, aren't you?

Is anybody feeling lonely in the

holidays? Well, I'm here.

[snorts] Your bagel is toasted.

Back in your car and add it to your your

daughters. Nice.

Yeah, the steroids probably are helping,

but I don't know what it would be like

if I were not on them.

Show me your hands.

Why your hands?

You're not lonely.

You're overwhelmed. Yeah, people are

pretty busy today.

Oh, I just realized I just realized I

have a healthcare worker who's going to

stop by pretty soon. So, I do I do need

to take my leave

cuz I got to eat before a health care

worker shows up and gives me a sponge

bath.

Some nice man is going to sponge bath me

today.

If that's what it's called.

Oh, your friends have ts.

Bummer.

All right, everybody.

Get ready for Christmas. Next time I see

you, probably will be Christmas.

Hope you enjoyed the show.

Go say goodbye for now. Bye for now.