Episode 3057 CWSA 12/29/25

back.

Sorry, I had to stop everything.

I had a little bit of a coughing attack.

I have that about once a day, but the timing was really bad.

So, we'll see how far we can get.

There were some topics I just wanted to talk about so badly.

So, um I'm not going to do the simultaneous stuff because I did that in the one that I imported.

Let's see how far we can get.

So, does it seem to you that AI has turned into a race between building data centers and building power plants as fast as they can versus there's probably somebody in some garage somewhere who's inventing a way to do it without all that energy.

Does that not seem obviously true to you?

Because when we're trying to when we're trying to predict, you know, what does the future look like?

I cannot imagine that the AI companies are right that it will just take massive energy and more energy and if you want to get better, you just need more energy.

This seems seems far more likely that somebody's already inventing a way around that.

So that's what I'm going to bet on.

But you know, Ronda Santis, it turns out, is a AI skeptic and he said some interesting things.

Politico is reporting on this.

Um, so he's he's interested in more, you know, more regulation and uh doesn't want to doesn't want AI to, you know, use up all the energy, etc.

So, he's a little skeptical about his value.

And he put a really interesting slant on this, sort of a religious slant I hadn't heard before.

He says we have to reject with every fiber of our being.

Uh well, he said the idea of this transhumanist strain that would be the robots and the AI that somehow this is going to supplant humans and this other stuff.

We have to reject that with every fiber of our being.

Here's the interesting part.

He says, "We as individual human beings are the ones that are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights in Elgo and blah blah blah.

They did not endow machines or computers with us.

So here's my provocative question.

What's going to happen to your view of free will when computer when robots obviously have it?

So if I said to you define free will and I've had this conversation a million times.

You say well it's the ability to make a choice.

And I would say well AI can make a choice.

So does it have free will?

And then you would say, "No, no, because if a computer does it, it's just programmed." And you know, it's a there's no choice.

Only one thing could happen.

But what happens when you can't figure out why the AI did what it did, which is actually the current situation?

So, you won't be able to trace back any kind of cause and effect.

It's going to look like the AI had choices exactly like a human did and it picked one.

So, will your belief in free will disappear?

Because once a computer can do it, then I would argue a I could already do that.

Um, and if you can't predict why it would do it, that's going to look a lot like free choice.

So, what are you going to do then?

Um, will you call it free will?

I don't know.

I recommend my book God's Debris if you want to struggle with some of those philosophical things.

It's the the new version is called God's Debris, the complete works.

So, you can get it on Amazon.

It's the only place you get it.

Speaking of fraud, did you know that uh James Comey uh once had conversations with TV director Dick Wolf, which I always thought was a sketchy name, Dick Wolf, um to uh to put more FBI content in his shows because he was a very successful TV producer.

And he did.

So, how many of you are aware that for decades and decades, uh, Hollywood has been influenced by the government to say good things about the military, say good things about law enforcement, say good things about the FBI.

Television has always been propaganda.

Always has been.

But when you hear it so, you know, plainly laid out, it might shock a few people who didn't know that was the case.

And I've argued that this is probably the good kind of propaganda if they do it right.

For example, if the propaganda on TV is to make people more patriotic, well, is that bad?

So, some of it's bad, but it might be also a cover for, you know, bad FBI behavior to make them look good when in fact they might be doing some stuff you don't like.

Well, here's something Kevin Kylie in California tells us that one-third of California community colleges, their applications for the college are fake.

And the only reason people are applying, one-third of them, is for uh financial aid fraud.

So, how many times have I told you there's there's anything that involves a lot of money, financial aid, and there's no audit or at least no useful audit that eventually it just turns to fraud every time.

You you could have predicted this so easily.

Is it a is money involved?

Is the government involved?

Are a lot of people involved as time going by?

All those are true.

Guaranteed corruption.

Sure.

It's massive.

Meanwhile, did you think the fraud was going to be limited to a few states?

No, of course not.

because whatever it is that made Minnesota and California so friaking and fraudulent is almost certainly happening in the other states.

So now we find out that in Washington state there are 539 child care centers that list Somali as the primary language and they don't even have a street address according to Christian M.

I saw the next.

How many of those do you think are fraudulent?

All of them.

Yeah.

Maybe all of them.

Yes.

Because a lot of money is involved.

A lot of people are involved.

There's no no real audit.

Obviously, 100% of the time that will turn into fraud every time.

No exceptions.

Sure enough, what's happening in Ohio?

Wall Street Apes is reporting that uh fraudulent oh simoleon healthc care companies are being created uh where you can get as much as you can get as much as a quarter million dollars for being a fake health care person for your own family.

You just have to have several relatives and just say, "Well, you know, I'm going to sit around this old relative and help." And you don't even have to prove it.

So So apparently you could get $75,000 to $90,000 a year just saying that you're taking care of an elderly parent of your own or somebody else's, I guess.

And if you have two parents, you can double it.

And if you had your in-laws, you can get up to a quarter billion dollars a year for claiming that you're helping them even if you don't do a damn thing.

Again, lots of money involved.

Let's see.

This would be fraudulent for Medicare, right?

Is Medicare every single time.

Well, um I heard Owen Gregorian mention that there's this thing called qui TAM spelled QI space T A M.

How many of you have ever heard that there is already on the books a I guess you call the law or I'm not sure if law is the right word but it's you know part of a uh some legislation that already passed some time ago called quam.

Now, it turns out that there is an exist.

It's Medicaid, not Medicare.

I'm being told that was being scammed in that last case.

Um, so I'm being told that this has already existed for years.

And what it is is a provision in the law in the United States that if you if you're a whistleblower and you turn in some major fraud against the government and this is critical and the government accepts it as a major fraud and then does some legis does some uh let's say a lawsuit to to get it back that you would get up to 15 to 20% of whatever was recovered.

But did you know it existed?

No.

But now you do.

And apparently there's a startup um more than one I think.

But one of them is called Anti- Fraud Co.

Um, and Alex Sheay is one of the founders and he's informing us on X that they've already built a system that uses AI to identify probable fraud so that any citizen can take it to the government and it would simplify, I think, the lawsuit, you know, the process.

So it first identify the fraud, the big ones, and then it would walk you through taking it to the government and if the government accepts the case, and why wouldn't they?

Because they would have pretty good evidence by then.

Uh, and if they get money back, you get a you get a pretty big chunk of it.

So the thinking is that we already have um a legal structure to essentially close down the biggest frauds because it would incentivize the public to be fraud hunters and it would give them a legal a legal framework to do that.

Now how many of you knew that was possible?

um you know because people like me and Jimatha Pelipatia and Bill Aman a bunch of other people we've been talking about the lack of audit that that would have caught these frauds but we also know that auditing doesn't work in its in its normal form.

There would have to be some kind of major incentive for someone that can make so much money by doing it through a proper legal framework that they wouldn't need to take a bribe.

And this might be the thing.

So it wouldn't work for small stuff because the bribe would still be bigger than you can make from, you know, a lawsuit.

But for the big stuff, the stuff we care about, we might have actually something that looks like a working procedure because follow the money is going to work every time.

And this is a it certainly looks like a possibility.

So it's called quam qi space tam.

And if you want to know more about that, I'd recommend Grock.

it gave a gave a good background of that that might be the thing that saves us.

Um, and sort of on top of that, speaking of Shimath, um, and speaking of Nick Shirley, who is that 22year-old who did an amazing job of uncovering the fraud in in Minnesota.

Now, people have pointed out that he isn't the first one to uncover it.

The local news has already covered it and a while ago, but it didn't activate anything.

So apparently people knew there were whistleblowers that apparently got punished.

There were news coverage that didn't activate anything.

There must have been a one assumes that the the the legal process within the state was probably corrupt and did not do anything.

But if you have a independent journalist who in this case made a big splash on X, the combination of X plus a really, you know, aggressive independent uh journalist might get you something might get you something.

So the way Shimath put it was he said we may be witnessing the Cambrian explosion that creates Doge 2.0 No, completely decentralized Gonzo journalism exposing fraud all over the country.

Again, the monetization is the key.

So, if if young people see that Nick Shirley, 22 years old, um made a big a big dent in the universe, and if they see that he monetized it, well, you can do a lot more of it.

So that's good news.

Anyway, meanwhile, uh, one of the Californian politicians who broke Kana is still pushing on this idea of a wealth tax where they would confiscate, you know, one to 5%, I guess, but it would always be 5% when you're done of the wealth of billionaires in California.

And I'm kind of I'm kind of entertained by this because I thought Ro Conor was one of the smart ones, but he's not acting like it on this topic.

And then I I did a little research to find out if you know maybe his buddy Massie had helped him out to tell him how dumb this was.

But Massie is kind of sticking with, you know, just lower taxes is better.

So I think he's staying with the generic.

Um, but some of the billionaires like Lucky Palmer are trying to explain to him that there's a reason that people like Larry Page and Peter Teal are already planning to leave California reportedly.

Reportedly.

So, I was wondering if there's no way to avoid this, is there a way to turn it into something smarter?

And I gave you some suggestions yesterday, but I have a better one.

So, part of the problem is that the billionaires are not necessarily liquid and they're they're a better allocator of funds than the government is.

And it feels like theft.

um if you just confiscate their wealth and there there's a line that you can't cross or at least you can't cross it too quickly where where the people who are giving up their money move from well I hate paying high taxes of course to wait a minute you're actually stealing and this is this crosses that line so even if Roana is right that people like uh Peter Teal and Larry Page, maybe they could easily afford it.

Maybe it wouldn't change their financial decisions, but psychologically they're going to say, "You're stealing from me." And if I were in that situation, I wish I were actually.

If I were in that situation, I would say, "I don't care that you think it won't change my decisions." you're stealing from me and I'm gonna stop you from stealing.

It would be sort of like if a pickpocker if a pickpocket stuck his hand in your pants.

You wouldn't argue that the pickpocket has a good use for the money, right?

You would argue, "Get your hand out of my pants." So, they're in the hands in the pants phase now.

And it's a slippery slope, right?

All right, I might have to pause a little bit.

Yeah, still.

All right, let me slow down a little bit.

There's an opinion that I had on the uh Somalian theft that I had not seen before yesterday.

And I never spoken it because it would have sounded racist.

But time goes by and we now have a little more free speech than we used to.

And I saw a post by cynical Publus that matches what I thought to be the case.

And this is not racist.

This is about culture.

All right?

But you know, 10 minutes ago before we had free speech, you would have been accused of being racist even though this has nothing to do with race.

And the opinion is this.

as cynical publicist points out.

So he spent a lot of time in his uh life in Africa and um the Middle East.

And what he tells us is this and I already knew this but I wouldn't have said it out loud that there are some cultures particularly African cultures and Somalia in particular in which the concept of fraud is not even a concept.

How many of you knew that?

Now remember this is about their culture, nothing about race.

The in some African cultures and the only ones I'm sure about are Somalia.

Um the tribe comes first and there's not really even a question of fraud.

So, for example, the way I heard it was if you hired a Somalian to work at your uh convenience store and a you know, let's say some white American comes in and says, "Hey, can you give me the stuff for free?" The Simoleon would say, "No, you have to buy it." But if someone from the Somalian tribe, like literally same tribe, walked in and said, "Hey, I'm going to I'm going to take this food here." The Simoleon behind the counter would say, "Have a good day." and would not think, this is the weird part, would not think any crime had happened because they don't have a concept that if you're helping your tribe, how could that be wrong?

Now, that that's sort of mind-blowing the first time you hear it, but I I'd heard this a while ago, and I you can see why I wouldn't bring it up, but at the moment, you can actually say that out loud.

And I think I think it's useful to understand that if you import as cynical publicist says in his post, I think it's useful to know that if you import a philosophy or a point of view that's that different from the one we have and and you get enough of them, there's just no way that's going to work out, right?

So you could argue whether their their philosophy is better than ours, but you can't argue that they work together.

You can't argue that you can just say, well, you know, you guys can work together.

There's no conflict here.

You can't that those you would have to work as hard as you can to make sure that you, you know, shift them back to wherever that would be appropriate in their minds.

then they can do whatever they want and it wouldn't affect you.

But as long as we have a concept of fraud in this country, you don't want to water that down with people who don't even think it's a concept.

And then I remind you this has nothing to do with race, everything to do with with some pockets of of culture.

Well, you've been hearing in social media that the cuts to USA ID are killing people.

Have you heard that?

So, a lot of people on the left, presumably people who are benefiting from this money laundering operation, I would call it.

Um, they're all going to die if they have their funding cut.

Well, Mike Cernovich points out that uh anyone believing those USAD custo leads to death stories is too stupid to function.

Okay, that gets right to it.

Although the obvious question, if it were true, why didn't the left-wing billionaires fill the shortfall?

Why is it the moral duty of working Americans to fund Africa's population growth?

Well, that gets right at it, doesn't it?

Yeah, that would be a perfectly reasonable thing.

I do not believe the stories of people dying because the aid got cut.

Elon Musk weighed in agreeing with Sono and he said that the stories of the people dying, he said it was completely false.

He goes on and says, "Bill Gates is pushing this lie despite having over 80 billion dollars in his NGO that he could easily spend to save these alleged lives that are being lost.

Why doesn't he?

Bill Gates is a liar.

Always has been." Well, that bad blood between Musk and Gates appears to not be getting any better.

So, I saw New York Post is reporting that uh George Soros's family has donated a whole bunch of money to uh Leticia James.

You know, you know, Leticia James of law fairing against Trump and now getting lawfared herself.

And this made me wonder since we've watched that every time there's money involved, big money, and every time it's not well audited, and every time you have lots of people involved, what happens?

Well, you've already heard me say it three times today.

It guarantees that there's fraud.

So, here's the interesting thing.

Don't you think that George Soros is being massively defrauded or frauded?

That he's being massively frauded of his own money, which is kind of interesting.

We we have some evidence of that, really strong evidence because Soros funded Black Lives Matter and some large amount of that funding ended up in mansions and luxury cars.

So what percent of all the money that George Soros has given to not just prosecutors but to various entities turned out to be money laundered and stolen from him?

You remember I you remember I brought this up maybe two years ago and I was speculating that there's no possible way that George Soros knows where his money is going because you know and then and then later even after I speculated that he didn't know where his money was going uh we found out that Black Lives Matter was basically a fake organization and uh it massively stolen money, but not just other donated money, but George Soros's money.

And I speculated that Alex Soros might have been not capable of auditing where his money was going.

Now, that turns out to be somewhat of an unfair opinion on my part because it's not limited to to Alex Soros not being able to watch where his money goes.

All of these frauds in all of these states suggest that nobody can ever tell where the money goes.

The military can't tell you where the money went.

You know, nobody can.

So, what were the odds that the Soros organization was the only thing that could tell where his money was going and that it was going to the right place?

None.

There was no chance that Soros was not being ripped off by his own team.

No chance.

Now, I do think that the smaller amounts that he was giving to prosecutors probably was well spent because it's smaller amounts.

You could tell whether they got elected or not.

You know, maybe the audit is less important in that case.

But I'll bet you even the prosecutors were stealing his money.

Do you think that Leticia James used 100% of the Soros money for legitimate election reasons?

Nope.

Probably not.

I don't know what she used it for.

But if you look at the totality of her body of work, if she could steal it, I'll bet she was.

Now, under that filter, which every one of you agrees with, by now, what do you think Uma Abedine is doing married to Alex Soros?

Is it possible that the Clinton camp was well aware that Soros's money was basically being stolen?

And could it be that the addition of UMA was to add some fiscal discipline so that the Democrats could either could either make sure it was going to the right place for the first time uh or to make sure more of it went to Clinton related stuff.

So it changes everything, doesn't it?

Once you realize that 100% of big money uh activities are fraudulent, then you you could put that filter on Soros and you could see him as not just a bad guy.

If you don't like what he's funding, he's a bad guy.

But he absolutely has to be a victim.

He has to be a victim because there's no way that these same bunch of criminals are going to let all that money go to where it was meant to go when nobody's watching.

So that might give you a laugh.

All right.

So historian wired that the dollar is ending its dominance.

And an example of that is that the dollar used to make up 72% of global reserves in 1999 but now it's down to 58%.

And other other currencies are used as part of the reserves.

But I ask you this, who would want to who would want to have a currency of some other country?

Which country would you trust their currency more than the United States?

Now, I totally understand why you wouldn't trust the dollar because it's getting inflated, blah, blah, blah.

But in order for the dollar not to become a global reserve, you'd have to have an alternative.

What would that be?

But would you trust any other one country to be strong enough to protect your money?

So, here's what I think.

I think that the other currencies are being held strictly as a diversification play because the US dollar as bad as it is and the and it's definitely getting worse, there's not really any one currency you'd ever want to own, you know, to to make up for that risk.

So if unless you move to crypto where money becomes worthless because of AI which is possible seems to me that they will always need a healthy percentage of the US dollar for the reserve global reserves and that if they own anything else such as the bricks etc they would do it strictly for diversification.

That's just my thought about that.

Well, Putin uh we we'll talk about Ukraine.

So, Trump met with Zilinski and Scott my ideas about ending the war.

I I'll tell you how to end it in a minute, but there's a report that Putin the same day that Trump and Silinski were meeting, he was doing some public stuff dressed in his military uniform.

Now, the speculation is given that Putin typically wears a suit that if he's appearing in public in a military uniform, he's signaling to Trump and to everybody else that he's not done militarily, which presumably is part of the leverage for any negotiations.

And uh so we show that Russia doesn't have incentive to settle.

as an incentive to keep going because it's making, you know, slow but, you know, definite gains and it can do it as long as it wants and that and that Putin's in war war mode and he's not in necessarily peace mode.

So maybe that's probably a good Yeah, that would be a smart persuasion play.

But speaking of persuasion, let's talk about uh what might be happening there with Ukraine.

So, here's something that Trump said I thought was interestingly uh persuasive.

When asked if uh they're making progress, he always claims yes, even even when it's no, which is good persuasion.

So even if he believed they were not making progress, it would be smarter if he wanted progress someday to say that they are because he could actually talk people into thinking he might be making progress even if they're involved in the progress even if they're involved and they don't see it.

So if he just keeps repeating we're making progress then even if they had not made progress, people are going to start to think well he thinks we're making progress.

Maybe we're making progress.

And if people start thinking that progress is happening, it makes it much easier for progress to happen.

If people believed that nobody believed there was progress, then they would have all the freedom in the world to say, "Well, I don't see any progress.

Where's the progress?" But if somebody that prominent says, "Oh, yeah, we're making progress.

Look at that progress.

I don't have the details yet, but progress all over the place." So, persuasion wise, he's right on point.

And then he said uh his exact words were that the war is either going to end or it's going to go on for a long time.

Which I laugh.

Nobody would say it that way.

Right?

That is such a Trumpian sentence.

It'll either end or it's going to go on for a long time.

So what he's done there is he's shown that the alternative is what nobody wants.

and he he turned it into a binary.

Well, two possibilities.

We either get something done, you know, kind of quickly or it just goes on for a long time, which nobody wants.

Again, good persuasion because nobody wants the longtime option.

Um, so he actually Trump actually said the negotiations are reaching their final stages, but that could mean one of two things.

Final as in we're going to stop trying and then it goes on for a long time or final they get a deal, but it's open-ended.

All right, let's talk about where it is.

So apparently the US has offered a 15-year security guarantee and Zalinski wants more up to as much as 50 years.

Here's the first way to talk about the 50 years.

We cannot predict anything in 15 years, much less 50.

There's no such thing as a 50-year guarantee.

So as Lensky can ask for it, but even if we wanted to give it, it's not possible because it doesn't exist.

There's no such thing as a 50-year guarantee when people can just change their mind in the next 50 years.

So, I would first of all say that even the 15-year 15 guarantee is kind of meaningless, which means that Trump is giving up something of no value to get something of value, which would be a peace deal.

That is so Trumpian.

So, so Trump is creating this psychological asset called his security guarantee for 15 years.

that can't exist because all it takes is one of the people to change their mind.

There's not really anything that would change, you know, that from happening.

So, so what do you do?

Well, I wonder if the 15 years is really designed to get past Putin's lifestyle, I'm sorry, lifespan.

So, how old is Putin?

70ish.

So if you add 15 years to Putin's lifespan, what are the odds he's still going to be here and still in charge?

So it might be that privately they could say, "All right, it's not really about Russia versus the US.

is about Putin versus the US and we don't know what follows Putin but um if we could weigh him out we have a whole different world then on top of that um point out that we've entered the AI age.

So, it used to be that if you made a 15-year prediction, well, you you really didn't have a chance of being accurate because nobody's nobody could do that.

But in the age of AI, it is absurd to imagine you could say what's going to happen after 15 years.

Somebody said that if you put a 15-year timer on it, you're really just putting a deadline on it and then Russia will attack after the 15 years.

You don't know what 15 years looks like.

You have no way to know what the world looks like in five years.

So to make a 15-year plan or to make your plan based on what might happen in 15 years is complete nonsense.

It's nonsense.

So, how in the world can they get to a security guarantee when you can't predict anything?

And it would be absurd to even try.

Well, here's where the reframe comes in.

And although this would be applying to the uh the disputed zones, not the not the entire Ukraine.

Um this looks to me like a a Jared Kushner idea because I don't know if you know this but Jared Kushner has read my book Win Bigley which teaches persuasion and you know that he did the the uh uh Abraham's accords.

Abraham Accords which essentially reframed the Middle East into an economic opportunity.

And so we see him uh I'm sure this is him more than Wickoff although Wickoff is very good.

So Wickoff, you may have easily agreed with this, but I'll bet you that Jared is behind the idea of reframing the situation and calling this this is our proposal, well, US proposal, I guess, to to designate the disputed areas on the border uh as free economic zones.

So again, you would reframe it from a war zone to a free economic zone.

And then if you can get that reframe, you can make people think past the sale.

The sale is, you know, stop fighting.

But if you say it's going to be a free economic zone, then people start asking, well, but who's going to administer it?

How would that work?

Who would get what?

So that would make you think past the the war and as long as people are putting their time both sides you need you would need Russia to at least engage in the conversation.

If you can get them to engage in the conversation of what that would look like then the reframe starts working.

And I think Jerry is the only one smart enough who would have that that sensibility that that would be the really the only way he can it really is the only way that this could work.

So let's do that.

Let's do a little speculation about what that would look like if they did it.

So again, here I'm helping out by thinking past the sale, the sale being stop fighting and think about how you could both make money.

So I guess Zalinski said that uh Kiev, Ukraine would be the ones to administer those areas and forces would be withdrawn.

So, it'd be a non-military area, but that that Ukraine would administer.

Now, what are the odds that Russia would agree that it would be administered by Ukraine?

None.

There's no chance of that.

So, let's let's call that a starting position.

So, what would it look like if someone who's not Ukraine administered it?

Whoops.

Well, I don't know that you'd want the United States to administer it, but that would start looking like a security guarantee if we did, right?

Because the US would be counted on to protect its own interests more than it would be counted on to protect some other country's interests, even an ally.

So if we could say the US will administer this but we would also take a cut maybe of resources or something like that so that so we'd have some reason to administer it and we'd have something to lose if things started going sideways.

I would also wonder if you could if you could propose making it the first AI administered um country or area.

Suppose you went to Russia and you said um we're going to get some independent entity to build us the first AI administered economic zone.

Again, you're making people think past the sale of fighting to wait a minute, could AI do that?

And I think it could.

So, in other words, you want to take as many humans out of it because the humans are all the problem, right?

and you say the United States will will help you maybe with the help of I don't know Switzerland or United Nations or something.

So you put together some kind of coalition of humans who primarily would make sure that the AI um administered.

So the reframe here is we're not administering it.

The AI is, you know, you'd be lucky if you had an AI administering you because it gets rid of the fraud.

Oh, what's the biggest problem in Ukraine?

Fraud.

What's the biggest problem in Russia?

Fraud.

What's the one thing that you might be able to champ down with AI?

Fraud.

So the way you get in is you say uh the biggest problem with a new economic zone is it'll just become a criminal organization but we will help you administer the AI.

So we're not administering the zone we would be managing the AI and then the AI would be continuously checking with citizens finding out yeah doing audits.

The AI would do the audits.

The AI would keep everything organized.

The AI would collect taxes.

Or maybe it's a no tax zone.

It it seems like it would be easy to get a referendum to um do this with the the people who live there.

If you said, "How about no taxes?" Maybe they have no taxes now.

I don't know.

Who controls the AI?

That is the right question.

control is not the word you want to use.

You want to say that um something like manage.

So you would get the US and maybe a few other countries to manage and it would include Ukraine and it would include Russia.

So you'd have, you know, the Russian blah blah blah and uh so the US would, let's say, manage the technology, but it would do it with, you know, open, it would have to have pretty open access technology so that anybody can audit it.

But if you're asking those questions, you're close to a deal.

All right?

So nothing normal is going to solve this.

So if you say we're going to have an AI administered um free economic zone and we're going to do that to get rid of the fraud and we're going to use that as our um let's say we're going to use that as our um economic no as our security guarantee.

So the security guarantee would be we would remove the reasons for war.

We'd remove the reasons, but we'd have we'd have enough of a investment that we would try pretty hard to make sure that nothing went wrong.

So, um, and then the other weasel thing that would work is that you could let Russia say we won and we we're getting everything we want because the people are protected.

We'll call it part of Russia, but Ukraine say we won because it's not part of Russia, it's part of Ukraine.

But it would really be something that's neither.

there would be this sort of special economic zone.

Anyway, you could also you could also offer to Russia that the success of the special economic zone is the only path toward normalizing relations with both Europe and the US.

So if you said to Russia, here's the deal.

the one only way we're going to look at going back to uh buying your energy Europe and the only way we're going to go back to you know more of a normal relationship is that if the special economic zone works that would be a pretty good security guarantee because like I said you could never make you know a 15-year security guarantee is is absurd All right.

What do you think?

Well, so the point is when Trump says they're getting close to a deal, I think it has everything to do with the how they reframe it.

In other news, Iranian hackers allegedly got into uh Netanyahu's chief of staff's phone and dropped a video and they published a video from his phone of some kind of private meeting.

And it made me wonder if Iran had access to his chief of staff's phone, um why would they drop that video?

And the smart people say that that's a sort of a classic thing you would do to show that uh they have worse stuff than the stuff they presented.

So it'd be sort of a sort of a blackmail situation where they say well if we have this video from the chief of staff's phone imagine what we haven't shown you.

So, I don't know.

I have some question how much, you know, whether they have more than that.

Yeah, it was embarrassing, but I don't know if it's a big deal or not.

Anyway, let me look at my notes.

Um, I've got some healthcare worker coming to do some stuff in a few minutes.

All right, I made it through.

So, I apologize for the earlier attempt, but I thought you might miss me.

So, I came back.

Um, if you missed my explanation earlier, I had to bail out my first podcast because I had a a coughing attack and there's nothing you can do about it but wait it out.

So, I waited it out as much as I could and took another shot at it.

All right.

You did miss me.

All right.

Uh, I'm going to go and grab some breakfast before my uh arrival of my healthcare nurse.

When you're in my situation, you get a lot of people who come to the house for healthc care reasons.

Always a lot of action.

All right, everybody.

Thanks for understanding.

Thanks for coming back a second time.

And I will see you tomorrow.

I hope my timing is better.

Bye for now.

back. Sorry, I had to stop everything. I

had a little bit of a coughing attack.

I have that about once a day, but the

timing was really bad.

So, we'll see how far we can get. There

were some topics I just wanted to talk

about so badly.

So, um I'm not going to do the

simultaneous stuff because I did that in

the one that I imported.

Let's see how far we can get.

So, does it seem to you that AI has

turned into a race between building data

centers and building power plants as

fast as they can versus there's probably

somebody in some garage somewhere who's

inventing a way to do it without all

that energy.

Does that not seem obviously true to

you? Because when we're trying to when

we're trying to predict, you know, what

does the future look like?

I cannot imagine

that the AI companies are right that it

will just take massive energy and more

energy and if you want to get better,

you just need more energy. This seems

seems far more likely that somebody's

already inventing a way around that.

So that's what I'm going to bet on. But

you know, Ronda Santis, it turns out, is

a AI skeptic

and he said some interesting things.

Politico is reporting on this. Um, so

he's he's interested in more, you know,

more regulation

and uh doesn't want to doesn't want AI

to, you know, use up all the energy,

etc. So, he's a little skeptical about

his value.

And he put a really interesting slant on

this, sort of a religious slant I hadn't

heard before. He says we have to reject

with every fiber of our being.

Uh well, he said the idea of this

transhumanist strain that would be the

robots and the AI that somehow this is

going to supplant humans and this other

stuff. We have to reject that with every

fiber of our being. Here's the

interesting part. He says, "We as

individual human beings are the ones

that are endowed by God

with certain unalienable rights in Elgo

and blah blah blah. They did not endow

machines or computers with us. So here's

my provocative question.

What's going to happen to your view of

free will when computer when robots

obviously have it?

So if I said to you define free will and

I've had this conversation a million

times. You say well it's the ability to

make a choice.

And I would say well AI can make a

choice.

So does it have free will? And then you

would say, "No, no, because if a

computer does it, it's just programmed."

And you know, it's a there's no choice.

Only one thing could happen.

But what happens when you can't figure

out why the AI did what it did, which is

actually the current situation?

So, you won't be able to trace back any

kind of cause and effect.

It's going to look like the AI had

choices

exactly like a human did and it picked

one. So, will your belief in free will

disappear?

Because once a computer can do it, then

I would argue a I could already do that.

Um, and if you can't predict why it

would do it, that's going to look a lot

like free choice. So, what are you going

to do then?

Um, will you call it free will? I don't

know. I recommend my book God's Debris

if you want to struggle with some of

those philosophical things. It's the the

new version is called God's Debris, the

complete works. So, you can get it on

Amazon. It's the only place you get it.

Speaking of fraud,

did you know that uh James Comey uh once

had conversations with TV director Dick

Wolf, which I always thought was a

sketchy name, Dick Wolf,

um

to uh to put more FBI content in his

shows because he was a very successful

TV producer.

And he did.

So, how many of you are aware that for

decades and decades, uh, Hollywood has

been influenced by the government to say

good things about the military, say good

things about law enforcement, say good

things about the FBI.

Television has always been

propaganda.

Always has been. But when you hear it

so, you know, plainly laid out, it might

shock a few people who didn't know that

was the case.

And I've argued that this is probably

the good kind of propaganda if they do

it right. For example, if the propaganda

on TV

is to make people more patriotic,

well, is that bad?

So, some of it's bad, but it might be

also a cover for, you know, bad FBI

behavior to make them look good when in

fact they might be doing some stuff you

don't like.

Well, here's something Kevin Kylie in

California tells us that one-third of

California community colleges, their

applications for the college are fake.

And the only reason people are applying,

one-third of them, is for uh financial

aid fraud.

So, how many times have I told you

there's there's anything that involves a

lot of money, financial aid,

and there's no audit or at least no

useful audit

that eventually it just turns to fraud

every time.

You you could have predicted this so

easily.

Is it a is money involved? Is the

government involved? Are a lot of people

involved as time going by? All those are

true. Guaranteed

corruption. Sure. It's massive.

Meanwhile, did you think the fraud was

going to be limited to a few states? No,

of course not. because whatever it is

that made Minnesota and California so

friaking and fraudulent is almost

certainly happening in the other states.

So now we find out that in Washington

state there are 539 child care centers

that list Somali as the primary language

and they don't even have a street

address according to Christian M. I saw

the next.

How many of those do you think are

fraudulent?

All of them.

Yeah. Maybe all of them. Yes. Because a

lot of money is involved. A lot of

people are involved. There's no no real

audit. Obviously,

100% of the time that will turn into

fraud every time. No exceptions.

Sure enough, what's happening in Ohio?

Wall Street Apes is reporting that uh

fraudulent oh simoleon healthc care

companies are being created uh where you

can get as much as you can get as much

as a quarter million dollars for being a

fake health care person for your own

family.

You just have to have several relatives

and just say, "Well, you know, I'm going

to sit around this old relative and

help." And you don't even have to prove

it. So So apparently you could get

$75,000 to $90,000 a year just saying

that you're taking care of an elderly

parent of your own or somebody else's, I

guess. And if you have two parents, you

can double it.

And if you had your in-laws, you can get

up to a quarter billion dollars a year

for claiming that you're helping them

even if you don't do a damn thing.

Again, lots of money involved.

Let's see. This would be fraudulent for

Medicare, right?

Is Medicare

every single time.

Well, um I heard Owen Gregorian mention

that there's this thing called qui TAM

spelled QI

space T A M. How many of you have ever

heard that there is already on the books

a I guess you call the law or I'm not

sure if law is the right word but it's

you know part of a uh some legislation

that already passed some time ago called

quam.

Now, it turns out that there is an

exist. It's Medicaid, not Medicare. I'm

being told that was being scammed in

that last case. Um, so I'm being told

that this has already existed for years.

And what it is is a provision in the law

in the United States that if you if

you're a whistleblower

and you turn in some major fraud against

the government and this is critical and

the government accepts it as a major

fraud and then does some legis does some

uh let's say a lawsuit to to get it back

that you would get up to 15 to

20%

of whatever was recovered.

But did you know it existed? No. But now

you do. And apparently there's a startup

um more than one I think. But one of

them is called Anti- Fraud Co.

Um, and Alex Sheay is one of the

founders and he's informing us on X that

they've already built a system that uses

AI to identify probable fraud so that

any citizen can take it to the

government and it would simplify, I

think, the lawsuit, you know, the

process. So it first identify the fraud,

the big ones, and then it would walk you

through taking it to the government and

if the government accepts the case, and

why wouldn't they? Because they would

have pretty good evidence by then. Uh,

and if they get money back, you get a

you get a pretty big chunk of it.

So the thinking is that we already have

um a legal structure

to essentially close down the biggest

frauds because it would incentivize the

public to be fraud hunters and it would

give them a legal a legal framework to

do that. Now how many of you knew that

was possible?

um you know because people like me and

Jimatha Pelipatia and Bill Aman a bunch

of other people we've been talking about

the lack of audit

that that would have caught these frauds

but we also know that auditing doesn't

work in its in its normal form. There

would have to be some kind of major

incentive for someone that can make so

much money by doing it through a proper

legal framework that they wouldn't need

to take a bribe.

And this might be the thing. So it

wouldn't work for small stuff because

the bribe would still be bigger than you

can make from, you know, a lawsuit. But

for the big stuff, the stuff we care

about,

we might have actually something that

looks like a working procedure because

follow the money is going to work every

time.

And this is a it certainly looks like a

possibility.

So it's called quam

qi space tam. And if you want to know

more about that, I'd recommend Grock. it

gave a gave a good background of that

that might be the thing that saves us.

Um, and sort of on top of that,

speaking of Shimath,

um, and speaking of Nick Shirley, who is

that 22year-old who did an amazing job

of uncovering the fraud in in Minnesota.

Now, people have pointed out that he

isn't the first one to uncover it. The

local news has already covered it and a

while ago, but it didn't activate

anything. So apparently people knew

there were whistleblowers that

apparently got punished. There were news

coverage that didn't activate anything.

There must have been a

one assumes that the the the legal

process within the state was probably

corrupt and did not do anything. But if

you have a independent journalist who in

this case made a big splash on X, the

combination of X

plus a really, you know, aggressive

independent uh journalist might get you

something might get you something. So

the way Shimath put it was he said we

may be witnessing the Cambrian explosion

that creates Doge 2.0 No, completely

decentralized Gonzo journalism exposing

fraud all over the country.

Again, the monetization is the key. So,

if if young people see that Nick

Shirley, 22 years old, um made a big a

big dent in the universe,

and if they see that he monetized it,

well, you can do a lot more of it. So

that's good news.

Anyway, meanwhile,

uh, one of the Californian politicians

who broke Kana is still pushing on this

idea of a wealth tax

where they would confiscate,

you know, one to 5%,

I guess, but it would always be 5% when

you're done of the wealth of

billionaires in California.

And

I'm kind of I'm kind of entertained by

this because I thought Ro Conor was one

of the smart ones,

but he's not acting like it on this

topic. And then I I did a little

research to find out if you know maybe

his buddy Massie had helped him out to

tell him how dumb this was. But Massie

is kind of sticking with, you know, just

lower taxes is better. So I think he's

staying with the generic.

Um, but some of the billionaires like

Lucky Palmer are trying to explain to

him that there's a reason that people

like Larry Page and Peter Teal are

already planning to leave California

reportedly.

Reportedly.

So, I was wondering if there's no way to

avoid this,

is there a way to turn it into something

smarter?

And I gave you some suggestions

yesterday, but I have a better one. So,

part of the problem is that the

billionaires are not necessarily liquid

and they're they're a better allocator

of funds than the government is. And it

feels like theft.

um if you just confiscate their wealth

and there there's a line that you can't

cross or at least you can't cross it too

quickly where where the people who are

giving up their money move from well I

hate paying high taxes of course to wait

a minute you're actually stealing

and this is this crosses that line

so even if

Roana is right that people like uh Peter

Teal and Larry Page, maybe they could

easily afford it.

Maybe it wouldn't change their financial

decisions, but psychologically

they're going to say, "You're stealing

from me." And if I were in that

situation, I wish I were actually. If I

were in that situation, I would say, "I

don't care that you think it won't

change my decisions."

you're stealing from me and I'm gonna

stop you from stealing. It would be sort

of like if a pickpocker if a pickpocket

stuck his hand in your pants.

You wouldn't argue that the pickpocket

has a good use for the money, right? You

would argue, "Get your hand out of my

pants." So, they're in the hands in the

pants phase now.

And it's a slippery slope, right?

All right, I might have to pause a

little bit.

Yeah, still. All right, let me slow down

a little bit.

There's an opinion that I had

on the uh Somalian theft

that I had not seen before yesterday.

And I never spoken it because it would

have sounded racist.

But time goes by and we now have a

little more free speech than we used to.

And I saw a post by cynical Publus

that matches what I thought to be the

case. And this is not racist.

This is about culture. All right? But

you know, 10 minutes ago before we had

free speech, you would have been accused

of being racist even though this has

nothing to do with race. And the opinion

is this. as cynical publicist points

out. So he spent a lot of time in his uh

life in Africa and

um the Middle East. And what he tells us

is this and I already knew this but I

wouldn't have said it out loud that

there are some cultures

particularly African cultures and

Somalia in particular in which the

concept of fraud is not even a concept.

How many of you knew that?

Now remember this is about their

culture,

nothing about race.

The in some African cultures and the

only ones I'm sure about are Somalia. Um

the tribe comes first

and there's not really even a question

of fraud.

So, for example, the way I heard it was

if you hired a Somalian to work at your

uh convenience store

and a you know, let's say some white

American comes in and says, "Hey, can

you give me the stuff for free?" The

Simoleon would say, "No, you have to buy

it."

But if someone from the Somalian tribe,

like literally same tribe, walked in and

said, "Hey, I'm going to I'm going to

take this food here."

The Simoleon behind the counter would

say, "Have a good day." and would not

think, this is the weird part, would not

think any crime had happened because

they don't have a concept

that if you're helping your tribe, how

could that be wrong?

Now, that that's sort of mind-blowing

the first time you hear it, but I I'd

heard this a while ago, and I you can

see why I wouldn't bring it up, but at

the moment, you can actually say that

out loud. And I think I think it's

useful

to understand that if you import as

cynical publicist says in his post, I

think it's useful to know that if you

import a philosophy or a point of view

that's that different from the one we

have and and you get enough of them,

there's just no way that's going to work

out,

right? So you could argue whether their

their philosophy is better than ours,

but you can't argue that they work

together. You can't argue that you can

just say, well, you know, you guys can

work together. There's no conflict here.

You can't that those you would have to

work as hard as you can to make sure

that you, you know, shift them back to

wherever that would be appropriate in

their minds. then they can do whatever

they want and it wouldn't affect you.

But as long as

we have a concept of fraud in this

country,

you don't want to water that down with

people who don't even think it's a

concept. And then I remind you this has

nothing to do with race, everything to

do with with some pockets of of culture.

Well, you've been hearing in social

media that the cuts to USA ID are

killing people. Have you heard that? So,

a lot of people on the left, presumably

people who are benefiting from this

money laundering operation, I would call

it. Um, they're all going to die if they

have their funding cut. Well, Mike

Cernovich points out that uh anyone

believing those USAD custo leads to

death stories is too stupid to function.

Okay, that gets right to it. Although

the obvious question, if it were true,

why didn't the left-wing billionaires

fill the shortfall? Why is it the moral

duty of working Americans to fund

Africa's population growth? Well, that

gets right at it, doesn't it?

Yeah, that would be a perfectly

reasonable thing. I do not believe the

stories of people dying because the aid

got cut. Elon Musk weighed in agreeing

with Sono and he said that the stories

of the people dying, he said it was

completely false. He goes on and says,

"Bill Gates is pushing this lie despite

having over 80 billion dollars in his

NGO that he could easily spend to save

these alleged lives that are being lost.

Why doesn't he? Bill Gates is a liar.

Always has been."

Well, that bad blood between Musk and

Gates appears to not be getting any

better.

So, I saw New York Post is reporting

that uh George Soros's family has

donated a whole bunch of money to uh

Leticia James. You know, you know,

Leticia James of law fairing against

Trump and now getting lawfared herself.

And this made me wonder

since we've watched that every time

there's money involved,

big money,

and every time it's not well audited,

and every time you have lots of people

involved,

what happens? Well, you've already heard

me say it three times today. It

guarantees that there's fraud.

So, here's the interesting thing.

Don't you think that George Soros is

being massively defrauded

or frauded?

That he's being massively frauded of his

own money,

which is kind of interesting. We we have

some evidence of that, really strong

evidence because Soros funded Black

Lives Matter and some large amount of

that funding ended up in mansions and

luxury cars.

So what percent of all the money that

George Soros has given to not just

prosecutors but to various entities

turned out to be money laundered and

stolen from him?

You remember I you remember I brought

this up

maybe two years ago and I was

speculating that there's no possible way

that George Soros knows where his money

is going because you know and then and

then later even after I speculated that

he didn't know where his money was going

uh we found out that Black Lives Matter

was basically a fake organization

and uh it massively stolen

money, but not just other donated money,

but George Soros's money. And I

speculated that Alex Soros might have

been

not capable of auditing where his money

was going. Now, that turns out to be

somewhat of an unfair opinion on my part

because it's not limited to to Alex

Soros not being able to watch where his

money goes. All of these frauds in all

of these states suggest that nobody can

ever tell where the money goes. The

military can't tell you where the money

went. You know, nobody can. So, what

were the odds that the Soros

organization was the only thing that

could tell where his money was going and

that it was going to the right place?

None. There was no chance that Soros was

not being ripped off by his own team.

No chance. Now, I do think that the

smaller amounts that he was giving to

prosecutors

probably was well spent because it's

smaller amounts. You could tell whether

they got elected or not. You know, maybe

the audit is less important in that

case. But I'll bet you even the

prosecutors were stealing his money. Do

you think that Leticia James used 100%

of the Soros money for legitimate

election reasons?

Nope. Probably not. I don't know what

she used it for. But if you look at the

totality of her body of work, if she

could steal it, I'll bet she was.

Now, under that filter, which every one

of you agrees with, by now, what do you

think Uma Abedine is doing married to

Alex Soros?

Is it possible

that the Clinton camp was well aware

that Soros's money was basically being

stolen?

And could it be that the addition of UMA

was to add some fiscal discipline so

that the Democrats could either could

either make sure it was going to the

right place for the first time uh or to

make sure more of it went to Clinton

related stuff.

So it changes everything, doesn't it?

Once you realize that 100% of big money

uh activities are fraudulent,

then you you could put that filter on

Soros and you could see him as not just

a bad guy. If you don't like what he's

funding, he's a bad guy. But he

absolutely

has to be a victim.

He has to be a victim because there's no

way that these same bunch of criminals

are going to let all that money go to

where it was meant to go when nobody's

watching.

So that might give you a laugh.

All right.

So historian wired

that the dollar is ending its dominance.

And an example of that is that the

dollar used to make up 72% of global

reserves in 1999

but now it's down to 58%.

And other other currencies are used as

part of the reserves. But I ask you

this,

who would want to who would want to have

a currency of some other country?

Which country would you trust their

currency more than the United States?

Now, I totally understand why you

wouldn't trust the dollar because it's

getting inflated, blah, blah, blah. But

in order for the dollar not to become a

global reserve, you'd have to have an

alternative.

What would that be?

But would you trust any other one

country

to be strong enough to protect your

money? So, here's what I think. I think

that the other currencies are being held

strictly as a diversification play

because the US dollar as bad as it is

and the and it's definitely getting

worse,

there's not really any one currency

you'd ever want to own,

you know, to to make up for that risk.

So if unless you move to crypto where

money becomes worthless because of AI

which is possible seems to me that they

will always need a healthy percentage of

the US dollar for the reserve global

reserves and that if they own anything

else such as the bricks etc they would

do it strictly for diversification.

That's just my thought about that.

Well, Putin

uh we we'll talk about Ukraine. So,

Trump met with Zilinski

and Scott my ideas about ending the war.

I I'll tell you how to end it in a

minute, but there's a report that Putin

the same day

that Trump and Silinski were meeting, he

was doing some public stuff dressed in

his military uniform.

Now, the speculation is given that Putin

typically wears a suit that if he's

appearing in public in a military

uniform, he's signaling to Trump and to

everybody else that he's not done

militarily,

which presumably is part of the leverage

for any negotiations.

And uh so we show that Russia doesn't

have incentive to settle. as an

incentive to keep going because it's

making, you know, slow but, you know,

definite gains and it can do it as long

as it wants and that and that Putin's in

war war mode and he's not in necessarily

peace mode.

So maybe

that's probably a good Yeah, that would

be a smart persuasion play. But speaking

of persuasion, let's talk about uh what

might be happening there with Ukraine.

So, here's something that Trump said I

thought was interestingly

uh persuasive.

When asked if uh they're making

progress, he always claims yes, even

even when it's no, which is good

persuasion.

So even if he believed they were not

making progress,

it would be smarter if he wanted

progress someday to say that they are

because he could actually talk people

into thinking he might be making

progress even if they're involved in the

progress even if they're involved and

they don't see it. So if he just keeps

repeating we're making progress then

even if they had not made progress,

people are going to start to think well

he thinks we're making progress.

Maybe we're making progress. And if

people start thinking that progress is

happening, it makes it much easier for

progress to happen. If people believed

that nobody believed there was progress,

then they would have all the freedom in

the world to say, "Well, I don't see any

progress. Where's the progress?" But if

somebody that prominent says, "Oh, yeah,

we're making progress. Look at that

progress. I don't have the details yet,

but progress all over the place." So,

persuasion wise, he's right on point.

And then he said

uh his exact words were

that the war is either going to end or

it's going to go on for a long time.

Which I laugh. Nobody would say it that

way. Right? That is such a Trumpian

sentence. It'll either end or it's going

to go on for a long time. So what he's

done there is he's shown that the

alternative is what nobody wants.

and he he turned it into a binary. Well,

two possibilities. We either get

something done, you know, kind of

quickly or it just goes on for a long

time, which nobody wants. Again, good

persuasion

because nobody wants the longtime

option.

Um,

so he actually Trump actually said the

negotiations are reaching their final

stages, but that could mean one of two

things. Final as in we're going to stop

trying and then it goes on for a long

time or final they get a deal, but it's

open-ended.

All right, let's talk about

where it is. So apparently the US has

offered a 15-year

security guarantee

and Zalinski wants more up to as much as

50 years.

Here's the first way to talk about the

50 years.

We cannot predict anything in 15 years,

much less 50. There's no such thing as a

50-year guarantee.

So as Lensky can ask for it, but even if

we wanted to give it, it's not possible

because it doesn't exist. There's no

such thing as a 50-year guarantee when

people can just change their mind in the

next 50 years. So, I would first of all

say that even the 15-year 15 guarantee

is kind of meaningless,

which means that Trump is giving up

something of no value

to get something of value, which would

be a peace deal. That is so Trumpian.

So, so Trump is creating this

psychological asset

called his security guarantee for 15

years.

that

can't exist

because all it takes is one of the

people to change their mind. There's not

really anything that would change, you

know, that from happening.

So, so what do you do? Well, I wonder if

the 15 years is really designed to get

past Putin's lifestyle, I'm sorry,

lifespan.

So, how old is Putin?

70ish.

So if you add 15 years to Putin's

lifespan,

what are the odds he's still going to be

here and still in charge? So it might be

that privately they could say, "All

right, it's not really about Russia

versus the US. is about Putin versus the

US and we don't know what follows Putin

but um if we could weigh him out we have

a whole different world then on top of

that

um point out that we've entered the AI

age.

So, it used to be that if you made a

15-year prediction,

well, you you really didn't have a

chance of being accurate because

nobody's nobody could do that. But in

the age of AI, it is absurd

to imagine you could say what's going to

happen after 15 years.

Somebody said that if you put a 15-year

timer on it, you're really just putting

a deadline on it and then Russia will

attack after the 15 years.

You don't know what 15 years looks like.

You have no way to know what the world

looks like in five years. So to make a

15-year plan or to make your plan based

on what might happen in 15 years is

complete nonsense. It's nonsense.

So, how in the world can they get to a

security guarantee

when you can't predict anything? And it

would be absurd to even try.

Well, here's where the reframe comes in.

And although this would be applying to

the uh the disputed zones, not the not

the entire Ukraine. Um this looks to me

like a a Jared Kushner idea

because I don't know if you know this

but Jared Kushner has read my book Win

Bigley which teaches persuasion and you

know that he did the the uh uh Abraham's

accords. Abraham Accords which

essentially reframed

the Middle East into an economic

opportunity.

And so we see him uh I'm sure this is

him more than Wickoff although Wickoff

is very good. So Wickoff, you may have

easily agreed with this, but I'll bet

you that Jared is behind the idea of

reframing the situation and calling this

this is our proposal, well, US proposal,

I guess, to to designate the disputed

areas on the border uh as free economic

zones. So again, you would reframe it

from a war zone to a free economic zone.

And then if you can get that reframe,

you can make people think past the sale.

The sale is, you know, stop fighting.

But if you say it's going to be a free

economic zone, then people start asking,

well, but who's going to administer it?

How would that work? Who would get what?

So that would make you think past the

the war and as long as people are

putting their time both sides you need

you would need Russia to at least engage

in the conversation. If you can get them

to engage in the conversation of what

that would look like

then the reframe starts working.

And I think Jerry is the only one smart

enough who would have that that

sensibility that that would be the

really the only way he can it really is

the only way that this could work. So

let's do that.

Let's do a little speculation

about what that would look like if they

did it. So again, here I'm helping out

by thinking past the sale, the sale

being stop fighting and think about how

you could both make money.

So I guess Zalinski said that uh Kiev,

Ukraine would be the ones to administer

those areas

and forces would be withdrawn. So, it'd

be a non-military area, but that that

Ukraine would administer. Now, what are

the odds

that Russia would agree that it would be

administered by Ukraine? None.

There's no chance of that. So, let's

let's call that a starting position.

So, what would it look like if someone

who's not Ukraine

administered it? Whoops.

Well, I don't know that you'd want the

United States to administer it, but that

would start looking like a security

guarantee if we did, right? Because the

US would be counted on to protect its

own interests

more than it would be counted on to

protect some other country's interests,

even an ally. So if we could say the US

will administer this but we would also

take a cut maybe of resources or

something like that so that so we'd have

some reason to administer it and we'd

have something to lose

if things started going sideways.

I would also wonder if you could if you

could propose making it the first AI

administered

um country or area.

Suppose you went to Russia and you said

um we're going to get some independent

entity to build us the first AI

administered economic zone.

Again, you're making people think past

the sale of fighting to wait a minute,

could AI do that? And I think it could.

So, in other words, you want to take as

many humans out of it because the humans

are all the problem, right? and you say

the United States will will help you

maybe with the help of I don't know

Switzerland or United Nations or

something. So you put together some kind

of coalition of humans who primarily

would make sure that the AI

um administered.

So the reframe here is we're not

administering it. The AI is, you know,

you'd be lucky if you had an AI

administering you because it gets rid of

the fraud. Oh, what's the biggest

problem in Ukraine? Fraud. What's the

biggest problem in Russia? Fraud. What's

the one thing that you might be able to

champ down with AI?

Fraud. So the way you get in is you say

uh the biggest problem with a new

economic zone is it'll just become a

criminal organization

but we will help you administer the AI.

So we're not administering the zone we

would be managing the AI and then the AI

would be continuously checking with

citizens finding out yeah doing audits.

The AI would do the audits. The AI would

keep everything organized. The AI would

collect taxes.

Or maybe it's a no tax zone.

It it seems like it would be easy to get

a referendum

to um do this with the the people who

live there. If you said, "How about no

taxes?"

Maybe they have no taxes now. I don't

know.

Who controls the AI?

That is the right question. control

is not the word you want to use. You

want to say that um something like

manage.

So you would get the US and maybe a few

other countries to manage and it would

include Ukraine and it would include

Russia. So you'd have, you know, the

Russian blah blah blah and uh so the US

would, let's say, manage the technology,

but it would do it with, you know, open,

it would have to have pretty open access

technology so that anybody can audit it.

But if you're asking those questions,

you're close to a deal. All right? So

nothing normal is going to solve this.

So if you say we're going to have an AI

administered

um free economic zone and we're going to

do that to get rid of the fraud

and we're going to use that as our um

let's say we're going to use that as our

um economic no as our security

guarantee. So the security guarantee

would be we would remove the reasons for

war. We'd remove the reasons, but we'd

have we'd have enough of a

investment

that we would try pretty hard to make

sure that nothing went wrong.

So,

um, and then the other weasel thing that

would work is that you could let Russia

say we won and we we're getting

everything we want because the people

are protected. We'll call it part of

Russia, but Ukraine say we won because

it's not part of Russia, it's part of

Ukraine. But it would really be

something that's neither. there would be

this sort of special economic zone.

Anyway, you could also

you could also offer to Russia that the

success of the special economic zone is

the only path toward normalizing

relations with both Europe and the US.

So if you said to Russia, here's the

deal. the one only way we're going to

look at going back to uh buying your

energy Europe and the only way we're

going to go back to you know more of a

normal relationship is that if the

special economic zone works

that would be a pretty good security

guarantee because like I said you could

never make you know a 15-year security

guarantee is is absurd All

right. What do you think? Well, so the

point is when Trump says they're getting

close to a deal,

I think it has everything to do with the

how they reframe it.

In other news, Iranian hackers allegedly

got into uh Netanyahu's chief of staff's

phone and dropped a video and they

published a video from his phone of some

kind of private meeting.

And it made me wonder if Iran had access

to his chief of staff's phone,

um

why would they drop that video? And the

smart people say that that's a sort of a

classic thing you would do to show that

uh they have worse stuff than the stuff

they presented. So it'd be sort of a

sort of a blackmail situation where they

say well if we have this video from the

chief of staff's phone imagine what we

haven't shown you.

So, I don't know. I have some question

how much, you know, whether they have

more than that.

Yeah, it was embarrassing,

but I don't know if it's a big deal or

not.

Anyway,

let me look at my notes.

Um, I've got some

healthcare worker coming to

do some stuff in a few minutes.

All right, I made it through. So, I

apologize for the earlier attempt,

but I thought you might miss me. So, I

came back. Um,

if you missed my explanation earlier, I

had to bail out my first podcast because

I had a a coughing attack

and there's nothing you can do about it

but wait it out. So, I waited it out as

much as I could and

took another shot at it.

All right. You did miss me.

All right. Uh, I'm going to go and grab

some breakfast

before my

uh arrival of my healthcare nurse. When

you're in my situation, you get a lot of

people who come to the house for healthc

care reasons.

Always a lot of action.

All right, everybody. Thanks for

understanding. Thanks for coming back a

second time. And I will see you

tomorrow. I hope my timing is better.

Bye for now.