use once a computer can do it, then I would argue AI could already do that. 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? 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. The new version is called *God's Debris: The Complete Works*. So you can get it on Amazon. It's the only place you can get it.

Speaking of fraud, did you know that James Comey once had conversations with TV director Dick Wolf, which I always thought was a sketchy name, Dick Wolf, 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 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 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 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 Kiley 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 financial aid fraud.

So how many times have I told you 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 could have predicted this so easily. Is money involved? Is the government involved? Are a lot of people involved as time goes 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 freaking 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 Christiane. 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 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 fraudulent Somali health care companies are being created where 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 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 million dollars a year for claiming that you're helping them even if you don't do a damn thing.

Again, lots of money involved. This would be fraudulent for Medicaid, right? I'm being told that was being scammed in that last case.

I heard Owen Gregorian mention that there's this thing called qui tam, spelled Q U I space T A M. How many of you have ever heard that there is already on the books, I guess you call it a law or I'm not sure if law is the right word but it's part of some legislation that already passed some time ago called qui tam.

Now it turns out that there is an existing provision in the law in the United States that 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 lawsuit 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, more than one I think, but one of them is called Anti-Fraud Co. And Alex Shray 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 the process.

So it first identifies 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, and if they get money back, you get a pretty big chunk of it.

So the thinking is that we already have 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 framework to do that. Now how many of you knew that was possible?

Because people like me and Chamath Palihapitiya and Bill Ackman, a bunch of other people, we've been talking about the lack of audit that would have caught these frauds but we also know that auditing doesn't work 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 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 certainly looks like a possibility.

So it's called qui tam. And if you want to know more about that, I'd recommend Grok. It gave a good background of that. That might be the thing that saves us.

And sort of on top of that, speaking of Chamath and speaking of Nick Shirley, who is that 22-year-old who did an amazing job of uncovering the fraud in Minnesota. Now people have pointed out that he isn't the first one to uncover it. The local news has already covered it a while ago, but it didn't activate anything.

So apparently people knew. There were whistleblowers that apparently got punished. There was news coverage that didn't activate anything. One assumes that the legal process within the state was probably corrupt and did not do anything.

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

So the way Chamath 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 young people see that Nick Shirley, 22 years old, made 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 one of the Californian politicians, Ro Khanna, is still pushing on this idea of a wealth tax where they would confiscate 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 entertained by this because I thought Ro Khanna was one of the smart ones, but he's not acting like it on this topic. And then I did a little research to find out if maybe his buddy Massie had helped him out to tell him how dumb this was. But Massie is kind of sticking with just lower taxes is better. So I think he's staying with the generic.

But some of the billionaires like Palmer Luckey are trying to explain to him that there's a reason that people like Larry Page and Peter Thiel are already planning to leave California, 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 a better allocator of funds than the government is. And it feels like theft if you just confiscate their wealth. And there's a line that you can't cross or at least you can't cross it too quickly 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 crosses that line.

So even if Ro Khanna is right that people like Peter Thiel 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 going to stop you from stealing.

It would be sort of like 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 hand-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 Somali theft that I had not seen before yesterday. And I never spoke 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 Publius 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 Publius points out, so he spent a lot of time in his life in Africa and 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. In some African cultures, and the only ones I'm sure about are Somalia, 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 convenience store and a white American comes in and says hey, can you give me the stuff for free? The Somalian 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 take this food here, the Somalian 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's sort of mind-blowing the first time you hear it, but I'd heard this a while ago, and you can see why I wouldn't bring it up, but at the moment you can actually say that out loud. And I think it's useful to understand that if you import, as Cynical Publius 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 you get enough of them, there's just no way that's going to work out, right?

So you could argue whether 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 guys can work together, there's no conflict here. You would have to work as hard as you can to make sure that you 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 some pockets of culture.

Well, you've been hearing in social media that the cuts to USAID 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, they're all going to die if they have their funding cut.

Well, Mike Cernovich points out that anyone believing those USAID cuts lead 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 Cernovich 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 George Soros's family has donated a whole bunch of money to Letitia James. You know Letitia James of lawfaring 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? That he's being massively frauded of his own money, which is kind of interesting.

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 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. And then later even after I speculated that he didn't know where his money was going we found out that Black Lives Matter was basically a fake organization and it massively stole 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 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. 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. 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 Letitia 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 Huma Abedin 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 Huma was to add some fiscal discipline so that the Democrats could either make sure it was going to the right place for the first time 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 activities are fraudulent, then 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 a 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 currencies are used as part of the reserves.

But I ask you this. 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 it's definitely getting worse, there's not really any one currency you'd ever want to own to make up for that risk.

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

Well, Putin, we'll talk about Ukraine. So Trump met with Zelensky and Scott, my ideas about ending the war. I'll tell you how to end it in a minute, but there's a report that Putin the same day that Trump and Zelensky 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 so we show that Russia doesn't have incentive to settle, has incentive to keep going because it's making slow but definite gains and it can do it as long as it wants and that Putin's in war mode and he's not necessarily in peace mode.

So maybe that's probably a good persuasion play. But speaking of persuasion, let's talk about what might be happening there with Ukraine.

So here's something that Trump said I thought was interestingly persuasive. When asked if they're making progress, he always claims yes, 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 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 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 turned it into a binary. Well, two possibilities. We either get something done kind of quickly or it just goes on for a long time, which nobody wants. Again, good persuasion because nobody wants the longtime option.

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 Zelensky 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 ye