Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
Merry Christmas, everybody. Come on in. Come on in. We're gonna hang out a little bit just in case your Christmas needed a little extra or in case you were hanging out by yourself. You don't have to. You can hang out with us. Let me make sure I can see your local comments. Yes, I can. Excellent. Excellent. Go on in. We will do the special Christmas simultaneous sip just as soon. Oops. Quiet. Just as soon as enough of you get in here. Yep, it's going to be epic. How many of you assumed I would be wearing a Christmas hat? All but unpredictable. The wise men have come. Send them in my house. I need some wise men. Very wise. Aw. Good morning. Good morning. All right, are you ready for the simultaneous sip? All you need is a copper mugara, glass tanker, cellos or sign, a canteen, jug of flask, a vessel of any kind, Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. The dopamine here of the day. The thing that makes everything better is called the simultaneous sip. It happens. Now, Could you. Could you smell the simultaneity? I could. So what do you want to do this morning? Do you want to hear about some interesting stories? Do you want to open your packages and act like the relative that came late for Christmas? I'm just sort of sitting in the corner. Maybe I'll say some things that make it seem like I'm in the room. You ready for this? I'm gonna do some fake. Fake acting. Well, I guess acting is fake. I'm gonna do some acting so it seems like I'm just in a room with you. Okay. Oh, wow. Was that yours? Did you just open that up? That's a really thoughtful gift. Who gave you that? No wonder. Yep. That's a good gift giver. And why don't you give back? I'm sorry. I'll shut up. Hey, what time do we eat? Does anybody know what time we eat? Oh, God. Oh, no. I was hoping that relative wouldn't come. Oh, who invited that one? Oh, my goodness. Oh, everything looked good until that one relative started coming up the driveway. But. Shh. We'll just pretend that we don't know who drank all the eggnog. Yeah. Hey, people, where's all the eggnog? How was that? Does that feel like I was in your living room just bugging you when you're opening your packages? All right, well, let me give a special shout out today to one of our members who makes clips of my show and does a really, really good job of it. So good that President Trump yesterday reposted it on Truth. So my. I'm talking about Jay Plemons. If you're now following him, you should on X because he does his most excellent clips. He's really good at figuring out what is a good clip and also, you know, adding the text and the other features to make it a, to make it a really good clip. So apparently he did so well that the President of the United States said, huh, I think I'll repost that. So congratulations, Jay Plemons. That must be an excellent Christmas gift, isn't it? That must have made you so excited. I hope you were telling all your family, but you earned it. Excellent work. Well, gosh, I'm not even sure I feel like talking about the, the news. I've got notes but it might be like that boring uncle who doesn't have, doesn't have any conversation skills. So they just talk about what's in the news. That would be me. But did you know this is an old story, but I'm going to tie it into something. Did you know that the census was error prone and those errors tended not completely, but they tended to lean in one direction, which is to undercount conservatives and overcount Democrats. And the result is that Democrats got more seats in the House because the census said there are more people than there were. Now, here's why I brought it up. The reason that we know this is because the Census Bureau did an audit of their own process. So it's not an accusation, it's what the audit people say themselves. They say you change the representative sample, not a sample, but change who's representing who and that it went in one direction on average. But what I caught here is the word audit. You know, I posted the other day that audit would be the word of 2025 and boy is it if you start noticing how often the word audit is going to pop up in all the stories because the there's so many stories about fraud and the only way you get a cash is with an audit. Well, it's not the only way, but be the main way you do it. So I predict that the public is going to learn the importance of audits in a way that they had not before quite appreciated. And if the public starts asking for audits and demanding them, then the politicians will have to, you know, they'll have to fold to that. So probably the single most important thing we could do for our fiscal health is to make sure there's always an audit in place like a real one for Everything that has a lot of money involved. Could it be that the, the attention that we're putting in that word. And by the way, if it wasn't obvious, you know, when I turn on my persuasion skills, which I don't always do, it's because there's some big gain. You know, I don't do it just to see if I can do it. I use my persuasion when I think there's some gigantic thing we could get out of it. And one of the things I'm going to persuade more and more over the next year is the importance of audits. I know, boring, right? But if we don't get that right, everything falls apart. So did you watch a. Any of the Joe Rogan interview recently with Brett Weinstein? Weinstein. Bret Weinstein. And they were talking about aliens and UAPs and ancient civilizations. Well, it sounded like Joe Rogan is on the similar path that I've been on, which is there was one time in my past I thought, you know, maybe. Maybe there's some UFOs, you know, maybe there's some aliens surface. But more recently, I ruled that out in favor of the hypothesis that if anything is happening at all, you know, in other words, if these sightings are at all real, that the, the source of them would be our own past. So it might be ancient, ancient aliens who live beneath the ocean. It might be some kind of ripple across time from a time when there were aliens with an advanced civilization on Earth. But the Satellite Joe. And I'm not so sure about Brett, but Satellite Joe has gone from these might be space aliens to the odds of. Because Rogan always has these experts on ancient civilizations. To me, it now seems obvious, I would say 100% obvious, that there were advanced civilizations that we don't know much about and that it can't be a coincidence that we've got these giant megalithic structures not in one place, but basically in a variety of places around the world, and we don't know how to make them. Well, maybe we could with modern equipment, but the fact that none of those cultures retain the ability to make those structures kind of suggests they found them, doesn't it? So I'm now of the. Of the working hypothesis that I think matches Joe Rogan's. I'm not positive, but I do believe that these are shadows from the past. And I think somebody smarter said maybe it was Joe, that no, somebody else. Somebody said that the reason that these sightings seem to defy physics is that they're not part of our reality, that they might Be some kind of a ripple or a bleed through or a temporal distortion. I don't know, I have no idea what I'm talking about. But that they're literally not part of our reality, just something we can temporarily see. And the reason is there was something from the past. Now here's where it gets interesting. Oh, Palmer Luckey, who's the head of Enduril, was asked about aliens and I believe he had a very similar take. So if your take ever matches Barbara Lucky's, you're lucky because he's one of the smartest people in the world. So remember, Elon Musk has said if there were space aliens, he would probably know about it. But he doesn't know about it. And now another genius, Palmer Luckey, is also fairly sure that we could rule out space aliens. But it might be something from the past, some advanced civilization. And it could be that there wasn't just one. It could be that there were dozens of advanced civilizations that didn't make it, which is a little bit scary if you happen to be an advanced civilization. So I don't know about dozens, but I'll bet you if there's one, I'll bet you there's multiple. What do you think? And that maybe it's just buried so deep in the sediment that we'll never know. But I'm pretty sure there were some advanced civilizations. And then I never heard this before. But this is also on Rogan show. Did you know that in Peru they found these little creatures with three fingers and three toes that look like they really were aliens, but probably not aliens from space again, more, more likely some advanced civilization that was here. I'm not sure I believe in the aliens yet or, or just the creatures. I'm not sure I believe the creatures are real, but it's fascinating. So here's where I'm going to tie this into something now. So, you know, Elon is building an Encyclopedia Galactica which at the moment is named basically he'll change the name to Encyclopedia Galactic, I think. And his plan is to create a repository of everything we know and to not only have that available to everyone on Earth for free, I guess, but he would put some copies in space so that there would be a library in space forever, maybe a library and the moon forever, maybe one that just floats around the earth in orbit or wherever he can put it. So his plan would be if humans got wiped out, that some future civilization which might be the remaining remnants of humans, they would somehow be able to recover the lost knowledge. Now that's a heck of a good idea. But it raises this possibility. What if the earlier civilizations did the same thing? What if they found a way to protect everything they knew, but they didn't find a way to protect themselves because it would be easier to launch something into space than it would be to put a shield around the whole earth, assuming some comet was heading this way or something. So is it possible that we will someday discover not just that there used to be an advanced civilization, but that they saved all of their knowledge and we could unlock it? What do you think? I think that's entirely possible. Because if Elon thought of the idea of preserving knowledge, what are the odds that an entire prior civilization didn't have anybody who had that idea? Right. And if it's doable, it's not yet been done, but pretty close. If it's doable, what are the odds it was doable before? Think about it. See now, now that's a good, that's a good Christmas conversation, isn't it? Even Palmer Lucky backed me up. Backed me up and what I do not know. All right, Speaking of musk and AI, he says that the, the AI that he runs, this is his prediction, will have more AI compute than everyone else combined in less than five years. Do you believe that that the Elon musk AI called Xai will have more computer than all the other sources combined in five years? Wow. And then I say, so we're also right at the verge of the self driving cars being completely self driving. What would it take, I asked this morning, what would it take to turn your self driving car into a classroom? So suppose you had to commute an hour each way, but you didn't have to do the driving. Could you have a 45 minute class assuming there's nobody else in the vehicle that just teaches you some kind of a skill. And every day you get in it says, oh, hi Scott, would you like to continue your physics lesson? Now I saw somebody push back on that and say, Scott, Scott, people are not going to want to learn from machines. You need a human being to teach people, otherwise they just, they're not going to be feeling it. To which I say it's going to look like a human being. You know your screen is going to be somebody who is a deep fake who looks exactly like a human. It looks at acts. So you might have like Professor Feynman teaching you physics and you would absolutely not know the difference. You just wouldn't be able to tell. And they would be able to customize your lesson completely. So I think at the moment we might be in a place where the AI is not as good as the best teacher. How long is that going to last? Once it looks like a human and once it's way better at learning how to teach, and once it's more customized to you specifically, which might be the big part, it would be way better and you would probably enjoy it. So I think then I said that, and then somebody pointed me to a link. Did you know that El Salvador has announced a partnership with XAI to build a public education program around AI so they're going to use GROK as a personalized digital tutor. Remember, this is El Salvador. So El Salvador is weirdly forward thinking they're well managed and that they're going to gradually roll down over two years and it will just be fully accredited. And their leader, Bukele, said that using XAI for their education will be a way to, quote, leapfrog traditional education so that El Salvador can have the best education system in the world in just a couple years. All they have to do is go first, and they're going first. So Bukele very smart. So if you want a good free education, go to El Salvador. So that made me wonder how many things are going to go to the price of free. So in the United States, we still got this accreditation fetish, which apparently has been solved for El Salvador. But don't you think we're very close to an advanced education? The very best advanced education costing you literally nothing. So Instead of paying 70, $70,000 a year for an elite college, you could pay 0, do it at your own pace, and it would be not just as good, but way, way better than a traditional education. So. So as I'm watching with interest, Elon Musk's idea that eventually everything will be free. There are definitely things that are going to go first. And if we can get rid of the, say, the roadblocks in the United States, which would be teachers unions and accreditation and inertia. So if we could get to where, you know, El Salvador is, education would be free. But the best part about it is if you've ever had kids in the public school system, how many of you have had kids recently in the public school system? And you know what a nightmare it is, right? It seems to me that if you put your nice kid in an environment where everybody can go, you know, it's a public place, they will be bullied beyond repair. So the damage that's done by going to a public school is really pretty high. There's damage to the family unit because they over homework, there's a damage to their mental health. You can make all of that go away and make it free. And we basically have the technology to do it already. So people don't realize the horror and the torture that they put kids through in public school. If you haven't observed it personally, you would never believe how bad it is. So education could go zero quickly, but I've also said that car insurance could go to zero because once your self driving car has basically no accidents, there's always going to be some. Then the carmaker can just add insurance forever to the purchase price of the car. So for an extra thousand dollars purchase price, the car maker will cover all your insurance in case you have an accident for the rest of the life of the car. So that won't be free. But if you compare one time thousand dollar cost over the ownership of the car, it's close to free. Then somebody mentioned that Optimus. Optimus. Yeah. The robot will soon be able to do childcare. I thought to myself, all right, if you compare to human to a robot today for child care, you would probably pick the human, right? But because the humans who do child care are not, maybe not as trustworthy as they could be, maybe you couldn't watch what they're doing as easily as you could if a robot was working for you and you could just ask the robot what's going on. I feel like child care is going to go to the robots really quickly, which would make the cost of it drop dramatically. For example, if you already had a robot to clean your house or do ordinary things, you could say, all right, robot, for these work hours you're going to be doing childcare because the robot doesn't need to rest. So as long as you have a robot, it can do childcare. Now imagine if somebody broke into your home and tried to do something bad to you or your home. Who would you rather defend it? A traditional childcare person or a badass robot? I think it would be better security. It would be less likely to molest your child. And it's just going to be better in every way very, very quickly. And it can do multiple people. So your neighbor's kids could come over and one robot takes care of you so your kid is not lonely. But you'd have to choose carefully. Then what about security? We're very close to the point where the robots could give you security better than humans. Partly because you couldn't afford a human, partly because you need three humans a day just to cover the 24 hours and partly because the robot probably will be stronger and have, you know, better decision making, etc. So that's at least four things that could almost immediately drop to no cost at all. So I'm not sold entirely on the idea that that money will be worthless, but there sure will be a lot of times when that money is not going to look like, like it used to. See what else is happening. So here's a wild prediction, speaking of Elon Musk. So I'd actually predicted this, that there will be double digit growth, meaning the GDP within 12 to 18 months. Double digit. Now why that's ridiculous, but might be right, is that we were all cheering that the GDP went from 3.5 to 4,5 roughly. So we got all excited because it was over 4%. Elon says it's going to be over 10% within a year, maybe a year and a half. Do you believe that? His reasoning is this. He says if applied intelligence, and that would be AI and robots used intelligently is a proxy for economic growth, which it should be. He says triple digit is possible in less than five years. Triple digit. So now he's going from 10% a year to over 100% a year. If you could do that. Does money become worthless? I don't know. I'm having a little bit of trouble intellectually following the argument, but it's a fun one. Now the caution is this, I believe, I think Musk actually said this, but I'm not sure. I believe he is intentionally moving toward a optimistic take on everything because he's so well watched that if he has optimism, his optimism will spread and become a positive thing. And this could be just some of that. It could be that he's just being so optimistic that he knows that's a good idea for society. It's better to be over optimistic, at least in this domain than it would be to be a pessimist. So I don't know how 100% accurate this is to his opinion, but it certainly would, it would meet the target of being optimistic. So just to be a, just to put a wet blanket on this, Mark Cuban today was posting that he said, I agree, we're talking about robot tax, not, not we but on X. And Mark Cuban posted I agree, we need, we need to start discussing now what a robot tax would look like. Like a straight amount per hour of use per robot or cobot, doesn't matter what the shape or form is and start coming up with responses to the inevitable quote, we won't be able to compete Economically with other countries, robots. So of course people will say, hey, you can't put a tax on my robot. China will get ahead. He says every country will face the prospect of national instability if the economics get out of whack, which is far more expensive than what you're paying in taxes on your robots. Now, I reposted this, but that doesn't mean I agree with it. So I would say I'm early in the process of thinking about it. On one hand, if Musk is right, then money will become worthless very quickly. Then talk of taxing doesn't make sense, because why tax if money isn't worth anything? But there should be some interim period in which money is worth something and we need more of it. So it does seem to me that it would be unavoidable for the government to put some kind of tax on it. And the theory would be, hey, if you're really increasing your productivity by triple digits, are you telling me that doesn't create any extra money for paying down our debt? And would a little bit of tax? Because the domain would be enormous, so you wouldn't have to tax it 50% per robot. Maybe I'm just going to take a swing. Maybe 5% tax per the value of each robot, Something like that. Would that be enough to pay down the debt? Or at least get us out of an emergency situation with the debt while we wait for the day when money is worthless. So there's the. The interim transitionary part. That's a little vague how that's going to work, if it works at all. But I do agree with him that there's going to be a conversation. I hate using that term, but we do need to get serious about thinking, will robots be taxed? I tend to agree with him that if we taxed our robots a little bit, it wouldn't put us behind compared to, say, China. If we over tax them. Yeah, then of course. Right. So there's probably some number that doesn't hurt you at all in the same way that the tariffs didn't hurt us like we thought they would. Economics is so unpredictable that it's really hard to know if and when a tax on robots makes sense. You know, your common sense might not be up to the task. I feel that's in my case, I feel like my common sense, which usually works pretty well, you know, not that there is common sense, but I don't know. Do not know. All right. In other news, I think we're ready for a sip. Boop. Ah. All right. I'm just Gonna rest and look at your comments for a minute. If you want less of something, tax it. Yeah. Yep. So I guess Trump wants the. The vaccine schedule for childhood to be totally changed from 72 doses with the kids born basically all the way down to 11. So that would be similar to Denmark. What do you think of that? Is that a good idea? I don't know. I'm no doctor, but people are definitely worried about loading up little babies with too much vaccinations in the beginning. So seems like there's at least a good argument for stretching them out. And if we can look to Denmark as our model of what works and what doesn't, well, maybe that's a little bit safer. So I don't have an opinion on this. I will default to people who are much smarter. I'll just note that it's happening. Well, the company called Grok with a Q on the end instead of the K at the end, which I believe is one of Chamath's companies from the all in pod. I think he was key investor in that. Apparently they've got some kind of deal. I heard yesterday that they sold the company, but maybe it's just a working deal. They've got some kind of AI inference technology that OpenAI was interested in. So it looks like a big win for Chamath. Chamath, congratulations. That's a very big win. Somebody said something like $4 billion. I don't know what the real numbers are, but they're big numbers. So he's been busting his butt on this startup and. Wow. Wow, that's very impressive. Good work, Chamath. I saw a quote today from a writer from Blaze Media that I really liked. So J.T. young, writing from Plays Media, said Democrats caused the affordability crisis with their progressive policies and now pretend to be shocked by it. But here's the fun part. Democrats are now left with a single strategy, campaigning on the consequences of their own incompetence and hoping voters forget who caused them. That is such a good reframe. So the Democrats are only. The only thing they have is affordability, and they're the ones who cause the problem. And it's unlikely they have a solution. That's pretty funny. Did you know that the DNC itself, that's the Democrat organization, is also in debt? Unlike the Republicans, The DNC has $16 million in debt. Does it seem to you that Democrats overspend in every category, including their own organization, and it just doesn't seem like Republicans are doing that? So Republicans have a nice little War chest. Well, Rand Paul came out with his festivus report for 2025. He found 1.6 trillion in waste and fraud. 1.6 trillion in waste and fraud. Now, people will debate how much of that is wasted fraud. But I always say the first trillion is easiest to spot once you get that first trillion. Now, do you believe that there's 1.6 trillion in waste and fraud that he could find? I do. You know, I've said this now a number of times. I could not understand the world, you know, the political world, unless the fraud numbers were over a trillion dollars a year. Apparently they are. They're over a trillion dollars a year. And apparently it's also identifiable. That's the weird part. It's totally identifiable. All right, here's a funny story. You've heard that some North Koreans had figured out how to get jobs at Amazon, and they just acted like they were remote workers. And apparently, amazing. Amazon has blocked 1800 job apps from the suspected North Korean agents who, when they get a job, they just do the job and then they get paid and they give the money to, presumably, the regime. Now, the first time I heard this story, I assumed that the reason that the North Koreans were doing this was to get access to our technology and maybe to do some mischief. But it looks like maybe their primary motive, maybe not the only motive, but their primary motive is just to get a job and to put the money into the regime, which would suggest that their incentive is to do the very best job they could. Because not only could they get fired, but they could get executed. So it could turn out that they've always been the best employees Amazon's ever had, because you'd have to be really smart to pull off the deception. But if you didn't pull it off right, what does the Dear Leader in North Korea do to you? Does he execute you? I mean, it's a dangerous place. So the ironic and funny thing is that, you know, obviously they have to stop it. You know, they have to plug that hole, which they've done. But is it possible that they've always been their best employees and that they would have continued to be their best employees because what they really wanted was a job anyway? I think that's funny. Well, did you hear there's another million Epstein records that they didn't know about? So suddenly they found another million records. So if you thought that the release of the Epstein file was already too slow, what do you think by the fact that it's moving backwards, that there are more unreleased files today than There were a month ago that every day that goes by, instead of fewer unreleased documents, that there are actually more of them. Well, this would suggest that the trickle theory I've talked about might be in play, that if they can add another million that don't have any real value, then they can say, well, here's another 10,000. Well, here's another 10,000, and they would never have to get to the bottom of the barrel. So that they could always argue, we're working as hard as we can and we're doing our best, but we keep finding all these files, and you want to know about them. Right? So it's suspicious as hell. And how do you lose a million documents in the first place? But I went to GROK this morning to try to see if I could do any kind of a good job of summarizing the Mike Benz theory about Epstein. Would you like to hear my best take using grok? So it's not my take. It's Mike Benz, who I asked Grok to summarize. Would you like to hear my best take on how the Epstein thing makes sense? That we don't know as much as we should know? I don't know if that's still interesting because it'd be a little bit of a repeat. I'm just looking at your answers right now. You'll never see the files. All right, so I will try to use my skills for summarizing on top of Grok's skills for summarizing on top of the key research done by Mike Benz, who's great at summarizing, but he starts with a very large body of work. All right, let's see how I can do this. So, again, credit to Mike Benz. So back in 1976, Epstein joined the company Bear Stearns, where he was not exactly qualified. And he handled accounts for a bank called bcci, that I guess was some kind of subsidiary of bears. And BCCI is well known as being. We know this now, the. The bank for the CIA. So it was specifically used by not only Great Britain and Saudi Arabia, but the United States to launder money through the. For their intelligence agencies. Right. So the first. The first hint that Epstein was CIA is that he worked for the CIA bank. Obviously, he knew what he was doing. All right, so you got that going on. He definitely. 100% chance Epstein knew he was working for intelligence agencies. And it was one of the biggest ones of the time, completely confirmed. You don't have to guess if they were part of the CIA. That's all proven. You know, nobody Debates it. All right, but how in the world did he get that job? Well, he began his career, Epstein did, as a math and physics teacher at this elite Dalton school in New York City. Now the weird part is he did not have the credentials to be a teacher of those topics or any topics. So how did he get that job? Well, the person running that school was Donald Barr, who coincidentally or not, was the father of Bill Barr. Now Donald Barr was known, again, these are confirmed facts. He was known to be an employee of the oss which was a precursor of the CIA. So now we have confirmed that Epstein was part of this big bank that was the CIA. We have confirmed that he got a job that he probably wasn't qualified for thanks to somebody who was literally on the payroll of the CIA and his precursor. Now what you might not know is that Donald Barr was also associated with COVID ups and cleanups. So he would be known as somebody who hid things so that the public did not find out about them. And Epstein worked for him. Now his son Bill Barr also was on the payroll of the CIA while he was going to law school. So both the father and the son are confirmed to have been on a CIA or pre CIA payroll. Bill Barr, the younger one, you know as the Attorney General in the first Trump administration and also the Attorney General in the second. Do you remember who told you that the Epstein committed suicide? Well, the person who was sort of in charge of determining that was Bill Barr. And he literally is from a family of CIA cover up people. This is all true. It's amazing. All right, so Bens argues that the Epstein's rapid rise within Bear Stearns, remember Bear Stearns was the entity that's working with that crooked bank despite a questionable resume, says Grok was that he was doing these CIA transactions. So he had a rapid career rise. So he worked on trades connected to BCCI which were clearing billions of dollars for intel agencies like the CIA and MI6 and Saudi led, Saudi led Safari club, whatever that is. All right, so now we know Epstein was definitely CIA, there's no doubt about it. And we know that his connections were with a senior Bar, who was a cover up guy and also junior Bar who was a CIA cover up guy. So he has a strong connection to two CIA cover up guys. Going further, there's this gentleman named Stan Pottinger who I'd never heard of until Ben's. So Stan Pottinger was a. I guess he's well known today as a CIA mop up man. In other words, he was a cover up Guy for the CIA. So you got two bars, Senior and junior, who were both on the payroll and they're both cover up guys. But this Stan Pottinger was the ultimate cover up guy. And he covered for, let's see, the MLK assassination when people were asking if the CIA was involved. The civil rights movement in a number of ways. Watergate, Operation Condor. And Ben says that Pottinger appeared in, quote, every CIA scandal of the 60s and 70s, so that if anything needed to be covered up, you would always find Pottinger. But what does Pottinger have to do with anybody? Well, Pottinger was Epstein's roommate during the early 80s. Pottinger was his roommate. So the three most famous CIA cover up guys had a confirmed and definite close relationship with Epstein. Epstein was so deeply embedded with the CIA that he's the guy who signed off on moving the CIA's airline, which they used for, you know, moving. I think they use it for ram, Contra and some other stuff. So CIA had its own plane that they used for sketchy stuff. And somehow Epstein got to sign off on moving that to be the private plane of the Limited, which is. Remember that I believe that was the company for Victoria's Secrets. Remember, his billionaire friends owned. His billionaire friend owned Victoria's Secrets. So how in the world, Benz asks, would Epstein be able to move a CIA plane from one ownership to the other? Unless. Unless he was deeply embedded with the CIA or they wanted him to do it. All right, so did that summary work once you realize that his closest associations. Yeah, Wechsler was the head of the Limit. Once you realized that his closest associations were CIA cover up guys. Are you surprised that we're not seeing all the files? You should not be surprised. There's really no way we're going to see all the files now. I would imagine that the good stuff has already been deleted from the files a long time ago, I assume. But even if it hadn't been, you're never going to see it. You will never see it. So how many for how many of you? Did that answer your questions? This is a little bit confusing, but once you know the players, and that's what Mike Benz does so well, he figures out who the players are and how they're connected. Every bit of this, by the way, is from public records, so I don't think there's anything I said that's not a publicly documented beyond any question. Yeah, Mike. Burt. It's old news for you. I. I think it's old news for a number of people, but it's still hard to hold it all in your head, isn't it? That, that's the problem I was having. It's like, okay, Pottinger Bar, Senior Junior, bcci. What's the name of that bank? Bear Stearns. But, but once you realize, I guess there's maybe half a dozen names, once you realize how those half a dozen names fit together. Right. And then, then you look at his, his friend there, good lady Maxwell, wasn't her father. Intel. So here's a question. Barr was Clinton's cover up guy for the drug running. Yeah. So? So also Bill Barr was hired as Attorney General under George Bush Senior, who had been the head of the CIA. So that's yet another confirmed CIA connection. And yeah, and he had a connection to Khashoggi, who was this big arms dealer for at least until he got bonesawed. So anyway, that answered all my questions about EPSTEIN. Well, the McDonald's, there's a McDonald's and in Minneapolis that you can't get in unless somebody unlocks the door for you because there's too much mischief and crime. I remember a time when you could just go to McDonald's and walk in and order something and that was so dangerous even to be in public in Minnesota that they've got the door locked and they check you out before they let you in to get a hamburger. Oh no, you're not getting near our hamburgers unless we feel safe. Here's a weird one. So apparently the Trump administration did an EO to force Indiana to keep open some power plants, some coal power plants that they were going to close. And it made me wonder, how can the federal government tell a state to keep a coal plant open? What authority would allow you to do that? It's not exactly national defense. So seems to me that Indiana might challenge that and win because I don't see an executive order having that kind of power over a state. But I could be surprised. You heard that the military was going to use Grok, the AI. Apparently they also are going to use Gemini, which would be a competing AI. So I don't know if they've thought this through. Is it a good idea to have two major AIs in the military or should they have put all their, all their chips in Grok because it will be better, you know, Gro would be better than Gemini. But is it a mistake that the military might have two different major AIs? I don't know. Maybe one keeps the other one from being too adventurous. I don't know. It might be an Argument for it. Meanwhile, Russia wants to put a nuclear power plant on the moon within a decade. Do you believe that Russia has the technical capability to put a nuclear power plant on the moon within a decade? And how would they get there? Would they run space on SpaceX? Would, would they build the power plant here and then pay Elon Musk to take it to the moon or do they have that capability? I don't know. I'm not so sure they can pull that off. But maybe, maybe AI will let him pull it off. All right. I saw a clip of Palmer Luckey speaking of Palmer Luckey and he's the CEO and founder of Anduril who's making high tech weapons for the us apparently he's figuring out how to make a missile that you could produce in something like a car manufacturing line. Now why that's a big deal is that you could take a hundred thousand dollar missile and make it a thousand dollar missile. It would be just as good if you could manufacture it more efficiently and you could quickly change over your domestic manufacturing from whatever it was already doing to, to make missiles. He, he claims it's pretty good argument that China would have to think twice about attacking. Because if China thought ha ha, we can make missiles faster than they can, we'll just wait till they run out of missiles, then maybe they would get adventurous. But if they knew we could make missiles for a thousand dollars a piece and we could in let's say two weeks convert a car assembly line into a missile maker, then they would have to worry that we could make cheaper, better, smarter, faster missiles than they do because we did better with manufacturing. I don't know if you can beat China in manufacturing, but it's interesting argument. So I've noticed that Elon Musk and Palmer Luckey have one thing in common besides being geniuses that they, they put a high value in the ability to quickly manufacture. And if you take the quickly manufactured part seriously, then everything changes. So militarily it's a big deal, but profit wise it's an even bigger deal. I think I told you yesterday that Musk thinks they can get the production of the auto cab. That would be the one that has no steering wheel. It would be self driving. He thinks he can get that down to 5 seconds per unit so that from beginning to end. I think that's what that means or maybe it just means that yeah, it would have to be from beginning, then it would be so efficient that it would just go and five seconds you would have a new vehicle that's his goal, five seconds. So good luck. China beating five seconds. So I think that might be. That's all I want to talk about today. Bo. Somebody named Bo who's being a problem. They have a long view of history. All right, let me look at your comments and hang out with you for a while. Used to being ahead of everybody, Sir. We can always whip the Uyghurs off. Yeah. Cold dust on the fiddle. It's funny. Yeah. It's not building. Yeah. Okay. I think you're right. It's one coming off the assembly line every five minutes. That's different. Existing plants are once every minute. Is that true? Interesting. I would not have known the answer to that question, but a minute feels about right for. Yeah. Aw, nice dog pictures. Hey, look at me. Well, thank you. Thank you, thank you. Yeah. Barbara, Lucky's sister is married to Matt Gates. Sure. Small world. Yeah. And the girls were party favor. Probably. So. It makes you wonder what other bad behavior people linked to the CIA get away with. If Epstein was getting away with this stuff because he was valuable to the CIA, how many other people fall in that category? How many indeed. He's got a boat. What am I having for breakfast? You know, I'm not going to tell you. Happy birthday. Denim. What? Oh, you liked it? So, did my summary of the Mike Ben's thing add to what you knew, or did it pull it together? I hate to step on his good work, especially if I'm making it worse, but I just feel like we had to. We just had to get that summary down a little bit. It's really hard to summarize. You want a steering wheel in the back seats? Well, yeah, obviously, I credited him as much as possible. I'm very impressed with this work. You know, I've said this before, but when I think of him, I always think of the Marvel Universe. And there's a famous line in the Marvel movies where whoever says, I don't know, somebody says, we have a Hulk. Who says that? Is it Tony Stark, who's the person in the. In the superhero movies who says we have a Hulk? Well, whoever says makes me think of Benz, because we have a Benz. They don't really have one of those. And without him, we would not have been able to penetrate the NGO stuff or the Epstein stuff to the, you know, by far the biggest things going. So. And we have a Victor David Hansen. You know, we have a. We have me. We have. I don't want to say we have a Joe Rogan, because I prefer to think of him as an independent, but he's definitely not anti Trump. And we have an Elon Musk. But think about it. Yeah, we, we have a sort of village. Yeah, I can go down the line and come up with another 10 names, but we seem to have people who are just way better at stuff things you didn't even know needed to happen. But yeah, we have a data Republican. They don't have that. But really, if you watch any of the left leaning content, which I've started to do as much as possible, like the Bulwark, etc, it's mostly just gossipers. Like what makes you famous or successful on the left is that you're good at insulting Republicans, you're good at the gossip, so that seems to be what they value. Oh, you did a really good job of insulting Trump, so we'll watch your show. But on the right, there's some kind of competence thing that people are valuing. The people on the right can tell the difference between what is really useful and what is just a bunch of insults. Now, I would suggest that I've trained an entire Republican Party about persuasion and also reframing. So if you take just those two contributions that just. I did persuasion and reframing. Who did that on their side? Who taught the Democrats how to do that? Nobody. They don't have a me. So they don't have a Mike Benz, they don't have a me, they don't have an Elon Musk. They always complain that they don't have a Joe Rogan, but again, I call him an independent, but he's super useful. Yeah, they have a Rob Reiner. Their best guy was Rob Reiner. And Stephen King. The Avengers. Yes. Thank you. Yep. Again, I hate to say that we have an Elon Musk because I also think of him as an independent, but I get it. I know why you're saying it. And when you look at their historians, their historians are basically just insulters that they just use history to insult Trump. Well, obviously he's a fascist, but you go to Victor Davis Hansen and he's giving you this incredible context that really puts everything, you know, in order. Completely different. Completely different. Yeah, we have one of them, they don't. We have a Dennis Miller. I don't hear much from him. Yep, they have a James Carville and Joy Reed. You're right. So some of their, some of their most notable people are just idiots. So what it takes to be notable on the left is to be wildly lying like the designated liars and to be good at insulting or if you're Rachel Maddow, to be good at faceless while you insult. Have you ever watched her face while she thinks she has something? I'm so happy because I've got something bad to say about a Republican about Trump. Oh, my God. I can't get this smile, this smug smile off my face. Whoa, whoa. And oh, my God, it's so cringe. Yeah. Her face screams mental illness. And I mean that seriously, not as an insult. It screams mental illness. Yeah. They have a Tim Waltz. Oh, my God. They have a Governor Newsom. Are you fucking kidding me? We have a Ron DeSantis and they have a Tim Waltz. Come on. Come on. Are you gonna put them in the same bag? No, no. We. We have a Trump and they had a Kamala Harris. Right, Right. We had a Trump and they had the Kamala Harris. These are not competitive, you know, because the way the system is set up, she could still come within striking distance, but there's no way that they have any kind of equal talent set. You know, Trump's talent stack is extraordinary. And she didn't have any. She had no talent at all. They have an Eric Swalwell and we've got someone running out of names. Yeah, they have a Jasmine Crockett. So. But. So even if you. Let me pick another name, Even if you didn't like Ted Cruz, he's smarter than most of them, Right? We've got a Ted Cruz and they've got a. They've got some lying weasels. They have most of the fraud. Now, I will give them Mark Cuban because I think he has, you know, like a real brain, but he doesn't. He's not really utilized in a strong way politically. And maybe he shouldn't be because he's, you know, it would be. Interfere with his businesses. They have a Dan Goldberg. Oh, my God. Yeah. We've got a Thomas Massie. Not everybody likes that. I happen to like it. What about Michael Shellenberger? Who do they have that matches Matt Taibi and Michael Shellenberger? Nobody. Nobody. Used to have the CEO of Starbucks. He wasn't that involved. We have Rand Paul. They have Bernie. Good one. Yeah. They have Bernie and we have Rand Paul. Again, these are not equivalents. Even. Well, Glenn Greenwald, we still call him an independent, but he has certainly been useful to the right. We have got felt. They have Kimmel. Perfect, Perfect. So we have the number one guy for late night political stuff, Greg Guild. And they've got three people who are really weak. Probably won't even be in business in a little while. Yep. Now, am I. Am I just being biased or is it super obvious that the talent on the right exceeds the talent on the left? Do you agree with the hypothesis? First of all, would you say that's true or am I just imagining it because I want it to be true? I might be. Yeah. We have Megyn Kelly. Who's there? Megyn Kelly, Joy Reid. They don't have anything. Yeah, I don't think the Democrats have anything that would equal in Meg and Kelly, do they? I can't think of anybody. We have meritocracy and they don't. Well, Maddow. Okay, well, I will give you that. Maddow gets a big audience and she can make a dent, but she's so insane she only works one day a week. I don't know. You could argue that the right has a fuente's problem and I would argue that's true. It has to be well managed. Jake Tapper, Laura Loomer. Yeah, Laura Loomer is in her own category. You could have whatever opinion you want about her, but she's. She kind of stands alone. There's. There are not two Laura Loomers. We have Mark Levin. I don't. I don't know if Mark Levin fits into this model or not. He's kind of his own guy. I mean, obviously he's right leaning, but I wouldn't put him in the same conversation as the others. They do have Jon Stewart, but he can't make a dent. Oh, we have Scott Jennings. Right. We have Scott Jennings and they have Jasmine Crockett. Again, not close. Those are not close. They have Rosie o' Donnell and the keep. All right, that's enough of this. Has everybody opened their presents yet? Are you opening your presence? Yeah, we have a Caroline Levitt and they had that weird one. Again, not even close. We have Nicki Minaj. I guess I wouldn't. Wouldn't count that one. All right, who else is having a delicious meal soon? I'm just hanging out with you now. Yeah, we have Roseanne and they have. I don't know what. They have Adam Schiff. Adam Schiff. And we have Adam Carolla. And they have Adam Schiff. Again, not even close. I'll take out of Carolla every time. So we have Dr. Drew and they have everybody who lied to us about the pandemic. I wouldn't say we have Dr. Drew because I also think he would be considered an independent. But you know what I mean, you do have me. You totally have me. They used to have RFK Jr. Now we have RFK. Jr. Again, RFK Jr. Is not a creature of the right. He just happens to be smart enough to know how to work productively with the right, which is a superpower. Yep. We have a gut felt. They don't. Absolutely. Speaking of Greg. Merry Christmas, Greg, if you're listening. All right, I'm tempted to sign off, but on the other hand, I'm tempted to just hang out. So I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll hang out for another five minutes, okay. So that it doesn't seem abrupt. Another five minutes and then get back to what you were doing. Oh, yeah, we have Tulsi. They don't. All right, people, I think we're winding down a little bit. You have family stuff to do. You won't miss anything if you leave now. We did all the good stuff already. We have Scott Bessant. Good one. And they have. We don't know they have that Too late guy. Yep, we have Scott Bessens. All right, people, I'm gonna make take my leave. I feel sad. I feel sad to be signing you off because I already miss you. That's actually literally true. As soon as I sign off, I'm gonna feel like I miss you. Yeah. We have Scott Bessant, and they have Paul Krugman. Perfect. Perfect way to end. All right, everybody, stay dry. Stay cool. See you tomorrow. Oh, no. It is not ending. Looks like I'm gonna have to close it and reopen it just to end Sa.