Credibility score: 42/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "Holy f***ing sh*t.." and rated it 42/100 for credibility (a BS score of 58/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-06-15. Its weakest claim — "Calls Japan one of the three great continents" — scored 5/100 and was flagged as bs. 25 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 25 claims analyzed: 7 scored under 40, 18 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
At 0:30
Japan is a country, not a continent — there are only seven continents and Asia already covers it
Why this score: Basic geography fail. Key issues: - Japan sits inside the continent of Asia - No geography source lists Japan as its own continent - Speaker lists three items but only two are continents
Original quote: “The leaders of the three great continents of the world, North America, Europe, and the and and Japan.”
At 2:30
That's the opposite of what happened — banks created the toxic loans, then sold them as AAA securities.
Why this score: Classic blame-the-borrower narrative. - Subprime originations were driven by Wall Street demand for mortgage-backed securities - Lenders used no-doc loans and inflated appraisals to meet securitization quotas - Borrowers didn't create the derivatives market that blew up
Original quote: “So the financial collapse of 2008 is because of hardworking African-Americans, Hispanics, and and and whites who wanted to have a piece have a ownership stake in in in the society that all rest on their shoulders. They're the culprits.”
At 4:30
The rebranding of 'bad credit' to 'subprime' is real — the forced lending part is the stretch.
Why this score: Rebranding happened. Banks and regulators did shift from 'subprime' to softer terms to reduce stigma. - Government pressure angle lacks specific sourcing here. - No named policy, date, or agency is cited in the clip. - Banks did resist subprime lending pre-2008, but the causal claim needs the actual mechanism.
Original quote: “and I say, "I'm sorry, Mr. Bannon. I can't lend you money because your credit score is not up to where it needs to be... But no, what I say to you is I'm going to figure out a way to lend you. lend you, not give you. He's right about this. He's talking about subprime mortgage ones. He's right.…”
At 6:30
Fannie Mae was created in 1938 under FDR — Clinton didn't invent it.
Why this score: Timeline error. Key issues: - Fannie Mae founded 1938, Ginnie Mae 1968 - Speaker attributes both to Clinton-era policy - Conflates existing agencies with 1990s fair-lending rules
Original quote: “I'm going to form an agency called Fanny May and Jinny May, just another agency names. They'll guarantee your loan.”
At 6:40
Fannie Mae guaranteed loans, it didn't forgive repayment — borrowers still owed the money.
Why this score: Core misunderstanding. Key issues: - Fannie Mae purchased and guaranteed mortgages - Borrowers remained responsible for monthly payments - No debt cancellation mechanism existed
Original quote: “Don't worry. you don't have to pay it back anymore. Even though you and maybe you don't even have to work as hard anymore.”
At 6:50
That's his interpretation of the system — not a verifiable fact.
Why this score: Subjective framing. Key issues: - Claim rests on intent and outcome rather than documented policy - No direct evidence presented of deliberate entrapment - Personal interpretation of lending mechanics
Original quote: “these players, these two big... Fanny M will guarantee them on the system and continually [__] go for the same people.”
At 8:30
Personal story about refusing one borrower then watching government backstop the deal — can't fact-check someone's memory.
Why this score: Anecdotal account of one lending decision. - No names, dates, or documents provided to verify. - Reflects speaker's experience rather than a testable claim. - Personal testimony gets neutral score by default.
Original quote: “I refused to lend to Mr. Bannon, but now he has the big brother, uncle, his uncle Sam. He went to his uncle Sam and Uncle Sam says, "I'm guaranteeing it."”
At 8:58
Broad pattern during housing boom is real, but speaker gives no specific bank or time frame to check.
Why this score: General description of bank behavior post-guarantee. - Matches documented shift in underwriting standards 2004-2007. - Lacks named institutions or internal memos. - Directionally consistent with public record but unverified at this granularity.
Original quote: “The bank says, "I want everybody. Give me as many people as you can give me because Uncle Sam is the best credit in the world."”
At 9:15
Government didn't call subprime "the best investment" — it pushed homeownership; banks chased the yield.
Why this score: Attribution problem. - Policy goal was expanded ownership, not investment returns. - Banks, not Treasury or Fed, labeled the product "best deal." - Conflates political pressure with portfolio preference.
Original quote: “Not only it's the United States government. We'll take it all. We'll take as much subprime as we can handle because it's the best investment for the moment.”
At 9:35
Editorial take on politics in markets plus an uncheckable claim that a specific video was deleted.
Why this score: Value judgment mixed with an unverifiable side claim. - Whether politics "belongs" is opinion. - No link or title given for the removed video, so can't confirm deletion. - Leave as opinion.
Original quote: “It's a strange investment because it has politics. The YouTube video is no longer up anymore. Politics doesn't belong in the market.”
At 10:30
GAAP does use historical cost for many assets — but fair value rules have applied to trading securities and derivatives for decades.
Why this score: Partially accurate on basic cost principle. - Historical cost is still core for PPE and loans under GAAP - *Fair value accounting* has been required for certain financial instruments since FAS 157 (2006) - Banks already mark trading portfolios daily, so the 'never before' framing is overstated
Original quote: “There's something in this country called GAAP accounting, which is a standard type of accounting, genuinely accepted, generally accepted accounting principles. And we account for them the same way we've always accounted for them. If we paid $1,000 for your mortgage last night, When we put it on our…”
At 10:52
Banks have marked trading books to market for 20+ years — this rule change claim doesn't hold up.
Why this score: Direct contradiction with established accounting rules. - FAS 115 (1993) and FAS 157 (2006) already required mark-to-market for trading securities - The 2008-2009 crisis actually saw temporary *suspensions* of fair value rules, not new mandates - No major post-2020 rule suddenly forced all bank assets below cost
Original quote: “No, the Congress people said that's not really a good answer... what happens if you have to sell it tomorrow morning? ... And they change the accounting... every bank now has to value something they bought yesterday at lower than they paid. Never before in 20 years did they have to do this.”
At 18:30
Every-10-years pattern sounds tidy but real crises hit at uneven intervals — 2008, 2020, dot-com, '87 — no fixed rhythm.
Why this score: Pattern claim is subjective framing. - Crises occurred in 1987, 1998, 2000, 2008, 2020 — gaps range from 2 to 11 years - No academic consensus supports a strict decadal cycle - Speaker presents it as obvious pattern recognition rather than data
Original quote: “so a pattern of A financial crisis every 10 years is just in my mind. >> Yes. >> Long-term capital. >> Jesus. He just says it. Oh my god. This is nuts.”
At 22:30
Calling the Trilateral Commission 'the Illuminati' is peak conspiracy flavor, not a fact.
Why this score: Classic conspiracy framing. The Trilateral Commission is a real organization founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller. Key points: - It brings together business, political, and academic leaders from North America, Europe, and Asia - Critics have long accused it of undue global influence, but no evidence supports secret world-domination claims - Equating it to the Illuminati is rhetorical exaggeration, not evidence-based analysis
Original quote: “The trilateral commission is some spooky stuff. People said it was some the people that the Illuminati there some mystery.”
At 24:30
Wild flex — says he put Epstein's name on an official elite list like it was a yearbook quote.
Why this score: Personal anecdote with no external verification possible. Speaker describes a specific interaction with the Trilateral Commission where he allegedly listed Jeffrey Epstein as a reference with the note 'just a good kid.' This is uncheckable personal testimony rather than a factual claim about events.
Original quote: “I wrote Jeffrey Epstein, just a good kid. So he's just there with everybody else on this commission with everybody.”
At 26:30
Dude went full Star Wars metaphor on Epstein's influence — zero facts, pure vibe.
Why this score: Hyperbolic pop-culture comparison, not a factual claim. No evidence presented or needed for this kind of rant.
Original quote: “He's full of [ __ ] I mean like if this guy the thing is that I mean you this guy was like I I it is astonishing to see how influential this random guy is really. I mean it's it's insane. He's dropping war. Yeah. I mean this is nuts. He's a real life Sith Lord. Yeah. This guy's like a Sith Lord or…”
At 32:30
Host flags the obvious plot hole — solid reaction, zero fact to check.
Why this score: The host is just reacting to the timeline inconsistency. It's commentary, not a claim.
Original quote: “Now, how the [__] do you know about this?”
At 36:30
Calling both prison and luxury 'incredible' is just wordplay — not a real comparison.
Why this score: Pure framing choice. The speaker equates two opposite situations by redefining 'incredible' as 'surreal' rather than 'positive.'
Original quote: “I was there? That's a not amazing. I don't want to say it was not funny. Oh, I wasn't funny, right? Not amazing. It was incredible.”
At 38:30
Repeating something Epstein allegedly said — zero way to check if that's real.
Why this score: No verification possible from available sources. - This is second-hand commentary on an old interview clip - No independent confirmation of the specific claim exists in web results - Asmongold is reacting to audio, not asserting it as fact himself
Original quote: “Lived off one almond joy bar a day.”
At 42:30
Socrates didn't write, but Plato and Aristotle sure did — this lumps them together.
Why this score: Partial truth, major overreach. - Socrates left nothing written (widely accepted) - Plato authored ~36 dialogues; Aristotle wrote extensively on logic, biology, ethics - The claim erases their actual surviving works
Original quote: “Socrates, Plato's and Aristotle is they never wrote anything.”
At 44:30
Calls science and math the wrong tools for generating new ideas at universities — that's a hell of a pivot.
Why this score: Philosophical opinion on institutional knowledge production. - Speaker argues universities produce no new ideas because they rely on *science and mathematics*. - No specific evidence or examples provided for this conclusion. - This is a value judgment about what counts as 'new ideas' rather than a testable factual claim.
Original quote: “>> Yeah, that's great. is that I've w because um >> absolutely >> again I'm privileged enough to have people around me who've given lots of philanthropic gifts to uh institutions of higher learning >> and when I said to the impact have you jud how do you judge the impact of your giving >> and we…”
At 46:30
Dragging Charlottesville into a hypothetical about Nazi gold is a wild equivalence.
Why this score: False equivalence between two unrelated moral questions. - One is about accepting stolen property from genocide. - The other was a political rally with competing protesters. - No logical or ethical overlap between the two scenarios.
Original quote: “Derek Bach would say that was fine. Again, it's these questions are questions where people good people on both sides like your Charlottesville could differ.”
At 48:30
Just pulled 95% out of thin air with zero polling or data behind it.
Why this score: Pure speculation dressed as certainty. - No survey, study, or evidence cited for the 95% figure - Speaker admits the parents are in "dire poverty" then assumes they'd ignore the source - The number functions as rhetorical shock value rather than researched estimate
Original quote: “>> Do you estimate would say I don't care. I want the money for my children. >> 95%. >> I would say everyone said I want the money for my children. >> Did they know where the money came from? >> If I think if you told them I told them the devil the devil himself the devil himself said I Here we go.…”
At 50:30
Says Satan ranked as top archangel — traditional texts actually call him a cherub.
Why this score: Traditional sources disagree. - Ezekiel 28 describes Satan as a cherub, not an archangel. - The archangel label comes from later speculation, not the original text. - Speaker later admits "Satan is a cherub, not an archangel" at 51:21, undercutting his own claim.
Original quote: “This Satan is Satan is the is the he he he is the he is at the number one or two archangel.”
At 52:30
Calling the removal '100%' before it happens is pure guesswork — platform rules aren't that predictable
Why this score: Speculative prediction about content moderation. Key issues: - No platform policy guarantees automatic removal for showing archival footage - Personal judgment that seeing the clip shifts Epstein death probability from 98% to 97% - Mixes anecdote with untestable future outcome
Original quote: “Uh, well, I mean, like, what else are you going to do? Like, there's the video right there. That's what it was. You want to watch the whole thing? And, uh, wow. You see the one where he chases small children on X? I did see that actually. I did. Uh, it was a video. It had kids in it, so I chose not…”