Speaker 1: Are you a tenant or landlord? You need to be
aware that rental laws are changing to give tenants stronger
protections and provide certainty for landlords. For new tenancies. From
March first, twenty twenty six, most tenants will benefit from
a minimum six year tenancy under a new national system
of rent control. There are limits on how much rent
can increase and when. For existing tenancies, nothing changes until
a new tenancy begins. Find out more about the phased
introduction of these changes at RTB dot I E from
the Residential Tenancies Board.
Speaker 2: What will we get to the car for the drive?
Crisps nah rochan is allowed, shower pastries Philly will probably
bake some first. Where's this hindu anyways? That'd be telling.
Speaker 3: Oh, let's get some National Lottery scratch cards for a
bit of crack in the car.
Speaker 2: Make sure you get change. I just got my nails done.
Make a fun trip funner with a National Lottery scratch card.
It could be you play responsibly, play for fun. Maybe
the honeymoon will be first class.
Speaker 3: Meaning a live man like this man letting butterfly flapping
his wing, dig down in a forest man, it gonna
cause the tree fold letting five thousand miles away.
Speaker 4: Man, nobody seen, nobody, you know, need no man.
Speaker 2: The luck you a little story and you gotted like that.
That's win.
Speaker 4: Man.
Speaker 2: Don't like the dag on the pan. Man, Man, you
don't matter.
Speaker 4: Man, all right, fious, Welcome to the Jay Burden Show.
How are you doing?
Speaker 2: Man? My pleasure? Thank you for a minute, very much
driving me on.
Speaker 4: I'm incredibly excited to have you on. I've been listening
to your work for quite some time.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 4: You spoken to a number of friends of mine and
I won't you know, run through the exact same compliment
I gave you earlier. But my friends in high places
also speak highly of you and your work. But on
the off chance my audience isn't familiar with you, well,
who are you and what do you do?
Speaker 2: So? I'm a mainly a risk analyst. I look at
the commercial impact of changes in geopolitical risk and how
this plays out for different industries, for security, for violent risks,
things of that nature. I run a consultancy called Madagio Politics,
but I also present on the Lotus Eaters. I do
a show called Real Politic talking about the kind of
stuff that we're talking about and I just sort of
present on other social, political, economic developments, things of that nature.
Speaker 4: So, most recently you did a fascinating breakdown of the
Epstein files. Obviously this has dominated the news for several
weeks at this point, but the DOJ released, depending on
who you ask, between two and a half and three
and a half million files. Some of those have been
redacted since, but it's become somewhat difficult to construct a narrative. Obviously,
this has become a huge story, and so you have
dozens of interpretations, and so I'm curious, FIUs, what jumped
out at you from these files. What did you pick
up on?
Speaker 2: Well, the key thing for me, because the allegations of
things like child abuse and so on aren't really cut
and dry proven, they're suggested, they are implied. You see
one of the emails saying that you know, Epstein kept
kept the gynecologist in business because of his victims. You
see these kinds of things that suggest that abuse is
going on. But what isn't disputable from the files is
that Epstein was at the center of a ethnic network,
predominantly Jewish network, that tried to profit wherever possible from
any kind of geopolitical development that presented an opportunity to them,
and the focus was on financial profit and figuring out
how to buy and sell financial assets, with Epstein repeatedly
saying that he isn't interested in real assets or anything
of that sort. He only makes money from finance. And
you see that he says that he's the representative of
the Rothschilds. Previously, if you spoke about any kind of
Rothschild network you were written off as a crazy conspiracy theorist.
See him talking to Peter Thiel and saying, as you know,
I represent the Rothschilds. I need your help in modernizing
their banking practice and things of that nature. You see
the CEO of the Edmond Rothschild group emailing him and
saying that she wants his help. She misses him, Da
da da, But also he's suggesting senior staff to her
and helping her hire bankers and things of that nature.
You see email exchanges about how to profit from the
Ukraine War and the kind of opportunities there. You see
Epstein making having a connection with Larry Summers and Larry
Summers advising the Ukrainian government before the war began and
helping them with their debt and things of that nature,
and you see them also coordinating on what should happen
inside Ukraine. You basically see this network that's involved in
huge geopolitical developments and figuring out how to make money
on these developments and how to profit from them. And
it extends across a huge range of politicians and it
isn't local to any particular place in the world. You
see connections to India, you see connections to the Middle East,
you see connections to Central Asia, to Mongolia, Angola, all
kinds of weird places with one focus, which is how
to make money. And it works in a way as
a Ebsteine ends up acting as a clearinghouse for information
and acts as a facilitator between different networks that each
have their own oligarchic network. So essentially it's a look
into the nature of the governing oligarchy that acts under
the cover of democracy. But when somebody like Macron, who
used to be a rothschild banker himself, is identified as
having very high ambitions and wanting to make all kinds
of changes, what happens is that Macro is put in
touch with the CEO of the World Economic Forum and
the big Plan on how to bypass the United Nations
with the World Economic Forum is sort of laid bare
in the documents that the WF actually produces, and so
you see this very weird moment where the crazy conspiracy
theorists are kind of proven right because it is all
there in black and white, and it's all documented. And
that's the main value of the Epstein files. It's an
insight into how this network operates, and it's an insight
into the way that the rest of the world thinks
about the United States and how to gain influence in
the United States. So when the Indians want to improve
their relationship with Trump, they send Anniel Ambani, who is
an Indian billionaire acting as a representative of the Indian leadership.
He gets in touch with Epstein. Epstein gives them all
kinds of advice on working with Israel. Modi goes to
Israel and dances with Natanyahu and that ends up improving
the fortunes of India in its relations with the United States.
And you can ask yourself if that's related to h
one B's or you can ask yourself if that's related
to the acceptance of Indian students into American universities. So
it's this kind of oligarchic dynamic that again acts under
the cover of democracy that's mainly revealed by the files.
That's the key takeaway that there's a big club and
it consists of billionaires and you're not in it. And
then you add to that people like Jared Kushner, whose
family is best friends or close friends with the with Dataniaho,
the Prime Minister of Israel, and he's operating in the
White House, and he's got control of the US's negotiations
now with Iran and with Russia and with Hamas and
with all kinds of other issues, and you could see that, Okay,
this actually connects together, and what you have is a
kind of ethnic oligarchy or ethnic network linked to different
oligarch different oligarchic networks. That's kind of running the show.
And you can't separate that from the leaks of emails
by Larry Allis where he has vetted Marco Rubio for
his loyalty to Israel and decided to invest in Marco Rubio. Well,
Marco Rubio is now in charge of the NSA, he's
in charge of the sorry, the National Security Council NSC,
He's in charge of the State Department. He's one of
the key decision makers and he's a very strong potential
successor to Trump. And you can't separate it from JD Vance,
who was, you know, initially working with David Frum, the
neo conservative David from and then ended up getting funded
by Peter Tiel, who's also repeatedly in those files. So
it's it's a big club and you're just not a
part of it. And that's actually how decisions are made,
not based on what voters want are or what the
public wants or anything, you know, bothersome like that. It's
big money deciding.
Speaker 3: Observe the Guinness Six Nations point playmaker a rare member
of the species who, while others lie dormant in the
group chat, get busy organizing Their go to playbook includes
essentials like booking the table with the best view of
the TV, or getting word out of the group that
we're on for the game, and of course sending an
extra reminder to that one friend who's known to be
a bit well flaky, you know the type, and if
you don't, it's probably you whether you're enjoying a point
of Guinness or not.
Speaker 2: Everyone is invited to be part of the action. So
to all the point playmakers.
Speaker 3: It's time Raley the squad pick the pub and get
ready for the Guinness Six Nations.
Speaker 2: Drink responsibly.
Speaker 3: If there's a drinkiq dot com.
Speaker 4: There are several things there obviously, Well, this is not
the point of this podcast. The US is at war
with a rent relatively recently, and again as we saw
with you know, Tucker Carlson's interview with Mike Cuckabee, it
is very clear this is not a popular war. The
American people did not want it, and ironically enough, as
Rubio himself revealed, the American government didn't even directly make
the decision to go about this war. It is very
clear that this is not a democracy right as described
to you in your high school Civics class. One of
the things that I want to go back to that
you brought up that I think is particularly interesting is
the interaction between Epstein and Teal, because, as you've said,
you know, if you would have told me you know
that you believed that the Rothschilds were an integral part
of this two years ago, just as a round number,
I would have said, you're probably crazy, right, That's that's
sort of the kind of classic tinfoil hat stuff. So
I admit, you know what I was wrong there. I
think many people were. But you see this sort of
maximal version of Epstein, that this is sort of the
one world network. Everything runs through this. And this is
not a defensive Peter Tiel, far from it. But when
I look at those emails, I see something very different
than how Epstein is talking to his guys, the guys
in his network, they're much more professional. He has actually
bothered to spell words correctly. And to me, I see that,
and I see two networks talking to each other.
Speaker 2: Exactly.
Speaker 4: Do you think that I'm correct there? And if so,
does this indicate that there are more Epstein's running around?
Speaker 2: That's exactly what it means. What it means is that
there are different leadership networks. So somebody like Ambani, to
use another example, is not part of the of Epstein's
own network, but he is part of a network that
interfaces with Epstein's network, which we should refer to as
the Rothschild Epstein network, because he is their representative. In
his own words. Somebody like Teal is at the head
of his own network, which he cultivated over the years
and built up over the years, and Vance is part
of the Teal network. Somebody like Larry Ellison, who also
features in those emails, he's again his own man. Somebody
like Larry Fink, whose son's ex girlfriend I believe is
kind of providing Epstein with blackmail material on her relationship
with Fink Junior and how she was pressured into an abortion.
So you see these dynamics where it's these guys interacting
with each other and these networks interacting with each other.
That actually defines the political discourse. It's not that they
are that there is one network and one conspiracy. It's
that what happens is that there's a bunch of networks.
They are the real decision makers. Democracy acts as a
cover for them, and they get what they want through donations.
Now I'm going to pause for a second and then
I'll get back to the Iran War. Now, when it
comes to the Iran War, you also need to put
that in context and what Marco Rubio actually said. There's
been two theories on the Iran War. One which is
what Tucker Carlson has said in the past, which is
that the Israelis have threatened to use nuclear weapons if
they don't have their way if the Americans don't play ball. Essentially,
the second is what Rubio said, which is that the
Israelis were going to launch a war on their own
and there for the Americans who are going to be targeted,
and therefore it was wise for the US to participate
in that attack. If you look at this in some
more thought, what you understand is that it's the Americans
who are providing the Israelis with the terminal high altitude
air defense systems, the FAD systems, which are absolutely necessary
for Israel to intercept Iranian hypersonic missiles because the Patriots
don't work, and ARTO three kind of does, kind of doesn't,
and pretty much all Israeli technology or is American funded,
especially the interception technology. It's the Americans who are providing
Israel with the bombs and with the aircraft and with
pretty much every bit of capability that they need. So
during the Gaza War or the Gaza and Lebanon War
after seven October, they got endless shipments of artillery shells
from the United States, to the extent that this created
a shortage in Ukraine because the Ukrainians also needed those shells.
And we can talk about the Zelenski Summer's Epstein connections.
You see that the Israelis get four billion dollars every
year from the United States, and when there's a big
war like the one that started on seven October, you
see that that figure becomes tens of billions of dollars.
You would assume that a country of the size of Israel,
which is dependent on the United States financially, which is
dependent on the United States economically and politically, because it's
the US that vetos UN resolutions, it's the US that
stops the UN from acting gainst Israel, et cetera, et cetera,
you would assume that that country would be a dependency
and that if the Israelis said to American decision makers,
we are going to go to war on our own,
the answer would be pound sand and we're going to
use nuclear weapons. The answer would be while you will
face the consequences of using nuclear weapons. So the only
reason that American decision makers would conclude that if the
Israeli said they were going to war, they have no
choice about to follow is because of the existence of
networks like Epstein's, like Allison's, and obviously, as natanieljo himself
said the biggest technology move in the last year was
the acquisition of TikTok by Larry Allison, and then he
consolidated over a big chunk of media, and that from
that cascades all kinds of Hollywood studios that operate under him.
And then you have the Murdoch Network, which controls Fox
News and the information that pretty much all American Republicans receive.
You get this intersection of media, blackmail, lobbying, power, apac financing,
all of them working together to achieve the objectives of
one state. And you see that with the Epstein connections
to Ehudbadakh. We have reports essentially from the Epstein files
saying that it was these rabies who planted the security
equipment and the surveyance equipment in Epstein's mansion in New York,
meaning that they have access to the alleged blackmail material
that Epstein would have had. And we have it on
record that there were enormous drives and files that were
in the Epstein mansion that disappeared after the FBI initial rate.
And so you ask yourself, well, okay, how is this
actually working? What is going on here? And what's going
on is that these networks of oligarchs are pushing the
United States, and behind the United States, the entire West
in one direction. And then you have a media arm
like ADL which will tell you that if you don't
support transgenderism, then your evil Well, who's one of the
biggest backers of transgenderism. It's the Pritzkers. Guess what one
of the Pritzkers features in the Epstein files. So you
end up with an impression that these networks are pushing
certain things on the world, including the war in Idan,
including transgenderism, including immigration, including the whole BLM anti racism
bs and they stand to benefit from it financially, but
they also to kind of benefit from it socially because
if you have a very Christian ethnically cohesive nation, unfortunately
but very naturally, it will exclude certain ethnic groups. And
then you see what diversity is our strength really means,
and who the hour is in that slogan. And so
you end up thinking, maybe I'm losing my mind because
all of this sounds too conspiratorial. But you look at
campaign donations, you look at Donald Trump saying to the
Israelik Nesset that it was because of Sheldon Adelson's money
that he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and
moved the embassy, and he recognized the Golan Heights as
Israeli territory, And you kind of go, well, you're actually
telling me how this works. You look at him saying well,
in days past. You look at Trump saying, well, in
day's past, nobody would have dared challenge Israel and they
had the strongest lobby and it's not like that anymore,
and that's a problem. And you kind of go, well,
I thought your whole thing was America first. So it
just casts things in a very different light, and it
highlights the existence of a conflict that since the World
War Two narratives were spun up, has been hidden and
we've all had to pretend that it doesn't exist. But
you kind of now think that it's actually real. And
this isn't something that I want to believe, or this
isn't something that I'm happy about, but I am first
and foremost an analyst and have to look at the
evidence that's in front of me, and the evidence from
who runs Fox News to who runs CBS, to how
our narrative is being spun to who's APAC donating money
to to how this network is profiting from the Ukraine
War or even profiting from Libya, for God's sake, and
you kind of go, well, Okay, maybe what I've been
trained to believe is not true is in fact true.
And this is not a conclusion that I'm happy with.
And I don't want to say, oh, this whole group
is bad or anything of that sort, but I do
want to point out that there is an oligarchy that
acts with a sense of ethnic solidarity, and that acts
in the interest of a certain country. And you're not
allowed to say it or notice it. But it's because
you're not allowed to say it or notice it that
it is important to notice it and to say it well.
Speaker 4: And obviously you know, as adults, we understand that there
is a difference between an ethnic mafia and a member
of that ethnic group. Right just because the Gambino crime
family you know, runs your local casino, does not mean
the Italian family down the block is getting a cut.
Speaker 2: It doesn't understand the Italian bus driver. It has had
nothing to do with the Italian baker. It has nothing
to do with the Italian whoever. But you can't speak
of the Cossa Austra without saying that it's Sicilian exactly.
Speaker 4: And I have found it harder and harder to maintain
that amount of distance simply due to the fact that
there are certain political figures acting beyond shamelessly right. Obviously
you have Mark Levin, But I saw a post from
Randy Fine, allegedly a representative of the state of Florida,
which is not a part of Israel, where he had
taken Comane's name scratched off, you know, the first couple letters,
and again at the end so that it said Hayman,
and he basically said, you know, yet again, you know,
we have have saved ourselves, saved our people from a
you know, an evil Persian leader who uh, you know,
sought to kill us several things. There won an interesting
use of the term us again as in an American
political leader. But also if we're talking about, you know,
the these terms that are weaponized tactically throughout my entire life.
And even before that, I was reliably informed that we
needed to have a separation of a church and state,
that using the religious principles of the people who founded
the nation that I live in was illegitimate, was unfair,
and yet many of these same people are more than
willing to invoke three thousand year old religious history to
push my entire nation into a war. Right that religion
does not need to be separated from our state. It
is to be honest, completely and totally infuriating. So I'm curious, fears,
and this is slightly outside the scope of what I
prepared you for, but nonetheless I'm curious to get your
thoughts on it. Tucker Carlson's special on the Iran War,
which came out yesterday, was quite interesting, and he raised
a point where he said, just because you speaking to
Israeli government and Benjamin et Yahoo want something, doesn't mean
that it's actually good for you. And one of the
things I've been really confused about is seemingly decapitating the
Iranian regime blowing up four hundred other people right around
the Malas. It seems as if that would massively empower
the IRGC, who seemingly would be a much more competent
enemy to fight a more nationalist, more militarized government, more
dispersed certainly as well then, and I don't mean to
be rude here, but effectively, a aging sort of eighty
year old Muslim pope speaking inexactly, But how does that
actually help Israel because it seems as if they are
transferring power from admittedly someone they don't like for perhaps
irrational religious reasons, to a more capable, competent sort of
I guess you could call it a military junta.
Speaker 2: So this is where these Radis are right, and I'll
explain the enmity between Iran and Israel is a function
of the religiosity of the regime and arguably the religiosity
of the Iranian public, who, contrary to a lot of
the narratives, are not overwhelmingly atheist or whatever. There is
a decent chunk call it thirty percent, forty percent, twenty percent,
we don't have exact surveys here, who are loyal to
their government, and you see relatively high participation rates in
Iranian elections, usually in the sixty sometimes seventy percent range
participation in elections, meaning that a chunk of the public
does believe that their system is legitimate enough for them
to participate it. However, a look at Iran's location will
tell you that they're surrounded by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey,
which are three Sudney powers that are hostile to the
Iranian Shia. Therefore, a more nationalist government might be more
pragmatic in that it would see Israel in the same
way that the Shahs Israel. The Shah work quite closely
with the Israelis and is on record talking about the
extent of the power of the Jewish lobby in the
United States. And he saw that his interests aligned with
Israel's because it meant that the Sudney Arabs would be
contained as a result. And so a militaristic Iran is
a more natural ally for the Israelis, and that is
one objective of this war, and it's a more natural
ally of the UN States, because the United States would
want Iran to be strong in the middle of these
Sudney powers in order to help contain them and constrain
their freedom of action. So that's the logic for one
need to get rid of the Iranian leadership. On the
other hand, because of the defeat of Hezbalah in Lebamon,
and because of the damage inflicted on Iran in the
Twelve Day War, and because Ramenei was eighty seven years
old when he died, this transition to nationalism was probably
going to happen anyway. So this war was not really necessary.
In five years time, the natural evolution of Iran would
have led them to conclude the Turkey is the rising
power in the Middle East. Turkey is a big problem
for them in Iraq because Turkey is trying to take
over Iraq, just as it has taken over Syria. Obviously,
the Turks will have ambitions on parts of Lebanon, especially
the northern part that is predominantly sunny, and so the
Iranians would have evolved in this direction anyway if left
to their own devices. But the Israelis are not patient,
and they see the threat from Turkey, and therefore they're
trying to accelerate Iran's transition. So this is some of
the logic there. And the only reason that the Israelis
could act in this way is because of the extent
of influence that their networks have over American policy makers
through blackmail by people like green Blat and Epstein, green
Blat being more focused on commercial blackmail, Epstein on the
more sordid kind through media through the rest of the oligarchy.
And so that's the picture there that you have to
think about. And if the Iranian regime falls apart as
a result of this war and the IERGC does not
end up in control of Era, and subsequently then you
see the Turks expanding into northern Iraq and taking the
oil reserves that sit there and using that to solve
the biggest problem in the Turkish economy, which is their
reliance on oil imports and on energy imports. In general.
Northern Iraq has a huge amount of oil, a lot
of it is not developed. Syria is an oil producer,
but a minuscule one, largely because ninety something percent of
their territory is not explored for oil, and so the
Turks are set to receive this economic bonanza, which makes
them an even bigger problem. The issue here is that
if the Iran war is successful, the Israelis can then
steer you towards a war with Turkey at a time
when Europe has been flooded with migrants and where you have.
Speaker 4: Many of them Turkish as well. Setting aside even the
fact that I mean, and sorry, I'm not trying to
interrupt you here, but the Turkey has deliberately used their
I guess you could say location is sort of a
gatekeeper to Europe to put pressure on Europe.
Speaker 2: Before yes, absolutely and the Sunneys in Europe, who are
now a huge population, are far more radical for the
taste of Middle Eastern governments than they would have tolerated,
like the kind of radicals that exist in Europe. If
they were in Egypt, they'd be getting tortured in the
Scorpion prison forever. And so essentially, the Turks have an
army inside Europe, and these Raelis are already saying that
Turkey is the next big threat and needs to be
dealt with because the fundamental problem with Israel is that
it needs its neighbors to be unstable, weak, and fragmented.
This is why the Iraq War happened to break Iraq completely,
to fundamentally destroy it, because it had become a significant
military power. This is why Egypt is kept on such
a tight leash, because it is possible for Egypt to
become a threat to Israel. So you see the result
of Israeli policy is to create total chaos in the
Middle East. And the people who are paying for the
chaos are predominantly the Europeans, and the people who are
enabling this policy are the Americans. And you see how
that enablement is done through the Epstein files and through
the records of who's making donations to which politicians.
Speaker 4: Well. In addition, and I want to return to the
connections you mentioned between Epstein and Ukraine in a moment,
but you see this, this sort of influence operation extend.
I mean going back into the seventies and eighties as
regards particularly American religion, so particularly a lot of left
wing analysts, and when I say Europeans, I'm painting with
a very broad brush, but I will say Europeans will
make comments about American evangelicals. They will say this is
the reason. As an elite theorist, I think that that
is entirely backwards, because these are predominantly, let's be honest,
poor states in the American South. The idea that these
states control the government is completely and totally absurd. But
if you go into books like the incredible Scofield and
his book, I think that's what it's called. What you
find out is that this Christian Zionism, which you see
even in figures like Mike Pompeo or Mike Huckabee, was artificial.
You have the LACUD party giving out millions of dollars,
giving out private jets, giving preferential access to religious figures
that would playball right, boosting them to create a astro
turfed public support for the allegedly secular nation of Israel.
And okay, sure that does not mean those people, the
parishioners on the ground control the government, right, But it
is yet another element, and if you want to go
into it, it is likely motivated by the exact same
things we see in the Epstein files, although I can't
entirely prove that, so that's pure conjecture. Look, this is
not a new thing, right, this has been decades in
the making. And to your point about who bears the costs,
certainly Western Europe does. The neo conservatives, the Zionists seem
to for some reason I can't quite figure out why
really really hate Western Europe and are more than willing
for both America and Europe to bear the consequences. One
of the things that is still murky, we're not entirely sure,
is that almost immediately after the war and Iran kicked off,
there were two very devastating terror attacks in America. One
of them was done by admittedly a West African fellow,
but someone who was wearing a sweatshirt that said the
property of Allah, which is still.
Speaker 2: On the nose.
Speaker 4: It's almost a little bit amusing, but still, you know,
twenty some people were wounded, for were killed, and allegedly
he was also carrying sort of Iranian propaganda. Was this
directly motivated? We don't know, but clearly right we you
are bearing the cost of this literally in my case,
you know, as well as others, and as far as
the benefit, it's somewhat difficult to see, as you've said,
if the point is to move Iran into a more
nationalist direction. I mean, look like, I don't know what
the life expect to see of an eighty seven year
old man in Iran is, but I'm guessing it is
not to live to be much past eighty seven, is.
It's incredibly infuriating, especially when the messaging you're getting is
that you are some sort of trader. You're not patriotic
if you object to this interaction, especially because many on
the conservative right in America were rightly ringing the alarm
bells about the situation Ukraine, where similarly we were supposed
to bankroll some foreign adventure. So you mentioned that there
were connections between Epstein and Ukraine. I'm curious if you
could go into.
Speaker 2: Those So it seems that early on in his tenure,
Zelenski met with Epstein and was receiving economic advice from
Epstein and was getting advice, and the Ukrainians were getting
advice from Larry Sommers. Now Larry Sommers, because of his
past as a Secretary of the Treasury, is in fact
a credible person to get advice from. Fair enough, And
I think he was Treasury secretary under Clinton where for
the first time the United States had a surplus, So
you know, fair enough. But Larry Summers is a key
part of the Epstein network, Like he's there all the
time with Epstein, and it doesn't sound good at all.
Speaker 4: If I'm correct. He was actually heavily implicated in some
rather bizarre sexual activity. And didn't he have to step
down from his role at Harvard?
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah he did, he did, right.
Speaker 4: So when we're saying this, I just wanted to clarify
it's not just that they're sending emails back and forth
about the economy. He was interested in the most salacious
parts of Epstein. But sorry, fairies, Yes, exactly exactly.
Speaker 2: And so you have this like who introduced Epstein to
the President of Ukraine. I mean the President of Ukraine
is himself a creature of a Jewish Ukrainian oligarch accord
called Ihar Kolomoyski, who, among other things, owned a bank
that I think was involved in some kind of massive
fraud and fined by the United States. And he was
one of the main beneficiaries of the dissolution of the
Soviet Union where basically this huge bunch of oligarchs looted
pretty much every industrial asset in the former Soviet Union
and to control over it and became the oligarchs. And
he also owned a television station, and on that television
station he had a show called Servant of the People
about a teacher who becomes the president of the Ukraine
somehow and fixes their relationship with Russia and does all
kinds of wonderful things. The star of that show was
one of Vladimir Zelenski and used that show as a
springboard to actually become president, promising to fix the corruption
and to deal with the oligarchs and to deal with
the problem with Russia. And yireya. You had Russia today
publishing articles saying is Zelenski genuine about peace? Because they thought, hey,
maybe we can reach an accommodation with this man, even
though his patron, Kolomoyski, in his capacity as governor of
one of the regions of Ukraine, one of the Oblasts
forget I forget which one was literally funding the as
of battalion who were Neo Nazis. And if you tell
people there was a Jewish oligarch funding a neo Nazi
battalion against Russia, you sound insane, but it is true.
And you just have to sort of let that level
of cynicism wash over you, over you and accept it.
So Zelenski becomes president, having promised peace, and then ends
up ordering a campaign to clear out the dawnbas the
part of Ukraine that is predominantly Russian. I mean, there
are other parts of Ukraine that are predominantly Russian. And
I think Zelenski himself is a native Russian speaker, not
Ukrainian speaker, but anyway, and so this guy who comes
out of nowhere is meeting with the Epstein network. And
right after the twenty fourteen initial Russian invasion and the
capture of Crimea and the consolidation over Doneska and Luhansk
or parts of Duneska and Luhansk. You see Epstein emailing
ian A Rothschild talking to her about the massive opportunities
that exist in Ukraine and you kind of go, well,
hold on a second, how are you connected to Zelenski?
And I understand that everybody wants to trade when big
geopolitical events happen, but what private information do you end
up getting that allows you to do that? And then
you see him interacting with the EPSTEIN, the European Bank
of Reconstruction and Development and talking to them about agribusinesses
in Ukraine that he could benefit from and relaying that
message to other parts of the network. Basically, this is
a good investment. Get into it. And to put that
in context, it was the source andngos that led the
Maidan uprising, and it was the Neo Nazis funded by
Kolamoyski that were responsible for the shootings in the Maidan uprising.
And you get Epstein talking to Rothschild about profiting from
the escalation. But now you also get Larry Fink's Blackrock
figuring out how, in partnership with Donald Trump, they can
basically asset strip Ukraine to make it pay for its
debts and pay for the war each of these is
a separate network, like the Sordus network is separate from
the Epstein network, is separate from the Larry Fink network.
But you see them acting not visibly in concerts because
we can't prove that, but essentially practically in concerts. And
who's losing American taxpayers, European taxpayers, Ukrainians who are getting drafted,
Russians who are being sent to the front line. I mean, it's.
Speaker 4: If you were in exactly if you were in you know,
business school, right, if you were nineteen and your professor
was asking for an example of a cartel, right, yeah, negative,
This is exactly what you would do. This is exactly
what you would describe.
Speaker 2: It is quite.
Speaker 4: Literally textbook manipulation. And I think perhaps one of the
best examples, and I've heard you mentioned this before, is
what Pete Mandelson was up to. You see this the
I mean genuinely shocking. And I've been covering Epstein for
a long time. I like to think that I am
aware of the scope of international corruption, and then you
see something like Mandleson, which is shocking, right, especially for
a man who it was was, you know, involved in
removing the death penalty for treason. Well, I won't speculate
as to why he did that, but I'm curious, could
you dig into you know, Mandelssohn and you know his
shall we say, alleged financial misconduct.
Speaker 2: So Mandelsson, you can't separate him from George Osborne, and
George Osborne used to be the Chancellor of the Extecure
under the Tories, the enemy party of Labor. They are
both Jewish. Now though basically Mandelssohn's rise was largely engineered,
and a big part of his rise was that early
on in the Labor Party he gained control of something
I think called Promise, which was essentially a database of
all of the black mailable material on the Labor Party,
and he used that in partnership with Tony Blair, the
future Prime Minister of Britain, in nineteen ninety seven until
two thousand and nine or ten, I believe two thousand
and nine, I believe, to re engineer the Labor Party
away from being a worker's party into being a big
business party. That was a big part of Mandolsson's role,
and for those years Peter Mandelson was essentially the number
three in the British government. It was him and Alistair
Campbell and Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown and Tony Blair,
who were the leading figures in all of this. So
this guy literally used a ton of blackmail material to
control the Labor Party. One of his heirs was a
guy called Morgan McSweeney who ends up becoming the chief
of staff to the current Prime Minister, who had lived
on a Kipputz for six months in the nineties, who's
a very talented man, very capable guy, but he was
until recently in charge of running the actual Prime Minister
of Britain. During his time in office, Peter Mandelsson was
basically leaking all kinds of state secrets with enormous financial
implications to Jeffrey Epstein on everything from the British government
planning to sell assets in order to fix his debt problem,
to decisions about the bailous of the banking sector and
things of that nature, in addition to having all kinds
of perverted emails that were being kicked around between him
and Gilen Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. So a member of
that network was the number three guy in the British
government and was literally giving state secrets to Epstein and
Epstein ended up giving a bunch of money to Peter
Mandelson's quote unquote husband in order to help him set
up I can some kind of alternative therapy thing that
that he was getting involved in. And him as well
as Peter Madison, as well as George Osborne were also
involved with a Russian Jewish oligarch called the der Prisca
or de Prisca, and where on his yacht at a
time whee when Peter Madison was meeting with of all people,
say for Islam and Gaddaffi, the son of the late
Libyan dictator Mohammed Gaddafi. So the number three man in
the British government was part of the Epstein network. And
this didn't stop because the guy he groomed ended up
managing Keir Starmer, who was currently the Prime Minister of Britain.
And then you have to wonder who were who was
somebody like George Osborne working with and what network was
he part of. There's no evidence that he was involved
in the same stuff. He was just on various billionaires
yachts and holidaying with Mandelssohn and things like things like that.
But he's there and now with a reform party that
is poised to take over as the next ruling party
in Britain according to current polling. Their main economics guy
is Robert Jenrick. Robert Jenerck is emailing Peter is emailing
George Osborne to ask him whether or not Osborne approves
of his economic plans. These were the same like Osborne's
economic plans were mainly austerity, meaning that the police was
stripped bare and now you have a stabbing every day
in random part of Britain that have never had these
kinds of stabbings. The border force was weakened, every single
state institution was weakened with budget cuts to sort of
bring Britain to the brink of collapse in the name
of serving the interests of the financial markets and making
sure that the financial markets approve. And it's these guys
who were in charge under Blair, they were in charge
under the Conservatives, they're in charge now under clear Starmer,
and they're poised to be in charge in the future
if Nigel fire Arsh becomes Prime Minister. And then you
get the impression that what you have is a permanent
state run by these financial networks working primarily for the
approval of the financial markets and completely unaffected by elections.
Speaker 4: Well, in the case of the US, it's the exact
same thing. Obviously you have this is kind of a
network of financiers. But also obviously you have Bill Clinton,
who is conspicuously mentioned. I'll put it that way. You have,
you know, the ties to the Bush family. I mean, again,
if we're talking about stuff that is in the Epstein
files but makes you sound like a crazy person, simply
look at Epstein's collection of presidential portraits. That's weird, right,
he has you know, Bill Clinton in a dress and
George W. Bush with a fighborhood lane and yeah, of course,
just something you would do. But also, right, Obama's White
House Council I can't remember her name, but she was
heavily implicated.
Speaker 2: And was facilitating the deal between the Rothschilds and the
Department of Treasury to get them off some kind of
fine or tax bill. She was the one who was
arranging that. And in exchange for fixing this, Epstein gets
twenty five million dollars. And so you kind of go, okay,
it is continuous across all the administrations. Like casting it
as a Republican thing or a Democrat thing is stupid.
It makes absolutely no difference because money talks. And the
fundamental problem that you have is that you don't have
a public aristocracy. In a public aristocracy where people know
who you are and that you are actually a man
of immense power and influence over the government. Being known
is a way of holding you accountable, and you're held
accountable based on your title and your status. What you
have now is a invisible migratory financial oligarchy. Gilenn Maxwell
is supposedly British, but she's operating mainly in the United
States as well as obviously in Britain. And it makes
no difference which country has economic opportunities. It really makes
no difference because these people stay rich and it is
completely anonymous. Nobody wakes up and says, what did Larry
Ellison say on the news? But Larry Ellison probably has
more power than I don't know Pete Hexath, but it's
Pete Heexath with the title and the public profile, and
Larry Ellison does his own thing quietly to his heart's content.
So the nature of the relationship between the governing and
the government is broken because a big part of it
relies in a traditional monarchic system with an aristocracy on
the people in power being public and known, at least
in their own regions. You have your own local feudal
lord and you know who it is, and you know
who the guy above him is, and you know who
the king is, and you have as a result, recourse,
and there is an expectation of the role of the
nobility and what they should be doing, whereas in the
system on the civil service side, all of the political
appointees are transient, meaning that the civil service can do
whatever the hell at once, meaning that what they will
prioritize is how to make money after they retire from
the civil service. And on the oligarchic sid the oligarchy
is largely invisible. Nobody is thinking about what Ronald Lauder
is saying, nobody cares, but in reality, through his political donations,
he wields an insane amount of political influence. So the
institutions are set up the wrong way because what they
give is power to the oligarchy, but responsibility for the
elected politicians who do not in fact end up with
power because on the one side they're controlled by the
donors and on the other side they are constrained by
the civil service. And that's why you end up with
precisely the system where you feel that absolutely nobody is
in charge, and you vote, and you vote and you
vote and nothing changes.
Speaker 4: Well, And I think that this this dovetails quite nicely
with Curtis Jarvin's idea of a formalism, right, the idea
that you know, there should be it should be easily parsible,
easily understandable who is in charge, right, who makes the decision.
And it's especially frustrating because you know many of the
people who are you know currently you know, all in
for this war with Iran. We're accurately pointing out that
this this sort of formal power does not exist domestically
as regards the American judiciary, right, the president, the elected leader,
the ostensible man in charge of the most powerful country
in the world. It's actually not sovereign because some judge
you've never heard of, who was born in Nigeria in
the middle of nowhere decides that is illegitimate. It cannot
stand so fair enough, we understand that in one aspect,
but on the foreign policy stage that is even more true,
as perhaps inadvertently revealed by Marco Rubio again, who I
don't particularly like, but I'll give them credit for saying
that it's incredibly baffling, right, it's incredibly frustrating, And to
watch that story get pulled into kind of this cheap
partisan who was mentioned more? Oh well, Democrats were mentioned
three hundred and two times. We were only mentioned two
hundred and eighty nine times. Is I mean, I want
to say it's unexpected, but it is depressing, nonetheless so furious.
I'm curious as we come up on time, is there
anything you'd just like to say in conclusion?
Speaker 2: I mean, look, in a very real sense, it is
a spiritual war. And in a very real sense, when
you see people like the Pritzkers involved in the skyd
of network and having zero concert quences as a result,
when you see that the resignations have been for people
who don't really matter that much, and that the influence
of that money hasn't been cut, you realize that, well,
you can't fix this except with individual integrity. You need
to have people who are willing to speak up, who
have courage and fortitude, who are able to say I'm
not going to take their money, which was initially that
Trump promise, if you'll remember, and who will say honestly, no,
I am going to push things that I think are
religiously right. I am going to push things that are Christian,
and I am going to push things that are good
for my nation because this is what my responsibility is.
These are the people who I owe something. And we
live in this world where everybody's supposed to be an
atomized individual, but this is fundamentally not real. You are
not just an individual. You are part of your own network.
Your network is your family and your church and your community.
And unless those are strengthened and genuinely become powerful, you
are not going to be able to generate the people
with the fortitude and the love of justice and the
wisdom who can actually say no to financial influence and
to intimidation. So if there is one thing that I
haven't discussed, it's the role of religion in this. And
it's not about ethnic solidarity because we hate these people,
or you know, we hate group X or dislike group Y.
It's because the way policy is run is fundamentally immoral.
But that is a natural consequence of society losing faith
and becoming immoral. So at the individual level, you have
your own cross to bear, and part of that is
having faith and behaving correctly so that you will end
up with people leading you who behave in the same way,
and it could be you being the leader.
Speaker 4: Well, this very much reminds me of the famous essay
by C. S. Lewis Men without Chests, Right, yes, he
talks about how what happens first is this sort of
denial of the transcendent, this denial of one could say
it is spiritual or the theological. And the essay is
amusingly enough written in response to a children's textbook. Right
he was a famous publisher. People sent him review copies
all the time, and the the inciting incident was sort
of a grammar exercise where students were asked to dissect,
you know, a passage written about a waterfall and it
used sort of flowery language, and the you know, the
writers of the textbook were basically saying like, no, that's
that's all nonsense, that's all horrible. You can't say that.
That's not objective, and going off on that point, Lewis
says like, no, you need that. You need to instill
into young people a belief in the transcendent, a belief
in something more than what you can touch and what
you can feel. And he expounds on that to say, like,
look like that extended is the thing that motivates people
to run into a burning building to save a child,
because objectively, there's there's no reason you should do that
if it's not your child, right, it could harm your
ability to accomplish your biological goal. The kind of cold,
hard rational point of view as a as an individual.
And he has this great point where he's talking about
the future and he says, well, if this, this system
of belief goes on checks, you know, we will soon
live in a world where, you know, where police do
not respond to two crimes, where they care more about
preserving themselves than they do about the lives of the innocent.
You know, written in the fifties, it was quite far sighted.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 4: Then you look at you know, the Uvaldi shooting or
any number of cases in your country fears, and you know,
he has this line he says, you might as well.
You know, we we have created geldings and we bid
them to bear fruit. And I think that's a large
part of this that effectively we have been coasting on
the fumes of a society that believed in things, a
society that had transcendent claim about the purpose of what
your end goal as a man was, with the purpose
of society was. And as that's gone away, the kind
of innate corruption of humanity has flowered. Right, things that
people have always done, you know, done nasty things, traded
insider secrets. But if you've convinced a group of people
that your life is all there is that your personal enrichment,
the amount of you know, serotonin you can ingest in
your life, it's the only purpose of your existence. Well,
it's no shock that we see this, this sort of behavior,
and there's one more thing and then we can wrap
it up. But doing a long series, which is atypical
for me, on the occult and on these sort of
you know, occult killings and these kind of occult rings,
not for the purpose of being you know, salacious, not
for the purpose of building a wide audience, but because
and this has been justified by these Epstein files as well.
Very clearly these people believe in evil, right, they believe
in some form of spirituality, and they're powerful, ostensibly serious people.
If they do, why don't you to be perfectly blunt
about it. Curious, I'm curious to get your thoughts.
Speaker 2: On that more than that. Everybody likes to speak about
the problem of evil and how the problem of evil
discredits the idea of a benevolent deity, But it's the
other way around. It's the problem of good that you
should think about. If you want to be good and
object to evil, you need a rock to stand on,
and that rock is the Christian faith. With all of
the faults of Christian leaders, with all of the faults
of people around you, there is no answer to the
problem of evil except by realizing that there is also
a problem of good, that this good in life comes
from God, and that you owe God something, You owe
God everything. When you see the world in its true beauty,
and when you see human beings in their true potential
and you understand how broken they are from the lack
of faith, you realize that you need to love the
people around you. And we all do it imperfectly, including myself.
I mean, I don't for a second claim that I'm
a good person. But you have to see that good,
and you have to try to see it in others,
even nasty people like the ones that we are trying
to speak about, And you have to seek that good
within yourself so that you can do the right thing,
because if you don't have a sense of good within yourself,
then why shouldn't you be corrupted? Why shouldn't you accept
the offer of, you know, being with the fancy people
and doing the nasty things that they do and enjoying
life the way they do, but selling your soul. So
it's about us finding our own commitment to the divine.
It's about us being genuine in our choice of faith,
and it's about us realizing that faith is a covenant
and a choice. You have to do your part. Abraham
is asked to do all kinds of insanely difficult things,
and what he receives for it is that his seed
down the line will become a great nation. But his
own life one challenge after the other, one misery after
the other, one sacrifice after the other. So we have
to be we have to be open to good if
we're going to combat evil. And it's not enough just
to rail against it. You have to fix yourself as well.
And if you don't try to fix yourself, it isn't
going to happen. It just isn't going to happen. So
start with yourself. Carry your own cross first. See the
beam in your own eye, and if we all do that,
we get a Christian hydrust society. But a high trust
society can be broken by one individual breaking behaving badly.
That's a breach of trust. And so if you want
to recover this hy trust society where you're not governed
by a rotten, immoral, degenerate, lustful oligarchy, you have to
start with yourself.
Speaker 4: For this has been a fascinating discussion. If people want
to find more of you, where can they do so?
Speaker 2: Oh? Thank you. You can find me on madagiopolitics dot com.
That's where I write my political analysis. I have another
blog called lovedianemy dot net which I'm not actually called
convert or die dot net sorry, which I'm not writing
on very often these days, but I will and you
can find me on x at firasmo Dad.
Speaker 4: Well, again, this has been been fascinating. I will have
to have you on again soon. As far as my stuff,
The Jayburden Show is available Apple, Spotify, YouTube, anywhere you
listen to podcasts. This is what I do. It's my
full time job. And if you think supporting me is
worth your money, I would appreciate it if you throw
me a few bucks on Patreon, Substack, or gum Road.
Get the episodes early in ad free. You can also
check out our sponsor ax Remote Fitness Coaching. If you
guys can probably tell, I've been sick for the last week,
which means I've not been able to use JD's services,
but I highly recommend it. He's another small businessman who
could use your support. Fiaris, it's been educational. I appreciate it,
and everyone at home keep your head off. Good night.