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