Speaker 1: All right, welcome everybody. I'm here with a steamed guest,
Speaker 1: Ben Swan. I first heard about Ben Swan around twenty ten,
Speaker 1: twenty eleven, and he was doing some pretty groundbreaking stuff
Speaker 1: back then. I remember being in Cincinnati. I want to say,
Speaker 1: you were maybe a Fox reporter in Cincinnati for a time.
Speaker 1: I remember that, and I remember I think you were
Speaker 1: on Alex a few times back in the day, and
Speaker 1: you covered a lot of information way ahead of most people.
Speaker 1: For example, my first time hearing about Epstein and that
Speaker 1: operation was I think from you and some of the
Speaker 1: reports you did back in the day.
Speaker 2: So maybe we could start with that, because I've.
Speaker 1: Put a lot of time into Epstein especially, and you've
Speaker 1: done some debates recently. I want to talk about the
Speaker 1: Middle East too and move into some of that as well.
Speaker 1: But Ben, thank you for coming on. What how did
Speaker 1: you get on this on the topic of Epstein and
Speaker 1: make so many sort of groundbreaking journalistic discoveries there.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Jay, thanks for having me. Man. I'm a big
Speaker 3: fan of what you do.
Speaker 4: So Epstein was interesting because I didn't know much about him,
Speaker 4: and it round, you know, twenty thirteen, really started learning
Speaker 4: more about who he was because of the plea deal
Speaker 4: that he had and information that was starting to come
Speaker 4: out about the sweetheart deal that he got, right, and
Speaker 4: that sweetheart deal obviously included things like, you know, when
Speaker 4: he was serving his I think eighteen months is all
Speaker 4: he got for his soliciting a minor for sex, which
Speaker 4: is crazy.
Speaker 3: But anyways, when he was.
Speaker 4: Doing that, apparently he had a deal where he was
Speaker 4: on work release, which meant that he would only sleep
Speaker 4: in the prison and he would go home every day
Speaker 4: because he worked from home, so he spent the whole
Speaker 4: day at his house. Then he would go back to
Speaker 4: the prison and he would have a security guard, his
Speaker 4: own private security go with him him and then he
Speaker 4: would sleep there and then he'd get off the next
Speaker 4: day and he'd go back for work to his house.
Speaker 4: And that was eighteen months. And when I first heard
Speaker 4: about that, I was like, who is this guy? And
Speaker 4: why does he command so much power? And why does
Speaker 4: he command the ability to gain the system? Maybe lots
Speaker 4: of people do, but in this case, it was kind
Speaker 4: of shocking, and so started looking into who he was
Speaker 4: and started finding out so many.
Speaker 3: Very weird things.
Speaker 4: As we now know much more about it, right, the
Speaker 4: public's much more aware of, but things like the fact
Speaker 4: that you know, this guy had money that came out
Speaker 4: of nowhere. No one knows how he got rich. At
Speaker 4: least at the time, we didn't know. He was connected
Speaker 4: to incredibly powerful people. He had these properties all over
Speaker 4: the world, he was flying around with presidents. I remember
Speaker 4: at the time it was starting to leak because it
Speaker 4: was considered a good thing, not a bad thing, that
Speaker 4: Bill Clinton was a close personal friend, and Bill Clinton
Speaker 4: would write on his Lolita Express plane constantly, and so
Speaker 4: that was kind of what I first started learning about
Speaker 4: him and trying to figure out, like, who was this guy?
Speaker 4: And I had no idea that he was running any
Speaker 4: kind of pedophile ring, you know, at the time, And
Speaker 4: so you started to learn more about it, and what
Speaker 4: you found was that whoever this person was, he had
Speaker 4: too much access and too much power, connected too powerful
Speaker 4: people to just be a financier. And for me, that's
Speaker 4: kind of where a lot of that started. And then yeah,
Speaker 4: over the years, I was way ahead of a lot
Speaker 4: of people on Epstein, and you know, have continued to
Speaker 4: be And now, of course we did the Pizzagate thing,
Speaker 4: which was totally unrelated.
Speaker 3: Didn't think that had any connection at.
Speaker 4: All, and now sitting here in twenty twenty six, we
Speaker 4: see how those things are actually intricately connected.
Speaker 1: Let me ask you about the notion of blackmail. This
Speaker 1: has become a very contentious topic. A lot of people
Speaker 1: think that this is probably not what he was mainly
Speaker 1: up to, that it was this other operation. I think
Speaker 1: it seems to me that he was a kind of consultant,
Speaker 1: a kind of criminal operative expert who was a networker,
Speaker 1: a fixer, and he seems to be involved in all
Speaker 1: kinds of things from economic scams to stock trading, to
Speaker 1: venture capital funding, to also a high level blackmail of
Speaker 1: people in tact, people in government, people in all sectors.
Speaker 1: And it looks to me like clearly he was at
Speaker 1: least working with multiple intelligence agencies, particularly also obviously the
Speaker 1: Israeli intelligence services.
Speaker 2: So do you agree.
Speaker 1: Do you think that there's a significant proof or at
Speaker 1: least very clear strong evidence is that he was an
Speaker 1: intelligence operative and a blackmailer.
Speaker 3: Absolutely?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I don't think there's I think anyone who looks
Speaker 4: at this story steps back from it and looks at
Speaker 4: it right. So one of the problems I think we
Speaker 4: have with Epstein right now, and I've said this for
Speaker 4: a long time about a lot of different issues, right,
Speaker 4: is the notion of disinformation. So one of the ways
Speaker 4: that disinformation does exist, now it never exists in the
Speaker 4: way that we're told it exists, right, but in the
Speaker 4: way that it truly exists is you get government actors
Speaker 4: or you get intelligence agencies. And what they do is
Speaker 4: they flood the Internet, or they flood chat rooms with
Speaker 4: I say, chatrooms like those really exist anymore, but they
Speaker 4: did a long time, especially.
Speaker 2: Your Aol instant messenger.
Speaker 4: Exactly, you know four chan in some of those places.
Speaker 4: But what they would do is they would flood bad.
Speaker 3: Information into there.
Speaker 4: And the purpose of that, the goal of that is
Speaker 4: if you put enough bad information in, I mean really
Speaker 4: crazy stuff, you taint the whole pool.
Speaker 3: And so no one knows what's real and what's not real.
Speaker 4: You don't know which threads to pool, you don't know
Speaker 4: which which directions to go in.
Speaker 3: And so a lot of that has happened over the
Speaker 3: years with a lot of stories. We've got to have
Speaker 3: a whole list of them.
Speaker 4: But Epstein is one of those stories, and particularly right now.
Speaker 4: So what's interesting about Epstein that makes him somewhat unique
Speaker 4: is that wasn't happening with him. For a long time,
Speaker 4: there wasn't a lot of bad information about Epstein. Now
Speaker 4: that the Epstein files have been released, a portion of
Speaker 4: them really only you know, about two percent of the
Speaker 4: data associated with the Epstein files has been released. That's
Speaker 4: pretty significant. Half the files, but two percent of the data,
Speaker 4: which means the majority of what's not released is video.
Speaker 4: I think that's pretty significant. But the reality is is
Speaker 4: that you have to step back from it and say, so,
Speaker 4: what do we know? You know, as a journalist, one
Speaker 4: thing I tell people all the time it is not
Speaker 4: my job to know why things happen. It is my
Speaker 4: job to figure out what is happening. And too many
Speaker 4: journalists today or influencers today, I think, spend their time
Speaker 4: talking about the why. I can't tell you the why,
Speaker 4: and it's not what I'm supposed to be doing because
Speaker 4: why forces me to a conclusion. But instead I can
Speaker 4: tell you what, and if we follow the what, you
Speaker 4: usually find the right answer. At least that's been my experience.
Speaker 4: And so in the case of Epstein, what do we know?
Speaker 4: We know that Epstein had properties in multiple locations. We
Speaker 4: know from well over a decade of reporting that Epstein
Speaker 4: had every single property rigged with cameras, surveillance equipment, and
Speaker 4: in every property he had rooms that were set up
Speaker 4: that were filled with TV monitors and recording equipment, recording
Speaker 4: onto VHS tapes at the time. You know, today twenty
Speaker 4: twenty six, people think about recording the surveillance. Everyone's recording
Speaker 4: all the time, everyone's surveillan all the time, but it's
Speaker 4: all going into a cloud, it's all being stored twenty
Speaker 4: years ago, thirty years ago. If you're trying to record
Speaker 4: people that there's only one way to do it. You've
Speaker 4: got to record that onto a VHS or a beta tape, right,
Speaker 4: and you have a physical, hard copy of whatever.
Speaker 3: This thing is. It's not digital.
Speaker 4: So Epstein had these these rooms set up, and again
Speaker 4: this is all pre flat screen TV, so he had
Speaker 4: monitors set up in these things and big TVs set up, right,
Speaker 4: big tube televisions set up inside of his properties, and
Speaker 4: he's recording onto these. So we know that, we know
Speaker 4: that every single one of his properties had cameras in
Speaker 4: every single bedroom, which again go back thirty years that's unusual,
Speaker 4: that's not so unusual today, But thirty years ago, twenty
Speaker 4: years ago, even ten years ago, it's pretty unusual to
Speaker 4: have a house rigged with cameras and recording equipment. We
Speaker 4: also know that even as recently as late last year
Speaker 4: early this year, that Epstein has multiple storage units around
Speaker 4: the country where he is hiding content. My guess would
Speaker 4: be if we were able to access those and find them,
Speaker 4: they would be full of VHS takes, They'd be full
Speaker 4: of recordings, right, because what does a billionaire financier do
Speaker 4: with lots of storage units.
Speaker 3: Spread out around the country.
Speaker 4: If you're keeping stuff that you want to access readily
Speaker 4: and easily, or that you were not trying to hide
Speaker 4: from people who might.
Speaker 3: Be curious as to where it is, you put it
Speaker 3: close to home.
Speaker 1: You know, go out, Ben, He's just storing his Playboy magazines.
Speaker 2: That's what are you talking about. He's just got a stash, right, right.
Speaker 4: And so you have this, you have these storage units.
Speaker 4: So again, what do we know. We know that this
Speaker 4: is a man who is gathering lots of video surveillance
Speaker 4: and he's keeping that surveillance somewhere because again it's not
Speaker 4: a digital archive, it's a physical, physical tape archive someplace.
Speaker 4: We also know, by the way, one more No, we
Speaker 4: also know that when Epstein's New York Town home was rated,
Speaker 4: we know that the FBI carried out boxes of surveillance
Speaker 4: tapes and equipment. That's undisputable, right, That's all in the record.
Speaker 1: Where is why we saw the photos of them carrying
Speaker 1: it all out and putting it into it, you know,
Speaker 1: black vehicles and SUVs, and then we never that's disappeared.
Speaker 2: We don't know about that now, So that doesn't exist.
Speaker 3: Where is it? So?
Speaker 4: So I think when we talk about it that way again,
Speaker 4: Jeffrey Epstein was not simply a guy with a taste
Speaker 4: for slightly underaged girls.
Speaker 3: That's just not who he is. He was a guy who.
Speaker 4: The reason he was so prolific is because it was
Speaker 4: his job. It was his job to entrap people and
Speaker 4: to be a honey trap, just like it was his
Speaker 4: father in law. Father in law, not exactly, I never
Speaker 4: married to Glade, but his girlfriend's father, Robert Maxwell, who
Speaker 4: did the same thing for decades.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: People always forget that the prior model, the template was
Speaker 1: Robert Maxwell. And if you read Whitney Webb's books, she
Speaker 1: argues that was a template that was kind of set
Speaker 1: up and funded via the Rothschilds in Britain to give
Speaker 1: Robert Maxwell kind of a cutout. They gave him this
Speaker 1: sort of publishing empire, They made him a corporate sort
Speaker 1: of takeover corporate vulture, takeover artists, and then a lot
Speaker 1: of that I think was transferred over to what just
Speaker 1: Laine and Jeffrey were supposed to be running. That's the model,
Speaker 1: and that makes sense too with the ties that Maxwell had,
Speaker 1: not just with British intelligence and and with Western intelligence,
Speaker 1: also with Israelis and trying to give information to the Soviets.
Speaker 1: So Maxwell famously played both sides, or tried to play
Speaker 1: both sides and the Cold War, most like arm and
Speaker 1: Hammer did and many other people, and some people who
Speaker 1: can argue that Lord Rothshaw himself tried to play both sides.
Speaker 1: There's significant evidence to suggest that what that means is
Speaker 1: that there's an international click that is apparently above nation
Speaker 1: state laws, that will play both sides of multiple conflicts.
Speaker 1: And before we get into the Middle East and Hamas,
Speaker 1: I thought your recent reporting on Hamas was excellent, so
Speaker 1: I want to talk.
Speaker 2: A little bit about that.
Speaker 1: But because that ties into sort of funding, you know,
Speaker 1: controlled opposition and opposite sides, you know, we've heard since
Speaker 1: Biden era that there that there are these white, white
Speaker 1: right wing extremists, terrorists everywhere. Lo and behold, turns out
Speaker 1: what many of us suspected, we have the SBLC and
Speaker 1: presumably other groups as well, still funding controlled opposition, fake
Speaker 1: cutout groups, most notably Charlottesville.
Speaker 2: Were you surprised when that came out? Not at all?
Speaker 3: Oh, my gosh, not at all. Listen.
Speaker 4: The argument that I have made about it is the
Speaker 4: SPLC doing this. Not only is it not surprising, it's
Speaker 4: surprising that it took this long for anyone to recognize
Speaker 4: what they're doing. Because the truth is, Jane, you and
Speaker 4: I both know this. The SPLC didn't create this playbook.
Speaker 4: This is an FBI playbook has been doing this for
Speaker 4: decades since just since ninety eleven, just since ninety eleven,
Speaker 4: the majority of terrorism plots that the FBI has broken up,
Speaker 4: and it all really was exemplified under the late Robert Muller.
Speaker 4: All those plots were plots that they would bring in informants.
Speaker 4: They pay them one hundred thousand dollars a year to
Speaker 4: go find a place where someone was plotting the you know,
Speaker 4: terrorist attack. They go to a group. They sit down
Speaker 4: out and they.
Speaker 5: Say, hey, hey, you guys want to blow up a bridge.
Speaker 5: And I don't know, I don't know, don't come on,
Speaker 5: come on, well we don't even have a bump. I'll
Speaker 5: get the bomb. Oh okay, well we don't have any money,
Speaker 5: I'll get the money. Just everybody meet here on this
Speaker 5: day at this time. Well, I don't know, I don't know.
Speaker 4: And they pester and pester, and they finally get like
Speaker 4: three guys to show up, five guys to show up,
Speaker 4: six people to show up at this bridge.
Speaker 3: I'll bring the money, I'll bring the bombs.
Speaker 4: They show up, the FBI bust them and says, look
Speaker 4: what we did, folks, we stopped another terrorist attack.
Speaker 3: He didn't stop anything, right, what did you stop?
Speaker 4: There's no terrorist attack here except the terrorist attack that
Speaker 4: was created.
Speaker 3: In the mind of the informant and in the mind
Speaker 3: of the FBI.
Speaker 4: And there is so much evidence at trials where these
Speaker 4: people have gone the trial where judges have called out
Speaker 4: the FBI on the record saying you're the ones who
Speaker 4: created the crime, You're the ones who thought up the crime,
Speaker 4: you're the ones who.
Speaker 3: Plotted and financed the crime.
Speaker 4: But because somebody says yes, under the way that the
Speaker 4: terrorism laws are written. Nope, you're responsible. And so the
Speaker 4: SBLC is just following the FBI playbook of how do
Speaker 4: we find those extremists who were out there, those white nationalists,
Speaker 4: and natzis We're going to pay people to pretend to
Speaker 4: be them, to stoke up people, to prove that they exist.
Speaker 4: It's it's craziness, but it's all government funded craziness.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this was you know, this goes back to like
Speaker 1: cointelpro and you know the back in the sixties and
Speaker 1: seventies when they wanted to frame a lot of the
Speaker 1: radical groups.
Speaker 2: And I'm not at all supporter of.
Speaker 1: The Black Panthers, but I remember reading about how the
Speaker 1: FBI is set up an informant named Richard Aoki, and
Speaker 1: what he did was he went to the Black Panther
Speaker 1: marches and pretended to be a huge supporter, which is funny.
Speaker 2: Because he's an Asian dude. But Asian dude and.
Speaker 1: The Black Panthers is fun that maybe maybe it'll be
Speaker 1: a little suspicious if you're a Black Panther of an
Speaker 1: Asian But what he would do is he would wear
Speaker 1: a bunch of machine guns and he was he was like, hey,
Speaker 1: we need to you know, we got a march with
Speaker 1: machine guns. And then they started marching with guns and
Speaker 1: that destroyed the image of the Black Panthers in the
Speaker 1: pre because everybody saw them as radicals, which I think
Speaker 1: technically they kind of were. But regardless, that playbook is
Speaker 1: copied and pasted and they did the exact same thing.
Speaker 1: By the way, in my opinion, I don't know what
Speaker 1: you think about OKAC, but if you look at the
Speaker 1: history of Timothy McVeigh in his relationship to Eloheim City,
Speaker 1: which was also a very closely tied to the SBLC
Speaker 1: and fed operation there honey trap that led to you know,
Speaker 1: the first big pre nine to eleven event with OKC.
Speaker 1: And you mentioned nine to eleven. You have same situation
Speaker 1: with Immaud Salaam in nineteen ninety three where he had
Speaker 1: recorded one of the FBI informant. He was a form
Speaker 1: and informant. He would be recorded his handlers trying to
Speaker 1: get them to you know, engage in the bombing. And
Speaker 1: so if I recall, he got off because he had
Speaker 1: recorded that. Yeah, so this is a pattern, as you said,
Speaker 1: and I want to take that to you know, Charlottesville.
Speaker 1: If you remember this was also you know, this is
Speaker 1: basically what Biden ran on, right, was he stood there
Speaker 1: in that big just in nineteen eighty four. See, you know,
Speaker 1: was talking about the white supremacist and we can't let
Speaker 1: Charlottesville happen again. Could you imagine an entire campaign running
Speaker 1: on an absolutely fraudilent event.
Speaker 3: Oh yes, I.
Speaker 4: Can absolutely imagine it. I think we're all witnessing it constantly. Right,
Speaker 4: it's so many fraudulent events. I want to say something though,
Speaker 4: about the Black Panther thing. You're right to bring that up,
Speaker 4: and I'm so glad you did for your viewers and
Speaker 4: listeners who don't know the history of the Black Panthers.
Speaker 3: And I agree with you.
Speaker 4: I think it's tough to say you're supportive of the
Speaker 4: Black Panthers, but if you go back and study what
Speaker 4: the original Black Panther movement was, it was not a
Speaker 4: radical movement at all. It was about protecting the women,
Speaker 4: specifically within their communities and the families in their communities.
Speaker 4: There were never weapons as a part of that. There
Speaker 4: was never violence as the original part of the Black
Speaker 4: Panther kind of a movement. And yes it was FBI
Speaker 4: informants who came in and they radicalize the whole thing.
Speaker 4: They changed the.
Speaker 3: Of weapons. As you said, there was never a weapon
Speaker 3: until this.
Speaker 4: Guy shows up with one. And what's upsetting about that
Speaker 4: to me is that I think there are so many
Speaker 4: grassroots movements, probably far more than we even know, that
Speaker 4: have been destroyed and ruined because some government hack decides
Speaker 4: that they don't like the way this thing's moving, or
Speaker 4: they want to disrupt this thing because there's this huge
Speaker 4: fear that the people are going to organize and the
Speaker 4: people are going to have power behind them, and so
Speaker 4: they have to go in there and infect and cause problems.
Speaker 4: And yes, absolutely, the Charlottesville is a great example of it.
Speaker 4: There was an entire campaign run on it. There was
Speaker 4: also an entire campaign run on not run, but it
Speaker 4: became a huge part of the first part of Biden's
Speaker 4: campaign or term excuse me was J six Right, which
Speaker 4: was also just a bunch of bs. The vast majority
Speaker 4: of the people who committed violence that day were undercover
Speaker 4: Capitol police and FBI, and over two hundred and forty
Speaker 4: FBI agents were in the crowd when originally we were
Speaker 4: told there were none, none at all. Then it turns out,
Speaker 4: oh okay, well, not none. Two hundred and forty of
Speaker 4: them are in there right. And one of the things
Speaker 4: we were able to document a few years ago is
Speaker 4: we were able to find at least four people in
Speaker 4: that crowd who were protesters, who were armed, who actually.
Speaker 3: Had guns on them.
Speaker 4: Every single one of them was an undercover We were
Speaker 4: able to prove that, every single one of them. So
Speaker 4: the only people who brought guns, the only people who
Speaker 4: brought weapons, were undercover agents. And then of course those
Speaker 4: are the agents. That's not counting informants. And there are
Speaker 4: stories reports of entire buses of men who were brought
Speaker 4: in the morning of seven am in the morning, six
Speaker 4: am in the morning, that came in on these buses.
Speaker 4: They got off some money, addressed this crowd of men
Speaker 4: as if they were informants or agents or whatever going
Speaker 4: to be this persion of the crowd.
Speaker 3: But they address them and they go off into the crowd.
Speaker 3: We have no idea how.
Speaker 4: Many undercover informants there were as a part of that
Speaker 4: crowd as well, And so there's so much wrong with
Speaker 4: the story. But then it became this whole never it's
Speaker 4: still happening there. I just saw on X this morning,
Speaker 4: some hack from MSNBC, you know, talking about how it's
Speaker 4: so important that we remember January sixth and the radical
Speaker 4: people who were there. You want to remember the radicals
Speaker 4: who were there in January sixth, Remember the FBI.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I was going to say, it's the establishment itself,
Speaker 1: that's the radicals, and they were calling it Remember at
Speaker 1: New Pearl Harbor, at New nine to eleven, which is
Speaker 1: absolutely preposterous. But yeah, that's an even better example, perhaps
Speaker 1: than Charlottesville, because you know, the media went ten times
Speaker 1: crazier with JA six than they did even with Charlottesville.
Speaker 1: And again, this is a repeat pattern of so many examples,
Speaker 1: so many instances. I don't want to beat this into
Speaker 1: the ground, but you know, many of the radical Muslims,
Speaker 1: as you said, you know, Trevor Aronson has a whole
Speaker 1: book about the terror factory that this has been essentially
Speaker 1: propped up. And the other thing too, is that a
Speaker 1: lot of the groups that they typically pinpoint as the
Speaker 1: you know, funders and the trainers of radical Muslims, for example,
Speaker 1: they tend to be also groups that the CIA has
Speaker 1: historically aided and funded and trained, such as al Qaeda,
Speaker 1: such as ISIS, And now we've seen recently with Timber Sycamore,
Speaker 1: which was twenty seventeen New York Times top article, at
Speaker 1: least a billion dollars put into overthrowing a sad. Eventually
Speaker 1: they got that, And how did they get that? By
Speaker 1: Israel and the CIA funding the al Qaeda ISIS fighters
Speaker 1: like Jiulani who they put in power in Syria, who
Speaker 1: then destroyed Christian churches, started persecuting all the all the
Speaker 1: religious minorities.
Speaker 2: And it's the.
Speaker 1: Groups then, the radical Muslim groups are also the radical
Speaker 1: Muslim groups that were our allies for so long.
Speaker 2: Could you speak to that?
Speaker 3: Oh?
Speaker 4: Absolutely, And that's something I've been covering since twenty ten
Speaker 4: right talking about this can In fact, I confronted President
Speaker 4: Obama about it at one point and asked him why
Speaker 4: he was saying we were at war with al Qaida
Speaker 4: when he was funding Al Kaieda in Syria at the time.
Speaker 4: And obviously we did it in every country, right, We've
Speaker 4: done it in Libya, We've done it in Syria, We've
Speaker 4: done it in Yemen. We fund them, we fight them,
Speaker 4: and then we fund them again. And it's so crazy
Speaker 4: to see right now, I mean, how disgusting is it
Speaker 4: to see a former al Qaeda leader? And I say
Speaker 4: former is not even a former an al Qaeda leader
Speaker 4: who is now the president of Syria. And because he
Speaker 4: wears a suit, now it's like we're all supposed to
Speaker 4: stand up and clapfor him and.
Speaker 3: Say what a guy. Way to go, so glad you're there.
Speaker 4: And the only reason he's even there is because of
Speaker 4: this proxy war in Ukraine that we've been fighting that
Speaker 4: kept the Russians too tied out, because the Russians are
Speaker 4: basically the ones who kept Asd from falling. They propped
Speaker 4: him up militarily and kept him from falling for all
Speaker 4: those years when Obama was trying to get rid of them.
Speaker 4: But we've done this for so many years. We've we've
Speaker 4: funded the mujha Haden. All right, if you go all
Speaker 4: the way back to Osaman bin Laden, we were Osama
Speaker 4: bin Lad's primary funder, Right, what do we do? We
Speaker 4: funded the musha Haaden. There was a New York Times
Speaker 4: article with Osama bin Laden standing on it that says
Speaker 4: freedom fighter and it's a picture of this guy that
Speaker 4: we're giving all these weapons to. Why because the Soviets
Speaker 4: are going into Afghanistan, and we've got to fund them
Speaker 4: to fight him. We funded Saddam Hussein for years. The
Speaker 4: reason Saddam Hussein had those chemical weapons was because Donald
Speaker 4: Rumsfeld sold him the chemical weapons so that we could
Speaker 4: hold off the Iranians during the Iraq Iran War in
Speaker 4: nineteen eighty in the early nineteen eighties. So we do
Speaker 4: this constantly, We fund them, and then all of a sudden,
Speaker 4: oh no, this is the great enemy, and now we
Speaker 4: have to stop them, and they're the main source of
Speaker 4: our problems in the world, right freedom in the world.
Speaker 4: So they go out there, Now we're gonna fight him,
Speaker 4: We're gonna remove them from power, and now we're going
Speaker 4: to bring in a great leader, someone who's really courageous
Speaker 4: and strong. And we bring some some you know, nut
Speaker 4: job in who takes over it. Usually someone who's coming
Speaker 4: out of the CIA, who's gone to Harvard or Yale
Speaker 4: or Princeton. They take over the country, they can't last
Speaker 4: because they're just a puppet, and then the country reverts
Speaker 4: back to an even worse state than it was in
Speaker 4: And so that's exactly how it played out in Afghanistan.
Speaker 4: I mean, it took us twenty years to replace the
Speaker 4: Taliban with the Taliban.
Speaker 3: A few of these propped up fake.
Speaker 4: You know leaders along the way, but they're all so
Speaker 4: so corrupt, humming cars. I remember that guy, you know,
Speaker 4: he was they would give they.
Speaker 1: Would bring suitcases of cash and gold and just pay him,
Speaker 1: and that facilitated the drug trade.
Speaker 4: And then when he would decide that he was going
Speaker 4: to leave the country right and get out, what does
Speaker 4: he do. He just throws all the suitcases full of
Speaker 4: money and gold onto a plane and leaves. And that's like, oh, well,
Speaker 4: we need a new leader, and then it ends up
Speaker 4: being the Taliban again.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: So the good news is for the Taliban was this
Speaker 4: time when we left, we left them all the weaponry
Speaker 4: that we had brought there. So that's good. At least
Speaker 4: you have a you know, a fairly sophisticated military now,
Speaker 4: which you didn't have before you rode around of pickup
Speaker 4: trucks with machine guns on the back. So yeah, it's
Speaker 4: just total craziness. American foreign policy has been crazy for
Speaker 4: so long. We all know that anybody who's watching the
Speaker 4: good news is right now with the war in Iran.
Speaker 4: I think the vast majority of the public sees it
Speaker 4: in a way that they haven't before. So for guys
Speaker 4: like you and me, you know, who have followed people
Speaker 4: like Ron Paul for a long time and know kind
Speaker 4: of what he has warned about in terms of blowback
Speaker 4: and this interventionist state, we can look at that and say, oh, yeah, okay,
Speaker 4: we're aware, But the vast majority of the American public
Speaker 4: doesn't know. I think now they do. I think finally
Speaker 4: we've hit the point where even though Trump has gone
Speaker 4: off the reservation with this Iran war, Trump did do
Speaker 4: a certain of us to the country in that for
Speaker 4: the last ten years he's been the guy who's been
Speaker 4: beating up neocons for winning the wars. Now he went
Speaker 4: into it, so that's no good. But there is an
Speaker 4: awareness in the public and an awareness in the political
Speaker 4: world that wasn't there before him. So at least I
Speaker 4: will give him credit for that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, thinking of the Middle East and the
Speaker 1: stuff that I've read and researched about it, this is
Speaker 1: really an old It's an older strategy that the British
Speaker 1: and bar had, where you you do a lot of
Speaker 1: controlled opposition in order to divide and conquer, and this
Speaker 1: is just goes all the way back to Caesar.
Speaker 2: Caesar had a very.
Speaker 1: Worked out philosophy of dividing conquer by pitting the tribes
Speaker 1: against each other. And sometimes you could leave weapons. Cash
Speaker 1: is there and then they get access to it. And
Speaker 1: I was talking to John Kiriaku, the CIA whistleblower, on
Speaker 1: the Channel a couple of days ago, and we got
Speaker 1: into this topic of excuses and intentional excuses, and I
Speaker 1: read some researchers and some analysts who who had posited
Speaker 1: that back in the nineteen seventies when there were some
Speaker 1: really important Bilderberg meetings, Kissinger kind of worked.
Speaker 2: Out a deal to establish the US.
Speaker 1: In terms of the Petro dollar, intentionally to be reliant
Speaker 1: on Middle Eastern oil. And the reason for that wasn't
Speaker 1: just money or something like that. It was actually to
Speaker 1: give perhaps also an excuse for the US to then
Speaker 1: police all of these countries because of the oil problems.
Speaker 1: And we got to save the Petro doll. We got
Speaker 1: to do this for the for the oil. For the oil. Well,
Speaker 1: if we have enough native oil, which people like Trump,
Speaker 1: you know, ran on that we have, we don't need all.
Speaker 2: We don't need far and oil. We got nfoil here
Speaker 2: probably get the most best.
Speaker 1: Oil, we don't need to go into all these other countries.
Speaker 1: But it's by design, because it's an excuse. Just like
Speaker 1: as you said, with these proxy groups, leave a giant
Speaker 1: bunch of weapons there in Afghanistan.
Speaker 2: Ah, we'll see.
Speaker 1: We still got to police the region because they've got
Speaker 1: all the So in other words, a lot of these
Speaker 1: failures or things that don't make sense actually make perfect
Speaker 1: sense as regional excuses to police those regions.
Speaker 2: What do you think of that? Oh?
Speaker 4: I think, first of all, I think you do an
Speaker 4: excellent trump nice job.
Speaker 3: Yeah, No, it was good. It was very good.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think there's some truth to that. I think
Speaker 4: it gives us an excuse, certainly. I think it's deeper
Speaker 4: than that. I think if you go back to the
Speaker 4: origin of the petro dollar, I don't think it's coincidental
Speaker 4: that the petro dollar was established one year after we
Speaker 4: got off the gold standard. We come off the gold standard,
Speaker 4: and I think that that we thought we don't need that,
Speaker 4: and then realize we need something. It's got to be
Speaker 4: pegged to something, and why not oil? In fact, oil
Speaker 4: was gold, right, it might as well have been so
Speaker 4: crucial and it still is, by the way, as is
Speaker 4: being proven right now is still the lifeblood of world
Speaker 4: economies the world over. So I think there was a
Speaker 4: reason for that. What's fascinating is we don't need to
Speaker 4: be pegged to OPEK or allow OPEC to set our
Speaker 4: price and oil.
Speaker 3: We only allow it because of the petro dollar.
Speaker 4: So what's interesting is right now Trump is right when
Speaker 4: he says we don't need oil from other countries. Straight
Speaker 4: oh hord moves is it's their problem, even though he's
Speaker 4: the one who started this and created the problem. He says, well,
Speaker 4: it's not our problem. Well, he's righting about that. It's
Speaker 4: actually not. We're exporting lots of energy. We don't need
Speaker 4: to export anything if we just kept it here at home.
Speaker 4: The problem is because the price of oil is set
Speaker 4: in globally rather than country by country. American workers and
Speaker 4: American families pay a higher price when France can't get
Speaker 4: its natural gas and oil when India can't get oil.
Speaker 3: We are the ones who end up paying for it
Speaker 3: just like they do.
Speaker 4: So the problem that we have is you can't decouple
Speaker 4: from it without relinquishing control of the region. Again, listen,
Speaker 4: I keep saying this on different shows, and I don't
Speaker 4: even believe it, but I'm gonna say it anyways.
Speaker 3: I don't believe it, but.
Speaker 4: I do tease about the five D chess, Right, Trump
Speaker 4: and is five D chess? And I say, if what
Speaker 4: if Trump is really is playing five D chess and
Speaker 4: what he's really doing is saying and I let.
Speaker 3: You imitate it because you do the better impersonation.
Speaker 4: But if he said, look, there's no way for us
Speaker 4: to get out of the Middle East. There's no way
Speaker 4: to in these these forever wars, there's no way to
Speaker 4: shut down on these bases. How are you going to
Speaker 4: shut down sixteen US bases across the region? Twelve trillion
Speaker 4: dollars has been spent on them. How do we disconnect
Speaker 4: ourselves from opek?
Speaker 3: Right? How do we do all that?
Speaker 4: How do we get out of the Middle East without
Speaker 4: having to be the big brother in the Middle East? Ah,
Speaker 4: here's a crazy like a fox way, start a war
Speaker 4: with Iran and let a run destroy it all. Now again,
Speaker 4: I don't believe that's what he did. However, the end
Speaker 4: result is still the same, which is that sixteen US bases,
Speaker 4: all the bases in the region surrounding Iran obliterated, uninhabitable.
Speaker 4: It will cost trillions of dollars to rebuild them. At
Speaker 4: this point, the Opet countries and those Middle Eastern countries
Speaker 4: like Oman and Uae and even the Saudis, a lot
Speaker 4: of them are saying, why do we even have bases here?
Speaker 3: It's just making us a target.
Speaker 4: Iran is actually coming out of this particular war stronger
Speaker 4: than they went into the war. They are actually emerging
Speaker 4: as the fourth center of power globally in a way
Speaker 4: that I don't think anybody had on their bingo card.
Speaker 4: War with Iran will make a run stronger and make
Speaker 4: them more powerful. And so we're watching kind of an
Speaker 4: incredible moment here, and again I don't think it was
Speaker 4: actually intentional, but the end result is still true.
Speaker 3: The end result is.
Speaker 4: This, when this war comes to an end, there is
Speaker 4: an opportunity to walk away from the Middle East and
Speaker 4: to say there will be no more forever wars there,
Speaker 4: and we're going to walk away from that region because
Speaker 4: we're not going to spend all of our treasure rebuilding bases.
Speaker 4: We're not going to go back in and try to
Speaker 4: police that part of the world. In fact, this would
Speaker 4: be the most controversial part. Iran is obviously proving that
Speaker 4: they're the strongest in that region. Between them and Israel,
Speaker 4: those two can handle it. Everybody else has been destroyed, right,
Speaker 4: we destroyed Iraq, we destroyed Syria, we've destroyed Yemen, We've
Speaker 4: destroyed all these different countries around it. Not that Yemen
Speaker 4: was ever that powerful, but Libya is gone. Like, we've
Speaker 4: just obliterated all these countries. So whoever remains standing, you
Speaker 4: guys can figure it out. We're not gonna deal with
Speaker 4: it anymore, and we're going to focus on our chemisphere.
Speaker 4: We're going to focus over here. That to me is
Speaker 4: again I don't think it was actually intentional, but it's
Speaker 4: the end result. And so I think we're living in
Speaker 4: kind of a shocking moment for people like us, who,
Speaker 4: you know, we're just becoming adults around the time of
Speaker 4: ninety eleven, right around the time that we're kind of
Speaker 4: stepping into the world, and we stepped into an entirely
Speaker 4: different world. To now see a global reset happen in
Speaker 4: a matter of weeks, I think pretty stunning, pretty amazing.
Speaker 1: Well, the thing is, if you go back to the
Speaker 1: Odity non plan, and he was AERL. Sharon's, you know,
Speaker 1: foreign policy advisor, Secretary of State or whatever that was
Speaker 1: the original Greater Israel Project plan, and then you get
Speaker 1: clean break strategies, sort of updating it and sort of
Speaker 1: expanding it in different directions, and then throughout you know,
Speaker 1: post Desert Storm and all that stuff, we really seem
Speaker 1: to have done the foreign policy for the most part
Speaker 1: that Israel wanted. There was some time period when you know,
Speaker 1: Biden or Obama didn't do everything in regard to Iran
Speaker 1: that Israel wanted. But this seems to be essentially just
Speaker 1: the policies and the strategy that Israel wants in that region.
Speaker 1: Hence why for so long Netnyahu has said they're two weeks.
Speaker 2: Away from the bomb, they're going to get it.
Speaker 1: So twenty years of two weeks away from the bomb,
Speaker 1: and then net Yahoo also saying, you know, they'll do
Speaker 1: whatever we say talking about America, so we have to
Speaker 1: buy the balls right. So to me, it seems like
Speaker 1: it wasn't even about pet dollar. It's primarily those interests
Speaker 1: and the oil plays a role in it. But the
Speaker 1: other thing too, is that I brought this up with
Speaker 1: several other analysts too. A stronger Iran or even a
Speaker 1: stronger opposition in another country surrounding Israel, be it say
Speaker 1: Lebanon or something like that, that also provides an excuse.
Speaker 1: Is really is able to then say, look, we're oppressed.
Speaker 1: We have all of these crazy strong neighbors around us.
Speaker 1: At any moment, we could be destroyed. So if you
Speaker 1: don't support everything that we want, you're a warmonger, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Or excuse me, you're anti Semitic, et cetera. So that's
Speaker 1: another element and angle of the excuse. And that ties
Speaker 1: into your report about Hamas because the funding and the
Speaker 1: establishment and aiding of Hamas, which by the way, Victor Strowski,
Speaker 1: the former Masaud operative who wrote several books about this
Speaker 1: by way of deception, and then the second one that
Speaker 1: the book that actually discusses Israel funding Muslim Brotherhood in
Speaker 1: Egypt and then al Qaeda isis in Syria and Hamas
Speaker 1: as well to counterbalance the PLO. They actually like that
Speaker 1: chaotic destabilization because it's a huge excuse. And I thought
Speaker 1: you did a really great report on that, but people
Speaker 1: forget that. You know, this was in wiki leagues now
Speaker 1: who's openly talked about it, it's in the former of books.
Speaker 2: Could you go into some of why they do that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well absolutely. I mean you have to go back
Speaker 3: though in history, right.
Speaker 4: Into the nineteen seventies nineteen eighties, and what you find
Speaker 4: is that at the time there is a Palestinian movement,
Speaker 4: especially in the nineteen seventies that's growing, but it's.
Speaker 3: Almost entirely secular. You know. It's also interesting that we
Speaker 3: pretend this is.
Speaker 4: A big Holy war kind of between the West, the
Speaker 4: Christian West, and the Muslim Middle East. But the reality
Speaker 4: is before we started tampering over there, the Middle East
Speaker 4: was pretty much non religious in most countries, and so
Speaker 4: the Palestinian population was mostly secular. It was, it was
Speaker 4: not religious at all. In the nineteen seventies, early nineteen eighties,
Speaker 4: there is a group that starts to show up.
Speaker 3: Uh In in specifically Gaza in the West Bank.
Speaker 4: And these guys what they do is they're they're they're
Speaker 4: very radical uh and what they want to do is
Speaker 4: basically kill any man who is not a Muslim who
Speaker 4: is also Palestinian. And so they were actually known for
Speaker 4: shaking people on the streets. They come up and they
Speaker 4: shank shank these men who were secular Arabs living in
Speaker 4: that region. And that group was known as Hamas and
Speaker 4: the Israelis saw that at the time, and they thought, hey,
Speaker 4: we could use this right because there's this growing kind
Speaker 4: of international movement to create statehood for this Palestinian state.
Speaker 4: And part of the reason that there's such interest there
Speaker 4: is because it's mostly secular, uh and and you know,
Speaker 4: there's there's a lot of momentum here. So how do
Speaker 4: we disrupt that momentum. What way to disrupt that momentum
Speaker 4: is you have a domestic problem at home that distracts
Speaker 4: your population from focusing on international issues because you're just
Speaker 4: trying not to get shanked in the street by the
Speaker 4: crazy guy who's some kind of religious fanatic. And so
Speaker 4: at that point, that was the kind of the first
Speaker 4: time that Israel started funding Hamas, and they began funding them,
Speaker 4: sending over money. Get these guys money, why because they're
Speaker 4: going to create problems. Nineteen ninety four, nineteen ninety three
Speaker 4: or nineteen ninety four. It's the first time I believe
Speaker 4: that a rocket is fired from Gaza into Israel. And
Speaker 4: that's because by that time they had converted by force
Speaker 4: the entire population pretty much. It took about fourteen fifteen
Speaker 4: years to do so. But again, Israel was instrumental in that.
Speaker 4: So the first thing they did is you know, today
Speaker 4: Israel as a NASA will cry and say, oh, these
Speaker 4: Muslims hate us and they despise us because they're religious beliefs.
Speaker 3: But that wasn't why this happened.
Speaker 4: It was because you forced out and forcibly converted them
Speaker 4: all to these religious beliefs. Then what we see is
Speaker 4: that net Yahu, over the last twenty years has continued
Speaker 4: to adopt this strategy and utilize this strategy because he
Speaker 4: saw again an ability to now try to prevent that
Speaker 4: statehood from taking place. Because if the government of the
Speaker 4: Palestinians is run by Hamas and that's a terror organization,
Speaker 4: the world can never accept it and it will never
Speaker 4: have legitimacy.
Speaker 3: So how do you keep them down?
Speaker 4: Well, suitcases, you know, coming through Katar, coming through the
Speaker 4: UAE in different places, suit cases full of money being delivered,
Speaker 4: billions of dollars, and these are ours, these aren't This
Speaker 4: is not Israeli money, This is US taxpayer dollars delivered
Speaker 4: to Hamas. And we've paid them off with billions of
Speaker 4: dollars to strengthen them, to fund them.
Speaker 3: To keep them there.
Speaker 4: Because then Yahu knew he needed to keep, you know,
Speaker 4: Hamas in control of the Palestinians because if it becomes
Speaker 4: again a less radical group, it's not a terror group
Speaker 4: that takes over or runs the government in the Gaza
Speaker 4: or in the West Bank. If that happens all of
Speaker 4: a sudden, he doesn't have the same kind of.
Speaker 3: Kind of universal support.
Speaker 4: And so you know, on October seventh, when you sit
Speaker 4: and say Hamas must.
Speaker 3: Be destroyed, I just have a hard time with that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm no fan of Hamas at all, but let's
Speaker 4: not pretend that Hamas is a creation in and of
Speaker 4: itself or of the Palestinian people.
Speaker 3: It's not.
Speaker 4: Hamas is a creation of Israel. It was funded by Israel.
Speaker 4: They backed it every step of the way. They've continued
Speaker 4: to do that for decades. And the fact that they
Speaker 4: are not held responsible for creating the very group that
Speaker 4: now they insist they have the right to commit a
Speaker 4: genocide in order to stop is insanity to me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's funny you said that because you mentioned the
Speaker 1: seventies and going back into the forties and fifties when
Speaker 1: Oss and CAA began to get really involved in the
Speaker 1: Middle East. There's a great book by Miles Copeland, the
Speaker 1: CIA operative, who discusses his time in Egypt and Syria
Speaker 1: and the consultant consult the consulting that he did for
Speaker 1: the CIA, and he talks very openly about how useful
Speaker 1: it was to utilize the radical Muslim groups when they
Speaker 1: were necessarily including false flag term. And that's relevant because
Speaker 1: there was an older plan that the CIA initially had
Speaker 1: where they thought that they could secularize the Middle East
Speaker 1: and they could create a kind of what they call
Speaker 1: pan Arabism, and that that would lead to a kind
Speaker 1: of a better situation for the Middle East. But that
Speaker 1: didn't work. First of all, they said, well, a lot
Speaker 1: of these people are too tribal, so it's not going
Speaker 1: to work to have a sort of pan arab uh, you.
Speaker 2: Know, secular state. But there were a lot of secular.
Speaker 1: States, right And that's even where you get say people
Speaker 1: like Saddam and the Bathist. Originally the CIA is supported
Speaker 1: about this party, but then when Saddam was no longer useful,
Speaker 1: he could become this you know, uh puppet, you know,
Speaker 1: bad guy that we got to take down. That we
Speaker 1: put there same situation with the usage of say the
Speaker 1: Muslim Brotherhood Originally British intelligence funded them, and then they
Speaker 1: gained a significant power and ability and they were actually
Speaker 1: used a long time ago to over They attempted to
Speaker 1: use them to overthrow I want to say, maybe even
Speaker 1: Asad's father or something like that a long time ago,
Speaker 1: and that event didn't work.
Speaker 2: It's a famous declassified the operation back in the day.
Speaker 1: But they switched from secular pan Arabism to using radical
Speaker 1: Muslims because the Brazienski and people like that understood that
Speaker 1: was actually a better strategy that the British Empire employed
Speaker 1: when they would make alliances with the various Sunni Salafia
Speaker 1: hobby groups against the Ottomans.
Speaker 2: So they copied the old.
Speaker 1: British imperial model aligning themselves with the radicals because the
Speaker 1: chaos and the destruction again is a much better excuse
Speaker 1: and a much better tool than trying to create these
Speaker 1: sort of you know.
Speaker 2: Against secular Arab states. But all of that just to.
Speaker 1: Say that, I think that really backs up your point,
Speaker 1: like we didn't go with strategies that would actually make
Speaker 1: the region better. We went with the strategies that would
Speaker 1: create the chaos. So it's really controlled chaos, and I
Speaker 1: think you could I don't mean to get off too
Speaker 1: off top, because I got some other topics I want
Speaker 1: to ask you about, but you could say the same
Speaker 1: thing about the strategy that the CIA had during the
Speaker 1: Cold War throughout a lot of the Eastern Soviet block countries. Right,
Speaker 1: they would again fun all kinds of radical groups against
Speaker 1: the Soviets, and it doesn't make the Soviets good, but
Speaker 1: it means that this is a very dangerous strategy that,
Speaker 1: as you said, can produce a lot of blowback.
Speaker 3: Well, and it does, and it's the exact same.
Speaker 4: It's funny because we keep talking about this in terms
Speaker 4: of history, which I think is important because people need to.
Speaker 3: See and understand that historically this has been the case.
Speaker 3: Nothing that's happening now is happening in the vacuum.
Speaker 4: However, those same strategies are still being employed right this minute, right,
Speaker 4: and even as recently as twenty fourteen in Ukraine, the
Speaker 4: whole Color Revolution.
Speaker 3: That took place there. CIA did all that war that's
Speaker 3: being fought right now, right.
Speaker 4: Who are we funding. We're funding Nazis, not not neo Nazis.
Speaker 4: These are original like.
Speaker 2: Hard old Galen networks.
Speaker 4: Yeah, right, the Stefan bendera loving Nazis in Ukraine. And
Speaker 4: the crazy part of that is if Ukraine had had
Speaker 4: the ability to win, which they didn't, they had no
Speaker 4: idea what they're doing.
Speaker 3: And by the way, oh my gosh, just if I
Speaker 3: can just mention this.
Speaker 4: I don't know if you saw this, but the Anthony
Speaker 4: Blinkett interview he just did where he admits that that
Speaker 4: he and Biden were sending them javelins and all kinds
Speaker 4: of missiles and weapons into Ukraine almost six or seven months.
Speaker 3: Before the war started.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so they claimed that, you know, they were claiming
Speaker 4: at the time, Oh, this was totally unprovoked. Ukraine was
Speaker 4: just sitting over here praying, and then Russia decided they
Speaker 4: were going to invade and try to conquer them. Why
Speaker 4: were you Why were you sending all these weapons in there?
Speaker 4: You knew exactly what you were doing. You were starting
Speaker 4: a war, you were you were trying to drive them
Speaker 4: into it. Now, fortunately, you know, the Russians have played
Speaker 4: it really well, and you know, there's they have no
Speaker 4: way that they're going to lose this war. Ukraine is
Speaker 4: utterly defeated at this point, and it's really only by
Speaker 4: Putin's kindness that he didn't just roll over and flatten them.
Speaker 4: If if Putin were an American leader, or an American
Speaker 4: leader were in Putin's place, they just would have flattened
Speaker 4: the whole of Ukraine already, Uh, and then hired contractors
Speaker 4: to rebuild.
Speaker 3: The whole thing.
Speaker 4: Uh. He's not doing it that way. But the point
Speaker 4: being had, if you could go back in time and
Speaker 4: change history and what's going to happen, and Ukraine had
Speaker 4: been victorious, we would literally have a nation now run
Speaker 4: by Nazis, controlling Russia and controlling nuclear weapons in that
Speaker 4: part of the world. That's what you would have if
Speaker 4: you would if if you would won. And so it's
Speaker 4: the exact same problem that we keep facing. You pick
Speaker 4: the worst people, the most dangerous people, the most radical people,
Speaker 4: the most chaotic people, and you give the weapons and
Speaker 4: training and money, and you say, nothing bad's gonna happen,
Speaker 4: or if it does, ain't gonna be my problem because
Speaker 4: I won't be around for it anymore.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: No, this is a very important recent event that absolutely
Speaker 1: ties into all this. Yet another you know it's still
Speaker 1: in the news, right, the Ukraine situation, Like you said,
Speaker 1: that was that that goes back to the nineteen eighties
Speaker 1: with Israeli Soros, and he was the one of the
Speaker 1: key people that pioneered the funding through the need and
Speaker 1: through all these different NGOs the Color Revolution model. And
Speaker 1: they didn't just do it with the soft power, gene
Speaker 1: sharp technologies. They also brought in, as you said, weaponry.
Speaker 1: They're also arranged. At least the Ukrainian services did a
Speaker 1: sniper event to happen that helped kicked off the mind
Speaker 1: on situation. And that's a that's a very interesting pattern
Speaker 1: that you see popping up a lot in these kinds
Speaker 1: of operations to start these kinds of so called coups,
Speaker 1: which are not organic, they're actually manufactured at least to
Speaker 1: a degree. And then if we recall another thing that
Speaker 1: I always bring up because people will still call in
Speaker 1: the baby about this subject, there's there were multiple biolabs
Speaker 1: that had been set up in Ukraine and other places
Speaker 1: right along the border of Russia. That's obviously an intentional
Speaker 1: provocation as well as other things that were happening in
Speaker 1: that region to provoke Russia via NATO for many years.
Speaker 1: So we will do these provocations and then when when
Speaker 1: Russia retaliates, then we say, oh we were cry bullies
Speaker 1: about it, right, that's the cry bully strategy.
Speaker 4: But no, no, you're one hundred percent say it happens
Speaker 4: all the time, and it was a provocation. And the
Speaker 4: fact is the biolabs were set up along. Remember that
Speaker 4: when when Zelenski was elected, a lot of Americans don't
Speaker 4: even know anything about Zelinsky.
Speaker 3: We actually did a whole series on him, and I've
Speaker 3: learned a lot about him.
Speaker 4: Yeah, the guy's unbelievable, unbelievable, But this was a guy
Speaker 4: who he was a TV actor, right, he gets just
Speaker 4: put in this position as a guy who's playing a
Speaker 4: teacher who accidentally becomes president, as a man of the people. Right,
Speaker 4: And then all of a sudden, he has a TV
Speaker 4: show called The.
Speaker 3: Servant of the People.
Speaker 4: His employer is an olagarten named Koleamoyski, who basically owns
Speaker 4: the TV network. After the show becomes a hit, they
Speaker 4: quietly register an actual party called the Servant of the
Speaker 4: People Party. And then within two years of this TV
Speaker 4: show being this big hit, because they're pumping all this
Speaker 4: money into it, putting in front of everybody, Zelensky decides,
Speaker 4: in fact, he's actually running for president under the sprint
Speaker 4: of the People Party. The whole thing's almost comical, except
Speaker 4: it worked. But one of the things he ran on
Speaker 4: was ending the war that had been going on in
Speaker 4: the dumb Boss for ten years. Because remember a lot
Speaker 4: of Americans don't know there was a war already going
Speaker 4: on there, right That dom Mos region, which is the
Speaker 4: eastern most part of Ukraine, is ethnically Russian. They speak Russian.
Speaker 4: I actually just learned the other day that eighty percent
Speaker 4: of Ukrainians speak Russian and that almost no one speaks
Speaker 4: this Ukrainians as they.
Speaker 3: Call it that too, Just kidding guys.
Speaker 4: No, in reality, yeah, they do not speak this Ukrainian
Speaker 4: language as it's been created. And so the funny thing
Speaker 4: is is that Zelenski didn't speak Ukrainian until they started
Speaker 4: running for president. He was actually a native Russian speaker.
Speaker 4: So one of the provocations is you didn't in that
Speaker 4: they actually began shelling. Fourteen thousand people living in eastern
Speaker 4: Ukraine were killed from twenty fourteen until twenty twenty two
Speaker 4: by shelling from the Ukrainian armed forces shelling them. So
Speaker 4: those people were in a war. And then they're like, oh,
Speaker 4: Russia came over here for no reason. No, they came
Speaker 4: for a reason because those people are ethnically Russian and
Speaker 4: we're begging for help. Won Russian speakers in Ukraine were
Speaker 4: oppressed because Zelenski passed a law that says, you can't
Speaker 4: speak Russian, no books can be in Russian, no schools
Speaker 4: can teach Russian. Russian speakers were basically banned from speaking
Speaker 4: Russian and public in Ukraine. It's crazy. That's an oppression
Speaker 4: of the people. Churches were shut down, like there was
Speaker 4: a lot happening there that of course, our media is
Speaker 4: never going to tell you what was happening. All this
Speaker 4: stuff is going on, and so Russia sees this as
Speaker 4: a provocation and they're getting closer and closer, and then
Speaker 4: Kamala Harris goes over and says, we need to make
Speaker 4: Ukraine part of NATO.
Speaker 3: Now what week later is when the war starts.
Speaker 4: That's the final red line that Putin's like, I can't
Speaker 4: let you cross that red line, guys, because we know
Speaker 4: what you're doing.
Speaker 3: You've been poking us for years.
Speaker 4: You're killing these people who are in the reaching they're
Speaker 4: begging for help. But when you come out, it didn't
Speaker 4: say and by the way, also, you know what else
Speaker 4: we're gonna do We're gonna make make Ukraine part of NATO.
Speaker 3: Then you don't have a choice. You gotta do something.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And there was that classic clip of George Soros
Speaker 1: talking about how this was all his, he took credit
Speaker 1: for all this.
Speaker 2: He's like, yeah, would Grain is mine? I did all
Speaker 2: of that.
Speaker 1: And then you have Zolenski in the emails. To bring
Speaker 1: this full circle back to jeff Stein mcguffrey, you have
Speaker 1: Zolenski in the text messages saying.
Speaker 2: Good Jeffrey, I need Jeffrey consultation, right.
Speaker 1: And then the other thing I thought that was really
Speaker 1: funny that Zelenski said was when he when he was
Speaker 1: on TV.
Speaker 3: He was a black runk.
Speaker 1: Please come through you Grain, billion dollar business, blackrug. So
Speaker 1: this guy's so ridiculous that he's actually asking for Epstein
Speaker 1: to come and help him to consult on how to
Speaker 1: run these things. And by the way, people forget how
Speaker 1: to run and help run a coup against Putin.
Speaker 2: That was in the Epstein falls.
Speaker 4: And multiple meetings between Zelensky and Epstein lunch meetings. There
Speaker 4: are conversations and there are documents that indicate that Zelensky
Speaker 4: may have been trafficking kids out of Ukraine via Jeffrey
Speaker 4: Epstein and the networks that they had. Another really interesting
Speaker 4: connection though, that I always bring up to people. It's
Speaker 4: a little bit left field, but there's a name that's
Speaker 4: a big part of the Pizzagate conspiracy. It's a woman
Speaker 4: by the name of Marina Abramovich. Marina Abramovich is like
Speaker 4: a perform like spirit cookie. Yeah, that's it, spirit cooking.
Speaker 3: So get this.
Speaker 4: I don't know if you've heard this or not, but
Speaker 4: at one point in twenty twenty three, Zelensky decides that
Speaker 4: he wants Marina Abramovich to be an ambassador for Ukraine.
Speaker 4: Not ambassador to Ukraine, an ambassador for Ukraine. Now keep
Speaker 4: in mind she is not Ukrainian.
Speaker 3: She is Romanian.
Speaker 4: But he wants a Romanian woman to come to Ukraine
Speaker 4: and be ambassador for Ukraine. And you know who, he
Speaker 4: wants her to be an ambassador to the orphans.
Speaker 2: Yeah, man, exactly.
Speaker 1: I brought that up on a big podcast. I don't
Speaker 1: remember which one it was. I mentioned it within the
Speaker 1: last year or so, I don't know if it's tim
Speaker 1: cast or what it was, and nobody believed me.
Speaker 2: They were like, no, no, they didn't make her. Yes,
Speaker 2: it did. Look it up, sure enough, It's on the
Speaker 2: State Department website.
Speaker 3: It's totally nuts to me.
Speaker 4: It was like that was like, for me, the most
Speaker 4: full circle moment of all these stories.
Speaker 3: It's like, it really is.
Speaker 4: George Carlin said, you know, it's a small club, and
Speaker 4: you ain't in it.
Speaker 3: It's a small club.
Speaker 4: And it's incredible when you think, you know, you have
Speaker 4: these kids whose parents and by the way, whose parents
Speaker 4: are sent off to war, and whose dads even today
Speaker 4: are being dragged off the streets out of their homes,
Speaker 4: pulled out of cars. I saw a video today of
Speaker 4: a guy running on his roof and they're going up
Speaker 4: on the roof to get him to drag him away.
Speaker 3: And it's just totally insane.
Speaker 4: You guys, a Linsk that right now traveling around your
Speaker 4: demanding that European nations forcibly exiled the Ukrainians who fled there,
Speaker 4: the men back to the country so they can fight. Meanwhile,
Speaker 4: you have we're covering this in our shows today. You
Speaker 4: have these emails now between the former defense minister and
Speaker 4: the advisor to Zelensky, to Zelensky, these emails back and
Speaker 4: forth between them talking about how ending the war is
Speaker 4: bad for business, talking about the Project twenty three, which
Speaker 4: is the fund they set up where they were taking
Speaker 4: forty to seventy percent of all the money sent in
Speaker 4: is being kept there and then spent on homes and cars.
Speaker 4: It's it's so repulsive, it's so disgusting, Jay to think
Speaker 4: about the fact that these men, there's an entire generation,
Speaker 4: maybe multiple generations of men completely genocided in Ukraine by
Speaker 4: their own government, killed off, sent off to a meat grinder.
Speaker 4: And then you have Zelensky who's just making money buying homes,
Speaker 4: wants to keep the whole thing going because it's good
Speaker 4: for business, and then demanding, you know.
Speaker 3: What, those guys who made it out, hey send them
Speaker 3: back because we need more bodies to throw into this thing.
Speaker 3: It is so unbelievable to me, and any world leader.
Speaker 4: Who stands up at applaud for this guy sends him money,
Speaker 4: it's like this blood is on your hands too.
Speaker 3: It's horrible.
Speaker 1: Yeah, on that topic, relating directly to again to Epstein,
Speaker 1: because you know, one of the things that you went
Speaker 1: hard on in the paint for many years was the
Speaker 1: Big Pizza event. Now we had this period where after
Speaker 1: that shooting and the hard drive got shot and all
Speaker 1: of that. Oh, this was all de boomed. Supposedly it
Speaker 1: all went away. Supposedly. Lo and behold when the Epstein
Speaker 1: files and emails and the text mesters, all this comes out. Wow,
Speaker 1: it's looking like actually the pizza event might have been
Speaker 1: what we suspected.
Speaker 2: And of course you recently did a debate on this topic.
Speaker 1: So first for Pete pizza skeptics here, what do you
Speaker 1: think is are the key proofs that really something substantial
Speaker 1: was going on? And are there things in the Epsteine
Speaker 1: files and emails that actually sort of substantiate that.
Speaker 4: Well, the first thing in the Epstein files is that
Speaker 4: you have nine hundred and eleven references to pizza right
Speaker 4: by the way. None of those is the name of
Speaker 4: a pizza place. None of those is a receipt for
Speaker 4: an actual pizza. It's nine hundred and eleven times there
Speaker 4: are conversations about pizza, about we're going to find a
Speaker 4: new place and we'll pick one together. I'm really excited
Speaker 4: to have this pizza with you. This woman is pregnant
Speaker 4: and she looks so happy. She's glowing. Oh that's the
Speaker 4: pizza inside of her. That's a pretty obvious one. And
Speaker 4: so we see this terminology as used all throughout it. Look,
Speaker 4: here's what's super important to me about this, And as
Speaker 4: you mentioned, I've done a couple of debates about it.
Speaker 4: There are people who are like, come on, man, and
Speaker 4: you really believe this?
Speaker 3: It is.
Speaker 4: So it is in my mind undeniable, unquestionable right that
Speaker 4: pizza CP, cheese pizza is code language that pedophiles have
Speaker 4: used for well over a day.
Speaker 1: That we know, right, there's no question CP.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: We know in twenty twenty three the FBI arrested someone
Speaker 4: for CP by using the fact that he was referring
Speaker 4: to cheese pizza.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 4: So if it's good enough for the FBI to arrest
Speaker 4: someone using this language, I think it's probably good for
Speaker 4: us too. So there's no question, no doubt in my
Speaker 4: mind at all. And I think there's plenty of proof
Speaker 4: of that. The question is was Epstein using it in
Speaker 4: that way? I don't know, But the point is that
Speaker 4: that is worthy of investigation. It's worthy of looking into
Speaker 4: to say, look, if this man is using the same
Speaker 4: kind of language, and he is talking about pizza regularly
Speaker 4: with people and using food coded language, and we know
Speaker 4: that it's also used in these other circles, and it's
Speaker 4: used in very similar ways to the way that the
Speaker 4: Podesta emails were using it. Again, it's worth investigation. But
Speaker 4: what's nonsensical to me are the people who.
Speaker 3: Look at that and go, ah, probably Mathoth. It's probably mathoing. Look.
Speaker 3: I have an email box right now.
Speaker 4: I have like fourteen thousand unread emails in it, right
Speaker 4: probably one hundred thousand emails in it. And if I searched,
Speaker 4: and I did this the other day just as a test,
Speaker 4: and I searched the word pizza and other than talking
Speaker 4: about pizzagate, I don't have any emails about pizza.
Speaker 3: I just don't.
Speaker 4: That doesn't mean that you're guilty if you have them.
Speaker 4: What I'm saying is, how many actual pizza emails do
Speaker 4: you have? How many conversations do you have over email
Speaker 4: with people about pizza or beef jerky? Yeah, beef jerky
Speaker 4: is a big one. The other thing that's interesting to
Speaker 4: me is the Epstein story I think opened up a
Speaker 4: wider gate to this. Right, so the Podesta's have somewhat
Speaker 4: limited with the pizza, and then the Epstein thing opens
Speaker 4: it up more because he does talk about jerky, and
Speaker 4: it looks like there's a lot there that indicates it
Speaker 4: could be about cannibalism. I will tell you we're working
Speaker 4: on a film about it, and I think we're gonna
Speaker 4: present some really interesting stuff, including stuff that is going
Speaker 4: to actually shock shock some people in terms of the
Speaker 4: original Pizzagate story and stuff that was debunked. Turns out
Speaker 4: it wasn't. And we got some pretty amazing stuff that
Speaker 4: we were able to find. But we'll save that for
Speaker 4: another day.
Speaker 1: But yes, all right, so I know Ben's got to
Speaker 1: go soon. Let me hit a couple of super chats
Speaker 1: really quick here and see if we can get maybe
Speaker 1: a couple over to him before he has to leave
Speaker 1: for another show.
Speaker 2: Poncho says, there's.
Speaker 1: A jihad, a Jihad Nashid that's called back to the
Speaker 1: Way of the Conqueror, and this oddly ran at the
Speaker 1: same time. Lenski's gay chicken dance song. That's interesting, Matt's
Speaker 1: Billy Donkey three dollars, put us into put wait, let
Speaker 1: me put on my glasses. I got boomer eyes. I
Speaker 1: can't read these. Put us into Resident Evil cosplay, and
Speaker 1: you have a man as an umbrella corporation guarden soldier
Speaker 1: and a woman as Alice Teddy says, for five dollars, Jay,
Speaker 1: I have a good movie for you. It's called Ken
Speaker 1: Russell's The Devils. It's been restored and it's redone.
Speaker 2: I'm familiar with it. I've seen it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Peter says for ten dollars. I'm guessing that the p
Speaker 1: eight actually woke been up. Perhaps is this the case
Speaker 1: the one did pizza the pizza then?
Speaker 4: Oh no, no, no, the thing that woke me up.
Speaker 4: It's actually going all the way back to twenty twelve
Speaker 4: and Ron Paul. That was the first place where I
Speaker 4: really woke up because I was covering it at the
Speaker 4: Todges real quick. I was covering at the time, just
Speaker 4: you know, Ohio elections and interviewing all the candidates, and
Speaker 4: I finally got to Ron Paul and I interviewed it,
Speaker 4: and I interviewed I just did a story about him.
Speaker 4: And when I did Blue Well, and all these people
Speaker 4: were saying, thank god, you would talk about it, No
Speaker 4: one will talk about it, like that's not true, And
Speaker 4: then they said no, really what he gets censored and
Speaker 4: everything he says. So I started paying attention to it
Speaker 4: and realized I'm working in the media company. I'm working
Speaker 4: with Fox at the time, Fox and Cincinnati, and I
Speaker 4: was like, yeah, we are doing that, and it was
Speaker 4: like shocking to me. And I started to realize so
Speaker 4: much of what I was in in that broadcast world
Speaker 4: was fake. So that's kind of where it started.
Speaker 1: Yeah, last question for you, Poncho says, do you concur
Speaker 1: with any of Simon Dixon's assessments that the Great Reset
Speaker 1: is actually currently playing out?
Speaker 3: I think it is. Yeah, I do agree that it is.
Speaker 4: I think the Great Reset is, and I think there
Speaker 4: is a there's a war happening.
Speaker 3: Right now for what that ultimately is going to look like.
Speaker 4: And I think we're in the early stages still, but
Speaker 4: I think we're we may be further than a lot
Speaker 4: of people think it.
Speaker 1: All right, guys, I do have been linked in the
Speaker 1: show description. I will also add all the other links
Speaker 1: here in a moment. You can also subscribe to him
Speaker 1: on YouTube. You can subscribe to him on Twitter Rumble
Speaker 1: as well, I assume, So go fall follow Ben on
Speaker 1: all those links. Anything you want to leave us with
Speaker 1: what you got coming up? When is this documentary coming out?
Speaker 1: We're hoping later this summer. Maybe into the fall, but
Speaker 1: a few things that we still have to do on
Speaker 1: so just keep an eye out for it, and you
Speaker 1: know we're working on stuff every day. I will tell you,
Speaker 1: I'm really excited to see what's going to happen with
Speaker 1: the UFO stuff that's coming. I think that's a really
Speaker 1: interesting story and the narrative that surrounds it and how
Speaker 1: is the government going to spin it?
Speaker 3: Because they're not going to tell us the truth. It's that,
Speaker 3: but what are they going to tell us and to
Speaker 3: what end?
Speaker 2: Awesome? Well, thank you so much, Ben, I'd love to
Speaker 2: have you back again. We had a little bit of
Speaker 2: technical issues.
Speaker 1: We didn't get the full interview, but I'll get you
Speaker 1: back on sometime soon and then we can do a
Speaker 1: full deeper dive if you'd like.
Speaker 3: Sounds good, Jeed, I appreciate it, man.
Speaker 1: Thanks absolutely, Thank you so much. Guys, let's hit the
Speaker 1: rest of these super chats. I know that we had
Speaker 1: several people asking we gotta do the rest of these
Speaker 1: super chats here. I wonder on that other scene it
Speaker 1: might not be the camera. Can you guys hear me? Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: you can hear me. I wasn't sure the camera was
Speaker 1: connected over on this scene. Poncho says, for two dollars,
Speaker 1: watch Imperium starring Daniel Porter. Okay, I'm not familiar with that.
Speaker 1: Is that a movie or is that a documentary?
Speaker 2: See? I think people ask.
Speaker 3: Why you wear those glasses?
Speaker 2: Are you on drugs? No? Not on drugs.
Speaker 1: I don't like the look of the boomer glasses, the
Speaker 1: reading spectacles when I'm on a livestream, I think it
Speaker 1: looks dorky as hell. These look cool as heck. These
Speaker 1: look cool as heck. Also, these lights get annoying after
Speaker 1: a while, so mountain walks. As for ten dollars, I've
Speaker 1: always enjoyed it when you're talking to other big brain people.
Speaker 2: Absolutely absolutely. You know, I tried to.
Speaker 1: Get an interview with Ben a long time ago, many
Speaker 1: many years ago, and you know, I had a very
Speaker 1: small channel, very small following back when I was trying
Speaker 1: to kind of make that connection. So great to have
Speaker 1: him on. It was an honor to finally get to
Speaker 1: have that discussion. This was a chat I wanted to
Speaker 1: have for a really long time. So really thankful to
Speaker 1: Ben for doing it, for coming on, and guys again,
Speaker 1: be sure to go follow him.
Speaker 2: Doctor Jay says for five dollars.
Speaker 1: Did you know that the mass ball theme in Icewatch
Speaker 1: Shut is Romanian Orthodox played backwards. Yes, In fact, I
Speaker 1: remember reading that many many years ago, and we have
Speaker 1: discussed that at some point in our many many Icewatch
Speaker 1: Shut analyzes. So if you go watch my little mini
Speaker 1: documentary on iwad Shut, which is I think still my
Speaker 1: biggest video, I think we mentioned that, but.
Speaker 2: They thought that sounded more.
Speaker 1: Ominous right to do it that way. And I've talked
Speaker 1: to Vivian several times about this, so or at least
Speaker 1: a couple of times she'll try to get Vivian on it.
Speaker 1: She's not a huge fan of doing interviews, so you
Speaker 1: kind of have to keep pursuing to get her to
Speaker 1: do the interviews. Brian Blanco says her thirty dollars day,
Speaker 1: I'm attending my first vespers next weekend and then liturgy awesome.
Speaker 1: I want to show you gratitude and say thank you
Speaker 1: for all your live streams and the debates. These opened
Speaker 1: my eyes. Please pray for me, God bless well. That's
Speaker 1: great to hear. Dude, very happy when I hear these
Speaker 1: kinds of stories. And then we hear this a lot now,
Speaker 1: which is great. Jacques Coumer says, for five dollars, do
Speaker 1: the Billy Graham pizza impression. Please calmed down to the alta.
Speaker 1: We've got hot pizza down hill. If you give to
Speaker 1: life till sports ball, if you let the football come
Speaker 1: into your hot I'll give you a hot slass of pizza.
Speaker 2: How's that, Jay dire.
Speaker 1: Clipway five dollars, Jay, I love these interviews with Kuriyaku.
Speaker 2: I hope to see more in the future. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Remember, guys, the second episode of me on his show
Speaker 1: has come out on their platforms, so you can go
Speaker 1: check that one out. And then there's a third episode
Speaker 1: of me on his show as well that is yet
Speaker 1: to come out in depth. As for ten dollars, what
Speaker 1: is the best way to explain to newbies that Orthodoxy
Speaker 1: is more legitimate or more foundational than Catholicism or any
Speaker 1: other faiths.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean there's not a one size fits all.
Speaker 1: I think the easiest, simplest way is the videos where
Speaker 1: I point out major dogmatic contradictions, because remember Remba, Catholicism
Speaker 1: is a system, and in that system, it says it
Speaker 1: cannot contradict on dogma, and dogma includes anything that they've
Speaker 1: officially taught in faith and morals.
Speaker 2: So anything dogmatic faith and morals that.
Speaker 1: Is a contradiction shows that that system, it's a system
Speaker 1: level defeater. So I would say, if you look at
Speaker 1: the video where I pointed out the contradiction on the
Speaker 1: death penalty, if you look at the video where I
Speaker 1: pointed out five simple arguments against the papacy from five
Speaker 1: or six years ago, that's a good one. And then
Speaker 1: more recently, this one dogmatic contradiction ends Roman Catholicism on
Speaker 1: the issue of temporal supremacy. Those are all great examples.
Speaker 1: I also think even more simple examples, like saying that Muslims, Christians,
Speaker 1: and Jews now all worship.
Speaker 2: The same God.
Speaker 1: That becomes a basis for the Vatican's syncretic approach to
Speaker 1: a humanism, which it clearly has. Those are all I
Speaker 1: think system level defeaters. Shepherd ten dollars, what's up, Ninja?
Speaker 2: A lot of people owe you an apology, but I
Speaker 2: ain't one.
Speaker 1: I enjoy your content, God bless you, and Jamie, thank
Speaker 1: you appreciate that. Yeah, I don't think we're gonna get
Speaker 1: an apology from a lot of the people, but hey,
Speaker 1: it's great to talk to these high level investigative prominent journalists,
Speaker 1: intelligence people, whistleblowers, analysts, and now people are coming around
Speaker 1: and admitting all the stuff that we've talked about for
Speaker 1: so many years, and we've been so hated and attacked
Speaker 1: and persecuted the platformed, and now you've got you know,
Speaker 1: a lot of prominent voices basically admitting, Hey, pretty much
Speaker 1: everything Jay was saying was correct. Boone says, for ten dollars,
Speaker 1: give me a couple of questions to ask my priest.
Speaker 1: I want to see if he's liberal or not. I
Speaker 1: want to convert to Orthodoxy. You mentioned perhaps up to
Speaker 1: up to half of Orthodoxy.
Speaker 2: Is also vacer gay. You make sure.
Speaker 1: I want to make sure that I'm not signing up
Speaker 1: for any of that. I mean, do they promote humunism?
Speaker 1: Do they promote skittles, Do they promote you know, masonry,
Speaker 1: you know that kind of stuff. Those are usually good indicators.
Speaker 1: Chronicle says, for five dollars, he's talking about my panda shirt.
Speaker 1: This was some of the super chests I didn't get
Speaker 1: to the other day. I told you guys, I would
Speaker 1: read it on the next live stream. You have a
Speaker 1: nice gay shirt, Yes, the panda shirt was intended to
Speaker 1: give the impression and to prove that I'm nice and
Speaker 1: I'm not mean ortho bro extremist. Ten dollars, you are
Speaker 1: the pimper of Xantium.
Speaker 2: Cheers. Thank you, do appreciate that.
Speaker 1: Bird says for ten dollars, the meanest orthur bro is
Speaker 1: actually Saint John Chris System. Listen to the homily where
Speaker 1: he says they have done an insult to nature itself. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm like, I'm like thirty percent of a lot of
Speaker 1: the church fathers. JV says, I can confirm the only
Speaker 1: thing that you ever did was to block me for
Speaker 1: no good reason. If I recall, it is because you
Speaker 1: kept sending really bizarre superchats and I said, you know, look, man,
Speaker 1: let's just let this issue rest. I don't remember what
Speaker 1: it was, but you just cut with it. The church
Speaker 1: needs people like you. I hope you will continue to
Speaker 1: host the Fourth Hour whatever you say. Ten dollars. Don't
Speaker 1: people realize the reason that people are converting in mass
Speaker 1: is not just because of theology, but also other traditional
Speaker 1: bases that hold within Orthodoxy. I think so people do
Speaker 1: not actually want to be liberals. Skittles exactly we must
Speaker 1: hold the line. Yep, totally agree. Chase five dollars, sat
Speaker 1: spirit on of Tremethus being a simple monk but also
Speaker 1: being the champion of the First Council is evidence that
Speaker 1: God calls the servants to rebuke evil with truth. There's
Speaker 1: tons of that in church history.
Speaker 2: I can't read that name.
Speaker 1: It says Holy Saint surfing Rose, pray for us ten dollars,
Speaker 1: thank you, kimbaland five dollars.
Speaker 3: What is your on? Father? My?
Speaker 1: Yeah, we read this one last time. Let's make sure
Speaker 1: I didn't miss this. Bong says for ten dollars. This
Speaker 1: is for the Kumar perm Ruslam Ruslam instead of Islam.
Speaker 1: Bitch boy getting web searched and larped by the bipod
Speaker 1: Wexantium king exactly. Flavius. I missed his when he sent
Speaker 1: fifty dollars. Thank you so much, Flavius, he says. The
Speaker 1: gleeful celebration of Kirk when he passed due to the
Speaker 1: Libs celebrating that that quote radicalized me. It was the
Speaker 1: ortho rock orthobros who actually told me to go to
Speaker 1: the liturgy and shut the heck up. So the orthobros
Speaker 1: were calming down his extremism.
Speaker 2: So again, that.
Speaker 1: Doesn't run that runs counter to the narrative that the
Speaker 1: Ortho Bros Are extremists. Drago says, or three dollars you
Speaker 1: and Nick Flinta saved me from the puritanical belief that
Speaker 1: I thought I ought to have as a Christian. I
Speaker 1: finally stopped being very inhumane. I still have the recurring
Speaker 1: thought of how to reconcile this with passages in Paul's
Speaker 1: epistles and joking around.
Speaker 2: I don't think Paul's talking about joking around.
Speaker 1: I think he's talking about being a consistently profane person.
Speaker 2: I mean, Paul himself.
Speaker 1: Said I wish that the Judaizers would castrate themselves. Okay,
Speaker 1: so he's not being some sort of like puritanical person
Speaker 1: when he says, you know, to not be a profane,
Speaker 1: vulgar person. Christian Roach became a member, Jay, I'm a
Speaker 1: big fan. I became Orthodox because of you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Appreciate that.
Speaker 3: Man.
Speaker 2: It's good to hear. Ac said, this is a hit job.
Speaker 1: For Captain Tazariak. This was this was a comment I
Speaker 1: missed the while back. Okay, let's see, I think I
Speaker 1: hit all the supers treads there because I missed several
Speaker 1: from the last stream, and here's some more here. Poncho says,
Speaker 1: for ten dollars to all the tone police who are
Speaker 1: offended when Jay imitates an accent of other people. Just
Speaker 1: read First Corinthians nine, nineteenth or twenty three and there's
Speaker 1: so there's bibicult precedents for impressions. That's funny. How about
Speaker 1: when Paul says Cretans are liars and gluttons, that's pretty
Speaker 1: funny this and this saying holds true. Right, Oh, Paul's
Speaker 1: being a racist and he's classifying people, he's profiling coin
Speaker 1: order of five dollars. What do you think about all
Speaker 1: these AI data centers popping up? Is this part of
Speaker 1: the future technocracy control system?
Speaker 2: Absolutely?
Speaker 1: I mean the technocracy is centrally going to be I
Speaker 1: think they've decided run by AI, and that was a
Speaker 1: plan mentioned a long long time ago. So I don't
Speaker 1: doubt that the data centers are or for that purpose.
Speaker 1: We know that they are. Tyler says for ten dollars,
Speaker 1: I'm currently a cate Cuman, thank you to you and
Speaker 1: father hears. I'm currently being persecuted because I'm choosing orthodoxy.
Speaker 2: Well, that's what happens.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I understand we all will be that persecuit, so
Speaker 1: count it as a joy. I was thinking about asking you,
Speaker 1: what are your thoughts on how to deal or not
Speaker 1: to deal?
Speaker 2: Do you mean with the persecution.
Speaker 1: I mean it'll pass if that's what you're talking about. Okay,
Speaker 1: making sure. I think I got all the super chest now, no,
Speaker 1: we didn't. Moroc says for ten dollars, Jay, I don't
Speaker 1: know why I'm blocked?
Speaker 2: Can you undo it? This is owl killer when you
Speaker 2: guys say that you're blocked.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you mean on X or on YouTube.
Speaker 1: So I do a lot different people for different reasons.
Speaker 1: If you tone police me and talk crap and you
Speaker 1: don't won't come debate, that's the number one way that
Speaker 1: I blocked that you get blocked. If I see you,
Speaker 1: you know, talking smack on other YouTube channels about me,
Speaker 1: but you won't come say it here, that's also a
Speaker 1: reason that I've blocked people. So perhaps those are the
Speaker 1: reasons that I blocked you. But I don't know if
Speaker 1: you mean on YouTube or on X. Because I am
Speaker 1: a huge fan of the block button, and actually the
Speaker 1: block button that I think is pretty effective because people.
Speaker 2: Act like, Oh, you're being a woos.
Speaker 1: Maybe I just don't want any of these people or
Speaker 1: their comments in my life. What does that have to
Speaker 1: do with being a woos? I mean, don't you avoid
Speaker 1: toxic people in real life?
Speaker 2: Of course we all do.
Speaker 1: Oh, I guess you're a pussy because you're avoiding toksic. No,
Speaker 1: you're just blocking them in real life. Barbecue says, did
Speaker 1: you hear that anything from the Ortland Trent podcast?
Speaker 3: No?
Speaker 1: I have not yet, because I was doing livestream when
Speaker 1: they did it, or when it came up that they
Speaker 1: had done it, so I didn't even know. But way,
Speaker 1: I think I'll go ahead and do another stream. I
Speaker 1: hope that doesn't make Alex mad. I'll try to do
Speaker 1: another stream. Now that we've done the Ben Swan stream,
Speaker 1: you guys want to do another live stream? Ortland said,
Speaker 1: we take the ecumenical progress where we can, and Trent
Speaker 1: smiled and said, yes, Well, I mean Trent has to
Speaker 1: believe in acumenism because his church has dogmatically affirmed and
Speaker 1: accepted it for around a century. So I mean, nobody
Speaker 1: should be surprised that Trent Horne also holds to the
Speaker 1: heresy of ecumenism. His Vatican has dogmatized it, which, by
Speaker 1: the way, they previously said it it's apostasy. This is
Speaker 1: another easy contradiction. In Roman Catholic dogma Mortalium Animos nineteen
Speaker 1: twenty I think twenty eight of Pious the Eleventh, it
Speaker 1: says that if you affirm and teach and act on acumenism,
Speaker 1: you are surrendering the Gospel. And the Apostolic Sea says
Speaker 1: this multiple times in the encyclical The Apostolic romancy has
Speaker 1: never allowed Roman Catholics to participate in a.
Speaker 2: And now it's dogma. That is a contradiction. One of the.
Speaker 1: Clearest I mean that alone is like, that's just easy
Speaker 1: knocked down right there, death penalty, easy knockdown, change right there,
Speaker 1: temporal supremacy of the Roman bishop, easy knockdown right there.
Speaker 1: Tenergy ten dollars, My funko pop and myself are getting
Speaker 1: baptized Saturday. Come on, dude, you're not getting God bless
Speaker 1: you today.
Speaker 2: Just kidding.
Speaker 1: Thank you for being mean to the heretics and a
Speaker 1: signpost of truth. Look, people think that what meanness is
Speaker 1: is tone and.
Speaker 2: Aggression. That's not what meanness is.
Speaker 1: Right, Ironically, all of the people who really hate me
Speaker 1: without a cause, or who are or who have dire
Speaker 1: derangements syndrome. They're actually the mean ones because in the
Speaker 1: background they do the nastiest stuff imaginable while putting on
Speaker 1: the public nice face. I would say that's actually being mean,
Speaker 1: saying to your face, look, man, I disagree with your
Speaker 1: ecumenism once you become orthodox. What you're saying stupid. None
Speaker 1: of that is being mean. People just think that being
Speaker 1: a normal guy is being mean and even fat jokes,
Speaker 1: Guys rib each other, Guys riff right, guys do this.
Speaker 2: This is what dudes do.
Speaker 1: And if you can't handle that, dudes have a natural
Speaker 1: dude code whereby they ferret out and vet people based
Speaker 1: on can the guy take a joke?
Speaker 2: Can you take a little ribbing? And if he.
Speaker 1: Can't, then you know he's soft. Right, I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about the psycho weirdo people. Right, you should avoid those people.
Speaker 1: But like with Tim Gordon, we start making jokes about
Speaker 1: each other. I remember when I'm we hit it off
Speaker 1: because I said he was like the Creed dude. He
Speaker 1: was Scott's staff from Creed and I was making fun
Speaker 1: of Tim Gordon and singing Creed songs. When we were
Speaker 1: reviewing his live streams, and he thought that was hilarious,
Speaker 1: and so we actually got to be.
Speaker 2: Buddies over that.
Speaker 1: The rest of these people are just absolutely giant vaginas.
Speaker 1: They can't even take a mild joke. They're so fragile.
Speaker 1: They of one mild joke and they block you and
Speaker 1: run away. I'm not talking about people that won't debate me.
Speaker 1: That's almost all the time the reason that I block people,
Speaker 1: and sometimes I block the wrong person. So that's sometimes
Speaker 1: I do make that mistake doctor do nothing eight dollars
Speaker 1: for example. I'll give you an example of how I've
Speaker 1: made the mistake sometimes. So sometimes when people call in
Speaker 1: on Twitter on Xpace and I'm looking from my glasses
Speaker 1: and then I when I when people call in and
Speaker 1: they act and saying like that, I got to make
Speaker 1: good death threats.
Speaker 2: The other day.
Speaker 1: When I click on the profile to block, sometimes I
Speaker 1: block or I picked the wrong person in the chat
Speaker 1: or in the Twitter space.
Speaker 2: That's happened a few times. Okay, So.
Speaker 1: For example, I had the other day I accidentally had
Speaker 1: DJ blocked, right who organized the whole freemason debate, And
Speaker 1: that was an accident. I mean DJ's never said anything
Speaker 1: or giving me any indication that I would I would
Speaker 1: block him. So at some point I accidentally accidentally blocked
Speaker 1: his profile, thinking that it was someone else. JV says, Jay,
Speaker 1: you blocked me over saying that bitcoin aligns with orthodoxy,
Speaker 1: but then was accused of others saying it's the opposite.
Speaker 2: Okay, Well, then I misunderstood.
Speaker 1: I thought you were saying that if you like bitcoin,
Speaker 1: you can't be orthodox.
Speaker 2: And again, I don't.
Speaker 1: Are you talking about blocked on YouTube or on x
Speaker 1: I don't know which one you're talking about. Oh I
Speaker 1: must do you see the Baptist debate a bunch of
Speaker 1: the Baptists, Like, there's not a single Baptist i FB
Speaker 1: cult member who made an argument against anything I said.
Speaker 1: Every comment in the debate literally is like this guy
Speaker 1: is gonna I'm gonna be happy when this guy burns,
Speaker 1: and how uh this guy denies Jesus as the word.
Speaker 1: I'll be just the stupidest, Like I mean, these people
Speaker 1: are like next, they're dumber than Muslims, dude, or another
Speaker 1: equal to Muslims, I should say, and that like the
Speaker 1: what we've seen is that the I f B are
Speaker 1: identical to the Muslims. Guys, remember head on head on
Speaker 1: over to chalk dot com. Sech o q dot com
Speaker 1: the best and supplementation on the Internet.
Speaker 2: You can get.
Speaker 1: Access to all those great Chalk products at chalk dot
Speaker 1: com c h o q dot com.
Speaker 2: Link is in the show description. But you use the
Speaker 2: promo code J sixty life.
Speaker 1: That's Jay six zero l A f E. You get
Speaker 1: sixty percent off of those great products. And yeah, give
Speaker 1: me a few minutes here to eat a late lunch,
Speaker 1: early dinner.
Speaker 2: And we will come right back with a livestream.
Speaker 1: Otherwise, thank you guys for the Benz for joining us
Speaker 1: with the Benz Want Interview.
Speaker 2: Thanks