Speaker 1: Joe Roman Podcast check.
Speaker 2: It out, but Joe Logan Experience Train by Day, Joe.
Speaker 3: Rogan Podcast by Night, all Day.
Speaker 2: Good to see sir, Thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1: My pleasure. Always so much crazy shit going on in
Speaker 1: the world, and even before we scheduled this, like more
Speaker 1: crazy stuff has happened. The war broke out, all kinds
Speaker 1: of things.
Speaker 2: Yeah, how are you How are you feeling about the
Speaker 2: President Trump?
Speaker 1: That's an open ended question. Do you text with him
Speaker 1: and talk to him occasionally? Yeah, occasionally he'll send me
Speaker 1: a text. I get these like true social posts of uh,
Speaker 1: you know, things that he's saying. But this whole fucking
Speaker 1: Iran thing, man, Like, did you see this coming?
Speaker 2: No, definitely, I don't know. I mean who did I mean,
Speaker 2: when did he even decide? You know, their national security
Speaker 2: strategy put out in November basically just said we've degraded
Speaker 2: their capacity. It's a win. There was no sense in
Speaker 2: which there would be additional action. I think it ushers
Speaker 2: in a new paradigm completely. The older post war era
Speaker 2: is just over. Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada,
Speaker 2: articulated at the rold Economic Forum probably better than the
Speaker 2: Trump administration did, saying very clearly that older rules based
Speaker 2: order is gone. You saw AOC try to sort of
Speaker 2: articulate it, but she sort of fell apart the Munich
Speaker 2: Security Conference in February. So this is an administration that
Speaker 2: is I mean, and I don't even think they're thinking.
Speaker 2: I wrote a piece and I decided not to publish
Speaker 2: it because I was sort of like, decapitation doesn't really
Speaker 2: work for regime change. But it's not clear that they're
Speaker 2: really out for regime change or they're just asserting power
Speaker 2: shaking up things. I mean, some of it's art of
Speaker 2: the deal, changing the person that we're negotiating with, that's
Speaker 2: Venezuela and Iran. Is it really going to change those regimes?
Speaker 2: I don't think most people don't think so, but that
Speaker 2: I'm not sure that that's what they're going for. They're
Speaker 2: just going for an assertion of American in service of
Speaker 2: American interests, and then what happens in Iran, what happens
Speaker 2: in Venezuela. I don't think they care that much about
Speaker 2: at these They are not behaving as that they do well.
Speaker 1: Neither thing made any sense to me. The Venezuela thing,
Speaker 1: I mean, look, they wanted him out forever, and he
Speaker 1: definitely stole the election to get in there in the
Speaker 1: first place, and he was a dictator. But at least
Speaker 1: that one was at least clean. They go in, kidnap him,
Speaker 1: get him out. This one's nuts, Like, and what's happening
Speaker 1: in Tel Aviv? It's hard to know what's real and
Speaker 1: what's not because there's a lot of fake video going
Speaker 1: around and a lot of weird posts on x so
Speaker 1: it's you know, when I do peek in, it's hard
Speaker 1: to know, and you have to listen to GROC and
Speaker 1: then Grock's dismantling a lot of the fake videos.
Speaker 2: Wait, wait, are the fake videos that you're just like.
Speaker 1: Fake fake videos of you know, like an insane amount
Speaker 1: of bombs dropping down in the city. But it seems
Speaker 1: like there's a massive amount of destruction in Tel Aviv.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I haven't checked in lately, but I'm assuming.
Speaker 1: Was that just today or yesterday?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah, I mean I think the president is there's
Speaker 2: been some just you know, Rubio said something about how oh,
Speaker 2: we had to act because we knew that Israel was
Speaker 2: gonna act anyway, and I think people interpreted in a
Speaker 2: nut Yah, who's in the White House? A lot this.
Speaker 2: I think this president has shown whether you like him
Speaker 2: or not, you know, and there's certainly things that I'm
Speaker 2: unhappy about and have criticized, but I think Trump is
Speaker 2: in charge. Like he's making these decisions. There's nobody behind him.
Speaker 2: There's nobody. Don't be point for all of that, you know,
Speaker 2: the Russians or whoever, some you know, he's now the Israelis.
Speaker 2: You know, it's just he's clearly I mean Elon gave him,
Speaker 2: you know, two hundred and fifty million dollars and he's
Speaker 2: still you know, he didn't give him even the electric
Speaker 2: car credit. You know, like like Trump is in charge,
Speaker 2: you know, Like I think that's one of the big
Speaker 2: lessons from this. And I don't think that. I think
Speaker 2: that means that there's not a lot of like second
Speaker 2: order thinking here, like oh, what's the move after that?
Speaker 2: He doesn't know, He's just acting. That's what's so wild
Speaker 2: about is that this older foreign policy establishment, which you know,
Speaker 2: was like let the experts decide what the right foreign
Speaker 2: you know, all these thing tanks, and that's just gone.
Speaker 2: Now it's just irrelevant in this presidency. And I don't
Speaker 2: think it'll come back, Like if you get a Gavin
Speaker 2: new Summer, a president AOC.
Speaker 1: I don't president who.
Speaker 2: I don't think yeah for a minute before before Munich,
Speaker 2: but I don't think it's going to come back. And
Speaker 2: I think that that's what the Prime Minister of Canada realized.
Speaker 2: I think that's what the Europeans are starting to realize,
Speaker 2: is that this is a completely different world that we
Speaker 2: live in than the one we lived in just a
Speaker 2: couple of years ago.
Speaker 1: But just doesn't make any sense to me unless we're
Speaker 1: acting on someone else's interests, like particularly Israel's interests. It
Speaker 1: doesn't just didn't make any sense to me, like if
Speaker 1: they had supposedly dismantled their chances of making the nuclear bomb,
Speaker 1: whether or not that's true or I mean, it's so
Speaker 1: hard to know.
Speaker 2: He was unsatisfied and just like he was like I'm
Speaker 2: not getting aywhere in these negotiations, and I'm going to
Speaker 2: replace the person I'm negotiating with. It's it's just you know,
Speaker 2: turn over the table, like change things up. You're not
Speaker 2: getting anywhere. And you could you could say he was
Speaker 2: too impatient. Their view was the Democrats were too patient
Speaker 2: with Iran. They kept trying with Iran, Iran, they weren't
Speaker 2: giving them what they wanted. I'm not defending it. I'm
Speaker 2: just saying I think that's what explains it. They they
Speaker 2: haven't done a very good job explaining it, because I
Speaker 2: think that it just sounds to some extent like what
Speaker 2: it is, which is that it's they're acting without They're
Speaker 2: sort of like, well, does the result in regime change
Speaker 2: in Iran? We don't know. They might say that we
Speaker 2: want that or whatever, but that's not Ultimately they're not.
Speaker 2: They're not acting on the basis of achieving regime change.
Speaker 1: What just seems so insane based on what he ran on.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is why a lot of people feel betrayed, right,
Speaker 1: And he ran on no more wars and these stupid
Speaker 1: senseless wars, and then we have one that we can't
Speaker 1: even really clearly define why we did it.
Speaker 2: Well, but he said he's against endless wars.
Speaker 1: Well, ends they're all endless. Indeed, Well, if we heard
Speaker 1: Rumsfeld talk about Iraq when it first happened, tell me
Speaker 1: they were talking like six weeks, six weeks.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, six weeks. Yeah, but they put that was
Speaker 2: ground force, and I know that they've not ruled that out.
Speaker 2: For me, that would be they have they have not.
Speaker 2: They have not. Yeah I thought you said that now,
Speaker 2: yeah no, but they don't seem eager to go into
Speaker 2: I mean, my I criticized the Venezuela action because I
Speaker 2: sort of was like, how are you possibly going to
Speaker 2: run Venezuela? And then I think a little bit more
Speaker 2: time pass I was like, oh, they're not. They're not
Speaker 2: gonna try to run Venezuela. Like that's not what this is.
Speaker 1: They wanted to just wanted to take over the oil.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and and even there, I mean, the oil it's
Speaker 2: not significant at any global level. I don't it's hard.
Speaker 2: I don't even think it's really about the oil. I
Speaker 2: don't think it's about the oil. Don't think it's about
Speaker 2: the oil in Iran either.
Speaker 1: Well, the oil reserves are significant, it's just the type
Speaker 1: of oil and how to extract it is extremely difficult.
Speaker 2: It's the worst shoe. It's in them, Like the big, big,
Speaker 2: abundant reserves are in the Amazon. So you're talking about it.
Speaker 2: What a nightmare. It's super far away. It's terrible. You
Speaker 2: had a gorilla conflict. If you had a gorilla conflict
Speaker 2: breakout around those oil facilities. I mean, it's already more
Speaker 2: expensive because you have to heat up that particular type
Speaker 2: of it's you know, it's really heavy oils to heat
Speaker 2: it up to get it out of the ground. Then
Speaker 2: you have to heat it transport. It's a totll nightmare.
Speaker 2: I just I mean, and as a conservationist, I would
Speaker 2: say that would be the last place I'd want to
Speaker 2: see us getting oil from. There's a lot of other
Speaker 2: places that have oil. We shouldn't be going into the Amazon.
Speaker 1: So what if anything makes sense to you about this
Speaker 1: attack and Iran.
Speaker 2: I don't know that. I'm not I'm not sure what
Speaker 2: I think of it. I mean, I don't I don't
Speaker 2: like it. I don't like I mean, the whole older
Speaker 2: system was that you had this International Security Council would
Speaker 2: have to agree, the Congress would have to be that's
Speaker 2: all gone now. I mean, it's just a totally different
Speaker 2: This guy is just acting, you know, he says he's
Speaker 2: not getting where they want to get in the negotiations
Speaker 2: with the Iranians. So he says, we have some leverage
Speaker 2: over you, and we're going to use it.
Speaker 1: So clearly Israel wanted this.
Speaker 2: Israel has its own motivations. I think, yeah, but I
Speaker 2: don't think. I think it's not quite accurate to say that.
Speaker 2: I just don't think. I think all the evidence shows
Speaker 2: that Trump is his own man, and he is the president,
Speaker 2: and like literally he couldn't even give back, he couldn't
Speaker 2: even give elon the battery subsidy that he wanted.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like I get that.
Speaker 2: I've never seen a policy. I mean, I've never seen
Speaker 2: a politician act that independently. That's I mean a president
Speaker 2: act that independently. So I'm skeptical of I mean, I
Speaker 2: think that I think that Rubio was sort of like, well,
Speaker 2: they were going to attack and so we had to.
Speaker 2: You know, there's some of that, But I just think
Speaker 2: Trump's doing what he wants to do and we should.
Speaker 1: You really think it's that simple. Trump's doing what he
Speaker 1: wants to do. Yes, yes, you don't think people are
Speaker 1: influencing him because there's a lot of warhawks around him, right,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of people that want to for a
Speaker 1: long time.
Speaker 2: I mean, who's in there, but then Tucker was in
Speaker 2: there a bunch.
Speaker 1: But do you think against him Tucker has the kind
Speaker 1: of influence that net Yahoo has.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, I guess if you just base it
Speaker 2: on the outcome, then the answer is no, no, But
Speaker 2: that's what I'm saying. I just think he listens to everybody,
Speaker 2: but I just don't think It'srussians turn behind him. Is
Speaker 2: really I mean, Trump is like what he's been through.
Speaker 2: I mean, he's you know, he's got where he is.
Speaker 2: There's no way he's gonna They don't have anything on him.
Speaker 1: That's why I know that.
Speaker 2: I don't think they have anything on him, but that
Speaker 2: way he could. But I'm not we don't see any
Speaker 2: evidence for it.
Speaker 1: Well you wouldn't see any evidence until it broke out
Speaker 1: they released it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and and well we'll get it. I'm sure we'll
Speaker 2: get into Epstein. But I mean, I just think when
Speaker 2: you don't have evidence of something, then you can't assume
Speaker 2: that it's happening. I haven't seen any evident I've seen
Speaker 2: evidence that Trump is fully independent with it. Particularly this
Speaker 2: case of Elon surprised me. I would have thought, at
Speaker 2: a minimum, you'd give your largest campaign contributor the one
Speaker 2: thing he wants. I mean, Doge was something you wanted
Speaker 2: to But and then I look at it Ron and
Speaker 2: I kind of go, you know, Trump has always won.
Speaker 2: I mean Trump has been criticized. He said he doesn't
Speaker 2: want to run to have a nuclear weapon for a
Speaker 2: really long time. I don't know the exact date, but certainly.
Speaker 1: Well, no one wants to have a nuclear weapon other.
Speaker 2: Than it wrong, right, yeah, I think that the he
Speaker 2: was He also put it this a way. He's also
Speaker 2: critical of the Democrats approach, which was the sort of
Speaker 2: the mainstream IAEA approved approach. Because of course, on international law,
Speaker 2: Iran has the right to a nuclear to nuclear energy,
Speaker 2: and to nuclear facilities, including nuclear nuclear the centrifugias, and
Speaker 2: the enrichment. Iran has the right to all that under
Speaker 2: international law and so and Trump doesn't agree with that,
Speaker 2: and he's not going to rite international lawg in his way.
Speaker 1: So when you say he has a right to it,
Speaker 1: you're talking just about nuclear power, yeah, right.
Speaker 2: Right, but that includes enrichment, so you know, to.
Speaker 1: A certain point, right, they've already surpassed that point, right, yeah.
Speaker 2: And I believe I you know, if I'm wrong, I'll
Speaker 2: correct it on X but I don't think it specifies
Speaker 2: the level of enrichment is part of the issue. And
Speaker 2: then you've got these centrifugies, and so it's all been
Speaker 2: a cat and mouse game. I personally do not doubt
Speaker 2: ferment it that Iran wants nuclear weapons. So that's what's
Speaker 2: been going on. I think most people think that. But
Speaker 2: the Aboma administration was like, we can do you know,
Speaker 2: we can lift sanctions in exchange for controlling their nuclear program.
Speaker 2: Trump has not for a very long time agreed with
Speaker 2: that approach. I think he was criticizing it for many
Speaker 2: years before twenty sixteen, before you decided to run, but
Speaker 2: definitely for the last ten years.
Speaker 1: Did you read the thing today that came out that
Speaker 1: they're they're discussing some sort of a leak transmission that
Speaker 1: seems to be an activation.
Speaker 2: Of terror cells Iranians have. Yeah, no, but I'm not surprised.
Speaker 2: Sounds bad. Yeah, that's one of the things that obviously,
Speaker 2: that was the first thing I thought of, was like, oh, great,
Speaker 2: are we going to get a bunch of Iranian suicide
Speaker 2: bombers in the United States.
Speaker 1: Now, obviously I don't know if it's going to be
Speaker 1: suicide bombers, but I would imagine it would be something
Speaker 1: a little bit more destructive than.
Speaker 2: That could be. I don't know what they can get in.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's Sean Ryan's been having folks on that
Speaker 2: say that, yeah, people are getting in with heavy artillery.
Speaker 2: I just don't know the status of it.
Speaker 1: Well, the real problem is they can do four years
Speaker 1: the border was wide open, Oh yeah, and definitely some
Speaker 1: people from the Middle East got through, and we have
Speaker 1: no idea what is weight. I mean, I'm sure there's
Speaker 1: some intelligence agencies that have an understanding of what the
Speaker 1: threat is.
Speaker 2: I hope so. I mean, I think we see that
Speaker 2: these terrorists are able to do an incredible amount of
Speaker 2: damage with pretty simple rifles, you know, and sometimes was
Speaker 2: it the French the club that particular terrorist action, there
Speaker 2: were other people that were using bombs that like only
Speaker 2: killed one or two people, but the guys with the
Speaker 2: machine guns were able to gun down like dozens of people.
Speaker 2: So certainly that's scary. I think none of us want.
Speaker 2: I think that's where a lot of Americans when it happened.
Speaker 2: The reason so many people were against it. I believe
Speaker 2: the majority is against it is because you're like, great,
Speaker 2: what you know, first of all, is there going to
Speaker 2: be another endless war? And second of all, are we
Speaker 2: going to get a bunch of terrorist actions here? I
Speaker 2: think if we did I don't think support for the
Speaker 2: work goes up. I think it goes down, oh for sure.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean it's just such a fuck. I mean,
Speaker 1: the whole, the whole situation internationally has been so tense already,
Speaker 1: with what's going on in Gazo, with what's going on
Speaker 1: in Ukraine, it's like, and to add this to the pile,
Speaker 1: it's like, I mean, it genuinely feels like there's a
Speaker 1: real possibility that we might be entering World War three.
Speaker 2: How would that what would that look like?
Speaker 1: I don't know, Well, I never expected Iran to start attacking,
Speaker 1: you know, they they launched bombs into Uae Dubai. I
Speaker 1: mean where else.
Speaker 2: They expected that? Though, right, I mean it makes Iran
Speaker 2: look Iran looks pretty isolated. I mean, I will say,
Speaker 2: you know, I was totally obviously, maybe not obviously, but
Speaker 2: very much on the left and was opposed to all
Speaker 2: this stuff Reagan was doing, I remember, even even in
Speaker 2: the eighties. But it's like he really did. I'm not
Speaker 2: gonna say he was the major the only reason. There
Speaker 2: was obviously a bunch of weakening within, but I mean,
Speaker 2: he really did push back against communism. He challenged the
Speaker 2: entire foreign policy establishment, on the basic view of just
Speaker 2: you know, of just of just kind of keeping it,
Speaker 2: you know, keeping the communists where they were, and it
Speaker 2: said Reagan really pushed back against it and said it
Speaker 2: got to be regime change. It's sort of almost had
Speaker 2: a moral sortinly, there's a defense build up, but a
Speaker 2: moral argument, and I think it had a big impact
Speaker 2: and to bring down communism. So i'm, you know, the Irania,
Speaker 2: it's it's I'm obviously I have very mixed feelings about it.
Speaker 2: The Iranian regime is just so evil and so awful
Speaker 2: that you know, you're every time you see videos of
Speaker 2: people taking these courageous actions, you're like, somebody bring that
Speaker 2: regime down. On the other hand, that country is pretty
Speaker 2: the people of that country are pretty radical. And the
Speaker 2: Shaw in nineteen seventy nine. I spent last night watching
Speaker 2: all the old old sixty minutes from the seventies. They're amazing.
Speaker 2: But the Shaw was really modernizing the country. There was
Speaker 2: a lot of wealth coming in, there was a lot
Speaker 2: of more inequality. There was also a lot more state
Speaker 2: repression from his intelligence services. But the country was, you know,
Speaker 2: full of radical Muslims who wanted you know that when
Speaker 2: all that instability. They wanted to revert back to, you know,
Speaker 2: a radical Islamisis regime, and that's still now. I've seen
Speaker 2: other estimates to say that, you know, the current regime
Speaker 2: is incredibly unpopular in Iran. But you know how that
Speaker 2: works out, It's really hard to say. But there is
Speaker 2: something I cautioned my own I talk back to my
Speaker 2: own anti interventionist instincts when I think about Reagan just
Speaker 2: being like, you know, we're not gonna do just containment
Speaker 2: strategy anymore. We're actually going to talk back to communism
Speaker 2: because people deserve to be free. And now is everything
Speaker 2: better for you know, is everything fine in Russia? Maybe not,
Speaker 2: But I mean communism was just awful, you know, just
Speaker 2: a totally soul killing, you know, crushing, you know, a
Speaker 2: giant lie. I mean, it's awful to militarianism. So I
Speaker 2: think we have to kind of keep that in mind,
Speaker 2: and especially when you're in a moment of just such
Speaker 2: incredible chaos like we're in now. I told my students,
Speaker 2: I'm like, you get to live through one of the
Speaker 2: most interesting moments in history, certainly in the last eighty years,
Speaker 2: because the entire paradigm where the United States had these
Speaker 2: allies and everything's gonna go through the Security Council and
Speaker 2: we're going to try to make it through the UN
Speaker 2: and there's got to get agreements and all this stuff.
Speaker 2: That's just gone. I mean, it's just it's gone to
Speaker 2: the part where they don't even where you're kind of like,
Speaker 2: how are you what's gonna happen inside Iran. They're like,
Speaker 2: that's not our concern. We hope that there's an overthrow
Speaker 2: of the government, but they're they're not. We're not like
Speaker 2: gonna necessarily commit to that.
Speaker 1: Well, they're also calling on the people to rise up,
Speaker 1: which is you know, i mean, look look at what
Speaker 1: they did with the protesters. I mean they killed thousands
Speaker 1: of people.
Speaker 2: And look at Iran and Venezuela. They don't have internal
Speaker 2: The opposition is not united. There's not a united opposition
Speaker 2: with a united figure. I mean, remember it was so
Speaker 2: interesting watching seventy nine, these protests against the show were
Speaker 2: going on. They are the left and the Islamisists made
Speaker 2: an alliance in Iran. Something it's something really interesting topic
Speaker 2: I only starting to explore right now. But they made
Speaker 2: an alliance, so they'd be holding up you know, they
Speaker 2: be holding up the eye told it comane pictures in
Speaker 2: the street, like they had their guy, and the left
Speaker 2: was like, look, we're just gonna, you know, go with
Speaker 2: this guy. I think he was making promises to the
Speaker 2: left around allowing you know more you know, liberalism. And
Speaker 2: then they came in, I just consolidated into this really
Speaker 2: hard line Islamisist regime. But they had a guy. We
Speaker 2: don't have. They don't you know, we don't have a
Speaker 2: guy in Venezuela. We don't have a guy in Iran.
Speaker 2: I don't know if there's anybody in Cuba really, you
Speaker 2: know that in the older regime, under like the Biden,
Speaker 2: the open society people, the side establishment, they had somebody
Speaker 2: for Venezuela that's a Mashado woman. But Trump gets up
Speaker 2: there and he just goes, yeah, she doesn't have enough support,
Speaker 2: so she's not with us. Gone, you know, like they
Speaker 2: recognize that they don't have there's nobody with an opposition
Speaker 2: you know, street cred that can come into power. So
Speaker 2: I think they and they know that, they're not like
Speaker 2: unaware of that. So I think some of the like,
Speaker 2: oh they should rise up in whatever. It's a little
Speaker 2: half hearted. I don't know that they believe that that's
Speaker 2: going to happen. They're certainly not. They don't seem to
Speaker 2: be offering them, you know, material support.
Speaker 1: Right, So it's just a symbolic gesture to talk about it.
Speaker 2: Sounds like it. And I mean, I in this kind
Speaker 2: of the this beautiful collapse of communism which occurred so
Speaker 2: peacefully with the Berlin Wall and the Guard eventually just
Speaker 2: sort of like it's just in the vibes and the
Speaker 2: guards are just like, yeah, we're not guarding this wall anymore,
Speaker 2: and it's over, you know, And it was just over,
Speaker 2: and it was like it was a kind of like
Speaker 2: a moral collapse. I'm not so sure that they're gonna
Speaker 2: get that. In Iran doesn't seem like it.
Speaker 1: It seems like they've been preparing for this for a
Speaker 1: long time.
Speaker 2: Their Ranians. Yeah, they're dug in and now it's the
Speaker 2: sun and he's just part of that. He represents the uh,
Speaker 2: the I was the IGRC, the security forces. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's their guy, and it's what you would do. It's
Speaker 2: rally around the flag. It's classic what happens. And so
Speaker 2: but you know, never you never know, I mean, these
Speaker 2: guys then might just negotiate more what the Trump administration wants.
Speaker 2: I think the Trump administration is like, we'll just keep
Speaker 2: killing your leaders until we get somebody in there that
Speaker 2: we'll make a deal with us. I think that's I
Speaker 2: think that's how Trump thinks about it. Really, that's my
Speaker 2: that's my best guess.
Speaker 1: You're smiling.
Speaker 2: Do you think this it's funny? Because it's funny because
Speaker 2: it's it's so Joe. It's just like you just look
Speaker 2: at all the think tanks and all the White papers
Speaker 2: and the State Department and the plane and whatever, and
Speaker 2: it's just like Trump's just listen to Tucker. He's gonna
Speaker 2: listen to any and he's gonna decide what to do.
Speaker 1: This episode is brought to you by Visible Folks. There's
Speaker 1: one thing nobody wants this season, and that's getting catfished.
Speaker 1: And it's not just dating profiles that are putting you
Speaker 1: at risk. It's also big wireless carriers. You know, the
Speaker 1: type looks great at first, promises a low price, but
Speaker 1: once you're locked in surprise fees and an expensive bill
Speaker 1: that isn't what you were expecting. Your night in Shining Armor.
Speaker 1: Visible Wireless it's one line wireless with unlimited data and
Speaker 1: hotspot for just twenty five dollars a month taxes and
Speaker 1: fees included. Now that's a green flag. The best part
Speaker 1: Visible is all digital, so you can switch as fast
Speaker 1: as you can swipe. Don't fall for the trap of
Speaker 1: getting catfished by wireless. Visit Visible dot com to learn
Speaker 1: more and start loving your wireless carrier terms apply. See
Speaker 1: visible dot com for plan features and work management details.
Speaker 1: Is that good?
Speaker 2: I don't know if it's good. I mean, I just
Speaker 2: we don't know yet. I mean, I think part of
Speaker 2: it is is it gonna work? Part of you goes
Speaker 2: a moral and you're like, well, but does it? Does
Speaker 2: it work to make have better outcomes? I don't know.
Speaker 2: We're in a realm of absolute chaos.
Speaker 1: We're also in a realm where AI is going to
Speaker 1: be powering autonomous weapons, if not already.
Speaker 2: I mean that, I mean that is going on. That
Speaker 2: is so interesting. This thing with Anthropic and the D
Speaker 2: O D and what's happening there that is really interesting.
Speaker 1: So initially Anthropic was hesitant to allow them to use
Speaker 1: autonomous weapons.
Speaker 2: Right, I don't know the status of it. But you
Speaker 2: saw the open Ai the head of open Ai Autonomous, Uh,
Speaker 2: she's the head automous weapons. I think I'm not don't
Speaker 2: don't give me exactly right. But she just quit like
Speaker 2: a couple of days ago, is on X and it
Speaker 2: was just like a huge story. So you have a
Speaker 2: bunch of you have, you have, you have a rift
Speaker 2: in between now, you know, I think you know, Sam
Speaker 2: and Elon are both on board and want to keep
Speaker 2: working with the d D. But it looks like anthropic
Speaker 2: broke and you know, and then and then Hegscept was like, well,
Speaker 2: but then we're gonna punish you for this.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: That's very consistent with a kind of nationalist vision, which
Speaker 2: is that which the Trump meministration has, which is that
Speaker 2: your security strategy, your economic strategy, your border strategy, it's
Speaker 2: all a single Your industrial strategy, it's all a single thing.
Speaker 2: Your trade strategy, it's all a single thing. And I
Speaker 2: think for Trump, it's just you're either asserting power and
Speaker 2: using your leverage and demanding more, or you're engaged and
Speaker 2: managed to climb. You're just giving up, you know. And
Speaker 2: I part of me, I'm of mixed minds on it
Speaker 2: because on the one hand, I'm with the kind of
Speaker 2: I kind of go, let's invest at home, we have
Speaker 2: all that. You know, we have skid road to clean up.
Speaker 2: You know, uh, we should be focused on that, not
Speaker 2: on trying to do regime change or bombing other countries
Speaker 2: or creating other problems. On the other hand, I think
Speaker 2: there's something right about defending the West, I mean, defending
Speaker 2: Western civilization, you know, defending our institutions, our norms, our
Speaker 2: liberal values, and and nobody's done that. And we just
Speaker 2: had a guy in power that was that opened our borders,
Speaker 2: that kind of gave a blank check to Ukraine. It
Speaker 2: seems like at a minimum, with Trump, you have somebody
Speaker 2: that is taking responsibility in ways where Biden would be like, well,
Speaker 2: we're going to do with you know, we're going to
Speaker 2: work with our allies. And it was just all kind
Speaker 2: of like it was like it was all kind of
Speaker 2: going to be decided in this in this you know
Speaker 2: what chrisy Arvin famously calls the cathedral, you know, just
Speaker 2: the single thing of the media and the think tanks
Speaker 2: and the academics, and and Trump was like, it's not working.
Speaker 2: And the working class of this country elected me to
Speaker 2: to show strength and to demand a better return on
Speaker 2: our investment in terms of protecting our allies for our people.
Speaker 2: So that part of it, I think is really overdue
Speaker 2: and really necessary. An assertion of why the West is special,
Speaker 2: why we need to defend the West is bombing Iran
Speaker 2: and replacing the you know, the commanding with the sun
Speaker 2: is Mashot, you know, is what's happening Venus. Was that
Speaker 2: the right approach to that? I don't know, but I
Speaker 2: think we were. The system was failing. I mean, the
Speaker 2: open society system, which is supposed to be this liberal
Speaker 2: you know, uh, you know, system of tolerance, it became intolerant,
Speaker 2: It became to toulitarian, It created censorship industrial complex, They
Speaker 2: they weaponized the intelligence communities. We you know, started getting
Speaker 2: ourselves into conflicts that we that was not clear why
Speaker 2: we were in them, including Venice, I mean sorry, including Ukraine.
Speaker 2: I mean with Ukraine. It's like that war only continues
Speaker 2: because we continued to arm it. Like if we stopped,
Speaker 2: if we just were like, let's just have the just
Speaker 2: you know, just cut a deal wherever the border is
Speaker 2: right now, and you're just like that's where it's going
Speaker 2: to stop, then you can I mean, I don't know,
Speaker 2: I'm not sure what's preventing that from Trump. I think
Speaker 2: he's annoyed with Putin. But yeah, I mean my view
Speaker 2: is like, I don't see an interest in that war continuing.
Speaker 2: I don't know how it's in the interest of the
Speaker 2: working of working class Americans or Americans. And I have
Speaker 2: the same questions about Iran and Venezuela in Cuba. But
Speaker 2: I think that is a totally different paradigm than the
Speaker 2: one that we had from nineteen forty five to twenty
Speaker 2: twenty four.
Speaker 1: Well, the idea of tolerance, for you know, with the
Speaker 1: last administration, that seems just to be a narrative. It
Speaker 1: seemed to be a political strategy of keeping the borders
Speaker 1: open to increase populations and blue states, raise the census,
Speaker 1: get more congressional seats, and then a path to citizenship
Speaker 1: where you'd have permanent voters. That's what it seems like.
Speaker 1: And then there's also a ton of medicaid fraud that's
Speaker 1: wrapped up in that that we're now seeing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's part of it. I mean, there
Speaker 2: were The Times did a piece on why Biden left
Speaker 2: the borders open, and it.
Speaker 1: Was what was there?
Speaker 2: It was a funny piece like there was this it was,
Speaker 2: you know, part of it. He's so out of it right,
Speaker 2: like they were just it was not clear, like there
Speaker 2: wasn't clear there was like a meeting where he was like, yeah,
Speaker 2: we're gonna just do this thing. They kind of concluded that.
Speaker 2: I think Cecilia Mignot's who's one of the more moderate
Speaker 2: advocates and was in the bodministration, I think she said
Speaker 2: something like Biden just wanted to give the left. Just
Speaker 2: felt like you wanted to give the left what they wanted.
Speaker 2: And that's what you know, the Soros think tanks and
Speaker 2: the you know, the very progressive immigration groups have been
Speaker 2: and you know, have been advocating did the same thing
Speaker 2: on climate. So it makes sense. I know Elon talks
Speaker 2: a lot about how, oh it's about importing voters and whatnot. Maybe,
Speaker 2: but it's not even clear that that's a good strategy
Speaker 2: that's going to work. You know, well, because first of all,
Speaker 2: we don't know that Latinos like why are like, why
Speaker 2: do we assume Latinos are all gonna, you know, vote
Speaker 2: for Democrats.
Speaker 1: Well, if you've got them all on medicaid and social security.
Speaker 2: The numbers there are, it's actually more complicate. Europe is
Speaker 2: definitely the case that you have higher rates of crime
Speaker 2: and higher rates of social services among migrants. Here are
Speaker 2: Latino migrants traditionally, you know, you know, really thrive. You know,
Speaker 2: they do much better than they mostly Muslim immigrants in Europe.
Speaker 2: So I you know, I skeptic. I mean the other thing,
Speaker 2: they're the statistic that I learned from David Shore, who's
Speaker 2: like the one of the top Democrat pollsters, when he
Speaker 2: was talking to Ezraklin after the twenty twenty four elections,
Speaker 2: he was like, if all eligible voters had voted, Trump
Speaker 2: would have won by three percentage points rather than one
Speaker 2: point five. So it's also so I always think it's
Speaker 2: kind of funny because the Republicans always like trying to
Speaker 2: make it harder for people to vote. But under that
Speaker 2: calculation anyway, and maybe it's just Trump, maybe other Republicans want.
Speaker 1: When you see it harder for people to vote, what
Speaker 1: do you mean? You mean mail in voting just the
Speaker 1: whole difference. But the problem is mail in voting has
Speaker 1: always been a vector for fraud.
Speaker 2: That's it. Maybe I don't know how much of it
Speaker 2: there is. I've seen different things on it.
Speaker 1: Back like decades, people have been talking about mail and
Speaker 1: voting just being too open to fraud.
Speaker 2: Well, but then maybe, but then the questions, is a
Speaker 2: really benefit I mean, and there was. If David Shore
Speaker 2: is right, if everybody who could vote had voted, Trump
Speaker 2: would have won like basically by twice the margin.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know if that's necessarily true. But when
Speaker 1: I see laws like what California has where you're not
Speaker 1: allowed to show ID, there's only I mean, I've tried
Speaker 1: tried to find some sort of charitable way where that
Speaker 1: would make sense other than you want to open the
Speaker 1: door for fraud. There's nothing. This is this narrative that
Speaker 1: they say, oh, poor people don't have like you see
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris, they don't believe that they don't have a
Speaker 1: xerox machine.
Speaker 2: Like no, but you ever see the thing. I think
Speaker 2: it was a guy, I don't know if he did
Speaker 2: it for free Press. A guy was going around interviewing well,
Speaker 2: first he interviewed liberals that like I think U see
Speaker 2: Berkeley and he was like, you know, do you think
Speaker 2: that you should have to have an ID to vote?
Speaker 2: And they were like no, because black people don't have IDs,
Speaker 2: and like that's.
Speaker 1: Just and then hearing that on end No, No, I know.
Speaker 2: Of course but they believe that. Yeah, I mean, but
Speaker 2: then dont of you that saw that. It's an incredible
Speaker 2: video because then he goes to like I think he
Speaker 2: goes to Harlem, or he goes to like a black
Speaker 2: neighborhood in New York, and he was just actually asking
Speaker 2: black people. It's like, do you have an idea on you?
Speaker 2: It was like everybody was like, yeah, like, what's the
Speaker 2: matter with you?
Speaker 1: Well, it's also, we just got done with three years.
Speaker 1: If you need an ID to prove that you have
Speaker 1: been vaccinated, so you need to be able to have
Speaker 1: that to go to have worked, get on a plane
Speaker 1: to eat at a restaurant. It didn't make any sense. It
Speaker 1: was so immediately contradicting what had just gone down, you know,
Speaker 1: months earlier. It's just stupid.
Speaker 2: Well, yeah, that was about. That was because the left
Speaker 2: wanted to control people's behavior and on voting. They the
Speaker 2: old I I know because I just when I talk
Speaker 2: to my progressive friends about it, you know, and family
Speaker 2: and friends, it's it's very much like, no, we can't
Speaker 2: put barriers in the way of voting, because that's what
Speaker 2: they did during Jim Crow. I mean, that's where it
Speaker 2: goes back to is.
Speaker 1: Not a barrier. It's just an insurance that you're a
Speaker 1: citizen while you're voting.
Speaker 2: And then they say there's really not much. They say,
Speaker 2: there's very little fraud. I'm just telling you what they say.
Speaker 2: I'm not saying I agree.
Speaker 1: I just though, Yeah, do you believe that that's horseshit?
Speaker 1: That's a horseshit.
Speaker 2: I think they believe it.
Speaker 1: Yes. I think they just say it because that's the
Speaker 1: thing that everybody says. I think it's a group thing thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think if you sit down with any
Speaker 1: rational person and no one's watching, you know, there's no
Speaker 1: cameras on there, and you asked them, does that make
Speaker 1: any sense? No one would say it makes any sense.
Speaker 1: Most people in this country, or citizens, have some form
Speaker 1: of ID, or can get some form of ID, and
Speaker 1: it's entirely reasonable to ask people to prove that you
Speaker 1: are who you are if you're voting for the president
Speaker 1: of the United States, that seems pretty reasonable.
Speaker 2: I'm I I find it totally reasonable, and I support it.
Speaker 2: I'm just saying that if you make it, I'm just
Speaker 2: saying you may, the Republicans may. It may result in
Speaker 2: outcomes that are not the predictable ones that they think
Speaker 2: they'll get just because Trump was at least and Trump's
Speaker 2: maybe you know, a special case, but I mean he
Speaker 2: was able to turn out reluctant voters, like he motivated
Speaker 2: people to.
Speaker 1: Vote because people were fed up with what had gone
Speaker 1: on in the last four years. And I think the
Speaker 1: open border was the biggest one. I mean it was
Speaker 1: one of the biggest ones, because people just felt hopeless,
Speaker 1: like this is crazy, Like what you're doing. You're letting
Speaker 1: in what's equivalent at least if you're if you're just
Speaker 1: being charitable, it's ten million people. It was.
Speaker 2: It was huge.
Speaker 1: If you're just being conservative, it's ten times Austin. You'll
Speaker 1: let ten Austin's in in four years of people who
Speaker 1: you have no idea who they are.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And and Americans were on board with closing the borders,
Speaker 2: and then when it came time to actually asking all
Speaker 2: the getting those folks to leave that came in, all
Speaker 2: the support disappeared, right, I mean.
Speaker 1: Well, it's not asking them to leave, it's showing up
Speaker 1: at home depot and just rounding people up and raiding
Speaker 1: places and going to restaurants and pulling people out of
Speaker 1: their houses and I think people got very uncomfortable with
Speaker 1: the idea of militarized police wearing masks on the street. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and then when you find out that these guys have
Speaker 1: only been trained for seven weeks and there's they get
Speaker 1: a fifty thousand dollars signing bonus, and then you find
Speaker 1: out that a giant percentage of them are Latino, which
Speaker 1: is kind of crazy. You know, like the two guys
Speaker 1: who shot that guy in Minnesota, they're both Latino.
Speaker 2: And yeah, I mean that's what you get when you
Speaker 2: have completely untrained, unprepared people.
Speaker 1: Well, that's a hole like that. The whole Minnesota thing
Speaker 1: with alex pretty is a complete clusterfuck. I still not
Speaker 1: have not seen verification of whether or not the narrative
Speaker 1: that makes sense is true. But the narrative that makes
Speaker 1: sense was that there was an accidental discharge of his
Speaker 1: gun as they were pulling it away from him, and
Speaker 1: then that led to them thinking that maybe he still
Speaker 1: had the gun on him. Because you're in the chaos
Speaker 1: of arresting someone, someone says he has a gun, a
Speaker 1: gun goes off, and then they shoot the guy.
Speaker 2: I bet when you go I bet when they do
Speaker 2: the proper evaluation of it. They're gonna find multiple mistakes.
Speaker 1: I'm sure by the law enforcement that. And then there
Speaker 1: was the thing with the woman who got shot, where
Speaker 1: you have a guy who had almost been run over
Speaker 1: just a couple of weeks before and been dragged in
Speaker 1: his car. The guy who shot her had been dragged
Speaker 1: by another vehicle.
Speaker 2: I didn't see that.
Speaker 1: He got dragged like three hundred feet too, something crazy.
Speaker 1: So when a car is coming at him, you could
Speaker 1: imagine this guy's got some PTSD from that, and.
Speaker 2: He should not have been certain. He should not have
Speaker 2: been no.
Speaker 1: And also a shouldn't have said that fucking bitch like
Speaker 1: after he shoots her in the face too. That's crazy too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean the reaction, just the heartlessness of the
Speaker 2: reaction to the ards was terrible, including by the administration.
Speaker 2: That's probably why Christy Human ended up having to go.
Speaker 1: But then on the other side, these protests are organized,
Speaker 1: they're organized, and they're paid for, which is also something
Speaker 1: to be take that people need to understand. These are
Speaker 1: not organic protests. It's not organic that it just happened
Speaker 1: to be taking place in the very same place where
Speaker 1: you've found hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud. Right,
Speaker 1: this is one of the clearest, most obvious distractions you've
Speaker 1: ever seen, Like in the public arena where you have
Speaker 1: these people who are being paid to protest. They give
Speaker 1: them money to go out there in protest, they give
Speaker 1: them signs they're organizing it. They go signal groups, they're
Speaker 1: dosing all these different ice workers, they find out what
Speaker 1: their license plates numbers are, they find out where they're staying.
Speaker 1: They go to the hotel. The cops, the local cops
Speaker 1: are being told to stand down. So you've got it
Speaker 1: like this, this convergence of all these factors that lead
Speaker 1: to chaos. And you know Mike Bens was talking about
Speaker 1: and it was essentially saying it's a mathematical thing and
Speaker 1: that if you have these things play out, you're going
Speaker 1: to have a certain amount. It was Mike Ben's right,
Speaker 1: was saying that there was a certain amount of people
Speaker 1: that are you're going to have incidences. You're just playing
Speaker 1: it out over the numbers a certain amount of these protests.
Speaker 1: You have organized protests, you have untrained ice agents, you
Speaker 1: have a lot of chaos, you have support for people
Speaker 1: screaming in the streets, someone gets shot, boom, and then
Speaker 1: it moves the needle, and this is calculated that they
Speaker 1: want this to happen. They want it to hap them
Speaker 1: this way, because then this kills all the support for
Speaker 1: people that you know, we're kind of on the fence
Speaker 1: whether or not I should be deporting all illegals. Excuse me,
Speaker 1: what it should Excuse me whether they should just go
Speaker 1: after violent criminals. And and then there's these weird narratives like,
Speaker 1: oh oh, only fourteen percent are violent criminals that have
Speaker 1: been arrested. He was sixty percent of criminals. Sixty percent
Speaker 1: of the people plus were criminals, And like what by
Speaker 1: what definition violent criminals? Like you, like, what do you
Speaker 1: is it okay if they just come in here and
Speaker 1: rip people off, Like are you fine with that? It's
Speaker 1: just like the violent ones we need to get rid of.
Speaker 2: Like I think they didn't. Yeah, they did. They did
Speaker 2: a fairly poor job of it. Like why were they
Speaker 2: focused on Minneapolis? I think most people don't understand how
Speaker 2: radical the left in Minneapolis is because it was a
Speaker 2: Midwestern place, but it's actually got a long radical left tradition.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and as you.
Speaker 2: Were saying, I mean Alex Preddy, he should have been
Speaker 2: arrested several days before, when he had a gun on
Speaker 2: him and got into an altercation with the police. They
Speaker 2: should have arrested him then, and then they could have
Speaker 2: the judge could have done a lot of different things,
Speaker 2: but they could have taken away his gun. They could
Speaker 2: have put a restraining order on him so next time
Speaker 2: he showed up and people would know to look for him,
Speaker 2: then he would have been kept out of the area.
Speaker 1: Do you know the story about the gun that he
Speaker 1: was carring. No, Okay, So he's carrying a gun called
Speaker 1: a cig P three twenty, which is notorious for accidental discharges.
Speaker 1: Not mean there's lawsuits all over the place. There's videos
Speaker 1: of cops in precincts bending over to pick something up
Speaker 1: and the gun goes off in his holster. There's a
Speaker 1: ton of these. So I don't know if this is
Speaker 1: completely accurate, because this is obviously the fog of chaos
Speaker 1: of these type of altercations and situations. But there's a
Speaker 1: video that many people have reviewed and it's their conclusion
Speaker 1: that if you watch the video, when one of the
Speaker 1: ice officers removes his gun, even though he does not
Speaker 1: have his finger on the trigger, has his hand on
Speaker 1: the gun and his fingers on the slide. As he's
Speaker 1: moving off, it appears the gun goes off. Now they've
Speaker 1: zoomed in on it and shown that it does look
Speaker 1: like the gun's going off, and it does correspond with
Speaker 1: the sound of a gunshot. It's just hard to know.
Speaker 2: You hear a gunshot in the video, yes, but I.
Speaker 1: Don't know if it's legitimate. It's hard to know. But
Speaker 1: if it was any other gun, like say it was
Speaker 1: a glock, I would say that doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: His fingers on on the trigger, it's not gonna go off.
Speaker 1: But that gun is notorious for going off. There's a
Speaker 1: guy online that he shows a video where he takes
Speaker 1: the gun and he manipulates the slide and it goes off,
Speaker 1: and it goes off without nothing touching the trigger, no one,
Speaker 1: no one's pulling on it. It's just if you have.
Speaker 1: The other problem is people alter guns. Okay, So the
Speaker 1: issue with the SIG was they they had I believe
Speaker 1: up to twenty seventeen, they had a lighter trigger, and
Speaker 1: this lighter trigger if the gun was dropped or if
Speaker 1: something happened to it, it was going off, and they
Speaker 1: determined it's the gun does not have an internal safety
Speaker 1: like some other guns do. I'm not an expert, so
Speaker 1: I don't know exactly what the trigger mechanism is, but
Speaker 1: my understanding is that the trigger mechanism is different than
Speaker 1: their other guns. Like they have another gun, it's notoriously reliable.
Speaker 1: It's a sig P three sixty five. You could drop
Speaker 1: that gun. It's not gonna go off. It's not known
Speaker 1: for accidental discharge. But the three twenty is known, and
Speaker 1: there's tons of videos of people demonstrating this online. There's
Speaker 1: a video where they're on a range and a gun
Speaker 1: goes off in a guy's holster and the range instructor says,
Speaker 1: what the fuck just happened? And this guy he points
Speaker 1: to this, you know, the gun that went off, and
Speaker 1: he said, is that sig and he goes here, he goes,
Speaker 1: get that fucking thing off the range. So it's that notorious,
Speaker 1: this one particular model, and it just happened to be
Speaker 1: the one particular model that Alex Pretty was carrying, which
Speaker 1: is fucking crazy.
Speaker 2: Well, his behavior was really reckless. It's really hard for
Speaker 2: people to hold two ideas in their mind at the
Speaker 2: same time, Like Ice mess that up quite clearly, and
Speaker 2: Alex Pretty, I mean, you we see the earlier video,
Speaker 2: you know, where he kicks out the taillight of the
Speaker 2: ice vehicle right and he's I mean, he's got a
Speaker 2: gun in the waistband of his of his jackets, hidden
Speaker 2: by the jacket. He gets into this altercation with the police.
Speaker 2: I mean, I had when I posted about it, and
Speaker 2: I didn't say this, but what a lot of the
Speaker 2: responses were suicide by cop. People were like, suicide by cop.
Speaker 2: I mean, and I'm not making that claim, but I
Speaker 2: mean his behavior was I mean, the recklessness of the
Speaker 2: gun choice mirrors the recklessness of his behavior in those instances.
Speaker 2: And I heard people being like, oh, well he you know,
Speaker 2: he was just defending that poor woman. There was a
Speaker 2: police officer engaged in an arrest of a person and
Speaker 2: Alex pretty intervened in that. I mean, I think you
Speaker 2: can mess around us.
Speaker 1: It was a little I don't know if it was
Speaker 1: an arrest. The police officer shoved this woman.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he put he was in an altercation with somebody.
Speaker 2: You don't go people, you know, there was people go, oh,
Speaker 2: you got to put yourself in. What do you think
Speaker 2: You're like, what do you think is going on here?
Speaker 2: Like he should put himself in between that.
Speaker 1: No, the way the ice officer wasn't a police officer, right,
Speaker 1: it's an ice officer. Do you call them police? The
Speaker 1: way the ice officer reacted to the woman did that
Speaker 1: bothered me, Like he just shoved this leg like like
Speaker 1: step forward and fully shoved. That's when Alex Pretty gets involved,
Speaker 1: and then pepper spray comes out and then.
Speaker 2: And Alex Pretty should have absolutely filmed that, should have
Speaker 2: filmed the whole thing. That's exactly what a lot of people.
Speaker 1: Were filming it. It was clear there's cameras all over them. So,
Speaker 1: but don't mean multiple angles.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so, but it's like, I just don't think that's
Speaker 2: appropriate behavior. That's not the tradition of like I mean,
Speaker 2: I think there's a non violent left wing tradition that's
Speaker 2: actually quite beautiful and spiritual and the Roe and Gandhi
Speaker 2: and King. That's not what was going on in Minneapolis.
Speaker 2: That's not at all what's going on.
Speaker 1: This is a part of the problem with these things
Speaker 1: being organized, right, organized paid protests and also people being
Speaker 1: radicalized by narratives. Then of course very different than what
Speaker 1: was going on with the civil rights movement. You have
Speaker 1: social media, so people are like radically pushed in one
Speaker 1: direction or another. And it's not clear whether or not
Speaker 1: that it's organic. It's not clear is this the voice
Speaker 1: of the people or is this bot farms that are
Speaker 1: pushing things in one direction or another? Is it? I mean,
Speaker 1: there's there's a lot of people that I cautiously watch
Speaker 1: their their posts on on X where I know that
Speaker 1: they're AI. I know it's AI. I can just tell
Speaker 1: by the way they write.
Speaker 2: Well, there's so much as heard.
Speaker 1: It's weird because it does muddy the water and it
Speaker 1: does fuck with discourse. But it also radicalizes people one
Speaker 1: way or the radicalizes people towards the right, radicalizes people
Speaker 1: towards the left. It's not good. And I think this guy,
Speaker 1: whatever his mental health struggles were, that they appeared to exist,
Speaker 1: it seems like he was a troubled guy already. So
Speaker 1: a thing comes along that defines them a cause that
Speaker 1: they're going to stand up for and fight for because
Speaker 1: their life's probably a fucking mess and their mind is
Speaker 1: probably a mess. And they look at this, they look
Speaker 1: at it like it's this black and white binary situation
Speaker 1: for good guys and bad guys, and let's fuck all
Speaker 1: these fascists and these kicking tail lights and you know,
Speaker 1: get involved in pushing matches with ice agents. It's like
Speaker 1: that's crazy, Like all that stuff should and can get
Speaker 1: you arrested.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I think on the organized issue, remember,
Speaker 2: like the Civil rights move was really well organized and
Speaker 2: terms it was like, actually.
Speaker 1: Weren't being paid for it. It wasn't me a promotion on
Speaker 1: social media. It wasn't people's job. There are people in
Speaker 1: America right now that are unemployed that are paid protesters
Speaker 1: for a living.
Speaker 2: Oh, I mean that's the entire like left wing NGO
Speaker 2: sector is basically that, right, Yeah, I mean that's like
Speaker 2: that we saw it. I see the level of San
Speaker 2: Francisco and for homelessness. They just go and you work
Speaker 2: at a government funded or soro's funded ngo and then
Speaker 2: you do all that civil disobedient stuff on your free time.
Speaker 2: And but I was, I just think I think that
Speaker 2: you're you're right, you were right when you're saying like,
Speaker 2: because I think it's the problem is not the organization.
Speaker 2: The problem is that the organization in Minneapolis had a
Speaker 2: goal of causing exactly what occurred. The organization around the
Speaker 2: civil rights movement was to desegregate soda counters. Yes, and
Speaker 2: so one of them was about actually, I mean the
Speaker 2: other thing is that brought pull back a little bit further.
Speaker 2: Martha King and the civil rights movement was about affirming
Speaker 2: our liberal democratic Western civilization. Black people wanted to be
Speaker 2: a part of it. This stuff where you're like, we
Speaker 2: want to open the border and defund the police and
Speaker 2: basically start attacking all of these institutions of liberal democratic civilization,
Speaker 2: that's different. That's a radicalized left fundamental.
Speaker 1: Clearly, he defines it best to suicidal empathy.
Speaker 2: I don't agree with gad on that.
Speaker 1: No, you don't think it's suicidal empathy.
Speaker 2: I don't think it's either suicidal or empathic, because empathy
Speaker 2: is empathy is.
Speaker 1: Like, Well, he minimized that to a lot of progressive ideas,
Speaker 1: not just the immigration thing. I don't think he necessarily.
Speaker 1: I think it was actually long before the immigration thing
Speaker 1: that he was talking about at suicidal empathy. The idea
Speaker 1: being that you need the rule of law to have
Speaker 1: a safe and peaceful society.
Speaker 2: Yes, that part is true, that's part's true.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you need no violence, you need no crime. And
Speaker 1: when you're taking criminals and just releasing them from jail
Speaker 1: and you have no cash bail, and you're doing all
Speaker 1: these things. If you want to put on the fucking
Speaker 1: tinfoil hat, you would do that because you want chaos,
Speaker 1: Because you want chaos so you can have more rules
Speaker 1: and tighten down on people and have more control over
Speaker 1: the civilization.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I think in that. I mean I think,
Speaker 2: like it's not empathic to allow more violent crime. Like
Speaker 2: I don't think that's empathy towards victims, So I don't
Speaker 2: think I wouldn't call it empathy. And not only that,
Speaker 2: but like when you look at like these who these
Speaker 2: folks are, and I spend a lot of time looking
Speaker 2: at them and was one of them. They hate Western civilization,
Speaker 2: they hate the United States of America, they hate capitalism,
Speaker 2: like it's an anti civilization thing that's motivating it. And
Speaker 2: that's not to say that like MSNBC watchers don't feel,
Speaker 2: oh I feel bad for that person, But I mean,
Speaker 2: I always you know, it's like like the people I
Speaker 2: hear complain about ice, they don't know any illegal immigrants.
Speaker 2: They've never talked to them other than maybe their server
Speaker 2: or that you know, but they don't even really talk
Speaker 2: to their gardeners, or their or their you know, the
Speaker 2: their maids. It's like the idea that they empathy implies
Speaker 2: a deep understanding of someone's situation, and so I think
Speaker 2: it's a misdescription of empathy. I think in some ways
Speaker 2: it's more quite the opposite of that, that they're actually
Speaker 2: not showing empathy for all the people that are hurt
Speaker 2: by their policies, whether it's open borders or enabling addiction,
Speaker 2: or euthanizing poor and mentally ill people in Canada or
Speaker 2: transing kids. I don't think that those things are empathic,
Speaker 2: and the person that's doing them I don't think is suicidal.
Speaker 2: If anything, they're actually quite full of themselves and quite
Speaker 2: arrogant about what they're doing. I mean, I use the
Speaker 2: word pathological altruism in San Francisco, and I say it's
Speaker 2: close to monk Housen syndrome by proxy. Maybe it is
Speaker 2: mon chasm syndrome by proxy, but I don't think it's
Speaker 2: I worry about I worry about affirming because I think
Speaker 2: that's how progressives go to go, oh, well, if we
Speaker 2: if the homeless are are worse off, that's just because
Speaker 2: we care so much. I just don't think that's the case.
Speaker 1: Well, that's the homeless thing is nuts, because the homeless
Speaker 1: thing is just a scam. And we know that basically
Speaker 1: because of California. Like California, what's happened with the whole
Speaker 1: homeless budget is so insane, and that they vetoed audits
Speaker 1: of these budgets. There's been twenty four billion dollars spent,
Speaker 1: no one knows where it went, there's no accountability, and
Speaker 1: then the homeless situation increases.
Speaker 2: Well that's why, I mean, remember, it's like it's funny,
Speaker 2: like my students just did a pay We have something
Speaker 2: we've been working on it too, like the Canadian euthanasia program.
Speaker 2: And it's like every year the numbers just keep going
Speaker 2: up and up and remind me of when you interview
Speaker 2: homeless you know, service providers in San Francisco, they'll be like, yeah,
Speaker 2: I know, we're doing an amazing job. Every year we
Speaker 2: serve more and more people. It's like, right, you have
Speaker 2: all the you have the wrong incentives. You're trying you're
Speaker 2: even incentive to serve to you've incentive to create homelessness,
Speaker 2: and that's what they've done.
Speaker 1: Well, if you get more money, if you have more
Speaker 1: homeless You're incentive is now not to eliminate homelessness, because.
Speaker 2: That's your job, right, that's how you make all your
Speaker 2: mon When.
Speaker 1: I first was alerted to that, I was like, I
Speaker 1: can't believe this is real. Like when you find out
Speaker 1: the amount of money that's involved in homelessness, like that
Speaker 1: they spend twenty four billion dollars. Okay, where did that go? Where?
Speaker 1: And then there's no accountability. Okay, there's no fraud. You're
Speaker 1: saying there's no fraud zero.
Speaker 2: Well I wish there was fraud. I mean, somebody was
Speaker 2: sort of like, can we expose you know, like Nick
Speaker 2: Shirley exposed the daycare is not doing anything in the Minnesota.
Speaker 2: I was like, I wish the homeless service providers weren't
Speaker 2: doing anything. If they're stealing the money, then there'd be
Speaker 2: a lot less homelessness.
Speaker 1: Well would you so you think they're actually using the
Speaker 1: money to create homelessness?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Oh yeah, I mean think about Like so San
Speaker 2: Francisco was like out between one hundred and one hundred
Speaker 2: and twenty thousand dollars a year per homeless person. Think
Speaker 2: I think LA at a bargain of something more like
Speaker 2: twenty five thousand that's just San Francisco. That doesn't count
Speaker 2: the twenty four billion that California gave. So that money's
Speaker 2: going to you know, single resident occupancy hotel owners, it's
Speaker 2: going to nonprofit service providers or just bringing food and
Speaker 2: you know, alcohol and drug paraphernalia to make it easier
Speaker 2: for people to do drugs and overdose and live in
Speaker 2: tents on the street. That's just it's very expensive to
Speaker 2: kill that many people that way. That's what San Francisco
Speaker 2: has proven.
Speaker 1: Right, But it's really about the amount of people where
Speaker 1: that's their industry, that there is an industry in taking
Speaker 1: care of the homeless situation and addressing the homeless situation.
Speaker 1: And you know coleyon Noir when he was on the podcast,
Speaker 1: he was explaining to me that he went to San
Speaker 1: Francisco and he was like, why is it so bad
Speaker 1: up here? Do they need Money's like, no, no, no.
Speaker 1: This guy who's a lawyer is explaining to him. He's
Speaker 1: a lawyer as well, it was explaining it to him
Speaker 1: like no, no, no. These people people are getting money to
Speaker 1: deal with the homeless situation, and some of them are
Speaker 1: making quarter billion dollars a year and more, which is
Speaker 1: just nuts, and then it's not getting better, it's only
Speaker 1: getting worse. And yet they see they still keep getting
Speaker 1: that money. So it's like there's zero incentive to make
Speaker 1: it better. There's only an incentive to make it worse.
Speaker 1: And then when you have no accountability, so there's no
Speaker 1: auditing of the money. Twenty four billion dollars is a
Speaker 1: lot of fucking money. So where who's getting greased up?
Speaker 1: Where's that money going?
Speaker 2: Mostly it's into the it's into the temporary what they
Speaker 2: call they call it permanent. It's propaganda word, Probablyganda. It's
Speaker 2: a permanent supportive housing. It's neither permanent nor supportive. It's
Speaker 2: often warehousing addicts where they die. I mean we know
Speaker 2: that they died at very high levels in those little
Speaker 2: this is a little crummy you know, single resion occupancy rooms.
Speaker 2: They bought a lot of motels that were you know, low,
Speaker 2: low income, you know, low you know, cheap motels, converting
Speaker 2: them having but they don't really there's no I mean,
Speaker 2: all that money should have gone into a centralized addiction
Speaker 2: psychiatric care system CALSYCH is what it should have been,
Speaker 2: and instead it's just it's just kind of yeah, it's
Speaker 2: just basically incentivizing people to live on the streets and
Speaker 2: use hard drugs and die in overdose.
Speaker 1: It's just so crazy. I mean, if you wanted to
Speaker 1: make it better, you to incentivize them and pay them
Speaker 1: based on the amount of people that are no longer.
Speaker 2: Homeless, right, But they don't do that.
Speaker 1: But then the problem with that is, well, you're eventually
Speaker 1: going to fix it all and then your business is
Speaker 1: going to go away.
Speaker 2: Right, And that's all happening. I think it's I think
Speaker 2: it's all happening unconsciously. Like there's no room. There's no
Speaker 2: like you know, secret room where they're rubbing their hands
Speaker 2: and being like, oh, we're gonna make a lot of
Speaker 2: money this way. It's just, you know, when you interview them,
Speaker 2: it's a very basic view. You know. It's just these
Speaker 2: people are victims. They're victims of white supremacy and capitalism,
Speaker 2: and and to victims everything should be given in nothing required.
Speaker 1: Well, I think that's a nice narrative. But I think
Speaker 1: once you start getting monthly paychecks from the homeless industrial complex,
Speaker 1: I think your incentive is to keep this party going. Well.
Speaker 2: Sure, but they but they think it's good. I mean,
Speaker 2: they go this shows how good we're doing that. We
Speaker 2: got a bigger budget this year. In that's that's how
Speaker 2: they rationalize it. Yeah, yeah, I mean it's a sign
Speaker 2: of a very sick society.
Speaker 1: Hence the title of your book, San Francisco, Sicco, which
Speaker 1: is a great title. I mean, it's a sick place,
Speaker 1: and it was one of my favorite cities. It was
Speaker 1: an amazing city. Well, California owned my Netflix special there
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen, so in just the amount of time
Speaker 1: in ten years, it's completely fallen apart. When I was
Speaker 1: there in twenty sixteen, it was great with the I
Speaker 1: mean there was always a lot of homeless people there,
Speaker 1: but you have that in any liberal city. But it
Speaker 1: was never an epidemic. It was never like tents everywhere
Speaker 1: and shit on the streets. That wasn't the case. It
Speaker 1: was just, you know, it was a liberal city, a
Speaker 1: progressive liberal city. But it was cool. There was a
Speaker 1: lot of outdoor music. It was fun. It was a
Speaker 1: great place to go to restaurants and people walked around.
Speaker 1: It was a great city filled with intelligent, interesting, open
Speaker 1: minded people. Man. I lived there when I was a
Speaker 1: little kid. I was there during the Vietnam War from
Speaker 1: age seven, to eleven. I lived in San Francisco.
Speaker 2: It's a little bit better now they had a new mayor. Yeah,
Speaker 2: a little bit. I mean I want to acknowledge. I
Speaker 2: can't lie about it. It's a little bit better. I agree.
Speaker 2: I interviewed a lot of people still about what's going on.
Speaker 2: It's still there.
Speaker 1: Did you see what happened with the mayor with.
Speaker 2: His security guard? Yeah, I got pulled down.
Speaker 1: Yeah. First of all, for sure used to learn some
Speaker 1: fucking jiu jitsu. The way he let that guy grab him,
Speaker 1: You didn't he didn't pummel, he didn't do anything. It
Speaker 1: looked like he had no understanding of what to do
Speaker 1: when that guy grabbed his body, Like, how was he
Speaker 1: a security guard? That's crazy? How could you be a
Speaker 1: security for the mayor if you literally don't know what
Speaker 1: to do in a clinch.
Speaker 2: I thought he looked like he didn't really see the
Speaker 2: guy as a threat or something like maybe he thought
Speaker 2: he was just crazy all this.
Speaker 1: I didn't see a guy as a threat. If a
Speaker 1: guy grabs me like that, I'm not going to let
Speaker 1: him get that position on me.
Speaker 2: And he cut back. It probably cut his back of
Speaker 2: his head.
Speaker 1: And banged him on the ground, he body slammed onto
Speaker 1: the fucking concrete, and then.
Speaker 2: A metaphor for the whole same.
Speaker 1: Just walks away and he walked away like it was
Speaker 1: nothing like he walked away not he didn't.
Speaker 2: Run, see though, because I saw that video and I
Speaker 2: couldn't tell if the mayor actually saw what was happening.
Speaker 2: He seemed like he was going he was looking that way,
Speaker 2: and so he was.
Speaker 1: He was here when they started physically, was struggling with
Speaker 1: each other. And then when they're struggling with each other,
Speaker 1: he walks off, and then the guy gets body slam.
Speaker 2: It was the weirdest video to watch. Yeah, it is
Speaker 2: a nonchalant Yeah.
Speaker 4: As a metaphor for the city, this is a different angle.
Speaker 4: The mayor actually is running.
Speaker 1: Off to get help.
Speaker 4: Oh he is running off, Yeah, may refresh this. Yeah,
Speaker 4: so there's the merrit there. Okay, he pushes this guy here.
Speaker 4: In a second, the mayor sort of as soon as
Speaker 4: he gets watched, takes off.
Speaker 1: So why why are they hanging out with this guy
Speaker 1: in the first that looks like they're in kingbos So
Speaker 1: the security guards started it and he doesn't know what
Speaker 1: the fuck he's doing. There's here, Okay, it like better,
Speaker 1: and the other guy's a lot stronger than him. So
Speaker 1: the mayor he looks.
Speaker 4: He starts running, right, he seems relaxed.
Speaker 1: Okay, Okay, he did start walking slowly and then starts,
Speaker 1: but that's going to get help. That guy started it all.
Speaker 1: He pushed that guy. If you're a security guy, the
Speaker 1: last thing you want to do when there's one of
Speaker 1: you and two of those other guys is deal with
Speaker 1: the situation that way where you push a guy.
Speaker 2: I'm I have to say it's she said, I'm always
Speaker 2: surprised when I see them, dude, like that was the
Speaker 2: same thing that happened with the preddy we're just talking about.
Speaker 1: Don't you think this guy's probably armed too? I mean,
Speaker 1: but also he shouldn't have pushed that guy that way.
Speaker 1: I mean, the whole thing is fucking stupid.
Speaker 2: Look at the look at the chaos or somebody else
Speaker 2: just ranging around and they're helmeless person or something.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, the other guy's probably talking ship. I bet
Speaker 1: that guy's funny. I bet he's the guy with a
Speaker 1: big coat on. I mean, I don't, for the life
Speaker 1: of me, none of it makes sense, right, None of
Speaker 1: it makes sense. The mayor walking off casually and then
Speaker 1: eventually running. It doesn't make sense the security guy just
Speaker 1: walked up to those guys and pushed them. When your
Speaker 1: details to take care of the mayor, you should be
Speaker 1: escorting him around that and getting him away from any
Speaker 1: potential trouble. Like the brazenness of just walking up and
Speaker 1: pushing that guy whell you don't know how to fight
Speaker 1: at all. It's very clear when you watch the way
Speaker 1: they grappled with each other, he doesn't know what he's doing.
Speaker 1: This episode is brought to you by Into It. TurboTax.
Speaker 1: April fifteenth is coming fast. There's been so many tax
Speaker 1: law changes this year, which means you're going to need
Speaker 1: an expert who has your back. You're in luck. TurboTax
Speaker 1: now has in person locations nationwide. Walk into their tech
Speaker 1: enabled stores and meet face to face with a turbo
Speaker 1: tax full service expert who will get your best outcome.
Speaker 1: Expert works to get you every dollar you deserve while
Speaker 1: updating you as you go about your day. Head to
Speaker 1: TurboTax dot com to find a store near you.
Speaker 2: It seems like we're having a lot of security problems
Speaker 2: in our society right now. It's wild, right I can't
Speaker 2: believe the pushing. I mean that's the same the pretty thing,
Speaker 2: Like why pushing?
Speaker 1: Is that?
Speaker 2: Like a is that like an important law enforcement technique?
Speaker 2: I mean, what is that?
Speaker 1: Well, not only that he pushed a small woman, the
Speaker 1: ice guy just completely just full on shoves this small woman.
Speaker 2: Which means he was emotionally out of control first, right,
Speaker 2: it means that he was angry. He was angry.
Speaker 1: These guys are not like special forces guys. They're not
Speaker 1: well trained. These guys are seven weeks now seven weeks,
Speaker 1: and a lot of them are financially incentivized because like
Speaker 1: if you get fifty thousand dollars, like if you're in
Speaker 1: debt and then you could take this job on. I
Speaker 1: don't when they get the fifty thousand dollars, how long
Speaker 1: do they have to stay on the job for to
Speaker 1: have that money, to have that signing bonus or is
Speaker 1: it one of those things where you get the fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars as a signing bonus, but you pay it
Speaker 1: like a record deal type deal where it's not really
Speaker 1: your money. You have to make it up later.
Speaker 2: I'm at it.
Speaker 1: Still, if you can get fifty thousand dollars, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of people that'll take that job.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're just yeah, it was just a bunch of bad,
Speaker 2: bad choices.
Speaker 1: Maybe admonstration on that one.
Speaker 4: Someone's read it comments saying they have no personal experience,
Speaker 4: but they've heard that it's fifty k over four years
Speaker 4: if you're in good standing at the end of those
Speaker 4: four years.
Speaker 1: Oh so you only get it after four years, right, right,
Speaker 1: But for some people that have no job opportunities, yeah,
Speaker 1: and no nothing on the horizon, that fifty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: looks like. Look, it's an extra twenty five K year,
Speaker 1: or an extra you know, twenty five k for for
Speaker 1: four years for fifty forty.
Speaker 4: Person says that's incorrect. It's broken into ten payments, once
Speaker 4: at ninety days, then once every year for four more years.
Speaker 2: Anyway, Oh it's broken.
Speaker 1: But by the way, it's fifty thousand dollars that you
Speaker 1: would not have been able to make.
Speaker 2: I mean, we had police shortages before twenty twenty. We
Speaker 2: had a bunch of police shortages after that, mostly by
Speaker 2: police officers who were just felt mistreated by the society
Speaker 2: and by their local mayors who said that they were evil.
Speaker 1: Well, didn't a lot of comps resign when Adam Donni
Speaker 1: got elected.
Speaker 2: Oh, I'm sure, and then a COVID drove and then
Speaker 2: they and a bunch of police officers driven out during COVID,
Speaker 2: So there was already our security forces have been, you know,
Speaker 2: and they were just people underestimate how important it is
Speaker 2: to feel like important in your job and respected. And
Speaker 2: it's not just about the money, because they would be
Speaker 2: offering more money. But I think a lot of people like,
Speaker 2: oh no, I don't want to be in a job
Speaker 2: where people are like spitting at me or throwing urine, and.
Speaker 1: Well not just that job where your life is on
Speaker 1: the line.
Speaker 2: Yeah, your life is already on the line, and then
Speaker 2: you're mistreated by the wider society, which actually creates additional risks,
Speaker 2: you know, as this chaos in Minneapolis shows. So yeah,
Speaker 2: it's just people want to believe that they're doing something
Speaker 2: that is appreciated by the community. And so when the
Speaker 2: community decides that they're against policing, your civilization's pretty far going.
Speaker 1: All right. But this is the difference between policing and
Speaker 1: this ice thing. The ice thing is a different thing, right,
Speaker 1: They're looking at it differently. It's not like you're watching
Speaker 1: a violent altercation take place. The police show up and
Speaker 1: people are spitting on them, like you're trying to break
Speaker 1: up a violent crime. This is different. They're looking at
Speaker 1: it like in the progressive narrative is like, no one's
Speaker 1: illegal on stolen land, and we need to have open
Speaker 1: borders and illegals or immigrants rather or the foundation of
Speaker 1: this country. And you hear all that those narratives.
Speaker 2: The president and those the president and the administration. They
Speaker 2: wanted to pick a fight, obviously with this left wing
Speaker 2: with activists in this left wing city. They thought it
Speaker 2: would were down to their benefit to show how crazy
Speaker 2: the left was, and it backfired on them.
Speaker 1: Well, I think they wanted to do something about the
Speaker 1: amount of illegal fraud that was just recently exposed in Minneapolis.
Speaker 2: But I don't know that that's but you wouldn't do it
Speaker 2: with ice raids though, I mean, well.
Speaker 1: It's illegal immigrants. If you have illegal immigrants that are
Speaker 1: responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud, and
Speaker 1: you know at least some of them are illegal, it
Speaker 1: seems rational that you would send Eisen to find out
Speaker 1: who's illegal and who's not and put a stop to
Speaker 1: some of it. And there's also this nationwide focus on
Speaker 1: this one place because of the Nick Shirley videos.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, though I think that the motivate My understanding
Speaker 2: is that the motivation was to motivate people that are
Speaker 2: here illegally to self deport, and so that that's the
Speaker 2: main part of the strategy, is this show of force,
Speaker 2: because of course it's they wanted the publicity. They wanted
Speaker 2: people to be scared and self deport. They claim that,
Speaker 2: you know, one point I think three million people self
Speaker 2: deported or at one point four and another four hundred
Speaker 2: thousand or six hundred thousand deported through the normal channels.
Speaker 2: And apparently they're just limited to how many people they
Speaker 2: can actually deport through the normal channels. But they can
Speaker 2: get people can self deport, they can just go and
Speaker 2: because of course there's this thing called everify where you
Speaker 2: just have the employers have to prove that everybody you're
Speaker 2: employing is here legally, and they don't want to do that.
Speaker 2: Tr administration doesn't want to do that because they'll upset
Speaker 2: in particular like the agricultural lobby, but others construction who
Speaker 2: depend on So it's a it's a funny, it's not great.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I'm not saying that there's that I
Speaker 2: have the perfect answer to the other one. But obviously,
Speaker 2: like politically, the president doesn't feel like they can do
Speaker 2: everify and maintain support from the business community for his
Speaker 2: political agenda. So you end up but you end up
Speaker 2: with a kind of underclass that's here illegally, but that's
Speaker 2: protected because they're working in a sector that the president
Speaker 2: and the administration wants to protect. But then you're also
Speaker 2: self deporting people. I'm not sure exactly how they're thinking
Speaker 2: about it, but that appears to be what the heart
Speaker 2: of their goal is.
Speaker 1: Well, this was always you know what a lot of
Speaker 1: people on the left back in the day would say
Speaker 1: that illegal immigrants was, this was like a Koch Brothers thing.
Speaker 1: This was like a right wing thing that they wanted
Speaker 1: this for for exactly what you just described, and that
Speaker 1: this was not a left wing progressive idea, and that
Speaker 1: what it would do is would lower the wages for
Speaker 1: the lower class in the middle class this country, and
Speaker 1: it would be bad for the citizens. And so you
Speaker 1: don't want unchecked illegal immigration. Unchecked illegal immigration would just
Speaker 1: be for the right, because they're the ones who own
Speaker 1: these massive corporations that are profiting off of illegal labor.
Speaker 1: They don't have to pay them benefits, they don't have
Speaker 1: to pay them healthcare, any of the things that are
Speaker 1: you know that cost money.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean on the left was always balancing a
Speaker 2: sort of open society, you know, they wanted the Soros
Speaker 2: Foundation always wanted to have a free movement of people
Speaker 2: to That was sort of their view of why. One
Speaker 2: part why the Holocaust occurred is that you couldn't move
Speaker 2: you know, you know, at least the persecutions, you couldn't
Speaker 2: move people as easily. But then you had the working class,
Speaker 2: you know, who were negatively affected by bringing to migrants
Speaker 2: who would push down wages, and unions who are a
Speaker 2: big part of the Democrat party. So the Democrats were
Speaker 2: sort of divided on it for a while, but they
Speaker 2: managed it. And Hillary and Obama would sort of if
Speaker 2: you look at when they were competing in two thousand
Speaker 2: and eight, they were very carefully like there was a
Speaker 2: whole thing around like driver's licenses, whether she would give
Speaker 2: them or not, and obamacque Hillary of kind of playing
Speaker 2: both sides of it, you know, typical thing. But they
Speaker 2: also both spoke out strongly against mass migration. Fast forward
Speaker 2: ten years, you know, fast forward much more than that
Speaker 2: it was at sixteen years into today. And now you've
Speaker 2: got a much more working class Republican party who's unified
Speaker 2: around keeping the borders closed and restricting the supply of
Speaker 2: low income, unskilled workers, because I mean, it's just obvious.
Speaker 2: I mean it's it was really weird to watch people
Speaker 2: that are always defending supply and demand and economics and
Speaker 2: economic policy then say, oh, no, but having open borders
Speaker 2: and having all these working class people come in is
Speaker 2: going to have no impact on wages when obviously it would.
Speaker 2: And I think that's now that's also now gone. I
Speaker 2: think that's another thing that's just Trump has just changed.
Speaker 2: I don't think you're going to see Democrats going back
Speaker 2: to advocating that kind of mass migration again, right, But.
Speaker 1: You could see a world where they would push back
Speaker 1: against what has happened. What would they would say the
Speaker 1: barbaric nature of some of these ice raids, and then
Speaker 1: saying from this is a filter ice water, and that too.
Speaker 1: If you'd like, you don't have to not have your bottle.
Speaker 1: We don't care.
Speaker 2: Oh it's in the shot, No, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: We don't care, it doesn't matter, but you could see
Speaker 1: how they could go back to a much looser border policy.
Speaker 2: I think they won't. I think they won't. I think
Speaker 2: the closed border, I mean, I think that that sweet
Speaker 2: spot of public opinion is like people really want to close.
Speaker 2: I think it was just really.
Speaker 1: But I don't think public opinion supported an open border,
Speaker 1: even on the left, no, during those last four years.
Speaker 1: But yet they did it anyway. And they were moving
Speaker 1: people to blue states, they were moving people to swing states,
Speaker 1: they were flying people in, busting people. They were doing
Speaker 1: it on purpose.
Speaker 2: Isn't that not? Also though, because the blue state governors
Speaker 2: were more welcoming of them.
Speaker 1: There's a little bit of that. But there was also
Speaker 1: the idea that you're going to juice up the congressional
Speaker 1: seats because you're going to change the census.
Speaker 2: Maybe, although California lost seats right.
Speaker 1: Well, because California has done such a fucking terrible job
Speaker 1: of governing their state. It's so that place is so crazy,
Speaker 1: Like every time there's some new law that they're trying
Speaker 1: to push through, some new bill, and I'm like, do
Speaker 1: they just want everyone to leave?
Speaker 2: Well, they drove the billionaires out right, Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 2: I know they drove out of David Zacks came to Austin.
Speaker 2: I think Mark Zuckerberg moved to Florida. I heard rumors
Speaker 2: to Steven Spielberg. I don't know if that's I don't
Speaker 2: want to spread disinformation. I don't want to spread misinformation.
Speaker 2: But I heard he was leaving. But yeah, it's good.
Speaker 1: The thing that drives me the most nuts is when
Speaker 1: these progressive talking heads staying they don't want to pay
Speaker 1: their fair share with the amount of waste and fraud.
Speaker 1: Why would you you don't think there should be some
Speaker 1: accountability to how much fucking waste and fraud that has
Speaker 1: been clearly demonstrated, Like the solutions just give more money,
Speaker 1: Oh when they can do it because they have it,
Speaker 1: So what you just give more money and now it's
Speaker 1: thirty billion dollars goes to homeless with no accountability, Like
Speaker 1: you what are you saying? Like, where do you think
Speaker 1: this money's gonna go where it's actually gonna help people
Speaker 1: in effect things in a positive way. There's been no
Speaker 1: indication that that's the case, That the real problem is
Speaker 1: they just haven't had enough money from the billionaires. That's
Speaker 1: fucking ludicrous. That ideas. It's such a lazy, intellectually lazy
Speaker 1: way of framing this whole discussion. That's saying, Oh, they
Speaker 1: don't want to pay their fair share, fuck you, that's
Speaker 1: not what's going on here. What's going on here. You
Speaker 1: have a completely incompetent government that's absolutely corrupt and they
Speaker 1: want more money. Oh yeah, gas is like eight dollars
Speaker 1: a gallon almost Now, oh that's bananas.
Speaker 2: They were going to shut down. I mean, the refiners
Speaker 2: are being shut down in that initiative. The Billionaire's Tax
Speaker 2: is an s CiU initiative, so meaning it's the union
Speaker 2: that covers healthcare workers like nurses. They're very radical, very
Speaker 2: radical left, and the money is to provide medicaid for
Speaker 2: undocumented immigrants. Like that's what they want it for, right,
Speaker 2: So like that's the whole thing, and so you literally
Speaker 2: get the This is like, this is why people worry
Speaker 2: about democracy. You get all the is very democratic, but
Speaker 2: you get these powerful unions and they're able to change
Speaker 2: the laws like that. I mean it's called the Curly
Speaker 2: effect because there was a Boston mayor named Curly who
Speaker 2: made everything so bad for his political opponents that they left.
Speaker 2: But the consequence was that he ended up gaining more power.
Speaker 2: So all of when everybody moves to you know, when
Speaker 2: all the like moderate Democrats moved to Austin or Miami
Speaker 2: or Denver or wherever, California just sends up locked in
Speaker 2: more to a progressive agenda, that's the problem.
Speaker 1: Well, I think the idea is that it's so good
Speaker 1: there that most people are just going to tolerate whatever
Speaker 1: new bullshit they throw your way.
Speaker 2: One hundred percent. And also, I mean it seems like
Speaker 2: the tech community is now backing the San Jose mayor
Speaker 2: who's running, who's a very Democrat, very moderate, you know,
Speaker 2: but he's been critical of Gavin running for governor. Yeah,
Speaker 2: Matt mayhean, so keep your eyes on him. I mean,
Speaker 2: he's not he's not like maybe the most exciting guy,
Speaker 2: but he's definitely running as a moderate.
Speaker 1: That might be give some money exciting people are I.
Speaker 2: Know, they want he might be enough to I don't know,
Speaker 2: It's hard to say, but it does look like because
Speaker 2: I mean, look, there's plenty of the tech community only
Speaker 2: woke up politically in twenty twenty four. That's how long
Speaker 2: it took. And it really took things getting so bad
Speaker 2: where they were telling Mark Andresen as he said to
Speaker 2: you on your show, that they were shutting off whole
Speaker 2: parts of AI. The Bid administration was openly threatening AI
Speaker 2: and this huge new and you know, there's concerns. I'm
Speaker 2: not saying that there's not, but I think the I
Speaker 2: think at some point the tech community, which had been
Speaker 2: you know, either leaning Democrat, you know for a long
Speaker 2: time since the Obama era, you know, or wanted to
Speaker 2: stay out of politics because they just wanted to focus
Speaker 2: on their machines and their investments. They don't really want
Speaker 2: to be involved in politics. But they woke up in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty four, and so hopefully because it's not I mean,
Speaker 2: when you see what Soros has done and you really
Speaker 2: appreciate the power that one billionaire can have, you kind
Speaker 2: of go, why is there nothing like that, you know
Speaker 2: on the other side, Why is it so dominated by Soros?
Speaker 2: And so I hope that that's starting to happen. But yeah,
Speaker 2: when you start to chase out the billion and the
Speaker 2: billionaires just give up on California, then it's got to
Speaker 2: be whoever's remaining to try to put the money behind
Speaker 2: the guy that can get some change there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's I mean, I don't see a pathway where
Speaker 1: California anytime soon turns around. I don't see how it could.
Speaker 1: I feel like it's the momentum has shifted so far
Speaker 1: in a terrible direction, and the solutions are always tax more,
Speaker 1: take more money from people. You see of this completely corrupt, irresponsible,
Speaker 1: fraud ridden, wasteful government that wants more of your money.
Speaker 1: And the solution is, if we take more money, we're
Speaker 1: gonna make things better, which is just insanity.
Speaker 2: I mean, things that can't go on don't. So I mean,
Speaker 2: you could see it, right, I mean, Matt, if it's
Speaker 2: say Matt Mahan or somebody more moderate gets into be governor,
Speaker 2: Rick Rusa runs for La mayor again, I mean, honestly,
Speaker 2: like if somebody can't defeat Karen Bass after she let
Speaker 2: Los Angeles burn away, which is now we now know
Speaker 2: for a fact was just totally preventable, Absolutely preventable, I
Speaker 2: was saying at the time, But now we know they
Speaker 2: tried to rewrite the report, but it's clear it was
Speaker 2: totally preventable.
Speaker 1: How did they try to rewrite thet.
Speaker 2: Well, the report, you know, said here's all the things
Speaker 2: that the fire department should have done that didn't happen.
Speaker 2: And ultimately, you know, the mayor is the one that
Speaker 2: chooses the fire chief and fires the fire chief, and
Speaker 2: the mayor was warned. They were warned, and she goes
Speaker 2: to Fli Staghana for this little junket presidential inauguration, paling
Speaker 2: around when she should have been in La with a
Speaker 2: at a command headquarters. And you know, and if she wasn't,
Speaker 2: then Gavin should have been. You know, Schwarzenegger, towards the
Speaker 2: head end of his administration, they would just mobilize planes
Speaker 2: full of water, you know, huge these those huge cargo
Speaker 2: planes full of water before there were fires, just to
Speaker 2: start to circulate, just to get ready to put stuff out.
Speaker 2: This idea that there was, this idea promoted that it
Speaker 2: was inevitable that the fires that oh, eventually it's just no,
Speaker 2: like it's absurd, Like, of course you can protect it
Speaker 2: with adequate fire. Oh, the pipes weren't big enough. No, like,
Speaker 2: maintain your reservoirs have water in them. Even the one
Speaker 2: that was like was like not repaired yet, which should
Speaker 2: have been repaired. They could have kept they could have
Speaker 2: air gapped the pipe so that it didn't contempate the water.
Speaker 2: Supply but left it for firefighting. They didn't do that.
Speaker 2: They didn't station the engines where they needed station. Nobody
Speaker 2: was on you know, it's like they're not taking responsibility,
Speaker 2: Like they weren't taking responsibility for it. So any way
Speaker 2: to the point being, get a new governor, you get
Speaker 2: a better mayor of l A. You've got a guy
Speaker 2: in San Francisco now who I think has still has
Speaker 2: a lot of potential. I mean this latest video, uh,
Speaker 2: you know, showing the chaos there, but you with that
Speaker 2: I think could fix him.
Speaker 1: Though it's his you know, the criticism of him as
Speaker 1: they walked away too casually, that's a big deal. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So I mean, I think there is a there is
Speaker 2: a way for California to come out. And my view
Speaker 2: is like, look, you've got it's it's on the tech
Speaker 2: billionaires they you know, and I know some of them
Speaker 2: have left and obviously they don't need it, but there's
Speaker 2: still a lot of billionaire rich guys in California that
Speaker 2: are perfectly cap of financing an alternative effort.
Speaker 1: The vote.
Speaker 2: Seventy five percent of San Francisco voters want to arrest
Speaker 2: people using fentanyl in public. They want to arrest them. Okay,
Speaker 2: that sounds so that's so taboo and progressive. That's seventy
Speaker 2: five percent of San Francisco voters. So the voters are
Speaker 2: not they're not the radical left. Some ways, they're radicalized
Speaker 2: and their hatred of Trump and the Trump Arrangement syndrome.
Speaker 2: But I mean everyone like Caruso and Mahon and anybody
Speaker 2: else there will all just be able to say they
Speaker 2: hate Trump like everybody else.
Speaker 1: Well, I think they've seen the consequences of these policies.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, there's people are people are really it's not
Speaker 2: like anything has changed that significantly.
Speaker 1: They will.
Speaker 2: In fact, when I interview people in San Francisco, they're
Speaker 2: a little reluctant to admit that's gotten better because I
Speaker 2: think they don't want to take any pressure off the politicians. So,
Speaker 2: I mean, I do think it's it's rescuable, but it's hard.
Speaker 1: When you say it's gotten better.
Speaker 2: Like how so mostly the encampments are being broken up.
Speaker 2: Now you see a little you see more of that
Speaker 2: sort of thing that we just saw on the video
Speaker 2: where there's like I call them, like a little more
Speaker 2: of like a nest, you know, there's just a little
Speaker 2: homes encampment It's like, yeah, the whole block that's in Oakland,
Speaker 2: that's in.
Speaker 1: Skid row, Oakland's nuts.
Speaker 2: Oakland is Oakland might not be savable. They had a
Speaker 2: chance to save themselves and they ended up voting for
Speaker 2: the wrong person from ay Or and it's just as
Speaker 2: bad as ever. So, but I think if you get
Speaker 2: San Francisco, LA and a new governor in place, I
Speaker 2: think you've got the makings to save it.
Speaker 1: But have you seen this video of this guy does
Speaker 1: the subscription of what's going on in Oakland and then
Speaker 1: drives across the county line into the next place and
Speaker 1: it's immediately all done. And you just see what the
Speaker 1: difference between two different forms of government and how it works.
Speaker 2: I didn't see that one, but I saw the one
Speaker 2: between Venice and Santa Monica. Yeah, I was there when
Speaker 2: the Venice and Santa Monica was someone like, You're like,
Speaker 2: why are there tents? Why aren't there any tents there?
Speaker 2: It's like that's Santa Monica. Yeah, it's different.
Speaker 1: Well there's still.
Speaker 2: Some Santa Monica got bad too.
Speaker 1: But they cleaned it up a little bit better. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but Venice is bananas. It's just but Venice is nothing.
Speaker 1: Compared to skid Else, skid Row is fifty blocks.
Speaker 2: Venue is okay, now, Venez is okay. Now, yeah, they
Speaker 2: cleaned that up pretty quickly, and then they and then
Speaker 2: the voters fired their city council member who represented them,
Speaker 2: who was total crazy radical chesabodeine level radical and replace
Speaker 2: them of a more moderate person.
Speaker 1: So, but yeah, it's so like when you go to
Speaker 1: the beach, it's not chaos.
Speaker 2: No, I mean, I'm not gonna there's always it's but
Speaker 2: I mean remember before it was just it was tense everywhere.
Speaker 2: I mean it was everywhere, and it would dug in,
Speaker 2: you know, it was like crazy. So no, that's gone.
Speaker 2: But skid Row as bad as ever.
Speaker 1: Skid Row is fifty blocks. Fifty blocks is so crazy.
Speaker 1: Fifty blocks of tents and homeless people. When we first
Speaker 1: heard that, I was like, that's got to be wrong.
Speaker 1: It's probably five blocks. No, it's five zero fifty blocks.
Speaker 1: That's an enormous amount of land that's completely covered by
Speaker 1: homos encampus.
Speaker 2: There's like a whole genre of like of like influencers
Speaker 2: when they first visit skid Row, because everyone hears about it,
Speaker 2: and then you see like their their tweets, are just
Speaker 2: like there's like all I couldn't believe, Like I think
Speaker 2: it's like maybe Ben Shapiro or there's Verius conservative influencers
Speaker 2: who have gone to skid run there, Like I had
Speaker 2: no idea, There was a idea until you see it.
Speaker 1: There was a comic from the Comedy Store that filmed something.
Speaker 1: He went like undercover and he had like in this past,
Speaker 1: he had some I don't think I think currently he
Speaker 1: was sober when he did this, but he decided to
Speaker 1: go there and film and stay in one of these
Speaker 1: encampments just to show what it was like. And this
Speaker 1: is like two thousand six ish six ish somewhere around there,
Speaker 1: and it was fucking nuts even back then. And you know,
Speaker 1: we talked about the story of how skid Row with
Speaker 1: the whole Jerome Hotel and how it all it started.
Speaker 1: Skid Row was the place where they would take all
Speaker 1: the homeless people and all the people that were problematic,
Speaker 1: and they would move them there and keep them there.
Speaker 1: And the idea was that you just keep them out
Speaker 1: of Beverly Hills, keep them away from Hollywood. We're doing
Speaker 1: movies and we've got famous people walking around. We can't
Speaker 1: have homeless people atch them up, take them downtown and
Speaker 1: contain them. So they had them contained in this area
Speaker 1: and they call it skid row, and then it just
Speaker 1: kept getting bigger.
Speaker 2: It's not that different from the tenderline in the sense
Speaker 2: that those are places where those single resident those are
Speaker 2: the places where the really cheap hotels were. They were
Speaker 2: like often for like working, like working people that were
Speaker 2: in town temporarily, like temporary hotels. Some of them would
Speaker 2: just be cages. There were no walls, like you would
Speaker 2: just get your own little thatvels. How primitive they were,
Speaker 2: and then it'd just evolved over time and then they
Speaker 2: became all of them became subsidized for the homeless. But yeah,
Speaker 2: it's I don't think I think California. I think it's important.
Speaker 2: I think with Trump and again, like them or hate
Speaker 2: them or disagree, whatever, you see the potential of this
Speaker 2: country in particular to make a big change, and I
Speaker 2: think that it's ultimately resulted from an unleashing of you know,
Speaker 2: social media made it all possible, allowed for people to
Speaker 2: get you know, accurate information for the first time in
Speaker 2: a different paradigm. So I don't want to lose hope
Speaker 2: on the Golden State.
Speaker 1: But you lost hope on Oakland.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, but maybe I never had hope for Oakland.
Speaker 1: So at one point in Doma, Oakland was great. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean Jerry Brown actually brought it up a bit,
Speaker 2: you know, got it more development there. But yeah, it's
Speaker 2: all about governance.
Speaker 1: Yeah it is.
Speaker 2: I guess Hey, can I use the bathroom? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah, sure, sure, we'll possible grab backpoks. I just sent
Speaker 1: Jamie something funny that someone just sent me about San Francisco.
Speaker 1: There's this guy I think he calls himself the gay Republican.
Speaker 2: The gay Republican.
Speaker 1: Probably there's a lot of those actually, but we shouldn't
Speaker 1: shock people.
Speaker 2: Their closet is about the Republican part. Now that's the thing.
Speaker 1: Well, it depends on how wealthy they are. I mean
Speaker 1: some of them are pretty you know. Peter Teel pretty
Speaker 1: open about it.
Speaker 2: He will. He was, yeah about as Republicanism.
Speaker 5: Ran Transit, we refuse to release crime surveillance videos because
Speaker 5: it will make people racist. Releasing videos would create a
Speaker 5: racial bias in the writers against minorities on the trains.
Speaker 5: Why would it do that San Fran Transit, why would it?
Speaker 5: Why would it create a bias? Is there is there
Speaker 5: a reoccurring theme among the people committing crimes.
Speaker 2: You could say that about European crime statistics as well.
Speaker 2: That's also why the Germans actually in particular, but I
Speaker 2: think other European countries did not want to release right, but.
Speaker 3: They did get him out. They have come out now,
Speaker 3: so in the UK. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So let's move
Speaker 3: on to happier subjects. So what do you think about
Speaker 3: all this UAP talk. It's one thing that Trump has
Speaker 3: said that he's going to release whatever files that they
Speaker 3: might have on UAP's alien terrestrial beings, all this Jess
Speaker 3: I talked to Jesse Michaels about it. He is highly
Speaker 3: skeptical and he said the people that are involved.
Speaker 1: Are all old guard and you know, they're just it's
Speaker 1: just gonna be a bunch of horseshit.
Speaker 2: Maybe. I mean, just first of all, look, I mean
Speaker 2: I think, whatever you think about the phenomenon, this is amazing.
Speaker 2: I mean, the president just said he's going to release
Speaker 2: all these things. So, I mean, after decades of saying
Speaker 2: we're not interested in this, we're we're not following this,
Speaker 2: we're shutting down blue book. You know, there's nothing there.
Speaker 2: They're like he's saying so I mean that right there
Speaker 2: is I think amazing, and I thought the whole thing
Speaker 2: was amazing. Like Obama comes out and he goes, what,
Speaker 2: there's definitely aliens. Oh, but they're not under are fifty
Speaker 2: one unless they're hiding it from presidents, which is like
Speaker 2: a well established conspiracy theory. So to have Obama even
Speaker 2: say that, and then Trump comes up and he goes,
Speaker 2: he goes Obama revealed classified information with a little grin
Speaker 2: on his face because he's a little rivalry with Obama,
Speaker 2: I might help him out by declassifying. And then a
Speaker 2: few hours later he did, I mean, I what can't
Speaker 2: you like about that?
Speaker 1: I mean I think that, well, it's theater, that's what
Speaker 1: you can't like it.
Speaker 2: It's theater.
Speaker 1: But I mean, we just saw that thing really comes out.
Speaker 1: This is just another distraction to keep us from thinking
Speaker 1: about all the other things that are going on.
Speaker 2: But you can't be so, I mean, we should get
Speaker 2: into Epstein files too, because I do think I have
Speaker 2: a different view of Epstein now. But look, I just
Speaker 2: think we've been asking for more transparency like we had
Speaker 2: in this very brief period in the mid seventies with
Speaker 2: the Church Committee hearings, it really took a whole Watergate,
Speaker 2: It took something big. It's been over fifty years. We
Speaker 2: got a lot of Epstein files. Yes there's some missing,
Speaker 2: but we got JFK files, Amelia air hard files, and
Speaker 2: now we're gonna get some UFO files. Is it going
Speaker 2: to be everything? Of course not like there's just no way,
Speaker 2: you know. But I don't think like I think we
Speaker 2: should hold book. We should be happy that like there
Speaker 2: is an acknowledgment that there's a lot of government files
Speaker 2: and that there's some commitment to release them, because I
Speaker 2: do think like it's easier to get new Epstein files
Speaker 2: released after you have some Ebstein files released than if
Speaker 2: you have none. And I feel the same way about UFOs.
Speaker 1: Okay, so it's easier to get more UFO files released,
Speaker 1: but like release like.
Speaker 2: What do we want? So I think one of it
Speaker 2: is like what do we want? And I've been you know,
Speaker 2: I respect John Greenwald a lot. You run something called
Speaker 2: the Black Vault dot com where he has been foyering.
Speaker 2: He's been issuing you know, Freedom of Information Act requests
Speaker 2: on UAP, but also a ton of other issues since
Speaker 2: the mid nineties when he was like fifteen years old.
Speaker 2: He became obsessed with doing a Foyer requests and he
Speaker 2: has identified a number of documents that we know exist
Speaker 2: with redactions. One of them is the UAP Task Force,
Speaker 2: which has a line that just says potential explanations. You know,
Speaker 2: the first explanation is redacted, is blacked out, The second
Speaker 2: one is, you know some sort of natural phenomenon. Number
Speaker 2: three is blacked out, is redacted, unredact those. I mean,
Speaker 2: come on, guys, you can't tell me what we have
Speaker 2: to protect our sensor data. Come on, guys, I mean,
Speaker 2: like that's not sensor data. Tell us what the potential
Speaker 2: explanations are are in terms of the sensor data. John
Speaker 2: also made a great point. Do you remember when the
Speaker 2: Pentagon released the video of the Russian jet dumping fuel
Speaker 2: on one of our drones. There's like a famous video
Speaker 2: when they shows a hostile act by the Russians jumping
Speaker 2: fuel on our drone just recently, I mean must have
Speaker 2: been within the last year or so. So like they're
Speaker 2: not we do see they do release you know, warfare,
Speaker 2: various various times they do release things, and you can
Speaker 2: kind of go, okay, that means that we have I
Speaker 2: don't think what I'm saying is the main excuse has
Speaker 2: been not to reveal our methods for getting you know,
Speaker 2: if we're just talking about UAP here getting you know,
Speaker 2: photographs and video, we know that a huge amount of
Speaker 2: it exists. They haven't even released the full you know,
Speaker 2: Gimbal and Go Fast videos. There's a whole bunch of
Speaker 2: more video.
Speaker 1: Left really so just really yeah, so that the video
Speaker 1: that came out that those were whistle blower leaks.
Speaker 2: Right, Eventually they released them formally though the Pentagon did,
Speaker 2: so there's much more of that.
Speaker 1: So and the particularly started interrupting. But was it the
Speaker 1: gimbal or the Go Fast where there was many more crafts?
Speaker 2: I believe that there was. So there's three videos, right,
Speaker 2: it's Gimbal Go Fast and then what was the one
Speaker 2: where it moved the tiktak video moves down of the frame.
Speaker 2: My understanding is that there's significantly more video for all
Speaker 2: of those. And then I also minerstands also there's just
Speaker 2: a lot of other videos, particularly from those two incidents,
Speaker 2: certainly have there's so much more sensor data because we
Speaker 2: know those incidents had a lot more going on, right
Speaker 2: than just was filmed by those videos. So I think
Speaker 2: that now there is I was gonna say the UAP community,
Speaker 2: there isn't really an organized one, although Jesse's doing an
Speaker 2: amazing job of organizing it. We should be really specific
Speaker 2: and say, you know, here's what we want. I did
Speaker 2: a piece with John Greenwald. Representative Nancy Mace wrote an
Speaker 2: open letter to the intelligence and military community saying, here's
Speaker 2: a set of documents that we want to release. So
Speaker 2: I think the good news is we're like, look, the
Speaker 2: President said he wants this. We've identified a bunch of documents,
Speaker 2: identified a bunch of videos and film. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 2: are they going to withhold stuff? Are they going to mislead? Probably?
Speaker 2: But that's been the story for eighty years.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, you saw the Age of Disclosure, right, Yes,
Speaker 1: of course. Okay, So I think they make a really
Speaker 1: good point in Age of Disclosure that if they did
Speaker 1: release things, the real problem is misappropriation of funds lined
Speaker 1: to Congress and the fact that some of these you
Speaker 1: would assume that the way these things are being handled,
Speaker 1: if they do have crafts, if they are if there
Speaker 1: is some sort of a back engineering program, that back
Speaker 1: engineering program is going to be held by a military contractor.
Speaker 1: So whatever the contractor is, whether it's you know, Rocket
Speaker 1: Dying or whoever has it right, you would imagine that
Speaker 1: the other competing groups would be very pissed off that
Speaker 1: they didn't have access to this thing, and they they
Speaker 1: could sue the misappropriation of funds lying to Congress. People
Speaker 1: could go to jail. Also, most likely fraud. There's got
Speaker 1: to be tons of fraud. If there's so much money
Speaker 1: that's being like shuffled away into these black ops projects,
Speaker 1: if there's no oversight, then who knows where the money's
Speaker 1: going right, And so there's a problem there. You open
Speaker 1: up the books and people go, well, why was there
Speaker 1: one hundred million dollar check written here? Where's the two
Speaker 1: point three billion that's missing here?
Speaker 2: And you know, I'm yeah, I have doubts now. I
Speaker 2: mean I have to say I didn't finish watching him,
Speaker 2: but you know, Jesse just dropped a video with him
Speaker 2: and Eric Weinstein and Eric.
Speaker 3: Dasas Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, Eric Jesse, Yeah, so Jesse.
Speaker 1: Eric, I haven't seen that yet.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I found it. Really it really made me question
Speaker 2: whether there's any there there.
Speaker 1: What does Eric Davis do?
Speaker 2: Eric Davis, you know who he is. He's got the
Speaker 2: bushy Beard, and he's an age of disclosure and is
Speaker 2: part of the whole you know, Bigelow, you know that
Speaker 2: whole asap A tip. He was a I don't know
Speaker 2: it was exact, he was a he's a scientist, but
Speaker 2: he was sort of talking about because I think Eric
Speaker 2: Weinstein was asking these really hard questions like okay, well,
Speaker 2: like how many people are in this you know, reverse
Speaker 2: engineering program and what is it? And I just found
Speaker 2: his answer to be very thin.
Speaker 1: So I'm I haven't seen it, so I can't comment
Speaker 1: on that, but I know I just both skeptical and
Speaker 1: open mind at the same time.
Speaker 2: There is a like, yeah, I just I definitely think
Speaker 2: there's a lot more than they've revealed. I think my
Speaker 2: skepticism on the reverse engineering stuff. I mean, obviously there's
Speaker 2: crashed retrieval because they're just retrieving it could be foreign
Speaker 2: or they're retrieving something. The reverse engineering, I mean, if
Speaker 2: it's advanced tech, nuclear just took so much I mean
Speaker 2: I'm just familiar with the history of nuclear, just so
Speaker 2: much effort to create nuclear energy, and you'd have these
Speaker 2: huge there's a huge enterprise thousands of people if they're
Speaker 2: not I mean that's why I kind of go and
Speaker 2: I mean a whole other form of propulsion. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's just really it would require so many such a
Speaker 2: big bureaucracy. That's where I'm a little skeptical that that exists,
Speaker 2: because I don't know how you maintain a cover up
Speaker 2: that long. But I could be wrong. I mean, as
Speaker 2: you know, as people have pointed out, they've maintained secrecy
Speaker 2: of a lot of things for a really long time,
Speaker 2: so it's not inconceivable.
Speaker 1: But well, especially when you're dealing with government contractors and
Speaker 1: military contractors, they've done. I mean, they have a long
Speaker 1: history of keeping a tight lip when it comes to
Speaker 1: all sorts of top secret projects that they're working on.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's weird because like if you look at
Speaker 2: the UAP Task Force, which was created by people that
Speaker 2: had it, you know, it comes out of they have
Speaker 2: AWSAP and then a TIP and then UAP Task Force,
Speaker 2: and then they create ERA, which is much more like
Speaker 2: what Blue Book was, which is their whole point is
Speaker 2: to debunk and dismiss I think that's the whole point.
Speaker 2: It's just to say, we looked into it and there's
Speaker 2: nothing there. So then they and they cherry pick the
Speaker 2: cases like they don't actually deal with it, with stuff
Speaker 2: that they can't explain. That's what Earra's point is. But
Speaker 2: the UAP Task Force was people that seem genuinely interested
Speaker 2: in it, and they have potential explanations and three separate things.
Speaker 2: So that means that they didn't know themselves. And so
Speaker 2: I would think that if you if there was some
Speaker 2: reverse engineering program, then you would have a better idea
Speaker 2: than just three potential explanations.
Speaker 1: But that's assuming they actually got access.
Speaker 2: The up task force people.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, because if they open themselves up for
Speaker 1: if they do have access, then you open up those
Speaker 1: questions misapprobation of funds lined Congress, military contractors having access
Speaker 1: to these vehicles. I would imagine that's too messy.
Speaker 2: They get very mumbly. They get very mumbly at that point.
Speaker 2: I find when you started kind of like well what
Speaker 2: is it? And how many people kind of it's a
Speaker 2: lot of like you know, I mean, that's how that's
Speaker 2: how that was my interpretation of this. I think that
Speaker 2: it's I'm much more with Jacques Valet's view of the phenomenon,
Speaker 2: and I think that it that they don't know what
Speaker 2: it is. I think they have a lot more photos
Speaker 2: and videos showing demonstrating this incredible phenomenon. But I'm not
Speaker 2: sure that they know what it is. And I'm pretty
Speaker 2: skeptical that they have a secret reverse engineering program just
Speaker 2: because I don't. I don't see how they how they
Speaker 2: would have carried it out for this long because Jesse's
Speaker 2: theory of courses that it would date back to the
Speaker 2: set to the fifties. Yeah, and it just there's just
Speaker 2: too many possibilities for too many deathbed confessions from people
Speaker 2: to reveal this knowledge.
Speaker 1: So but don't you think you would keep a really
Speaker 1: close watch on anyone who had any access to any
Speaker 1: of these things, and that would be very threatening to them,
Speaker 1: like Bob Bazaar.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I don't know. You believe Bob Zaar.
Speaker 1: I do. Yeah, I don't know what he was working on,
Speaker 1: whether or not it was ours or something else or what,
Speaker 1: But I don't think he's a liar. He's had the
Speaker 1: same story forever.
Speaker 2: Well, then we should go demand the documents. I mean,
Speaker 2: that would be something where we just need to be like, look,
Speaker 2: these are the documents that we want, and it's on
Speaker 2: this place these years.
Speaker 1: Well, one of these that Bob said is he thinks
Speaker 1: some of the documents that he was shown were horseshit,
Speaker 1: and he thinks it's on purpose. He thinks they're that
Speaker 1: those fake documents, that the fake narratives are a hook
Speaker 1: so that if somebody does spill the beans, they know
Speaker 1: exactly who would who was doing it, because they could
Speaker 1: point to like maybe if you're involved in you know,
Speaker 1: X program, they give you some bullshit narrative on top
Speaker 1: of the real truth. Right, they'll make up some stuff
Speaker 1: right that way if you really well the government told
Speaker 1: me X, and you go, oh, okay, he learned it
Speaker 1: from this. He's a part of this program. Now we've
Speaker 1: narrowed it down to two hundred and fifty employees, let's
Speaker 1: start scouring these people.
Speaker 2: Counter intelligenestions. Yeah, counter intelligence, Yeah, I mean it seems
Speaker 2: like that. So you know the MJ twelve document, Yes,
Speaker 2: there's one of them. That is this incredible document. I mean,
Speaker 2: just if it's a forgery, most people, I think think
Speaker 2: it's a forgery or it's a hoax, whatever, it's so
Speaker 2: well done. It's the manual on extraterrestrial crash retrieval with
Speaker 2: different morphologies. You ever seeing this, No, it's amazing. Document
Speaker 2: like I spent when a long rabbit hole. Look, I
Speaker 2: would say, most upologists think it's fake. So it's not
Speaker 2: even me. I what's incredible about that they show like
Speaker 2: you know, like the old books and that from the library.
Speaker 2: They'd show who checked it out, they had all these names.
Speaker 2: Isn't So then you kind of go like, the only
Speaker 2: people really, I mean, it seemed like the level of
Speaker 2: sophistication to create this would have been the government, And
Speaker 2: so then you're sort of like, well, why would they
Speaker 2: have done that. One of the answers is it was
Speaker 2: just this is called passage material to be able to
Speaker 2: detect counterintelligence activities. I'll tell you another one that I
Speaker 2: can't quite figure out. I mean, there's a lot of
Speaker 2: effort to and why that narrative. Another thing I was
Speaker 2: people say is will go, well, they're using the UAP
Speaker 2: stuff as cover for secret weapons programs, And You're like, well,
Speaker 2: why would that work as cover? And they go, well,
Speaker 2: because then then it's a way to distract attention. I
Speaker 2: was like, why would that distract attention? Wouldn't that attract attention?
Speaker 2: You go, don't if you as opposed to like within
Speaker 2: the military, like, look, we don't this is this is
Speaker 2: secret research, you know, that's really important national security. We
Speaker 2: don't pay attention. Instead, they're like, oh no, this is
Speaker 2: UFO crash retrieval, so don't pay attention to it. That
Speaker 2: seems like you're a recipe for creating more interest in UFOs.
Speaker 2: So there's a lot of things that the government has
Speaker 2: done where you're like, it's almost like assuming that is
Speaker 2: by the way that we know that, Like we know
Speaker 2: that the government, the US Air Force, did you know
Speaker 2: in the early eighties make this guy Paul Benowitz go
Speaker 2: crazy who was seeing things over Kurtland Air Base and
Speaker 2: then this guy Richard Dodie.
Speaker 1: You know how they make them crazy.
Speaker 2: They would be feeding him all this information convincing them
Speaker 2: of an alien attack, and he basically ended up going
Speaker 2: crazy from it. It's this amazing story told by this
Speaker 2: by this book Mirage Men also documentary, and you look
Speaker 2: at you kind of go and they go, well, it
Speaker 2: was to cover up a secret weapons program at Kurland Airbase.
Speaker 2: And it's like it's like I'm not I'm not even
Speaker 2: disbelieving it, but it's like that's just such a like
Speaker 2: why would that be the best way to do that?
Speaker 2: And why would you be so sure that that wouldn't
Speaker 2: attract interest from people rather than distracted. So there's a
Speaker 2: bunch of things that don't make sense. And so even
Speaker 2: if it is all, you know, which is the skeptic view,
Speaker 2: you know, is that it's some combination of government disinformation,
Speaker 2: sci fi you know, dreams, hypnosis, hypnogogic states, and then
Speaker 2: and then kind of the power of belief.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: I just reviewed this new book on Barney and Betty Hill,
Speaker 2: where the author thinks that it was that that really
Speaker 2: was a combination of her it was the stress of
Speaker 2: being an interracial couple, her nightmares, and then hypnosis where
Speaker 2: they then canfabulate this whole story. That's the basic skeptic
Speaker 2: view is that it was sort of but the government's
Speaker 2: involved in it. And that's always strange because you're like
Speaker 2: the government and Barney Hills, no, no in the in
Speaker 2: the UFO, in creating in the uf assuming that they
Speaker 2: did the m J twelve or somebody the m J twelve,
Speaker 2: but certainly in the case of.
Speaker 1: Why would they have any organizations, why would they have
Speaker 1: anything right, why would they have.
Speaker 2: Why would you be why would you be doing thing
Speaker 2: like the thing with like the Paul Dodi and the
Speaker 2: Paul Benowitz or the Richard Doty and Paul Benowitz, is like,
Speaker 2: why why was that the best I mean, it's just
Speaker 2: why was that the best way? Like somebody observes strange
Speaker 2: activity of over Kurkland Air Base and they discover this,
Speaker 2: why was that the right approach? I don't follow it.
Speaker 2: And you had aj gentile who did the stuff on
Speaker 2: crop circles. We saw they saw military disinformation around those
Speaker 2: activities in Britain. So you see a lot of.
Speaker 1: Crop circle things weird, really weird, because you want to
Speaker 1: just write it off. I mean I wanted to write
Speaker 1: it off. I'm like, oh, this guy's with boards, they're
Speaker 1: making designs. But then you see some of the designs
Speaker 1: and how the wheat is actually woven, and how they
Speaker 1: have these exploded nodes almost like they're microwaved, and they've
Speaker 1: examined these things and it seems like there's some energy
Speaker 1: that's created these things. And also the sheer size and
Speaker 1: scale of some of these things with no footprints leading
Speaker 1: into them or out of them, and just the geometric
Speaker 1: precision of some of them that it's really weird. Like
Speaker 1: there's of course it's eyewitness accounts. It's hard to know
Speaker 1: if they're being accurate. But people who've flown over areas
Speaker 1: where there's nothing there flown back two hours later and
Speaker 1: there's these football field size Mandel brought sets.
Speaker 2: There's the Julia set over next to Stonehenge was the
Speaker 2: one that the guy flew over and there was nothing there,
Speaker 2: and a couple of hours later there was the Julia set,
Speaker 2: which is a spectacular.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's incractle right, I'll tell you it's creditor precision.
Speaker 1: That's what's really as much precision as you can get
Speaker 1: by folding over wheat. But when you look at it
Speaker 1: like from above and it you know, you don't get
Speaker 1: to the micro You're looking at these things that like
Speaker 1: they really do scale in a fractal way. It's very
Speaker 1: fucking strange and difficult to reproduce. You would imagine something
Speaker 1: like that would take a long fucking time to plot
Speaker 1: out and plan. You would take multiple people, You'd have
Speaker 1: to measure and remeasure, you'd have to have some some
Speaker 1: sort of tools and instruments, not just to fold over
Speaker 1: the wheat, but if you're gonna interweave the wheat, Like
Speaker 1: what is your method of doing that, and how are
Speaker 1: you doing it where you know this one is one
Speaker 1: dimension and then the next one is precisely three fifths
Speaker 1: of that dimension, next one is slightly and they're fractal.
Speaker 2: Well, it gets really even weirder than that. So you know,
Speaker 2: I just described this case of this Air Force kind
Speaker 2: of intelligence guy driving this guy Paul Bennott's crazy at
Speaker 2: career effort. That book is written by Mark Pilkington. Mark
Speaker 2: Pilkington is one of two guys that claim to have
Speaker 2: created all the crop circles. The other guy's a guy
Speaker 2: named John Lunberg. AJ, in his video about the crop
Speaker 2: circles accuses John Lundberg again the circle they called the
Speaker 2: Circle Makers. They have a website they KEP updated. He
Speaker 2: accuses him of being a British intelligence agent. AJ does,
Speaker 2: or at least he strongly implies it. And part of
Speaker 2: that is because there was a bunch of weird stuff
Speaker 2: on the website about m I five and the CIA.
Speaker 2: And then Lundberg went to a school. This is all
Speaker 2: very circumstantial, so I'm not defending. I'm just saying what
Speaker 2: AJ said. Then Lundberg went to a school that shares
Speaker 2: a courtyard with with m I with an I five
Speaker 2: campus or in my five training area. I asked Mark,
Speaker 2: I have like a three I have like three hours
Speaker 2: of interviews with Mark, who I'm really interested, really interesting person.
Speaker 2: I asked him directly if they had any connection to
Speaker 2: military intelligence. He said, absolutely not.
Speaker 1: It's hard to which is what you would say.
Speaker 2: Well, of course you're allowed to say it if you are,
Speaker 2: but I'm not making any accusations. But yeah, I mean,
Speaker 2: he claimed that they made all of them, and you know,
Speaker 2: there's some of them. Have you ever seen the massive
Speaker 2: there's one that was absolutely massive.
Speaker 1: Yeah, pull some of them up, Jamie so we can
Speaker 1: get there's.
Speaker 2: The Julius said that there's another. There's another one us
Speaker 2: so big it's really hard to see. But he said
Speaker 2: that he wasn't at that one. Yeah, that's like famous,
Speaker 2: that's the Julius SAIDs of gorgeous. Well the big one
Speaker 2: right there is in the middle, that one.
Speaker 1: Yes, just I mean, these are enormous. Yeah, go full
Speaker 1: screen on that. It's they're so big, and I mean
Speaker 1: the amount of precision involved in them is kind of spectacular.
Speaker 2: Now, Mark denies that they have exploded nodes, and he
Speaker 2: did that they're interwoven. Aj says that they are definitely
Speaker 2: interwoven and have exploded nodes, And there was even an
Speaker 2: article in Science magazine, which you know, argues that they
Speaker 2: were made by humans, but that they they point out
Speaker 2: the exploded nodes, So yeah, maybe that's it.
Speaker 1: What's weird too, is there's like, how did you do this?
Speaker 1: What's the where's the evidence of people trampling through this
Speaker 1: with equipment? No, it's all missing, Like it's strange. And
Speaker 1: then also no one's caught doing them.
Speaker 2: How about the here's the other one? I asked Mark
Speaker 2: about this and he didn't know about it, But do
Speaker 2: you know the Pie one?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: That was apparently I'm pretty sure it's the first time
Speaker 2: that it was a visual explanation of pie. That's my
Speaker 2: understanding of it. Now, maybe maybe there's someone I haven't
Speaker 2: seen anything earlier than that, but that's like, on its own,
Speaker 2: is really amazing that that was the first time that
Speaker 2: they had created a visual representation of pie. Yeah, and
Speaker 2: complete with like the yeah, that's it. It's like there's
Speaker 2: a there's another image that will show how it is pie,
Speaker 2: probably that one right there. Yeah, And so that's a
Speaker 2: extremely sophisticated.
Speaker 1: Extremely I mean imagine the type of intelligence that you'd
Speaker 1: have to possess to pull this off and then not
Speaker 1: let anybody know that you did it. And it's just
Speaker 1: for funsies, just for funsies in a field.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's And then you know, these MIT researchers went out,
Speaker 2: that's also part of it, and they tried to do
Speaker 2: it and it just wasn't it wasn't nearly as good.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Okay, it is very fucking weird. Yeah, it's very weird.
Speaker 1: And but the whole UFO thing is very weird. It.
Speaker 1: You know, the Jacques Vallet books are very interesting, and
Speaker 1: I've read three of his books so far, and I've
Speaker 1: had him on a couple of times, and the last
Speaker 1: time I had him on, I really went on a
Speaker 1: deep dive and I read two of his books right
Speaker 1: before he came on. And one of the more interesting
Speaker 1: things is the really old stories, like the stories from
Speaker 1: the seventeen hundreds, the eighteen hundreds, where they lack the
Speaker 1: context of spaceships, the idea behind it, like none of
Speaker 1: that stuff exists. But yet you get almost at least
Speaker 1: you could say, oh, I could understand how they would
Speaker 1: be describing it this way, But it's kind of the
Speaker 1: same thing that other people have been describing the Zimbabwe
Speaker 1: story a lot of these other stories. It's kind of
Speaker 1: the same story over and over and over again, which
Speaker 1: makes you go, Okay, well, what does it have to
Speaker 1: be from outer space? Or is it possible that there
Speaker 1: is something here that is like far older than us
Speaker 1: that has somehow or another removed itself from our view
Speaker 1: or is.
Speaker 2: It social contagion and people? I mean, I've always stuck
Speaker 2: by it's always like the aliens always are like, all
Speaker 2: protect your environment and avoid nuclear war. It's like, oh, thanks,
Speaker 2: Like we didn't know we needed to do those until
Speaker 2: you guys showed up, and it makes more sense. Is like
Speaker 2: you could see it as a I mean, I got
Speaker 2: very into I haven't an interviewed her yet, but I'm
Speaker 2: about to. There's as an anthropologist at Stanford named Tanya Lherman,
Speaker 2: and she's done this incredible work on religions where she
Speaker 2: like anthropol like good anthropologists and also this guy Bowman,
Speaker 2: like they they're agnostic on whether or not like those
Speaker 2: beings are real, Like they're just like we're really interested
Speaker 2: in like the culture and the psychology and the experience
Speaker 2: of it. But she had this she she was like,
Speaker 2: did her field work with magicians and witches in England?
Speaker 2: You know, like you know, like modern witches and not
Speaker 2: magicians like magic tricks, but like the old who's the
Speaker 2: famous magician like Gandalf? No, no, the British one Merlin, right,
Speaker 2: but like the old style right like. But they were
Speaker 2: like so she didn't really believe in it, but she would.
Speaker 2: They were like, you have to practice witchcraft in order
Speaker 2: to do this, And she had like multiple anomalous experiences,
Speaker 2: one of them that she woke up and there was
Speaker 2: five druids in her room beckoning to her. And people
Speaker 2: are like, is it a dream? And she's like, no,
Speaker 2: it's not a dream. She had in their instance where
Speaker 2: they were trying to like conjure energies to like turn
Speaker 2: off to like shut down her watch, and she felt
Speaker 2: a huge energy surg through and shut off her watch.
Speaker 2: And her point is that she thinks that the practice
Speaker 2: we put too much focus on the beliefs. But she says,
Speaker 2: like the practices themselves. I don't know if she would
Speaker 2: say conjure. I also interviewed Dinna Pasilk on it. They
Speaker 2: would say more like reveal these different realities. So they're
Speaker 2: much more. It's a very interesting set of work because
Speaker 2: they're not they're not trying to answer the question of
Speaker 2: whether the druids were really in her room or not.
Speaker 2: I mean, the watch thing, you know, apparently definitely happened, but.
Speaker 1: Apparently definitely is a weird way.
Speaker 2: Apparently to her.
Speaker 1: I know, but you know what I'm saying, it's like
Speaker 1: show me man. The conjuring thing is strange because that's
Speaker 1: a reoccurring theme. You go outside and you have like
Speaker 1: these experiences where you say, I'm not afraid comes show
Speaker 1: show yourself to me, and given enough time, with enough intention,
Speaker 1: apparently things will appear in the sky.
Speaker 2: My favorite one is the black guy talking about yahweh
Speaker 2: who where the local ABC newscaster goes out and it's
Speaker 2: gonna be one of those hah ha. This guy thinks
Speaker 2: that he can conjure UFOs and they go out with
Speaker 2: him and he conjures an ORB. Do you ever see
Speaker 2: that one? No, that's like an incredible That's like one
Speaker 2: of my favorite of those videos. And the newscasters like, uh,
Speaker 2: he called literally they see him calling his I think
Speaker 2: it's like an NBC affiliate or an ABC affiliate somewhere
Speaker 2: Jamie can probably find it, but if it's uh, he
Speaker 2: literally calls his boss the newscasters. Like all the story
Speaker 2: has turned out a little differently than I thought. It's
Speaker 2: like one of my favorites. I'm sure you could say, oh,
Speaker 2: it's a balloon or whatever, but like comes in and out.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's really and it comes right as he's
Speaker 2: calling it.
Speaker 1: That's the weird things. I've talked to multiple people that
Speaker 1: have actually done this. Oh people, it's gone say a
Speaker 1: lot with these you know, air quotes experts, and they
Speaker 1: go out to some deserted area and you call these things.
Speaker 2: There's a second guy, white guy that also does it,
Speaker 2: and Reuters did a whole story on him because apparently
Speaker 2: there's a whole bunch of people around that they saw it.
Speaker 2: And of course Jake Barber, who's this formers you know, contractor,
Speaker 2: helicopter pilot contractor for Special Forces, announced that he was
Speaker 2: going to go and conjure UFOs and bring one down.
Speaker 2: They're just sitting right up there.
Speaker 6: We met up with Prophet Yahweh seer of Yahweh Do
Speaker 6: a little park off Lake Mead. We picked the day,
Speaker 6: we picked the time, and we picked the location everyone's
Speaker 6: gonna think you're absolutely nuts.
Speaker 2: Well I thought I was absolutely.
Speaker 6: Nuts until he says he saw UFOs over the years,
Speaker 6: fifteen hundred of them.
Speaker 2: Before we make it one five hundred and one today.
Speaker 2: What do you think I'll try it? He says.
Speaker 1: The voice in his head.
Speaker 6: Told him to go public now, So we took him
Speaker 6: up on his offer. Then we scanned the skies, nothing
Speaker 6: but a few clouds. When the prophet started praying for
Speaker 6: a sighting. I wasn't exactly convinced.
Speaker 7: I pray, oh yah, Wade, that you sent a sighting,
Speaker 7: so that they didn't know that I am not mentally ill.
Speaker 7: I am not a false prophet like those who seek
Speaker 7: to kill me say I am.
Speaker 2: Oh oh brother, Look at it. There it is.
Speaker 6: You can barely see it, a white speck. Then another sighting.
Speaker 2: There it is.
Speaker 1: I got it. I got it, I got it, I
Speaker 1: got it.
Speaker 6: Photo journalist Jonathan Hawkins locks in on it. Let's take
Speaker 6: a closer look.
Speaker 1: Here.
Speaker 6: It's an orange sphere that appeared out of nowhere.
Speaker 2: I call the boss.
Speaker 6: With an unexpected change in my story, I could see
Speaker 6: it as clear as day. In fact, it's bright, I
Speaker 6: can't it's it's moving pretty fast.
Speaker 2: It's gone to Nello Us base.
Speaker 1: It wants to be seen.
Speaker 6: We called Nelly's to see what these things might be.
Speaker 2: Guess what.
Speaker 6: They didn't call us back, But this thing started coming
Speaker 6: back toward us, coming toward us. Now, I think, what
Speaker 6: see it's coming up toward us.
Speaker 1: Whoa man? Oh yah.
Speaker 6: A few seconds later it disappeared.
Speaker 2: Is going back up in space.
Speaker 6: Prophet Yahweh isn't concerned. He says it'll be back.
Speaker 1: I would take this more seriously if that guy didn't
Speaker 1: have your reporter voice.
Speaker 2: It's amazing. As far the charm of it. I think
Speaker 2: it's I love it because I don't. I don't think
Speaker 2: you can. I don't think it's gonna convince any skeptics.
Speaker 2: But it's like one of the few things in our
Speaker 2: in our world where it inspires a set of like
Speaker 2: wonder and a set of awe. And you know, for
Speaker 2: those of us that struggle with our face, it's inspiring
Speaker 2: because it is sort of a spiritual like I mean,
Speaker 2: he calls himself yahwah, right, so there's like he didn't
Speaker 2: It wasn't about like gray aliens or whatever. It's just
Speaker 2: something else. And that's what I mean about like, why more.
Speaker 2: Valet his work explains all of this much better and
Speaker 2: than the sort of the extraterrestrial hypothesis did, and he's
Speaker 2: had that since sixty eight.
Speaker 1: Well, I think what he does best is not explain it.
Speaker 2: Yeah he doesn't.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there really isn't an explanation. But here's what we know.
Speaker 2: He calls it a control system though, Yeah, which is
Speaker 2: sort of like I asked Diana, I was like, is
Speaker 2: that How is that different from God? Because he's sort
Speaker 2: of a control system. That is his view is that
Speaker 2: there's a control system that's evolving human consciousness and it
Speaker 2: will manifest different things or in relationship with the humans
Speaker 2: over time. And so he looks at the you know,
Speaker 2: the apparition that Maria or Saint Mary apparitions in Spain,
Speaker 2: and the airships of the late nineteenth century where people
Speaker 2: saw these things that looked like the Zeppelins even though
Speaker 2: they hadn't been invented yet. All of these things, he
Speaker 2: says his views, they're sort of being sort of produced
Speaker 2: in some relationship as well with our culture. That's Valet's argument,
Speaker 2: and that sounds a lot like God in some ways.
Speaker 2: When you say control system, right.
Speaker 1: What does that mean? Like, is it a higher life
Speaker 1: form that is monitoring us? Like that? That's the version
Speaker 1: of religion for a lot of these people that are
Speaker 1: really interested in aliens, like that there's some advance being
Speaker 1: that's making sure we don't fuck everything up completely.
Speaker 2: Certainly for me that's my interest. I mean, I like, again,
Speaker 2: this anthropologist Lherman, you know, she says, you know, William
Speaker 2: James is this famous Harvard psychologist wrote a book about
Speaker 2: the varieties of the religious experience in nineteen oh two,
Speaker 2: and he says everybody wants to kind of be like
Speaker 2: is it real or not real? Is like this world
Speaker 2: just what we see? And he says, I think there's
Speaker 2: something more. There's not so this this very you know,
Speaker 2: skeptic or debunker thing, which is like, oh no, it's
Speaker 2: just got to be a that thing's got to be
Speaker 2: a bird or it's a It's like, well but it
Speaker 2: really you haven't just calling it that. And as they
Speaker 2: point out, it's like they showed up when they wanted to.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a pretty amazing If it's just a coincidence,
Speaker 2: it's a really amazing one. And so I think for me,
Speaker 2: it's like, because I am a Christian and it is
Speaker 2: hard to believe in an all powerful and all good
Speaker 2: God because he obviously allowed the Holocaust to occur and
Speaker 2: allows terrible things to act her. But I love that
Speaker 2: that segment, and there's I love. There's another one I
Speaker 2: love right now. It's like a British woman in the
Speaker 2: fifties doing an interview about seeing what she calls a
Speaker 2: Mexican hat ufo over her house and the kids saw it,
Speaker 2: and she and everybody in the village made fun of
Speaker 2: her and they really killed her. And she's like, but
Speaker 2: it's you know, but it's I saw it and it
Speaker 2: was real and it was like it's like those are
Speaker 2: like our those are spiritual experiences. I think. So I
Speaker 2: don't know that. Like I want the files released from
Speaker 2: the government. I'm also skeptical that it's going to tell
Speaker 2: us what it is because I think at some level
Speaker 2: we're not supposed to get more much more information about
Speaker 2: what it is. I think it's where something else is
Speaker 2: going on, or maybe it's having a positive effect. I
Speaker 2: think it's I think one of the somebody's people get
Speaker 2: really mad at UFO believers, like skeptics get really like angry,
Speaker 2: like how do they There's just you know whatever, they
Speaker 2: gets so mad and I'm always like, but like, how
Speaker 2: often do you see them causing real harm or problems?
Speaker 2: I mean we had one cult where they you know,
Speaker 2: like a few people killed themselves, but for the most
Speaker 2: part the balls off first. Yeah great, so you know
Speaker 2: UFO Like, for the most part, UFO people are INNTERI
Speaker 2: in UFOs are dreamy, seekers, spiritual, and I think it's
Speaker 2: I think it's wrong to I think it's lovely and
Speaker 2: wonderful and it reminds us of you know, that we're small.
Speaker 2: On the one hand, we're humble about our knowledge, and
Speaker 2: there's just surrounded by mystery. I mean, you're so much
Speaker 2: of your career and this this platform has been to
Speaker 2: allow us to talk about things that are unexplained and
Speaker 2: that or where the explanations don't really seem to explain it.
Speaker 2: There's something more, as as William James wou say, there's
Speaker 2: something more. And I think that the denial of anything more,
Speaker 2: this idea that oh we know everything and we know
Speaker 2: where we won't know anything. It's just crazy.
Speaker 1: But that those people are silly. They're more silly than
Speaker 1: the believers because this this idea that like, look if
Speaker 1: there is a if you have a completely novel experience,
Speaker 1: like say, if you are Commander David Fraber and you
Speaker 1: encountered this tic tac shaped object that's over something that
Speaker 1: appears to be a ship that's under the water. This
Speaker 1: thing takes off at a absolutely preposterous speed that is
Speaker 1: documented both in radar and visually and on camera. Right,
Speaker 1: so they've got video of this thing moving. They say
Speaker 1: that it went from above fifty thousand feet above sea
Speaker 1: level to sea level in less than a second, which
Speaker 1: would require more energy than the entire United States produces
Speaker 1: in a year in order to get an object to
Speaker 1: move that quickly, and it does that with no heat signature. Okay,
Speaker 1: if this is all true, just that alone. Now imagine
Speaker 1: you have this completely novel experience. And because I haven't
Speaker 1: had it, and you haven't had it, and Jamie hasn't
Speaker 1: had it, well it's very simple and easy to dismiss it.
Speaker 1: But if this happened, what do you expect the person
Speaker 1: to do? What do you expect a decorated pilot in
Speaker 1: the Navy, a guy who has a rock solid record,
Speaker 1: who is there's nothing about him that screams that he's
Speaker 1: a kook, where he's mentally ill, and when you talk
Speaker 1: to him, he's incredibly meticulous, very intelligent, very disciplined.
Speaker 2: Well, his face it looks like he had a spiritual experience.
Speaker 2: He's a smile on his face. I went to the
Speaker 2: when I was in Deli, I went to the Jaine
Speaker 2: temple and I went to the Hindu temple. And I'm
Speaker 2: not Jane, I'm not Hindu, but I had a look
Speaker 2: on my face that reminds me that sort of that's
Speaker 2: sort of that sort of like that starry eye, the
Speaker 2: look in your face where you've experienced the wonder and
Speaker 2: the awe of being alive and we're on this planet
Speaker 2: and we don't really understand it all, but it's beautiful
Speaker 2: and it's okay. And I think that that's the spiritual
Speaker 2: I mean, that's where it's like he's been touched by
Speaker 2: I don't you know. I'm not imposing this, but he's
Speaker 2: sort of touched by God in some way, but touched
Speaker 2: by something and it's not something extraordinary.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And the thing, look, I think the other thing you
Speaker 2: read that environment, you're like that thing dominance in that environment.
Speaker 2: So on the one hand, it's call it technological spiritual dominance,
Speaker 2: you know, so, but that's for me. What's what's special
Speaker 2: about it? And I think it's not gonna go away,
Speaker 2: And I don't think we're going to get to the answer.
Speaker 1: I don't think.
Speaker 2: I don't think the government. How could the government, you know,
Speaker 2: I don't think they know. And I don't even if
Speaker 2: they even if there was some contact, I don't know
Speaker 2: if that would really tell you all the answers.
Speaker 1: Well, what I could imagine is that they have acquired
Speaker 1: both eyewitness, video, radar, all all the various sensors data,
Speaker 1: and they have done this with multiple instances of these things,
Speaker 1: and they are trying to assess what this is, and
Speaker 1: they have a long standing study of these things that
Speaker 1: would both be disturbing and confusing to a lot of
Speaker 1: people and disruptive to society. I'm sure you're well aware
Speaker 1: of how put Off and what happened with him during
Speaker 1: the Bush administration where they brought him in and they
Speaker 1: essentially told how put off. Now this is assuming How's
Speaker 1: telling the truth, and I have no reason to think
Speaker 1: he's lying. They brought him in and a bunch of
Speaker 1: other scientists and a bunch of other thinkers and said
Speaker 1: I want you to create a chart. On one side,
Speaker 1: list the positive aspects of disclosure, and the other side,
Speaker 1: what are the negative ratifications of disclosure? Government, religion, the finances,
Speaker 1: all the different things that could happen in the world,
Speaker 1: and the negatives outweighed the positives, and they decided not
Speaker 1: to disclose. But the premise that he was brought in
Speaker 1: with this was saying, we have acquired physical crafts that
Speaker 1: are not of this world, we have biological entities that
Speaker 1: are not of this world, and we are part of
Speaker 1: some sort of a back engineering program. We want to
Speaker 1: release this information. What would happen if we did? And
Speaker 1: their conclude usion was chaos.
Speaker 2: Trump Trump didn't seem to go through that checklist and
Speaker 2: come with the same answer.
Speaker 1: I don't think he got that memo.
Speaker 2: But also I do think it isn't I think I
Speaker 2: think he ignores the memos from experts in general.
Speaker 1: Right, if he was in office and that was the
Speaker 1: case and they came to him, and you know, and
Speaker 1: someone like Tucker or someone that's influential to him could
Speaker 1: sit down with him and talk to him and he
Speaker 1: thought it would gain their favor, he might just release it.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's a wild because on the one hand,
Speaker 2: it looked like it was spontaneous, but I think they
Speaker 2: had you know, Laura Trump, who's like someone that's like
Speaker 2: a trusted family member who's like really competent. Like they
Speaker 2: sent her in to like take over the RNC and
Speaker 2: fix it and fire all the people and get their
Speaker 2: get their loyalists in there. She was out there talking
Speaker 2: saying that, you know, oh Trump is. I was hearing
Speaker 2: a lot of noise, but it wasn't from people that
Speaker 2: I trusted, so I didn't report anything on it. But
Speaker 2: I was hearing a lot of noise too that Trump
Speaker 2: administration was considering doing something, but you didn't know. I
Speaker 2: didn't if it was circular reporting. But I thought the
Speaker 2: Laura Trump thing was interesting because I don't think I
Speaker 2: don't see her as sort of a She's not just
Speaker 2: speculating or bullshitting, you know, she's a trusted you know.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 2: Trusted source for that. So she said that, and then
Speaker 2: Obama was asked about and then Trump made that announcement.
Speaker 2: So I don't know what they have planned. You know,
Speaker 2: we were pushing on the intelligence community privately to release
Speaker 2: the stuff and it was going nowhere.
Speaker 1: The Obama thing was nuts because the guy didn't have
Speaker 1: any follow up questions.
Speaker 2: That was that was part of what was really weird about. Also,
Speaker 2: they put it in a speed round, like why would
Speaker 2: you put it in his speed round?
Speaker 1: Which is probably why he didn't have follow up questions
Speaker 1: if you think about it that way. But I mean,
Speaker 1: that's just a massive dropping of the ball. Well, the
Speaker 1: guy says, aliens are real? How do you know? How
Speaker 1: do you know? Is the next question right, it's right there.
Speaker 1: How do you know aliens are real?
Speaker 2: Well, yesterday the day after then he said, oh, I
Speaker 2: just meant theoretically, and there's life in the universe.
Speaker 1: Well, why don't you ask that so you catch them
Speaker 1: on the spot instead of when it becomes this big
Speaker 1: viral moment and that everybody's talking about it. And then
Speaker 1: he comes up with a rational explanation for why he
Speaker 1: said that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, and he told Obama told one of
Speaker 2: the late night hosts. I can't remember if it was
Speaker 2: Kimmel or Colbert or somebody, but he said. They said
Speaker 2: something like, tell us what you know, and he said,
Speaker 2: I you know, I can't tell you. There's things I
Speaker 2: can't tell you. So, I mean, he obviously knows more
Speaker 2: than he.
Speaker 1: Said right, Otherwise he would say there's nothing.
Speaker 2: And then Trump said that he knows more. It was
Speaker 2: very interesting.
Speaker 1: You know, I talked to Trump about it. Yeah, he
Speaker 1: won't tell you. Shit, a lot of things move around,
Speaker 1: knows of things. There's a lot of it's very crazy.
Speaker 2: But you know, he won't tell you. He said they
Speaker 2: weren't going to release the Epstein files and that came out.
Speaker 2: So I just kind of go, no, I have a
Speaker 2: different I don't know if you want to get in it,
Speaker 2: but I have a different view of Epstein than I
Speaker 2: think I did well.
Speaker 1: Before we get into that, you know Tucker's thoughts on
Speaker 1: this whole UFO UAP thing. He thinks they're like angels
Speaker 1: and demons from the Bible, and he thinks that they're
Speaker 1: they've always been here, and you know, I'm sure you're
Speaker 1: aware of like the Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch,
Speaker 1: which was one of the original Biblical texts that wasn't
Speaker 1: included in the Cannon, but just because of a few
Speaker 1: rabbis decided it didn't jibe with the Torah, and they
Speaker 1: found the Book of Enoch along with the Book of
Speaker 1: Isaiah as a part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. And
Speaker 1: when when you find out that there was a biblical text,
Speaker 1: that there was contemporary to books that did make it
Speaker 1: into the Old Testament, and that they talk about the
Speaker 1: Watchers who come from above and mate with humans and
Speaker 1: create this race of giant giants called the Nephelin who
Speaker 1: destroy everything and consume everything. And you're like, what the
Speaker 1: fuck is this? Like what is this? And just stop
Speaker 1: and imagine if those rabbis hadn't dis like, if that
Speaker 1: hadn't been excluded. Like Wesley hopf it is great talking
Speaker 1: about this stuff. He's a real historian when it comes to,
Speaker 1: you know, really understanding the history of these biblical texts,
Speaker 1: and you know, and he's absolutely fascinated by it. And
Speaker 1: he's like, yeah, yeah, it's kind of crazy that they
Speaker 1: just decided to not put that in the Bible. Imagine
Speaker 1: if they did. And part of when you're going to
Speaker 1: church and they you know, they're going over the Old Testament,
Speaker 1: like Okay, this week we're gonna go over the Book
Speaker 1: of Enoch and we're going to figure out who the
Speaker 1: watchers are, Like what do you what is that?
Speaker 6: Like?
Speaker 1: What is that story? The crazy thing that Wes Huff
Speaker 1: told me was that the Book of Isaiah that they
Speaker 1: found in the Dead Sea scroll predates the oldest version
Speaker 1: of the Book of Isaiah by more than a thousand years.
Speaker 1: When they found it, they found out that there was
Speaker 1: a Book of Isaiah that is a thousand years older
Speaker 1: than the one they thought was the oldest one. And
Speaker 1: it is verbatim. It's verbatim from the one that's a
Speaker 1: thousand years later. Wow, which is kind of crazy.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 1: But then it's also in the same fucking caves as
Speaker 1: the Book of Enoch. It's all together there in the
Speaker 1: Dead Sea scrolls amazing.
Speaker 2: I mean, we've had this, we've been fed this story
Speaker 2: that sort of all of these religions and myths from
Speaker 2: the past are all just false, right, They're all just hallucinations,
Speaker 2: they're all just lies.
Speaker 1: I don't believe that.
Speaker 2: It's just really uh, it's really air actually, Like it's like, well, no, now,
Speaker 2: like we've been around for human around for like millions
Speaker 2: of years, but the last one hundred and fifty years
Speaker 2: is like we really figured it all out, and we
Speaker 2: figured out that all human knowledge before you know whatever
Speaker 2: some recent time period is nonsense.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think that's quite arrogant.
Speaker 1: It's very arrogant, but I all, look, I'm a believer
Speaker 1: that history is far older than we think it is.
Speaker 1: I'm and I think the more time goes on, the
Speaker 1: more that gets revealed. So when you're talking about something
Speaker 1: that's four or five thousand years old, I think, really
Speaker 1: you're talking about a retelling of a far older story.
Speaker 1: And I think there's it's very difficult when you're dealing
Speaker 1: with people that don't have an understanding of science. The
Speaker 1: written language is fairly new. It's an oral tradition for
Speaker 1: generations before it's ever written down. So my question with
Speaker 1: all of this is always like, what were they trying
Speaker 1: to talk about? What were they trying to say? What
Speaker 1: was the original experience that someone documented in story? And
Speaker 1: then that story was relayed over and over and over again,
Speaker 1: generation after generation until it's eventually written down, and then
Speaker 1: they study it and take it literally and then also
Speaker 1: translating it from Aramaic, which is the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Speaker 1: ancient Hebrew, all these different languages, to Latin and Greek
Speaker 1: and eventually English, Like, but what's the original story? Like?
Speaker 1: What are they trying to document? What is this important
Speaker 1: knowledge that they want to share? And how screwed up.
Speaker 1: Would that get over the generations and generations of talking
Speaker 1: about it, But what ultimate truth is in there? Like,
Speaker 1: I'm absolutely fascinated by the story of Jesus Christ because
Speaker 1: if you wanted to come up with a way that
Speaker 1: people would live that would absolutely be far more beneficial
Speaker 1: than just going on natural instincts and tribal behavior, and
Speaker 1: you would follow Jesus's teachings, like, I can't find a
Speaker 1: flaw in the way he tells you to live life.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of religions that involve, you know, torturing
Speaker 1: non believers and raping infidels and being able to do
Speaker 1: terrible things to the people that don't believe your religion.
Speaker 1: There's none of that in Christianity. It's all forgiveness. It's
Speaker 1: all treating your brother as in your neighbor as if
Speaker 1: they're you. Like, it's a beautiful way to live life.
Speaker 2: Are you Christian?
Speaker 1: Well, I go to church. I have been for quite
Speaker 1: a while. Okay, so I've been doing it for the
Speaker 1: last three or four years.
Speaker 2: But that's not really an answer to the.
Speaker 1: Question, because I don't know. I think it's very interesting
Speaker 1: and I do believe that if you follow the teachings
Speaker 1: of Jesus Christ, you will live a better life. I
Speaker 1: really do believe that. And one of the things I
Speaker 1: talk about is like, the people that I go to
Speaker 1: church with are the most fucking polite people I've ever
Speaker 1: met in my life. They're so kind and so nice,
Speaker 1: and everybody lets you out of the parking lot. Everybody's
Speaker 1: like it's like the one point it works, you know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying, Like, if people are trying to find
Speaker 1: an idea, does that mean I believe people came back
Speaker 1: from the dead. Does that mean I believe Moses part
Speaker 1: of the Red Sea? Not really, No, it seems like
Speaker 1: that's most likely a story where people are telling it
Speaker 1: generation after generation after generation, but there was probably something happening.
Speaker 1: There's probably some truth to it. Then you take into
Speaker 1: account some of the stories from the Old Testament, like
Speaker 1: the Book of Ezekiel, which I'm absolutely fascinated by Book
Speaker 1: of Ezekiel and his account of the wheel within a
Speaker 1: wheel and the fire flashing forth continually and in the
Speaker 1: midst of the fire as it were, gleaming metal, Like
Speaker 1: what the hell is that? Like? What is that? Like?
Speaker 1: What are these stories? And in the midst of this
Speaker 1: gleaming metathers, the likeness of four living creatures like, okay,
Speaker 1: they darted to and fro, like the appearance of a
Speaker 1: flash of lightning. Okay, what is that? Like? What are they?
Speaker 1: What were they trying to say? Saying? What was the
Speaker 1: original experience that people documented that was so important?
Speaker 2: And it might have been a lot more similar to
Speaker 2: these UFO experiences.
Speaker 1: That's the point. Yeah, I think this is what one
Speaker 1: of the things that Tucker goes back to.
Speaker 2: The Christian story is so beautiful and so important. You known,
Speaker 2: Gerard's view of of Christianity is really stopping the cycle
Speaker 2: of scapegoating, you know, scapegoating where and I'm seeing it
Speaker 2: right now. As part of the reason we've been pushing
Speaker 2: back against the moral panic on Epstein is that you
Speaker 2: scapegoat the thing, you know, traditionally literally was a goat,
Speaker 2: but you scapegoat the person or whatever. Originally it really
Speaker 2: was a good Yeah, it was good. Yeah, really would
Speaker 2: carry the sins of the community.
Speaker 1: Are you sacrificing you?
Speaker 2: I think you would send it away to die or something.
Speaker 1: But over time yeah, yeah, interesting. Yeah, And the general
Speaker 1: where the devil goats or everything goats get a bad rap.
Speaker 2: Goods are in your lobby, aren't they or those elk No.
Speaker 1: Big difference.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I mean so Christianity puts an end to that.
Speaker 2: It says, stop scapegoating. I mean they escapegoated Jesus. Really,
Speaker 2: I mean you kind of go that, you scapegoat the way.
Speaker 2: The purpose of the scapegoating was to was for this
Speaker 2: the community to unite the community and and scapegoat to
Speaker 2: put all of its sins on one thing and then
Speaker 2: kill it or get rid of it. And that was
Speaker 2: the way the community would restore unity. And Christianity said, no,
Speaker 2: we're not going to do it that way. That's that's immoral.
Speaker 2: And so you know, he with the you know, without sin,
Speaker 2: should be the first castle stone. Jesus wasn't saying that
Speaker 2: prostitution was good or anything. He was saying that we
Speaker 2: should not be scapegoating. You know, you've got sins too,
Speaker 2: so don't scapegoat this person. That's a really radical moment
Speaker 2: in human history, and it really is what allowed humans
Speaker 2: to spread. It creates the universal. I mean, Christianity is
Speaker 2: the first universal is really universal religion. Maybe it's not
Speaker 2: the only, but it's a universal religion. It says everybody
Speaker 2: you know, as a child of God's and it's evangelical,
Speaker 2: and it wants other people to become Christian. That's very
Speaker 2: that's different from other other religions when I'm like, this
Speaker 2: is my God and I've got my own God here
Speaker 2: and we're the best, and.
Speaker 1: You suck and they make it very difficult to join.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it's not to say that Christians. You know,
Speaker 2: obviously there was you know, fighting the Muslims, and there's
Speaker 2: some interesting revisionism there. But it's a beautiful religion.
Speaker 1: So there's terrible things that have been done under the
Speaker 1: gush of Christianity, but if you listen to the teachings
Speaker 1: of Jesus Christ, they're not following his teachings. So it's
Speaker 1: like it's just human behavior that they have tagged on
Speaker 1: to Christianity. So when people say Christianity is responsible for
Speaker 1: horrible atrocities, I say no, I say humans are because
Speaker 1: if you if it was actually Christianity, you would be
Speaker 1: following the teachings of Christ and there would be none
Speaker 1: of those things.
Speaker 2: I mean, anti Semitism is not Christian, right, so true
Speaker 2: Christianity is not that. So I think it's lovely and
Speaker 2: I hope there's a revival of some of it. I'm
Speaker 2: not sure there.
Speaker 1: I think there is more now than before. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of young people that are getting into into Christianity.
Speaker 2: I think it's good to I think it's also I mean,
Speaker 2: it's interesting with you we're hearing at the UFO thing.
Speaker 2: It's an awareness that there's a higher power. So one
Speaker 2: can sort of say, look at the UFO thing. It's
Speaker 2: not the same as Christianity or whatever, but this awareness
Speaker 2: that like we're not like, there's something else going on,
Speaker 2: there's something more, there's something higher than us than that
Speaker 2: we should be humble in front of in the face
Speaker 2: of this just gigantic mystery. I think that puts us
Speaker 2: in a better mentality.
Speaker 1: It certainly does. And if anything, if he's not the
Speaker 1: son of God, if this was an actual historical figure,
Speaker 1: what an insanely wise human being who didn't have these
Speaker 1: thoughts that are inherent to all of us of vengeance
Speaker 1: and lust and greed. He has none of these.
Speaker 2: So radical. Also, you've heard it said before that you should,
Speaker 2: you know, love your friends and hate your enemies. I
Speaker 2: say to you, you know, you should love your enemies.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's just it's like the hearts. I'm not there.
Speaker 2: I think very few people are there, but it's certainly
Speaker 2: the right aspiration, is yes, yeah.
Speaker 1: It's the right aspiration. And Tucker thinks that this whole
Speaker 1: UFO thing is somehow connected to the spiritual realm and that.
Speaker 2: We're well because we've been told for so long that
Speaker 2: there is no spiritual realm, That spiritual realm is just
Speaker 2: a mental illness, right, you know, it's love how he's
Speaker 2: like the yahweh thing.
Speaker 1: He's like the problem that people that tell you that
Speaker 1: are all mentally ill, they're all very unhappy, like atheists,
Speaker 1: like secular like hardcore atheists are some of the most unhappy,
Speaker 1: depressed people I know. I don't see like incredibly happy
Speaker 1: unless they do a lot of mushrooms, and those people
Speaker 1: tend to not be atheists anymore. That's the one weird thing.
Speaker 1: People that have had like intense breakthrough psychedelic experiences one
Speaker 1: of the first things that go, maybe maybe there is
Speaker 1: a God, Like maybe maybe I don't know what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about, because if I just experienced that, and that's
Speaker 1: a real thing that you could have while alive on earth,
Speaker 1: where you are confronted with divine wisdom and love and
Speaker 1: some weird, strange form and when there's a lot of
Speaker 1: people that believe that that's the source of a lot
Speaker 1: of religious experiences, and instead of alienating and making those
Speaker 1: things illegal, we should study them and make them a
Speaker 1: part of the religious experience because it's probably what they
Speaker 1: were originally.
Speaker 2: Well, that's right, and so now that people are having
Speaker 2: spiritual experiences with UFOs, it's wonderful and they should talk
Speaker 2: about them and kindle them. I think the thing about
Speaker 2: psychedelics that's so interesting is that my experience with them
Speaker 2: was that you become you don't become so attached to
Speaker 2: your ideas and your beliefs, right, and so which is
Speaker 2: a big problem in our society is people that get
Speaker 2: too attached to their their egos, get attached to their
Speaker 2: beliefs as opposed to like, oh I thought that. I
Speaker 2: mean I've made I've made my whole career out of
Speaker 2: being wrong about things and then correcting them. But I
Speaker 2: think it's hard because that you do, it's really a
Speaker 2: great it's thank you, it's a very but it's still
Speaker 2: I hate it. I hate being wrong. It's totally natural
Speaker 2: to hate it. But I do think like having a
Speaker 2: practice that makes you go you are not your your beliefs.
Speaker 2: There's something there. You have an existence separate from the
Speaker 2: things that you wrote on your blog or you were
Speaker 2: on an X, and don't be so attached to.
Speaker 1: Them, right, don't make them your identity.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's it's actually, there's something really quite. There's
Speaker 2: an awful part of when you feel like you got
Speaker 2: wrought something wrong, but then there's another part wre like
Speaker 2: call it feels good to get it right and you
Speaker 2: feel clean, and that's like, that's what we should be
Speaker 2: going for. But it does require for me being humble
Speaker 2: about my limitations before some higher power is really important
Speaker 2: place to begin, because if you think there's no higher
Speaker 2: power or that the other one is like souls, we
Speaker 2: don't talk about souls enough. A new friend of mine
Speaker 2: at the university was talking about how important it is
Speaker 2: to really to care for your soul and to care
Speaker 2: about other people's souls. That's one of the things that
Speaker 2: Christianity is so good at, that you have something divine
Speaker 2: inside of you connected to something divine side of you,
Speaker 2: and that your behaviors affect its treatment and it you know,
Speaker 2: when you tell people that you're just you know, a
Speaker 2: meat suit and you're just warm food and your life
Speaker 2: doesn't matter, and that it's all just you know, random
Speaker 2: and pointless. That's a terrible story. It makes people feel terrible,
Speaker 2: but when you kind of go, know you there was
Speaker 2: one of the most beautiful I loved all the Charlie
Speaker 2: Kirk videos that went out after his death because there
Speaker 2: were so many onces where he had these beautiful moments.
Speaker 2: But he's talking to these women that are doing the
Speaker 2: only fans did you see that one? Yea, and they're
Speaker 2: describing they're trying to shock him and saying just really
Speaker 2: kind of crude things about their sexuality and how like
Speaker 2: the sex they have it doesn't matter to them. And
Speaker 2: he was like, I just don't believe that. I think
Speaker 2: you have a soul. I think God has a purpose
Speaker 2: for you. What a much lovelier way to engage somebody.
Speaker 2: And it wasn't a you didn't feel like he was
Speaker 2: morally condemning them, right, he was actually saying God loves you.
Speaker 2: And so for me, Christianity brings if that is the
Speaker 2: part of Christianity I think is so special, but it
Speaker 2: is hard. I mean one of the things that this
Speaker 2: anthropologist that I really into is talking about. She says,
Speaker 2: it's the more the God, the more different the God
Speaker 2: is from humans, the harder it is to believe in them.
Speaker 2: And so people like Christians in particularly, she would talk
Speaker 2: about there, even evangelical ones are always complaining about not
Speaker 2: believing enough and not having enough faith because it is
Speaker 2: so hard, because you do have the Holocaust problem, the
Speaker 2: problem of evil. Why if the God is all powerful
Speaker 2: and all good, is he allowing the Holocaust?
Speaker 1: Why do you allow Hiroshima? Right?
Speaker 2: You know, these terrible things? And part of the answer
Speaker 2: for Christians has been well, because he wants us to
Speaker 2: exercise free will and to be in touch with our
Speaker 2: better sides and to realize our potential as as moral,
Speaker 2: moral humans and moral souls. And that's a pretty good answer,
Speaker 2: but it is I find I was glad to hear
Speaker 2: that her say that people struggle with it, because I
Speaker 2: certainly do as well.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I think everyone struggles with it. I'm
Speaker 1: just I'm really fascinated by it. I'm fascinated by it
Speaker 1: because when I go to church and I listen to
Speaker 1: them talk about various passages in the Bible, my mindset
Speaker 1: is always like, what was the real experience like, what
Speaker 1: are we missing out of these tales? What are we
Speaker 1: missing out of these recounting of these experiences? What happened?
Speaker 1: I don't think it was nothing. I really don't. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's something real to it, and and it again it works.
Speaker 1: That's the that's the main one for me. It's like,
Speaker 1: you want to live a better life, Like if you
Speaker 1: live as a Christian, you'll have a better life, You'll
Speaker 1: have a more love filled, more wonderful life. That's real,
Speaker 1: and that this idea that always it's fairy tales? Is
Speaker 1: it If it's a method for life that gives you
Speaker 1: a more rich and loving and peaceful life, isn't that
Speaker 1: better for everybody? Isn't that a real thing? That's a
Speaker 1: real thing. It's there's no way you can know whether
Speaker 1: or not any of the stories in the Bible happened
Speaker 1: exactly as described. We can't know, so you have to
Speaker 1: have this leap of faith to you know, and it
Speaker 1: gets weird, like Jesus comes back on a white horse,
Speaker 1: like hey, slow down, you know. Like Revelations, Book of
Speaker 1: Revelations is weird. But it's like, what's really weird to
Speaker 1: some of these people that think that what's going on
Speaker 1: in Iran is to light the fire to bring to
Speaker 1: have Jesus return to light the signal fire. Like, did
Speaker 1: you hear those recass by that these non commissioned officers
Speaker 1: that went to these briefings combat briefings? Oh no, yeah, Okay,
Speaker 1: here's one of them because I saved it because it's
Speaker 1: so kooky that I read it and I was like, wait,
Speaker 1: what the fuck did they say? Because it's it's so crazy.
Speaker 2: I tend to be anti my knee jerk is anti
Speaker 2: apocalyptic because I don't see apocalyptic movements doing a lot
Speaker 2: of good.
Speaker 1: In the world. So, yeah, that's probably better.
Speaker 2: Off most of I think a lot of Christians have
Speaker 2: ignored the Book of Revelations. I yeah, I think focusing
Speaker 2: too heavily on that particular book is probably leads to bad.
Speaker 1: Altcome, okay, so this was the story that I wrote.
Speaker 1: This was in Yahoo. I'll send this to you, Jeremy,
Speaker 1: so you can get this, so you could put this
Speaker 1: up on the board. Did you find the other thing? Okay?
Speaker 1: He urges us to tell our troops that this was
Speaker 1: all part of God's Now, this is the guy who
Speaker 1: goes this is a combat readiness briefing urge us to
Speaker 1: tell our troops, this is all part of God's plan.
Speaker 1: And he specifically referenced numerous citations of the Book of
Speaker 1: Revelations referring to Armorgeddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.
Speaker 1: He said that President Trump has been anointed by Jesus
Speaker 1: to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armorageddon
Speaker 1: and mark his return to Earth. And they said that
Speaker 1: the guy was saying this had a giant smile on
Speaker 1: his face, which made it all the weirder, like like,
Speaker 1: see if you could find that in there. It doesn't
Speaker 1: say that. No, it's not in that particular article.
Speaker 2: This is just someone someone complained about.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, bunch of people. Can there's actually like a lawsuit?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Really would freedom you risk like the whole self
Speaker 2: fulfilling prophecy with that one. Well it's what you wait
Speaker 2: a second, what are you doing? What machines? What weapons
Speaker 2: do you control?
Speaker 1: Yeah, there's a lot of fucking religious kooks. So it's
Speaker 1: not just And also that is not how Jesus Christ
Speaker 1: would handle it. Let's go bomby Ron, that's how Jesus
Speaker 1: is going to come back. Like do you think you
Speaker 1: would tell you that's the right way to do it, Like,
Speaker 1: how did you Jesus Jesus, like, how did you interav
Speaker 1: that in the text? Okay, before we so we're deep
Speaker 1: into this show. So the Epstein stuff? All right, so
Speaker 1: what is your take on this? All right? Well, so
Speaker 1: I changed your position?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've changed. I think I spent a bunch of
Speaker 2: time with the files. I will say I think I
Speaker 2: did do a peace Well, I do think that the
Speaker 2: shrimp is a code word for young women. I'm pretty
Speaker 2: sure about that.
Speaker 1: What do you think pizza is a code word for? Well?
Speaker 2: That was okay, So then I did a I did.
Speaker 1: I had.
Speaker 2: I had this article about code words in the Epstein files,
Speaker 2: and I did the shrimps, and then I had some
Speaker 2: stuff about pizza and grape juice in there about grape soda,
Speaker 2: and my co author Alex was like, dude, you can't
Speaker 2: go if you can't go full pizza gate, you know,
Speaker 2: like you gotta you gotta like, So we kept it
Speaker 2: out and then the Times mentioned the pizza thing, so
Speaker 2: I wrote someone X about it, but I ended up
Speaker 2: taking it down because I was like, I don't really
Speaker 2: know this one. I mean, what we we're weird to
Speaker 2: meet out. The pizza one was where his urologist was like,
Speaker 2: take your erection dysfunction pills and then we'll go out
Speaker 2: and get pizza and grape soda. And I was like,
Speaker 2: that is creepy, you know as hell. Yeah, So but
Speaker 2: I don't the shrimp one. I'm like that means young
Speaker 2: women because you just see how they talk about it,
Speaker 2: and I think I proved it in my piece. There's
Speaker 2: other ones like people are like the jerky is like
Speaker 2: cannibalism and whatever. It's like, well, it didn't help that
Speaker 2: the restaurant owner was like the restaurant's name was like
Speaker 2: cannibal and something. Yeah, but I'm skeptical that that's what
Speaker 2: that was.
Speaker 1: So well, you would be skeptical unless you were part
Speaker 1: of some of these fucking bizarre satanic rituals, and then
Speaker 1: you would go, oh my god, it's real, like there
Speaker 1: are look, people have sacrifice people, right, Can we agree
Speaker 1: to that in human history? Yeah? Culture, of course, and
Speaker 1: there have been satanic rituals throughout history. Can we agree
Speaker 1: to that?
Speaker 2: Sure?
Speaker 1: Okay, so there has been cannibalism in history. We agree
Speaker 1: to that. Okay.
Speaker 2: Unfortunately a lot actually there was a lot.
Speaker 1: Yeah, why wouldn't we think they're talking about that. We
Speaker 1: don't want to believe it, right, is that what it is? No,
Speaker 1: I don't want to believe that these people, these multimillionaires
Speaker 1: and billionaires that go to this island and engage in
Speaker 1: all this crazy shit, aren't doing something like child sacrifice
Speaker 1: or cannibalism.
Speaker 2: Well, let's start with the Let's start with the thing
Speaker 2: that I think a lot of us thought it was,
Speaker 2: which is that it was an intelligence community sex blackmail operation.
Speaker 2: That's what made it, for me a story. I mean,
Speaker 2: a creepy guy doing creepy things. There's just that's we
Speaker 2: call that a dog bites man story.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: What makes it a man by his dog story is
Speaker 2: like is that you kind of go wow. It is
Speaker 2: like Masad and Cia running a honeypot. I mean, that's
Speaker 2: the premise of Widley Webb's two volume book when they
Speaker 2: under blackmail. But when you look at it, like, we
Speaker 2: don't see that, we see we see one case where
Speaker 2: Epstein emails himself something that sounds like it's in the
Speaker 2: voice of the Bill Gates science advisor Boris Carsitch, I
Speaker 2: believe is the name. And in it they talk about, oh,
Speaker 2: you know, it's the famous email where he says, oh,
Speaker 2: you know, I got STDs. It says, you got STDs
Speaker 2: from Russian hookers or from Russian women, and then you
Speaker 2: tried to slip antibotics or you want to meet a
Speaker 2: slip antibotics and Melinda's drink and Melinda like they asked
Speaker 2: her about it was awful. It doesn't like, that's not
Speaker 2: it's weird what that is.
Speaker 1: So, first of all, we're just talking about emails, right, right,
Speaker 1: So who knows what was said? Just from the email,
Speaker 1: we know that there at least implies that he's got
Speaker 1: dirt on people and that he is exercising, is doing
Speaker 1: something with this dirt that he has on Epstein or
Speaker 1: on Bill Gates rather. Yeah, so we're very limited in
Speaker 1: the amount of data that we possess, right because we
Speaker 1: just have emails between him and other people. Inside those emails,
Speaker 1: we find a lot of creepy shit. We find that
Speaker 1: one description where he was talking to this woman where
Speaker 1: she said, I'm doing a doing investigating a story about
Speaker 1: an island where they bring children for sex, and he goes,
Speaker 1: she almost had a heart attack when I told her
Speaker 1: that person is me.
Speaker 2: Well, he was talking about the rumors and gossips about him.
Speaker 2: But he wasn't saying that he's bringing children to his
Speaker 2: island for sex.
Speaker 1: But that is what he said.
Speaker 2: But if you look at the say they're talking about me.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, she said, I'm doing a story on
Speaker 1: a guy who brings children to his island for sex.
Speaker 1: And he says. She almost had a heart attack when
Speaker 1: I told her that.
Speaker 2: Person is me, the person that.
Speaker 1: Being charitable, because that's not what the tech says. What
Speaker 1: the tech says is someone's bringing children to an island.
Speaker 1: I told her that person was me. Yeah, he didn't say.
Speaker 1: I told her that's a bullshit rumor. I let her
Speaker 1: know that's not true.
Speaker 2: But that's very much in his style. I mean, look, look,
Speaker 2: let's back up to the intelligence.
Speaker 1: Wait a minute, why why would.
Speaker 2: You we can pull it up and look at it.
Speaker 2: I just think I think what we see from the files,
Speaker 2: and I think Mike Benz has sort of pointed out
Speaker 2: the ways in which Epstein might have been a contractor
Speaker 2: or a financier or somebody hiding money for the intelligence community.
Speaker 2: Beyond that, I don't see any evidence that he was
Speaker 2: doing much for the intelligence community, if at all.
Speaker 1: But you're only getting emails, and only half of the emails. Right,
Speaker 1: So there's only three million emails that have been released.
Speaker 1: There's another three million that the FBI possesses that they're
Speaker 1: not releasing.
Speaker 2: Right, one hundred percent is possible something.
Speaker 1: Why would you draw any conclusions based on only fifty
Speaker 1: percent of the data. And then if there is fifty
Speaker 1: percent of the data that hasn't been released, why is
Speaker 1: that way worse? Because this stuff is fucking nuts like this,
Speaker 1: this is nuts, Like take your erection pills so we
Speaker 1: can go get grape soda. Okay, what And it's weird.
Speaker 1: This lady is investigating a place where they and not
Speaker 1: only where they bring children for sex. I told her,
Speaker 1: it was me, what, well we.
Speaker 2: Should put that one. I want to look at that one, Okay,
Speaker 2: I mean I think, I mean here you're talking about
Speaker 2: you're talking about so first of all, I think the
Speaker 2: picture is of a guy that is fully in charge
Speaker 2: of his life and he's doing he's like, he is
Speaker 2: like amazing at getting people to love him and care
Speaker 2: about him. People call him as their best friend in Florida.
Speaker 2: Clearly he was abusing girls and was you know, busted
Speaker 2: for that. I think he was doing that because he's
Speaker 2: a pervert. I don't think I didn't see that. I
Speaker 2: don't see blackmail coming out of that. And then you
Speaker 2: get to later and you've got, okay, you've got the
Speaker 2: Bill Gates thing, which doesn't even appear to be from Epstein.
Speaker 2: It appears to be for Boris. And remember Boris, the
Speaker 2: science advisor, wanted Gates to pay for like a bigger
Speaker 2: apartment for him in New York. It appeared to be
Speaker 2: part of him threatening Gates to get something for that
Speaker 2: Borius wanted. So maybe Epstein was advising him on it.
Speaker 2: But I mean to have a The other thing I'm
Speaker 2: struck by these emails, Joe, is that there are so
Speaker 2: many different attorneys, people of the FBI, people in the
Speaker 2: Eastern District, the Southern District, the Florida Southern District. They
Speaker 2: would all have to be in on it. And I'm
Speaker 2: skeptical because, well, because they would be. They're in these
Speaker 2: I mean, they're in this. They're reviewing the information they're
Speaker 2: trying to bring, you know, they're trying to bring action
Speaker 2: against him.
Speaker 1: We're like, well, it depends on who are the powerful
Speaker 1: people that are implicated and what kind of influence they
Speaker 1: have over what gets released and what doesn't get released.
Speaker 1: Clearly names were redacted that are powerful people that are
Speaker 1: not victims. So that shows you right there that there's
Speaker 1: some influence.
Speaker 2: But there's a reason to do that. Why because they're
Speaker 2: not guilty?
Speaker 1: Okay, what about the one where the guy says where
Speaker 1: Epstein says, I like the torture video.
Speaker 2: I think they someone did find the torture.
Speaker 1: Why would you redact the name of the person who
Speaker 1: sent you a torture of that if you're not trying
Speaker 1: to protect a powerful person.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's the Sultan?
Speaker 1: Is that right? Okay, but that was someone had to
Speaker 1: just figure that out. I mean, look, that's no, no, no,
Speaker 1: that's evidence that you're trying to protect a powerful person.
Speaker 2: Well but they didn't though in a lot of cases,
Speaker 2: but they did right there. Yeah, I mean the redactions
Speaker 2: they were making them.
Speaker 1: I mean it was like understanding a lot of powerful
Speaker 1: people's names. Yeah.
Speaker 2: But I mean, I mean, look at like we're in
Speaker 2: the midst I mean literally the people that are being
Speaker 2: canceled for this, like Peter Atilla, these people are like
Speaker 2: victims of a of We're in the middle of a
Speaker 2: complete you know, uh, you know, moral panic. I mean
Speaker 2: where now it's like me too, Version two. I mean
Speaker 2: people are having to leave boards. I mean, look, these
Speaker 2: are people I don't like. I'll just be honest, like
Speaker 2: if part of me hesitated because I don't like Larry Summers,
Speaker 2: I don't like Bill Gates. I don't care about Sarah Ferguson.
Speaker 2: You know, I didn't say anything. Then they came for
Speaker 2: Peter a Tea. You know, it's a little bit like
Speaker 2: like Peter a Tella, like they he didn't do anything
Speaker 2: wrong and he just like lost his job with CBS,
Speaker 2: and you know, he's sort of now they're under this
Speaker 2: cloud and people go, oh, but he was in the
Speaker 2: hospital and his wife was he was with Epstein. His
Speaker 2: wife was in the hospital. We don't, like, what are
Speaker 2: we doing here, Like we're getting involved in Peter Attilla's
Speaker 2: like personal life and so but he has to get
Speaker 2: fired for that. I mean, it's gone way too far.
Speaker 2: Sarah Ferguson had to step down, even though she you know,
Speaker 2: she said, like these people I don't like them, Like
Speaker 2: these are not people I agree with or think their behaviors,
Speaker 2: but I don't.
Speaker 1: See so they're not guilty of crime.
Speaker 2: I don't Yeah, they're not. Yeah, they're not like they were,
Speaker 2: like they were all making a big deal out of like, well,
Speaker 2: so first of all, let me just say I'm glad
Speaker 2: they released the five.
Speaker 1: I think they keep moving that every time you do it. Bumps.
Speaker 2: I I I think, like you know, they I mean,
Speaker 2: I'm glad the files were released. There was definitely problems
Speaker 2: with the redactions. There was also a case where the
Speaker 2: members of Congress were trying to get stuff redacted. Names
Speaker 2: got redacted of people that, like I know, in one
Speaker 2: case there were people that were getting licenses for guns
Speaker 2: that had nothing to do with Epstein on a list.
Speaker 2: Another case, other people's names were revealed who were not
Speaker 2: guilty of anything. So that's why you you protect those people.
Speaker 2: I think we you go everybody that. The logic right
Speaker 2: now is that anybody who had any interaction with Epstein
Speaker 2: had to have known of all the abuse he was doing.
Speaker 2: Ok and are somehow responsible, but that's not right.
Speaker 1: Okay, But a lot of these people were hanging out
Speaker 1: with him and doing business with them after he was arrested,
Speaker 1: So this is all okay. So then so then you
Speaker 1: know it was very public.
Speaker 2: Okay, but okay, So then so then what is our
Speaker 2: view of people that do the crime and serve the time.
Speaker 2: I mean the left, the left view has been stop
Speaker 2: right there.
Speaker 1: He didn't serve any time.
Speaker 2: He served a year.
Speaker 1: Okay, he did not go to jail for a year.
Speaker 1: You know, he didn't house arrested. Yes, it was a
Speaker 1: very sweetheart deal. And the prosecute was it the prosecuting
Speaker 1: attorney or whoever it was, was told that he was
Speaker 1: intelligence and this is why they were.
Speaker 2: Getting you know, that was that was a by the
Speaker 2: way that I looked into that. Yeah, that we looked
Speaker 2: into that one. And that was heard secondhand, so we
Speaker 2: don't even that wasn't even heard from Acosta directly. Someone
Speaker 2: said that they heard a cost to say that they
Speaker 2: told the Vicky Ward and I believe her source is anonymous. Yeah,
Speaker 2: so that's weak. And you know, Mike, I mean, when
Speaker 2: Mike Ben's was in here and Mike has done a
Speaker 2: deep dive this, he's sort of like, look, at best,
Speaker 2: you get Epstein tied up with intelligence with the Iran
Speaker 2: contrast stuff, but he wasn't. I mean, there's two things
Speaker 2: to see here that with his relationship with the intelligence community,
Speaker 2: he was at best a contractor fans here, which means
Speaker 2: he's not an important player in deciding cover Clidestine operations.
Speaker 2: It was the it's you know, the head of state
Speaker 2: said he.
Speaker 1: Killed cold fusion. I mean he said he killed Pond's
Speaker 1: his his work on cold fusion.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't know did Diddy? I mean, I
Speaker 2: colfusually keep doing it.
Speaker 1: They haven't done it yet.
Speaker 2: Well, I know Carl Paige, the founder, the brother of.
Speaker 1: But he stated that he killed cold fusion.
Speaker 2: Research because he cut off funding for it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but there was manipulated people. I don't know that.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean he say killed it. Why would he
Speaker 2: kill it because it didn't work?
Speaker 1: Or maybe it did work and it's problematic that it
Speaker 1: does work because it kills all these people that all
Speaker 1: this other money and various energy modalities.
Speaker 2: I just I mean, I go fusion is like a whole.
Speaker 2: I mean, the idea that we have a secret, that
Speaker 2: we've secretly tapped cold fusion and are hiding it for.
Speaker 1: Some reason, or that he was on the way to
Speaker 1: breaking through to cold fusion and then they killed all
Speaker 1: of his research, or but why you don't think that
Speaker 1: could be done because there's so many people that have
Speaker 1: money and all these other types of energy.
Speaker 2: I just don't buy that you could. First of all,
Speaker 2: that technology is super difficult to get. Nuclear fission was
Speaker 2: this enormous undertaking, huge mbs of people. The ColdFusion stuff
Speaker 2: was always the confusion stuff is really fringe. I mean
Speaker 2: it was like, we're to be in the lab.
Speaker 1: And doing cold you know, but you're not a physicist,
Speaker 1: So how do you know that? Well?
Speaker 2: I mean I interview a lot of physicists and talk
Speaker 2: about it. I mean, the big fusion projects are incredibly difficult.
Speaker 2: They keep announcing advances on them, they can't get them.
Speaker 2: Cold fusion is not even considered a mainstream fusion project.
Speaker 2: So to assume that there's some secret and I just
Speaker 2: think this is why I have a problem with the
Speaker 2: whole reverse engineering thing. Is I just kind of go.
Speaker 2: You'd have to have so many people working on it
Speaker 2: and covering up for such a long time. I don't
Speaker 2: know how you get away with that.
Speaker 1: Well, what if he was on the verge of a breakthrough,
Speaker 1: but this guy steps in and stops funding and puts
Speaker 1: some leverage on the university. Clearly he had dirt on
Speaker 1: a bunch of people that were at high levels of
Speaker 1: many universities. That's why a bunch of these guys have
Speaker 1: to step down. Didn't the head of Harvard step I.
Speaker 2: Think it's exaggerated. The head of Harvard step down because
Speaker 2: of him?
Speaker 1: That wasn't there a connection between Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean Larry Summers. I mean or yeah, well
Speaker 2: Larry Summers was you know, he had to step down
Speaker 2: because he made those remarks about women as president and
Speaker 2: then he just he just had to step down as professor.
Speaker 2: And I say this, look I says genuinely as someone
Speaker 2: that is not a Larry Summers fan, I don't think.
Speaker 2: I think it's ugly what he did.
Speaker 1: It's terrible.
Speaker 2: He was trying to get advice from Larry Summers about
Speaker 2: how to bed a Chinese economist, and they were gross
Speaker 2: and their emails, and it's terrible. But I don't think
Speaker 2: that you lose a job at Harvard over that. I
Speaker 2: don't think that Peter t should lose his job at
Speaker 2: CBS over that. We've got that's to understand.
Speaker 1: And I see what you're saying. But what I'm saying
Speaker 1: is clearly he had influence over some very high and
Speaker 1: powerful people.
Speaker 2: He also exaggerated his influence. Like he took a lot
Speaker 2: of credit for Santa Fe Institute, which was a lot
Speaker 2: of other people. I mean, he's really he's really interesting
Speaker 2: and smart, Like you gave a thing to you know,
Speaker 2: ban In talking to Bannon about it, that was really interesting.
Speaker 2: But he was also Steve Pinker talked about him as Akbitzer,
Speaker 2: like a kind of a bullshitter, and he was like
Speaker 2: we also saw in the files. I think it really overlooked.
Speaker 2: We saw how he made his money, Like he he
Speaker 2: needed to get the roths He needed to get a
Speaker 2: deal with the Department of Justice for his client, Ariana
Speaker 2: de Roth's child. He hires Katherine Rumbler, who was Obama's
Speaker 2: White House chief counsel, and she goes and makes a
Speaker 2: deal at the Department of Justice forty five million dollar
Speaker 2: fine for the rothschild's, ten million for Kathryne Rumler, twenty
Speaker 2: five million for Jeffrey Epstein. Everyone's like, where does his
Speaker 2: money come from? Doing deals like that? Like you realize,
Speaker 2: I mean one of these Your Succession actually had a
Speaker 2: little subplot about it, Like there's a few people in
Speaker 2: the world that do these crazy high level deals, like
Speaker 2: often like mergers and acquisitions that have these obscene fees
Speaker 2: because they're taking some tiny percentage Epstein was operating. I
Speaker 2: think the thing we didn't realize is that when you
Speaker 2: read the files is the levels of which Epstein was operating.
Speaker 2: I mean, his social and emotional intelligence is just off
Speaker 2: the charts, which is often rare among somebody that's that
Speaker 2: good analytically, someone that really understands like investments in the
Speaker 2: economy to be so. And he was a master manipulator.
Speaker 2: So I don't think it's I don't think it's fair
Speaker 2: to say to people you had an association with him
Speaker 2: after he's committed after he's convicted of this crime. Rich guys. Look,
Speaker 2: we have a totally separate system of justice for rich people.
Speaker 2: I think we've known that for a really long time.
Speaker 2: It's terrible. I condemn it. We should find solutions to it.
Speaker 2: That's what Epstein used to get out of it. I
Speaker 2: don't see any evidence that intelligence helped him. You know,
Speaker 2: we got other problems. The victims. Virginia Jeffree, she claimed
Speaker 2: that she claimed that she had sex with Dershowitz. She
Speaker 2: then goes, oh, I was wrong about that. I mean
Speaker 2: there's a lot of those victim testimonials that are untrustworthy.
Speaker 2: So you get yourself in a situation where you start.
Speaker 1: To put like some of them were probably prostituted.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's the other one is we
Speaker 2: I did some reporting where we helped to We found
Speaker 2: a fourteen year old girl who has been trafficked on
Speaker 2: the streets. She turned fifteen, and the process of us
Speaker 2: were porting on it. You know, we're covering these pis
Speaker 2: that get the police involved. The police go get her.
Speaker 2: You know, she's orphaned, she goes and backs and live
Speaker 2: with her aunt. She's back on the street, voluntarily back
Speaker 2: on the street. Nobody wants to talk about it. It's
Speaker 2: like it's like you go rescue people and they're in
Speaker 2: that world. So these situations are much more complex than
Speaker 2: I think. The final thing on Epstein that kind of
Speaker 2: made me question is that I, like a lot of
Speaker 2: other people had assumed that someone murdered him, but you
Speaker 2: started looking at the evidence for that. Look, maybe there
Speaker 2: more will come out and even this last round, last
Speaker 2: few days or some new things that people point to,
Speaker 2: but they actually are not actually evidence of it. They said.
Speaker 2: You know, Epstein's brother's attorney or Epstein's brother's examiner said
Speaker 2: that that he broke his hyoid bone and the hyode bone,
Speaker 2: and bone is not usually broken in hangings, only in strangulations.
Speaker 2: Actually it is broken and hanging, particularly for the older people.
Speaker 1: Broken.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that I mean, and that's like and it's
Speaker 2: low on his neck. Yeah, And they say, and that happens.
Speaker 1: Also, the lady who is the guard deposited money into
Speaker 1: her case.
Speaker 2: I saw that, but that doesn't what does that mean?
Speaker 1: Okay? Was she also googled his name before.
Speaker 2: He got all that's totally okay, But let.
Speaker 1: Me excuse you. Why are you dismissing I don't understand
Speaker 1: why you're dismissing this because if you're gonna pay, well,
Speaker 1: hold on you are. But hold on you are because
Speaker 1: if you do have a guard, and all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: this guard acquires several payments, She made several deposits, one
Speaker 1: of them was five thousand dollars just ten days before
Speaker 1: he died. And then the cameras are cut, okay, And
Speaker 1: then they mysteriously don't pay attention to the cell of
Speaker 1: one of the most important defendants of any case, any
Speaker 1: gigantic public case involving enormously famous public figures. And then
Speaker 1: this guy hangs himself while he's on suicide.
Speaker 2: I remember he tried to commit suicide.
Speaker 1: Understand it. Why are you not letting me finish when
Speaker 1: I'm saying, because that alone is weird. That alone is weird.
Speaker 1: That the cameras are cut, that there's no video of it,
Speaker 1: The whole thing is weird. You don't think it's weird, Well,
Speaker 1: if you don't think it's weird that this guy that
Speaker 1: he just finds a way to hang himself in this cage.
Speaker 2: I thought I had that same story. I was like,
Speaker 2: the cameras are cut, the security guards are asleep. All
Speaker 2: those things are true. It's also true that the cameras
Speaker 2: went out a long time before that night. It didn't
Speaker 2: just go out that night before. Security guards fall asleep
Speaker 2: at night all the time he attempted suicide, I believe
Speaker 2: eighteen days before, eighteen days.
Speaker 1: Before, he said that his roommate tried to kill him.
Speaker 1: Did you know that? Do you know his roommate was
Speaker 1: a cop that had killed four people in contract killings.
Speaker 1: His roommate, his cellmate, was a murderer. He was a
Speaker 1: guy who was a drug dealing cop who had killed
Speaker 1: four people in contract killings. And that was his fucking jailmate,
Speaker 1: and eighteen days before he said that guy tried to
Speaker 1: kill him, but he said, is there an look at
Speaker 1: that guy? That is his fucking cellmate. Why would you
Speaker 1: put a guy who's one of the most high profile
Speaker 1: defendants in any case ever in a cell with a
Speaker 1: hired killer who's a giant gorilla like this huge, fucking
Speaker 1: jacked Italian guy.
Speaker 2: But he wasn't in the cell with him that night.
Speaker 2: He was by.
Speaker 1: He was the guy who eighteen days before Epstein said,
Speaker 1: tried to kill him.
Speaker 2: But Epstein tried to kill himself. I don't think there's
Speaker 2: any doubt about that, right.
Speaker 1: I don't know if there's I've never seen him say it,
Speaker 1: but I do know that he said that guy tried
Speaker 1: to kill him and they found him unresponsive eighteen days
Speaker 1: before he said that guy tried to kill him. I
Speaker 1: was trying to get money.
Speaker 2: Couldn't you have lied about.
Speaker 1: That video outside celled during Jeffrey Epstein's first suicide attempt
Speaker 1: no longer exists? How weird? Yeah, why would he lie
Speaker 1: about that? He's because he doesn't have a guy who
Speaker 1: He's already saying, this guy's trying to extort him. He's
Speaker 1: already saying this guy's trying to get money from him.
Speaker 1: And this guy is a known killer. He's killed four
Speaker 1: people in contract killings. How did you not know about that?
Speaker 2: I will say it's possible.
Speaker 1: On how did you not know about that?
Speaker 2: I did know about that.
Speaker 1: You knew about the guy being a contract killer? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I knew.
Speaker 2: I knew that story. But I mean, he didn't have
Speaker 2: a cell mate at the night of his death.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: That was one of the mistakes they made, is that
Speaker 2: because he was on suwis to be on suicide watch,
Speaker 2: he was supposed to have a cell mate, didn't have
Speaker 2: a cell mate. I think that.
Speaker 1: Look, I know, but eighteen days before he did have
Speaker 1: a cell mate. Eighteen days before he said that guy
Speaker 1: tried to kill him.
Speaker 2: But eighteen days before he tried to commit suicide.
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's true. Though, I don't know
Speaker 1: if that's true. I don't know why they would put
Speaker 1: him in jail with a contract killer.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, how many who's in that jail aren't
Speaker 2: the people in that jail? Pretty rough?
Speaker 1: His cell mate is a contract killer. Why would he
Speaker 1: be in a cell with a cop who's a contract killed?
Speaker 2: I mean aren't there a lot of the night Jeffrey.
Speaker 1: Epstein claimed a cell mate tried to kill him. New
Speaker 1: documents revealed Jeffrey Epstein claimed his salemate tried to kill
Speaker 1: him in an incident before his death.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but we don't, okay, but I don't know that's true.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, why are you dismissing it?
Speaker 2: I'm not dismissing it. Joe will come out.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, like, looking to dismiss it.
Speaker 2: No, I'm saying I was confident it was a homicide.
Speaker 1: And now you are you aware of this? Yeah?
Speaker 2: Of course all that you were aware that he tried
Speaker 2: to kill us? Of course that he said that.
Speaker 1: Well, how come you never brought it up before? You
Speaker 1: seem shocked when I brought it up.
Speaker 2: Well, because because my understanding is it was a suicide
Speaker 2: attempt eighteen days be okay.
Speaker 1: But if he said this guy tried to kill him
Speaker 1: eight the eighteen days before, why didn't you take that
Speaker 1: into consideration? No, it is.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm just saying that was that was more
Speaker 2: like when I don't.
Speaker 1: Seem like you took it into consideration at all, and
Speaker 1: I'm looking to dismiss it.
Speaker 2: I didn't know I I My view earlier was that
Speaker 2: it was a homicide because the highway bone doesn't break
Speaker 2: when you have hangings. He said he didn't want to
Speaker 2: commit suicide. The video went out, the security guards are asleep.
Speaker 2: I mean, this was a There was a huge investigation
Speaker 2: of this by the Inspector General. So the number of
Speaker 2: people that would have had to been involved in this
Speaker 2: conspiracy and cover up is very large, and it's a
Speaker 2: large number of people who are in this job for
Speaker 2: to be do gooders, and so I'm very I mean
Speaker 2: that's look, maybe they're.
Speaker 1: Okay, so maybe evidence they're not in the job to
Speaker 1: be they are. Sometimes they're in the job to be
Speaker 1: do gooders. Sometimes they're influenced by very powerful figures that
Speaker 1: want a particular result. Does that not happen? But we
Speaker 1: undersold on a second, does that not happen in the
Speaker 1: real world? It does, right, And wouldn't you imagine if
Speaker 1: you're dealing with multiple billionaires that may be compromised by
Speaker 1: the evidence that this guy's going to relay in a trial,
Speaker 1: that that would be one of the times that they
Speaker 1: would want to exert that kind of influence.
Speaker 2: It's possible, and like I said in our piece, we
Speaker 2: wrote it's possible, but I think at this point we
Speaker 2: don't know. I don't think we have the evidence either way.
Speaker 2: And and that's for me. That's the change I went
Speaker 2: from I think it was a homicide to now I
Speaker 2: don't know. I didn't understand that he committed suicide eighteen
Speaker 2: days before.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, he didn't commit A cellmate tried to
Speaker 1: kill him eighteen days before.
Speaker 2: That's what he said, right.
Speaker 1: They found him unresponsive, He said, my cellmate tried to
Speaker 1: kill me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but well, how do we know that? Why would
Speaker 2: we think?
Speaker 1: Okay? And then was it reported that it was an
Speaker 1: attempted suicide to try to dismiss the fact that his
Speaker 1: cellmate was trying to kill him because they wanted his
Speaker 1: cellmate to kill him. We don't know.
Speaker 2: But but you can't dismiss that the psychologist thought he
Speaker 2: was suicidal. They you know, I think a minus saying
Speaker 2: he could have lied about the room. He didn't want
Speaker 2: to have a roommate. That's like, why and they didn't
Speaker 2: have a roommate.
Speaker 1: I want to have a roommate who was a fucking
Speaker 1: contract killer. Well it was a sociopathic cop who killed
Speaker 1: four guys.
Speaker 2: But if you're if you're a contract killer and you're
Speaker 2: in Epstein's cell, why would you want Epstein to die
Speaker 2: in yourself.
Speaker 1: Because you want to kill him because people are going
Speaker 1: to give you like extra cigarettes at the commissary dos no,
Speaker 1: But who fucking knows? We don't know is a guy
Speaker 1: who already kills people and he's in jail forever. He's
Speaker 1: going to be in jail forever. So for that guy,
Speaker 1: you say, would you kill that guy for me?
Speaker 2: Like that?
Speaker 1: It's not even much of a stretch.
Speaker 2: It's not much of a stretch that Epstein would have
Speaker 2: killed himself.
Speaker 1: It's not much stress that that guy killed him either.
Speaker 1: If if he's telling the truth that there was a
Speaker 1: report eighteen days before that that guy tried to kill.
Speaker 2: Him, we just don't know. I mean, that's what we
Speaker 2: really don't know.
Speaker 1: But I don't understand why you would want to make
Speaker 1: the conclusion that he tried to kill himself, and that
Speaker 1: this guy who's a contract killer was not actually trying
Speaker 1: to kill him when he said he was eighteen days before.
Speaker 2: Well, Joe, I mean, I please don't misrepresent. I'm saying
Speaker 2: I don't know, and that the change for me is
Speaker 2: going from really looking like a homicide to really not
Speaker 2: knowing because there's some evidence that I had not considered before.
Speaker 1: That, right, you know, the guy who did the autopsy
Speaker 1: was the guy from that autopsy show on HBO who
Speaker 1: his name is Michael Baden and he was famous.
Speaker 2: The official autopsy.
Speaker 1: No, no, no, the one his brother authorized, because I
Speaker 1: don't think though he is a medical examine he's a
Speaker 1: medical exam.
Speaker 2: He's also famous for he's also paid.
Speaker 1: Site conducted a post suicide Watch report. Epstein denied suicidality
Speaker 1: and stated I have no interest in killing myself and
Speaker 1: that it would be crazy to take his life. All
Speaker 1: the though he was depressed and unhappy about his current
Speaker 1: legal situation. He was told he will remain on psychological
Speaker 1: observation in the near term.
Speaker 2: He said, like you see him in there, he says.
Speaker 2: He says he didn't recall he got the marks on
Speaker 2: his neck, so he didn't blame that on him.
Speaker 1: But no, no, no, that's that's here. But the other
Speaker 1: details from the other report said that he complained that
Speaker 1: the guy tried to kill himself, that did his cellmate
Speaker 1: rather try to kill him.
Speaker 2: Can you go back back?
Speaker 1: Okay, we can find that again.
Speaker 2: But I I don't think but Joe, I think that
Speaker 2: I don't think that you find it. Okay, I don't
Speaker 2: think you've got it. I don't know you've got the
Speaker 2: I don't think you've I don't think we've nailed the
Speaker 2: case that was a homicide at all.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm not saying that I know, yeah, but I'm saying, okay,
Speaker 1: so then we agree we don't know. Yes, but you're
Speaker 1: dismissing these major factors of him, not dismissing a cell
Speaker 1: with a contract killer, him saying eighteen days before the
Speaker 1: guy tried to kill him, then finding one responsive that
Speaker 1: someone tried to strangle him eighteen days before.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I mean there's just as you can make
Speaker 2: a case either way, is my point. You can make
Speaker 2: the case that he was it.
Speaker 1: Was, you can, but at a certain point in time,
Speaker 1: when enough circumstantial evidence. It's fucking weird, like the cameras
Speaker 1: being down, the guards being asleep.
Speaker 2: The cameras were down, I think, I don't want to,
Speaker 2: don't call me in exactly, But they weren't down like
Speaker 2: that day before or something. They were down for a
Speaker 2: while before, and the security guards fall asleep all the time.
Speaker 1: What did you find about him. The roommate trying to
Speaker 1: kill him.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is this is like very report of it.
Speaker 4: I was trying to find his but this is in
Speaker 4: this uh here he's found in the fetal position, laying
Speaker 4: on the floor snore.
Speaker 1: Epstein told officers that Taglioni cellmate, had tried to kill
Speaker 1: him and that had been harassing him. Taglioni claimed he
Speaker 1: had been asleep and woke up to see Epstein with
Speaker 1: a string around his neck. Does that make sense?
Speaker 2: Well, actually, but Joe just to tried to kill him
Speaker 2: and if Epstein but so and the result of this
Speaker 2: is that Epstein doesn't have a cell mate, right, so
Speaker 2: Epstein doesn't want to happen. If you want to kill yourself,
Speaker 2: you don't want a cell mate. So you can go
Speaker 2: over the same amount of fact.
Speaker 1: If you want to go God to God to go
Speaker 1: back and finish the job, you shut the cameras off
Speaker 1: and you open the cell and you'll let this guy
Speaker 1: kill him.
Speaker 2: But they shut cameras off. When they shut the cameras off, though.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter, there's no because they the video that's
Speaker 1: there has been edited. The one video they show of
Speaker 1: the outside of the cell a minute's missing from it.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of weird shit to it.
Speaker 2: Man, I agree, but it's not where you should arrive
Speaker 2: on in my view, where the facts lead you is
Speaker 2: that we don't know and so that's that's that's a
Speaker 2: different city than just saying that's safe.
Speaker 1: Well no, but it is kind of fucking weird that
Speaker 1: he's in a cell with a contract killer. Kind of
Speaker 1: fucking weird that he made a complaint that the contract
Speaker 1: killer tried to kill him eighteen days before.
Speaker 2: Not if you're trying to did they remove that guy
Speaker 2: from his cell?
Speaker 1: Is that what happens? He did?
Speaker 2: Yeah, he's by himself obviously the night he killed himself
Speaker 2: or or was killed or.
Speaker 1: Was killed find the did you find the email where
Speaker 1: he's talking about the lady on the island where that
Speaker 1: she's saying that we brought children to an that someone
Speaker 1: brought children to an island.
Speaker 2: Remember, he's faced with life in prison. He loved his
Speaker 2: decadend hedonistic life. There's plenty of motivations for him to
Speaker 2: kill himself rather than live in prison the rest of
Speaker 2: his life. Right, and remember recently, and I think it
Speaker 2: was like a day or two before he lost his
Speaker 2: bail appeal, so he thought he'd get on bail. He
Speaker 2: didn't even get it on bail. It's gonna be stuck there.
Speaker 2: The psychologist didn't believe him, she thought he was suicidal,
Speaker 2: and and so they are. So one way you interpreted
Speaker 2: is that they messed up. They did a bad job
Speaker 2: they and they should have They should have known that
Speaker 2: he was suicidal, and they should have had a roommate there.
Speaker 2: They they guard shanof Honestly, they should have fixed the
Speaker 2: video camera.
Speaker 1: I just can't imagine you have such a high profile
Speaker 1: defendant and you're not watching him like a fucking hawk.
Speaker 1: I would imagine a guy like that would be in
Speaker 1: protective custody with you know, no fucking shoelaces, no way
Speaker 1: to hang himself.
Speaker 2: I think you overestimate our prison system.
Speaker 1: I would. I think that you would do your very
Speaker 1: best in this case to make sure that this guy
Speaker 1: is watched.
Speaker 2: They didn't. They bring him to me, they didn't they
Speaker 2: they should have had a roommate in a cell, and
Speaker 2: they didn't.
Speaker 1: Well, they put him in a fucking cell with a killer.
Speaker 1: So it seems a little bit more than that.
Speaker 2: But when you say it that way, you make it
Speaker 2: sound like the killer was in the cell the night
Speaker 2: he was killed.
Speaker 1: I make it sound like this killer was in the
Speaker 1: cell with him when he says the killer tried.
Speaker 2: To kill him, right, but or he that's trying to
Speaker 2: kill himself.
Speaker 1: That a little weird.
Speaker 2: Why didn't the guy do it? Then? Why didn't it work?
Speaker 1: Well, he probably choked him unconscious and thought he was
Speaker 1: dead and he survived. They found him unresponsive, or he.
Speaker 2: Tried to kill himself, and then when they said why
Speaker 2: did you try to kill himself, he blames it on
Speaker 2: the roommate, so he doesn't have to have a roommate anymore.
Speaker 1: It's possible. Yeah, so find that email where he says
Speaker 1: that it's him.
Speaker 4: I'm trying to I don't have access to the files
Speaker 4: that right now. That the thing I was using is gone.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's gone.
Speaker 4: Ian Carroll's app was really good and it is. They've
Speaker 4: taken a down book as they're to make it public.
Speaker 2: That was only Gmail jmails. I've got so many fun
Speaker 2: tabs open. You guys moved around, so if you kind
Speaker 2: of go, so for me, if I go, if I go.
Speaker 2: We don't know if it was a homicide or suicide.
Speaker 2: The intelligence community work was appears to we have a
Speaker 2: long time ago and he was a contractor.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm.
Speaker 2: We don't have any other evidence of a sex blackmail
Speaker 2: operation other than that email. Now, there is one other
Speaker 2: thing that I thought was one for the theory that
Speaker 2: he's a blackmailer. Is that he put He's like, we
Speaker 2: have emails of him putting cameras in clean xboxes, hidden
Speaker 2: cameras in clean xboxes with motion detectors. Was that in
Speaker 2: order to engage in a blackmail operation or was he
Speaker 2: just was it just a pervert.
Speaker 1: To blackmail people? Okay, your friend H told me about
Speaker 1: the projects he's doing researching a really bad guy gets
Speaker 1: children for sex sent to his island. She almost fainted
Speaker 1: when I told her that person is me. That seems
Speaker 1: pretty clear.
Speaker 2: I think no, No, I think he's saying that she's
Speaker 2: writing a story it was about him. But I don't
Speaker 2: think he's admitting that he's bringing children to his island
Speaker 2: for six.
Speaker 1: I don't know about you, but if I was sending
Speaker 1: an email and I was talking about someone researching someone
Speaker 1: who's sending children to an island for sex, I would
Speaker 1: also include that I let her know that that was bullshit.
Speaker 2: Well, she ends up coming in meeting with them, right,
Speaker 2: you've seen the follow up to this. No, so she
Speaker 2: ends up coming to meeting with her, and I don't
Speaker 2: know if he like gives her money or something or
Speaker 2: funds her, but it's like, yeah, I mean, the thing
Speaker 2: is that, like without justifying I mean, I think that
Speaker 2: after two thousand and eight, there's not I don't think
Speaker 2: there's any evidence, and I could be wrong. There's not
Speaker 2: a lot of evidence that anybody under age came to
Speaker 2: you know that Epstein, you know, abused anybody under eighteen.
Speaker 2: And I'm not defending abusing women over eighteen, but that
Speaker 2: did seem like a pretty big change.
Speaker 1: Epstein associate found dead in Paris prisons. So after he
Speaker 1: said he was gonna flip, shocker, weird. Maybe he gots
Speaker 1: sad too.
Speaker 2: Well, maybe he's one of the co conspirators. I mean,
Speaker 2: people kill themselves a lot. You know, psychopaths also killed
Speaker 2: themselves a lot.
Speaker 1: Also, people get people killed because they're gonna flip.
Speaker 2: It's possible, and it's just, uh, it's just we would
Speaker 2: just need evidence for it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So this is really if you're going to kill somebody,
Speaker 1: should probably make it so that there's not a lot
Speaker 1: of evidence, right, Yeah, I didn't find it dead. Did
Speaker 1: he kill himself?
Speaker 4: He hung hung in his cell?
Speaker 2: Oh, there's a lot of sheets in there.
Speaker 1: Hunged himself, hanged himself?
Speaker 2: How you gonna weard it? So then it's like should
Speaker 2: So then the theory would be what that Bill Gates
Speaker 2: hired a contract hitler or who did it?
Speaker 6: Then?
Speaker 1: Who knows? Yeah, well who knows what? Who knew what about?
Speaker 1: What and when?
Speaker 2: But I don't think it's the I don't think it's
Speaker 2: the intelligence community because we're not seeing I just were not.
Speaker 2: I mean, Mike came in here and you guys talked
Speaker 2: for a long time, and Mike's not suggesting.
Speaker 1: Well, there's no evidence that it was. I mean, we
Speaker 1: don't have like clear cut he did this and they
Speaker 1: killed these guys because of that. We don't have that,
Speaker 1: right Yeah, so, I mean, but we also don't have
Speaker 1: three million files.
Speaker 2: We also like the things that we don't. He doesn't
Speaker 2: need blackmail to make money.
Speaker 1: Well, he also doesn't need blackmail in order to be
Speaker 1: able to get people to do things and influence them.
Speaker 1: And if you have video of people fucking people and
Speaker 1: doing things they're not supposed to be doing and you're
Speaker 1: giving them drugs and he got them on this island.
Speaker 1: For these wild parties, they're more inclined to do things
Speaker 1: that would do stuff for you.
Speaker 2: I mean, it's possible. I mean, I'll tell you. I mean,
Speaker 2: FBI confiscated a lot of films and videos they had that.
Speaker 2: I was always very suspicious of that. The fact that
Speaker 2: he's talking about hidden cameras and Moshnigga's very bad.
Speaker 1: Well, that was the narrative before that. There was thousands
Speaker 1: of hours hours rather of horrible videos.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Right, so it's possible that there was. Now I
Speaker 2: don't know that I would be.
Speaker 1: Visitors describe at bathroom reminiscent of James Bond movies, hidden
Speaker 1: beneath the stairway, lined with lead to provide shelter from attack,
Speaker 1: and supplied with closed circuit television screens and a telephone,
Speaker 1: both concealed and a cabinet behind the sink, wrote The Times.
Speaker 1: The townhouse now reportedly owned by Wexner's even more mysterious protege,
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein two three. Yeah, so this is even before
Speaker 1: his arrest. Yeah.
Speaker 2: And also the other part of the think of this,
Speaker 2: Remember when Jeff Bezos was blackmailed, and he was just
Speaker 2: like yes, he was like, I'm just gonna well.
Speaker 1: That was just love letters to in Laurence Franchez. They're
Speaker 1: pretty racy, yeah, but I mean it was still it
Speaker 1: was private personal things where he was sending him to
Speaker 1: a woman he loved.
Speaker 2: It shows the risks of engaging in blackmail, and so.
Speaker 1: That seemed out to be a dummy that was like
Speaker 1: someone's brother.
Speaker 2: Yeah right, So but Epstein, I mean, in other words,
Speaker 2: if you use it, like if you actually like use
Speaker 2: your blackmail, I think it's very hard then to maintain
Speaker 2: your reputation as somebody. Now maybe it was sort of
Speaker 2: h never articulated he was attracting people. I mean, what's
Speaker 2: so striking about it is he's attracting people to him.
Speaker 2: He's got all this bonamy. Oh, come hanging out with
Speaker 2: Chomsky and a hud Barrock and all these people. It's
Speaker 2: like a really good time, you know. I think then
Speaker 2: being like, oh I have black mal material on you,
Speaker 2: you need to do it. I mean, he's getting people
Speaker 2: to do what he wants them to do for money,
Speaker 2: you know, for feeling like good vibes, being in on
Speaker 2: some Israeli peace talks. I don't then see him going
Speaker 2: around and maybe I look again, like I totally confest.
Speaker 2: Maybe I just haven't seen the evidence that he's going
Speaker 2: around being like, oh, I have black mal matureial on you.
Speaker 2: You have to do what I want. He got Clinton,
Speaker 2: he probably got.
Speaker 1: Why do you think he's filming everybody?
Speaker 2: Then that is he could be a pervert. I mean,
Speaker 2: there's plenty of evidence of perversion.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 1: Oh, the ranch investigators of finally look into Jeffrey Epstein's
Speaker 1: New Mexico ranch. Federal authorities apparently never searched the property,
Speaker 1: but now state authorities will reopen a twenty nineteen investigation
Speaker 1: about time, it's great.
Speaker 2: It's great.
Speaker 4: Someone on Twitter had or x has a very long
Speaker 4: I was reading it earlier and got bored, but it's
Speaker 4: very long.
Speaker 2: About the link with the lottery, Oh yeah, how they
Speaker 2: won the It's weird. Wait till that if that's accurate,
Speaker 2: it's weird.
Speaker 1: I agree that one's crazy. I mean.
Speaker 2: Mike also points out that he was leased this incredible
Speaker 2: mansion in New York by the State Department, but then
Speaker 2: the State Department like sued him, So it's you know,
Speaker 2: they're like he were quick if he was like really.
Speaker 1: Les Wexner give him a house in Manhattan, and.
Speaker 2: Then well didn't that in the big house that was
Speaker 2: this was a previous mansion given him. Man about that
Speaker 2: thing I told you about.
Speaker 4: Someone found that the person who notarized that ten dollars
Speaker 4: transfer of the house conveniently filmed like the best nine
Speaker 4: to eleven footage. Sure, and that those are the three million,
Speaker 4: Like the timing of those missing files is right around
Speaker 4: the two thousand and one time period.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think that what the files are
Speaker 2: important is that we saw he's able to make his
Speaker 2: as a high level fixer. We saw people were really
Speaker 2: into him. People loved him. He was magnetic. He's able
Speaker 2: to get people to do things that he wants without
Speaker 2: using that as a tool. And we're not seeing I
Speaker 2: just don't see we're I don't think we're seeing any
Speaker 2: signs or footprints or any of that of engaging in blackmail.
Speaker 1: We have the cameras, we don't have half of the files. Yeah,
Speaker 1: what we have is weird. The grape soda, the shrimp,
Speaker 1: the pizza references, the jerky, all that stuff. This lady
Speaker 1: saying that there's an island where a bad guy's bringing
Speaker 1: children for sex. She almost fainted when I said that
Speaker 1: person's me. All this stuff is kind of fucked. Well right, yeah,
Speaker 1: would you admit it's kind of fucked?
Speaker 2: The shrimp's one they're definitely talking about. They're objectifying with
Speaker 2: children for sex, and you think that's kind of fucked.
Speaker 2: I think it's I think that he was. I mean
Speaker 2: my interpretation, I mean, one interpretation of it is that, yeah,
Speaker 2: he's freely admitting on an email that he's trafficking children.
Speaker 2: I find that difficult to believe that you would put that.
Speaker 2: I mean, if you're gonna say that, he doesn't put
Speaker 2: the blackmail stuff in an email, but he's gonna put
Speaker 2: in an email that he's bringing children to the island.
Speaker 2: I mean, I think he's being sarcastic there. I think
Speaker 2: he's saying, oh, that guy is me, Like that's what
Speaker 2: they say about me.
Speaker 1: Why wouldn't you elaborate and say, I mean, if you're.
Speaker 2: Sending the person, the person who sends it to knows
Speaker 2: that it's not true. I mean, I think that person
Speaker 2: works for him, right, Masha, Is that one of the
Speaker 2: women that he had. I I just I don't think
Speaker 2: that's him saying I'm.
Speaker 1: Maybe yeah, maybe all right, Uh, we gotta wrap this up.
Speaker 1: Anything else?
Speaker 2: I got one? I got someone gave me a video.
Speaker 2: I thought I can share it with you guys. What
Speaker 2: a uf video? Oh wait, we make a tindition to
Speaker 2: end every sash with a can. I send it to Jamie?
Speaker 1: Yeah, you get air drop? It Is it compelling? More
Speaker 1: compelling than Yahweh's video? You don't like the video? All right?
Speaker 1: It's fun?
Speaker 2: Is it compelling?
Speaker 1: All right?
Speaker 2: I mean you guys will decide or not here I
Speaker 2: send it to Okay, that's just something. Yeah, I was
Speaker 2: curious about Oh, I was gonna you know Elon? You
Speaker 2: think you think Elon knows more than he's like about you?
Speaker 1: Apses? How is that?
Speaker 2: How do you know that?
Speaker 1: Well, because he works with NASA. If he knows something,
Speaker 1: he knows something. Also, some people have.
Speaker 2: Told me that he knows something, But don't you ask
Speaker 2: him privately?
Speaker 1: He don't tell me shit. Okay, I got a big mouth.
Speaker 2: I asked somebody that was high up in his operation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we were.
Speaker 2: We were on the record, but I won't reveal who
Speaker 2: they are. What they said, and they go, I said,
Speaker 2: you guys must be I was like at SpaceX, you
Speaker 2: guys must just like have to don't you have to
Speaker 2: edit out like UFOs that you get, you know. And
Speaker 2: the person just looked at me and they just said
Speaker 2: Elon's really close with the federal government. That was all
Speaker 2: they said.
Speaker 1: Good, all right, let's play this, just play. What am
Speaker 1: I looking at?
Speaker 2: This is her? Is her video in here? I think
Speaker 2: she shows I think she zooms in.
Speaker 1: I don't know what we're looking at.
Speaker 2: It's here in Texas.
Speaker 1: What are you looking at? Lady? Okay, it's like most
Speaker 1: of you have videos. It gets better.
Speaker 2: Thirty seconds guys, okay, ripping out right now.
Speaker 1: It looks she's tripping. It's you know her, she your friend?
Speaker 2: Is that?
Speaker 1: Is she intoxicated?
Speaker 2: I think no, no, she's not. And this is like
Speaker 2: not far from here, it's somewhere in Texas. I think
Speaker 2: she zooms in at the end.
Speaker 1: Well, we still got ten seconds for it to get good.
Speaker 7: That is.
Speaker 1: Oh my god?
Speaker 2: What oh she doesn't I thought she had a when
Speaker 2: she once she showed me she zoomed in on disappointed.
Speaker 2: Probably cut that all out?
Speaker 1: All right, let's wrap it up. Thanks sir, appreciate having
Speaker 1: me Jacks to me here. All right, bye, everybody,