Speaker 1: If you want to get the show early and ad free,
head on over to the peak Kinyonas show dot com.
There you can choose from where you wish to support me.
Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me
about this, even though I think on the last ad
I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed,
you're going to have to subscribe your substack or through Patreon.
You can also subscribe on my website which is right there,
gum Road and what's the other one, subscribe Star and
if you do that, you will get access to the
audio file. So head on over to the pekan Yonashow
dot com. You'll see all the ways that you can
support me there. And I just want to thank everyone.
It's because of you that I can put out the
amount of material that I do. I can do what
I'm doing with doctor Johnson on two hundred Years Together
and everything else, the things that Thomas and I are
doing together on kindinal philosophy, it's all because of you.
And yeah, I mean, I'll never be able to thank
you enough.
Speaker 2: So thank you.
Speaker 1: The pekan Yonashow dot com. Everything's there. I want to
welcome everyone back to the Peaking Yonas show. It's been
a while, but someone who's been on the show before,
Keith Preston, how are you doing.
Speaker 3: I'm good, Good to be back.
Speaker 2: Cool man.
Speaker 1: Well, just to jump right in the recently a couple
of a couple of my friends started talking about how
they they thought the GOP was basically giving states away
and that rather than this young, upstart group of people
who don't care about Israel take over the party, they'd
rather just torpedo the party altogether. And you said, you
saw some you saw some merit in that, but you
thought a more interesting thing was this whole talk about
a switch to multipolarity throughout the world and just basically
how that doesn't really look It doesn't really look good
for a power because a lot of the structures that
are in place within are not going or not seeking
to be changed.
Speaker 2: So anywhere you want to jump off, guhad.
Speaker 3: Well on the question of multipolarity, one thing that I
think a lot of people are missing is what's actually
happening on an international level. You know, there's this prevailing
view that you find in some people, among some people
who follow these things, that we're shifting towards a multi
polar world and by that they mean, well, the Chinese
are becoming more powerful, and the Russians are becoming more
self assertive, and the United States isn't quite the global
hedgem on it was, say, immediately after the Cold War.
But I think there's a lot more to it than that.
If we look at the system that was created after
the end of the Cold War, it was largely a
matter of taking the liberal internationalist order that the Americans
put together after World War Two and then expanding it globally.
And there was a book published in the late nineties
called Empire by a couple of left the scholars who
talked about how this world empire was developing that was
sort of that involved the integration of the financial and
trade systems of different countries. And this was back during
the time when the anti globalization movement was emerging. I
don't know how old your a typical listener is, but
back in nineteen ninety nine there was the Battle of Seattle,
and there used to be protests whenever the IMF and
the World Bank and these kinds of.
Speaker 1: My buddy Carl Dahl, who comes on the show and
talks mostly about the Spanish Civil War. When he comes on,
he was on the ground for that, so he's talked about.
Speaker 3: It a bunch. Oh yeah, well that you know, for
younger readers, there was a wave of protest against these
international financial institutions about twenty five plus years ago when
and this was went really at the peak of what
well it was. It was at the top of what
I call the Six peaks. I have this term I
used called the six peaks, and that was the era
of peak unipolarity, that is American global dominance, peak globalization,
which is the integration of trade on an air national level,
Peak neoliberalism, which was sort of the economic ideology behind this,
the Washington Consensus, and all of that, Peak neo conism.
You know, this this neo con idea of the end
of history and that you know, we're going to have
global democratic revolution and all of this kind of stuff
which takes off on steroids during the George W. Bush era,
and then peak democratism where liberal democracies, democratic republic of
republics are becoming more and more commonplace worldwide. And then
peak what I call totalitarian humanism or this kind of
managerial you know, soft authoritarian political framework it's used with
this nominally progressed cultural orthodoxy, and all of those things
were really at their apex in the late nineties and
then for the last twenty five years what we've seen
as a gradual erosion of all of that, and largely
it's because of the pernicious effect that American powers had
on much of the world. And I think that we
could if we look a good analogy to use as
to a corporation, like if you look at the history
of a lot of multinational corporations like General Electric or
Unilever or IBM or Nestley. Over time, a lot of
these corporations shifted their managerial structure where they were no
longer a traditional, top down, CEO centralized managerial system. They
started going to more regionalized and more decentralized systems of
management to various degrees. And I think something is happening
nowadays on an international level where the international order is
going in the same way. And essentially what we're seeing
is that the United States is getting fired as the
CEO of globalism incorporated or imperialism incorporated, or the world
order incorporated, or whatever terminology for because what's fascinating about
it is that if you if you had as a
goal the weakening of American prestige and power and all
of that to the point that the United States cannot
be a global pedgemont. How would you do it, Well,
you would encourage American leaders to attack allies and alienate
supposedly friendly countries, attack trading departments, and do all kinds
of things that don't really make a lot of rational
sense when it comes to maintaining American political, military, economic power.
And that's exactly what we've seen going on in recent times.
You know, we've seen they'll attack, attacks on NATO, attacks
on Canada, you know, uh, this thing about taking Greenland
and all of that. Now, what's interesting is that the
liberal internationalist wane of the American really class recognizes this.
They recognize that the impact of all of these things
is to weaken American power prestige, which they want to maintain.
You know, that's why they're getting upset about all they're
alienating our European era allies, They're they're destroying the rules
based international order that you know, all of these things
we can read about in the Atlantic. We can watch
the Boulwark and read watch dated from and here people
ringing their hands about this, but they're not wrong when
they say that's happened. But the question is why is
that happen? And it's being sold to the American public
as a matter of making America great again. Nationalisms. We're
not going to waste I'm with these free loading Europeans
or you know, we're not going to bother with all
this international mall framework. You know, we're America, do what
we want. But it's not really having that effect. The
actual effect that all of that has happened happening. It's
having it's weakening, isolating the United States as a nation state.
But it's being sold as nationalists making America great again
to the general public and to you know, the sectors
of the of the elite or perhaps intermediary level elite
that want that believe in nationalism that you want to
have a Teddy Roosevelt in the type of nationalism. But
the big picture wise, I think the United States is
getting fired as the CEO and management of the world
order is being transferred to regional powers and regional agglomerations.
That's why we see the rise of the bricks, you know,
we see the Golf Cooperation Council rising. We see medium
level powers like Indonesia, Turkey rising. You know, we see
China building its network of economic partnerships now because all
of this is happening, though that doesn't mean we're actually
moving towards real geopolitical multipolarity in an absolute sense, because
we're still in a system of financial unipolarity. An analogy
to be made to the nineteenth century. I looked at
the world order the nineteenth century. You see that you
had a number of major empires or rising empires. You
had maybe a ten or twelve of these. You know,
there was obviously the British Empire, which the biggest one
in the French, you know, the Russian Empire, the Ottomans
America was a rising continental power. Japan was rising here
at that period, you know, all of the other European
colonial empires. So you had these different empires that had
their own spheres of influence, which is a phrase, it's
made it come back now, but it was still financially
united for the city of London through through London to
the financial apparatus of the British Empire. And nowadays what
we're seeing is something similar, where we're seeing a world
where all these different powers might have their own spheres
of influence, whether it's China, Russia, the European Union, in
America you Turti, Israel, Iran, so Arabia, et cetera. But
we see that there's a growing effort to integrate the
East and West and North and south financial systems, and
we see that through entities like black Row and all
of these financial institutions like I know on Todd Lewis's program,
I did a program where I was talking about this
and he titled it the New World Orders. Here turns
out it's black Raw And that's not too far off
because that's what's actually seems to be what's actually happening.
Like if you look at who's actually running the Trump administration,
in my view is that ultimately it's the Blackrock and
international finance wing of the administration. It's really called shots.
For instance, Larry Fink, the leader of Blackrock, has actually
gotten involved in the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Now,
why is a business span leading the negotiations between two
major two major countries involved in a war. Because that's
where the real power is. Real power is with the
global finance in a way that transcends national borders. Uh,
You know, we're seeing transfer of power or or or
management between transfer of management to a lot of the
regional acclomerations. You know, you've got the EU opinion, and
you've got the bricks. You know, we've got the GCC
and all of that, but it's not necessarily national states
that are really called shots. National states still exist to
all that power and influence and still do things. But
over and above that, you have a layer of transnational
finance that's increasingly a governmental system of its own, and
that's currently being restructured. Where globalism or globalization where you
call it, that's not that's not going great. In fact,
it's a it's just the office that it's being integrated North,
Southeast and Western being integrated through international transnational financial institutions.
Whether it's investment firms like black Rock, whether it's the
Bank of International Settlements, the w t O, the World Bank,
all of that apparatus is still there. It's just that
the management structure is being altered and it's and to
do that. For that to happen, American influence and prestige
and power has to be has to recede. You know,
the US has to get fired. Essentially a CEO of
the New World Order. But the general public is not
going to go to that, much of much of the
elite is not going to go to that in the
United States, So it's being sold as nationalism, big soul
as well, make America great again, But we're not making
great again. We're making America to a province of global finance.
Speaker 1: Well, it's interesting that a lot of people would argue that,
you know, you can't be a military empire, but you
know they are. The same argument can be made that
you're if you're trying to build a financial empire, which
you know already exists, but now you're trying to, I
guess refine it.
Speaker 2: I mean, how do.
Speaker 1: The only way to refine it would be to bring
it home in in some way, shape or form. But
that doesn't seem like what they're They're actually seeking to
expand the financial empire.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly. I think they're trying to expanded into regions
of the world where previously hadn't really been expanded, particularly
the Global South. The focus now is on the Global South.
You know, it's sort of I think that it seems
to be the financial strategy is to integrate the North,
the East, and West by ancial systems for the collective
purpose of going into the global South and cannibalizing that.
You know, we see, for example, what globalization has done
to the United States economy in terms of following out
the industrial base and all of that kind of stuff,
and it's had similar effects elsewhere, not quite as bad
as here. I think the United States can get the
worse by that. But now we see this, this whole
process being extended into into Latin America and into Africa,
and into South Asia and the South Pacific. So that's
really what's happening now because that this this financial system
is being extended albart with which acquires a greater degree
of financial integration between all these different regions and sectors.
So the idea that globalism or globalization is dead is
not true at all. If anything, the as is true.
It's actually being expanded and integrated.
Speaker 1: And it seems to me the best way to sell
that would be under the populist you know, the populist
label and get people excited that this is somehow going
to improve their lives.
Speaker 2: Can you speak to that? How do you think that.
Speaker 1: Expanding financial empire is going to help the lives of
the average.
Speaker 3: American No, No, the socio economic conditions in the United
States are going backward at high speed. What we're doing
is we're seeing a return to the to the pre
Great Depression era or to the nineteenth century in terms
of class relations and in terms of disparities, in terms
of wealth distribution. Like some people will say, we're in
a new guilded age now are and we're starting to
see a lot of the same kinds of problems that
we solve in the Industrial Revolution. Like if you look
at what happened to the Industrial Revolution, it was the
mere image of what's going on now with the digital
revolution and the financial revolution, in the sense that you
saw the dislocation and disruption of long standing ways of life.
You saw very very rapid technological change, very very rapid
social and cultural change. You see a lot You saw
a lot of people losing their traditional livelihoods. For instance,
in the Industrial Revolution, you saw a lot of small
farmers being run off of their land. You saw crafts
people losing their livelihoods because they couldn't keep up with
industrial manufacturing. And parallels to all of that are happening
now with the same kind of effect. Like I know,
way back In the eighteen nineties, San Francis wrote about
the phenomena of the post bourgeois proletariat, and what he
meant by that is that while the old bourgeois class
system has largely faded, and at the time it had
been displaced by managerialism, by the managerial revolution. Now and
now it's been synthesized with the digital revolution, but that's
creating something similar to a proletariant class of the type
that emerged in the nineteenth century during the Industrial Revolution.
That we don't call it that anymore, you know, we
can instead of calling it the proletariat, we call it
the pre carryat or the or the uh uh. We
call them gig workers or or you know, or we
call it the unemployed. Uh. But we see the same
kind of situation going on. We see increasingly more and
more people who cannot afford basic uh you know, life
commodities like you know, housing, housing is want to get
some degree of attention because it's unthinkable that somebody can
buy a house in their twenties, you know, like like
my parents. By the time my parents were in their
early thirties, they'd already been through two houses. Uh. You know,
nowadays You've have people in their fifties that still can't
buy a house. Uh. You know, at home ownership was
always one of those things that was associated with mintal
class status in the United States, but you see that
all of that is declining now, and that's due to
the reproletarianization of labor, where you don't really have this
kind of middle class what was called the middle class,
but this upper strato working class that emerge in the
post war period, you don't have that anymore. One thing
that was unique about the American economy in the post
war period is that you had a you had a
working class that, for the first time in history could
live like the upper middle class, and not just like
the upper middle class, but also with mid to late
twentieth century technology, you know, household appliances and TVs and
all that. That's I mean, we still have we have
more technology now they've ever had, but the overall living
standards have not kept pace with that. And you know,
we're starting to see the kind of things in developed countries,
partically the United States, that you normally associate with the
third world, like you know, rows of people living in
tents along the highway and that kind of stuff like
you would have. We used to associate that kind of
stuff with the Calcutta back in the day. That kind
of stuff is becoming more commonplace, but it's it's it's
very similar to what the effects of the Industrial Revolution
were on Europe and America when that was going on,
and we're seeing a very similar set of circumstances of
merging at the present time. So none of that is
making America great again. One reason why this kind of
populist rhetoric has an appeal is because more and more
people are noticing this and living this, and when they
hear things like well, we want to protect jobs or
we want to rebuild the economy and things like that, Yeah,
of course that sounds good, but that's not really what's happened.
That's how it's being sold. I mean, for example, Donald Trump.
Now I wouldn't say Donald Trump is then on some
kind of conspiracy. He strikes me as somebody who just
basically believes whatever somebody last told him or whatever he
last heard himself say so. But I think that he's
being used as sort of a tool to facilitate this
process of transition away from American magimity towards this kind
of system of theoretical multiplarity, but really it's a managed
system of international finance, and then populism is being weaponized
for that purpose. One thing we have to remember is
that elites will put out whatever kind of message that
serves their own interest at the time. For example, the
woke phenomena. You know, My taken on the woke thing
is that that was really just the liberal wing of
the worldly class seizing on the ideas they picked up
from campus culture and the left wing activist culture and
then using that as their self legitimated ideological superstructure. And
then they sort of had somebody like Barack Obama as
their front man and that was sort of the dominant
paradigm for a while. Then that started to wear out.
And then one thing that was interesting is that a
few years ago we started seeing all sense will lurch
right word by a lot of elites, particularly after October seventh.
I think that was a really a critical moment October seventh,
twenty twenty three, because we saw a lot of Zionist
in leeds lurching right word and saying, okay, well we've
been pushing the woke line. Now we see all these
people who took us out our word, and now they're
out protesting genocide and Palestine. All right, so now we've
got to we've got to do something about that. So
let's lurch right word and pick up on this conservative
anti woke thing, and that's going to be superstructure now.
And then you also start to see a lot of
rising sectors within the capitalist class or the elder wherever
you want to call them. You start to see them
moving in these xtent direction. I mentioned black Rock, you.
Black Rock has been backing the Trump administration. Larry Fink
was one of the billionaires that accompanied Trump on this
trip to Saudi Arabia last summer. All right, five years ago,
Blackrock was pushing ESG and BLM and all the fotique
war causes of the period. Now they're moving rightward or
or whether they have their hands in both. You see
that with a lot of these tech overgarchs. You know,
these were the same people that were throwing people off
of social media for challenging COVID orthodoxy or or being
too politically incorrect a few years ago. Now they're giving
Trump money so he can build his ballroom or whatever it's. Uh.
You know, all of these all of these things are transaction. Uh.
They you know, they will put out any paradigm that
suits the narrative of the moment that they want to spend.
And I mean they would become a Islamists if they
thought it would you know, they would become Marxists that
they thought it would serve their own interest at the time.
And that's kind of where we are now.
Speaker 1: You mentioned the Industrial Revolution, and you know, one thing
about the Industrial Revolution is was it was something that
you could see and you can hold, you know, people
moving to cities. Spangler comparing it to like people living
in barracks because you know, you're they're going to work,
they don't know if they're coming home one day. But
at least that one thing that you didn't have at
that time was the financialization of the economy that you
have now. Basically the economy is something that can't be seen.
It's all ones and zeros, it's all dollars, it's all derivatives,
it's all and you know that at the time of
the Industrial Revolution, you could still own your home, you
could still own your land and have like dominion over
your land. Now your land is basically owned by the
county or the bank or you never own it. And
it's just as bad as it was during the Industrial Revolution.
When you look at what's going on now, it's so
it's hanging on by a thread because it's all financialized.
There is nothing real about it. I mean, Michael Burry
is betting against Palentier, betting against AI, saying that this
is all made up, that this is all afront. This
is just to make money, This is just to loot
the treasury. This is just getting investors to set to
give money that they're just going to steal and take
from them.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and they'll keep doing that until it all collapses,
until we get another great depression type of scenario. That's
exactly where things are headed now. They're building this financial
house of cards. It's all going to come crashing down eventually,
and that's when we're going to have room problems.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I mean, when you I believe that there
are actual wars going on between the elites, I mean
you know that there are factions out there. You have
the zionisfaction, you have the financial faction with crossover, you
have the you have the Silicon Valley that has crossover
into all three. But there are people out there who
are There are are groups out there who are making
plays at trying to tear down exist or trying to
basically have more influence over any administration that comes in
there than the other elite factions. So you do see
that there are there is a war amongst the elites
now more than there was, say twenty years ago.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, well, there's always been conflict within the elites.
There was a really good book that was published fifty
years ago called The Yankee Cowboy War by Karl Odensby,
who was a former defense worker who sort of became
an anti war guy in the sixties, but in the seventies.
He wrote about how much of American political conflict of
that era could be understood as the conflict between the
traditional Eastern establishment, that is, the Rockefeller types and the
Northeastern financial elites, and then the rising velt you know,
like the industrial expansion that had happened in the Sun
Belt in the post war era leading up to that,
and that would be things like defense contractors and Nagara
business and Texas oil and initially Soldan Valley was part
of that as well. And that's sort of where the
whole liberal versus conservative conflicts they in the seventies and
eighties came from you you know, Burry Goldwater on Old Reagan.
Some of those political figures came out of the sun
Belt wing of the elite, and they started mounting a
challenge to the Northeastern establishment. Prior to the Reagan era,
the Water fellas pretty much of the United States, The
Publican Party was run by Nils of Rockefeller, the Democratic
Party was run by his brother, David So. And the
what the Reagan Revolution was in part in part was
the sun Belt becoming more assertive and it's asserting itself
into the political sphere. And the sun Belt represented the
more industrial wing of the ruling class, and then the
Northeast represented the more financial wing. And that conflict goes
all the way back to the turn of the twentieth century.
So it's not like it even at the time, but
now we've seen other layers and other sectors added. The
tech revolution is probably the most important thing because we
eventually Silicon Valley became a force of its own. And
initially it looks like Silicon Valley aligned itself with the
Eastern establishment to a large degree, but then the more
powerful and influential the Silicon Valley elite became the more
they started spreading themselves out, and they started we started
seeing factions of Silicon Valley in both the Democrats and
Republicans and within liberal and conservative groups and all of that. Yeah,
you see that everywhere. Like a lot of people would
be surprised to hear this, perhaps, but some of these
social democratic politicians like AOC and zar On Mandami and
people like that. The real material of those kinds of
people isn't the working class poor, any of that kind
of stuff. It's more the lower levels of the tech
industry and then the what might be called the left
wing of the petty bouchoise, the that is, mower media
level enterprises that are in competition, but larger, more established enterprises,
and also the professional managerial class, the yummie class. That's
the real material foundation of like aggressive Democrats, you know,
as opposed to the neoliberal centrist Democrats or the Republicans.
So the Silicon Valley types are now the tech revolutionaries
are spreading themselves out. I think the top level of
that would be the people like Musk and Teal and
some of those guys and Mark Zuckerberg, and they've sort
of they've sort of lurst right word and thrown in
their lot the Republicans and tried to embed themselves in that.
And then there's also financialization, and you have out of that,
you have this whole new wave of financiers and financial
elites that are in some ways aligned with, in some
ways in competition with, and even some ways eclipsing the
more older financial elites while sort of dragging them along
with them at the same time. Again, I keep coming
back to Black Rock, but they're as good example of
that as anything. Initially they were one of these startup
financial entities, and then they started becoming competitive with entities
like you know, the traditional Chase Manhattan, you know, Rough
Child type of entities, and then they've largely matched that,
even eclipsed it in some ways, but they're still interconnected
with it overlap. But then they've also lurched right word
and started aligning themselves with the Sun Belt and the
heavy industry and that kind of stuff as well. And
of course then there's the Zionist plutocrats that they a
lot of people think zion is some monolith conspiracy. It's
truly not. It has multiple factions like anything else. And
the one important the station has to be made. There
is between the Israeli nationalists what I call the Israeli nationalists,
and then the global the aspasionists like somebody like Benjamin
met Yahoo and then all of his friends and champions
in America, you know, the Lindsay Grahams, Mike Hokabes, those
people are Israeli nationalists. What they care about is creating
a greader Israel throughout the western Western Asia and then
creating a network of state traps and up the states
around it. Now, that's what Israel's foreign policy is about
under the La Coud. And then they've also become more extreme.
I mean they really really they're no longer la Kunixt.
They're really honest as part you know, by your guy.
That's what That's basically what the Israeli government is now.
Think of the Israeli government today. It's like a Jewish
version of the Kuplux Plan or something. That's that's what
they are. And a lot of the hardcore is Raeli
partisans in the United States today, that's what they are,
you know. That's what the Lindsay Grahams and the Mike
Hukabees and Tom Cotton and all these kinds of characters
are but the global global diaspora Zionism is more concerned
about Zionist influence on an international level. Southern there a
ghaist Israel, southa theres Israeli expansionism. But they don't see
that as the primary issue. They see issue. They see
Israel Wars as a nexus, that's a connector between East
and West within a global Zionist empire, the type they
want to create. Like if you look at the countries
of the northern hemisphere, from say Russia all the way
over to Australia, right you have, well, Australia's technically not
more than but it's Western culturally at least, all of
those have the same kind of Jewish old art classes.
The Russians have that, their their enemies in Ukraine have that,
the Europe has that, the UK has that, Canada as
that the United States obviously has that Australia has it.
And while they're not necessarily in agreement about it everything,
it's not some monolithic conspiracy. There is a prevailing consensus
that you know, in favor of Jewish alegivity and Jewish
power and by extension of the Zionist project and the
Zionist ideology. So the endgame there would be a world
worldwide Zionist empire that's transnational that we're you know, where
it's Zionist elites are connected, interconnected through whatever countries in
which they're deeply embedded. So you have a Zionist empire
by default, even if you don't call it that, you
know it's that's what it amounts to. And you know that.
Then as far as fears, parts of the world that
aren't impacted by that, mostly it's East d Asia, you know,
and mostly it's uh, Japan and China and those kinds
of places. And now we see Zionism expanding into the
global South and trying to create public puppet states in
Africa and America. We have this thing, for example, going
on in Latin America called the ISAAC Boards, which is
basically at Latin conversion of the Abraham Accords, which is
basically just about trying to create what amounts to Zionist
puppet states in different regions.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 3: And we see that in Africa, the same in roads
of that type being made in Africa, for example, New
god that's an obvious in Samala, Somala year, Samala Land
now we see this happening in in South Asia. We
see traces of this now in the Philippines and Thailand.
Uh So, Zionism is deeply embedded in institutions worldwide. People say, well,
how how is Zionism so influential? Has its available because
of the trans institutional, transnational embedment, you know, it's it's
not that there's a single world Zionist monarch, even the
orders of something. It's through cultural hegemony. Through that that
is a result of institutional hegemony.
Speaker 1: Well, this would be a good place to just divert
for a second, because before we started recording, I asked.
Speaker 2: You what you thought the you.
Speaker 1: Thought the most important things to come out of that
you've seen out of the Epstein drop so far, we're
doing that. We're recording this to Monday, after the weekend,
where yeah, they released it on a Friday and then
you just go nuts through the weekend trying to figure
it out. Talk a little bit about what you've seen
in these Epstein releases that relates to exactly what you
were just talking about.
Speaker 3: Well, the kinds of people that were associated with Jeffrey
Epstein were exactly the kinds of people I would just
described these were global financial cultural institutional elites, you know.
I mean that represent the full spectrum institutional. Some of
the names that have come out, Larry Sommers, who was
he was Secretary of the Treasury in the United States.
He was the president or channel with the title is
chancellor president of Harvard was it Harvard or one of those?
You know? We obviously Alan Dershowitzy powered attorney. We know
this association with with Epstein, the former Prime Minister of Israel,
Aarhud Barack, you know Lex Wexner, you know, a lot
of prominent European financiers. Richard Branson, who was a big
British capitalist, the Illians, Virgin Airlines. It's probably the thing
he's most known for. And we'll go down a long
list of these people, but we see how these people
were inter kempty connected as part of the same social service,
part of the same culture. Will mail you. One thing
that listening to journalists talk about the Epstein files and
all the stuff that was in it, it reminded me
a lot of a book that was a classic in sociology,
is published back in the early sixties, maybe the late fifties.
Other things I can't remember when, but it's by Seawright Meals.
It's called the power Lead, and Seawright Meals at the
time examined the American power lead as it was, and
he talked about how, you know, yeah, asted you have
democracy or Constitution of Republic or whatever, but the strings
are really being hold by this power elite. And these
people circulate. Uh. You know, for example, some of them
may be at the top of the military. He was
writing writing during Some of them may be at the
top of the military, may be at the top of
the financial institutions, you know, the industrial institutions. Also there's
the cultural institutions like elite universities and all of that
kind of stuff, Like how many elites have gone to
Yale and Harvard for Princeton in these places and they
circulate among themselves. We still see that today. Somebody's at
Congress for a while, then they're a seat, Then they
have a seat on the board of directors at a
major corporation. Then they become chancellor of a major university. Uh.
And there's you see people going in and out of
the military. But there's also the media. Somebody used to
be in Congress, now they're a major commentator on ms
NBC or Fox or one of these network news programs.
But that's what see right Mills called the power elite,
or another term for it is the circulation of the least.
There was a sociologist named Moscow, Italian that lived in
the twenties or thirty somewhere like that used to talk
about this a lot of circulation of elites. But if
you look in the Epstein files, you see who these
people are. Basically, you see that they're all drawn from
all of these different elite institutions, and you see that
they all's a large degree they knew each other. They
were part of the same social circles. You know, top
level business people, top level financial people, top level politicians,
president several US presidents, you know Bill Donald Trump, heads
of state of other countries. You know media figures, you
know at leading academics, press people, high powered lawyers. That's
the power elite. And the power of these people is
their institutional embedment, the way that they are to a
large degree, part of the same broad circle. But then
they're spread across different kinds of institutions. You know, whether
it's the universities, it's a media conglomerate, whether it's a
major corporation, whether it's a government agency, whether it's the
president's and that's who the power of lead are, and
we see a lot of them are some pretty creepy
people too. From some of the revelations.
Speaker 1: Well, one thing that really stood out to me is that,
you know, these aren't people who are just getting on
the phone with each other and conspiring. These are people
who've actually built social capital, you know, in person, and
I mean, yeah, it's pretty gross and disgusting and illegal
in a lot of cases, which helps keep people tight knit.
But the fact that these people like know each other
and they know they're each other's family and they know
that really speaks to the fact of just exactly how
tight knitted is and that if you think that you're
going to somehow, you know, vote just the right guy
in and the right guy is going to be able
to dismantle this, especially if that person has been a
part of it, you're probably you're probably a little bit delusional.
Speaker 3: Yeah, because well it's like a casino. It's like, no
matter who the ostensible winner is, the real winner is
the house. You know, the house always wins. Maybe not
in Trump's case because he actually bankrupted the casino, which
I don't even know how that's possible, you know, but
he did do it. So but yeah, I mean, yeah,
the whole voting thing. It's like, I've never been that
big on electoralism form because that's what you're doing, you're
voting for, you know, essentially, Well, it's kind of like
pro wrestling, you know, it's kind of like pro wrestling
is set up. Uh. You know, you have characters that
are pretending to be you know, doctor Evil versus you know,
Fuss a good guy or something, and you know, and
then you have the commentators, the announcers that pretend like
this is a real sport, your game, you know, even
though they're in it too and know what's happening. Uh.
And that's kind of how the politic you know, and
that's kind that's how liberal democracy works. It's sort of
like the k Fade wherest like pre selected candidates largely
screened by, you know, different sections of the elite, and
then they're put out there to play this contest that
insults each other and that kind of stuff. But at
the end of the game, the house still wins. Like well,
again back to Larry think He said that before the
twenty twenty four election, somebody asked him, you know, who
do you think is going to win or who do
you want to win the Trump Harris election? He said, well,
who cares. You know, we're gonna win regardless. If it's
a matter, don't worry about it.
Speaker 1: People hear that and they think that, oh, well, I
know for a fact that this person doesn't like that person. Well,
you're always going to have that. You're You're always going
to have people where their personality is just clash, you know.
I mean, I don't know that Trump doesn't really like AOC,
but I'm assuming that maybe they don't get along, And
even if they don't, it doesn't matter. It doesn't you're
you know, it's you're in this box and you're arguing
about things. You know, it's i mean just talking about
basically parroting Chomsky. You're allowed to talk and argue as
much as you want inside this box. But as soon
as you try to leave that box, you know, I mean,
bullets could literally fly.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, there are members of families who don't
like each other personally, you know, they're still part of
the same family and the same as truth ruly clicks.
Individuals might not be able to stand each other, but
they're still part of the same system, in the same institutions.
You know, again, it's not that this it's all some
monolithic experience conspiracy. It's simply that this is the way
systems of power operate and where the way power is distributed. Yeah. So,
and and once you get into the ranks of the elite,
whether you're born into it or whether you somehow find
your way having worked into it, you still have to
play the game to some degree. Like a lot of
people say, well, why is it all these politicians that
say good things as soon as they get elected they
seem to sell out, compromise, Because that's how the game
is played. You know, you do one thing to get there,
you do something else when you're actually there. That's the game.
And if a lot of people don't understand that, that's
just how it is. Now, Like for example, take Trump
for example. All right, right now, what's the big thing
going on in this country. It's all the ice and
the anti ice protests and all that. Now, whatever one
thinks about the immigration issue and all that, or ice
or that's a separate question. But my take on that
is that first of all, the what the administration is
doing is largely a theatrical production. It's performance because when
you send when you build up this ice apparatus as
a supposed immigration enforcement agency, and you send it to
the depths of the blue zone, a blue country where
after this Somali they know, welfare fraud scandal or whatever
it was just happened, Right, that's obviously gonna play well
with the MAGA base. All Right, they're gonna love this,
They're gonna think this is awesome. It's gonna outrage the
people that the MAGA base hate. It's gonna outrage the left.
It's gonna you know, it's gonna outrage the Champagne liberals
and all of that kind of stuff. And there's gonna
be plenty of articles in the Atlantic about how all
of this is. But it's it's gonna make a DBT
in immigration, right, I mean, the only way you could
curb immigration significantly in a society like the United States
that is one of the probably the third largest country
in the world in terms of population geographically, one of
the largest countries in the world for the time being,
still one of the richest countries in the world, and
if you have American money, it goes a long way
in the global South. The only way you're going to
incurage immigration to a country like the United States is
for the state to wage a massive war against the
capitalist class. And we see that that never happens. But
who is it that profits from immigration? Now, it's not
somebody working on working for less than minimum wage as
a day labor somewhere right. It's the hotel chains, it's
the agrid business corporations, it's the landlords, it's the major
construction firms. All of these different types of businesses and
industries that profit from immigrant labor, either legal or illly.
You'd have to take that away to make an addempt
in immigration. That's never going to happen because it's going
to require a massive state action against the capitalist class
across a lot of the different industrial and occupational sectors.
How often do we hear about any business or any
employer or any corporation being prosecuted for violating illegal immigration law.
Almost never. There's probably twenty prosecutions like that per year
in the United States. There have been some I think
there's been an increase of, you know, theatrical prosecutions of
that type lately under Trump. But typically when prosecutions like
that are done, they don't go after Tyson's Chicken. They
don't go after the Marriott Hotel. They go after back
Alley Asian massage parlors, you know, they go after sketchy
Mexican restaurants, like in fact, in the in the administration
Stephen Miller. I think there're other issues with him, but
Stephen Miller was specifically instructing Ice, don't worry about criminals.
Those are too hard to track down. Just go where
you could find the most numbers, you know, go find
day labor places, Go find uh illegals hanging out on
the street in front of seven eleven or something, because
that's going to create the optics. That's going to create
the theatrical effect. They're also going to get more numbers
that way, so it's going to look kind of sort
of aggressive. But the whole thing is just a theatrical production,
you know. It's uh, you know, I mean after you know,
within a year or two, if we look at the
actual numbers, we're going to see not a dent in
immigrations made. It may be on the margins, you know,
but uh, but but that's still going to be there.
That issue, that issue is not going away, because the
only way to curb immigration is but through what I said,
massive prosecution of industries and businesses and landlords who facilitate
illigal immigration, uh as well as a revocation of visas
and things like that. It's not going to happen. Chamber
of Commerce, I mean, the Republican Party is the party
of the Chamber of Commerce and the petty boot. That's
not gonna happen.
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, especially since it'll be it'll just be
touted as anti capitalists. And you know, obviously capitalism is
is very right wing. You know, it's like it's like
what had that?
Speaker 2: Had that happen?
Speaker 1: You know, it's like that's like the people who want
to say, oh, this particular group in history, you can't
call them left wing or right wing because of economics.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean that has a.
Speaker 1: Little something to do with it, but I mean really
more has to do with their attitude towards egalitarianism and
things like that.
Speaker 2: Right right, But but what.
Speaker 1: So if like it what nobody is addressing.
Speaker 2: This is the one thing that you know, people just
don't want to.
Speaker 1: Talk about because everybody's living in the moment is you
could do all these things. You could close the border,
and it essentially seems like the southern borders closed at
this point. You can yeah, well you could. You could
deport ten twenty million people. But this there's going to
be an election this year, there's going to be election
next year, there's going to be election in twenty twenty eight.
Everything is always changing, and you know, you see, and
this is the second time. This is the going into
the fourth year where Trump has had the Supreme Court,
the House, and the Senate, and they're not passing any laws.
Like I mean, I'm not even saying laws mean anything anymore.
I'm saying, if you wanted to do something, you'd want
to cement it in law to make change.
Speaker 2: And they're not.
Speaker 1: Only they're not even doing that, they're doing it with
a signature and an executive order, which to the next
which to the next president, even if they're a Republican,
can overturn with another signature. So it it's like unless
you're you know, the way you have to The way
I look at it is, if you want to make
real change, it has to be foundational because the whole
voting thing is, you.
Speaker 2: Know, and they can just turn on voting machines.
Speaker 1: I mean, I I think that's happened in the past,
and change they can, they can change what's been done
and overturn that in one, you know, one day in November,
and people don't want to address that. They want to
address the fact that, oh, my guy's going to do
this and everything's going to be changed forever and everything's
no politics is like it's a it's an eternal war,
and people just don't want especially under a liberal democracy
as such as this. There's no such thing as republic anymore.
There's no republican in oligarchy. So yeah, so I mean,
how do you even how do you even plan for
the future when you don't know what's coming.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, right now we seem to be moving into
a period in the United States, or my first guess
is that the political future will probably include a while
swing to the left at some point. And there's a
number of things I based that on. One is simply
the lesson past partisan cycles. Like if you look at
the history of presidential elections in the United States going
back to at least the eighteen eighties, arguably you could
apply this model to the pre industrial era, but it
gets a little murkier, but at least since the eighteen eighties,
which is the height of the Second Industrial Revolution. Right,
you see that one party in the United States is
typically dominant for about forty years, then the other party
is dominant for forty years. Then is another forty year cycles.
So partisan cycles tend to run every forty years, and
from about eighteen eighty something up until now, we see
that in the forty years between the eighteen eighties and
nineteen twenties, there were seven Southern Republican presidential terms, three
Democratic terms. That was Grover Cleveland's second term and the
two Wilson terms. Then from the late nineteen twenties through
the late nineteen sixties there was Herbert Hoover's term and
the two Eisenhower terms, and all the rest were Democratic terms.
Then from the late sixties to the election of Barack
Obama there were exactly three Democratic terms, Jimmy Carter and
the two Planet terms. We're right now, we're in the
middle of what should be a Democrat dominated forty year
citle starting in two thousand and eight, two thousand and nine. Now,
I don't think there's any law of history to say
this has to continue definitely for the next two thousand
years or anything, but if past experiences an indication. Right now,
we're in a period where the Democrats have had three terms,
the Republicans have had two. That means of the next five,
one should be a Republican term and four should be
Democratic terms. And I think it's very likely that at
some point either in twenty twenty eight two, we'll see
a wild swing left. And it's not just partisan cycles
that I'm basing that on. One is rising class divisions.
There's a reason why the language of affordability worked for
the Democrats in last year's election. It's a reason why
people who claim to be socialists and things like that
are increasingly becoming somewhat electable. We see that, we see
the economic issues. We also see the demography, the demographic change.
That is, population groups that are inclined to vote with
the Democrats are rising in size, growing in size people
who inclined to vote for the Republicans or shrinking demographic
And I've heard some Republicans and say, oh, but we
picked up the Hispanic vote or we picked up the
blackfod in twenty twenty. Yeah, who cares. All Right, that's
that's a that's an exception to the rule. In fact,
the exception proves the rule. The fact that that's somehow
noticeable or a big deal shows what the actual rule is.
There's also generational change. I hear a lot of people
from the right say, oh, well, young people are becoming
more you know, right wing or whatever. No they're not.
If you look at every opinion poll, young people are
you know, zoomers are the most left leading population, and
young millennials of the most left leading population there is.
So whether it's partisan cycles, economics, generations, culture, demography, all
of this stuff points towards, you know, a greater advantages
for the left coming up in the in the years
and decades ahead. So I'm inclined to think there's going
to be a wild sweep leftward at some point. In fact,
I hear more and more talk in liberal and left
circles about when they get in next the going to
go all out and wage war against the current administration.
They're going to put these people in jail, you know,
it's uh and which they kind of sort of tried
to do last time. And I think that brought that
that may come back with a vengeance. So, yeah, this
idea that the current administration is the savior of the
right or something like that. I mean, whether you're on
the right or left. You know, I don't really think
it's going to play out that way in Alava.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I took to say in a couple of years ago
that I thought that in the not too just in future,
we were looking at either left or right wing authoritarianism,
and I'm thinking more more and more that that's going
to be left wing.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, I think the same thing because in Marxist theory,
there's this concept called bonapartes, and what that means is
a situation where you have divisions in the ruling class
that the ruling class is not able to work out
among themselves, usually in response to some kind of crisis
going on in the economy or the geopolitically, or some
mixture of those. So what will happen is that a
particular ruling class faction will step forward and sort of
edge out the others, and then they'll put in an
authoritarian political apparatus on there to manage the transit, whatever
transitions are going to be made on their behalf. You know,
if you read the book by Karl Marx, the at
pre mayor of Liui Napoleon bouleapart. That's what that's about.
That's what this turf comes from. And it seems to
me that what's going on right now in the United
States is you have different elite factions that are seeking
a bonus artism of their own, you know, whether they're
actually have waned it, like like I've had I've had
people ask me, usually people from the leftist so do
you think Donald Trump is a fascist? Know? And uh,
you know, is he a nationalist? No, he's a nationalist,
you know, he's he's somebody that some elite factions would
like to be a bonum artist on their behalf. Not
that he is a bonnet artist, but I think that's
what some elite fashionsts want, and they wanted a bonus
artism from the right. But there's also the such thing
as a bonapartism from the left. Like like historically in
American politics, we could say that if we had examples
of bonnet artist presidents, I'd say the three candidates would
be probably Abraham Lincoln and the the two Roosevelts. Each.
Each of those three were fairly transformative at during times
when there were shot divisions within the world of class.
Those are probably the three examples a bonapartists. You know,
we could argue Nixon was an attempted bone of artism
but failed work. But and some people want Trump to
be one. I don't think he qualifies quite yet, sort
of a proto bonum artist or artists want to be.
But yeah, I could. I could see a bone of
artism from the left. And what a left boneup artists
regime in the United States would do is that they
would work to consolidate power. Where we have a de
facto one party democratic state. I mean, it wouldn't necessarily
be totalitarian like say some Union or even China today,
but it would be more like the PRI in Mexico
in the twentieth century, the institutional Institutional Revolutionary Party, because
the way their system works, you had a ruling party,
you had a formal democratic republic, and then you had
opposition parties that were allowed to exist as control opposition,
and you had elections and voting and all that like
in any liberal democracy, but the system was read so
that the pr I always want and they won, you know,
virtually NonStop. For something like seventy years, and in the
United States, it would certainly be possible to rig the
system so that you have a one party Democratic party
state that is done for bonapartist means. There's are lots
of ways you could do that. You know, dust off
Roosevelt's court packing scheme. You could add more states that
are going to add more electoral votes democrats. You could
split up different states in ways that are advantageous. You
could do redistricting within states that are going to create
more democratic presentatives. You could add Puerto Rico and all
of that. Order could do a way for the electoral
college altogether. So there are some things that involved constitutional
amendments that may be a little bit triggerer, But there's
all kinds of ways you could have this kind of
bonapartism from the left if you had a ruling class
or really class faction that was animate about making this happen.
And of course it's possible to have something like that
from the right as well, But I tend to agree
with you that's less like, I don't really see the
existing ruling class as one that would want a bonup artism. Right.
There's just a range of vested interest that I think
would you know, obviously, one of the most popular issues
with right nowadays, the populist right and the ground level
right is immigration. And it's not in the interest of
the power lead in the broad sets to restrict immigration
to any significant free me what's in it for that?
I can think of a lot of ways that would
be harmful for their interest in not too many ways
in which it would help them, and so they're not.
You know, if I look at the party breakdown now,
we see that the Democrats are really the party of
the elite. I mean, there are plenty of if it
leads to the republic Party, I'm not saying that the
public that's really a working last party. Some of them
try to claim they are. But the Democratic Party today
is the party first of all of Transittlandic finance capital
at the very top. And then it's the party of
the general capitalist class, uh you know, the CEO of
Fortune five hundred types. And then it's the party in
the professional managerial class, you know, the all the and
it's all the ideas that you know, everything from Madison
Avenue to the mass media, to the attainment industry, universities
and education. That's the Democratic Party today, and that is
the party of the elite. Now on the Republican side,
you also have sundown capital you have tech over guarics,
you know, you have financial over garks that have their
hands and everything. You have defense contractors that have the
hands and everything they can. They can go in any direction,
it doesn't matter to them. So that would be my prediction.
My prediction would be that, Yeah, I think at some
point in the future we're going to see a swing
to the left in the United States with the sectors
of the left broadly defined them. Defining the left broadly,
I mean, if you define the left merely as anti
capitalism mode, it's going to be very you know, state capitalist,
chrony capitalists, you gonna be socialism or anything like that.
But I think I do see something emerging eventually kind
of like well like California, all right, I think that
the you know, if you look at if you imagine
if California were nationalized and that was the national model
in the United States. California is a Democratic party, one
party state. I mean, you know, even you, Gavin Newso
couldn't get unrecalled in uh California. You know, I mean
to to if you're a Democrat to be voted out
of office, you really have to screw up report. Uh.
And I think that the you know, the nationalization of
that model where I think the if you imagine, if
you the United States were to become more like the EU,
this kind of you know, model of technocratic governance, you know,
within the concepts of a trade zone and currency union,
only with a more Latin American type class system and
and some other kind of you know instability you see
in Latin America as well, like like in Argentina, for example,
the Prona's tradition. You've got the left pronas and right
coronas and you know whatever else pronas. But but there's
always this you know, crazy back and forth while swings
in different directions, you know, like right now, Malay is
sort of challenging all of that. And I suspected they
say they'll get tired of him, then they'll bring in
something else. They'll go back to paranism or neo pronism,
paleo proonas. But yeah, so I see I kind of
I see America going that way in the future. I
see Americas becoming sort of a hybrid of the EU
and Latin America politically and economically and culturally in many ways.
Speaker 1: If financially things get worse and worse for the average person,
and you have two parties that neither one is going
to go to war against the capitalists class that is
doing this, it's going to be whoever is narrative is
best is going to win. And it always seems like
in that case the narrative on the left usually wins.
Speaker 3: And the demography and culture and generational evolution.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, yeah, and you're bringing in people from other
you know, with the mass immigration, where people are really
worried about what they're going to get for free and
what kind of patronage networks are going to be set
up for them. The right doesn't set up patronage networks
for the people who support them. And you know, and
the left will give you, will give you a three
hundred thousand dollars a year, no show sinecure a job,
or get you elected to you know, get you elected
to Congress, and the right just doesn't do this for
the people for you know, the people who would want
to support them.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, I think the problem the right has is
that the right has too many internal contradictions that are
they're pulling the right in all kinds of different directions.
At the same time, there's a lot more unity on
the left, and I think that which is ironic because
the left actually has a more first coalition and demographically,
but there's more ideological I reveal. With the more ideologically,
it's more partisan. You. Yeah, I've noticed that, For example,
in Congress, the Democrats are a much more disciplined party
in terms of just organization and keeping members in line
and policing their own ranks, and the Republicans publicans to
just have a well, I'll put it this way. I
think that comes down to the political cultures of the
parties and the demographics they represent. I've been to Republican
and Conservative insider events, and I've also been to Democratic
Party insider events, including visits to the homes of Democratic
senators and stuff like that. And what I've noticed about
the Democratic Party in its interior is that it's very
similar to student government in high school. That's a you know,
a lot of people on the right have this idea
that the Democrats are Marxist revolutionaries or something. Now you
find that on the far left perhaps, but but the
Democratic Party proper or technocrats and the culture is very
student government in high school. You know, it's it's more
about careerism and status, and you know, it's and that
kind of stuff. What I've seen of Republican insider events
like say visiting Seapack and that kind of stuff, it's
basically a convention of East Car sales. It's it's like
it's like everybody's got some hustle, some angle that they're working,
but in a way that prevents actual disunity because everybody,
everybody's backstabb everybody else. You know, everybody's badding out like
everybody else. And the scenes, I mean, we see a
lot of that going on right now, particularly in the
after aftermath of the murder of Charlie Kirk. You know,
we see a lot of stuff going on on the
right and and the and the right I think is
just culturally an institutionally much more disunited, uh than than
the left. Now, the left culturally is somehow better able
to police its own ranks and organized and work as
a team when in their interest to do so.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's something that that has become very clear. We
had do you know who Jeff Younger is what Jeffy
young Jeff Younger, No, I don't know, don't think he's
a guy from Texas who went through this whole thing
where his to get the laws changed about trends and
kids in Texas because his wife decided she was going
to trans you know, their kid and everything, and he
had no rights over it. She ended up taking him
to California, where you know, younger had absolutely no say,
and he just became he became entrenched in Texas politics.
And he just says that like you go to a
left wing event, you go to like a Democrat Party event,
And he went to a Democrat Party event and he said,
I'm here because I'm interested to fight for trans kids' rights,
and they like walked him over to a table said
talk to that person. We'll get you set up and
we'll get you the He said, you go to a
Republican event and say I'm here for this specific thing,
They're like, have a seat over there, buddy, don't even
don't try to change what we have going on here.
Speaker 2: Don't try to rock the boat here.
Speaker 1: And you know, he just had to become one of
these guys who, like, if he wanted to get a
politician out office, he had to track down like their
major donor and dig up dirt on that donor and
then just go after people.
Speaker 2: And you know, I mean.
Speaker 1: He's just he was really able to on the ground.
And if you know anything about Texas politics, it is
one of the worst states. I mean, there's not there's
no such thing as a right wing politician in that state.
In the Republican Party, I mean, it's all just graft
and everything. And yeah, yeah, he just yeah, I mean,
he just proved that the Democrat Party is way more
organized and way more dedicated to their mission, even if
it's something horrific, as long as they have the power.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, I think the issue there is that socio economically,
the real base of the Republican Party is not the
working class. It's the petty bourgeoisie. And that's the sector
that's accustomed to seeing everything in terms of transactionalism. It's basically,
how's this going to affect my bottom line? Right? Well, okay,
if I'm all right, well this guy over here, he's
against trans rights or whatever, Well, is that could affect
my bottom line or not? Well maybe not so get that.
There's most Republicans are not driven by theology. There's this
perception that some people on the left half of Republicans
are mostly you know, far right being extremists, and then
they may be a little sub culture to that or something.
But most Republicans real base and republic party is the Pity,
which was the small capitals, small small corporation people. Uh,
you know, somebody that owns a regional chain of car
dealerships and that kind of stuff. They only care about
their bottom line, you know. That's the that's the party
of the bottom line. And even when you get to
the more elite level, it's the Chamber of commerce types.
And again it's all about what's good for business. Uh,
if can we sell can we sell to them? Politics
is like a product, you know, can we sell this?
And what are the liabilities of trying to sell this?
You know, So it's all just about how it's going
to affect their ballot sheet. And that's the Democrats, based
on my experience with I was compared to the student government.
But they're also kind of like the Episcopal Church or
maybe the Catholic Church or something like that, in the
sense that, yeah, there is a party line, there is
a howard, there is a system of authority, and there
is a creed and there is a dog and you
know if you go against that, well then we have
ways of controlling that. You. I mean, you see that
in a way that Democrats run their primaries the party
primaris they can. In the twenty twenty election, and Andrew
Yang has claimed, I don't know it's true enough. Andrew
Yang is playing that during the primary debates that they
were cutting off the microphones for him, Tulca, Gabbert, Mary
and Williamson, maybe Bernie Sanders because they just didn't want
them to speak. They wanted the House candidates, you know,
not the maverick candidates to be the speakers. Then when
Bernie Sanders started winning in the in the Levada primary,
they you know, Barack Obama got on the phone to
all the House candidates that said, okay, we need for
you to pull back now, bo Jedge because we're going
with Joe now. You know, these are going to be
our lead man. And that's how they do things that
they did the same thing with the twenty twenty four primaries.
You had these maverick candidates that they're the primaries. Uh,
you know, you had Robert Kennedy Junior initially and Iront
Williamson of Gad and Shane from the Young Turks and
people like that. And and I think was it Reid
Hoffman not read hoffaillionaire who was There was another guy
sort of a centrist Democrat type. I remember who he was,
Phillips something Phillips maybe I don't know, but uh, Anyway,
the Democrats basically said, well, we're just not gonna do
primaries and uh and then when it came obvious that
Biden couldn't function enough to get through the rest of
the election, they just said, Okay, well we're just gonna
pull him out and we're gonna put Kamlay and we're
not gonna do primaries. You know, this is it's like
they'rennoying at her homecoming. Wait basically you know, and uh
so that that but that that represents a well structured,
well organized, disciplined party. You know, if you if you
you want your party to be successful, you want them
to be like that.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna leave it there, man, we could talk. We
could talk about this. We go on about this forever.
So yeah, tell people where they can find your stuff.
Anything you want to plug.
Speaker 3: Uh. I have a website that I am the chief
editor of Attack the System dot com, just like it's
called attack the System dot com. I'm on Facebook, I'm
on uh Twitter or x as it's called now, I'm
on substack, so and you can google my name and
just find all kinds of stuff about me and see
what enemies as well as friends.
Speaker 1: Say, well, it was great catching up and thank you
really appreciate it.
Speaker 4: Not a problem.
Speaker 3: H