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 yourself Stack 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 peakan 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 Cindinal Philosophy, it's all because of you.
And yeah, I mean, I'll never be able to thank
you enough. So thank you. The Pekanyonashow dot com, everything's there.
Want to welcome everyone back to the Peaking Yona Show
for a year end in review. Two of my favorite people,
Ron Doddson, how are you doing.
Speaker 2: No, I'm doing great. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 3: Pete Faris modd how are you.
Speaker 4: I'm very well. Thank you so much for having me.
Great to be with you guys again.
Speaker 3: Awesome. All right, let's just jump into this.
Speaker 1: I think we're all gonna have different topics we want
to talk about. I'm gonna let Ron and go first. Ron,
What do you think is something that happened this past
year that's important to talk about?
Speaker 2: Well, I think I think it's tough to get you know,
if if you don't talk about the re election of
Trump and then how that has uh. We can set
aside execution for a minute, but the but the UH,
the the policy goals both domestically but even possibly more
importantly geopolitically than he has put forward that are already
shaping the conversation and how you know, the how, the
the great powers or the UH or the rival powers,
you know, the we're we're seeing a return of great
power rivalry and and kind of chessboard uh, geopolitics. And
I think that is absolutely driven by the reelection of Trump.
And you know, in theory, a focus on some new
version of a Monroe doctrine. We saw the we saw
the strategic you know, the new strategics, the defense strategy
come out, and uh, I thought that was very well written.
I wrote a piece on that, and so I think,
I think any year in review has to start, uh
with the re emergence or the re establishment of Donald
Trump and his view of how geopolitics should work.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I fully agree with that. I think if I
wanted to describe it sort of the return to realism,
as in, it's the death of two kinds of idealism,
one domestic, one international. And on the domestic front, like
Vivek Ramaswami's idea that anybody who sort of believes in
meritocracy and the American dream is fun is immediately an
American if they just spend whatever it is, five years,
six years, ten years to get citizenship. I think that's
completely dead. And you're seeing that, you know, there is
no real argument against some form of ethnic identity, some
form of ethnanationalism. And that's that kind of transcendental idealism
that says, no, we're we're too mature to believe that
people belong to different that's sort of dead, but so
is the idea of a global hegemonic liberal order. That's
really what you saw in the National Security Document, the
New National Security Strategy, that look, there's got to be
some kind of reconciliation with Russia. We can't take on
Russia and China at the same time. Europe is breaking apart.
And the reason Europe is breaking apart is in part
because of the illusions around immigration. And you know that
there was that headline from the National Geographic a few
years ago which showed an old Syrian guy with his
half a dozen wives and two dozen children or whatever
it was. The new Europeans like, Okay, they're not European
conversations done here. And it's the same thing with the
idea that the Americans can fight China and Russia and
all at the same time. Uh, there's a return to realism.
The Russians are necessary for Europe's energy independence and energy security. Okay,
too bad about nord Stream, Like, you know, it would
have been nice if that wasn't blown up. There's got
to be thanks Mick newlan Yek. Yeah, thanks Vicky, Yeah, Yeah,
there's got to be an reassertion of the Monroe doctrine. Well,
you let it rocked for twenty years, or previous administrations
let it rot for twenty years while they were off
pursuing the freaking Taliban and ISIS and aver that.
Speaker 2: Do you think real quick, do you think that the
the mishandling of the intelligence stuff that's actually all related
to Robert Maxwell. But that's another topic for another day.
That led to Iran Contra was one of the things
that shifted America's focus away because that was definitely, although
illegally uh executed, that definitely shifted the US attention away
from the Americas. I think it was almost like a
uh that that you know, you had, you had the
Sandinistas and all that, and we don't have to get
into all the details, but but I almost think that
that that scandal, which could have taken some guys and
put them in prison for a long time. I mean,
that was kind of I mean, whether you agree with
the policy goals or not, and I have a lot
of sympathy for them, I really do, but but that
could have put some guys away for a long time.
I think do you think that played a part in it?
Speaker 4: I think it poisoned the US's ability to take the
lead role in Latin America and particular way. Yes, yes, agree,
I think that degree of cynicism turned interventions into Latin
America quite toxic.
Speaker 2: Well, and then you had the Panamanian thing, I guess
was the last gasp of that. Right.
Speaker 1: Can we can we just take a moment to congratulate
Oliver Oliver North and Vaughn Hall, who actually got married in.
Speaker 3: Twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: Un un, I mean it's absolutely incredible, It is incredible.
Speaker 2: I mean, how old's Ollie?
Speaker 3: Now, it's got to be let me see.
Speaker 2: He's got to be pushing eighty right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's eighty two.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and he's getting married and he got married recently.
Speaker 2: Non Hall, And let me tell you back in her day,
she was, she was, she was a beautiful woman. Wow,
all right, we've gotten uh, well, thank you. I'm glad
you agree with me a little bit on that. I
think there was that that that tends to go unnoticed.
Speaker 4: I think there is more to be said there in that.
You know, the intelligence community had all of these weird
relationships with these drug dealers and sold drugs as an
acceptable vice. Uh huh, and allowed they're smuggling into the
United States, and now these groups have mutated into something
like like we've said before, they're closer now to Hasbellah
than they are to a drug gang than they are.
Speaker 2: To hesbel has been training on the island just off
the north coast of UH Venezuela. No, this is all
in a related uh and we can hit we can
hit Venezuela in a little bit. But but but, but
I don't know.
Speaker 4: These cartels are providing services, they're providing healthcare, they're providing education,
they're providing security, all in exchange for protection, money and
things like that. But they're functioning as a state within
the state. Mm hmm. And so that the original policy
mistake wasn't you know, the Iran contra, it was tolerating drugs.
Speaker 2: Do you think do you think that? Do you do
you think the current the current Venezuelan operation, whatever you
want to call it is. I think it's primarily about China,
But do you think it's also about eroding the middle
manager and op rational wings of the CIA's power that
it exerts through those activities that it is traditionally had
its fingers in.
Speaker 4: You know, I don't know enough to say that, but
that's an interesting hypothesis.
Speaker 2: I mean, I've seen guys, and who knows how informed
they are. I have a friend who uh uh who
who suggests that's not probably the case that there's there,
that there are operational fingers in that pie. But it's
so many, it's it's so opaque that you know, it's
hard to it's it's it's hard to get at.
Speaker 4: So anyway, I I don't know enough to say, but
the Venezuela thing is a real big problem. You're right
that it's in part about China, but by also think
about it as a test case for China. So if
you can get then as well and crude to no
longer go to China, you could conceivably do something similar
for other Latin American minerals M and you yep. And
you could then work on restricting the flow of trade
between Latin America and China. And if you're in China,
you're probably panicked about that prospect because of the extent
of dependence on things like Brazilian soy or Chilean copper
or what have you. Insert your favorite natural resource here.
And so the fact that the USS sees tankers that
are connected to the Chinese is a big problem for
China because they don't know how to respond to that.
They don't have the ability to project power that far
from their shorees. Well, they also can't think that smed out.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that power projection is one of the things, is
one of the big changes that is coming very much
into the forefront in twenty twenty five. That distance more
than ever, well back into the you know, the fourteenth, fifteenth,
and sixteenth centuries. Distance equals risk, yes, and so where
I am curious to see because it's not just in
the minerals. What China's doing to the especially off the
not limited to the West coast, but primarily the west
coast of Chile of South America with their fishing armada
is criminal, yes, and that's going to have to be
dealt with at some point or it'll take thirty years
for those for those to regenerate. So I don't that's
another big thing. But all these things are very you
know connected.
Speaker 4: I agree, I agree, And that's why the Chinese, if
you're China, you're seeing the US trying to reconcile with
Russia and replace you as an investor in Russia, which
is why Larry Fink was there with Witkof and Kushner
to negotiate. You know, with the Russians. That's a pretty
big deal. That's American capital going to Russia. That's scary
for the Chinese. Venezuela is a test case. But it's
not like that the Chinese don't have options on their own.
I mean, one thing in the last year that I
was wrong about was that it seems to me that
the Chinese got the better of the Americans in the
trade war mm hmmm, because of their ability to firstly
develop independence when it comes to microchips, including some kind
of ham fisted attempt at their own machine to make
the lithography machines, and secondly in their ability to restrict
the export of rare earth minerals and rare earth magnets. Yeah,
that much paralyzed all of the Western economies mm hmm
or Western manufacturing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a trump card for sure.
Speaker 3: Yes, well, let me let me, let me inst check.
Speaker 1: This week it was announced that Russian diplomats were pulling
out of Venezuela and the the immediate immediately you can think, okay,
well we're getting they're getting ready to bomb Venezuela.
Speaker 3: That's why they're leaving.
Speaker 1: Could that point toward could that actually point toward more
a positive and diplomatic relations between the United States and Russia.
Speaker 2: Well, I'll tell you what the key there is. There's
two keys to that. One I see pretty intractable, the
other I'm interested. Well, I'm interested to hear what Farris
says on both of them. But the two parties that
have always been most in most vociferous objection to Russian normalization,
or the Brits and the Israelis. Yes, and the Israelis
tends to be less Israelian, more just generally Jewish. But
if we normalize with if we normalize with Russia, we
don't need Israel near as much as we have Historically.
Israel ends up being because we needed Turkey, and we
needed a balance to Turkey because you got to have
the Dardenell's and the Bosporus and it's a chain.
Speaker 1: And Russian Russian intelligence is ten times better than Israeli intelligence.
Speaker 3: Let's let's see.
Speaker 2: Say, I I know a fair amount about US intelligence.
I'm not an expert in the Foreign intelligence services, so
I'll take your word on that. But but but needed,
but but being opposed to Russia is what causes that
domino of that chain of dependencies that goes all the
way around to Egypt. So so uh. But but those
two groups are the are are the and one is
deeply embedded. And again I'm not much much less than
some of my dear friends on the right. I'm much less, uh,
you know, JQ coated and all that. Although I think
it's a it's definitely an issue. It's just that you've
got these ethnic animosities with the Brits and the and
the and the Jews with with regards to Russia, and
that that seems to be the biggest. Having Kushner be
part of this negotiating seems to be an attempt to
whereas that role was previously taken by Michael Antone, who's
just you know, Catholic Clermont guy. But Kushner taking that
role seems to be a means to hedge some of that,
or at least stave off the reaction to that. What
do you what do you think for US?
Speaker 4: I agree that there is some general Jewish animist towards
Russia that gets expressed in US foreign policy in people
you see in Foggy Bottom just sort of getting a
bit too obsessed with the Russia question in the cretual
Russia and I agree that Russia would make the Middle
least largely, you know, a lot less relevant, shall we say,
right right, because Russia kind of brings with it Idon
to some extent. A Russia US reconciliation can pave the
way to an Iran US reconciliation and make a lot
of things a lot easier, especially with the regime so
weakened in Iran. As for the Brits, they are they
still think that they're playing the Great Game.
Speaker 2: Exactly, and that's just.
Speaker 4: Mind you. They think that at a time when Russian
Indian relations have never been better, we had put in
visiting Modi in Deli and having a wonderful reception there
with all kinds of agreements on military, on civilian, on agriculture,
even on Indian labor going to Russia. So the Indian
Russian relationship, the purpose of the Great Game that no
longer exists. But the Brits still think that they're playing
the Great Game against Russia and that Russia is their
main threat, when in reality, the main problem facing Britain
is domestic. But the entire establishment is sort of hardwired
to think about Russia as the great threat all the time,
and I don't see that changing under the current establishment,
and even under a new government, you'd have to do
some deep purging of the establishment to change their worldview,
or at least you'd have to sort of dismantle bits
of the Russia desk or the Russia desks that exist
throughout and say, look, guys, this isn't a priority anymore,
is X, Y, and Z. So there is this hardwired
mindset that's hostile to Russia, and that's what Trump is
going up against. And I get it from the Jewish perspective,
because if you have the US and Russia dominating Europe,
then you have that whole part of the world sort
of looking at outsiders as enemies, and in their mind
that is a prelude to white nationalism and the disasters
that sort of befall the Jewish people and nationalism becomes
too strong. So fair enough, it shouldn't be like that.
People as groups shouldn't be a target. So I understand
their way of thinking, But this is like all this stuff,
all of the relationship between the Jewish community and pretty
much every Western society is really getting worse. And one
place where it really isn't that bad is in Russia.
Like if you look at the number of say I
think of the top fifty billionaires in Russia, I think
maybe ten or Jewish when they're like zero point zero
one percent of the population or zero point one percent
of the population or something Midi school like that.
Speaker 2: And there are some interesting mechanics that led to that,
probably beyond the scope of our discussion.
Speaker 4: It was the disaster of the nineteen nineties, right, that's right,
because it was a Russia and the Ukraine. And in
Ukraine it's a sort of similar overrepresentation. So you know,
war is big business.
Speaker 2: Well, and it's about hard currency. Who has access to
hard currency in in uh you know? And it's and
it's usually the folks who are centered around some of
the more vicey type of industries, right. And so if
you're in a Christian if you're in a Christian or
Orthodox you know, uh uh environment, and you operate outside
that vice vice industries bring in hard currency. And so
it's this isn't you know, I'm not I'm not cracking
some secret code here. This is throughout world history. It's
why ports tend to be a little just traditionally a
little more racy places. Yes, you know, you've got foreign currency,
you got foreign people who aren't tied to your way
of life, and all this kind of stuff.
Speaker 4: Yep.
Speaker 2: And uh So anyway that that that whole. And so
if you had hard currency and you were able to
buy up the privatization certificates, then uh you could you
could parlay that into some magnificent wealth yep and uh
and and Putin was the one guy could be. Being
the administrator of Saint Petersburg of Leningrad, he knew how
to handle that. So I mean this, this this domino
of world events starting you know, from well you know
that Reagan era through what we're talking about. There's reason
for it. Yes, it's it's not just a bunch of
random Oh isn't that weird how the dart board worked. No,
it's it's much more like a domino. And once you
see that and understand it, then you're the the You're
able to have wisdom to see where are the dominoes
in the future. And I'm saying this not for your benefit, Parahs,
but but for the benefit of the younger guys who
are listening to this. These are the reasons that you
you you study this stuff, uh uh, so that you
can just sound smart on a podcast that's Fears and Pete,
not me, but but so that you can so that
you can be the be the guy who's who's wise
looking for Oh, I can see where this is going
because I can understand the recent path in the past.
Right anyway, I just think it's really really important. And
the Russia thing is so important to me because they
seem like natural allies. Maybe allies is too strong, but
natural friends because I love Russian litercy. I mean, if
you can if you don't see yourself at some level
when you read Dostoyevsky and and and and some of
the other Russian authors, the more contemporary or just they're
just brilliant. I even am a nerd for Russian cinema.
I just think Tartowsky and some of these other guys
are just unbelievable. But but but and and they're and
they tend to be deeply orthodox. Now, part of this
is I have a Russian aunt who is I mean,
she's kind of a hard woman, but but she loves
my uncle and but but she's she's personally how do
I describe this she's personally kind of skeptical, but culturally
very orthodox, and and we as Americans kind of say, oh, well,
that's just fake. Know what it does is it gives
you a culture with rootedness where we're all playing, we're
all rowing the boat the general same direction. And so
a culture that's like that should be friends with a
Christian United States, it should be friendly with a not
at least nominally Christian UK. And and so I you know,
I this is a great lament of mine, the state
of affairs with the with Russia. I don't understand the animosity.
I really don't.
Speaker 4: I completely agree with you. I think the animosity isn't
rooted in sound geopolitics or in sound national interest. I
think a lot of it is media driven. A lot
of it is sort of, you know, the demonization of
the less threatening of the great powers. And it just
isn't necessary because this isn't what the Russians themselves are after, right.
And the bit that people refuse to understand is that
Putin is a bit of a liberal dad is he
really isn't that hard line, He really isn't the most
hardcore that the Russians have to offer. And he's got
a lot of more hardline factions that he has to
keep in line. Now, mind you, wearing the crown does
tend to moderate you, because it's a lot easier to
be more extreme when you're a junior. And we saw
that kind of thing was with Hasbela. We saw that
kind of thing with Ira, and we saw that. We
see the kind of thing all the time. But the
idea that putin is this nasty imperialist monster who's a
p you know, he's opposed, he's about to roll his
tanks into Paris or something like planet. Are you people
living on right? Their struggle?
Speaker 2: Then at least great, Then then at least Paris wouldn't
be fake and gay and gay race communists.
Speaker 4: Well, you know there there have been worse things that
have happened to Paris, and arguably more in the recent
past that have passed in the distant passed.
Speaker 1: But okay, yeah, well, you know, one thing you have
to remember about Russia is once you start studying their
history is being Russian and being Orthodox is basically the
same thing historically, and that's why when that's why, when
Bolshevism came along, they had to destroy the church, they
had to take over, and you know, they may realize
we can't destroy this, so we're gonna have to take
it over. We're gonna have to have our own state
church that runs this thing. And you know, there's a
lot of ethnic animosity that went into the Bolshevik Bolshevik
Revolution and the subsequent what happened subsequent, and you know
a lot of what's happening with Russia now is still
those same people. It's like, you know, Biden had like
five people working and working in his administration who have
direct ties to like that you could trace their family.
Speaker 3: Like ten miles within Levov.
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean, these are these are people who
are bred to hate Russians. And you know, when you
when you look at someone like Putin, and I think
it's hilarious that they use a lot of people, and
even people on the right, but they these are people
who are on the right who tend to be more
pro Israel. They use this thing where it's the same
thing that they said about Adolf Hitler that Adolf Hitler
was an enemy to the white race because he got
so many white people killed. It's like, well, when you
have an existential enemy, when you have an existential threat,
like Bolshevism, that's threatening the peninsula. Maybe thing, Maybe it's
not as simple as that. And they say the same
thing about Putin. Putin is responsible for the death of
Look how many Look how many white Slavs He's killed
and responsible for it. It's the same playbook over and
over again. You know, I've always said about Putin is
Putin has way more restraint than me, because if I was,
if I was president of Russia, I would have invaded
in twenty fourteen and I would have taken Kiev.
Speaker 3: I would have burnt Kiev to the ground. I mean, so.
Speaker 4: That wouldn't for Russian culture to burn to the ground.
You know, Kiev is too important for the Russians to
actually burn.
Speaker 2: That's right. I know, there's a respect that they give
to Kiev. However you say it now, I'm you know,
I'm old h Kiev.
Speaker 4: How we're saying I don't do that, and I don't
do Briefly, I'm still stuck in Turkey now, and I
think I loot to go back to Bombay. I'm not
Mumbai and all of that stuff.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, well, so Kiev, they there's this, there's this.
I mean, if you look at the order of battle,
how it's gone. The there there's a uh, there's this
respect that they're clearly giving to Kiev. That uh that again,
if if Pete Curtis le May Canonas was in charge,
I'm kidding Pete. Uh that was a World War two joke.
But uh anyway, the uh that that they clearly there's
just more going on than than the average American tends
to appreciate.
Speaker 4: So the the other thing is that the negotiations don't
seem to be going anywhere now, all of the proposals
that have been made I mean the twenty eight point
plan and now what's his name, Zelensky coming up with
his own twenty point plan version of that. Like, they're
not going anywhere, and it seems to me the Americans
are stuck. They the team that is managing the negotiations
isn't factoring in Russia's minimum requirements for this war.
Speaker 2: And don't you have you did you see the policy
paper that was supposed to be It was supposed to
be published by Rand but it ended up getting I
might have shared it with you guys, but it's been
probably a month ago where it's all about can we
get towards a neutral but fully armed Ukraine.
Speaker 4: Well, it can be both of these things.
Speaker 2: It can't, that's right. I was like, this doesn't This
is like some middle school girl, no offense to the ladies,
not like any of you're listening to us, But it was.
Speaker 4: I'm open about my views that women shouldn't be involved
in politics. That's totally fine. It was.
Speaker 2: It was terrible, and I'm like, this doesn't. This isn't
gonna work. You're going to have to have and a
disarmed whatever's left of Ukraine. And personally, you know, I'd
give Russia all to the river, let them have it,
because that's the group that all voted to go with
Russia anyway in ten and twelve. And then most of
the take Osessa or east of the river, I mean
and west of the river. Most of that was Poland,
Romania and Hungary anyway, right yep, back before.
Speaker 4: The partition over until the Russians take Odessa. And the
flip side of that is that if they don't take Odessa,
they'd have lost.
Speaker 2: The war, that's right, if they don't take If.
Speaker 4: They take Odessa, they have a hand in all of
the politics of Central Europe.
Speaker 2: So so for those who don't who aren't in the
weeds on this. What what one of the things fears
is talking about is when we uh did the Color
Revolution in Ukraine, which the called may Dan you know. Uh.
One of the first things we did was take a
Georgian who an Ivy League trained Georgian obviously a c
I A you know, not an agent but but but
but under the thumb of the c I A vili Uh.
And he became the it's not mayor, I can't remember,
the government's not prefect. But what's the title governor? Governor? Okay?
Is it governor? Okay? The governor of Odessa. And so
this is and it's a huge this is this is
much like for Russia. Uh, Saint Petersburg is the big
port and a lot of that. That's what Odessa functions.
Is that for Ukraine. And we put this he didn't
even speak Ukrainian, it was and so this is a
hugely important. He did speak Russian. Uh, And so this
is a hugely important. And he spoke English.
Speaker 4: Uh.
Speaker 2: He still does. I guess he's still alive. I said,
he's still this women around.
Speaker 1: Isn't it amazing how the United States loves loves to
back Georgians.
Speaker 3: Never mind whoa.
Speaker 2: A little Stalin callback there, Yeah, Edward Schevardnadze, and it
played a huge part in the uh in the fall
uh another Georgian uh so uh nice nice callback, Pete.
But anyway, that's one of the reasons this is this
is immensely important to Putin and the Russians is having
full control of Odessa.
Speaker 4: And the Russians are other process of slowly wrecking Odessa.
Like they're breaking the infrastructure. They're cutting off its plant
connections because Adessa is separated from the front line by
three rivers, I believe, and so they're cutting off the bridges,
they're destroying the energy infrastructure, they're destroying the warehouses, they're
destroying they're attacking shipping because they're shipping was attacked first. Yeah,
which in a way brings us back to the Venezuela question.
Now we are at the stage of the weaponization of shipping.
I don't know if you guys saw this new Chinese
ship which looks like a container ship, but it's got
a bunch of radars as a radars and all kinds
of things, and it's got a bunch of vertical launch
tubes and it's acting as a combined missile launcher and
arsenal ship to equip others.
Speaker 2: Completely stealth, so not radar stealth, not radar stealth, but
commercially stuff because all this these are all pop up
features out of faux containers, exactly brilliant.
Speaker 4: Any containership now is potentially a weapon. And if you
look at a map of shipping, like you can't track
the sheer number of container ships because there's just so
that many of them, that's right. And so if you're China,
you can build military ships quite quickly, but you can
build container ships much faster mm hmm. And if you
automate them and treat the cruise as expendable, which China
tends to do to soldiers, Yeah, you know, Oh, suddenly
you have this whole new beast that you're dealing with
where they're just sending you container ships and using them
to love missiles at you.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 4: And because they can build these things much faster than
the like, Okay, the navy, the PLA navy is a
bit of a prestige position and if you're in there,
you're the son of somebody important and they don't want
you to die. But if you're sending one military vessel
and a bunch of container ships that are just there
to love missiles at you and have a few radars,
it's a different way of fighting war and it changes
the nature of naval warfare. And the US has no
ship building capabilities like US ship building capacity is sort
of barely there, it's barely in play.
Speaker 2: How far behind schedule are we on the AKUSA?
Speaker 4: I don't know. I honestly don't know.
Speaker 2: That's the UH, that's the American United Kingdom. I probably
did the acronym. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 4: On the on the British building nuclear submarines. Did you
see that There was an article that came out recently
from somebody who was the head of He was pretty
high up in naval things in the Ministry of Defense.
He was pretty high up in nuclear capabilities in the
Ministry of Defense, and he was saying that Britain no
longer has the ability to feel its nuclear submarines and
shouldn't be involved in August and should be focused instead
on just rebuilding the basic capabilities because they've they've become
so atrophied.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I did see that. There was a because they
can't keep their their their there's two carriers, right, yeah,
I don't think, and they can't keep I think one
one was in Scotland at the big dried off for
several years and then it went back out and now
it has had to come right back in.
Speaker 4: YEP.
Speaker 2: Interestingly enough, I think the Japanese have kind of figured
out the calculus on this because they they have you know, uh,
they are prevented by constitution and treaty from running uh
uh from from you know, doing heavy new stuff on
in weapons.
Speaker 3: Right.
Speaker 2: But what they've done is they've they basically built what
amounts to the tesla of submarine fleet that they can
build quickly. And these things are dead silent. They're more
silent than the new boats because when they go fully battery,
it's only electric and something to do with them. You know,
I'm not a submarine. I know enough about submarines to
sound like an idiot to a navy guy. But uh,
but anyway, I think I think, you know, and then
and then the uh, the Chinese. The estimate I saw
they have between fifty and two hundred UAVs, so underwater
autonomous vehicles in in the in the in they're near
abroad that can go ping, you know, ping circus in
the in an instant so so they have complete denied
they can deny that area. But the but the but,
but the future is I think less. I saw that
Trump propose this Trump uh battleship deal, this massive and
God bless them. I mean, I I love the guy,
but but that's the exact opposite direction that we should
you know, smaller, more mobile, quicker, to build uh faster.
These are the things that should be should be the goals,
not you know, these these prestige standoff pieces that well
and I mean a battleship's not a standoff weapon. I
I don't know. I'm really confused as to who who
is advising him on naval procurement and uh but did
you guys see that?
Speaker 1: Yes, let's let's uh change direction here.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Farris.
Speaker 1: Farris talked a little bit about you know, a story
you would pick and perfectly acceptable for it to be
from uh be, from Britain, from England, wherever.
Speaker 4: Look be. It applies to England, but it applies broadly.
And it's something that I've harped on about on your
show a bunch of times. Pete. It's the death of
liberal delusions. I mean just two days ago or yesterday
maybe there were protests in Birmingham, in in in in
England in support of Israel recognizing Somaliland as an independent state,
which led to and these were Somali Muslims protesting in
support of the recognition of their country by the Israelis,
and this led to counter protests by a bunch of
Muslim activists who don't want Israel recognizing anything and view
everything that Israel does as bad. And the obvious conclusion
is that these aren't British people. They like me, they
have a British passport, and I'm grateful for citizenship in
this country, but I don't think that I'm British, and
obviously these guys aren't British. And I wouldn't go protest
anywhere over something to do with Lebanon, like that's just stupid.
I've never done it. But you kind of see that
this illusion is broken down, and you can see that
people like Vivek Ramaswami are tilting against you know, they're
attacking something that they have no chance of beating, which
is the rise of ethnanationalism. And with the rise of
ethn nationalism, there are all kinds of secondary implications, including
for Jewish people who will not be seen as part
of whatever country they're in, but include the Muslim population.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well, Bondi Beach, the shooting there, the people doing the shooting,
and the people getting shot, none of them were heritage
Australians Australia. Australia imported a war from halfway around the
world into their country.
Speaker 4: Not just that the way that it played out it
triggered them a massive issue here in Britain because in
the Nick Fuentes Pierce Morgan interview, Pierce Morgan got this
guy called Daniel Finkelstein, who is a Conservative in the
House of Lords, to talk about his family's experience with
Hitler and Stalin. Okay, fair enough. This guy had been
saying for months, countering everybody who was saying the opposite,
that London is very safe and that there are no
issues because of immigration in London. After the Bondai Beach massacre,
this guy comes out and says, I no longer feel
safe in London. Okay. So a shooting happens halfway across
the world, it targeted a RaBaD event, and Rahabad is
about as supremacist as it gets in their ideology. They
still shot unarmed civilians. It was still a terrorist attack.
It's still cowardly.
Speaker 3: It's fucking horrible man accepting.
Speaker 4: All of that exactly. It's a crime. It should never
have happened, it shouldn't be tolerated. But the fact that
this guy changed his tune when everybody in London was saying, look,
normal people in London no longer feel safe because of migration,
then we get the opposite signal from him. And then
to make everything worse, he goes on television and he
says to the Muslims who hate Jewish people that the
ethno nationalists are going to be coming for them as well.
So he's sort of signaling to the Muslim population that
they should be on the same side against eth nationalism
of any kind.
Speaker 3: So now mind God. God, I'm sorry, sorry, Now mind you.
Speaker 4: Any ideology that is sort of divorced from God, that
puts nationality, family raise anything above God and His justice
is by definition bad. That doesn't mean that you can't
be under God and say my people are my people,
and I love my people more than strangers. There is
this order to things.
Speaker 2: To him that families. God works through families.
Speaker 4: Exactly exactly, and nation that's not complicated, and a nature
of the family of families that's.
Speaker 5: Aristotle, yes, exactly, and so he goes against that, and
then that led to a massive backlash because there was
this refusal to acknowledge that what he said was destructive.
Speaker 4: And that it goes against the interests of British people
who do deserve to awaken to their own national identity
and to place it in its proper place. And this
became a global issue in a way because of the
fact that Pierce Morgan had used him against Fentes, and
then this guy sort of shows that, look, my priorities
are always going to be my people. In Britain, the
Jewish minority is incredibly well integrated, and there aren't these
issues of Israel first in the same way as there
is in the United States. Like it's not to the
same extent. It is an issue in that you have
these various friends of Israel clubs within each political party,
within the main political parties, the Conservatives and the labor
Fair enough, that plays a role up to a point,
but it's nowhere near as visceral and vicious sometimes of
a debate as it is in the United States. This
guy goes and up ends this by taking the stupid position.
It could be because he's a silly liberal boomer. But
I just don't think that that's all of it.
Speaker 1: Well, he here, let me let me frame this. So
he he's in Britain, he is somebody who says, oh,
London is perfect for me, as he is this very
wealthy man who's who can insulate himself from from the crime,
from the fact that London is now a majority brown city.
Something happens halfway around the world. He immediately changes his tune.
But he he doesn't demonize the people who did the
did the crime or the people who are doing the
crimes in in Britain. And he decided that it was
he was going to make it be all about British men,
english Men and anyone who could embrace etho nationalism. Now,
why don't you tell everybody what is his title?
Speaker 4: He is Lord Baron Daniel Finkelstein, who is a conservative
peer in the House of Lords. So he's officially.
Speaker 1: Lord Daniel Finkelstein, who Lord Baron Daniel Finkelstein, who was
supposed to be who is a lord of the English people,
hates the English people.
Speaker 4: He is, I mean, paranoid about any kind of national
expression that he instantly views it as he's Lord Baron
Daniel Finkelstein. How much more national can you get? And
this is I know, I know, I think accept that,
but it's he took an extreme position. He was called
out for it, and then there was like in Britain,
the Board of Deputies is there is something called the
broad Board of Deputies of Jewish or Board of Jewish
Deputies or something like that, but it's the umbrella organization
of the Jewish population in England. They didn't react negatively
to what he said, whereas the same reaction from some
of the younger Jewish generation is look, guys, clearly, people
who want Britain to be British aren't the problem. It's
the people who have recently become British who viscerally hate
Jews who are the problem. And we should take a
different position. But you don't hear that from the Jewish hierarchy,
from Jewish officialdom. And the reason I bring this up
is because it is part of this story of national
awakening and if you look anywhere in the West, this
is a point that Carl Benjamin has been making repeatedly.
The young men have been completely dispossessed, and now across
Europe they're being asked to prepare for a war against Russia.
But if you don't love your young men and give
them something to love, they will not fight for you.
This relationship has to be reciprocal.
Speaker 2: If they can't say this is mine because you're look,
I'll fight for this and my my family who's down here,
and my dogs, and I'll fight for that. Why because
it's mine? And I don't mean materialist, materialistically mine this.
You know, that's what men will fight for and what
you've done in in this, you know, to go full
circle with how we started this. Internationalism says nothing's yours. Well,
if nothing's mine, why would why the hell would I
fight for it?
Speaker 4: Exactly?
Speaker 2: You know, Jesus to bring it to Christian theology, which
is the bedrock of all this, whether you you know,
we all like it, but whether you like exactly Jesus
fought for me on the cross because I was his.
You know, not to stand sound uber Augustinian, but we're
all Augustinians here. Me on the Protestants side, these two
on the Catholic side, because I belong to him exactly,
you know, and that's really the basis of Jewish covenentalism.
They've kind of left it in in in the you know,
in modern rabbinical judaism. But but that idea that this
is mine, these are my people, this is my stuff.
The final commandment on the second table is do not
covet well, how can you not? How can you covet
anything unless that thing belongs to them and your stuff
belongs to you. This idea in it and and it,
and it included my neighbor's wife. Okay, so these are
this the whole basis for all this is being broken down.
And that's why these young men aren't willing well to
heck with this? Why would I fight? You're saying nothing
is mine?
Speaker 4: Well then, so, okay, most you will get mercenaries give
me a check, But you won't get soldiers willing to
engage in heroic sacrifice for the greater good. And as
mcaveetti tells us, mercenaries are not really your best soldiers,
and they shouldn't be what you rely on. You should
rely on people who are doing it for love of
what this is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, unless your name is Abraham Lincoln, then you use
me was that out of bounds. I'm sorry, well, you.
Speaker 6: Know you you they they expect english men, English boys
to step up and say, oh yeah, my patriotism tells
me I need to go fight Russia.
Speaker 1: All they need to do is go on Twitter. I
shared a video of it just on my Twitter timeline
not too long ago, of Ukrainian men who are supposed
to believe that Russia is the enemy being kidnapped and
taken to the front lines to be killed.
Speaker 2: It's heartbreaking. Those videos are heart breaking.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean this, and the state in Britain, how
can an kind of capacity to go around snatching people
from the street, Like the Ukrainian state is better equipped
to do this than the British state. They can't go
around and just sort of snatch people and sort of
force them to fight, and they won't do very much
against much better motivated Russian soldiers who know what they're
fighting for.
Speaker 2: That's right. Do you think the average the average Russian
knows what is his I'll tell you this. The average
Chinese soldier knows it to a lesser degree because in
theory it's this collectivist blah blah. But they are Chinese, right,
The average Japanese soldier knows what is his, what he
is fighting for. It's it's Japan, it's his people, it's
his family of families. Yeah, it's his stuff. And in
the West we are destroying that, systematically.
Speaker 4: Destroyed, because if you can't economically form a family, if
the relationship between men and women has been so poisoned
and so destroyed, and the economics of family formation are
so bad, and you can't afford a house, and and
if you want to make it, you're expected to move
to the capital and sort of abandon all of your
roots and all of your community and live as a
sort of atomized individual. And your neighbor is a foreigner
like me, who doesn't have the same connections to you,
who doesn't feel the same affinity to your history and
to your heritage. How is this motivating? How is this
in any way something that is worthy of you laying
down your life for it. And you get back and
they've been telling you that there's too many white men
and they're all in positions of power, and diversity is
the priority. And how do you measure diversity? You measured
by how thoroughly you've excluded white men, like the less
white men you have, the more successful you are because
you are more diverse.
Speaker 1: Well, the one thing, the one thing they don't talk
about when when white men are being excluded is like
my wife always talks about how her nephew, her nephews
and nieces, how great they're doing. I mean, and they are.
I admire these kids beyond belief. They they're not going
to college and racking up debt. They're going into the trades.
They're doing buying houses at very young ages, starting families
a very and it's okay, so they can do that,
but they're not going to have power.
Speaker 4: And where's Ramaswami into battle? I mean, who the hell
would follow you Lamaswami into battle? Or where they followed
Britain Kemi Benino into power, the leader of the opposition,
Let alone here starmer, Who will these men actually follow
into battle? And the answer there is obvious because there
aren't any leaders in the West right now, in Europe,
in Britain, in America. You know, Trump is an exception.
In Australia, there earned that many leaders whom young men
will look up to you and say, I will follow
this guy. I will lay down my life with this guy.
This guy loves me, he sees me as his he's
ordering me to go and do something. It requires heroism
and sacrifice. I will do it right. Putin struggles to
do this for the Russians because he's a bit of
a liberal dad. And so they mobilized once, but they
are really very careful about mobilizing again. And if you
look at the front line, it's very thinly manned all across.
And this could become a problem for the Russians if
the Ukrainians play their hand right. The Ukrainians have been
convinced that they're fighting for something fair enough, and a
lot of them are deserting, maybe a third have deserted,
but a lot of them are still fighting quite bravely,
and they're going on these assaults when they're when they're
ordered to go on assaults, and and and they're still
in the in the battlefield. But if Keir Starmer said, guys,
we need to you know, we need to mobilize half
a million men and they need to go and be
willing to die on the Ukrainian planes, what piss off?
No way, no one. No one's going to listen to him,
mm hmm. And in the Republican Party, if you're at
a is you know somebody like Mitch McConnell or Ted Cruz.
I'm in Congress to fight for Israel. Okay, good luck,
But why or I vive Lamaswami? Which American boy is
going to sort of charge for vivek It doesn't make
any sense, right, So there is this reassertion of natural
identity and the idea that this country belongs to its people,
and particularly to its young men, and that a debt
is owed to them because the future has to be
built on their backs, because the future is always built
on their backs. The future of India is built on
the backs of people like the Klamaswami, but not the
future of America. And so this issue is going to
become more and more important. And here I was looking
at the latest polling. Reformed, the main opposition party which
is expected to win the next election, went up to
the mid thirty percents. And we have a first past
the post system, so mid thirty percent is pretty good.
And now it's back down to twenty five percent.
Speaker 2: Why what's driving that?
Speaker 4: We because Nigel Firewars wants to be a sort of
milk toast liberal. He doesn't want to address this question,
which is who is Britain for, Who is England for?
Who is Scotland for? Who is Wales for? And the
answer is obvious the people like these countries are named
after people's and there's no recognition of that. You go
to any German city and it's sort of like I
know Syrians who went to Germany as refugees fake refugees,
mind you, at the time, and then decided to leave
Germany because there are too many Serians. Imagine that. Mm hmmm,
imagine that. So this and and the National Security Strategy
pointed that out. But across the West, the older generation,
including Trump, is still struggling with that idea. Vance maybe
gets it, Maybe maybe we'll see I mean in in
in in the in the America Fest or Amfest or
whatever it was. He didn't exactly denounce Fuentis. He was
quite careful about that. But there is this problem, which
is that he hasn't properly orticulated who is America for.
And the first politician to properly articulate it and to
offer men a manly option is going to win enormously.
The irony is that the opposition in France is led
by a woman, and in Germany it's led by a
lesbian woman who has partnered with the Sri Lankan woman.
These are not people who are going to lead men
into battles. Guys like, you know, love Madie in Lapen
or hate Medion Lapenz. She's no Joan of Arc. She
can't do that. She can't pull that off. So there
is this real crisis of identity and it's going to
keep on playing out until the obvious is said. And
the longer this is delayed, the more severe the backlash.
Speaker 2: Pas, speaking of the pen why didn't Zimura get more traction?
I thought that guy was pretty good.
Speaker 4: He got some traction, but in order the right you got,
you got these egos that are clashing because you haven't
seen a Franco emerge.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and even he's Algerian and Jewish.
Speaker 3: He's Algerian and.
Speaker 4: Jewish exactly, And you haven't seen a Franco emerge because
things haven't gotten that bad.
Speaker 2: Yeah, fair enough, but they are.
Speaker 4: Heading in that direction. Twenty twenty six could easily be
the year in which we see a major financial crisis
that starts in some European country. Could be France, could
be Britain could be Spain. But then that has a
cascading effect and pulls a lot of other dominoes down
with it. Then things are going to get properly nasty
because when you have to do things around cutting your debt,
you're going to have to cut welfare. And if you
start by cutting welfare to the natives while you're still
having foreigners on benefits, like, that's going to be a
disaster pretty quickly. Politically, it's going to be politically suicidal.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's go to the streets kind of stuff.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and so we're heading to Like what happened in
twenty twenty five was that this conversation happened, and Tucker
Galson triggered it in a way made it mainstream. Tucker
Gallson definitely made it mainstream by hosting Fuentis. Pierce Morgan
went and pretty much committed sapuku on behalf of liberalism.
Speaker 2: He kind of did.
Speaker 4: It was the most moronic thing I've ever seen in
my life, and the fact that he didn't know that
he was being a moron made it funnier.
Speaker 3: Can I.
Speaker 1: Do you think that the whole Finkelstein debacle has I mean,
we've had it over here. What they've called the noticing
since October seventh, where people are talking more about Jewish
influence and Jewish power. Do you think by him bringing
Finkelstein on there and the subsequent just Finkelstein's meltdown in public,
that that has the potential to cause that to happen
there as well.
Speaker 4: It's less fertile soil for it.
Speaker 1: Well, because you have such a problem with Islam. I
mean that, yeah, that that that's always been the problem.
Speaker 4: Soil for it. It is happening up to a point
because like you had other activists saying that oh I
was very liberal on immigration up until Muslims started protesting
against Israel after seven October. Well, you didn't see the
rape gangs, you didn't see the Nogo zones. You didn't
see the transformation of Like the cockneys are extinct in London.
They don't exist anymore. They've all been displaced.
Speaker 3: That's what you go to London for. That's what people
used to go to London for.
Speaker 4: That's why you associated with London. Right, that's why you
associated London. They're extinct.
Speaker 2: Give me gimme Michael Caine exactly.
Speaker 4: And so the fact that this is happening now you're
seeing this national awakening. You're seeing various really incompetent people
trying to push back against it. They all seem like
complete frauds. They all seem like complete frauds pushing back
against it. And the momentum is clearly on the right,
and the state across the West is at its wits
end because it doesn't know what to do with it.
It doesn't know what to do with this energy and
how to channel it, and how to channel it in
a way that isn't nihilistic and destructive, because this kind
of energy can turn holistic and it can turn destructive.
And I understand why Jewish people are afraid of it,
but they just need to accept that just as they
express their natural identity, others will too. And that's not
happening at the Jewish establishment level anywhere in the West.
And there are establishments there, you know, there are real
establishments there that are quite active and quite vocal, and
that are listened to different degrees in different countries, but
they exist. And so I don't know how this plays out,
but it's not like it's killing the liberal consensus. The
liberal consensus as well is very much dead and buried
The issue is that a lot of people express themselves
as being postliberal. Fine, what does that actually mean in
practical terms? What are the animating principles? Are we going
to keep democracy? You know this about me, I'm not
a big fan of democracy. I'd much rather have a
genuinely proper monarchic system. I think it's actually more representative
of the people than the alternative. I think you can
get better representation under a monarchy than you do under democracy.
Under democracy is just a figy for oligarchy. That's all
that it is. And then the procedure is used to
further the interest of the oligarchy, and that's all that happens.
But what does postliberalism actually mean? And how will this
system that currently exists eggs of the stage. Will it
wait until it's destroyed everything and then from the ashes
and the ruins something emerges. Will there be a compromise?
What kind of compromise? What are the principles animating it?
What is it that can be compromised on? What is
it that cannot be compromised on? And my very strong
sense is that national identity is the one thing that
can't be compromised on. Mm hmm, Like no, and that
and that's not that's not open to negotiation.
Speaker 2: And that national that national, that re emergence of national
identity is a separate idea, is a set is a
related but separate idea from political nationalism. Right because nationalism, well,
at least at least in the last one hundred and
fifty years or so, has often been kind of escatological.
In other words, we have a unique our little group
of people has a unique role in bringing about the
eschatological blessing of the world kind of thing as opposed
to national identity, as hey, we're our own people. The
state exists for the protection and blessing of our our people,
our citizens, and we can kind of get along with everything.
So so I think it's important for because I think
I think those two ideas sometimes get wrongly conflated. Nationalism
works great often as a cleanser, as a as cancer medicine,
as a fact, you know, as a fast but it
but if it gets escatological, it can get weird.
Speaker 4: I agree with that. I agree without one hundred percent,
the like the issue of I'll put it to you
this way, when I see an Indian guy or a
Pakistani guy, m h and I ask him where are
you from? And he says Germany. Because I'm Lebanese, I
can get straight to the point and say, no, really,
where are you from? And between us as immigrants there
is a lot less room for bs. He's not gonna
call me racist because he knows that it's It has
no value as far as our communities are concerned, and
we can cut to the chase.
Speaker 7: Mm hmm.
Speaker 4: So as far as the entire rest of the world
is concerned. When you see a Chinese guy in France,
it doesn't matter how perfect his Perisian accent is and
how well he rolls his e's and pronounces his 'se.
It really doesn't matter because he's Chinese, right. The Indian
guy sees him as Chinese. The Arab guy sees him
as Chinese. He sees the Indians as Indians, and the
Arabs Arabs. And that's that.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm.
Speaker 4: Westerners, Europeans, white people, whatever you want to call them.
They've been forced to live in this myth and they've
been forced to swallow this lie that they see this
guy and he's obviously, you know, from Nigeria and not Ethiopia,
you know, but he's telling you that no, no, no, no, no,
I'm Italian or French or whatever. When the backlash happens,
because of the magnitude of the lies, their reaction is
going to be more severe. M M. If you're wise
to this, you would simply admit it and treat it
as a truth and say, Okay, we've ended up with
a bunch of Ethiopians and Nigerians and Lebanese and Chinese
and Indians who all carry pieces of paper that say
that there's something which they are not. How are we
going to nicely take away these pieces of paper without
undue bloodshed. That's the same moderate position. The other position
is that you keep on forcing the lie down people's
throats until the very last second when there has been
in some kind of massive debt crisis or military defeat
or this, that or the other, and then people take
the issue into their own hands. And with mob rule,
these things never go well because in a mob, when
the child says the emperor has no clothes, everybody ces
onto this. The issue is that we've had people saying
that the emperor has no clothes for a pretty long time.
Jarrett Taylor's career attests to this. Steve Saylor's career attests
to this. Now we have Niquentes who's pretty much saying
the same exact thing, and there's nothing wrong with it.
There's nothing wrong with saying that. You know, imagine if
America had been settled by people from the subcontinent or
people from China, what will be recognizable about it today? Well,
absolutely nothing, right, Like, they wouldn't have gotten baseball out
of cricket. They would have gone in some other thing
from some Indian sport. They wouldn't have gotten American football
out of rugby, they would have gotten some other thing,
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. None of it would
be recognizable. They wouldn't have a Thanksgiving because their relationship
with their God would be different, and they certainly wouldn't
be celebrating Christmas. None of it would be recognizable. So
what these guys are saying is pretty consistent, and it's
pretty true. That's the most important part about it, that
it's true. But you've been forcing people to swallow alive
for so long, and at some point they're going to
get angry about this, and if you're now wise, you
will correct this before they get angry. But there's absolutely like,
we go back to the leadership question. Who's going to
lead them to accept the truth in a moderate way
without a visceral reaction. Do you see any candidates? We
have Rupert Lowe here in Britain, who's one MP. Exceptional man,
very talented, very capable, very straightforward, very manly man, but
he doesn't have a platform of significant size. His constituency
love him. But that's pretty much it. It's one constituency
out of six fifty. You look around Europe, you get
Lapen Zamour, the AfD. Maloney, come on, what a disappointment, Maloney.
So there isn't this outlet, and there isn't anybody who's
able to communicate with people and say, look, the liberal
establishment and the liberal ideology is dead, and we're going
to get out of it in a mature and peaceful way.
We're going to escape the sly and we're going to
do it in a in a Christian and honest and
good way and things will be better afterwards. Without that alternative,
it's got to be burnt to the ground. The whole
thing is to burn to the ground. But that's not
a good thing.
Speaker 3: Mm hmmm.
Speaker 4: Fire is sometimes a necessary corrective but it's not a
good in and of itself, that's right. So this is
where we are, and then we go back to the
questions of China and venezuel and Russia and Iran. You're
challenging Russian shipping everywhere, and now they're hitting your shipping back,
or at least they're hitting Turkish shipping in the Black
Sea that's going into Ukraine. And that's a double message
to the Turks, be careful. We can mess with you
if you if you don't play your hand properly. To
the Europeans, we don't have to limit this to the
Black Sea. We can hit you elsewhere, just as you're
hitting us elsewhere. You have Israel now taking a chunk
of Somalia and with the plan of building bases there
obviously to fight that the obviously in Yamen.
Speaker 2: Yeah, explain real quick, explain that whole thing for folks
who might not be familiar of the relationship with Somalia,
Somali land and what Israel is trying to do. You know,
net Yahoo had that big you know, announce.
Speaker 4: First piece of land on the Horn of Africa. As
you all know, it hasn't had a function in government
since nineteen eighty nine, and it relies on remittances and
fraud committed by Somali's to function, including the fraud that
is being exposed in Minnesota. There is seventy two percent
of people of Somali descent in Britain are living in
social housing like they don't provide for themselves.
Speaker 1: M h isn't thirty three, isn't thirty three percent of
their GDP right now.
Speaker 4: Remittances something between twenty five and forty five percent of
GDP depending on who you believe.
Speaker 3: Unbelievable.
Speaker 4: So and the rest of it is smuggling and crime
and all kinds of things. This is the most one
of the most broken places in the world. There is
a small strip of territory in Somalia that is right
at right on the Arabian Sea, so on the other
side of the Horn, facing the Red Sea and facing
Yemen that is somewhat functional, and that's called Somaliland. These
Raelis have been trying to get some kind of ability
to base stuff in the Red Sea for a long
time because they are very vulnerable to their shipping from
Asia being cut off. One of the reasons that Sudan
was targeted was because Iran was using Sudan as a
conduit to get weapons into Gaza. They've had cooperation with
countries like I think Ethiopia for a pretty long time
to have some basis there, but Ethiopia is landlocked. And
their partner in this has been the United Arab Emirates
the UAE, because they view themselves as pursuing a similar strategy,
which is containing the bigger powers, and they think that
by working together they can contain powers like Iran, Saudi Turkey,
who would otherwise dominate the region if these two small
players weren't there. And now the Israelis have recognized this
piece of territory and the reason that they want to
do this is so that they can have some basing
rights right across from Yemen, so that they could more
effectively attack the Hathi. But the Americans have all of
Saudi Arabia as a base essentially.
Speaker 2: And don't forget Djibouti. We've got our little drone base.
Speaker 4: And Djibouti and the UAE and Katar, and that's not
been enough to contain the Hathi. The issue for the
Israelis is that the Turks the Egyptians have been competing
over who gets to control Somalia. But the Turks have
been doing a good job. The Egyptians are sort of
terrible at it, like the current rulers of Egypt are
the worst in a very long time in Egypt's history.
And now the Turks are going to panic because they
don't want Israel to have influence over the Red Sea either,
and the Iranians are going to panic because they don't
want the Israelis to be able to attack their allies
in Yemen. And so the Israelis have once again pushed
together Turkey, Egypt, and Iran to counter them in Somalia.
And already Saudi and Iran are working together in Sudan
to contain the UAE against the rapid support forces against
this sort of genocidal lunatics who are being backed by
the UAE and possibly Israel. And what keeps on happening
is that the bigger players are getting together and saying
these small players are completely insane and out of control,
and we need to smash them. The problem is that
this is being fought on the Red Sea, which is
the you know, leading to the Suez Canal, which controls
twelve to seventeen percent of global shipping and if this
area becomes militarized, then it's a nightmare for shipping in general.
And it's becoming increasingly militarized, and so you're seeing the
death of neutral trade. Essentially, you're seeing the death of
the system that the Americans built after the Second World War,
because the Americans are no longer as capable of policing
the sea lanes. Remember, the USA bombed the Hothy between
April and May of twenty twenty five, and then the
US signed a separate ceasefire that excluded these Radis with
a Hothy and that was a huge blow to the
Israelis because they hadn't been informed of it. And Vance
was on record in the leaked signal chats saying that
he opposes this attack on Yemen because it looks like
we're just doing it for Israel and is completely pointless
and it's not an American national security priority. And these
Raelis have never forgiven him for that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's why the knives have been out for Vance hard.
Speaker 4: And that's why the knives have been out for Vance
and attacking them as for hiring Tucker Carlson's son and
so on and so forth. So there is this question
about Vance. Can he express the views of those who
want their own country first? Because by definition Vance president
in eight twenty twenty nine, he's not just the president
of the Americans. If he's the president of the ethno nationalists,
he is truly the leader of the free world and
of the people who want to free themselves of liberal delusions.
So it has huge implications. But is he that guy?
Speaker 1: I may have some information I cannot neither confirm nor
deny that that Advance and his team have may have
been asking certain people lately to come and talk to
him about what the identity of an American is recently,
So I can either confirm nor deny this is all
a rumor. But it seems like from what I've heard JD.
Evans may be asking the question of what is the
American identity going forward?
Speaker 4: Well, it's a real issue. It's a real issue because
if you show up in North Carolina and you're building
a temple to Vishnu or to Krishna or to whatever,
monkey god, elephant god, whatever it is, that is by
definition not American.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 4: You could sort of include Jewish people, black people, even
Mexicans and say we're all monotheists at least. But if
you're literally worshiping monkey gods, like in what do you
what are you even talking about?
Speaker 2: That's right. I've heard similar stuff Pete, and he is
from what I understand, what I understand and I've got
you know, I do not know j D. I know
some other folks in the administration, but I do not
know j D. But he is personally, I think, pretty
inclined towards the Thomas Aquinas view of it takes three
generations in order to in order to truly be part
of a new of a people. Three maybe four, I
can't remember the exact.
Speaker 1: Uh, probably fine, it's three three generations, yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And so what a tremendous step in the right
direction that would be for for any people. Honestly, Aquinas
is just speaking from wisdom of saying, why would you ever,
why would you ever give political power to somebody who
just got off the boat? I mean, he didn't express
it exactly, that's what he's saying, and so uh, and
that's not being you know, that's just that's just being wise.
If I moved, if I moved next door to Pharaoh's
outside of London, uh, next week, I would not expect
to hold any political power in England, you know.
Speaker 4: To tell you how insane it is, let me tell
you how I'm saying it is. By law in Britain,
anybody who's a Commonwealth citizen can vote in British elections.
So literally, any Nigerian or Indian can just sort of
vote immediately. And the party that is supposed to be
opposing this reform just chose a Bangladeshi student to run
for them as a candidate for local councils for local government.
So we are living in an age of madness. We're
living in an age of complete madness here. And like
the harder you pull in one direction, the more the
pendulum will swing violently in the opposite direction.
Speaker 1: Eventually, Well, it's a liberal it's liberalism. Right before you connected,
Ron and Iwertz talking and we talked about how liberalism is,
like it's such a perversion of Christianity and that you, yeah,
or anyone can become a Christian, but you're expected to change,
You're expected to have become a part of the confession.
You're you're expected You're not expected to be like ilhan
omar Up in Minneapolis, who is like, look, I'm a Somali.
I'm here to serve Somali's and that's it.
Speaker 2: I mean, you have to bow the knee.
Speaker 1: George Washington, Yeah, George Washington, I mean George Washington and
these gentlemen were not They were not modern day liberals
in the sense that they would resource to violence upon
hearing that. I mean, there would be these people wouldn't
be they'd either be on a ship going home or
they'd be unalived.
Speaker 4: Yes, mm hmmm, yes. I mean imagine telling George Washington
or any of the Founding Fathers that a guy called
Vivekraswami ran for president in the United States. His assumption
would have to be that the United States somehow lost
a war against India, like not only did the British
Empire disintegrate, India rose a superpower and then invaded America
and now they're installing their man. That's what he would assume.
Speaker 1: The VIK is So he's so brain diseased in liberalism.
Speaker 3: And I mean, we know that it all.
Speaker 4: He's an internationalist, but he wears liberalism as a skin
suit because it suits right.
Speaker 1: But but the way he talks about it is like anyone,
any group or any person in Malaysia can recite a
couple words and take an oath and they're automatically American.
Speaker 3: They don't even have to come here.
Speaker 1: They're just automatically American because it's all about ideas.
Speaker 4: Because it's this conflation of America and the Promised Land
or and Christianity. Mm hmmm, yes, well then get back
as you're a Christian. But you still have to work
to get to Heaven, not that issue. You still have
to change within properly to get to heaven. You still
have to do what Christianity demands of you. You still
have to have the faith genuinely, not just recite the words.
You still have to believe, you have to accept God's grace,
you have to let God's grace work within you for
you to properly convert. But they take all that away,
and it's just sort of, you know, it's sort of
like Islam actually, because in Islam you just have to
recite the Shahada once and that's it. You're a Muslim
and if you change your mind, you can be killed.
So it's it's it's closer to Islam in a in
a practical sense, even though it's predicated on ideas. Of
Christian conversion and it's just not tenable.
Speaker 2: There's a great passage and one of my favorite books
is by that named Peter Leithheart. It's called Against Christianity.
That's an ironic title, it's not, it's it's actually pro Christendom.
And the idea is that it makes this very point
that that identities are bound in covenant. So it's not
just a recitation of an idea. So there's this great
scene where he driving through Canada and stops to get gas,
and the and the gas station attendant says, oh, I
see your your plates are you're you're an American. He goes, well,
I'm an American too, and he goes, oh really, why
did you move up to Canada? Go no, no, no, no,
I've always lived in Canada. He goes, well, you say
you're American, what what do you mean? And he said, well,
I think the Declaration of Independence is just amazing. Well, okay,
and your Constitution is fantastic, that this tripartite system of
checks and balances. Okay, but you said you were American.
And I just love George Washington and what a beautiful flag. Okay,
and I vacation there and I just oh, it's it's beautiful.
But you said you were an American? When when did
you When were you naturalized? When did you become Well,
I didn't do any of that. I didn't actually I
And he said, and so it is with any identity,
and especially with Christianity. You you don't just assent to
a set of ideas. You bow your knee to a king.
Now in our situation, you you you pledge allegiance and
you become a citizen, and you have an actual ceremony
that does that, that changes reality. And part of this,
part of this is the American rejection, uh wrongly of
of of ceremony that actually does something. And we have
a very we have We are very evangelicals are very
suspicious of this. Yes I'm not, but but I always
tell these folks, okay, I said, you don't think ceremonies
actually change anything. And I bring up naturalization. I'm married
to a I'm married to a naturalized citizen. I went
to her naturalization ceremony. That ceremony actually changed reality. She
ceased being a Canadian and became a US citizen. When
we got married, we said some words before witnesses, kissed
before witnesses and we became and it had words pronounced
over us, and became a husband and wife. My two
children were presented before the church and had water sprinkled
on them, and they became covenant members in the household
of God. And so but but evangelicals in the United
States is primarily spiritually. An evangelical nation struggles with this.
And that's why we struggle with this idea of identity.
And we want to export this liberalism where you can
just say you can assent to a set of ideals
as opposed to bowing the knee. And what we need
to return to, both politically and spiritually and familiarly is
the bowing of the need. This is also tied up
in and I'm not some kind of weird patriarchy guy,
but but but you do have But this is also
tied into fathers who who see it as their duty
to protect and bless their families. And they are and
there's a certain amount of loyalty that and respect that
has showed to them. And and that's true of the
state where you bow your knee and okay, I and
and in church, I bow my need of Christ. And
that that three legged stool that the US constitution is
kind of built upon it's patterned after, but that three
legged stool of how, the of how God instituted first
the church in Eden, and then the family and Adam
and even and then the state when he made the
covenant with Noah. If if man, if man sheds blood
by man, shall his blood be shed in the institution
of the state. That's that all built upon allegiance and loyalty.
That's what we are all calling to return to. And
without it you get this, you get this liberalized soup again,
where well, what's mine? What do I fight for? What
do I am? What am I called to? Because we
all know it's much harder to climb a ladder than
it is to fall off of it. And we're seeing
manifest throughout the world, the liberal world, at least UH,
people who have fallen off ladders left and right. And
what we're calling, what what we are calling towards is
no we we are this is this, this, this uh.
Civilization is built upon helping men climb this ladder of
of of allegiance, loyalty, virtue of and only then can
you have within these identities, these bastions of of liberalism
or the of of where I can have freedom of association,
freedom of contract, freedom uh, to to buy a home,
and all these kind of things. Those are the result
of of these of of of these loyalty structures, of
these structures of allegiance. Not that's not how you get there.
And we have so put the cart before the horse,
and we wonder why it's falling apart.
Speaker 4: And for that to function, there's got to be trust
in your pledge of allegiance rather than it being the
result of being an anchor baby or the result of
somebody who will simply mouth the words for an administrative procedure.
So like to take an oath to join the mob,
you have to sort of cut your hand and bleed
a little bit and say that we're one blood. Now
there is something like that, you know, And that's the
intention that you're now part of a new family that
you shed blood for. That's the symbolic meaning of it.
Not that I'm encouraging people to go and join them all,
but no.
Speaker 2: But people understand blood oats exactly. People understand. That's why
people understand the blood shed by Christ is is in
that we become a new family. That No, this is
a truth as old as mankind. We understand that it's
a perfect illustration for.
Speaker 4: Us, exactly exactly. And so when you have cultures who
will simply mouth any words you give them for the
sake of convenience, their pledge of allegiance means nothing. It
really doesn't mean it very much at all. The Quran
doesn't prohibit you from keeping your oaths to unbelievers, but
it doesn't consistently command you to keep your oaths to them.
And you can't be a Muslim and submit genuinely to
un Islamic rule. So you have a problem with India
and cultures like that China, Okay, good luck, But if
they marry other Chinese or Indians or whatever, that oath
is not as serious obviously, because what's meant to happen
is as you join a new community, if you're adopted
into a tribe, you're meant to marry into the tribe
and melt into the tribe.
Speaker 2: So fear is what you're saying is faith without works
is dead.
Speaker 4: There has to be something that demonstrates your faith. Simply
mouthing the words doesn't mean that you have faith. You
have to live it. And I struggle with living my faith.
I'm not particularly, but I do feel the pressure to
live by the faith that I profess. But that isn't
a universal truth, and it isn't true of me on
my bad days. So there's got to be this recognition that. Look,
if you've come into the United States or into Britain
or into Germany, and you've built this separate enclave where
you eat the food that your ancestors eat, and celebrate
the holidays that your ancestors celebrated, and marry into your
ancestral community, and and and eventually obviously you're going to
advocate for your ancestors politics because you have it. Your
faith is dead, because faith is dead because you haven't
kept that place, you haven't melted into that tribe, you
haven't melted into that people three generations down. What it
should look like is that pretty much all of your
descendants have the blood of the people that you've joined.
Mm hm, not just yours, not just your own ancestors.
But we keep seeing the same act pattern, and we're fighting,
and the West is fighting wars to preserve this lunacy.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 4: The West is literally fighting wars to preserve this lunacy.
But it makes no sense.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we're more loyal to Starbucks and McDonald's than we are.
Speaker 4: To us to truths. Yeah, to to big T truths. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think that's so, how do we get back? And guys,
I've got about five or ten minutes and then I'm
I'm gonna have to I'm gonna have to go.
Speaker 4: But like I said, there's a peaceful way, and there's
a after it's all burnt to the groundway mm hmm.
But the peaceful way has to admit. Look, you know
we are going to Little Mogadishu and everybody in that area. Uh,
if they don't have a pre nineteen sixty five American
ancestor is no longer eligible to remain here in Britain.
I think it's the nineteen forty eight Nationality Act, or sorry,
the nineteen forty eight. Yeah, I believe it's the nineteen
forty eight Nationality Act.
Speaker 3: Pre win Rush.
Speaker 2: We have the Yeah, in speaking of wind Rush, have
the have the what was it half a million Jamaicans
that came in?
Speaker 4: Is that right?
Speaker 2: That's about the number?
Speaker 4: No. One wind Rush It's it was it was a
couple of thousand, it was a few thousand people, it
was it was a small boat, and then wave after
wave came, but then more followed from other parts of
the world.
Speaker 2: I have that, But what I was asking is did
that original did that original group did they alight pretty well?
Or have they? Did they not?
Speaker 4: Not? Really, you have that I most highly recognized members
of that community advocating for reparations. Really, you have a
big a bunch of black members of Parliament got together
and organized a series of conferences. It's become an annual
event now where they explain why they're olde reparations. If
you believe your olde reparations, you're saying that the white
natives owe you reparations, the same white natives who ended
the slave trade. But that's not digress. But you are
also asserting a separate identity. That's the more important and
more salient point. And so maybe we can get into
a compromise and say, okay, this is X amount of
money and then good by and good luck. Maybe the
British can't come up with this kind of kind of compromise.
Maybe the threat of that compromise will make people integrate.
But but it hasn't happened. It really hasn't happened.
Speaker 2: And what about the is it similar with the the
Nigerian immigrants into uh those are mostly in the London area.
Speaker 4: As understand, it's like the Black community in London is
not particularly well integrated. I'd say, yeah, it's it's their
own group. They Let me put it to you this way,
a Black church service in London will resemble a Black
church service in America more than it will resemble a
High Anglican service.
Speaker 2: Okay, Yeah, makes total sense.
Speaker 4: And that sort of tells you something. I guess. The
problem for I hesitate to say this, but I'm going
to say it anyway. Part of the problem for black
people I suggest, I would suggest, is that they don't
have much outside of the West to look for. As in,
if you're Pakistani, you could go to Pakistan and say
they humiliated India in a couple of wars recently or
in a couple of small skirmishes recently, and they have
a strong identity and this is something to be proud
of and I belong there. If you're Indian, you could
say that about India. If you're Chinese, you could say
that about China, et cetera, et cetera. If you're Ghanaian,
if you're a Nigerian.
Speaker 7: What is it that you're sort of holding up as
a model, right, These are fundamentally broken countries. Yeah, Congolese, Congolese,
these are fundamentally broken countries. Yeah, that will remain broken
for a pretty long time.
Speaker 4: I think.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Within Nigeria, it's only you know, it's as I understand it.
I've never been. It's still very tribal. So you have successful,
you know, somewhat successful tribes and then less so I
guess the Ebo are pretty kind of the curve breakers,
but everybody else it's been pretty rough.
Speaker 4: So let me speaking of Nigerian integration. The leader of
the official opposition, the Conservative Party, is a Nigerian lady
by the name of Cammy Badenaw. I don't remember her
her full African name, her full Namenigerian name. She is
on record saying that she no longer identifies as Nigerian.
She identifies primarily as Yoruba, and she doesn't want to
associate with the other tribes because these are her ethnic enemies. Okay,
could could you sort of imagine a Frenchman saying it,
I don't know, some guy from Paris saying this about
the burg Indians or saying it about the about the
Normans or about some other.
Speaker 2: Well, especially especially upon you're in a third place, right,
you know, it'd be like me, I don't know, you know, me,
I get it going to London and me going to
London and making a huge thing about Texan rivalry with
New York or something. You know, it just wouldn't be
appropriate exactly.
Speaker 1: And now you and now you understand why things like
by saying that, you understand why things like BONDI Beach happen.
Speaker 4: Yes, yes, uh, these are important conflicts. And I get
it to somebody from Levada, but I just don't think
this is good for the West, and you know, like
there's no hope for them, but least without a strong
and functioning West. Otherwise we're all going to be governed
by Turkey. And it looks like it's heading in that
direction anyway. Yes, so it's it's there is this, well,
you need.
Speaker 2: A strong we're living in you need a somewhat strong
Iran to offset Turkey. But no one in the West
seems to understand that.
Speaker 4: So no, no.
Speaker 2: I mean it's like, let's go bomb Iran. I go,
Who's who's going to balance out Turkey? Because is it's not.
It's not going to be the Sud East. Nope, Israel's tiny,
it's not going to be the Egyptians. So who's going
to do it? And they control access to a pretty
big body of water, so yep. Anyway, yep, all right, guys,
I got to wrap.
Speaker 3: Up alrighty do plugs real quick, Firrist go first.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Sure. You can find me on mondagiopolitics dot com
and I'm on Twitter as well, on X as well.
Speaker 2: Ron I write for the Claremont Institute at the American Mind,
where I've touched on some of these things in the
past few months. And then i write for American Reformer
more theologically based stuff. I write at my own substack
h R where you can find it Ron Dodson or
the Eye of the Eyes of Apilles, and then I'm
on x's off.
Speaker 3: Thank you, gentlemen, Oh, thank you so much. It is
a pleasure. Thank you.