Speaker 1: Good morning. It's March fifth, Thursday. But this is the
Speaker 1: Noe Jose podcast. You're watching the Morning Dump. I am
Speaker 1: your host, Jose Gali Song and this is the kiddy
Speaker 1: of the day. Our furry friend, one of two, Jeff,
Speaker 1: one of our only furry fellows in the house. Arrest
Speaker 1: rest are absent hair. This is Jeff fan favorite. Now
Speaker 1: if you like seeing my hot takes Monday through Friday
Speaker 1: around eleven am Eastern and we never make that time,
Speaker 1: but that's what we shoot for, all right, sometimes when
Speaker 1: we make those days. But or if you just like
Speaker 1: seeing the Kiddy of the day, then be sure to
Speaker 1: hit the subscribe button, hit that bell for notifications, so
Speaker 1: to let you know when I'm going live and when
Speaker 1: I drop new videos. We'll see you in the show.
Speaker 2: Beautiful thing right now, ride shine, It's a beautiful day.
Speaker 3: A third of the building has been blown away, our
Speaker 3: very freedom came under attack and a series of deliberate
Speaker 3: and deadly terrorist acts, and.
Speaker 4: At that point we were taken for another round of questioning,
Speaker 4: this time related to our allegedly being members of the
Speaker 4: side It's crazy evil.
Speaker 1: Good morning, Good morning. I hope you guys are having
Speaker 1: a good morning. Hope it's been a productive one. I
Speaker 1: got a little bit stuff done, gotta run in. That's
Speaker 1: why I still got the headband on, and I'm kind
Speaker 1: of digging it. Maybe I'm just gonna keep it, making
Speaker 1: a fixture, make it my new thing. But I realized
Speaker 1: I forgot I had it on, and then by the
Speaker 1: time I was like, I didn't feel like fuck with
Speaker 1: my hair again, so I went for a run. That's
Speaker 1: why I had my little head band on, my little
Speaker 1: sweat band. But yeah, we have plenty of go through today.
Speaker 1: As always, we'll start out with icebreaker content that's more
Speaker 1: in the vein of of the gen pop, of the fun,
Speaker 1: the funny, the slop, that sort of stuff. Well, I
Speaker 1: have a couple of the little short segment for you
Speaker 1: guys today, and then we're gonna jump into and jump
Speaker 1: into the foreign policy as always, which is pretty much
Speaker 1: just exclusively Iran ward stuff today, and then we'll get
Speaker 1: into the technocratic Iranian distraction kind of the establishments, you know,
Speaker 1: domestic complete media takeover ten while we got that going on,
Speaker 1: and then hiding in plane eppscene kind of looking taking
Speaker 1: a taking a look at a few things that have
Speaker 1: kind of seemingly been hiding in plain sight with all
Speaker 1: the Epsteine stuff. But yeah, and we'll go through. In
Speaker 1: between each segment, we'll pop into the chat say hello
Speaker 1: all the like uh, and we'll also I'll put time
Speaker 1: SAMs after the fact for those who don't want to
Speaker 1: listen to banter with a chat, which I totally get.
Speaker 1: It's mostly just me going doot to do as I
Speaker 1: read through the chat. But yeah, as always, I do
Speaker 1: try to give everyone an obligatory good morning, and then
Speaker 1: after that you either got to catch my interest or
Speaker 1: catch my wallet sometimes.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 1: So every now and then it'll get pretty stat it'll
Speaker 1: get pretty full there in the in the chat, so
Speaker 1: may help to drop a super chat if you really
Speaker 1: want to get a word in or be more interesting.
Speaker 1: I don't know one of the two. Make up your mind.
Speaker 1: But with that, let's go ahead and get into some
Speaker 1: of the gen pop to kind of I guess kind
Speaker 1: of has start off this discussion. I guess this first
Speaker 1: segment I have for you guys today, the icebreaker content.
Speaker 1: I do want to let you guys know that I've
Speaker 1: now come to the conclusion that Israel does not have
Speaker 1: a right to defend itself, and it has nothing to
Speaker 1: do whatsoever. I know I had said many a time
Speaker 1: on previous podcasts, Israel has a right to defend itself,
Speaker 1: but I was wrong. They do not have a right
Speaker 1: to defend themselves. And this has absolutely nothing to do
Speaker 1: with this this first story of the day, Apparently Israeli
Speaker 1: officials allegedly hired social media influencers for seven thousand dollars
Speaker 1: per post, failed to pay them, and are now facing
Speaker 1: lawsuits totally millions of dollars over unpaid invoices. Here's a
Speaker 1: friend of the show, Mark Vestibules, saying, looks like you're
Speaker 1: not getting paid ose, dang it, dang it. So they
Speaker 1: do not have a right to defend themselves and whatever.
Speaker 1: Obviously I'm joking, being silly. I do I feel no
Speaker 1: feel no sorrow for any person not receiving their their
Speaker 1: seven thousand dollars. All right, moving on to the last
Speaker 1: little bit of our icebreaker content. Let's watch this video
Speaker 1: of Nick of Nicole Kidman and uh, maybe maybe I'll
Speaker 1: look up look up a little summary on you know,
Speaker 1: who she is and what she's about as we watch
Speaker 1: this clip. Yeah, apparently she knows how to perform an
Speaker 1: autopsy and remove organs from body. Apparently this was claimed
Speaker 1: recently on the Jimmy Fallon Show. Here's the clip. Let's
Speaker 1: watch it.
Speaker 3: Let's talk about Scarpetta.
Speaker 1: This is a big deal. This is based on the
Speaker 1: popular book series. You play a medical examiner. I do
Speaker 1: are you method, Nicole Kinon.
Speaker 6: Yes, I am. I can do an autop see.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, that's amazing.
Speaker 7: I can.
Speaker 8: I can.
Speaker 6: Yes, if I needed to, I could do the autopsy.
Speaker 6: I can remove all the organs. I can name them all.
Speaker 6: You actually asked me, They said, would you be willing
Speaker 6: to do one on the show?
Speaker 1: And what are you talking about? Your life out? They did,
Speaker 1: they are autopsy on the show.
Speaker 6: Yes.
Speaker 1: I misunderstood.
Speaker 6: Maybe it was on a dummy or something, but either way,
Speaker 6: I don't think that would have been a very I
Speaker 6: have a.
Speaker 1: Name, by the way, I have the name a dummy.
Speaker 6: But I can remove the lungs and the liver and
Speaker 6: the gall bladder and the test to learn all this
Speaker 6: because it's part of the job. And I worked with
Speaker 6: an incredible medical examiner and I I studied it.
Speaker 1: She's every single thing. You were just awesome and executive
Speaker 1: producer on this as well.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and Jamie Lee Curtis is in.
Speaker 1: It, and Bobby kind of all.
Speaker 6: Yes, all of them, Simon Baker, Arianna, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Around the bows, that's that's my pals. Fantastic. How do
Speaker 1: we set up what scarp Pet is about.
Speaker 6: It's a medical examiner who is coming back to her
Speaker 6: job after thirty years and there's a parallel story of
Speaker 6: the two crimes that have happened in present day and
Speaker 6: thirty years ago. That's the beginning, and then there's all
Speaker 6: the family. It's so drama and it's if you like
Speaker 6: crime thrillers, which there is a ton of people out they.
Speaker 9: Like, Oh yeah, yeah, it's going to crush.
Speaker 1: I want to show her in a clip.
Speaker 3: Here's the great Nicole Kidman and scarpettit. Take a look
Speaker 3: at this all right.
Speaker 1: I think it's enough of that. We don't need to
Speaker 1: watch the rest of it. The whole point was someone
Speaker 1: tagged me in this rage child Saint tonight, and obviously,
Speaker 1: you know, I didn't watch it. That's the purpose of
Speaker 1: the show. So I wasn't sure entirely what to expect,
Speaker 1: but I knew Nicole Cadman has a little bit of
Speaker 1: a reputation behind her name. For example, I believe she
Speaker 1: was what the actress, the main actress in Eyes Wide
Speaker 1: Shut with Tom Cruise, which you know that has a
Speaker 1: little bit of a spooky history behind it. So I know,
Speaker 1: the idea of her being able to perform an autopsy,
Speaker 1: I guess is obviously the cruxy issue here. We don't
Speaker 1: even watch it's a full fucking trailer for this show
Speaker 1: she's promoting. But I guess I don't know. She's supposed
Speaker 1: to be some sort of medical something or other in
Speaker 1: this uh, you know, this crime drama or whatever the hell?
Speaker 1: So is it really that unbelievable? It seems a little bit,
Speaker 1: you know, too much to go into for the uh,
Speaker 1: I don't know, to get to get into the uh,
Speaker 1: the head of who you're I know, this seems a
Speaker 1: bit much. I know I'm not an actor, though, it
Speaker 1: always seems a little gay to me, this idea that
Speaker 1: like you need to one hundred percent like the idea
Speaker 1: she needs to like learn how to perform an autopsy
Speaker 1: to be able to perform this role. I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe the basics would help, but kind of what I
Speaker 1: was getting at though. What makes us most interesting, though,
Speaker 1: is the accusations against her dad. I asked Rock to
Speaker 1: give us a three paragraph summation. Obviously this is gonna
Speaker 1: be towing the the company line a little bit, you know,
Speaker 1: But hey, this is a just so you guys know
Speaker 1: kind of I don't know, maybe perhaps what Ragshaw was
Speaker 1: getting out a little bit here too.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 1: The primary accusation gets against Nicole Kidman's father, doctor Anthony Kidman,
Speaker 1: a respected Australian clinical psychologist and academic who died in
Speaker 1: Joint fourteen, stem from claims made by Fiona Barnett, a
Speaker 1: self described survivor of childhood abuse. I believe there's some
Speaker 1: thread too with Anthony Kidman, if I recall correctly in
Speaker 1: the false memory syndrome, but I couldn't really, I can't
Speaker 1: really speak too much on that. I think there's some
Speaker 1: sort of threat because he was a psychologist, and obviously
Speaker 1: that was like a bunch of psychologists. I don't know
Speaker 1: if he was necessarily in it, but there's I swear
Speaker 1: there's some thread there, and obviously there's a common theme.
Speaker 1: Barnett alleged the stems from claims made by Fiona Barnett,
Speaker 1: a self described survivor of childhood abuse, which full honestly,
Speaker 1: I've never looked too much into Fiona Barnett. I know
Speaker 1: Austin talks about her occasionally, so I can't speak too
Speaker 1: much to her reliability. But Barnett alleged that Kidman was
Speaker 1: involved in a Sydney based pedophile ring, including satanic ritual abuse,
Speaker 1: child sexual assault, physical abuse and even participation in child
Speaker 1: hunting and murder, is part of an elite network. She
Speaker 1: claimed to have been victimized by him from a young
Speaker 1: age around three to fifteen, and asserted these acts occurred
Speaker 1: within a broader conspiracy involving high profile figures. These allegations
Speaker 1: surface publicly around twenty fourteen, shortly before Kidman's death, with
Speaker 1: Barnett filing complaints to Australian authorities like the NSW Police
Speaker 1: and the Royal Commission with institutional responses to child sexual abuse.
Speaker 1: Barnett's claims portrayed Kidman as a central figure in what
Speaker 1: she described as a Satanic the cult or death cult,
Speaker 1: tied to child trafficking and ritualistic crimes. You guys, hear
Speaker 1: Jeff screaming in the background. I do not know what
Speaker 1: he's upset about, but it's probably something really stupid, but
Speaker 1: like a door being closed. Sometimes drawing comparisons to high
Speaker 1: profile cases like Epsteine's network. The accusations gained traction infringe
Speaker 1: online communities, conspiracy podcast, YouTube videos, and alternative media outlets,
Speaker 1: often linking them to broader theories about elite pedophile rings,
Speaker 1: including unsubstantiated tized to figures like former politicians or even
Speaker 1: international entities. Some narratives suggested Kidman's sudden death in Singapore,
Speaker 1: officially after a fall investigated is unnatural but with no
Speaker 1: foul play confirmed, was suspiciously timed, occurring weeks after Barnett's
Speaker 1: formal complaints. So weeks after Barnett files formal complaints, he falls.
Speaker 5: Dad.
Speaker 1: I know there's also some thread too where I think
Speaker 1: Nicole was like during this or something was like threatening
Speaker 1: some major you know, some major Hollywood entity or something
Speaker 1: essentially with her what little what well? I guess not
Speaker 1: what little, but with good amount of clout she has.
Speaker 1: I don't know if the I forget the specifics, go
Speaker 1: check out all. I know Austin did which episode never
Speaker 1: mind now I can't remember what episode it was. Aust
Speaker 1: Austin did one episode of his show where he went
Speaker 1: pretty in depth into the Fiona Barnett stuff, trying to
Speaker 1: recall which one it is, whatever, Maybe it'll come to
Speaker 1: me later. He's done a he's done a few episodes
Speaker 1: that would clearly make sense to include Barnett's accounts. But yeah,
Speaker 1: pretty notable accusations against her dad. So I think that
Speaker 1: might have been a little bit what rich Child was
Speaker 1: getting at there. So you guys learned a little bit
Speaker 1: something today if you didn't know that already. Let's roll
Speaker 1: through the chat, say our good mornings, and then we'll
Speaker 1: get into foreign policy, which is going to be a
Speaker 1: long one today. A little morning, Good morning, og, matt'sa Balls,
Speaker 1: good morning, good morning, good morning, Shannon Jones, good morning,
Speaker 1: Rock Bizz, Good morning, that one chick, Chris, good morning,
Speaker 1: good morning, Good morning, King David, Sisa, Jose and fellow dumpers,
Speaker 1: Hello to you, Good morning, bug Fights, good morning, Gottes
Speaker 1: saying sheets, kidneys for breakfast, no doubt, I believe it.
Speaker 1: Good morning, Retardo, good morning, good morning, and good morning
Speaker 1: Uncle Ted. I'm not a doctor, but I played one
Speaker 1: on TV, says uncle Ted. All right, not a lot
Speaker 1: of early risers today. Huh oh, there's Marnin Mac showing
Speaker 1: in in the last minute. Marnin Mack. Good morning, Good
Speaker 1: morning to you. All right, everybody, I say good morning,
Speaker 1: say good morning. Back all right, we'll come back to
Speaker 1: you to the next after we'll come back through the
Speaker 1: chat again, after we go through foreign policy. Let's pop
Speaker 1: into the first story of the day we got. The
Speaker 1: White House says US launched war with Iran because Trump
Speaker 1: had a feeling they were going to attack. So now
Speaker 1: we've got another. We had a slightly different take. We're
Speaker 1: gonna we're getting shifting reasonings for the war. White House
Speaker 1: Press Secretary of Karen leave It said on Wednesday, the
Speaker 1: US launched the war with Iran because President Trump had
Speaker 1: a feeling the Iranian forces were going to attack. First,
Speaker 1: let's let's let's just watch her what she said, Honora,
Speaker 1: It's just a ten second clip, my bed whatever. We'll
Speaker 1: watch it and then we'll read it.
Speaker 10: The President had a feeling, again based on fact, that
Speaker 10: Iran was going to strike the United States was going
Speaker 10: to strike our assets in the region, and he made
Speaker 10: a determination to launch Operation Epic Fury based on all
Speaker 10: of those reasons.
Speaker 1: And okay, so there she said, President of feeling again
Speaker 1: based on fact, which is weird thing to say that
Speaker 1: I had a feeling based on facts. It's like, there's
Speaker 1: not really any facts to back up unless there's I mean,
Speaker 1: unless there's something they're keeping from us here. But she
Speaker 1: listened a series of talking points about how Iran posed
Speaker 1: a threat to the US and said the president of feeling, Okay,
Speaker 1: we just read that, I said. Trump made similar comments
Speaker 1: a day earlier when he asked and then he was
Speaker 1: asked about Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying that one
Speaker 1: reason why the US launched the war was that Israel
Speaker 1: was planning to attack on his own and that the
Speaker 1: US assessed Iran could retaliate with attacks on US basis.
Speaker 1: The President denied the idea of the US attack because
Speaker 1: of Israel's plan, suggesting he may have forced Israel's hand
Speaker 1: because he thought Iran was going to attack first. The
Speaker 1: Pentagon officials told Congress that there was no indication Iran
Speaker 1: was planning to strike the US or Israel without being
Speaker 1: attacked first. And then he goes even further with his claims,
Speaker 1: here is a let's let's watch this. Here's a here's
Speaker 1: Trump in his own word, Oh my God, of course,
Speaker 1: reaming our poops out. Give me one moment, all right?
Speaker 1: Here we go. Let's try this again, all right, here
Speaker 1: we go. Here is Trump.
Speaker 11: As well as I do. You see the tremendous progress
Speaker 11: that's being made. The missiles are being wiped out rapidly,
Speaker 11: their launchers are being wiped out. They're attacking their neighbors.
Speaker 11: They're attacking there in some cases allies or not so
Speaker 11: long ago allies, and you know, throughly a nation that
Speaker 11: was out of control, and they would have used it
Speaker 11: on us if we let them, if we waited any longer.
Speaker 11: A big factor with Solomoni, the killing of Solomoni in
Speaker 11: my first term, and maybe the biggest factor was the
Speaker 11: rebuilding of the military in my first term. And then
Speaker 11: the B two's hit the h And I use the
Speaker 11: word obliterate because it really was. It was a complete
Speaker 11: obliteration of their nuclear potential, and that set them back
Speaker 11: very very seriously. If we didn't hit within two weeks,
Speaker 11: they would have had a nuclear weapon. If we didn't
Speaker 11: do the B two attack a number of months ago,
Speaker 11: they would have a nuclear weapon. And when crazy people
Speaker 11: have nuclear weapons, bad things happened.
Speaker 1: Oh, to be fair, I think maybe I misunderstood this.
Speaker 1: They're actually referring to the previous airstrikes. That's what at
Speaker 1: least that's the way I interpret it. Sounded like it first,
Speaker 1: and I've seen it kind of be reported that way,
Speaker 1: for example, an Aarton war. Here's a paragraph covering it
Speaker 1: says on Wednesday, Trump came up with a new reason
Speaker 1: for starting the war, making the clearly false claim that
Speaker 1: if he didn't attack, Iran could have acquired a nuclear
Speaker 1: weapon within two weeks, despite his insistence that the June
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five air strikes obliterated Iran's nuclear program, if
Speaker 1: we didn't hit within two weeks, they would have had
Speaker 1: a nuclear weapon. So I actually, I'm almost interpreting that
Speaker 1: as him saying that if we hadn't hit them back then,
Speaker 1: obviously not we, I didn't have anything to do with it,
Speaker 1: if they didn't hit them back then, that they would
Speaker 1: have been able to have a nuke within two weeks.
Speaker 1: So I don't think. I mean, maybe let's let's let's
Speaker 1: watch this again. Let's uh, let's let's watch this one
Speaker 1: more time.
Speaker 11: Well, as I do, you see the tremendous progress it's
Speaker 11: being made. The missiles are being wiped out rapidly, their
Speaker 11: launchers are being wiped out, they're attacking their neighbors. They're
Speaker 11: attacking there in some cases allies or not so long
Speaker 11: ago allies, and you know, surely a nation that was
Speaker 11: out of control, and they would have used it on
Speaker 11: us if we let them, if we waited any longo.
Speaker 11: A big, a big factor was Solomoni, the killing of
Speaker 11: Solomoni in my first term, and maybe the biggest factor
Speaker 11: was the rebuilding of the military and my first term.
Speaker 11: And then the B two's hit the UH and I
Speaker 11: use the word obliterate because it really was. It was
Speaker 11: a complete obliteration of their nuclear potential and that set
Speaker 11: them back very, very seriously. If we didn't hit within
Speaker 11: two weeks, they would have had a nuclear weapon if
Speaker 11: we didn't do the B two.
Speaker 1: Okay, that's interpreted again, I interpreted as he's kind of
Speaker 1: For one, it sounds like he's listing off reasons why
Speaker 1: he thinks Iran could have theoretically or or why he
Speaker 1: thinks they were gonna because this is I think this
Speaker 1: is what he's actually this whole like this whole, this whole,
Speaker 1: you know, Gish gallup here. I think that's what this is.
Speaker 1: What's doing a ton of leg work in UH in
Speaker 1: Karen Leavitt's previous statement where like it was, you know,
Speaker 1: he had a feeling based on fact. I think this
Speaker 1: is a based on fact that we're being shown, and
Speaker 1: the facts are that, oh, well, I killed Solomony, I
Speaker 1: bombed I bombed them back and what was it like
Speaker 1: June and a couple other things. I think, uh so,
Speaker 1: I mean that's his in fact, that they're mad because
Speaker 1: we did things. I think that's kind of what he's saying.
Speaker 1: And then he kind of like he kind of bol
Speaker 1: was bolstering that one point about destroying why they had
Speaker 1: to destroy, you know, the nuclear facilities was because which
Speaker 1: that in itself is a crazy claim, but it's not
Speaker 1: as crazy as what I was thinking, and I think
Speaker 1: many others were thinking are thinking with this, is that
Speaker 1: he's basically kind of saying why this recent spate of
Speaker 1: attacks was because they were going to be able to
Speaker 1: hit us with a nuke within two weeks essentially, h
Speaker 1: and so it was a pre like preempting that. I
Speaker 1: don't think he's saying that. I think what he's right
Speaker 1: here is doing is the tired legwork of in fact,
Speaker 1: so that when Karen Leavitt says, in fact, oh, he
Speaker 1: had a feeling. In fact, well, here are the in facts,
Speaker 1: and it is, I guess a fact. This is why
Speaker 1: I was kind of pointing out in feeling, Oh he
Speaker 1: had a feeling. In fact, it's such like a weasel,
Speaker 1: bullshit statement, because you're like, what does that? What does
Speaker 1: that mean?
Speaker 12: Like?
Speaker 1: What facts the facts are? I ran mad, I fucked
Speaker 1: him really hard a bunch of times, and like, it's
Speaker 1: probably there's in fact they might be mad. It's not.
Speaker 1: It's not outside the rim of possibilities they would attack
Speaker 1: us because they're mad. I don't think there's any any
Speaker 1: intel they were actually gonna attack. I really think that
Speaker 1: right there is the in fact that that we're hearing
Speaker 1: right there, So I mean, less retarded than I thought
Speaker 1: it was was retarded. Bear in mind it's also still
Speaker 1: retarded to think back in those recent and in those
Speaker 1: round of talks that they were like two weeks away
Speaker 1: from a nuke, but there was nothing saying anything like that.
Speaker 1: But whatever, All right, let's move on. Let's move on
Speaker 1: from that that bit. Unsurprisingly, we got reports that that
Speaker 1: Wick Cough undermined the Iran talk. Surprise, surprise, he's not.
Speaker 1: He's not. It's not the big the big good the
Speaker 1: big nice guy like everyone thinks, you know, I mean
Speaker 1: he think he might be a little bit of a
Speaker 1: piece of shit. This is from n MS. Now. President
Speaker 1: Trump's envoy in the least wit Cough said Monday on
Speaker 1: Fox News, Iran negotiators bragg to him that Iran had
Speaker 1: enough enriched uranium to make nearly a dozen nuclear bombs.
Speaker 1: You can out fits a key piece of the administrations
Speaker 1: evolving rationale for joining with Israel to preemptively strike Iran.
Speaker 1: Trump himself has said he believes the iranium regime. Iranian
Speaker 1: regime was close to having nuclear weapons as well as
Speaker 1: missiles capable of fall of carrying them to the United States.
Speaker 1: In that first meeting, both the Iranian negotiators said to
Speaker 1: us directly, with no shame, that they controlled four hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty kilograms of sixty percent with kaff said in
Speaker 1: the Fox interview, referring to the ranium's level of enrichment,
Speaker 1: and they're aware that that could make eleven nuclear bombs.
Speaker 1: And that was the beginning of their negotiating stants which
Speaker 1: pay attention to weasel words, especially when we're talking about
Speaker 1: these jays here, it's ever so important. So when he's saying, Oh,
Speaker 1: they bragged him about, you know, the enriched uranium, Like
Speaker 1: even that right there from the jump is kind of
Speaker 1: a framing thing. Then it becomes a little more specific. Oh, well,
Speaker 1: they said to us directly they have foreign sixty kilos
Speaker 1: of sixty percent, which is already a little bit different
Speaker 1: than the way the MS now is framing it here.
Speaker 1: And then also that they are aware they could make
Speaker 1: that that could make eleven nuclear bombs. Now, what does
Speaker 1: that even mean? I don't know what that necessarily means.
Speaker 1: Does this mean that they told them, hey, we are
Speaker 1: aware that could make eleven bombs. Here is four hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty kilograms of our sixty percent enriched uranium, and
Speaker 1: that could make eleven nuclears. I don't I have a
Speaker 1: hard time believing that they literally spelled that out to him.
Speaker 1: I feel like that may just be something that maybe
Speaker 1: a little bit of a language trick we're seeing here,
Speaker 1: perhaps from Wiccough, or perhaps even just a flat out lie.
Speaker 1: Wickcoff said they were proud of it. He said they
Speaker 1: were proud that they had evaded all sorts of oversight
Speaker 1: protocols to get to a place where they could deliver
Speaker 1: eleven nuclear bombs. Whoever. Persian Gulf diplomat with direct knowledge
Speaker 1: of the talks told ms now that witcough description of
Speaker 1: the conversation was false. The Iranians told Wickcough that Iran
Speaker 1: was willing to give up the enriched uranium as part
Speaker 1: of a new agreement with According to the Persian Gulf diplomat,
Speaker 1: who spoke on condition of anonymity, the Iranians also told
Speaker 1: Witkkaugh that Iran enriched the uranium after Trump pulled out
Speaker 1: of a twenty seventeen nuclear agreement broker by the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: so they had no reason not to. They had already
Speaker 1: been in a deal, a deal that Trump blew up.
Speaker 1: I can categorically state this is inaccurate, said the diplomat,
Speaker 1: referring to Wikoff's account. He was explaining that all this
Speaker 1: material can all go away should we have a deal
Speaker 1: in Iran can be relieved from sanctions. By the way,
Speaker 1: I've seen multiple reports where you know, the inside scoop
Speaker 1: seems like they were actually going back kind of reconvening
Speaker 1: and meeting after having a great essentially having just made
Speaker 1: a great offer and seemingly like they were making a deal.
Speaker 1: So just like last time, they like, oh wow, things
Speaker 1: are looking really good. Let's go back to our people,
Speaker 1: all congregreat in one spot and have a little meeting
Speaker 1: about this great deal that we're working on right now,
Speaker 1: and we have this glimmer of hope of how it's
Speaker 1: going to work on boom bombs. So yeah, but this,
Speaker 1: this does seem to match up with the other reports
Speaker 1: that you know, there was like they were actually you know,
Speaker 1: they had just given up a bunch. So this kind
Speaker 1: of seems to fly in the face of what wick
Speaker 1: Coffee is saying here. Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson,
Speaker 1: dismissed the claims. Only ms DNC would allow themselves to
Speaker 1: be used and abused by the evil or Iranian regime
Speaker 1: to push false anti American propaganda in order to attack
Speaker 1: President Trump. The President's special envoy Wickoff have always worked
Speaker 1: in good faith to order in order to eliminate threats
Speaker 1: pose to our homeland. Fortunately, Iran refused to participate in
Speaker 1: serious negotiations with the US, so the President took courageous
Speaker 1: action destroy their ability to have a nuclear weapon launch
Speaker 1: or produce ballistic missiles or armed terrorist proxies. The starkly
Speaker 1: different counts of how the negotiations of unfold appear to
Speaker 1: reflect long running tensions and mistrust between Wickcoff and Iranian officials.
Speaker 1: Public airing of the dispute could also complicate efforts to
Speaker 1: negotiate a ceasefire between the US and Iran and the
Speaker 1: conflict that has now spread to a dozen countries. He's
Speaker 1: in the Middle East. In a call with the reporters Tuesday,
Speaker 1: senior Trump administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said
Speaker 1: the Iranians never offered to significantly uh significantly compromised. Okay,
Speaker 1: so now we have these you know, supposed you know, sources,
Speaker 1: say from the Trump administation administration. So now they're saying
Speaker 1: they never offered to significantly compromise. Now, uh, you know, obviously,
Speaker 1: once again, I think there's some weasel words, and when
Speaker 1: they say significantly compromised, they probably mean, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: in regard to like actual specific red line, because you
Speaker 1: gotta remember, for the US came to this negotiation with
Speaker 1: some crazy red lines like zero enrichment like is none,
Speaker 1: like zilch nada, like nothing, which is like I think
Speaker 1: like they were essentially like no medit like nothing, which
Speaker 1: I'm I'm no, you know, nuclear scientists, I don't know
Speaker 1: all the different uses, and so I know there are
Speaker 1: legitimate uses, and even then just from a sovereignty perspective,
Speaker 1: they're like kick rocks the fact that we'd have no
Speaker 1: one and like there might be some other things. And
Speaker 1: they were also saying no ballistic missiles, and there was
Speaker 1: like a third one. I think that was like a
Speaker 1: retarded red line that I can't think of right now.
Speaker 1: But so the point being is like they they were
Speaker 1: coming with the US was coming with unreasonable requests. I
Speaker 1: think what I had heard is something along the lines
Speaker 1: of like they had some sort of third option that
Speaker 1: they had proposed or something to do with the enriched
Speaker 1: uranium to where like some other country would have it,
Speaker 1: they would have whatever. So yes, they would technically you
Speaker 1: could maybe look at it from the perspective if they
Speaker 1: didn't significantly compromise from the context of like they didn't
Speaker 1: even really, you know, actually meet any of our conditions.
Speaker 1: If that's the way you want to frame it, perhaps
Speaker 1: there's some truth there, But keep bear in mind the
Speaker 1: US came with retarded reason, retarded requests. A second person
Speaker 1: knowledge that talks confirmed that Iranian officials decline to discuss
Speaker 1: their country's ballistic missiles and it's funding a proxy Oh yeah.
Speaker 1: The other the third one was a proxy group's ones
Speaker 1: was essentially that they were supposed to like cut off
Speaker 1: all whatever with all that, which is just retarded. Like
Speaker 1: could you imagine any country making a demand of us
Speaker 1: of being like, yeah, you can't you need to cut
Speaker 1: off all ties with all of your allies or whatever.
Speaker 1: Like no, like I didn't what it did say in requests,
Speaker 1: so so like it was certain proxy groups or something
Speaker 1: like has blah and stuff like that, which these are
Speaker 1: ones that like, yeah, they're spooky to people over in
Speaker 1: the United States, oh my god, terrorist organization, but a
Speaker 1: lot of them are just like funny enough organizations that
Speaker 1: actually sprouted up in response to needing a defense to
Speaker 1: DESIGONUS regime. Not obviously not saying everything's great and hunky
Speaker 1: dory about these different groups, but these are a lot
Speaker 1: of these times militant groups that rise up in resistance
Speaker 1: to Israel all of the place. So yeah, unreasonable requests.
Speaker 1: So it's just like I said, like I thought there
Speaker 1: the second the second paragraph kind of backed up what
Speaker 1: I was getting at there. Uh oh yeah, they declined
Speaker 1: discuss ballistic missiles or fun because yeah, that's retarded. They
Speaker 1: were never going to go for that. So this is
Speaker 1: their way that they were able to frame this says, Oh,
Speaker 1: they weren't willing to significantly compromise any meaningful way. But
Speaker 1: that's because if you're coming at it from the framing
Speaker 1: of here are redline issues and they didn't even meet
Speaker 1: any of ours. Yeah, but those were all ridiculous to
Speaker 1: begin with. First round of talks, held on February sixth
Speaker 1: and Muscat omam was primarily conducted indirectly. According to the
Speaker 1: Persian golf diplomat, Omani into mediories held separate meetings with
Speaker 1: the Iranian foreign mister Abbas Araghi and then Wikoff and Kushner.
Speaker 1: The Amani's later brought Wikoff, Kushner, and arag Shei together
Speaker 1: in person at the end of the day, and they
Speaker 1: briefly exchanged pleasantries. The Iranian US delegations met for approximately
Speaker 1: four to five minutes together. The Persian golf diplomat said
Speaker 1: the subject matter that mister Wikoff referred to absolutely did
Speaker 1: not come up during that briefing meeting between the two delegations.
Speaker 1: The Persian golf diplomat added that arag She said he
Speaker 1: was preparing to stay in oma On and continue talking
Speaker 1: with wick Coff and Kushiner for as long as it took,
Speaker 1: even if it's one to two weeks, but Wickcoff and
Speaker 1: Kushner said they need to leave the following day to
Speaker 1: visit the US aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln. The episode highlights
Speaker 1: the central challenge of efforts war through negotiation. All right, whatever, now,
Speaker 1: now it's dragging on you guys, get the idea. Looks
Speaker 1: like wick Coough, I mean, obviously we have conflicting reports
Speaker 1: all over the way, but this does seem like a
Speaker 1: lot of weasel talk to me. It sounds to me like, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's exactly what we think it is. Wick Cooff's a
Speaker 1: fucking liar. Maybe there's some sort of grain to truth
Speaker 1: to this or whatever, but it's kind of factual, not
Speaker 1: truthful at best. Yeah, they blew up the talks and
Speaker 1: they're trying to they're trying to reframe it.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: Apparently Senate's Senate fucked up big time when it came
Speaker 1: to the Iran war bill that they were pushing there,
Speaker 1: So that's not happened. The Sun and Wednesday voted against
Speaker 1: advancing a war powers resolution aimed at halting further US
Speaker 1: military action against Iran without authorization from Congress amid the
Speaker 1: major US Israelly bombing campaign in the country. So that's awesome.
Speaker 1: So that's dead in the water. It looks like I
Speaker 1: think there's a I think there's like another way for
Speaker 1: it to go through. So yeah, right here, the House
Speaker 1: debate its own war powers resolution on Monday, but a
Speaker 1: vote isn't expected until Monday. Says under a constitution, the
Speaker 1: power to initiate war rest solely with Congress. Massy, a
Speaker 1: co sponsor with the bill sen X Congress owes our
Speaker 1: service members it clearly defined missions, so then when they
Speaker 1: accomplish it, they can come home. The House bill may
Speaker 1: have a better chance of passing since other Republicans have
Speaker 1: signaled they will join Massy in dissenting against Trump on
Speaker 1: the war So I mean it might get through on
Speaker 1: the House side. But then even then, I think it
Speaker 1: still needs to go back to the Senate. From my
Speaker 1: recollection of the how the bureaucracy works, so I mean
Speaker 1: it's already it was died in the Senate. I guess
Speaker 1: let's look over what the votes were like, So it
Speaker 1: was forty seven to fifty three, So I don't know.
Speaker 1: Maybe if it has like a successful push through the House,
Speaker 1: he could come back to the Senate with a little
Speaker 1: bit more oomph to it, But that's a that seems
Speaker 1: a significant amount. Paul was the only Yeah Ran. Paul
Speaker 1: was the only Republican to support it, uh And then
Speaker 1: on the Republicans on the Democrat side, Fetterman was the
Speaker 1: only one to oppose it. So I guess it's pretty
Speaker 1: much already deadlocked. So I mean, they probably need a
Speaker 1: good handful of Republicans to come over for this one
Speaker 1: for it to work. But I don't know. I'm not
Speaker 1: too hopeful, but we'll see. We got hag Seth bragging
Speaker 1: about death and destruction like he's about to bust a nut,
Speaker 1: going about how the US the military is gonna have
Speaker 1: a reigning death and destruction all all day, all the time.
Speaker 1: But he said, he said at a breast briefing, the
Speaker 1: US and Israel should soon have complete control of Iranian skies.
Speaker 1: The Iranian leaders will be looking up and seeing only
Speaker 1: US and Israeli airpower every minute of every day until
Speaker 1: we decide it's over in Iran will be able to
Speaker 1: do nothing about it. B two's B fifty two's b
Speaker 1: Wan's Predator drones, fighters controlling the skies, picking targets, death
Speaker 1: and destruction from the sky all day long. And this
Speaker 1: is after and this is as we crossed the rubicon
Speaker 1: of one thousand Iranian civilians that have been killed by
Speaker 1: the US and Israeli air strikes. He said that the
Speaker 1: war was not meant to be a fair fight, and
Speaker 1: that they've loosened the rules of engagement, so it seems
Speaker 1: like we're taking lots of notes from Israel. This is
Speaker 1: our war fighters have maximum authorities, granted personally by the
Speaker 1: President of yours. Truly, our rules of engagement are bold, precise,
Speaker 1: and designed to unleash American power, not shacklet This was
Speaker 1: never meant to be a fair fight, and it is
Speaker 1: not a fair fight. We are punching them while they're down,
Speaker 1: which is exactly how it should be. He said. In
Speaker 1: the attack in Iran, which he's dubbed Operation of Epic Fury,
Speaker 1: the US military has delivered twice the air power of
Speaker 1: shock in Iran. In two thousand and three, Yay, referring
Speaker 1: to the massive bombing campaign that opened the US invasion
Speaker 1: of Iraq Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, General
Speaker 1: Dan Kain said of the conference, the US has hit
Speaker 1: over two thousand targets in aside Iran so far. Hr NA,
Speaker 1: a US based in US funded NGO. That's very critical.
Speaker 1: The Iran government said on Tuesday night that at least
Speaker 1: one thousand and ninety seven civilians have been killed and
Speaker 1: more than five thousand wounded, so that seems to be
Speaker 1: around one thousands seems to be the consensus from a
Speaker 1: few different ones now. Hexseeth also responded to someone in
Speaker 1: power finally responded to the school it's a school airstrike,
Speaker 1: which is particularly ungodly evil. I believe it was up
Speaker 1: to around one point fifty by the way. I guess
Speaker 1: there were also boys in that too, but I think
Speaker 1: it was primary. It seems like with primarily maybe on
Speaker 1: like a girl's side of the thing too, because I
Speaker 1: guess I think it was like a girl and boys school,
Speaker 1: but it was I think it was. It seems like
Speaker 1: there was like different sides or something, because that's why,
Speaker 1: like we keep it. Initially it was all girls and
Speaker 1: then after a while was like, oh, yeah, there are
Speaker 1: also some boys in this too, but yes, little kids
Speaker 1: around like seven to twelve years old, some teachers, some
Speaker 1: parents too. I think it was around the time people
Speaker 1: were dropping off kids. So just utterly horrendous. But Peter
Speaker 1: Heggsath got asked about it and here's what he had
Speaker 1: to say.
Speaker 13: Tie right there, you've got a tie.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, thank you.
Speaker 14: Com back to the BBC. Can you give us an
Speaker 14: update on what the administration knows? What you know now
Speaker 14: about the reported strike on a girls' school in southern
Speaker 14: Iran on Saturday.
Speaker 13: All I know, all I can say is that we're
Speaker 13: investigating that. We of course never target civilian targets, but
Speaker 13: we're taking a look at investigating that red time front.
Speaker 14: Just on the basis that with the information you would
Speaker 14: have your reconnaissance abilities, ability to gather information. I mean
Speaker 14: it's several days on now. So is there any clarity
Speaker 14: on whose munition this was.
Speaker 6: We're investigating it, thank you.
Speaker 1: So he's claiming we would never do that. Actually, let's
Speaker 1: back up with exactly what he said, because I wonder
Speaker 1: if it's like intentionally a target. Let's see try you
Speaker 1: gotta watch for those weasel words.
Speaker 14: On a girls' school in southern Iran on Saturday.
Speaker 13: All I know all I can say is that we're
Speaker 13: investigating that. We of course never target civilian targets.
Speaker 1: Never target there you go, we never target civilian targets.
Speaker 1: So it's going to be an oopsie's So that was
Speaker 1: not a denial. That was not a denial that it
Speaker 1: was in the US. A lot of people have taken
Speaker 1: that to me, and it was Israel. It could have been.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm completely apt to buy that. I don't definitely
Speaker 1: do not get me wrong there, definitely would not would
Speaker 1: not put it past them. Sorry, let's uh sorry, I
Speaker 1: zoned out there. It had a brain fart. I forgot
Speaker 1: was even trying to say, yes, is Israel, whether it
Speaker 1: was Israel or whether the U US.
Speaker 12: Uh.
Speaker 1: Now, I will say apparently he was saying this stuff
Speaker 1: that they're like during his uh, during his little his
Speaker 1: little things. So there was some journalists who pointed out
Speaker 1: he had a little thing in the background during some
Speaker 1: of his presentation kind of showing you the pattern of destruction.
Speaker 1: Here you can see the little little you know, diamonds
Speaker 1: and the kind of red it seems to be where
Speaker 1: there were attacks. Well, that little green dot is where
Speaker 1: the school was, so seems like it could be it
Speaker 1: seems seems like it points towards US. Now there are
Speaker 1: I have heard also there's been intel on the U.
Speaker 1: There's been reporting I don't know. I guess I shouldn't
Speaker 1: say intel. There's been reporting on the Israeli side of
Speaker 1: things that they're thinking it's US. Uh. So it looks
Speaker 1: like and it seems like semi official uh you know, channels,
Speaker 1: So it looks like they're kind of you know, it
Speaker 1: seems to be you know, Masaudi Poo's probably trying to
Speaker 1: blame us, and that very well might be true. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I think we I think we talked about
Speaker 1: this yesterday though that apparently, like I guess, it used
Speaker 1: to be like a part of a base or something,
Speaker 1: so this could have been like an old INTEL thing.
Speaker 1: It's not currently So that's obviously doesn't make it better.
Speaker 1: You still killed almost a couple hundred children. That's still evil,
Speaker 1: And with all this going on, apparently, you know, expect
Speaker 1: to that civilian death row ault rise significantly. Apparently they're
Speaker 1: just now talking about taking the gloves off. So I mean,
Speaker 1: you never know, though, if it's just bluster with them,
Speaker 1: they could be full of shit. But here's what they
Speaker 1: said more bombers. Fight fighters are arriving just today and
Speaker 1: now with complete control of the skies, we will be
Speaker 1: using five hundred pound, one thousand pound and two thousand
Speaker 1: pounds GPS and laser guided precision gravity bombs, which we
Speaker 1: have a nearly unlimited stockpile, which we'll be talking about
Speaker 1: that stockpile in a little bit. And whether it's really
Speaker 1: all that unlimited, here's one point that makes us thick.
Speaker 1: Maybe it isn't. Pentagon tells Congress it won't be able
Speaker 1: to intercept all Iranian sha head drones and maybe not
Speaker 1: even necessarily unlimited, just may not be. We're in a
Speaker 1: we're in a new generation of warfare and a setup
Speaker 1: of our military. It may not be completely adapted to
Speaker 1: this curtain situation.
Speaker 12: UH.
Speaker 1: The senior Trump administration officials told members of Congress during
Speaker 1: a closed doorm meeting on Tuesday that Iran Shahad attack
Speaker 1: drones are a major threat to the US military and
Speaker 1: then all of that, not all of them, will be
Speaker 1: intercepted by US air defenses. CNN has reported. The report
Speaker 1: said that Secretary of War Pete Hegsath and Chairman of
Speaker 1: the Joint Staff Joint chiefs of Staff General Dan Kane
Speaker 1: acknowledged Iranian drones are more difficult to deal with than
Speaker 1: expect than anticipated. Senator christ Murphy said after the briefing
Speaker 1: that he was told more American troops will die. They
Speaker 1: told us in that room, there are more Americans that
Speaker 1: are going to die, that they are not going to
Speaker 1: be able to stop these Iranian drones that are going
Speaker 1: to continue to fly into the Middle East. Since the
Speaker 1: US and Israel launched the war against Iran on Saturday,
Speaker 1: Saint Com has confirmed the deaths of six American soldiers
Speaker 1: who were killed by an Iranian drone that hit a
Speaker 1: makeshift operations center in Kuwait. So this was a drone
Speaker 1: that tid them in, so this is a significant concern.
Speaker 1: According to media reports, they had no notice or warning
Speaker 1: to evacuate before the drones struck. The CNN report said
Speaker 1: that the shah Head drones are difficult to intercept because
Speaker 1: they fly low and slow, making them better able to
Speaker 1: evade air defenses than ballistic missiles. The US has deployed
Speaker 1: its own version of Iran Shahead one three six drone
Speaker 1: in the Middle East and has been using them in
Speaker 1: the attacks on Iran. But we'll see how that works out.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's also a little bit freaky if you
Speaker 1: think about the applications of something like that internationally, what
Speaker 1: it feels like that would be something easier to penetrate,
Speaker 1: you know, defenses, like if they were trying to do
Speaker 1: I don't know, do long range attacks me. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know enough on the tech
Speaker 1: side of things the drones could do such, but I
Speaker 1: don't know. It seems seems like it could be a
Speaker 1: concert I know, especially if you for those have been
Speaker 1: paying attention to the minutia of the Ukraine Russia War.
Speaker 1: There's some terrifying shit there. They had like hordes of
Speaker 1: drones going on different major Russian and Ukrainian cities. I
Speaker 1: don't know. That could very well be our future. And
Speaker 1: the White House is expected to ask Congress for an
Speaker 1: extra fifty billion dollars for the Iran or At the
Speaker 1: same time, they've also we've already spent two billion dollars
Speaker 1: worth of military equipment in the first two day, first
Speaker 1: four days. Now that's only including that's not even including
Speaker 1: the costs to operate there. That's just like the stuff
Speaker 1: they've used up. That is the that is what they
Speaker 1: have consumed that that's their consumption of munitions and stuff
Speaker 1: in the time or things that have been destroyed. So
Speaker 1: this is so losses include satcom terminals, F fifteen Strike
Speaker 1: Eagles and radar equipment. Actually, I think that sounds like
Speaker 1: they're actually just talking about destroyed shit, So I thought
Speaker 1: they were just talking about maybe like a used munitions.
Speaker 1: So the US has lost nearly two billion dollars worth
Speaker 1: of military equipment and its military operations against Iran since Saturday.
Speaker 1: The chief driver of the cost is at US an
Speaker 1: FPS one three two early warning radar system at Ayud'd
Speaker 1: Air Base and guitar. Holy shit, yep, that's the base
Speaker 1: I stayed at. So I took one of those guys
Speaker 1: out there, valued at one point one billion dollars like
Speaker 1: one hit which is hit with a missile strike by Iran.
Speaker 1: On Saturday, Qatar confirmed that the radar was hit and
Speaker 1: damage and that was and that's the base that I
Speaker 1: was deployed to. So that's a I am so glad
Speaker 1: to not be in the military. On Sunday three F
Speaker 1: fifteen Strike Eagles as well, we talked about that that
Speaker 1: that came out to two hundred and eighty two million
Speaker 1: and then just kind of odds and ends, we had
Speaker 1: Satcom terminal, So yeah, that's a that's pretty crazy though.
Speaker 1: Irene also claimed to destroyed a FAD missile system and
Speaker 1: the Emirates, so I'd expect more. I mean, hell, like
Speaker 1: I said, I can't I can't even imagine how much
Speaker 1: we were actually really spend, if you were really to
Speaker 1: break it down, probably a ridiculous amount. That's why they're
Speaker 1: asking for fifty bill more. So, uh, not looking good?
Speaker 1: Not looking good? All right, let's roll the chat, say
Speaker 1: some more good mornings, and then we'll get into our
Speaker 1: first topic of the day, the technocratic Iranian distraction. Good morning,
Speaker 1: bug fights g L Jake, he gets it. Good morning
Speaker 1: to use as a feeling based on fact is some
Speaker 1: more Williams speak slop exactly and like what does that mean?
Speaker 1: Good morning? Hey? Say what now? Good morning? Good morning?
Speaker 1: Good morning, JC, good morning, Chimis Bailey there says hit
Speaker 1: the like for like buttons, Yes, alms for the poor,
Speaker 1: some some money for the kitty, for the kitty food.
Speaker 1: Do you want them to starve people? Give me money?
Speaker 1: Good morning alien big cats as American is crazy, then
Speaker 1: forget Nagastaki and Hiroshima. I don't know what you were
Speaker 1: getting at there. Gotta says, just like flatting the curb
Speaker 1: and says it's two weeks to wipe Iran off the mat.
Speaker 1: Good morning, Elliott James says, all government is haerently evil.
Speaker 1: So true, King, so true. Someone's his sick use of
Speaker 1: gish gallop. It was the first that came to mind.
Speaker 1: It's just a it's a it's what I do. I
Speaker 1: just I was just scurrying searching for a word, and
Speaker 1: just in some dark corner, that's what came in, gish gallop.
Speaker 1: There we go, Good morning, gressively agreeing, so the Iranians
Speaker 1: won't sumit to their deaths. This is our red line exactly.
Speaker 1: Good morning, real, John Do, says Shalom Goy. Elliott says,
Speaker 1: one thing I understand about war is people stay in
Speaker 1: major metropolitan areas or targets first. They can't just leave
Speaker 1: the country. It's not like you're helping fight. You're just
Speaker 1: happened to be living, uh there, and they won't let
Speaker 1: you leave. Wait, they won't let you leave way, not
Speaker 1: leave to an unpopular area like this Iranian guy Jimmy
Speaker 1: Dore was interviewing, was like, I might get blown up tonight.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know. I mean, it's hard to
Speaker 1: say over here all the different reasons. I get what
Speaker 1: you're saying, Like, yeah, obviously, if there was a if
Speaker 1: I was living in a populated area and you know,
Speaker 1: things were too you know, and bombs started being dropped,
Speaker 1: I'd be getting me and my family asat. But I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know who the guy you're talking about on
Speaker 1: Jimmy Dore Show is. But I mean you said a
Speaker 1: guy some I'm assuming movies is a single dude. I mean,
Speaker 1: if I was a single guy, maybe I would stick
Speaker 1: around just to kind of be like to document. I
Speaker 1: don't know, for whatever reason, just because I just don't
Speaker 1: give a shit because you're just a single Oh no,
Speaker 1: what's gonna happen a single dude who's blown up? No
Speaker 1: one cares, No one get a ship, Like there's nothing.
Speaker 1: If I don't have a wife, I have kids who cares.
Speaker 1: But uh yeah, if you have a family, it is
Speaker 1: it is weird. What are you doing? Sticker? But I
Speaker 1: don't even then there's there's reasons, you know, some sometimes
Speaker 1: just doesn't doesn't work out. They're able to get out
Speaker 1: in time, or I don't know, there's a million different reasons,
Speaker 1: but yeah, generally speaking, I agree. Yeah, like alien says
Speaker 1: big quick answer, comfort electricity. Yeah, there you go. So
Speaker 1: a lot of people just may not have places to
Speaker 1: go because a lot of times these are war torn areas.
Speaker 1: So it's not like these are just like I'll just
Speaker 1: go up to my uncle's out in the country and
Speaker 1: we'll have a night, we'll have a nice weekend. You know,
Speaker 1: some of these people just may not literally have anywhere
Speaker 1: to go. Good morning, Tony Chan says, I love Israel
Speaker 1: with all my heart. Well, no seven thousand dollars for you.
Speaker 1: All right, let's get into let's get into our first
Speaker 1: topic of the day, the technocratic Iranian distraction to kind
Speaker 1: of start I feel like this is a good, good
Speaker 1: thing to start off with. Now this is a little
Speaker 1: bit of an old news sort of, but it's become
Speaker 1: relevant again. I almost played this in Our and Our
Speaker 1: you know, our Icebreaker contents part of the show because
Speaker 1: it just kind of fit more in this. But this
Speaker 1: this has come back up again. Glenn Beck. I don't
Speaker 1: know if I ever covered this in this show, but
Speaker 1: Glenn Beck a while back did this like AI thing
Speaker 1: where he got a modern version of George Washington and
Speaker 1: had a conversation with him for a podcast, and I
Speaker 1: didn't realize at the time. I didn't really think of it,
Speaker 1: but I guess one of the questions he asked him
Speaker 1: was something to do with Iran. I forget how this
Speaker 1: was answered. So I don't know who knows which way
Speaker 1: this will go. I have a strong feeling I know
Speaker 1: which way this will go, considering it's Glenn Beck spreading
Speaker 1: this out there. But yeah, let's let's watch. Let's watch
Speaker 1: a few minutes of of Glenn Beck interviewing an AI
Speaker 1: George Washington and specifically kind of on his thoughts on
Speaker 1: foreign entanglements. And I think this was kind of around
Speaker 1: this is back in was this this was I'm forgetting
Speaker 1: for some reason, I thought I knew when it was
Speaker 1: and I realized it didn't. This was like this is
Speaker 1: apt after the Twelve Day War stuff too, So I
Speaker 1: think the context at this time, so this was probably
Speaker 1: maybe back around juneish. Maybe maybe I don't know, I'm forgetting,
Speaker 1: but either way, this is the context here and why
Speaker 1: I ran I think may come up is that stuff,
Speaker 1: So it's not new. A lot do I think have thought,
Speaker 1: this is new and in referring to the recent batch
Speaker 1: of stuff going on, but no times of flat circle.
Speaker 1: It's all cyclical. So this is just the same old
Speaker 1: stuff coming back up again. So let's watch this and
Speaker 1: slide into our technocratic he hole.
Speaker 15: George. We are trying to not fight foreign wars and
Speaker 15: not be involved in the world's policeman. But there are
Speaker 15: times that we have to demonstrate strength in order to
Speaker 15: prevent conflict. But I don't know where the foreign entanglement
Speaker 15: begins and where it ends.
Speaker 12: When I was president, I did not crave power. I
Speaker 12: didn't struve in my uniform dreaming of conquest. In fact,
Speaker 12: I begged several times to not be the general and
Speaker 12: not be the president. I didn't want it, but I
Speaker 12: understood my responsibility, and I also understood that some things
Speaker 12: that are easy to forget when you're staring down Bayonets.
Speaker 12: Peace is not the default. It has to be guarded deliberately,
Speaker 12: with foresight and strength. My generation lived through a fragile independence.
Speaker 12: Our new Republic was surrounded literally and figuratively by instability.
Speaker 12: Most of the founders believed that we would not survive
Speaker 12: to eighteen twenty. We thought it was an interesting experiment.
Speaker 12: European powers were sniffing the opportunities. States were threatening to splinter.
Speaker 12: Loyalists were lurking. None of this was hypothetical. It was
Speaker 12: the daily background noise of early America.
Speaker 15: How did you protect that freedom?
Speaker 12: Well, you said it through strength. Weakness didn't just invite disagreement,
Speaker 12: It invited disunion. And I had already seen what happens
Speaker 12: to authority when it is to dilute it. The Continental
Speaker 12: Congress couldn't pay the troops. They couldn't enforce unity or
Speaker 12: act decisively. That kind of vacuum doesn't stay empty. Either
Speaker 12: chaos fills it or another power does. And that's why
Speaker 12: I often emphasized the importance of demonstrating readiness, not because
Speaker 12: I wanted conflict, but to discourage those who did. I
Speaker 12: said once, to prepare for war is one of the
Speaker 12: most effective means of preserving peace. That's not saber rattling.
Speaker 12: That's different. Its insurance. Think of it like that a
Speaker 12: homeowner who never locks their door is isn't more peaceful,
Speaker 12: They're just more vulnerable. By showing potential adversaries that the
Speaker 12: United States could stand united, respond quickly, and protect its liberties,
Speaker 12: that it understands. I believed conflict could be prevented before
Speaker 12: it exploded. And this wasn't abstract during the revolution. Even
Speaker 12: some Virginian leaders wanted to.
Speaker 1: I got a comment, But the whole vibe about all
Speaker 1: of this is just the absolute fucking worst. But whatever,
Speaker 1: let's go on.
Speaker 12: Keep pursuing negotiations with Britain. But I came to recognize
Speaker 12: long before it became popular, that some risks had to
Speaker 12: be met with resolve, not appeasement. And there is a
Speaker 12: world of difference between aggression and deterrence. I knew the line,
Speaker 12: I walked it, and I tried to draw a system
Speaker 12: that could do the same.
Speaker 1: Okay, well that sounds I don't know. I mean, you
Speaker 1: didn't really reference I ran directly. I think a lot
Speaker 1: of people have been kind of stretching this to mean
Speaker 1: that the kind of that's what he's driving out a
Speaker 1: little bit at the time. But Glenn Beck himself, actually
Speaker 1: I didn't even I didn't even realize this is actually
Speaker 1: shared from him, he says. Would the the Founding Fathers
Speaker 1: approve of Trump's war and Iran? I won't pretend to
Speaker 1: speak for them. But in January I sat down with
Speaker 1: George says right there, January, I'm retarded. So it was
Speaker 1: back in January he sat down with George AI and
Speaker 1: asked for its views on foreign entanglements and military action.
Speaker 1: Here's what it said. So I thought maybe he'd asked
Speaker 1: it a little bit more directly about Iran, since he
Speaker 1: tweeted about it here. He didn't, I mean, even by
Speaker 1: his slop AI answer, though, I'd say that technically doesn't
Speaker 1: actually apply even in this situation because he's talking about
Speaker 1: it's kind of the idea sounds like what he's kind
Speaker 1: of driving at with with you, George Washington. Like the
Speaker 1: the theme is like you know, talk softly and carry
Speaker 1: a big stick type deal, or just the idea that like,
Speaker 1: you know, be ready. You know, this is something they
Speaker 1: talked about the military a lot, readiness, you know, everyone
Speaker 1: being prepared regardless. So like the idea of like having
Speaker 1: you know, you know, being pre being essentially having a military.
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously I don't necessarily agree with like essentially
Speaker 1: all that he's driving at, but the idea would be,
Speaker 1: like to have a strong military. It's like this kind
Speaker 1: of like Boomer contake of like, well we just need
Speaker 1: to have a strong military. We shouldn't be using it.
Speaker 1: We shouldn't be starting up, stirring up chef. But we
Speaker 1: we need to be like no one can fuck with
Speaker 1: us type deal, like leave us and leave us, so
Speaker 1: no one would dare to fuck with you. And if
Speaker 1: they do, like there's a line, you know, and that
Speaker 1: line is literally the you know, the country itself. If
Speaker 1: you have like some sort of aggressions occurring or something whatever.
Speaker 1: If if it's something that any person could do and
Speaker 1: the state could do it is I'm anarchist. But at
Speaker 1: the same time, if it's like if there's a bunch
Speaker 1: if there's a bunch of murderers occurring over and over
Speaker 1: some area and the state, a group of state actors
Speaker 1: goes in and somehow, you know, in a just fashion,
Speaker 1: puts a stop to that, then cool. It's just as
Speaker 1: cool as if a band of men motivated by you know,
Speaker 1: a sense of justice when it did that. That's no different,
Speaker 1: you know. So the idea of the state is just
Speaker 1: the state tends not to do that sort of thing.
Speaker 1: So so yeah, I'm okay with the idea of strength,
Speaker 1: I guess. But as long as you're not they're picking
Speaker 1: on people. But it seems to be like, I don't,
Speaker 1: let's be real. He's kinda I know, he's kind of
Speaker 1: he's kind of blurring concepts. I think a little bit.
Speaker 1: Here's kind of this idea of like there at the
Speaker 1: end he kind of was gleaning a little bit into it.
Speaker 1: What was getting at with the some of the language
Speaker 1: he was using kind of almost like a strong diplomacy.
Speaker 1: I guess the idea here would be like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: like deterrence is like using that kind of military jargon,
Speaker 1: like you know, like you could you could even see
Speaker 1: like the Ford ou uh, you know, nuclear attacks those
Speaker 1: you could be seen as deterrence. So there was a
Speaker 1: little bit of blurring the language here. But at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, really the biggest thing to to
Speaker 1: I think to know here is just how ungodly awful
Speaker 1: and just being this is, Please God, don't ever dig
Speaker 1: this happen again. But this does kind of tie into
Speaker 1: I think, let's be real, this dystopian AI nonsense, to
Speaker 1: some other stuff that's going on. One of the other
Speaker 1: technocratic overlords seems to be making a big play here
Speaker 1: right now. I've had a few of you guys let
Speaker 1: me know about this. I hadn't been paying attention to
Speaker 1: this as much. Here's hustle a bit. She says, what
Speaker 1: the hell are they pushing through while everyone watches the war? Said,
Speaker 1: this woman dropped a theory that's sending people down the
Speaker 1: rabbit hole. She claims that while the world is glued
Speaker 1: to the war, something enormous is quietly moving the background.
Speaker 1: The largest media merger in American history, and when it closes,
Speaker 1: one family will control CNN, CBS, AHBO, Warner Brothers, and Paramount.
Speaker 1: According to her breakdown, the entire system behind it could
Speaker 1: run an oracle infrastructure, the same oracle that just landed
Speaker 1: federal contacts, tracks tied to Medicare and Medicaid data for
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty million Americans, and AI operations for
Speaker 1: the US Air Force. Then she connects the dots. So anyway,
Speaker 1: so I'll let her her explain this to you guys
Speaker 1: a little bit better. Uh, but yes, it looks like
Speaker 1: Ellison is taking this opportunity to make a make a
Speaker 1: big old push for control. Although I am I do
Speaker 1: like to bring up every time that you know, topic
Speaker 1: comes up, because this isn't the first time we've I mean,
Speaker 1: it isn't that this isn't the first thing, Ellison has
Speaker 1: gone himself mixed up in trying to buy up every
Speaker 1: little bit of the media atmosphere over here and just
Speaker 1: really just generally in the world, but particularly in the
Speaker 1: United States. You got CBS. We talk about that quite frequently.
Speaker 1: I forgot where the fuck I was going with that. Yeah, anyways, Uh,
Speaker 1: I've had a few guys point this out, and this
Speaker 1: is the first time we've we've brought it up. But
Speaker 1: I did not realize they were making such a big push.
Speaker 1: But I know I was gonna say, I do want
Speaker 1: to always, I do like to always you know, hazard
Speaker 1: caution and don't freak out. I actually think this is
Speaker 1: weirdly kind of beautiful and in a weird fucked up way.
Speaker 1: Although there's there's a don't know, there's a push and
Speaker 1: because I actually I've made a I have made notes,
Speaker 1: I've I've been a it's been a common topic that's
Speaker 1: come up on the show quite frequently later lately that
Speaker 1: it's weird. I've noticed in actually a lot of decent
Speaker 1: work coming out of the you know, the the establ
Speaker 1: what we used to consider the media establishment, which still
Speaker 1: kind of is, uh, and a lot of these like
Speaker 1: slop influencers have just gotten ungodly unbearable as of late,
Speaker 1: which it almost feels like on purpose with some of them,
Speaker 1: like that's almost the point and uh so anyways, but
Speaker 1: point being as like as they're seeming, there's like this
Speaker 1: feeling of nostalgia for the old media of having some
Speaker 1: semblance of standards and being actually you know, getting good
Speaker 1: interviews and YadA, YadA, YadA, you know, all the benefits
Speaker 1: that come from being the big dog around and actually
Speaker 1: not being surprisingly as dreadful from what I've noticed as
Speaker 1: of late, So I know there's a little bit of
Speaker 1: that dynamics. So that does that does make me concerned
Speaker 1: with this media takeover that they're almost like kind of
Speaker 1: being good and like that's how they're bringing us in.
Speaker 1: Uh so, and then maybe over time they'll kind of
Speaker 1: I don't know, but at the same time, I do
Speaker 1: do want a hazard, like with this the media is dying,
Speaker 1: so like while they're buying all this stuff up, like yes,
Speaker 1: I did just give that, there is this like I
Speaker 1: feel it in my bones a little bit, this like
Speaker 1: almost like of a nostalgia or even of like a
Speaker 1: noticing of like they're actually doing some decent work. These days.
Speaker 1: But even then, despite all that, that business model is dead,
Speaker 1: Like I just don't see how it sustains itself now,
Speaker 1: Like I can see there's like this fusionist thing, you know,
Speaker 1: where like the the berry Weisses have their like free
Speaker 1: press thing, and then you got like some of the
Speaker 1: Tuckers have some semi successful stuff. So like, yeah, maybe
Speaker 1: there's some restructuring the media establishment can do and they
Speaker 1: can come out, you know, on the other side of this.
Speaker 1: But either way, even then, with all this money Elson's dumping,
Speaker 1: it does kind of feel like a lot of it's
Speaker 1: just being thrown into the furnace. So uh, but either way,
Speaker 1: it's still freaky. I mean, there's still a lot of
Speaker 1: control for this guy to be taken over. So let's
Speaker 1: listen to this lady yap about this. It's a little
Speaker 1: bit the longer end. I hope you guys enjoy it.
Speaker 1: I just realized it didn't have it up here, we
Speaker 1: go got it up now.
Speaker 8: Trump just announced that this worthy round is going to
Speaker 8: last about four weeks, and that's a very specific amount
Speaker 8: of time. So I want to talk about what I
Speaker 8: think he's covering for this weekend. The largest media merger
Speaker 8: in American history closed. So now one family is about
Speaker 8: to control CNN, HBO, CBS, Warner Brothers, Paramount Pictures, all
Speaker 8: running on Oracle's infrastructure. And that same family also happens
Speaker 8: to own Oracle's infrastructure. And it just so happens that Oracle,
Speaker 8: within the last two weeks has won brand new contracts
Speaker 8: to host Medicare and Medicaid for over one hundred and
Speaker 8: fifty million Americans and to run air force operations using AI.
Speaker 5: That's right.
Speaker 8: Who needs separation between church and state when you can
Speaker 8: have AI run across.
Speaker 7: All of those contracts.
Speaker 8: Oh and see if you can find anything wrong with
Speaker 8: how this is being paid for, because Larry Elson is
Speaker 8: personally guaranteeing forty four point six million dollars of this
Speaker 8: six billion dollar merger by using his Oracle stocks as collateral.
Speaker 8: And that's the stock price depends on Oracle's federal contracts,
Speaker 8: you know, the ones that your tax dollars pay for.
Speaker 8: So the government pays Oracle, and then that revenue supports
Speaker 8: Oracle stock, and then Elson pledges that stock to finance
Speaker 8: his son's purchase of the largest media company in American history,
Speaker 8: and then Oracle becomes the infrastructure beneath that company. So
Speaker 8: Oracle becomes the infrastructure, the collateral, and the beneficiary on
Speaker 8: every side of the same transaction. So you mean to
Speaker 8: tell me that public money flows into Oracle and then
Speaker 8: the Ellison empile the other, and then in the merger filings,
Speaker 8: Oracle is listed as a neutral third party vendor. I'm sorry,
Speaker 8: is the neutrality in the room with us? Oh but
Speaker 8: don't worry, you say, because another couple of billion dollars
Speaker 8: of this merger is coming from Saudi Arabia and Qatar,
Speaker 8: the same governments were currently at war alongside in Iran. Right,
Speaker 8: So I spent this last weekend writing a brief that
Speaker 8: specifically calls on Congress to require a conflict of interest
Speaker 8: review before this merger closes, demand data firewall protections between
Speaker 8: Oracle's government contracts and the media infrastructure it's now holding,
Speaker 8: and to treat Oracle exactly as it is in this merger,
Speaker 8: not a third party vendor, but as the financial backbone
Speaker 8: of the entire transaction. The Warner brother shareholder vote is
Speaker 8: on March twentieth. Congress needs to see this policy brief
Speaker 8: before it happens, so please feel free to read the
Speaker 8: whole thing. It's on my substack, available for free the
Speaker 8: links of my bio. Just share it please. So just
Speaker 8: to be clear, I'm not saying that this entire war
Speaker 8: exists only because of all of this going on, Okay,
Speaker 8: But what I am saying is that four weeks is
Speaker 8: a very convenient amount of time to let a lot
Speaker 8: of things close. So I'll be watching for every government filing,
Speaker 8: every federal contract, every regulatory document related to this merger.
Speaker 8: And if anything moves while everyone's watching to Ron, you'll
Speaker 8: hear it here first. So follow along if any of
Speaker 8: this matters to you.
Speaker 9: I have spent time to the people who govern the
Speaker 9: state of Israel, and you know, I feel a deep
Speaker 9: emotional connection to the State of Israel and the Israeli people.
Speaker 9: You know, after Silicon Valley, there's an area it hurts.
Speaker 9: Celia has probably got more startups than any other place
Speaker 9: other than Silicon Valley.
Speaker 1: In northern California.
Speaker 9: So we've actually acquired a numbers of Israeli companies. We
Speaker 9: have two CEOs at Oracle Ones they miss Africats and
Speaker 9: she was born in Israel. So again we love the
Speaker 9: country of love, the country of Israel, and we'll do
Speaker 9: everything we can to support the country of Israel. Recently
Speaker 9: hear that many people with the size and gisbel especially
Speaker 9: after the Gaza operation.
Speaker 1: How do you feel someone just saying, well.
Speaker 9: Again, it's a difficult situation, isn't it. To conduct military
Speaker 9: operations around civilians is very is very difficult. And of
Speaker 9: course there were tragic tragedies.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 9: And the civilians were you know, were hurt. That's a
Speaker 9: terrible thing. But one thing we know for certain that
Speaker 9: the Israeli army did everything they could to minimize civilian casualties.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 9: And and in that regard, uh, they've done a much
Speaker 9: better job than a lot of other armies all over
Speaker 9: the world throughout history.
Speaker 1: That's one thing we know for certain. Huh, guys, here's
Speaker 1: something else we know for certain, completely unrelated, I'm sure
Speaker 1: here is a here's a document from the Epstein files
Speaker 1: showing an outgoing forty thousand dollars wire transfer in October
Speaker 1: twenty fifteen from Jeffrey Epstein to David Allison, CEO of
Speaker 1: Skydance Media, which now controls Paramount, CBS and Comedy Central
Speaker 1: and all the other horde of media apparatuses that we
Speaker 1: just let you know about but as you can see here,
Speaker 1: you see three thirty nine, nine ninety nine and ninety cents,
Speaker 1: which that kind of makes me wonder why that specific amount,
Speaker 1: But yes, ingoing outgoing wires checks and whatever report to
Speaker 1: David Ellison. So that's interesting. Makes me wonder if like
Speaker 1: forty thousand, since it does the three nine nine nine
Speaker 1: nine ninety it makes me wonder if like forty thousand
Speaker 1: is like some sort of specific amount that gets flagged
Speaker 1: on certain things or something but completely unrelated. I'm sure.
Speaker 1: All right, let's roll the chat to say some more
Speaker 1: good mornings, and then we'll get into our final segment
Speaker 1: of the day, hiding in plane. Epstein gonna be focusing
Speaker 1: in on a few of the different, few different things
Speaker 1: that I've kind of been hiding in plain sight with Epstein.
Speaker 1: Stuff missing, missing, most people's, most people's attention, and I'm
Speaker 1: just kind of hiding and plate insite. Good morning, Reese,
Speaker 1: good morning, good morning, Good morning to you. Who else
Speaker 1: we got? Where's Tony Chin? Says God? Bless you, Jose.
Speaker 1: Your work is appreciated. Thank you. I wish more people
Speaker 1: were like this man. You guys are quiet in the
Speaker 1: chat today. Yes, all right, let's move into let's just
Speaker 1: get right into it. Let's get right into the next segment.
Speaker 1: Let's get into let's get into Hiding in Plane Epstein.
Speaker 1: I guess to give you a little bit update on
Speaker 1: what's going on with the Epstein stuff, to kind of
Speaker 1: jump into it. I have seen some talks on subpoenaing uh,
Speaker 1: subpoenaing Howard Lutnick, which I think we talked about yesterday.
Speaker 1: I've seen Bunt Bondy now and then you know, kind
Speaker 1: of murmurs of Trump, which I don't even know if
Speaker 1: they can do Trump. I think he has like executive
Speaker 1: immunity or some shit, so I don't know if that
Speaker 1: would ever happen. But a little bit on that. But
Speaker 1: also we have coming from the DOJ. They're now claiming
Speaker 1: that forty seven thousand, six hundred and thirty five Epstein
Speaker 1: files were removed. This is according to the Independent. So
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's like them saying that these
Speaker 1: are the ones they're claiming are cool to be removed.
Speaker 1: But this is what they're this is what they're saying,
Speaker 1: this is what they're they're they're telling us they there,
Speaker 1: these are this is what we removed this is what
Speaker 1: they're openly this. Let's be real. I think my takeaway
Speaker 1: here is it's probably fucking made up number, just some
Speaker 1: made up number. They know that, just pulling a number
Speaker 1: out of their ass. That's probably like, oh, we we
Speaker 1: pulled those ones because those are ones that like were
Speaker 1: redacted for whatever reasons. But I don't believe for a
Speaker 1: that's the correct number. I don't see any reason to
Speaker 1: think that. But that's what the DJ is saying. Uh now,
Speaker 1: let's take a little bit of look on some of
Speaker 1: those some of most people have seemingly escaped scrutiny. One
Speaker 1: person is the brother of Jeffrey Epstein, Mark Epstein. There
Speaker 1: was a recent exchange between Mark and Piers Morgan that
Speaker 1: I thought I was particularly interesting. Not like damning, I
Speaker 1: don't think, but a weird look, that's for fucking sure.
Speaker 1: Let's watch this together. You'll see what I mean, and
Speaker 1: then we'll take a little bit of a look at all.
Speaker 7: Markey, pooh, what is life you like as the brother
Speaker 7: of Baha, the most notorious us May.
Speaker 16: Yeah, all my life was fine. I'm just getting a
Speaker 16: lot more calls from journalists and I ess for you know,
Speaker 16: these kind of interviews and I've told people only talk
Speaker 16: about Jeffrey's death because I found out when I answer
Speaker 16: questions about anything else in the files, whatever I say
Speaker 16: gets misconstrued to fit somebody's agenda. So I no longer
Speaker 16: answer questions about the things in the files which I really,
Speaker 16: to be honest, don't care about. I wasn't part of
Speaker 16: any of that. I'm not named in anything. And you know,
Speaker 16: and if anyone's in the files of something that's supposed
Speaker 16: to be getting into trouble for something, I have nothing
Speaker 16: to do with that, that's their problem, not mine. I
Speaker 16: don't want to be called about it, but I have
Speaker 16: my own life. But trust me, it would have been
Speaker 16: a lot easier for me if I thought Jeffrey committed suicide.
Speaker 16: I could have been, you know, warn my brother and
Speaker 16: went on with my life. But instead of.
Speaker 7: When you say, yeah, sure, but when you say you
Speaker 7: don't care about the files, I mean, I presume you
Speaker 7: mean because you're not directly accused of wrongdoing in them,
Speaker 7: which is completely correct, and you shouldn't have to justify
Speaker 7: something that doesn't involve you. However, your brother is obviously
Speaker 7: there's so much stuff in these files which exposes him
Speaker 7: as an appalling human being. My question for you would
Speaker 7: be how much of this is new to you? I mean,
Speaker 7: do you even recognize.
Speaker 16: Jeffrey and I? Jeffrey and I were not We didn't
Speaker 16: I didn't see him for seven years before he died,
Speaker 16: although we were always in communication with phones and emails,
Speaker 16: so I didn't know what he was up to. A
Speaker 16: lot of the stuff that's come out. It's surprising to me.
Speaker 16: I wasn't aware of a lot of this stuff. And
Speaker 16: I'm going to say with him, even though he's my brother,
Speaker 16: that was his problem, and now that he's dead, it's
Speaker 16: not his problem anymore. So again, unfortunately, I really don't
Speaker 16: care to be honest with you. I'm just concerned that
Speaker 16: my brother, whoever and whatever he was, was murdered. That's
Speaker 16: my concern.
Speaker 7: But you, but do you care about the victims I
Speaker 7: presume of your brother.
Speaker 16: These are the questions I don't get into.
Speaker 7: Have a good day, okay, Well, extraordinary not a difficult question.
Speaker 1: To answer, Okay. I mean, it's a very weird, we
Speaker 1: very weird angle mark EP scenes taken here somehow, and
Speaker 1: this has been from the little bit I see poken
Speaker 1: in here and there. This is kind of the tone
Speaker 1: that you always have with this guy. I mean, maybe
Speaker 1: not as a not as maybe uh not as blase here,
Speaker 1: uh you knows, as he is elsewhere, or maybe he's
Speaker 1: more a brazen here than he is elsewhere. But it's
Speaker 1: kind of typically his take. Really, his only focus is
Speaker 1: kind of always like my brother got murdered, which is
Speaker 1: kind of he does bring up a good point. It
Speaker 1: is weird that he really does insert himself here to
Speaker 1: make that point. That's always this thing he focuses and
Speaker 1: on my brother got murdered, My brother got murdered my
Speaker 1: which I don't know. I guess if you want to
Speaker 1: get too super conspiratorial, who knows. Maybe it's he does
Speaker 1: that to kind of run cover for uh you know,
Speaker 1: the fact that his brother's still alive or something. I
Speaker 1: don't know, but it does seem weird. He is just
Speaker 1: focused on it, but he's never focused on like the
Speaker 1: normal stuff that like other people kind of like, oh wow,
Speaker 1: that's awful, Like no, he doesn't even care. He's just like,
Speaker 1: I'm I am on a crusade that someone killed my brother,
Speaker 1: and you're like your brother was like the absolute word.
Speaker 1: It's like we're on that crusade too, but for very
Speaker 1: different reasons, because it's like when we find out who
Speaker 1: murdered him, we find out like the next level of
Speaker 1: whatever this thing is, that the the the layer above
Speaker 1: the Epstein, Whereas with Mark, he's just like, I want
Speaker 1: to find out who killed my brother, which I guess
Speaker 1: is sort of honorable but very weird. I mean, so yes,
Speaker 1: he doesn't give a shit about these bitches, which okay,
Speaker 1: I mean, but I don't know which it's weird. Looking
Speaker 1: back now, you're kind of like, why is Mark kind
Speaker 1: of somehow managed to escape escape being looked at. It's
Speaker 1: kind of, you know, flown under the radar. He's always
Speaker 1: kind of getting made out like oh, I really didn't
Speaker 1: have much to do with my brother at all, and like,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's just wild that he did that stuff.
Speaker 1: Yet somehow he kind of has this like you know,
Speaker 1: other business ye stuff going on, super successful. I mean,
Speaker 1: we're supposed to believe this, like Rags to riches story
Speaker 1: with Jeffrey Epstein, you know, like he's some genius and
Speaker 1: he's like basically some Matt Damon Goodwill hunting tight motherfucker
Speaker 1: who sawves some equation on a board and ends up
Speaker 1: in his twenties at the Dalton School and kind of
Speaker 1: goes in this whimsical adventure into the wide wild world
Speaker 1: of satanic ritual abuse, and somehow, but somehow, his brother
Speaker 1: also menaged to name it, make a name for himself elsewhere.
Speaker 1: It's just weird. Did you kind of like it just
Speaker 1: seems odd that, like, what of the just people did
Speaker 1: destined for success? Because I mean, his brother from the
Speaker 1: little bit I know about him, does well. But it's
Speaker 1: just almost like as if, like, oh, he's my brother,
Speaker 1: he did his own thing. That's wild. Oh that's crazy,
Speaker 1: all these things he's doing over there. I have no idea.
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's quite the case. Now this
Speaker 1: isn't really substance to anything here, but this is kind
Speaker 1: of a fun photo. Here's a photo of Epstein and
Speaker 1: his brother. Are Jeffrey and Mark. Jeffrey and Mark Epstein.
Speaker 1: Here's a photo of the two of them because when
Speaker 1: they were younger. Here's a jeff still with the gray hair.
Speaker 1: Almost looks flawed, Almost looks cool until you get to
Speaker 1: those gay little shoes down there, those little loafers. You
Speaker 1: got Jeffrey on a motorcycle. Here, it's sweatpant drips. His
Speaker 1: sweatpants sweatshirt drips pretty pretty fly. I'm not gonna lie there.
Speaker 1: The shoes really do throw it off though, But then
Speaker 1: you got it. The brother mark in a in a jeans,
Speaker 1: in a in a denim vest. He's his rip, His
Speaker 1: drip works. Now he does look like a grease ball
Speaker 1: when you get to the face. So, uh, kind of
Speaker 1: got mixed cards going on here, But uh, I know,
Speaker 1: cool photo, cool photo. Then the last Epstein on a
Speaker 1: on a motorcycle in loafers and in a dripped out sweatsuit. Uh,
Speaker 1: where are you gonna find a photo like that? With
Speaker 1: his brother in a full on denim outfit does go
Speaker 1: a little bit hard although it misses the misses the
Speaker 1: mark with the loafers. I think the loafers are the
Speaker 1: fatal the fatal flaw in this whole, this whole get
Speaker 1: up here. But I don't know enough talking about the
Speaker 1: fashion sense of Epstein before I lean to fall into
Speaker 1: Epstein had aura type discourse, which I don't agree. I'm
Speaker 1: just being silly here. Let's dig in a little bit more.
Speaker 1: Here's a video. This is from speak with DD sharing this.
Speaker 1: I don't know who this came from. Originally, but there's
Speaker 1: a little bit of a look into Mark Epstein.
Speaker 17: Numerous underage girls were housed in traffic out of this
Speaker 17: building behind me, owned by Epstein, a secretive man whose
Speaker 17: incredible wealth no one can quite explain. But I'm not
Speaker 17: talking about Jeff, I'm talking about his brother, Mark. Mark
Speaker 17: Epstein has always asserted that he was not close with
Speaker 17: his brother and was disgusted to learn of his abuse.
Speaker 17: Going through the files, I have found evidence that these
Speaker 17: claims are far from the truth. I'll start with this email.
Speaker 17: In twenty thirteen, a woman whose name is redacted asked
Speaker 17: Mark to write her a letter of recommendation for grad school,
Speaker 17: and Mark replied by asking if he should include that
Speaker 17: he first met her twenty years earlier when she was
Speaker 17: a homeless waif, and that he took her under his
Speaker 17: wing and proceeded to sexually abuse her, adding needless to say,
Speaker 17: we had some fun, if you know what I mean.
Speaker 17: The definition of waife is a homeless or abandoned child,
Speaker 17: and this one's next email to Mark. She asked that
Speaker 17: when Marcus around her and her boyfriend, that he keep
Speaker 17: his numbers in his story straight on how long they'd
Speaker 17: known each other. In another email from Mark to his
Speaker 17: brother Jeffrey about this woman, Mark says, she hates when
Speaker 17: I tell people that I've known her for twenty years already.
Speaker 17: Growing up, Mark and jeff were known as the Dirt Brothers. Here,
Speaker 17: a childhood friend writes about an incident in which they
Speaker 17: picked up two girls from a beach, took them out
Speaker 17: to sea on their boat, and forced them to strip
Speaker 17: at knife point. The Dirt Brothers always kept in touch,
Speaker 17: and this email, Mark asked, Jeffrey, do you remember the
Speaker 17: name of the gynecologists that you used to send your
Speaker 17: victims to. In a two thousand and nine deposition, Mark
Speaker 17: was asked you agree having sex with miners is wrong,
Speaker 17: and he responded, I have no opinion on that. Like
Speaker 17: his brother, Mark suddenly became inexplicably wealthy in the nineties
Speaker 17: thanks to Les Wexner. He used to be an artist,
Speaker 17: and then in the nineties he acquired this seven million
Speaker 17: dollar building from Wexner and now operates a multimillion dollar
Speaker 17: real estate empire. And the same two thousand and nine deposition,
Speaker 17: Mark claims he'd never met less Wexner. Court records show
Speaker 17: that this building is where Jeffrey Epstein quote kept his
Speaker 17: girls victim for flowing here to apartments to be housed
Speaker 17: and then transported to Epstein's mansion up the road. Jeffrey
Speaker 17: Epstein tr efforts women via a modeling company he helped
Speaker 17: create in MC two Model Management. The same year MC
Speaker 17: two He's created. New York State records show Mark Epstein
Speaker 17: created a company called Saint Model and Talent. There are
Speaker 17: no other public records about it, and as at the
Speaker 17: time of this recording, it is still technically an active company.
Speaker 17: Mark Epstein is set to inherit an unknown portion of
Speaker 17: his brother six hundred million dollars stay on top of
Speaker 17: his already staggering fortune, and despite appearing on TV frequently,
Speaker 17: no one seems to press him about any of this.
Speaker 16: I don't care about the files. Jeffrey's dead, so I
Speaker 16: don't care of the implications of the files. That's other
Speaker 16: people's probably.
Speaker 9: But for the victims, I'm sure there has to be
Speaker 9: some sort of satisfaction in it that they feel that
Speaker 9: at least someone is you are paying some consequences for it.
Speaker 16: Well, from what I understand, he was arrested for crimes
Speaker 16: related to this position with the government. Nothing to do
Speaker 16: with the thing with the girls, but that's not the
Speaker 16: topic I want to talk about.
Speaker 17: It's a popular theory online that Jeffrey Epstein isn't actually dead,
Speaker 17: and I would agree with this because it seems like
Speaker 17: the entire thing has just lived on through the other
Speaker 17: dirt brother. But I have a feeling that when this
Speaker 17: comes out, I'm gonna be the only Mark punished for
Speaker 17: any of this.
Speaker 1: All right, that's a at Mark mc posts on Instagram
Speaker 1: if you want to go follow him another. Here's another
Speaker 1: little interesting tidbit from the Mark Epstein world. Here's something
Speaker 1: in the Epstein files back and forth someone threatening Mark
Speaker 1: Epstein saying they're gonna kill him just like they killed
Speaker 1: their brother. Seemed seems a little relevant here. Let's go
Speaker 1: into this. This is a from Mark Epstein to redacted.
Speaker 1: Is the the header here, but it's a back and forth,
Speaker 1: I think so. It's at the bottom it says, Hey, Puggy,
Speaker 1: you have two choices. This is Puggy who was then
Speaker 1: initial person? Whoever that is this is from Puggy at
Speaker 1: Puggy Killer at FastMail dot com is who who that's
Speaker 1: initially from? This is the threatener, the person is doing
Speaker 1: the threatening The subject D D. D D D, which weird. Aside,
Speaker 1: they picked a D for I think they just like
Speaker 1: were put. I don't think that means anything, but I
Speaker 1: uh not a little bit of aside, but I can't
Speaker 1: help it, can't help, but mention it. You see a
Speaker 1: subject here D. I had a We had a teacher
Speaker 1: in high school that had a I don't know. The
Speaker 1: lore was that she had had like a brain tumor
Speaker 1: or something or some sort of horrible you know, brain trauma.
Speaker 1: It was kind of there's different stories, no one, no
Speaker 1: one really knew for sure. I don't think I think
Speaker 1: your name is like miss Rutledge or Ratledge or something.
Speaker 1: And she would like she would randomly like her brain
Speaker 1: would substitute certain things would D. It would just be
Speaker 1: like you'd be like, hey, miss Relige, can I go
Speaker 1: to the bathroom? And she'd be like, D all right.
Speaker 1: Stupid aside, but it was it was hilarious, especially, you know,
Speaker 1: like in school they would grade paper. Sometimes you'd be like,
Speaker 1: you know, past your paper, the person's the right and
Speaker 1: all right, we're gonna grade it. H and you know,
Speaker 1: multiple choice obviously, but there were there were multiple times
Speaker 1: where I'd be like, hey, miss like the bathroom one
Speaker 1: that was like a frequent problem. Like I know, there
Speaker 1: were multiple times where I'd look or right in the eyes,
Speaker 1: but like miss ratlitche Can, I go to the bathroom
Speaker 1: and she'd be right and then in the eyes and
Speaker 1: she'd go d like all out and slow and You're like,
Speaker 1: how do you not just like die laughing? Anyways, Uh,
Speaker 1: that's real. I mean that sounds like some made up shit,
Speaker 1: but there's a real thing that happened. I had a
Speaker 1: teacher who did that and it was hilarious. It was
Speaker 1: hard not to laugh at it. Anyways. Back to Mark
Speaker 1: mark Epstein being threatened. Weird side there it says, hey, Puggy,
Speaker 1: you have two choices, or tell the court you partner
Speaker 1: with your brother, or we kill your family like your brother.
Speaker 1: Then here's another one from Puggy or from a Puggy.
Speaker 1: Again it's weird saying hey Puggy, but then it's from Puggy,
Speaker 1: so whatever, look confusing, Hey, Puggy, my boss is a
Speaker 1: very kind person. He loved your brother. Your brother's mistake
Speaker 1: was that he wanted to tell the court everything. The
Speaker 1: Boss wants to meet you. He just wants to see
Speaker 1: if you know him or not. What's the boss's name?
Speaker 1: And there's another one, and it goes, if you don't answer,
Speaker 1: So these are these are the both that I just
Speaker 1: showed you were on May fifth, twenty because the first
Speaker 1: one the you two you have two choices on May fifth,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five, at ten thirty five am. Then then
Speaker 1: a little little more than two hours later at twelve
Speaker 1: forty on May twenty fifth is where we got the
Speaker 1: one I just read. And then now on the same day, Uh,
Speaker 1: it doesn't have a time for that one though. It
Speaker 1: says if you don't answer, the boss will be very upset.
Speaker 1: You don't know my boss, it's true. And then we
Speaker 1: got on Tuesday, May twenty sixth you got you don't
Speaker 1: know our boss's name. I'm sure if you knew him,
Speaker 1: tell us he wants to meet you. Just because you
Speaker 1: don't answer, doesn't mean you don't know your brother's killers.
Speaker 1: It's true. You know that if you tell the police something,
Speaker 1: we will kill your children. And then there's another one
Speaker 1: on May twenty six says, hey, bitch, don't you don't
Speaker 1: you want to answer? If you don't answer, I'll suffocate
Speaker 1: you like your brother. And then there's another one. It
Speaker 1: says the last one I think says, you don't know us.
Speaker 1: I'm sure you have beautiful children, bitch, fuck your chill.
Speaker 1: Which one should I kill first? You know, no one
Speaker 1: knows who we are. I want to kill them in
Speaker 1: such a way that no one can tell how they died.
Speaker 1: We have documents to show that you had a partnership
Speaker 1: with your brother. I want to do something to see
Speaker 1: the death of your loved ones. We will kill one
Speaker 1: of your children in seventy two hours. Stupid. And then
Speaker 1: then there's another one. And then it says sent via
Speaker 1: tin cannon string, And that's from Mark Epstein to someone else.
Speaker 1: So he's forwarding this to a few other people. One
Speaker 1: person is Stacey Richmond. There's a couple of red acted
Speaker 1: you see Stacy Richmond s Richmond Law at MSN dot com.
Speaker 1: I'd assuming the reason why they're forwarding it here is
Speaker 1: the law person is assuming it's one of his lawyers, like, hey,
Speaker 1: there's someone literally threatening me. What should we do? Sent
Speaker 1: via tin cannon string is what he said. I think
Speaker 1: it seems like he somewhat wrote this out, because, like
Speaker 1: you can see on this, I think he like kind
Speaker 1: of copied and pasted it. And you know, manually as
Speaker 1: opposed to like an actual forward. I think one of
Speaker 1: the later emails he did to be able to get
Speaker 1: them all together, like, so I think I think that's
Speaker 1: why some of these two have time stamps and some don't,
Speaker 1: because I think it's just the way that he probably
Speaker 1: copied and pasted in there. And I think that's why
Speaker 1: he's saying sent via tin cannon string that like, that's
Speaker 1: why I had to like do this weird because it
Speaker 1: looks like this person sent him multiple messages. It probably
Speaker 1: wasn't part of a single thread, so I think you
Speaker 1: know that. I think Mark then kind of put them
Speaker 1: all together in the same thing and then forwarded it
Speaker 1: to his lawyer to be like, look at this shit
Speaker 1: moving on more hiding in plain sight. One thing that's
Speaker 1: kind of come up weirdly enough from some people that
Speaker 1: I think would be like establishment type figures that I
Speaker 1: am very wary of, but a fair point that has
Speaker 1: been brought up by them, particularly which let's be real,
Speaker 1: I think it's probably more to muddy the waters, but
Speaker 1: there is truth to it, and that's something we probably
Speaker 1: should grapple with. The idea of some of these girls
Speaker 1: that get trapped into this that then grow up and
Speaker 1: become women and also then are part of this of
Speaker 1: this operation. And I mean, I guess at some point
Speaker 1: the victim becomes a victimizer, and it is kind of
Speaker 1: hard to figure out where you draw that line. But
Speaker 1: here's Representative Luna kind of talking a little bit about
Speaker 1: some of these women who may fit that role or
Speaker 1: just be or just be some co conspirators perhaps, And
Speaker 1: then I also apparently she's of the opinion this was
Speaker 1: an intel gathering operation and a honeypot operation. So it's
Speaker 1: kind of interesting to see one in a position saying this,
Speaker 1: although given our current, our current geopolitical paradigm, I very
Speaker 1: very very much doubt that she's going to think it
Speaker 1: was the same sort of intel gathering operation that many
Speaker 1: people in this show that follow this show would think,
Speaker 1: like myself, But I don't know. I'm you're almost waiting
Speaker 1: for the shoe to drop, be like it was Iran,
Speaker 1: wasn't You're you're gonna tell me it was Iran, aren't you?
Speaker 1: But they haven't been so bold yet, But who knows.
Speaker 1: Who knows? Maybe Representative Luna Luna is gonna go super
Speaker 1: mega based and say all the things. But let's see
Speaker 1: what she had to say recently.
Speaker 18: Here's in lines of questioning that Jeffrey Epstein was running
Speaker 18: a intelligence gathering operation. In my professional opinion, I do
Speaker 18: believe it was a honeypot operation, and I do believe
Speaker 18: that there's a list of individuals who did engage in trafficking.
Speaker 18: We're given these plea deals, and I'm going to name
Speaker 18: those individuals right now. The first one would be Leslie Groff,
Speaker 18: the second one Sarah Kellen, the third one Nadia Markova,
Speaker 18: and the fourth one Adriana Ross. All of these women
Speaker 18: engaged trafficking, engaged in the trafficking of miners as adults.
Speaker 18: They were working and complicit with Jeffrey Epstein's operation, and
Speaker 18: in my opinion, they are not to be given victim
Speaker 18: status because they did partake in harming young girls. I
Speaker 18: remember seeing in some of the files some of these
Speaker 18: girls were, you know, as young as ten eleven years
Speaker 18: old and older. And so obviously we have a lot
Speaker 18: of work to do, but I did want to come
Speaker 18: and give an update.
Speaker 1: Okay, so we got her kind of set in her
Speaker 1: sites on some of these these trawl ups out here,
Speaker 1: so I know we'll have to we'll probably come back
Speaker 1: and maybe do a segment on one of these days.
Speaker 1: There's a lot to dig into there, kind of just
Speaker 1: kind of scratching the surface on some of these elements
Speaker 1: that are kind of in plain sight. One such element
Speaker 1: is Epstein's Zoro Ranch, which we've talked a little bit
Speaker 1: about here and there. This is a ten thousand acre
Speaker 1: compound with its own mansion runway hangar was wide open
Speaker 1: in the desert, so the ideas like kind of escape
Speaker 1: basically being impossible. Many survivors say they're traffic there, some
Speaker 1: into the bedroom and as salted here. This is also
Speaker 1: where a lot of the weird transhumanism stuff implications of
Speaker 1: this was almost like a lab for these sort of things.
Speaker 1: A lot of weird stuff, a lot of powerful people
Speaker 1: coming here. This is where he was for over twenty
Speaker 1: six years, a lot of weird testimony from Stuffer. Here
Speaker 1: is a little of an aerial photo of it. Guys,
Speaker 1: get an idea of what we're dealing with. Just nothing.
Speaker 1: Basically it seems like as far as the eye can
Speaker 1: the outside of it basically a little little kind of
Speaker 1: a little bit of a stronghold. If you will surprised
Speaker 1: it doesn't have a big old fence around it or something,
Speaker 1: but you kind of don't need one when you're out
Speaker 1: there in the middle of nowhere like that. Well, funny enough,
Speaker 1: back in the day, this is a they've just now recently,
Speaker 1: I think, opened an investigation into Zoro Ranch, which how
Speaker 1: that's gonna work out is left to be seen. I
Speaker 1: have some doubts, as we'll get into that. But back
Speaker 1: in the day, the DOJ actually told New Mexico not
Speaker 1: to investigate because they were going to investigate it. That's
Speaker 1: one of the things that came up in some of
Speaker 1: these Epstein files, I believe if I recall it correctly,
Speaker 1: But yes, apparently the DOJ was looking at it was
Speaker 1: you know, told New Mexico, don't worry about looking at this,
Speaker 1: we'll do this, and then they didn't even search the
Speaker 1: ranch and just kind of left it alone. Now, the
Speaker 1: current situation is, we've got we've got this guy right here,
Speaker 1: Don Haffene's this this creepy looking feller. He he is
Speaker 1: the one who owns it now, which he he's someone
Speaker 1: who I believe I think he's running for comptroller in
Speaker 1: Texas with the endorsement of TPUs A. I think he's
Speaker 1: got some weird business connections to some of these, some
Speaker 1: of the Epstein class Fellers. If I recall correctly, I
Speaker 1: think I was talking to I'm talking to Austin about
Speaker 1: this on one of these already dads recently. He's got
Speaker 1: some weird he's got an odd past. We've also talked
Speaker 1: about apparently almost I think this was before they even
Speaker 1: announced that they were going to be doing an investigation
Speaker 1: into it. It may be a little bit too late,
Speaker 1: because it's my understanding that they've already undergone construction to
Speaker 1: turn it into a big old Christian you know, retreat,
Speaker 1: summer camp sort of thingy. So great, but wouldn't you
Speaker 1: know with Don Haffines, I'm sure this means nothing. His
Speaker 1: son is a is Associate Director of Agency Outreach in
Speaker 1: the White House Office of Cabinet Affairs, So his son
Speaker 1: literally works in the White House as well. So interesting
Speaker 1: how these people move, interesting how these things work. Just
Speaker 1: now as they're finally looking into it, I know, I
Speaker 1: went hold their breath. Maybe we'll find some interesting stuff
Speaker 1: at Zoro Ranch, but it's already undergoing construction and firmly
Speaker 1: in control of who I would say fairly could be
Speaker 1: characterized is another one of the Epstein class something else
Speaker 1: kind of in you know, in plane sight, kind of
Speaker 1: how they moved. I thought this was particular interesting. I
Speaker 1: think we've talked about this in passing already, but I
Speaker 1: did want to hone in on this again, so I
Speaker 1: tell you a little bit more interesting Bannon epsteinisms. But
Speaker 1: it seems like this may have resulted in the culmination
Speaker 1: of the Epstein Bannon relationship, or maybe some continuation of
Speaker 1: it at some point. But this is at least a
Speaker 1: high point. I would think the the online gaming connection.
Speaker 1: Apparently Epstein used World of Warcraft goal gold online currency
Speaker 1: in a World of Warcraft to move money without getting
Speaker 1: trace and in two thousand and seven, Bannon was running
Speaker 1: a Chinese company that sold in game gold for real cash.
Speaker 1: So after a few trades, good luck tracking where the
Speaker 1: money came from. So that's kind of where Bannon got
Speaker 1: his his business feet wet was in the online gaming
Speaker 1: currency world, and that seems to be exactly where Epstein
Speaker 1: was situated as well. But I don't know, maybe maybe
Speaker 1: this connection went a little bit deeper than just video games.
Speaker 1: Apparently here's an email where Epstein told Steve Bannon he's
Speaker 1: going into a skiff to talk tomorrow, which that's a
Speaker 1: let's say, was it a what skiff even stand for?
Speaker 1: I forget it's it's essentially, let's look it up real quick, skiff.
Speaker 1: What's a stand for skiff? Meaning let me see what
Speaker 1: military there.
Speaker 12: We go.
Speaker 1: Sensitive compartmental compartmented information facility. But it's a it's a
Speaker 1: common vernacular in the military where it's just a location
Speaker 1: where top secret stuff is talked about. Typically that means
Speaker 1: you can't bring your phone in. Like I don't know
Speaker 1: if I ever went into like a technical skiff, but
Speaker 1: they have areas that are like like there are areas
Speaker 1: that are like an inter in between. But anyways, I'm
Speaker 1: kind of trying to recall some I vaguely recall once
Speaker 1: or twice going to a room where I had to
Speaker 1: like they'd be like, this is a this is a
Speaker 1: whatever room. You got to put your phone here or whatever.
Speaker 1: It was very rare that that sort of thing would happen.
Speaker 1: But that's what a skiff is. It's like the most
Speaker 1: like uptight security, the like you'll require only certain types
Speaker 1: of electronic devices, most electronic devices like personal devices, and
Speaker 1: you'd be left outside the door. All the different computers
Speaker 1: or whatever there are up to certain snuff or whatever.
Speaker 1: But it's a it's a spot where you know, intelligence
Speaker 1: agent military intelligence is generally intelligence is discussed. It's I mean,
Speaker 1: you hear by this. Sometimes the Congress will be like,
Speaker 1: you'll see I mean, have they this like alien hearings
Speaker 1: and stuff. And they'll be like, oh, well, we'll talk about
Speaker 1: this on the skiff later or whatever. And then they
Speaker 1: come out and be like, well, well, can you tell
Speaker 1: me about what was talking about on the skiff, because
Speaker 1: the skiff's like this magical location where you can talk
Speaker 1: about wherever. Uh well, uh, it looks like Epstein was
Speaker 1: going into some skiffs. Here's one right here, he said,
Speaker 1: going into a skiff talk tomorrow. Funny enough. And in
Speaker 1: response to Bannon saying on the coup, I'm deep in
Speaker 1: the middle of I wonder what coup they were talking about.
Speaker 1: But I think there are other references to skiffs too.
Speaker 1: I've heard the cope on this is that, like he
Speaker 1: was referring it, it was some sort of shorthand to
Speaker 1: mean something else, or maybe it's almost like a glib
Speaker 1: term that they use for certain areas, like oh, this
Speaker 1: is a this is a more secured location. This is
Speaker 1: like our skiff, and they refer to as a skiff,
Speaker 1: you know, colloquialism or something. I don't know. That seems
Speaker 1: to be stretching. I think he might just be talking
Speaker 1: about straight up a fucking skiff. I also find it
Speaker 1: funny apparently Steve Bannon went empstety to start a center
Speaker 1: for human trafficking to clean up his image. So I
Speaker 1: guess more of this kind of this idea of endplane site.
Speaker 1: We could have been living in a world where Epstcene
Speaker 1: was the face of trafficking philanthropy. This is a I
Speaker 1: don't know, let's be real, there's probably many such cases
Speaker 1: with this. Here's this email right here, as Bannon says,
Speaker 1: besides during breast cancer, what about establishing the major center
Speaker 1: for human trafficking, teenage prostitution, etc. Etc. Et cetera global
Speaker 1: problem needs to be solved, which, for those who aren't aware,
Speaker 1: that is what Bannon seemingly was doing a lot behind
Speaker 1: the scenes, is working as Epstein's PR guy. He was
Speaker 1: actually working as a documentary on a documentary that's supposed
Speaker 1: to give him more favorable appearance. I think he's probably
Speaker 1: going to characterize it differently if he gets asked about this.
Speaker 1: But yeah, they see himed quite chummy, And why wouldn't
Speaker 1: you be chummy with a guy that does such swell
Speaker 1: things like this like hook everyone up with some top
Speaker 1: tier trim. Here's Josh Fink, son of Black Black Rock
Speaker 1: cel Larry Fink. He was dating a model whose visa
Speaker 1: was controlled by MC two, a modeling agency funded by
Speaker 1: Epstein and run by John Luke Brunell, who was later
Speaker 1: charged with trafficking and rape. When Fink reached out to
Speaker 1: Brunell about a billing issue, Brunell forded it straight to Epstein,
Speaker 1: who demanded talk to me first, please. The woman was
Speaker 1: also forwarding her private conversations with Fink directly Epstein. Epstein
Speaker 1: was the one really pulling the strings. He controlled the visas,
Speaker 1: the money, and the women, and the son of the
Speaker 1: most powerful man in Wall Street was caught in the
Speaker 1: middle of it. Here is here's the one with Josh Fink.
Speaker 1: Here's this back and forth, says I hope this emil
Speaker 1: finds you well. I love to grab a bite or
Speaker 1: drink if you are through New York City next week. Alternately,
Speaker 1: are you available for a quick phone call tomorrow. Thank
Speaker 1: you very much, warmus regards, Josh. Keep in mind this
Speaker 1: is the son of the CEO of Blackrock. This dear
Speaker 1: John Luke. I'm not sure if you receive the email
Speaker 1: I send on Tuesday. So this is hit back and forth
Speaker 1: between Fink and John Luke Brunell. I by chance yesterday
Speaker 1: I received an invoice from MC two in the mail.
Speaker 1: Would love to clarify a point or two with you,
Speaker 1: as I do not believe I have a full understanding
Speaker 1: of things in the moment. I'm more than happy I
Speaker 1: paid this invoice if our agreement still stands and there's
Speaker 1: no issue from my side. If this is the case,
Speaker 1: thank you in advance for your time, and look forward
Speaker 1: to meeting and speaking soon. I mean it made my
Speaker 1: brain's doing a little bit of filling in the blanks here,
Speaker 1: but it kind of sounds like he's talking about billing
Speaker 1: in regards to an invoice in regards to MC two,
Speaker 1: which is a modeling thing, and he's got abroad from there.
Speaker 1: So interesting.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 1: This is actually to Epstein as well. I guess I
Speaker 1: got forwarded to Epstein.
Speaker 3: More on.
Speaker 1: This is after his the Florida arrests in twenty two
Speaker 1: thousand and six, Epstein shifted his focus to women their
Speaker 1: late teens and twenties from Europe and Russia whom he
Speaker 1: could lure to the US and abuse since they were
Speaker 1: dependent on him for visa's housing and finances. He also
Speaker 1: pressured these women to share with him details about their
Speaker 1: interactions with other men. By twenty twelve, Brunell was in
Speaker 1: frequent communication with Epstein. On June seventh of that year,
Speaker 1: Joshua Fink, the son of Black Rock CEO CEO Larry Fink,
Speaker 1: email Brunell but MC two invoice, saying he had received
Speaker 1: a bill and wanted to clarify a point it. Clarify
Speaker 1: a point or two about their agreement. Brunell told Fink
Speaker 1: he would suspend the billing. The invoice is related to
Speaker 1: a model whom Fink was dating. They had a work
Speaker 1: visa through the agency. When Brunell ford the email chain
Speaker 1: to Epstein, the repply was talked to me first. When
Speaker 1: the women forward the same email that day, Epstein replied
Speaker 1: this for past, not future. Epstein was well aware of
Speaker 1: the relationship. The women, afford him several chat laws with Fink,
Speaker 1: which capture the couple clashing over how serious the relationship was,
Speaker 1: and weather marriage is on the table, which I mean,
Speaker 1: and I know we could reduce this sound a simple prostitution,
Speaker 1: but even see how serious relationship was and weather marriages
Speaker 1: on the table, seems like he to some degree also
Speaker 1: was kind of like a matchmaker. And that, like I mean,
Speaker 1: there's obviously, let's fe real, is a sliding scale. So
Speaker 1: he's setting these things up, so there are some who
Speaker 1: are looking for serious So let's be real, he's got
Speaker 1: a got a whole you know, millieu of women that
Speaker 1: he's picking from, and let's be real, he probably has
Speaker 1: an idea of like who he thinks is for fun,
Speaker 1: who he thinks could actually be a match for someone
Speaker 1: for a long term. These are all women he's gone
Speaker 1: through his hooks in in one way, shape or form.
Speaker 1: And now you have, like, for example, right here, a
Speaker 1: woman who's sharing a bed with the son of one
Speaker 1: of the most infamous money movers in America. So Blackrock
Speaker 1: sou I don't know, then you kind of extrapolate from that,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of consider you know, how this gonna
Speaker 1: play out, if you if you you know, multiply that
Speaker 1: times like a thousand or even a thousand thousands. I
Speaker 1: don't know, paints paints a little bit of a sinster picture, which,
Speaker 1: speaking of sinster pictures, I guess kind of this idea
Speaker 1: of hiding and play site, I guess it's kind of
Speaker 1: more about it kind of jumps off of our discussion
Speaker 1: a little bit yes day, kind of the like the
Speaker 1: occult Epstein class. Here's a video I've been wanting to
Speaker 1: watch for a while. I might be ham fisting this
Speaker 1: in a little bit here, but oh well, I don't care.
Speaker 1: Let's watch us. There's a video of James Dio Ronnie
Speaker 1: James Dio admitting to summoning the demon Ball. So I
Speaker 1: thought that was interesting. We can check that out because
Speaker 1: it's like, I know, they kind of the idea in
Speaker 1: my head, hiding in plain sight, that theme like in
Speaker 1: the music world, you see these, you see the lyrics,
Speaker 1: you see the imagery, and there's also been numerous people
Speaker 1: like you know, I've seen numerous you know, whether it's
Speaker 1: you know, kind of allusions to selling your soul to
Speaker 1: the Devi or you know, or ritualistic practices that are
Speaker 1: being claimed by actual specific rock stars throughout history. You know,
Speaker 1: there's many people who have these sort of claims there's
Speaker 1: many of this lore of like so and so did this,
Speaker 1: so and so did that. I'm not a big music
Speaker 1: a rock, you know, aficionado to the but I know
Speaker 1: this is something that comes up frequently. So but I
Speaker 1: guess at a certain point I got to wonder, like,
Speaker 1: are these people to some degree telling the truth? And
Speaker 1: does this tied? It does seem like, hey, these are
Speaker 1: highly influential. Uh you know, you know, rockers at the
Speaker 1: height of at their zenith, and these are the tales
Speaker 1: that they're telling us. So maybe we should listen. So
Speaker 1: let's listen to James Dio talking about something Bow.
Speaker 5: I think the most memorable thing about that album is
Speaker 5: all the occult things that we went through, because we
Speaker 5: went through a severe phase of contacting a spirit that
Speaker 5: was most scary thing I think any of us have
Speaker 5: ever been through. We'd always dabbled before, certainly Riggie did
Speaker 5: and I did, which is one of our points of
Speaker 5: conjecture of the connection. I think, and we rose the
Speaker 5: spirit named Ball, so not to go into the whole thing.
Speaker 5: Ball was just really evil spirit whose name is on
Speaker 5: the album. On the Longer rock Roll Album, he says,
Speaker 5: thanks to so On, thanks, thanks thanks no, thanks to Ball,
Speaker 5: who was really chaotic and you know, stopping this album,
Speaker 5: I mean the tape machines would just suddenly stop on
Speaker 5: their own doors that were locked and had only one
Speaker 5: key to one person whom we trusted would would go
Speaker 5: up there and things would be playing, and it just
Speaker 5: never never ended. And it was the whole progression of that.
Speaker 5: Towards the very end, my manager Wendy and my wife
Speaker 5: Wendy Dio got pushed down the stairs and accuse me
Speaker 5: of it. I was walking down the stairs. Cozy was
Speaker 5: behind me. She was probably five or six stairs ahead
Speaker 5: of me. Luckily had a box of China Anti China
Speaker 5: that we had bought there, and suddenly tumbled down the
Speaker 5: stairs and landed on the box of china. Thank god
Speaker 5: because it broke. The fall only broke a couple of plates.
Speaker 5: And she turned around said you bustard, I said, what
Speaker 5: you pushed me?
Speaker 6: Didn't push you?
Speaker 5: Yes, you did this, Cozy, No, he wasn't even anywhere
Speaker 5: near your was the final one. But was Ball going
Speaker 5: see you? And you know, years and years after that,
Speaker 5: we did a say Once to the Deal band and
Speaker 5: the first person person first thing they came up with
Speaker 5: Ball again. Hi, I'm ball Ronnie, I'm back.
Speaker 1: No you're not.
Speaker 5: I'm done. Ye never did it again, but that was
Speaker 5: I think the highlight of all that was, you know
Speaker 5: how mysterious that whole album was to make.
Speaker 1: But it's funny that makes me think about he's talking
Speaker 1: about this, I guess is more in a seance type
Speaker 1: of environment. I know we covered the other day in
Speaker 1: this in the I think we covered one of toxic
Speaker 1: Tira Massu's you know a little where he pulls excerpts
Speaker 1: from different pieces of literature, and he was going and
Speaker 1: there was one in there. They were talking about project
Speaker 1: often where the CIA was like kind of getting into
Speaker 1: the occult, and I guess supposedly that some which I
Speaker 1: guess funny enough, after they tried to get like some archdiocese,
Speaker 1: you know of some Catholic archdiocese to help them out,
Speaker 1: that they told them to fuck off the Catholic Church
Speaker 1: because they were looking to the occult. They were trying
Speaker 1: to get someone to help guide them through the occult.
Speaker 1: So instead they got some like gypsy we talked about
Speaker 1: this the other day, or gypsy or you know, some
Speaker 1: sort of poem reader type, you know, one of those
Speaker 1: psychics or whatever, and she revealed or she apparently accorded to,
Speaker 1: you know, this literature. In the other day, she was
Speaker 1: talking to the CIA, and she was saying that they
Speaker 1: have like a whole network of people. And if you really,
Speaker 1: I wish I could remember who it was. I was
Speaker 1: listening to something the other day and they were stuck.
Speaker 1: I don't know if it was some you know, like
Speaker 1: maybe like one hundred years ago, or if it was
Speaker 1: some other country or whatever they were talking about. Some
Speaker 1: I want to say it was something from like the
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know, maybe it was like the
Speaker 1: early nineteen hundreds. Maybe some like some occult types, but
Speaker 1: essentially the idea being that there was some some fortune
Speaker 1: teller or some shit that was got caught up in
Speaker 1: some sort of legal ordeal. And I guess, you know,
Speaker 1: I remember there being like a story. I wish, I
Speaker 1: wish I remember where this lady got off, because she
Speaker 1: was able to vividly describe the death of like the
Speaker 1: judge kid or brother or something like that, some sort
Speaker 1: of like highly specific like personal thing. And it was
Speaker 1: about a death though, and then you kind of think, like,
Speaker 1: like what does this person do? This person like what
Speaker 1: she takes people regularly. They she she extracts information from them,
Speaker 1: and then she makes predictions and she plies, oh, well,
Speaker 1: what's your what's your love life? Like, what's a what's this?
Speaker 1: What's you know? Kind of these prying questions, and they're
Speaker 1: extracting information and from there, and if you're someone who's
Speaker 1: a prominent one, and especially in an era where these
Speaker 1: are people who I don't know, uh, are a bigger deal.
Speaker 1: You know, this was supposedly some some palm reader or
Speaker 1: fortune teller or whatever the fuck she was, some occult
Speaker 1: something or other to the stars. Uh. And then then
Speaker 1: you start realizing, oh, you're getting a lot of information
Speaker 1: from a lot of different important people. But anyways, back
Speaker 1: to the project. Often they were talking about how like
Speaker 1: they had literally like networks and like they essentially, you know,
Speaker 1: had ways of sending information from there, which I mean,
Speaker 1: I guess I'm kind of making giving a sinister framing here,
Speaker 1: but this also would make sense. You have like magazines
Speaker 1: and you know they do horoscopes and tear a cards
Speaker 1: and so there's gotta be some sort of way to
Speaker 1: educate yourself on this, even even if you are someone
Speaker 1: just plying that trade out there, that's what you do,
Speaker 1: so there would be, but they were all they were
Speaker 1: talking about like there's almost like a network of information
Speaker 1: that's moved back and forth. And so it's kind of interesting.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm being too schizophrenic here, but I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, the CIA has legitimately put the hooks in
Speaker 1: these sort of eras or areas, and I don't know,
Speaker 1: I mean maybe there's something to that, the idea that, like,
Speaker 1: you know, with these sort of seances or forge ine
Speaker 1: tellers or whatever, there's some sort of way the information's
Speaker 1: being moved to and from or whatever, or there's even
Speaker 1: like especially some of the more prominent ones, there's a
Speaker 1: network among them. So yeah, a little bit of a
Speaker 1: I guess you could say a cult intelligence network of sorts.
Speaker 1: So I know, extrapolate from there, Let's keep moving and
Speaker 1: let's let's uh, I guess, kind of stay a little
Speaker 1: bit in the occult thing. I guess more hiding in
Speaker 1: plain sight. Here's a post where someone has said, I
Speaker 1: feel so bad for Oprah. She has a worse luck
Speaker 1: in picking friends. There's a photo of her with p Diddy,
Speaker 1: there's you know, it's showing these different photos her with
Speaker 1: Harvey Wine sign her with Bill Cosby. I don't know
Speaker 1: who the one on the bottom left is here, but
Speaker 1: I'm assuming somebody is. Something bad person says, you're so close,
Speaker 1: keep connecting the dots, which and then there's also the
Speaker 1: there's like the John of God stuff too that that's
Speaker 1: come up a lot, this Epstein stuff, which I'm gonna
Speaker 1: have to go on an do a segment on that
Speaker 1: at some point. There's a lot in that rabbit hole.
Speaker 1: But also with Oprah amber Woods. Here she points out
Speaker 1: she was also helping with PR for David Copperfield's private island.
Speaker 1: And so to me, in my head, the way I
Speaker 1: can this segment, this part made sense in this segment
Speaker 1: is Oprah and and even David copper Field, like these
Speaker 1: are kind of in plain sight. Like you think of Vegas,
Speaker 1: you think of copper Field, you think of you think
Speaker 1: of the late nineties, early two thousands, daytime television. You
Speaker 1: think Oprah, like she was a driving cultural force. At
Speaker 1: the same time she's friends with all these different sinister figures.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know, maybe this is just a
Speaker 1: curse of a curse of popularity, but apparently she was
Speaker 1: doing helping with PR for David Copperfield's private island, who
Speaker 1: appears in the Epstein files many times, disclosures and related reporting.
Speaker 1: Multiple survivors have alleged that he selected young women from
Speaker 1: his audiences, maintained contact with them, groomed them, and subjected
Speaker 1: them to sexual abuse. Copperfield has faced allegations for years
Speaker 1: and has denied wrongdoing. His attorneys have previously challenged claims
Speaker 1: in court. In some cases have been dismissed, while others
Speaker 1: were settled. The files raised serious questions, but who enabled abuse?
Speaker 1: Long complaints were known, and with a wealth and influence,
Speaker 1: helped shield powerful figures from scrutiny. So we got Copperfield,
Speaker 1: who is prominent in all these things. So yeah, and
Speaker 1: they got they got the tie that binds here with Oprah.
Speaker 1: So it's just weird, the uh, the kind of the
Speaker 1: idea of like, you know, the the the obvious, all
Speaker 1: this stuff hiding in the obvious, these things that are
Speaker 1: almost like I guess the like kind of almost like
Speaker 1: comfort foods. I mean obviously they're not foods, but you
Speaker 1: know what I mean, these are these you know, they're
Speaker 1: they're what chicken noodle soup, you know type thing, Like
Speaker 1: I know you you you played hookey and you stayed
Speaker 1: home with mom and you watch Oprah like that that
Speaker 1: down home, wholesome feeling, like that's the source. Even David Copperfield,
Speaker 1: you know, like he does kind of like the he
Speaker 1: was known for, like the hokey sort of magic. So
Speaker 1: it's just weird. It's just that, you know, kind of
Speaker 1: we're we're just digging a little bit of the surface
Speaker 1: and we're seeing all this sinister stuff hiding in plain sight.
Speaker 1: And I think maybe a little bit of a little
Speaker 1: bit once again, another hard segue in here, But I
Speaker 1: think it works. I think it works. I guess a
Speaker 1: little bit of a little of a hard, hard turn here,
Speaker 1: but I didn't want to talk a little bit of
Speaker 1: a discourse. But I've seen some people kind of talk
Speaker 1: about Epstein being a libertarian of some sort or maybe
Speaker 1: even let's just say, using the sort of language of
Speaker 1: the Yeoman, the idea of like kind of appealing to
Speaker 1: markets and you know, freedom, liberty, YadA, YadA. Here's one
Speaker 1: such example that people have used. Here's a little edit
Speaker 1: that people were passing around. But yeah, here's here's Jeffrey
Speaker 1: talking about just.
Speaker 9: That politics doesn't belong in the in the markets.
Speaker 1: All right, so obvious, obviously there's all the obligatory age
Speaker 1: of consent jokes, YadA, YadA, YadA. But trying to position
Speaker 1: that this has been a common talking point, positioning people
Speaker 1: like Epstein as these like uber libertarians. This is kind
Speaker 1: of like what they've done with Peter Teel as well. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: their very essence is being tapped into the evil that
Speaker 1: is the state, Like this is what they owe, this
Speaker 1: is how they're able to you know, this is what
Speaker 1: they're latching onto. They're just essentially a parasitic, parasitical entity
Speaker 1: on like the mainline evil, like the main Look, they
Speaker 1: are just tapping into that, that's what they are. But
Speaker 1: even to that case, I think there's a little bit
Speaker 1: of a as above so below, a little bit of inversion.
Speaker 1: They play this game of kind of seating the positioning
Speaker 1: themselves as the as the uber mens libertarian, the uh,
Speaker 1: the the yeoman, the the the kind of appealing to
Speaker 1: these sensibilities. Meanwhile they're the exact opposite. Here's Liquid Zulu saying,
Speaker 1: that's strange. If Epstein is a libertarian, why does he
Speaker 1: align with status Kinsian economists and hate Ron Paul, which
Speaker 1: I referring to the Ron Paul thing. I guess he did.
Speaker 1: There was an email out there where he I think
Speaker 1: he called him like a Dinkis or something, talking about
Speaker 1: Ron Paul. And I think the context too, was like
Speaker 1: that Ron Paul was essentially acknowledging that Ron Paul was
Speaker 1: one of the only politicians that wouldn't go along with
Speaker 1: some give some given awful action, and so because of
Speaker 1: that he sucks. But here's an email actually kind of
Speaker 1: getting at the real driving force between Epstein's sort of
Speaker 1: thinking and you know, funny enough, it is, actually this
Speaker 1: is the establishment thinking. Here's at Sigma Hamster saying funnily enough.
Speaker 1: Jeff Epstein mentions Krugman, Kingsian, and Aiken Green, which is
Speaker 1: also a Kingsian you know, economy thinker, as being similar thinkers,
Speaker 1: while distancing himself from the libertarian thinkers like Milton Friedman.
Speaker 1: See right here. This is from Epstein to Boris Nikolich,
Speaker 1: who was Bill Gates is like what like a some
Speaker 1: sort of science guy or something. His the subject from
Speaker 1: Larry for Bill so his monetary stuff. Barry Eiken Green
Speaker 1: books globalizing capital, exorbitant privilege, and lots of policy shorter
Speaker 1: stuff on his website. Go to Paul Krugman blog and
Speaker 1: search articles on reserve currency, roll the dollar, etc. Martin
Speaker 1: Wolf Fixing Global Capital two thousand and nine book He
Speaker 1: is World's Best Economic Journalist. Column and blog well worth reading.
Speaker 1: History of Crisises Kindelberg Manya's Mania's Panics and Crashes, Rogoff, Rinshardt.
Speaker 1: This time it's different textbooks on macro with emphasis on
Speaker 1: international and monetary aspects. No math, Paul Kragman, Krugman and
Speaker 1: Morris Obstfeld International Economics basis for graduate courses. Morris Obstfold
Speaker 1: and Kenneth Rogoff International macro Economists Economics in general. Smartest
Speaker 1: guys who think like me are Eichen Green, Krugman, much
Speaker 1: better on international than other things, Ragoff Wolf. Smartest guys
Speaker 1: who have different, more Milton Friedman like views, Robert Mundel
Speaker 1: Ron McKinnon so very clearly seeing himself as not a libertarian,
Speaker 1: very much, very much of the elitist economic type thinking.
Speaker 1: And I know, I know that was a hard segue
Speaker 1: into there, but I'm gonna kind of bring it into
Speaker 1: a landing here, uh and kind of once again, Michael
Speaker 1: Tracy was our our our is our lighthouse here kind
Speaker 1: of within this, in this you know, these thrashing waves
Speaker 1: of schizophrenia, pounding, pounding, you know, making us delirious. We
Speaker 1: look to the lighthouse of that greasy face of Michael
Speaker 1: Tracy and you go, what the fuck is he talking about?
Speaker 1: And we we hone it in that and we go, okay,
Speaker 1: all right, that's that's what keeps us, keeps us moored,
Speaker 1: because there's just so much crazy rabbit holes, seemingly confirmed,
Speaker 1: confirming everything that many of us have ever believed. So
Speaker 1: we go, whoa, whoa, whoa, Calm down, what are we
Speaker 1: focus on? And we see Michael Tracy and in the
Speaker 1: and with this you know segment being like kind of
Speaker 1: the idea of hiding in plain sight, the things that
Speaker 1: are hiding in plain sight. Uh, here's Michael Tracy, uh
Speaker 1: shitting on Ron Paul for essentially essentially leaning into the
Speaker 1: this idea, this idea of that all this stuff, this
Speaker 1: evil is hiding in plain sight and pointing it out.
Speaker 1: So let's listen to him. Let's read what Michael Tracy
Speaker 1: has to stay he says. He says. Ron Paul argues
Speaker 1: that Epstein hysteria represents an opportunity for libertarians because it
Speaker 1: can sow distrust in the state and therefore create opportunities
Speaker 1: to limit the government's power. As such, he is pleased
Speaker 1: that so many people now believe that government agencies use
Speaker 1: the sexual abuse of children to force unnamed, rich and
Speaker 1: powerful individuals to do the government's bidding under duress, and
Speaker 1: he is pleased to participate in ensuring that as many
Speaker 1: people as possible believe this tale, co signing Thomas Massey's
Speaker 1: crusade to declare that mass scales sexual abuse the children
Speaker 1: was carried out in order to blackmail the rich and powerful.
Speaker 1: Ron Paul appears not to have a care in the
Speaker 1: world about whether any of this is actually true. All
Speaker 1: available evidence, he says, all available current evidence, all available
Speaker 1: evidence currently shows that it's emphatically not true. But he's
Speaker 1: nonetheless eager to amplify and leverage as false belief in
Speaker 1: service of somehow vaguely pursuing libertarian ideological objectives. So it's
Speaker 1: truly amazing how many brains this whole thing is pulverized
Speaker 1: right across the political spectrum, because, by the way you think,
Speaker 1: if you think the end result Epstein hysteria is gonna
Speaker 1: be any sort of limitation of state power. You are
Speaker 1: laughingly delusional. There is no more slam dunk pretext for
Speaker 1: expanding the car stole and surveillance powers of state than
Speaker 1: by claiming it must be done to protect children and
Speaker 1: punish pedos. Well, I don't know when it's the people
Speaker 1: that are running it that are the petos. I don't
Speaker 1: know if that logic follows falls through there, Mikey boy,
Speaker 1: but I see literally absolutely no problem here, and I
Speaker 1: think you forgot the gigachad image. Let's see what is
Speaker 1: he referring to. He's referring to I guess a piece
Speaker 1: Ron Paul wrote back in February twenty third, So I figure,
Speaker 1: let's read this real quick. Ron Paul is entirely correct
Speaker 1: and pointing out those things hiding in plain sight, the
Speaker 1: evil that people don't want to acknowledge, and now is
Speaker 1: becoming ever so glad so its the Epstein files and
Speaker 1: the Justice Department's failure to let the people see the
Speaker 1: full files present an opportunity for libertarians. The belief that
Speaker 1: government agencies use the sexual abuse of children's and means
Speaker 1: of ensuring rich and powerful people did their bidding will
Speaker 1: increase distrust of government and the interested profit from and
Speaker 1: often control the state. The Trump administration's failure to release
Speaker 1: the files until forced two by Congress will further increase
Speaker 1: the distrust of government. This distrust can lead to support
Speaker 1: for liberty if those who of us who know the
Speaker 1: truth explained. The problem is a government that tries to
Speaker 1: run the economy, run the war world, and run our lives.
Speaker 1: This type of government will inevitably attract unscrupulous individuals. Therefore,
Speaker 1: the solution is to limit the government's power. The first
Speaker 1: step is to build a critical mass of people committed
Speaker 1: to restoring liberty and able to see through the propaganda
Speaker 1: used to convince us government is taking our liberty for
Speaker 1: our own good. Following the Watergate scandal, Murray Rothbard wrote
Speaker 1: that it is Watergate that gives us the greatest single
Speaker 1: hope for the short run victory of liberty in America.
Speaker 1: For Watergate, as politicians have been warning us ever since,
Speaker 1: destroyed the public's faith in government, and it was high
Speaker 1: time too. Unfortunately, people's distrust and government did not last, however,
Speaker 1: to representive. Thomas Massey, who's leading the fight to make
Speaker 1: the files public, has argued that abusing minors in order
Speaker 1: at blackmail wealthy and powerful individuals, along with the refusals
Speaker 1: to expose the full truth about these horrific crimes is
Speaker 1: bigger then Watergate. And I one hundred percent agree with
Speaker 1: Ron Paul here, this is the perfect time to point
Speaker 1: out all the evil that's hiding in plain sight. And
Speaker 1: I mean, we've been training for just this moment, and
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe I don't. I mean, I mean,
Speaker 1: Michael's probably right, and then it may not make a
Speaker 1: damn bit of difference, but far be it for me
Speaker 1: not to point it out if I'm going to be
Speaker 1: running a show like this. But now let's roll with
Speaker 1: the chat, say some more good morning, say our goodbyes,
Speaker 1: and then I do have a little bit of an
Speaker 1: outro for you guys here, a little bit on the
Speaker 1: educational side, and I'll see you guys tomorrow around eleven
Speaker 1: am Eastern. Around that time. That's all the chat time,
Speaker 1: Good morning, a latte to talk about. So just gonna
Speaker 1: hear weasel talk. Indeed, looking to Kushner push purchasing purchasing
Speaker 1: an island with his UAE buddies in Albania. I'll have
Speaker 1: to check that out sometime I did not know about that.
Speaker 1: Good morning, Honda Rider. Feels like it's pretty simple to
Speaker 1: it'd be pretty simple to lie, and said he hates
Speaker 1: the awful things alleged. I'm sure who we were talking
Speaker 1: about that point. Let me see, Oh, loafers and sweatpants
Speaker 1: and super gazes onto Tony Chinz. They listen on Spotify
Speaker 1: catch most, if not all episodes. Hell yeah, leave a
Speaker 1: five star review if you don't mind, or any of
Speaker 1: you other guys listening on there. Ao q Bird, good morning,
Speaker 1: Good morning to you, black Eyes. It's the first few
Speaker 1: showing up in there. Good morning, black Eye, good morning,
Speaker 1: good morning, Good morning, cmar Neil, good morning. Who else
Speaker 1: we've got here? Tony Chintz is jerky only, paleo or keto.
Speaker 1: We're working toward. We're gonna get to one of those
Speaker 1: segments one of these days. I'm trying. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: like so I'm using my I'm using Tracy as my
Speaker 1: little like my lighthouse here to keep me. But eventually
Speaker 1: we're gonna get into the weird shrimp, pizza, grape soda jerky.
Speaker 1: We're gonna we're gonna have to do a segment on
Speaker 1: it one of these days. As as we get into there,
Speaker 1: we kind of cat we we wade into the waters.
Speaker 1: You know. The the getting into the jerky talk is
Speaker 1: like you know, you know how like when you're walking
Speaker 1: into the water, especially like cold water, and it's especially
Speaker 1: as dudes, it's like your balls is the line where
Speaker 1: you're like fuck like that is that's where we're dipping
Speaker 1: our balls in the water. Is when we get into
Speaker 1: that stuff, We're not quite there. We're still at like
Speaker 1: knees where we're in there. We're like knee deep in
Speaker 1: the epsteam water. We're wading in when we get like
Speaker 1: through a ball and then we like then you usually
Speaker 1: just like plunge right in. That's what I that's my move.
Speaker 1: I was like kind of walk in and like right
Speaker 1: when I gets to my balls, just plunge my whole
Speaker 1: body in, cause it's like you may as well just
Speaker 1: do the whole thing at that point because the dropping
Speaker 1: your balls in the waters in the cold water is
Speaker 1: the worst part. So uh, but we're getting there, We're
Speaker 1: we're wading our way into the water and these these
Speaker 1: these are these metaphors don't work because they go back
Speaker 1: and forth. I was using a lighthouse, which would imply
Speaker 1: we're deep in the water. Now, I musing, But you
Speaker 1: get what I mean? You get what I mean because
Speaker 1: I thought jerky was boys shrimp girls. I mean, you're
Speaker 1: trying to get me a talk about it now. I
Speaker 1: think jerky was supposed to be just meat like human
Speaker 1: meat like is the implication. I don't know what. Well,
Speaker 1: maybe actually you know what. Maybe you're I get what
Speaker 1: you're saying, though, shrimp would be the four girls because
Speaker 1: that one email they're talking about popping their head off
Speaker 1: or whatever. So I don't know if maybe shrimp the
Speaker 1: context is food. I don't know. It's kind of hard
Speaker 1: to say. Let me see, keep going else, we got
Speaker 1: anyone else new in here? Anyone will say good morning
Speaker 1: your Hey? Since when do live at you stop midstream
Speaker 1: for unskipp of ads. YouTube is doing way too much
Speaker 1: for advertising now, sorry, sorry you gonna I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe I did. I'm getting money from that. Sorry, I'm
Speaker 1: making my money, baby boy. So if you don't like it,
Speaker 1: I don't. I think I could do like memberships on YouTube,
Speaker 1: and I think I can get rid of it. So
Speaker 1: or go watch on rumble. So there you go. That's
Speaker 1: the incentive. Go to Rumble. Go to Rumble if you
Speaker 1: don't like the ads. Mmmmmm no. Season runs two devices
Speaker 1: while watching the stream. One gets no ads, the other
Speaker 1: gets all the ads for some reason that makes no sense.
Speaker 1: But uh, hey did jej Sa? Does Jose even get
Speaker 1: the ad revenue? I thought he was unmonetized. I got
Speaker 1: recently remonetized, like a couple months ago. So you can
Speaker 1: drop super chats just so you guys know. Good morning, desk.
Speaker 1: It just got in from the allotment and I'll catch
Speaker 1: up later evening. All good to see you here, Commando
Speaker 1: Mac because uh Copperfield was making as weener disappear between
Speaker 1: fresh buns, good one, marnamac good one, Monder Riders. So
Speaker 1: he said something about market so he's definitely libertarian. Has
Speaker 1: that figure just some dem rep breezing for Well, I've
Speaker 1: seen other people running with like the really it's just
Speaker 1: kind of tired week. It's mostly likehole age of consent
Speaker 1: or just kind of this idea of that, like you know,
Speaker 1: rich men can do anything, you know, kind of a
Speaker 1: complete complete misunderstanding of the word. But yeah, I've seen
Speaker 1: people running with that. See you, Tony Chin, you have
Speaker 1: a good day. He's out of here. Appreciate it. See
Speaker 1: you good morning, evil bo weevils. Just keep up the
Speaker 1: good work. Lmeo Ball's deep baby consciousness of no status.
Speaker 1: But I've got to say Ron Paul is fairly likable. Yes,
Speaker 1: I do like the guy. All right, guys, just get
Speaker 1: out of here, perfect timing, rid it two hours. We
Speaker 1: did it all right, guys, We'll see you all tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Be sure to do all the boosting all help me out.
Speaker 1: I'm sure I'm saying all the wrong words that I'm
Speaker 1: not supposed to say it getting me deep boosted. So
Speaker 1: help a brother out and make up for it. But
Speaker 1: on your way out, I do have a fun, little
Speaker 1: informative video for you guys, talking about a fun life
Speaker 1: little board game back in World War two Germany. But
Speaker 1: in the meantime. For those who want to learn how
Speaker 1: to support this show, there's a few ways you can
Speaker 1: do that. You can do that with no money whatsoever,
Speaker 1: by liking, sharing, subscribing, commenting, leaving five star reviews on
Speaker 1: iTunes for Spotify. You can follow the show on YouTube, Rumble,
Speaker 1: I'll a major audio podcatchers and Twitter as well. That's
Speaker 1: at Tara Gang Jose. If you want to support the
Speaker 1: show the best way you can. You do those money
Speaker 1: over at patron dot complish no way. He was a
Speaker 1: twenty twenty the lowest levels two bucks that gives you
Speaker 1: access to early episodes. I usually try to do but
Speaker 1: one to two of those per week. Tonight I got
Speaker 1: I got Demento. More you coming back on for or
Speaker 1: Doc and Ferno I forget what we call him for
Speaker 1: another years of led episode. So doing one of those
Speaker 1: paywall I try to do but one of two those
Speaker 1: per week, keep about two to four by the pay
Speaker 1: want to give in time, try to keep and then
Speaker 1: I also gotta add for YOURSS feed you also got
Speaker 1: the telegram. You also got the ad or you also
Speaker 1: get the pre show, post show and video calls, I
Speaker 1: mean Austin's weekly live calling show Already Dead which on
Speaker 1: Tuesdays at nine thirty pm Eastern. Also get a big
Speaker 1: shot out to the highest on my Patreon with my
Speaker 1: sponsors as a bank. Thank you for their support. My
Speaker 1: previous cohost and targeting at learn Toad, also at abregate,
Speaker 1: the's at ze virsk at underscoreing with zeal Tinto at
Speaker 1: Jolant Cleebold a big family show, tourn me at Wayne
Speaker 1: Tagle's one hundre card for kids, no free launch, Jack
Speaker 1: Mark Vestibule and Jacob winegrad a Biblico of Ernarchy podcast.
Speaker 1: With that, guys, we're out of here. Enjoy this educational outro.
Speaker 1: I'll see you guys tomorrow, give or take around eleven AM.
Speaker 19: Of all the things I've seen today, I think this
Speaker 19: for me is the most chilling because it's a children's game,
Speaker 19: but it's teaching children to hate. It's called Jews Out
Speaker 19: and Ben, you've brought it along from the Vina Library,
Speaker 19: which is Britain's Holocaust archive. It's a horrifying thing, isn't it.
Speaker 20: It is a very horrifying thing. And as you say,
Speaker 20: it's because it's directed at children, and it's about in
Speaker 20: doctrinating children into this view of Jews as something pestilential
Speaker 20: and unwanted and to be got rid of.
Speaker 19: And these are so these characters are meant to symbolize
Speaker 19: the Jews here, these horrible caricatures in their homes and
Speaker 19: their businesses. And the object is, as it were, to
Speaker 19: round them up.
Speaker 20: It's to round them up. So you roll dice and
Speaker 20: these figures which represent the sort of German policemen go
Speaker 20: marching round the town and when they land on the
Speaker 20: circles where the yellow cones are, the cones actually then
Speaker 20: sit on top of the hats of the policemen and
Speaker 20: are brought back to what's called the collection point or
Speaker 20: the zummer Plux, and then you set out to get
Speaker 20: another one, and it's a sort of race to be
Speaker 20: the first to round up six.
Speaker 19: And then when you get six, it's after Palestine, as it.
Speaker 20: Says notionally, for the Jews you've rounded up, they are
Speaker 20: sent away to Palestine.
Speaker 19: And this was created when this game it.
Speaker 20: Was created in nineteen thirty eight, and it was not
Speaker 20: produced by the Nazi Party, but was a commercial undertaking,
Speaker 20: so made for profit.
Speaker 6: Was it popular?
Speaker 20: I believe it was very popular. It was a commercial success,
Speaker 20: although now it's a great rarity, and it's.
Speaker 19: So important not to forget that things like this existed.
Speaker 20: Yes, that's right. Some people nowadays try to deny that
Speaker 20: the Holocaust ever happened, and the whole purpose of our
Speaker 20: collection is to make sure that those suggestions will always fail,
Speaker 20: because we have the evidence in front of us.