Speaker 1: Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret.
Speaker 1: It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out.
Speaker 1: You're listening to a podcast right now, and it's great.
Speaker 1: You love the host, you seek it out and download it.
Speaker 1: You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even
Speaker 1: going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion.
Speaker 1: And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention?
Speaker 1: You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising
Speaker 1: from libsynads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements,
Speaker 1: or run a pre produced ad like this one across
Speaker 1: thousands of shows. To reach your target audience and their
Speaker 1: favorite podcasts with libsynads, go to libsynads dot com. That's
Speaker 1: l I B S y n ads dot com Today.
Speaker 2: Remaining and live man like this man letting butterfly flattening
Speaker 2: wing big down in our forced Man, it gonna cause
Speaker 2: a tree fall, letting five thousand miles away, man, nobody
Speaker 2: see nobody else and you got directed.
Speaker 3: Acted Nan, All right, look at that. So this will
Speaker 3: be a little different than normal. It's not an interview,
Speaker 3: it's not a live stream, just a monologue, right me
Speaker 3: and you. Now there's two reasons for that. One, I
Speaker 3: haven't done one of these in a while. I thought
Speaker 3: it'd be fun. And two, Uh, let's be honest. The
Speaker 3: more important one is that, Uh, I'm in kind of
Speaker 3: a content behind all right. I have a whole bunch
Speaker 3: of things scheduled, but nothing that meets this deadline. And
Speaker 3: the interview was supposed to come out today Thomas and
Speaker 3: I talking about the West Memphis three with a first
Speaker 3: hand source. Uh didn't work out. The guy, as the
Speaker 3: kids say, crashed out, quit kind of lost. It won't
Speaker 3: get into that perhaps best left unsaid. So I needed
Speaker 3: something to do, and I figured we'd bring back an
Speaker 3: old staple, the Jay Burtons Show article reading streams or podcasts.
Speaker 3: I guess because this isn't going out live. This article
Speaker 3: and I'm going to read for you is actually cited
Speaker 3: in a piece that I have written coming out tomorrow
Speaker 3: with my friends at Juneto or huntil I'm not entirely sure.
Speaker 3: An outlet on substack started by some friends with mine,
Speaker 3: and I might add, actually, by the way, in addition
Speaker 3: to their substack, which is quite good, they also have
Speaker 3: a really fascinating intel tab. This is not the point
Speaker 3: of the stream It's just something that I was showing
Speaker 3: me where effectively you can find all sorts of interesting
Speaker 3: things like a campaign finance tracker, networking map, can wright
Speaker 3: wing talent network. Not for jobs, of course, but just
Speaker 3: track different people and their institutional affiliations. Even if you're
Speaker 3: not a conservative per se, there's a lot you can
Speaker 3: glean from there. Right, It's fascinating information, and the network's
Speaker 3: growing rapidly. They didn't pay me to say that. I
Speaker 3: just think it's kind of neat. So if you're interested,
Speaker 3: check that out. In addition to my article which cites
Speaker 3: this piece, the one that we're going to be going over,
Speaker 3: it's a part of that argument, not the whole thing,
Speaker 3: but this article written in New York Magazine by Brooks
Speaker 3: what's his last name or first name rather, by Dan Brooks,
Speaker 3: going over the recent DJ release of the Epstein files. Right.
Speaker 3: And the reason I'm reading this is partially because, look,
Speaker 3: I got a slot I need to fill, but also
Speaker 3: because it's a really interesting argument. You see it come
Speaker 3: up again and again from these sort of professional managerial types. Right.
Speaker 3: Brooks may not be smart enough to express it well,
Speaker 3: but he is smart enough to pick up on a
Speaker 3: trend to pick up on the direction the winds are blowing,
Speaker 3: so also somewhat interestingly, initially this article was titled Pizzagate
Speaker 3: Wasn't real right? They changed it. I thought that name
Speaker 3: was a lot better the new one. Jeffrey Epstein loved
Speaker 3: sex trafficking pizza did. The newly released documents lend support
Speaker 3: to the old Pizzagate conspiracy way worse title. The first
Speaker 3: one was great. The latest tranch of documents released by
Speaker 3: the Department of Justice related to its investigation of Jeffrey
Speaker 3: Epstein contains four hundred and eighty two occurrences of the
Speaker 3: word pizza, which seems like a lot. By comparison, the
Speaker 3: word Hamburger appears only one hundred and ninety tens, while
Speaker 3: the phrase sex with children appears twenty times, including in
Speaker 3: some kind of tract sent to the FBI with the
Speaker 3: impenetrable title sex Collectors, Halet, Tony Blair, Cullen, Gordon Brown,
Speaker 3: British Intelligence I six MI five Dunblane Pedophiles, nWo Illuminati Freemasons,
Speaker 3: as well as in this photograph Epstein's brother Mark provided
Speaker 3: the Agency in twenty twenty. For those this is a
Speaker 3: photo of a flip phone from Mark Epstein, which says
Speaker 3: five twenty nine are five twenty four excuse me, you
Speaker 3: have a good family. Do they know if you had
Speaker 3: sex with children you will die? And then a link.
Speaker 3: These two artifacts represent two ends of the evidentiary spectrum.
Speaker 3: A seemingly explicit indication that somebody was abusing kids and
Speaker 3: getting blackmailed and threatened for it, and a dispatch from
Speaker 3: the most fevered corner of the conspiracy minded Internet. You
Speaker 3: would think the conspiracists would be thrilled by the blackmail stuff,
Speaker 3: but for the time being, they have focused their attention
Speaker 3: on the pizza. I'm just going to go through this
Speaker 3: intro and then once we get into actual meat of it,
Speaker 3: get my analysis. Admittedly, some of the pizza related material
Speaker 3: seems pretty weird. An April twenty eighteen message from a
Speaker 3: redacted sender says, let's go for pizza and grape soda again.
Speaker 3: No one can understand go kN oh cryptic. Some of
Speaker 3: it is scrutable. Go no k and o appears to
Speaker 3: be a rendering of go no, an English derivative of
Speaker 3: the Yiddish express gay vase ge. I'm sorry, I don't
Speaker 3: understand the Star Wars language, which is roughly equivalent to
Speaker 3: go figure. The claim that no one else can understand,
Speaker 3: on the other hand, is a creepy element that echoes
Speaker 3: Donald Trump's allusion to the Wonderful Secrets and his infamous
Speaker 3: letter on the occasion of Epstein's fiftieth birthday. This combination
Speaker 3: is the essence of the latest cash some question. Some
Speaker 3: questions yield to research. Others are stubborn but tantalize, inviting
Speaker 3: readers to fill in the blanks with what they could
Speaker 3: not possibly know. Pizza and grape soda blombe to the
Speaker 3: latter category and appears frequently in Epstein's emails and texts.
Speaker 3: In a twenty eighteen exchange with his zerologist Harry Fish,
Speaker 3: who erroneously appears in Epstein's context as Harry phish Fish,
Speaker 3: the two seem to discuss refilling Epstein's prescription for a
Speaker 3: rectile dysfunction medication. Phish later texts, after you use them,
Speaker 3: wash your hands, and lets go get pizza and grape soda.
Speaker 3: This proposal seems odd. There are many things you can
Speaker 3: do after your viagra kicks in, and getting a slice
Speaker 3: with your doctor is not near the top of the list.
Speaker 3: In another context, it might just be funny. But the
Speaker 3: confluence of pizza and grape soda with Epstein, a man
Speaker 3: increasingly known for exactly one thing, and boner pills is
Speaker 3: enough to drive a reasonable person to conjecture. Remember when
Speaker 3: only unreasonable people thought like this? The idea that pizza
Speaker 3: could be a code word for illicit sexual activities was
Speaker 3: laughable in twenty sixteen, when the so called pizza Gate
Speaker 3: conspiracy captured the imagination of what charitably might be called
Speaker 3: the internet's most enthusiastic use users. The theory, which emerged
Speaker 3: after wiki Leak's publicly released the personal emails of Hillary
Speaker 3: for America campaign chair John Podesta, hinged on the belief
Speaker 3: that references to pizza were code for children used for sex.
Speaker 3: From that bedrock assumption, Pizzagate theorist concluded that the Clintons
Speaker 3: and other powerful Democrats were satanic pedophiles operating an abuse
Speaker 3: in cannibalism, ring from various restaurants in the Washington, DC area.
Speaker 3: Why else with the staff of presidential campaign talk about
Speaker 3: ordering a pizza. Even the theory's most ardent believers lost confidence. However,
Speaker 3: after a man named Edgar Madison Welch brought a rifle
Speaker 3: to one of the restaurants, Comet Pizza, and demanded to
Speaker 3: see the children being held in its basement. Comet Pizza
Speaker 3: had no basement, and Welsh eventually surrendered to police. In
Speaker 3: January twenty twenty five, he was shot and killed during
Speaker 3: an unrelated traffic stop in North Carolina. I prefer not
Speaker 3: to comment on this turn of events. Okay, so several
Speaker 3: things here. One, I'm not like Pizzagate guy, but this
Speaker 3: is a really interesting timeline because he's partially and he
Speaker 3: also does some false equivalency here, so he is correct.
Speaker 3: Pizza Gate happened months like roughly three or four months
Speaker 3: before QAnon, which is probably what you're thinking of when
Speaker 3: you hear the term pizzagate, and it came from, as
Speaker 3: he said, the John Podesta emails. Now, the first part,
Speaker 3: you know, the idea that this restaurant and others were
Speaker 3: being used for child sex trafficking, is part of kind
Speaker 3: of the og, the first strain of pizza Gate. But
Speaker 3: all the other stuff, the Democrats, the the crazy stuff
Speaker 3: about Hillary Clinton, that's QAnon. And I have long contended
Speaker 3: that QAnon is a massive op. Right, just look at
Speaker 3: the kind of similarities to what the the Communists were
Speaker 3: doing to the white Russians, right, the propaganda they were
Speaker 3: doing during Russian Civil War. Well, sure, some of it
Speaker 3: was throw down your arms and surrender, but a large
Speaker 3: portion of it was effectively, everything is fine, the Communists
Speaker 3: are being destroyed. You don't have to do anything. QAnon
Speaker 3: obviously has a very similar character to it, right, the
Speaker 3: idea that there is the shadowy force in the US government,
Speaker 3: that patriots are in control, that so many of these
Speaker 3: hated figures for the followers of q have been arrested, tried,
Speaker 3: and executed in Guantanamo Bank, This is a really interesting
Speaker 3: equivalence one you see often. Now he mentions it. The
Speaker 3: framing on this is slightly changed because for a long time,
Speaker 3: almost a decade, Pizzagate, the widely debunked conspiracy theory, was
Speaker 3: sort of the the the prime example for the regime
Speaker 3: of why conspiracy theories are dangerous, because it resulted in
Speaker 3: this mass shooting. Now he mentions it, of course that welch,
Speaker 3: this guy brought a rifle into comment pizza. So I'm
Speaker 3: not going to get into this. Like I said, the
Speaker 3: point of this is not to be a pizza Gate video.
Speaker 3: What it is to go over the reaction to it. Right,
Speaker 3: this is sort of an inciting incident, but it's worth
Speaker 3: saying nonetheless, So a couple things. One, it's not a
Speaker 3: mass shooting. He didn't shoot anyone. He fired one bullet
Speaker 3: and that bullet went through the door of the maintenance closet.
Speaker 3: He was attempting to rescue children from into the four
Speaker 3: hundred thousand dollars server rack in a pizza place, destroying
Speaker 3: the hard drive. Just things that normal pizza places have.
Speaker 3: If you're curious, if you want to watch security cam
Speaker 3: footage of the attack, you can't because every single one
Speaker 3: of them was turned around on that day, which is weird.
Speaker 3: Now Brooks is actually correct, I don't have a smoking gun.
Speaker 3: You know, this is the sort of question that defies researchers.
Speaker 3: But it's interesting certainly. Obviously the fact that he was
Speaker 3: shot and killed. You know, he seemed to be sort
Speaker 3: of an unstable individual. I don't necessarily want to comment
Speaker 3: on that, but it's a weird thing to have happened.
Speaker 3: And also, of course, the Podesta emails are just as
Speaker 3: if not more incriminating. My friend Daryl Cooper Martyer made
Speaker 3: did an excellent series digging into the Podesta emails highly
Speaker 3: recommend checking that out. There's a lot there, I'll put it.
Speaker 3: I'll put it that way, go into his art collection
Speaker 3: his associations. Point is the idea that this is simply
Speaker 3: some sort of conflagration of like QAnon and like Retardo
Speaker 3: conspiracy theory is it's like, well, sure that exists, but
Speaker 3: that's not all of it. And it is very convenient
Speaker 3: QAnon exists because it forms a great straw man. You
Speaker 3: don't actually have to address real meaningful criticism inconsistencies. You
Speaker 3: can just say, well, those people believe JFK is going
Speaker 3: to resurrect from the grave and appear it in Rockefeller Plaza,
Speaker 3: they're transparently stupid. Anyway, back to the article, because we
Speaker 3: have we have a lot to go. At the time,
Speaker 3: the assumption that pizza was code for sex with children
Speaker 3: seemed obviously arbitrary and extravagant, a violation of the principle
Speaker 3: that the simplest explanation is usually the right one. This
Speaker 3: heuristic octims razor, which, by the way, progressives are very
Speaker 3: tactical in their invocation of Oham's razor. One may may
Speaker 3: think of systematic racism or either glass ceiling or the
Speaker 3: patriarchy as sort of wonderful examples of this where the
Speaker 3: most simple explanation is completely and totally inappropriate. Back to
Speaker 3: the narrative, This heuristic Ocome's is often a handy way
Speaker 3: to differentiate ideas and people we should take seriously from
Speaker 3: ones we can safely dismiss. People who are frustrated that
Speaker 3: they've misplaced the keys tend to be more credible than
Speaker 3: those who think their keys have been stolen. Except with
Speaker 3: the Epstein pizza thing that somebody stole my keys contingent
Speaker 3: seems to have been suddenly and disastrously vindicated. As of
Speaker 3: February twelfth, a Reddit post titled pizza code words littered
Speaker 3: in Epstein files has gotten twelve thousand upduts and eighteen
Speaker 3: thousand comments, many of which center on the idea that
Speaker 3: the Pizzagate conspiracy has been proved basically correct, even if
Speaker 3: it got some of the specific th wrong. One commenter wrote,
Speaker 3: I wouldn't be surprised if they came up with the
Speaker 3: original conspiracy to take attention away from the places where
Speaker 3: it was actually happening. And William of Oakham rotates in
Speaker 3: his grave like rotisserie chicken, so several things there, right, Look,
Speaker 3: I have no great lover of Reddit for any number
Speaker 3: of reasons. But okay, surely you know, as open minded
Speaker 3: progressives as liberal defenders. Fourth Doxy, we should at least
Speaker 3: hear this out. Are we going to hear this argument out?
Speaker 3: Dear listener, I think you know the answer. One must
Speaker 3: keep a level head. Even though these recent Epstein materials
Speaker 3: do make the financi here seem strangely interested in pizza
Speaker 3: and unusually committed to having it delivered to other people.
Speaker 3: Several emails, such as May twenty fourth, twenty seventeen, send
Speaker 3: Pizza to Bobby, appear to be an automated calendar reminder.
Speaker 3: The Bobby in question here is comedian Bobby Slayton, the
Speaker 3: subject of pizza reminders on consecutive days in twenty seventeen.
Speaker 3: Another message to an unnamed recipient goes into detail about
Speaker 3: how this pizza should be procured. Artures opens at four pm.
Speaker 3: Be there when they open and order the pizza then
Speaker 3: delivered to three oh one. The message reads. The numeral
Speaker 3: three oh one refers to Epstein's townhouse at three oh
Speaker 3: one sixty six Street, where Slayton appears to have been
Speaker 3: staying at the time, These instructions seem too specific and
Speaker 3: mundane to be about anything but the actual pizza. Similarly,
Speaker 3: this message, which acts a redacted recipient to pick up
Speaker 3: pizza from Patsy's on West seventy fourth Street and then,
Speaker 3: in a change that should annoy anyone who has ever
Speaker 3: worked as an assistant for the first Avenue and one
Speaker 3: one hundred and eighteenth Street locations said looks too detailed
Speaker 3: to be coated. To read it as a cipher, you
Speaker 3: would have to assume that Patsi's does not refer to
Speaker 3: one of the better pies in the city, but rather
Speaker 3: to a specific type of illicit activity available at two
Speaker 3: locations where actual Patsy's Pizzeri's happened to be. Okay, sure,
Speaker 3: these specific instances, it's probably correct, but there's a lot
Speaker 3: more there, right, you have in these files Epstein's assistant
Speaker 3: referring to a sixty thousand dollars pizza room in his
Speaker 3: renovated apartment. That's kind of weird. I mean, look, man, like,
Speaker 3: you know, I like a deep dish pie as much
Speaker 3: as the next guy, and I get it. Sixty thousand
Speaker 3: dollars is a lot less of a thing for Epstein
Speaker 3: than it is for me. But uh, I don't know, man,
Speaker 3: that seems a little bit odd. You have other references to,
Speaker 3: you know, renting a pizza. I don't know how one
Speaker 3: would do that. And look like my conclusion is not
Speaker 3: particularly I am mister pizzagate. I believe it. But this article,
Speaker 3: as we will get into, is clearly a disingenuous reading.
Speaker 3: The point of this article is not the title. The
Speaker 3: point of this article is not to examine the claims made.
Speaker 3: The point of this article is to effectively refocus the
Speaker 3: angst of the progressive reading this away from this uncomfortable truth,
Speaker 3: this uncomfortable thought that maybe the chuds were onto something
Speaker 3: and onto their real target, which, let's be honest, is
Speaker 3: those chuts. Yet Otkham's razor has comparatively little to tell
Speaker 3: us about grape soda. Fish and Epstein refer to pizza
Speaker 3: and grape soda so often and so often together, seemingly
Speaker 3: never just grape soda and rarely just pizza, that the
Speaker 3: whole thing starts to look like a shibbalthe I'm gonna
Speaker 3: leave that there. On March thirty first, twenty eighteen, Fish
Speaker 3: texts pizza, grape soda, naf said, a little more than
Speaker 3: half an hour later, Epstein replies, go no, the same
Speaker 3: expression and expression with which he answered the no one
Speaker 3: else can understand message, also about pizza and grape soda.
Speaker 3: There the exchange ends, leaving the reader to guess what
Speaker 3: happened next. The mystery deepens when you notice Fish often
Speaker 3: follows references to pizza and grape soda with emoji depicting
Speaker 3: an African American, at least four times that I noticed.
Speaker 3: On May twenty fourth, Fish texted Epstein to suggest they
Speaker 3: try the pop tarts at Greenberg's Bakery, meaning William Greenberg Desserts.
Speaker 3: Epstein textbacks June fourth, and Fish responds, first we get
Speaker 3: a slice of pizza with grape soda, then the pop tart.
Speaker 3: Epstein responds, wow, Fish sends the black judge emoji. This
Speaker 3: is another exchange that seems potentially too weird to really
Speaker 3: be about pizza and grape soda. Grape drinks are stereotypically
Speaker 3: associated with African Americans, huh, A bit of niche racism that,
Speaker 3: in combination with the status of cheese, pizza, and soda
Speaker 3: as essentially juvenile foods, invites all manners of conjecture. The
Speaker 3: amateur detective might conclude that pizza and grape soda means
Speaker 3: black prostitutes, or one Italian prostitute and one black prostitute,
Speaker 3: or one black child and one Satanic cabal dressed like
Speaker 3: Super Mario. You couldn't know, but you can speculate endlessly.
Speaker 3: Then the next day, thick fish text couldn't wait, followed
Speaker 3: by an actual photograph of an actual slice of pizza
Speaker 3: and actual grape soda cuts through, and suddenly the whole
Speaker 3: conversation looks like what it first appears to be. Two
Speaker 3: older Jewish men with problematic running joke about their mutual
Speaker 3: infection for particular combinations of foods. Go figure, and again,
Speaker 3: this is exactly what I'm talking about. Right, there are
Speaker 3: millions of documents, between two and a half and three
Speaker 3: and a half million, depending on who you ask. There's
Speaker 3: endless fodder for narrative creation. Just put a pin in
Speaker 3: any one of his claims, because very clearly, as we
Speaker 3: get to the back half of this, it will become
Speaker 3: clear that this is all motivated reason. It's that actually
Speaker 3: concerned with this question. He simply found convenient examples that
Speaker 3: support what he already thinks But then there's this to
Speaker 3: thrust the reader right back into paranoia. Two Jeffrey. Jeffrey's
Speaker 3: email from redacted, Good afternoon, Would it be possible for
Speaker 3: Bryce and I to go over to Red Hook and
Speaker 3: have a quick pizza meal? Warmest regards? The sender's name
Speaker 3: has been redacted in the identity of Bryce is unclear,
Speaker 3: but a former New Zealand Army chief named Bryce Gordon
Speaker 3: co managed Epstein's New Mexico rams and was interviewed by
Speaker 3: the FBI in two thousand and seven. Red Hook is
Speaker 3: an unincorporated town in the US Virgin Islands, the least
Speaker 3: populated such place, according to a twenty twenty census, consisting
Speaker 3: mostly of marinas. There is, as it turns out, a
Speaker 3: pizza restaurant there, But why would someone needs Epstein's permission
Speaker 3: to have a quick pizza meal to which the financier
Speaker 3: was not invited. It's enough to drive a sensible person
Speaker 3: to speculation among online conspiracists. Among online conspiracists, speculation had
Speaker 3: already won the day again, and the people who bought Petz,
Speaker 3: bought into pizzagate are declaring that they were right all along.
Speaker 3: This is exactly the section of this article that got
Speaker 3: me to do this strength this next one. It is
Speaker 3: one of the while the sentences ever written in an article,
Speaker 3: especially in allegedly a respectable And I don't know why
Speaker 3: I'm surprised by this. I shouldn't be. I still am,
Speaker 3: deep down. I think I have some sort of a
Speaker 3: battered sense of shame and standards that I really should disregard. Anyway,
Speaker 3: this is the section the people who bought into Pizzagate
Speaker 3: are declaring they were right all along. They weren't. If
Speaker 3: Epstein and his friends did use pizza as a code
Speaker 3: word for sex, that wouldn't mean that the original Pizzagate
Speaker 3: conspiracy theory was correct, even if it was the case
Speaker 3: that pizza was a sexual code word in the Podesta emails.
Speaker 3: So basically we see here the shifting of the goalposts
Speaker 3: that the conspiracy isn't correct unless it matches up with
Speaker 3: the predictions of another conspiracy. Look like, I do not
Speaker 3: believe in Kewanon. I do not have the maximal take
Speaker 3: on Epstein, But this is a horrible argument. He's basically saying,
Speaker 3: even if you're right, well you're not right. I mean,
Speaker 3: that's effectively a more concise way to say exactly what
Speaker 3: he said it's absurd, and we get some slight chin
Speaker 3: stroking next to you to bulk out this argument. But
Speaker 3: there's really not much to it. Don't worry. This carries
Speaker 3: on from here. A person who stumbles on the correct
Speaker 3: answer through incorrect reasoning is still mistaken. Socrates explains this
Speaker 3: principle in Plato's Mino Dialogue, in which a servant boy
Speaker 3: correctly guesses the area of a two foot by two
Speaker 3: foot square four feet, then reveals his ignorance by declaring
Speaker 3: the area of a four by four foot square is
Speaker 3: eight feet. Socrates argues the boy was wrong when he
Speaker 3: got the right answer. He thought you calculated the area
Speaker 3: of a square by doubling the length of one size. Anyway,
Speaker 3: Socrates was put to death by popular vote. That's democracy
Speaker 3: in action. The potential for thousands or even millions of
Speaker 3: Pizzagate conspiracists to feel vindicated and therefore empowered by the
Speaker 3: preminence of Pizza in the latest bash of Epstein's files
Speaker 3: is scary in a similar democratic fashion, evoking the opposite
Speaker 3: fear from of the excuse me, evoking the opposite fear
Speaker 3: from the fear of elites. The heart of the Epstein
Speaker 3: conspiracy a terror of ordinary people. That is the point
Speaker 3: of this article. This author, his audience is way more
Speaker 3: afraid of the chudgs of you, of the people who
Speaker 3: may or may not have been right about their conspiracy
Speaker 3: theories quote unquote, than they are of, you know, the
Speaker 3: actual collection of blackmailers, inside traders, actual traders, and the
Speaker 3: sexual abusers at the center of this that is comparatively
Speaker 3: less of a scary or disconcerting thing to them. The
Speaker 3: Epstein story is unkillable because it is a vampire story. Huh.
Speaker 3: A parable about the power and privilege that wealthy people
Speaker 3: wield in the twenty first century. Show me a guy
Speaker 3: who believes Epstein traffic children to Bill Clinton and Donald Trump,
Speaker 3: and I'll show you a guy who thinks rich people
Speaker 3: run the world. He's not wrong about that second part,
Speaker 3: but he's probably wrong about the details as well as
Speaker 3: a host of other stuff, including but not limited to
Speaker 3: vaccines and Jews and lasers that control the weather. I'm
Speaker 3: not touching that, and his righteous wrongness. He's become one
Speaker 3: of the most terrifying forces in the twentieth century America.
Speaker 3: And that's the thing right that you have to be right.
Speaker 3: You not only have the goalpost shifted to simply being
Speaker 3: factually correct, but you have to be factually correct in
Speaker 3: a way that this progressive type believes is appropriate. Look like,
Speaker 3: this isn't a real argument. This is a dismissal. It's basically,
Speaker 3: you're racist, and so I don't have to listen to you,
Speaker 3: even if you're right. This is an essay arguing for
Speaker 3: people to just stick their head in the ground. And
Speaker 3: this is ultimately why my takeaway from the last several
Speaker 3: years politics is as bad as things are. It's worse
Speaker 3: for them, right, It's worse for the elite.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: Okay, maybe this guy isn't like an Epstein level elite,
Speaker 3: but I did some research into him. He's ideallygue educated,
Speaker 3: he's an advertising executive. He's a wealthy, well educated man.
Speaker 3: But they've lost all self confidence, right, They have seeded
Speaker 3: the ground that they are wrong and are now arguing
Speaker 3: on well, you're right, but not for the correct reasons
Speaker 3: you're wondering. This is exactly what happened to conservatives and
Speaker 3: evangelical leaders in America forty fifty years ago. They ceded
Speaker 3: the central claim, they held on to their specifics. You know,
Speaker 3: they stood astride you know, the great train of progress
Speaker 3: and yelled stop. But they lost. So I think that
Speaker 3: this is you know, and there's more analysis after that.
Speaker 3: But I think that this is a moment for optimism
Speaker 3: because of that when millions of people like him find
Speaker 3: one another, it can cause Hughes problems. I submit that
Speaker 3: the fear of such people is fundamental The experience of
Speaker 3: being an educated liberal in Trump's United States listen closely
Speaker 3: more frightening than the syndicate of pedophilic celebrities, finance seers
Speaker 3: and their urologists, because it operates in greater numbers. So
Speaker 3: in this latest batch of Epstein files we find weirdness,
Speaker 3: double terror, the sensation that some of the most powerful
Speaker 3: people in the world really did commit acts of imaginable
Speaker 3: cruelty and perversion, and the feeling that the craziest people
Speaker 3: in the world about to get a lot more influential
Speaker 3: as a result. There are two conspiracies out there, the
Speaker 3: mysterious conspiracy of elites that was the life of Jeffrey
Speaker 3: Epstein and the dwell documented conspiracy of morons that is
Speaker 3: American democracy. It is possible that we are ruled by both. Well. Shoot,
Speaker 3: I honestly thought that you guys seeing that article the
Speaker 3: same that I was, well, that's embarrassing, so I guess
Speaker 3: you've been staring at my face. I'll put the link
Speaker 3: down in the description if you guys want to go
Speaker 3: through it. But yeah, there's a lot in that article. Right.
Speaker 3: The terror, right, the real fear that they have lost
Speaker 3: or are losing, is something you see really throughout liberal
Speaker 3: and progressive thought. In my mind, this is why after
Speaker 3: Obama too, the left got really nasty. I think that,
Speaker 3: deep down, if I could psychologize them for a bit,
Speaker 3: there was this fear, this fear that not only was
Speaker 3: this great messianic figure of Obama, the reincarnation of Martin
Speaker 3: Luther King, the man who would heal the indelible sin
Speaker 3: of America, not only did that not work out, not
Speaker 3: only did healthcare get more expensive, not only did the
Speaker 3: wars not and not only did gay marriage not do
Speaker 3: all the things it was claimed to do. But the
Speaker 3: chudges were still there, these these this conspiracy of morons,
Speaker 3: these you know, these racists who you know prot along
Speaker 3: about Jewish space lasers and the like. They didn't go away,
Speaker 3: and so the focus shifted, of course, shifted to punishing them.
Speaker 3: These figures became sort of a recasting of the Soviet
Speaker 3: records for those who aren't familiar. And I don't know
Speaker 3: if this is true. It may be apocryphal, but it
Speaker 3: stands for this point, when the Soviets were encountering issues,
Speaker 3: they couldn't meet quotas, things were moving inefficiently, machines broke. Well,
Speaker 3: if the state owns all of those things and it's
Speaker 3: not going well as a reflection on the state, the
Speaker 3: state cannot be criticized, And so where do they externalize
Speaker 3: that blame? Well, externalized didn't on the wreckers. The reason
Speaker 3: we didn't make enough pig iron, the reason that this
Speaker 3: tank is late, Well, it's not because of any problem
Speaker 3: with the proletariat, not with any problem with the state.
Speaker 3: It's the wreckers, right, this sort of shadowy force. They
Speaker 3: are the reason. And in much the same way the
Speaker 3: progressives turned to these evil conspiracy theorists, these racists as
Speaker 3: the explanation for why there's sort of heaven on Earth
Speaker 3: not materialized. We saw a huge reversion to this in
Speaker 3: the aftermath of Donald Trump's first win. I mean, look
Speaker 3: the whole modern discourse on I say modern, it's been
Speaker 3: a decade on conspiracy theories is basically that it is
Speaker 3: cope or why Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't win, right, the
Speaker 3: most prepared, the most perfect quote unquote candidate in history,
Speaker 3: Why did she lose to this orange O. Well, it's
Speaker 3: the Russians, it's conspiracy theorists, that's queue it on. It's
Speaker 3: it's uncensored social media, it's anything but me, anything but
Speaker 3: the state. And I think you're seeing the exact same thing.
Speaker 3: And fundamentally, it seems as if these progressive types are
Speaker 3: much more afraid of that than they are of Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 3: Now also, and this is much more the point of
Speaker 3: my article in juneto, which is how I will pronounce
Speaker 3: it until someone tells me how to, is why does
Speaker 3: the progressive who fundamentally casts himself as a rebel right?
Speaker 3: There's a reason they're always, you know, comparing themselves to
Speaker 3: Harry Potter or to to Star Wars right, the underdog
Speaker 3: fighting against an evil, oppressive system. Why do they feel
Speaker 3: the sudden urge to run to the defense of that
Speaker 3: same system?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 3: Why are they rushing to defend in the FBI at
Speaker 3: DJ there's another article I haven't I have read. I
Speaker 3: just haven't read it. On to you guys from the
Speaker 3: New York Times by one Daniel Richmond. Huh, the Epstein
Speaker 3: file should never have been released, which makes exactly that point, like, oh,
Speaker 3: this makes the system look bad and from a progressive
Speaker 3: liberal type, well aren't you the underdog? Aren't you fighting
Speaker 3: against the system? Well no, we all understand that isn't true. Fundamentally,
Speaker 3: these people have the same politics as JP, Morgan, Chase
Speaker 3: and Raytheon and them. I five, right, they're not rebels.
Speaker 3: But I think a large part of this on ease
Speaker 3: is that it is that feeling of disquiet. It is
Speaker 3: that feeling that that core central myth to who you are,
Speaker 3: what justifies your existence, how you conceptualize yourself politically qua religiously.
Speaker 3: It's like, oh, shoot, I'm not I am the institution.
Speaker 3: We understand that, right, Brooks the others I mentioned Nick
Speaker 3: Lowles as well. If you guys heard me talking to
Speaker 3: Dan the other day, I did. I have found that article.
Speaker 3: Someone was able to find it for me very quickly.
Speaker 3: So I appreciate your guys help with that. These guys
Speaker 3: are not rebels. They love to cast themselves as activists.
Speaker 3: They love to cast themselves as those who speak truth
Speaker 3: to power. Of course, right, it's not true. It's not
Speaker 3: true at all. Obviously, they receive lots of money from
Speaker 3: the government, as I've said, the same politics as you know,
Speaker 3: Fortune ten companies in every government in the West. But
Speaker 3: this puts them in an awkward situation. Of course, I'm
Speaker 3: going to cut that out. I just completely lost my
Speaker 3: train of thought. Anyway, this places them in a very
Speaker 3: precarious situation. On twofold, one, they're moral legitimacy internally, right,
Speaker 3: This sort of narrative they tell themselves is on fundamentally
Speaker 3: unstable ground, which is huge. We referred earlier right to
Speaker 3: the self confidence required to rule, and that self confidence
Speaker 3: requires this kind of externally externalization of plain Well, if
Speaker 3: you're sort of stuck in this situation of realizing one
Speaker 3: this central myth I told myself is not correct, and
Speaker 3: two my greatest fear really stated that the Chuds have
Speaker 3: been justified, that they have been granted moral legitimacy. It's
Speaker 3: a very interesting thing. It's sort of an inadvertent admission,
Speaker 3: you know, those two things kind of bundled together. So yeah,
Speaker 3: I get much more into this in my article for
Speaker 3: June too. You should check it out. It's pretty good.
Speaker 3: There's a lot more in it than when I went
Speaker 3: over here. I pull from another source in that by
Speaker 3: the infamous Nick Lols who and that's you know, that
Speaker 3: is nice, right in addition to hearing about all these guys,
Speaker 3: when you read their defenders, right, when you read those
Speaker 3: who seek tokind of miscast and recharacterize these tragic events.
Speaker 3: Lulls was, of course reacting to the Grooming gang scandal,
Speaker 3: but there are obvious and clear parallels between the two.
Speaker 3: This is one of the great things about having a
Speaker 3: you know, certain religious belief is that it's like, okay, well,
Speaker 3: you know, as a servant of power, right, as a
Speaker 3: client ally of the regime, sure, you know, he may
Speaker 3: well escape punishment. He seems to be quite wealthy and
Speaker 3: have a pretty easy job. But uh, you know that
Speaker 3: dude's getting just Kentucky Kentucky fried now, So you know, anyway,
Speaker 3: I know this is a little bit shorter and a
Speaker 3: little bit different than normal. As I said earlier, it
Speaker 3: wasn't my plan. It's just sort of something I had
Speaker 3: to pull out of my back pocket. But I appreciate
Speaker 3: you guys. Appreciate you guys. That is an impressive illusion
Speaker 3: of three words. I appreciate you guys a lot. Thank
Speaker 3: you so much for the support. Regularly skeed old episodes
Speaker 3: will resume tomorrow. We'll get back to kind of the
Speaker 3: normal swing of things. Sorry, I know it's not a
Speaker 3: full length episode, but you got thirty five minutes of
Speaker 3: me talking, which is basically, if you only listen to
Speaker 3: my audio track like a month of the Jay Burden Show,
Speaker 3: as long as Carl Doll's not all, we don't count us.
Speaker 3: But anyway, guys, I appreciate it. I'll be back tomorrow.
Speaker 3: To everyone at home, keep your head up. Good night,