Speaker 1: If you want to support the show and get the
episodes early and ad free, head on over to Freemanbeyond
the Wall dot com forward slash Support. I want to
explain something right now. If you support me through substack
or Patreon, you have access to an RSS feed that
you can plug into any podcatcher, including Apple, and you'll
be able to listen to the episodes through there. If
you support me through a subscribe, star, gum Road or
on my website directly, I will send you a link
where you can download the file and you can listen
to it any way you wish. I really appreciate the
support everyone gives me. It keeps a show going. It
allows me to basically put out an episode every day now,
and I'm not going to stop. I'm just going to accelerate.
I think sometimes you see that I'm putting out two
even three a day, and yeah, can't do it without you,
So thank you for the support. Head on over to
Freeman Beyond the Wall dot com, forward slash Support and
do it there. Thank you. I want to welcome everyone
back to the Pekinona Show. Dave's back. It's been a while.
How are you doing good?
Speaker 2: Yeah, excellent, it's been quite a wild week, Hasn't it.
Speaker 1: A very wild week? It was funny that saying that
you were back, because I think what we had interacted
and you hadn't You didn't even remember if you had
ever appeared on the show. That's how long it was.
Speaker 2: It's about a year, hasn't it. Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, so yeah. I've been doing some podcasts ever since,
uh November fifth, but really haven't touched on this except
in my sub stack videos. So you wrote a piece
after the election of Donald Trump, and I thought that
it was probably it was the kind of thing that
I wanted to read afterwards because it's not like, oh,
he won because of this. He won because you know
he won because he went to this state in that state.
Now you're looking basically at the zeitgeist and you're trying
to figure out exactly why you know he would win.
And at the time you wrote that, I don't think
you had even known that he would win every battleground state.
Speaker 2: Yeah, insane or or apparently the House. Right, He's won
the House at the stage right, so he has full
control of the government technically, which is interesting.
Speaker 1: Mandate. So what I guess happened, Well.
Speaker 2: I mean, so obviously, the biggest thing is that this.
You know, when I was asked for election predictions, I said,
there's a fifty percent chance that this would be an
ordinary election, and if that were the case, there was
a seventy percent chance that Trump would win. It turns
out that twenty twenty was an anomaly. This was an
election like we used to have elections, or at least
it resembled more the way we used to have elections
than whatever the hell happened in twenty twenty. And under
those conditions, Trump was the obvious winner. I mean, it's
it kind of sounds ridiculous to say that, but that's
essentially what happened. He you know, I guess the question
is really is is how how the left is going
to pross this. There's the sort of most interesting thing
about Trump's victory, and I don't think it's victory. Once
once it was clear that you weren't going to have
like a twenty twenty kind of anomalous election where millions
and millions of people who never voted before suddenly mysteriously
started voting right out of nowhere. Right, not to get
your channel flagged or anything, but you know, you know,
you can look at the vote counts and the vote
counts for the twenty twenty election, just millions of people
are on the rules, mostly voting for Kamala that never
have appeared before in American elections and apparently will never
appear again or until something else happens. That's very, very strange,
and that didn't happen. And then because of that, just
Trump just won and he won everything, and there were
so many mistakes leading into this that it's hard to
even know where to begin. The messaging of the Kamala
Harris campaign was terrible, and the coalition, and this kind
of leads into the aftermath. The coalition that the progressives
represent just looks incredibly exhausted. It's it's absolutely exhausted. And
you'd think that if Trump won like this previously, there'd
be huge protests, there would be a huge resistance movement.
Everyone is just not feeling that way at all. It's
just a whole line of progress is kind of becoming
resigned to their condition, and I mean that it kind
of makes it interesting. I guess it's it's kind of
like we've we've come to the end of a certain
kind of phase of the progressive movement. And that phase
is it's I think what really died is its pretensions
to be at all revolutionary because they can't sell revolutionary anymore.
No one believes that these people are are trying to
upset the system. No one is saying, yeah, these guys
are the guys that are the anti authoritarians, not after
four years of Biden. And so that that results in
this very very strange situation where Trump, who I don't
think as a revolutionary figure, and we might talk about
his appointments a little bit, although I'm not completely up
on that. He's not a very revolutionary figure, but he
finds himself in a revolutionary position with an opposition that
can't get organized to really oppose him. And it's bizarre.
I actually wonder how the left coalition is going to
hold together. I mean, you know, the left writ large
is always going to get more powerful because it functions
on degeneracy, generasy naturally increases. But the kind of cohesive
property it had from two basically for our entire lives,
where everyone would kind of get on the same message,
that has completely degraded. And I think what really degraded
was October seventh. You know, it just it just split
the whole thing in two, that the Left couldn't get
on message because it's donor class was entirely pro Israel
and its activist class was almost entirely anti Israel, and
house divide against itself cannot stand narratively speaking, and they
could never recover from that. I don't think.
Speaker 1: It's kind of hard to be revolutionary when you control everything,
when you're in power, what are you revolting against?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean you're well. I mean that Kamal tried
to do that. Kamal tried to become the incumbent outsider.
That was her whole brand, and it made absolutely no sense,
which is why come all those whole idea is well,
all this campaign from my basement, and we'll do coconut
and brat memes, and I'll do a bunch of hip
dances with the kids, and I'll go on the female
podcast Like you hear all these podcasts that she went on,
You never heard of them before, like call her Daddy
or whatever. This is something that millennial women watching no
one else. And then and that that kind of message
that narrative will will will kind of carry the day.
And it didn't. I mean, it didn't because it worked
for Biden. Again. It worked for Biden in twenty twenty
he campaign from the basement, But in twenty twenty four
people were actually not just in a mode of pure reaction.
They were looking around and asking themselves what direction they
want the country to go in. And because of that,
a candidate that is simply a non entity, like Joe
Biden initially and then Kamala Harris later for different reasons,
is not going to be able to win in a
general election. Again. They could change the rules tomorrow and
we'll see what happens. But I'm really more interested. You know,
there's some battles coming up with the deep state and
with the Trump ascendency. This time, the most immediate battle
is going to be between the paleocons or the deep
right and the neocons, and that's going on in Trump's
appointment decisions right now. That is, in many ways is
the more important battle, at least in the short term,
although I don't know how much you or I or
anyone watching really has control over that if you're not
meeting with Trump regularly. But the longer term battle is
just how the narrative is going to reform around what
the left is doing and I keep on trying to
think of something that will work for them, and you know,
none of the usual tricks work. And I've heard there's
also been kind of a huge falling away of left
wing followers on social media right now. Just today, which
was recording this. On the fifteenth, there was this huge
campaign to get everyone to quit Twitter, slash x, this
was the thing they were doing. I don't think that
this will work, but it's interesting to see that they're
trying to find some way that feels good to react
to this, and so far nothing is really feeling good.
Speaker 1: Well, something you said there about twenty twenty, it was
something that I I really hadn't considered until today. So
Trump gets elected in twenty sixteen, it's four years of
circling the wagons, refilling their coffers, CNN, basically being resurrected.
They were pretty close to dead and basically all they
had to do was and they had all the power
from twenty sixteen to twenty twenty. You know, Trump couldn't
do anything because the left was in power. The deep
state was there. There is no there was He wasn't
ready to attack the deep state, and we could talk
about whether any appointments that we've seen change our mind
about that now. But basically what happened was instead of
the left just doing what they did, they became reactionary.
They became, it seems to me, in twenty twenty, they
became reactionary against Trump and more Trumps supporters. And it's like, look,
you put this, you put this fool in there for
four years who almost destroyed, you know, who could have
destroyed our country. We're gonna shove everything down your throat
that we know you hate. And it turns out that
we aren't the only people who hate it. Most people
hate it. And I think that was part of the
reaction that we saw on the fifth.
Speaker 2: And this is also the thing. The big loser of
this electionist Barack Obama, well you're witnessing right now, is
his coalition falling apart. If you're seeing the guy, he
looks like a corpse. And Kamola was really his It
feels weird to say his girl, but you know, she
was really his little plaything. She was the continuation of
his legacy. And his coalition is smashed. And it's interesting
when you go back and look at the phenomenon of
Obama the Obama phenomenon was supposed to be like this
reimagining of America. But Obama didn't really have any vision
to speak of. I mean, he didn't even really have
a group of visionary people behind him. He had a
bunch of sort of millennials. There weren't really millennials in
government yet, but he had a bunch of millennial energy
behind him. But the millennials weren't raised to kind of
reach for any larger aspirational vision of America. Millennials were
raised with this social justice ideology that they'd be kind
of the stewards of moral correctness in the system. So
when Obama came in, it was like, well, we're just
going to do this sort of neoliberal social democracy but
with increased moral preaching and kind of a switch over
to a pure identity politics form of coalition building. And
that I mean again like any politics is oh we
all politics of identity politics. That this will never end
and in the long term the demographic trend will be destiny,
but in the short term as sort of a political
formula that will keep a party in power, Obama's vision
for how the Democrats could just get ultimate political stability
has just failed in this election. They will not, you know,
regardless of whether America is transformed demographically and politically by
the changing racial and religious composition of this country. That
will not be like a smooth ride continuously overseen by
a Democratic party that can completely manage the message and
manage the unloaded government in the wake of that. It
will be a huge turbulent process that will only be
kept in line with very very hard uses of power
which the Democratic parties is not capable of wielding. And
so Obama's entire vision of the future that was sold
to us, with all that hope and change stuff was
just was just killed. I mean it was really killed
on October seventh, because I keep keep on going back
to that, but I mean, the coalition only works with
them on board. It only works with with with the
pro israel faction on board. Without the pro Israeli faction
on board, the only people I mean that the pro
Israeli faction of the Democrat Party is the same faction.
It's everyone else's lunatics. Everyone else are are Communists, but
without the level of intellectual you know, aptitude or intelligence
that previous generations of communists had. And so when when
that came down the Democrats. I mean, I think that
Trump still probably could have won without October seventh, but
it would have been a much different fight the Democrat
you know, there would have been a lot of mobilization.
And if they had run a primary and gotten someone
like Newsom in there, then I think that, you know,
Newsom could have won. But as as it was, you
know this, this coalition is not working anymore for them,
and it will not work in the future. It will,
you know again, it will. It will take power, but
the power will be divided in unorganized and contentious and
constantly forming into circular firing squadch squads. And this is
sort of an opportunity for Trump. Can Trump come up
with a vision of America where he is in charge
of the largest potential ruling class that isn't completely comprised
of lunatics and of people that are kind of stuck
in a Cold war mindset or who you know, might
be loyal to a country that isn't the United States,
To not put a too fine point on it, is
there a ruling coalition that Trump commands that can present
itself as such? And if there is, then Trump will
be the transformative figure of this, well, at least the
first part of the twenty first century, not Obama or
not anyone else like Obama. And ultimately I think someone
younger will have to complete that transformation. But the sort
of formula we've seen in front of us on the fifth.
Speaker 1: All right, So you brought up October seventh a couple
of times, and that's what I to me, was that
changed politics going forward?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: And so the question is was there anybody that they
could run who could pull the coalition of pro Zionists
and the ones who are like, you're basically committing genocide together,
And I don't know, there was no one that could
do it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, all paths to a coherent coalition dependent on October
seventh's not happening. If October seventh didn't happen, they could
have run an open primary, gotten someone like Nussoman, and
everything would be hunky dory, you know, and it would
still be close. It would still be close, but they
probably could have won that. But with October seventh, I mean,
who are they going to run like AOC with AOC
work AOC. I mean, I don't know what AOC pull
people in. Maybe I tend to think the AOC is
more of an Internet meme and a local phenomenon than
she is an actual viable political strategy, a viable force
going forward, you know. I mean, she's she's kind of
a meme on both sides. She's not a very forceful personality.
Speaker 1: And she's taken the she's taken the pronouns out of
her bio and is now calling herself a congresswoman instead
of a congress person, So.
Speaker 2: Pronouns are out an.
Speaker 1: Maybe the the assumption that you know, some some people
are making that she's actually pregnant and becoming a mom
and she's going to, I don't know, become TRADCAF.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, this is this is the thing. Like
the obvious correct move is to pivot to the right
for the Democrats, Like they have to like that, and
you could you could sell like if you had a
video game controller and you were controlling the Democrat Party,
if this is some kind of like what if it
was the Parallax game type deal, you could easily figure
out how they'd be. Like they add a little bit
of religion in and a little bit of civic nationalism
and they get the uh, you know, they get the
people who left after October seventh back in to finance
the universities, and they double promised to keep out the
kuks in Berkeley and Stanford and Harvard and all that stuff,
and then they have a winning coalition again. But they
just they just can't because well, I think the radical
left is not going to make those kind of compromises.
If if the radical left was going to make compromises
on identity politics, then the radical left would wouldn't be
what it is right now, which is like this incredibly
fake thing. I mean that the radical left is it's
hard to stay overstate it's vakeness. I mean, is the
moderate left fake? I mean, the moderate left is fake too,
But there are authentically power hungry and soosiopaths. And I
don't think anyone would look at the moderate left, like
the Democrat Party like Gavenusom and think that they aren't
just power hungry and sociopaths. So they are authentically what
they look like. But the radical left is they're pretending
to be radicals and principled moralists, but they're actually just
narcissists and people who are participating in sort of a
social media phenomenon. And so because of that, like they
can't actually play politics, because the correct move for the
radical left would be to make a red brown alliance
and toss out the neocons and the moderate left and
then you know, kind of originally rule the country. And
you know, that would be if they believed in what
they said and what if they're foreign policy priorities were paramount.
That is the winning move for the radical left. But
they were not going to do that because the moment
they do that, then the entertainment product they're the thing
goes away. And because of that they can't really compromise it.
They go, Okay, actually, transgenderism is not a thing that
would be like a prudent move for Democrats to make.
That can't happen, Like the radical left can't allow that
to happen, and the radical Left is too close to
power to do that.
Speaker 1: Well, I guess we have to make the decision and
comes to the conclusion that the right, who is divided,
I mean, they're not as divide, We're not as divided
on in numbers wise the Israel issue as the left is.
But it seems like even so, we have a lot
of people on the right who you know, are very
anti Zionists, but they still voted for Donald Trump, believing
Donald Trump to be the biggest Zionist president of the
world that we've ever had, because they hate the left
more than the left hates the right. Because if the
left hated the right as much as the right hated
the left on November fifth, the left would have en
mass voted against Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I mean, in some sense, the left did
vote against Donald Trump. The thing is, what they didn't
do is they didn't enthusiastically get out there and run
all their activist organizations to farm ballots. And the utility
of the radical left is not in their actions of voting.
It's in their actions of discovering people who haven't voted
and then getting a mail in ballot in front of
them and in the mailbox with a probabilistically likely vote
for Harris. And so without the enthusiasm that activist work
doesn't get done on the ground. And there was no
activist enthusiasm the you know, the optimal way again, like
there's so many parties involved. I don't even know who
really to speak for. If you talk to people like
Hassan Piker and was Evash and dated pac Men and
other people who are they're not actually concerned about the
Democrat Party's prospects in the future, and they're certainly not compared.
They don't care about Palestine. They care about the fact
that they're they're the narrative on their media product is
falling apart, and so they're trying to figure out some
kind of narrative by which politics becomes fun again. Like
I said before, if they cared about instituting their revolutionary
policies or again ending the war in Palestine, they would
be trying to look into some kind of I hate
the use the Red Brown Alliance and the alliance between
the anti establishment forces in American politics against the center,
because that's the only thing that could kind of permanently
keep them out. But again, I don't think that any
of the leaders actually care about that. They care about
the narrative, kind of like the game has to go
on the late night shows like Stephen Colbert and those
are those really disgusting people. It's kind of you look
at them, I mean, I haven't watched them in ages,
but you look at the reaction videos where I mean
they're essentially running late night as an extended op ed
for the Democrat Party. It's it's kind of disgusting to
think that that's been taken away from us. But all
they're thinking about right now is how can we get
America's political entertainment product back online? And if Trump plays
his cards correctly and reframes the issues so that it's
always about solving problems, then that political entertainment product is
going to be much more difficult to get back in
line with where people needed to be to keep the
show ongoing. And you know, I think I kind of
hope to see a bit of a collapse. I mean,
we're already saying kind of a collapse in some of
the in some of the appointments. There's sort of a
changing of the guard that apparently is going on with
Trump's appointments, and I haven't again been following it, but
it seems to be going in a somewhat okay direction.
But I hope that that's also accompanied by a change
in the guard. In terms of American media, I hope
that Jimmy Kimmel and Stephen Colbert's business mod just doesn't
work in this era now. People are so burnt out
on politics that they don't want to hear somebody joke.
For twenty minutes about a political situation that they find
to be completely exhausting, and they change the channel, and
these people want to and people decide to go back
to something that's more like David Letterman or Jay Leno
after all of this, and I hope that we can
see a continuing disintegration of the sort of moderate left
internet seer as well. I don't think that there actually
is a coherent ideology keeping millennial progresses together online, and
I think that they're mostly mostly kind of predicated on
a very comfortable understanding about who are at the default
winners inside political arguments, and the second they enter into
dialectic they immediately fall apart. This is something that you
realize is to kind of go in a digression about
the exodus from Twitter, when you have all these people
like the Guardian and all these progressives essentially leaving the
second the platform is opened up and it becomes an
open debate platform, hard progressivism of the radical millennial variety
just cannot exist there. And even the moderate sort of democrat,
you know, American psycho Gavin Newsom progressivism it has a
hard time living there as well. These people cannot do
discourse anymore so there there's sort of a there's sort
of a huge narrative collapse for the left in terms
of selling their products. And I hope to say as
much of the of the mainstream and as much of
new media this kind of collapse under the weight of
this this disjunction.
Speaker 1: And I think what we saw from David Packman, I'm
sure you've seen the video, I think that's just panic
and it's also a way of I mean, he had Honestly,
before I saw that, I didn't even know he had
a show. I thought he was just some jerk off
on Twitter.
Speaker 2: Oh I remember I saw that.
Speaker 1: Okay, I remember he had it said he had two
point sixty five million subscribers, and he said he lost
five thousand of them. Now, if an account, like if
I lost five thousand on YouTube, that would be something,
it would be something. I mean, yeah, so they would
have had to have been paid. And yeah, I think
it is it is more that a an industry, an
entertainment industry, has been built around the left being right.
And you see it like some of the some of
the posts that you've seen that I've seen on x
over the past couple of days, or just as I mean,
from people like Bill Crystal, who are just I mean,
they're like, what's going to happen to this country when
you know, go get your vaccine. Bill Crystal didn't say this,
but I saw go get your vaccines because vaccines aren't
going to be available after January twentieth, when RFK Junior
takes over HHS. This doesn't this This is the kind
of hyperbole that is not meant to do anything politically.
It's meant to try to drive people back to or
to this kind of entertainment, the commentary around leftism that
they've become so accustomed.
Speaker 2: To, and right now they want to swing radical, but
the left wing in this country is too tired to
swing that way. It can't swing radical. It can't do
another Summer of twenty twenty again, or it can't do
another what was it was the pussy March, dimver that
from twenty sixteen you had all these I had all
these like boomer women, all these boomer women in twenty seventeen,
you know, protesting outside of the Capitol and these pink hats.
Speaker 1: There's not enough energy I think gets the money to
do that. Where do they get the money to do
that in the middle of the day in the middle
of the week.
Speaker 2: Oh well, they're all retired. They're all retired, they're all
retired rich boomers. I mean, this is like maybe okay,
I'm kind of speaking for my own community, but this was,
you know, in places like Berkeley, California. I mean, like
they were all over that stuff where they are all
a bunch of these these retired women with more money
than they know what to do with. They'll fly out
to DC, right even though it's like a you know,
it's a six hour plane ride. Yeah, I mean, but
I don't think there's the energy. It's it's really weird
how there's just not the energy to do something like this.
It would be so easy if Trump had not won
the popular vote. Because the left is trying to find
some way that they can say that this is this
election is procedurally illegitimate. They tried collusion. They can't say
that Trump stole it by faking ballots because they just
assured us for the last four years. But that never happens.
They can't procedurally contest that because they also assured us
for the last four years that procedurally contesting an election
was tantamount to treason, and they can't fall back on
them democracy thing because Trump won the popular vote, so
they don't have a narrative by which they can call
this election illegitimate, and so without a narrative, they don't
have anything to really motivate their activist class. And so
I think it will be about a year before they
can find some other narrative that will allow them to
exert very much activist pressure at all. And in that
time it is very hard for them to cancel people,
which is obviously good for us.
Speaker 1: Speaking of that, what is our role? What do we
talk about now? What do we what is our content
looking sound like?
Speaker 2: I think I think that well other than I think
that our are our role as activists is to do
organization locally. This is something that certain organizations like the
OGC and the Exit Group and Souldings and Bale Wolf
have done over the course of the last three years.
And I think we've just scratched the surface of this.
I think that as soon as young men in particular
get organized, there's just so much good they can do,
as long as they have an ideological way to stay
loyal to each other. I think that I don't think
we can really overstate the amount of damage that's been
done to young men by local conservative and religious leaders.
Who's their number one instinct is as soon as they
see young men gather together for a political call, is
to tell them they shouldn't be doing politics. They need
to be, you know, properly conforming to X, Y and
z idiotic idea kind of hr type idea that they
really should be doing something else. And it's it's always
disrupted and the enthusiasm is always tamped down. What if
you had an organization of young men with strong leadership
that actually was focused on not only doing good in
the community, but also managing power within the community in
a responsible way. And if that is something that you know,
that's a role, I think that rolls it to open
to people. And if it's well organized, then you know,
the sky's the limit. If it's us here online, I
think that this next year is going to be a
bonanza for online expansion on the right. I think people
are looking for different ideologies that are not the nonsense
that's been preached by people like Hassan Piker. I think
they're looking for different places to actually discuss politics and
not just to simply hear a lecture, and for the
next year. Like I said, I think both the radical
left and the moderate left is represented by the mainstream media.
Is this going to be insane? We had what be
Goldberg just today call for a sex strike. This is
you know, this is the whole This is that TikTok
about like the four bees from the Korea, the four nos,
like it was no no dating, no sex, no marriage,
no babies or something like that, you know, the bes.
I don't know what the word is, but B is
the no in Korea, right, It's a B word of
some variety. And I mean this is when someone tells
you that they're basically declaring that they have no right
to be doing politics in a responsible way. I mean,
who who It's like, Okay, that's of the variety of oh,
let's burn our house down to because because we're unhappy
about you know, how how how our mortgage is being
handled by the bank, or you know, let's cut our
nose off to spite our face, or you know, let's uh,
let's just harm ourselves to cathartically deal with our own emotions.
The second someone says that to me, and they should
be apparent to all people. When a person commends that
something horribly self destructive be undertaken to no greater effect
than to project people's emotions into the ether. And that
person should not be doing real politics. That person's not
part of a conversation, that they're trying to emotionally blackmail you,
and that just that just should not be part of
the conversation. And so you have so many I guess
I think this is only TikTok, but you have so
many people in the mainstream media just showing that they're
they're absolute lunatics when it comes to doing real politics
and not just trying to treat it as an extended
opportunity to emotionally blackmail their audience. That's an opportunity for us.
It's an opportunity because there's just so much stuff that
doesn't exist. There's no who is the person that America
goes to to just relax and hear jokes? Who Where
do people young people go. Where do young men go
to get fraternity and to build their careers up. Where
do young people generally go just to hear politics discussed
in a real way. All of these things are places
that I think a lot of the creators can fill,
and we can take a huge step forward in the
next year.
Speaker 1: So I don't know if you know any of the
picks he's made, as far as it seems like he
went through. The first ones he did would relate to
foreign policy, and now he's doing domestic policy. Well, the
one everyone's policy. Yeah, what we're gonna.
Speaker 2: Say is that the foreign policy one I've heard of
in a mixed bag. The domestic policy ones have been well.
The one, the big one everyone's reacting to is the
Matt Gaates nomination, right, which is you know, I don't
really know much about Matt Gates, but from reputation this
will be revolutionary. And you have half the Department of
Justice threatening to quit over his nomination. I mean, if
he has to replay, is half the employees in the
Department of Justice and he does like that's that's a
new cut. That's a whole new way of managing domestic
law enforcement.
Speaker 1: And what's what's very interesting about the Gates position at
Attorney General is even if that doesn't go through today,
he just nominated Todd blanche as Deputy Attorney General, who
is his personal lawyer, who is the one who's been
doing this and his when you look at his career
he is basically a he's a hard ass, and this
is a guy who is One thing that you cannot
say about his appointments so far is that they haven't
been loyal just about every single one. You know, people
want to talk about Marco Rubio, we can talk about
that one. I have my own opinion on why Marco
Rubio was chosen as Secretary of State, and it has
nothing to do with Israel. But the you know, because
he is a gigantic Zionists, as a lot of the
foreign people have been. But the you know, when you
put your when your deputy attorney general, who would be
the one who would step into attorney general is somebody
who's a loyalist to you, who is a hard ass,
who's worked for two of the biggest law firms in
the country and the oldest law firm in America. And
he's a you know, he's old stock, you know, heritage American,
which is basically what what he seems to be putting
into place now as far as his domestic goes, then
you have to and then you look at Tulsi as
d and I over all the intelligence age, over all
the intelligence agencies, and basically she's on a list on
a flying she has they watch her when she goes flying,
so now she's over the people who put that in there.
And then you have someone like someone like what's his
name that they you have the whole elon and Vivick
Ramaswani thing who we know. Vivick has studied James Burnham
and he talks about the managerial state. It does actually
look like when when you just concentrate on what's been
what's been showsen and then RFK Junior over Health and
Human Services, the whole CDC over everything, it looks like
he's his real concentration is on fixing what's wrong here.
Speaker 2: Yeah, his his domestic policy is his domestic nominations have
been a lot more adventurous and a lot more promising
than this foreign ones. One of his problems though, I
think you might not have enough people to put in positions.
This has always been a problem with the right wing
is that our bench is so shallow because for the
last thirty years we have discouraged the sort of legacy
Americans from career paths that would put them in positions
to take government office. And this has been this has
been the large consequence of how people have structured their
sort of pre law and sort of government studies inside college,
where they're almost now overwhelmingly dominated by what essentially are
either progressive seminaries that also put forward I mean, Democrats
are kind of suffering from the flip side of this.
They're suffering from the fact that they reward political loyalties
so much that anyone who makes it to the top
is a political hack, and you know, they're only there.
Like Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris is not particularly bright. She
is actually kind of a dim Let's be honest. We
can be honest about this now, right, Kamala Harris is
kind of a dim one. I mean maybe not, I
mean not she's and she's probably not below average, right,
but for someone who's expected to have one of the
most intellectually attacks and jobs in the world, she's not
up there where most presidential presidential candidates usually are. And
you know, from from Soda Sonya Soda Mayor to Gatan
Jue Brown Jackson, this is the line of these people
who are just they're just not quite there, and the
reason is that they're promoted for political reasons. And when
this gets to sort of the Republican side. There's just
not like there's no how many Republicans come out of
Yale that that like they they're twenty two, they get
their bachelor's and like, you know what, I'm going to
be high up. I'm going to be an appoint for government.
That's my destiny. There isn't like everyone who's a Republican
or not politically loyal, they either go into engineering or
law or marketing and they join the corporate or they're
just kind of passed over and have some kind of
you know, middle of the road wagy job. And so
all all of our talent in America is in completely
the wrong place to actually take the power that Trump
now has access to dole out. So my chief concern
is that Trump is going to be giving this is
he just has to do this right now. He's going
to but he's going to give a lot of jobs
to a lot of older people that aren't going to
want to move into radical directions, and that's going to
be a limitation to his sort of revolution that he's running.
Speaker 1: Well right now, I think the what we're looking at
is almost almost all of the appointees are late gen
X early millennials, which is I think somebody did the
average and said that on average, they're twenty years younger
than the average Joe Biden appointee through it in a
couple of cases.
Speaker 2: Oh so okay, that's actually really that's how I did
not hear that. That is quite heartening. Actually, I wonder
where he's finding the CV. I wonder, I wonder where
he's finding these people. Really, I mean, it seems that
seems amazing in the modern world that you'd have a
class of younger millennials who are ready to take on
high office that are that that are you know, uh
kind of available to an incoming president like Trump.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The I mean, you got Mark Marco Rubio for
what anybody that wants to say, it's Tulcy Gabbard, Tlsey's uh,
you know late gen X. Matt gets is a millennial.
A lot of these people are his. The the sect
f is is I think a gen X. So yeah,
Christy nome is is gen X. I mean, so there's
this is turning out to be a lot younger. But
one of the things that you know, people on the
right really come down to is a lot of people,
especially people that we're you and I deal with, are
very anti zionist. And so you know, the question is
Mariam Adelson gives a one hundred million dollars, Well, she
didn't give a hundred million dollars. She pledged one hundred
million dollars. She gave thirty four million dollars. Timothy Mellon,
who is if you know the name Melon, if you
recognize that, you will know heritage America I mean old
school Carnegie Mellon yea, yeah, exactly. He gave one hundred
and seventy million dollars. And then there's the one person
that everybody forgets about, Elon Musk. Elon Musk probably gave
upwards of a billion dollars or Gay you know, was
able to raise upwards of a billion dollars. So when
people are looking at who he's you know, it's like, oh,
well this zionist, and that's zionist and this scionist, it's
like he has to take into consideration there. He may
be putting those people there for a reason, Like I
don't think Marco Rubio is Secretary of State because he's
going to they don't want war. I mean he already
Trump proved that in his first term. Marco Rubio is
there because what is the biggest fucking what is the
goal that he set out to do? Deportations? Deportations to
Latin American countries. Marco Rubio is Latin, He's loved in
Latin America. He speaks Spanish, he hates Communists, and he's
a hard ass with no heart. Who if he sees
a little Spanish, you know, Hispanic kid crying, he's not
going to care. It seems like he's there. Everybody thinks that, oh,
Secretary of State, it's all about war and everything. No,
it's about having to deal with other states when you do.
And if he is going to carry out this gigantic
freaking deportation thing, you're going to need somebody who can
speak to the frigging countries that he's sending these people
back to. I don't think Marco Rubio is there for
anything about foreign policy and war and war policy. Heck,
I I agree with my friend Tom Lauwongo. I think that,
like almost immediately, there is going to be a packed
made with made with Russia and made with Iran, and
they're going to tell Israel you can do whatever you want,
but we're not going to fucking do We're not going
to fight this. Anyone who is every trial, we know
we can't want to. You're not going to fight a
war with Russia in the first place. And anyone who
studied Iran knows you can't win a war with Iran.
It would take you two years to even start to
stage a war with Iran, and then they're staging a
war for two years at the same time. So it's like,
this is people who think that there's going to be this,
they're out of their fucking minds and I'm fucking sick
of hearing it.
Speaker 2: Well, And that's that's kind of what I hope to
see from the Trump administration is I really want that
these these these horrible wars to be de escalated and ended.
I don't know how much of the I'll end the
Ukrainian War was sort of Trump being bracketocious, but I
think that maybe, you know, if there was a face
saving deal put on Putin's plate, we could end this
war and it would say a hell of a lot
of the Ukrainian lives and Russian lives for that matter.
I mean, just just saying that kind of huge waste
is just heartbreaking, and you know it will involve kind
of acknowledging a multipolar world, but that just acknowledging reality
at this stage.
Speaker 1: And it's gonna be. It's going to be in Monroe doctrine. Yeah,
where certain certain places are going to have over We're
going to have overrepresentation, in in influence in certain parts
of the world. We'll have it in our part of
the world. Let Russian China fight it out over there.
And that's just the way it's going to be. It's
the only way. And when you have all these people
who are coming in like an Elon Musk and all
these people who are influencing him, who have minds for this,
and who are also we have to remember Trump's a businessman.
He knows that war. He knows war isn't good for
the business of the country. Yeah, it's good for a
few companies. It's not even good for banks because they
lend to the other fucking they lend to everybody. But
I hope they're not going to get paid back somehow.
Speaker 2: And what I hope Trump also realizes is that Putin
is looking for a face saving way to get out
of this mess. I don't think the war went as
well as Putin thought it would. It certainly didn't go
as well as John Bolton thought it would. And I
think that he realizes, kind of like Krusachev in the
Cuban missile crisis, that if he has a way to say, like,
look we kind of won, you know, then this war
can be de escalated. And you know, maybe I don't
actually understand it in Yah, He's psychology to me that
in Yahoo. Just just I feel like I understand putin
a lot more than I understand it in Yahoo. And
and it just it just feels like the whole Middle
East it always feels like a madhouse when I look
at it, like I can't. I think I must have
too much of a I feel like the Ukrainian war
is much more persival, and for that reason, it seems
much more preventable. But it just seems like the Middle
East is always just a bunch of lunatics that are
you know, they're trying to get themselves into trouble, and
I don't want any part of it. That's obviously. I mean,
I don't know. I mean, like the question is, you know,
Trump's foreign policy. The success of his foreign policy will
largely be viewed on his ability to successfully unspool the
messes that have been created over the last four years,
and if you can unspool those messes and clear up
the shipping lanes, then you know, I think everything is
going to kind of roll back into place. I mean, look,
the economy is difficult, right, but at least part of this,
the horrible economy we've experienced over the last three years,
has been a completely destabilized geopolitical environment.
Speaker 1: I think Trump understands that Putin has to save face,
and I think he's willing to let him. And it's
from history. After Trump's stupidly assassinated Solomony, which was probably
some kind of internal Iranian intrigue that wanted to get
rid of Solomony and set that up. He most people
don't remember this, but Iran fired rockets at an American
base in Iraq as a as a retaliation. And I
don't know that they I don't remember that they killed anybody.
Somebody may have gotten hurt. But Trump even said, and
you can go find this. He said, yeah, they had
to save face. And so that lets me know that
Trump understands how the game is played. Also, I know
he's been bellicost to Iran. He got out of the
Iran deal he jettisoned the JCPOA if he can just
I don't think Iran wants war. I think Iran just
wants to be Iran. I mean they haven't but they
haven't invaded anybody in over a thousand years something like that.
I mean, they haven't attacked anybody in over a thousand years.
I always they want war.
Speaker 2: It always felt to me like Iran was. It was
just like the stupidest of all the boogeymen. You could imagine.
Iran is like what is this? Like, you know, is
this the Iron Age? Is a thermopylae? Like when has
Iran ever been like on the verge of invading the West.
It's it's not something that that even seems plausible. And
Iran was always just like this the weirdest villain for
these people. I think they that's like the Neo consist
wandedville and in Iran was the one closest to hand
and then they could just never get let go of it.
Speaker 1: Yes, so I think that he's going to definitely come
to bring the Ukraine thing to to an end. I
don't know if it's going to happen on day one,
but it'll definitely it'll definitely happen, and Russia is going
to have to take take the part that they wanted
right from the start, and it belongs to them. Those
people want to be part of Russia. So these these
neo kon scum, you know who, they can fuck themselves.
But I think with Iran, I think he's just going
to it's going to be like a stalemate thing where
it's just going to be a stalemate. Every once in
a while we'll hear about Iran, oh, Iran's you know,
the whole whole net you thing, they're two weeks away
from getting a nuke, and it'll just fade into the background,
and then it's just a matter of fuck Israel bombing
every one of their friggin neighbors and how that ends,
how that comes to, you know, and we shouldn't have
any friggin part of that. There's no reason. I mean,
I can understand that Trump may want to be like
the one who sweeps in and says, you know, and
it's like, oh, look at the deal I made. You know,
I'm the art of the deal. I'm the deal maker.
But you know, I honestly, I don't think people realize
that net and Yahoo and Trump do not like each other.
They used to get along, and they do not like
each other.
Speaker 2: I'm going to kind of attempt the being radical on
this show. I just don't think that this is a
good way to administrate this area. I think this whole
Israel thing, like, it's fine if Jews and Muslims stay
where they are right now, but we can't just have
like this big state where they're like, well, we're basically
like a European state in the Middle East that these
this region of the worlds.
Speaker 1: They were a European state, it would be perfectly fun
if they were. If they were a global if they
were another global homo state, this wouldn't be a problem.
The fact is is they're not a European state. They're
a freaking ethno state. No matter how many, Oh they
have eight Arabs in the kinestic go fuck yourself, and
I mean.
Speaker 2: I mean I mean they I mean, I mean they
have twenty. I mean I mean European is sort of
like the nineteenth century Westphalian secte, right, yeah, yeah, I
mean like if they were a European state in the
modern variety, then all the Palestines would have moved right
back in and half the Middle East would have moved
to them by now, and they would be like a
majority Muslim and they would exist as a Jewish state.
So if they were a modern European state, then that
but the whole like Westphalian state in the Middle East
doesn't work because the Middle East is a constant real
estate battle between these various religious groups, none of which
are large enough to assert control over a region or
to grant minority rights. So the only way I think
to administrate it is just to have like little micro states,
and like there could be like little Jewish patches and
little Muslim patches, and then just have the holy sites
administrated by some centralized figure like a king, and then
the job of the administration, which it would be, just
be to keep the peace between the little patches. I
think that's that's sort of I mean, that's not exactly
how the Ottomans did it, but it's closer to how
the Ottomans manage this regions region than before. And to
my mind, that's the only thing that works. I don't
see how the international world is stable by having Israel
and its neighbors constantly go to war every ten years.
This seems to be just It seems like we're constantly
skirting up against a huge worldwide conflagration and that doesn't
seem to be like a very good use of resources.
Speaker 1: Well, it's been in both October seventh. Again, one thing
that I've been tracking since October seventh, and I said
it almost immediately, was there's a left Jewish and a
right Jewish civil war going on. Yeah, and it's definitely
you obviously you can see it in the United States,
but it was really coming to a head. It was
it was coming to a head in it was before
October seventh. I mean, this has been happening for a while,
but October seventh magnified it overseas because the reaction by
Israel and everything that, you know, the the bombing campaigns,
the every there's an excuse for I mean, there's always
a friggin terrorist hiding under you know, an apartment complex
of twenty eight hundred people that needs to be killed.
And for some reason, Americans are completely okay with civilian
deaths when it comes as long as Jews are doing
it so or if we're doing it. But but I
repeat myself the so you know, my whole thing is
now it seemed like there was because of the war
and what happens. On October seventh, there was some kind
of compact that was happening with left right in Israel.
But as time has gone by and this is worn
on and two million people have left the country, you're
seeing this split back again. And I mean, I really
think that what is going to end up happening is
and I've been predicting this for a while, and it
just seems like it could happen. It seems more likely
every day is is that the left is going to
win that war. The Left is going to win out.
Lakud is going to be put down in some way
as soon as this war ends in all hostilities, net
Yahoo's going to jail or he's going to be hung.
I mean, that's that's what was going to happen before
October seventh happened. They were he was going to jail
for corruption. And the longer this war goes on, that's
why he doesn't want the hostages rescued. He doesn't want
a cease fire. He wants this thing to keep going
because it's it's his only legacy, his only he has
one son who's gay, so he has no legacy to
speak of. As far as you know, his his lineage
that he's passing on. His only legacy is Israel. And
if the left in you know, they called tel Aviv
the gayest city in the world. If that left, if
that left coalition overtakes Israel and basically turns it into
a modern European state, then that's then we have our problem.
Is our problem is solved?
Speaker 2: Well, I I I am technically completely unaffiliated with either
side in this war. But that would end Israel for sure.
I'm not so sure. It might trigger another war though, right, Uh,
Israel goes down the whole. I mean, I mean it
would cause demographic disruption that would would eventually destroy the state.
And uh, you know, I I guess that doesn't get
me back to my based patchwork idea for managing the
Middle East. But but but it would I don't know.
I kind of don't like to see any people destroying themselves,
and so I really hope that they try to come
to some way that everyone can live in their own
little bubbles and not have to constantly declare word with
each other. But you know, I think that just this
this sort of this this this coalition, this power coalition
is just addicted to having their cake and eating it too,
and they can't. They can't have half of it. They
have to have all of it, and they have and
they have they have to have special rules, they have
to have special rules. And so yeah, I mean, we'll
see what happens. I mean I think that really though,
like the struggle for the future of the world is
going to be in North America, not in the Middle East.
And because I think ultimately it's the State Department and
Corporate America and Silicon Valley and the media apparatus is
here that will filter down. And if the left, if
America does not want the left to come into power
in Israel, they have enough allies in Israel to prevent
that from happening one way, shape or form. Right. So
not that I really care what happens in Israel in
immediate sense, other than the general humanitarian concern of wanting
people not to kill themselves and wanting cultures not to
be destroyed of any people's Uh, the big, the big
battle is going to be in North America. This is
what determines how the rest of the world is going
to be managed. And whoever controls the media in North America,
whoever controls people's hearts and minds across the rest of
the world, will be the people that decides the destiny
of how we're going to govern our cells globe. And
this is where we are right now. Right There's going
to be a battle in the short term between the
right wing and then neocons in Trump's first administration, and
then we're going to get probably about a one year
reprieve from any kind of organized true left resistance. And
then I assume after one year they'll solve their narrative
problems and get back on the scene, But I don't know,
like they could be. The crippling qualities of their coalition
might be deeper than that. It might take them a
decade to get back online, even though that's hard to imagine.
And you know, for us, the goal right now is
to do as much expansion as humanly possible, to figure
out who our allies are, who are our non enemies,
and what are the critical choke points for our enemies
to come back at us. So Trump needs to essentially
lock down the electoral system, make sure nothing like twenty
twenty can ever happen again, get the immigration under control,
especially the illegal variety, and then well, this is my
first priority. Then he needs to take on the educational institutions.
And I think that he could use divisions in the alliance,
the right wing Jewish and left wing Jewish Alliance. He
could use divisions and that to get what he wants.
For our purposes here, we want entirely separate institutions. For
Trump's purposes, I think he'll settle for like guarantees that
they won't be cuckoo crazy in the universities. And that's
what his sort of I don't want to say Jewish,
but you know, his sort of X leftist lest the
X progresses, the ex moderate progresses that left in October seventh.
They want him to just pass rules about how you
can't be crazy on campuses. What we need to push
for and what needs to be the compromise is that
we get our well, we get a separate educational system
that is governed independent of the ordinary educational apparatus, and
that has guaranteed credentialing under certain objective standards, and that
can be independently administrated at least from the state level,
but preferably through private entities as well, in a sort
of land grant system. The Department of education needs to
go down. I think Trump's been toying with that, right,
like the primary and secondary education. That needs to be
a reset and all his energy needs to go in there.
And if he does those things, then the entire political
face of America could be changed going forward. There could
be a new way of processing power in America and
a new avenue for power, and that has the potential
for creating a seed change that could permanently break the
Progressive coalition.
Speaker 1: I'm glad you went there, because that's where I wanted
to end with. Is you seem to imply that because
the because of what's happened since October seventh, the Zionist
the Zionist Jews in this country have been on the
attack of taking down going after the educational institutions. Now,
they never they never mentioned the fact that I've heard
Rufo talk about how, oh how successful Jews have been
in academia in this country and everything. And It's like, Okay, well,
what does successful mean? I mean, what kind of is
successful in putting what kind of curriculum in there? So
are you saying that you are they useful at this point?
Because to me, the way I look at it is
if it's going to be America first and it's going
to make America great again, we're going to have to
do everything we can to try to push the narrative
that Trump has to stay. Try it's going to be
it's impossible to do it one hundred percent, but to
get as much Zionist influence, keep as much Zionist influence
away from him as possible.
Speaker 2: Well, because I mean, he's he's going to try to compromise, right,
He's going to try to do half and half, right.
I think that's just what's going to happen, right.
Speaker 1: I think I think at this point I'll take half
in half. Yeah, I mean, because it's the best you can.
It's better than one hundred percent. And I don't think
one hundred percent is on the table. I think the
people who are screaming that, oh, because of Marian Anderson's
hundred million, thirty four million, thirty four million doesn't get
you a friggin It doesn't get you a sit down
with Jamie Diamon at friggin JP Morgan Chase, so you know,
he doesn't know your name. So I don't think that
thirty four million is important. I think it's just what
his natural sympathies are, and the best we can hope
for is that he's one of these. I've said that
I believe he loves the Jewish people, but I don't
see him like being so much of a quote unquote
Zionist that he would start a war. I think you're
like moving the capital of Jerusalem, which is just absolutely
insane kind of thing. I think that was because oh,
I like Jews, and Jews want this, and I'm going
to do this for Jews. I don't think it's because
he's some raving Zionists, because he's like, oh, Israel needs.
Speaker 2: To He saw this, and you know, if you didn't
know the finer points of that conflict, it wouldn't be
immediately apparent to somebody. Why that was big to me.
I think that he saw that a salutary like, oh,
you know, this is just something. This is just like
changing the colors on the on on on our on
our logo and now they like us. It's like, this
is this is cheap virtue. And he just like, and
you know, rich people, they're always looking out for those
cheap those free lottery tickets, right, the things that you
can do for very low cost to yourself that have
huge pact on your counterparty's opinion of you, and he
he presumed that that was one of them. Right. I'm
thinking about how the education thing is going to play out.
That's that's, you know, other than the immigration and the
voting security, which is not really my area of expertise.
And it's more more or less straightforward. You either do
it or you don't. Uh. The education is going to
be the biggest sticking point.
Speaker 1: That's the last domino to fall the woke.
Speaker 2: I wonder how we could do it. Yeah, I mean,
maybe you could just make universities ungovernable by having you know,
the sort of you know, pro zionist anti zionist forces
kind of tear the baby apart and then kind of
on the side build a new thing. That's kind of
my hope is that, you know, the the star sneaches
and the unstars snatches are kind of just battle battle
it out while we walk away with all the money.
It will be if you know, the reference to the
doctor Seuss thing.
Speaker 1: He hasn't he hasn't done a he hasn't appointed anyone
over the Department of Education yet.
Speaker 2: I heard you might get rid of it. Is that
a possibility.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, but he'd probably have to appoint someone to
dismantle it, Okay, and that's where that's where it is.
I mean, that's what I've heard about. What a possibility
for the FBI as well. But the and not so
much that the FBI would disappear, that the FBI would
just become something different. But it seems to me that
if you appointed someone at a Department of Education who
was just I mean somebody who is like mac Gates
is where he is to basically prosecute Trump's enemies. That's
exactly why he was put there. And that's exactly why
Trump's lawyer is there now too. If you put someone
at Department of Education who was like, okay, you do this, this, this,
or we seize your endowments, then you start down the road.
I mean, you see one, if one college has endowments,
like if you take Harvard's endowments, which is in the
I mean the billions, it's they could run. I saw
a number of said for fifteen years they could run
with not even taking tuition and they could pay everyone
and everything. And if you take that from one college,
like do that at Harvard, everyone else is going to
fall in line. So I mean, you just really need
to make you know that. I think you make an
example out of one and everyone else falls in line.
I think you might need to do something that radical.
I mean, the first time around, Betsy de Vos was
not going to be that radical. If you're just for
school choice, Okay, school choice is great, but that doesn't
solve the problem. The problem is still that people are
going people are putting their kids into schools that are
turning amidst a little progressive soldiers. And that has to
be that. I mean, to be honest about Higher.
Speaker 2: ED, it to be honest, all has to go down,
like ideally it would all just be the whole system
is just corrupt to the core right. I mean, like
school choice is not really the answer, and it's it's
not you know, school choice is a primary school, secondary
school thing. It's not it's not a university higher ED thing.
So the the the the the Higher ED problem is
the main problem. Trying to get them to behave is
going to be impossible because these people do not believe
that they that the government has authority over them. So
simply seizing the adowments, I mean sure the admins would
fall in line, the provosts would fall in line, but
none of their admins would because their admins are under
the impression that they're totally independent operators that have academic freedom.
And so whoever has to reign in the universities is
inheriting a nightmare. Either that nightmare be inherited by uh
somebody who you know, they can they can try to
untie the Gordian knot while we, well, we do something else,
or what well, another people another, another set of people
do something else, right, could create a new set of
universities with new employees. That's because you're never going to
untangle the university system. I just don't think it's reformable,
Like you could take it down and move the money away.
And I know that's not politically feasible to just like say, oh, hey,
the university systems are done, because that's a huge cash
cow with all this foreign money coming into it. And
but but restructuring the universities so that all so that
there's new ones that absorb all their useful elements. This
has to be done all together. And you know, I'm
kind of in the Jarvin camp on that one.
Speaker 1: Okay, yeah, yeah, I mean I think that that reform
at this point is it's like the FBI. You're not
going to reform the FBI. You're just going to have
to You're going to have to dismantle it in someone.
Speaker 2: Build a new one, and then I think staff it
with your own guys, and then move the assets over
that you think are necessary to make that job possible. Right.
Speaker 1: Well, I think one plan that I heard was is
you get rid of the j. Edgar Hoover Building and
then you just have you have your field offices. And
if you and you make your employees become police. They
have to go out there and they have to find
murderers and serial killers and and cartel members and all
these things. They have to be able to you force
them to earn their pay, and you're going to have
you'll probably have sixty to seventy percent quick. Yeah, So
I mean, yeah, you just you know, I think it
was cash Patel who said that. You know, basically, what
when you have the JEDR. Hoover Building, what you have
is you have a bunch of career employees who all
they care about is their next is their next raise,
is getting their next raise in their next promotion. So
you have to take that incentive. You have to make
that incentive that's based upon performance and and performance in
the field, and so all this stuff can be cut back.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: It's like, you know, famously we've heard the State Department
doesn't even need to exist anymore. It could be the
president on zoom with three of his advisors, you know.
So hopefully this is some of the some of these
things are looking to happen, because when I see Gates
being put there, what that tells me is somebody who
has been framed into, oh, trafficking, He's been trafficking seventeen
year old, I mean completely framed. Ryan Dawson today just
is is doing a stream telling you who the actual
traffickers are in the in this. He's like naming names
of the people who framed Matt Gates for this. And
I think Matt Gates has enough of a chip on
his shoulder that he's going to do whatever Trump's Trump says, well,
take this down, take this down, or you know you
have if you have someone like Elon and Vivek who
are in this, you know, in doge this new thing,
and they're like, Okay, this is who we need to
go after next. I mean, I think they just put
a pit bull, They just put a pit bull at
age at AG and he just goes after all of
our you know, all of our enemies. And when I
say hour, I'm not talking about like the quote unquote dissident, right,
what the hell that is? But Americans, the Americans enemies,
you know, and and seeks to take them down. And
is it is it a tall task? Sure? Is it
going to happen? Who the fuck knows. But at least
it looks right now like there are plans being made
to do that, because I saw that at uh an
interview today and people at the Department of Justice are
shipping their pants.
Speaker 2: They're yeah, they're quitting, They're quitting. This is amazing. This
is exactly what you want, right.
Speaker 1: All you have to do is put some psychopath like
Gates in there, you know, somebody who like gets interviewed
and they asked them, they said, you said that the
women who go to these marches are fat and nobody
wants to have nobody wants to have sex with them.
Do you stand by that? Yes, you know, he's like
he just doesn't give a fuck yet, And it's nice
to see that. And that's the kind of thing that
you know, it just needs to be carried through.
Speaker 2: It has to be and there's so many opportunities to
Like there's one people have FEMA who were saying that
they wouldn't support Trump people, they wouldn't give aid to them,
like these are avenues for corruption investigations, right.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and you're and here's the thing. Another thing is
these people just panted the targets on their back. It's
not like you have to go looking for them. They're
right there. You know who they are. And you know
it's talking about my friend Luongo again. He said, you know,
you march into an awe and you say you're fired,
You're fired, Your fed, your fired, you're fired. You two
stay there because we're going to go over what you've
been doing and where are the fucking files? Yeah, because
I'm right now. What I'm scared is is that the biggest,
the biggest digital bonfire in the history of mankind is
going on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, oh yeah, they're zeroing out some Yeah. The sound
you hear is hard drives rapidly zeroing out and defragmenting themselves.
Everything's going to zero. Yeah. Heard races are going on
currently at the DJ and I don't know, we'll well,
we'll see this is it's kind of amazing. I kind
of almost think, how could how could they let this happen?
I guess do they have any more tricks up their sleeve?
I mean, if Trump, if Trump's sure is to go
in the direction that he's going, then and he has,
you know, an attorney general and head of the justice
apartments that are that are lined up to clean house,
He's going to. Now the sky's the limit with what
the damage you could do to the deep state.
Speaker 1: Oh and and another thing that people are not going
to if you're if you don't follow finance and SEC
and things. He's appointing Jay Clayton, who's a former SEC.
It's basically his guy as the attorney, the US attorney
for the Southern District of New York. And this guy
is he's Trump's guy. He is anyone who knows what
the Southern District of New York is is, it's basically
the police of Wall Street. And what I think is
going to happen, because I've been following what Jerome Powell
has been doing at the FED is it looks like
there may be if if Clayton is in there, he'll
probably go after the foreign the banks that have too
much foreign influence on on on Wall Street. He'll leave
JP Morgan alone, He'll leave his He'll leave the people
who are friendly with what Jerome Palell has been doing
at the FED for the last three years, basically going
to war with the euro dollar and the Eurozone. And so,
I mean, there's things that a lot of people don't see.
But because I'm so deep into so many frigging corners
of the corners of policy, that I'm seeing things that
other people aren't seeing. And I mean, this looks like
it's an all out fucking war on the on the
home front. And I think, and I also think a
lot of those initial picks for foreign policy were to
get people concentrating on that and arguing over that. And
then he starts bringing in all these people domestically, and
sure Gates is going to cause some problems, But then
he sneaks in his personal lawyer is to be deputy
to Gates, so that if Gates doesn't make it in,
this guy slides right in there. And this guy's more
of a fucking pitbull than Gates is. So it's like,
I think there's a lot happening and I mean, I'm
not going to I can't allow myself to become to
Pollyanna about anything because that's just not in my nature.
But a lot of what I've been seeing, especially over
the last year, seems to be coming to fruition. And
I think a lot of people are allowing themselves, even
people who've been listening to me talk about these things,
are allowing themselves to be distracted because of their anti
Zionism and not wanting to get our greatest, our greatest
allies influence away from us and not be our greatest
ally anymore. Just be you know, I've said this all along.
There's no reason like we should even know that Israel exists.
This is this tiny little country in the Middle East.
I did no on nine to eleven. I didn't know
Cutter was a country. I mean, that's how fucking clueless
I was. I had never heard of Cutter. I didn't
know what the United Arab Emirates was. These were countries
that didn't mean anything and should never mean anything.
Speaker 2: Having less with Armenia, and there is an Armenian I
think cleansing, like just earlier this year, noone cared about it, right,
It just happened.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and who and who armed divers are by Jean
to do that?
Speaker 2: I actually don't know. I really I would have guessed Iran, right,
but it was it was huh, that's that's spicy. That's spicy.
I would have I would have assumed it was Iran.
But you learn something every day, I guess, don't you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'll let you go. Thank you, Thank you for
your time. Please plug point people in the direction they
can read your work, and of course please go read
and listen to Dave because you're going to learn something
every time.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So I blog at Substack at fiddler Litters from
Fiddler's Green, and I have a YouTube channel and podcast
called The Distributist that is on YouTube. You can find
me there. And thanks for having me on Pete. A
lot of speculation this time, and I'm feeling very very
cautious about that, about all the predictions we made. But
it was a lot of fun speculating on what's going
to come from the second Trump administration, which is really historic.
Speaker 1: Well, my friend Matt says that you know, if you
don't like to make predictions, that's fine, but when you
do make predictions, then you at least have skin in
the game.
Speaker 2: Mm yeah, yeah exactly, Yeah, you can. You can.
Speaker 1: People are going to come back.
Speaker 2: And go, hey, yeah, people be held accountable.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, and I'm I'm not someone who has a
problem with saying I was wrong, so I don't have
a problem with any of this. So I'll make sure
to I'll make sure to provide all the links to
your to your work.
Speaker 2: Thank you, thank you very much. Give him the good night.
Speaker 1: M mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mhm