Speaker 1: When you travel with Stay on the Line, you don't
just pack a bag. You pack the car, the bikes,
the just in case case, drive on board with everything
you need and more than relax with a coffee, a
snooze or endless ceviews. That's travel the stay on the
Line way. Book your spring getaway to Britain. It's stay
on the Line dot Ie.
Speaker 2: The search for the right mortgage isn't easy, but it's
always better with PTSB, So whether you're buying, building or moving,
you'll get a team of your own to help you
find the right rate. With dedicated options for energy efficient
homes and an online portal to track every stage of
your application. Start your mortgage search with PTSP Click on
the banner to learn more PTSB altogether more human lending criteria,
terms and conditions apply over eighteen's only. Security and insurance
is required permanent TSBPSC trading as PTSB is regulated by
the Central Bank of Ireland.
Speaker 3: All right, Ron Donson, welcome back to the Jay Burden Show.
How you doing man?
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm doing pretty good, doing pretty good considering that
chaos abounds.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I wish I should bring you on to discuss
more light topics, but every time. It seems like the
world is on fire. When I decided to bring you on, yeah.
Speaker 4: You bring on Edwards to talk about all these fun things.
That Angel Hard episode was fantastic and I was as
I was listening to it on a very slow, mostly
walk jog. I'm getting old, guys. I was like, well,
this is fun. Why doesn't my buddy Jay bring me
on to talk about it. I like movies, I like books.
No I get to talk about the Four Horsemen. It's
all dead, famine, pestilens and destruction. Oh Ron's back. The
world must be doing good.
Speaker 3: Well, I think I might. I might have you back on,
maybe to discuss your music career. I think that would
be a good episode.
Speaker 4: But I did that with some o GC guys or not.
That was fun. We can do that. We can talk
about my dalliance with Van Halen, but we're here to
talk about more serious things. Jay.
Speaker 3: This is complete sidebar issue, literally completely irrelevant. I was
actually supposed to record with several other people today. I
couldn't because my power went out. It's back on. I
live in the South, It's midway through March. A window
in front of me. It is now snowing, if this
isn't a sign of the apocalypse, I have no idea
what it is.
Speaker 4: Well, for those of you watching and not listening, it
is not snowing here.
Speaker 3: It is.
Speaker 4: It is a glorious we're in that we get about
two weeks of spring in Dallas before the before the
blast furnace gets opened, and we're in the middle of that.
It's actually chilly today.
Speaker 3: So but in any case, we're not here to talk
about the weather, just an observation because I'm sort of
a gas that it's snowing when it was eighty degrees yesterday.
But in all seriousness, I brought you.
Speaker 4: Always it's always winter, always winter under that uh witch
that you live under. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Really, uh don't remind me somehow, as over as I
thought it was, it is even more over than that.
The things going on in my state are I was
gonna say, worse than I could have imagined. But they're Yeah,
they're just about as bad as I thought it could
be in my worst moments. Yeah, yeah, exactly. But speaking
plan right, perfect transition. We're here to talk about Iran More.
I put on an episode yesterday with Fears and Darryl
Cooper going over certain aspects of it, and it's rare
for me to do two subsequent episodes on the same topic.
But this is a big deal, clearly, and there's a
lot of different aspects that I wanted to address that
I simply couldn't in an hour and fifteen minutes. Right,
there's only so much to say. And Ron, you've been
going on a podcast tour talking about this issue. Your
work with Fearis and Petequanonas is excellent. I highly recommend it.
But there's a specific element that you wanted to bring up,
and so I'll throw it to you. Ron, What is
going on here?
Speaker 4: Well, I think it's important for us to realize how
we got here quickly, and we could spend easily spend
an hour talking just about this. But I think that
there is an absolute, absolutely, a manipulation campaign meant to
sidetrack the president from his what his opponents would call
isolationist goals, what I would call just wise application of
the donro Monroe doctrine of can we own our near
abroad and defend that for instance, uh midnight hammer I
was I thought was while maybe a little bit beyond
what I would normally espouse, I didn't have a problem
with it, the move to retake through less violent means
the Panama Canal. I have no problem with that. I
I I'm a I'm a big fan of controlling as
a regional hegemen and global power. You need to own
your own space. It's why Canada and Mexico and Cuba
should be huge priorities, much more so than anything across
an ocean and a sea and a desert. But that
being said, Uh, the president was was exposed in the
and the work of and I'm I don't know what
to always think about Max Blumenthal, but his uh, you know,
I had heard through sources very close to the president
that he was very concerned of for his own personal safety,
for the safety of his family. And I thought, and
and the way it was was put to me, I
thought that he was concerned about honestly about IDF and
Masad infiltration into the administration. Uh, it's it's it's out
in the open throughout the d O D. The Massad
has I mean, uh IDF has Uh has a large
presence in the Pentagon and so on and so forth.
But I thought he was very concerned and that wasn't
the case at all. What he had been convinced of.
Max Blumenthal writes about this in the Grey Zone, about
a long campaign by the CIA and FBI to convince
the president that Iran was looking to assassinate him and
had the capacity to do so. That is very troubling.
And you can go and read Blumenthal's long article, uh
essay about this and and he has some pretty good
receipts on the matter. I highly suggest that. And so
so in hindsight, what the the the trepidation that the
President was feeling was was with regards to what he'd
been convinced was an Iranian attempt to assassinate him and
his family. Uh, take care take out his family. So
we have that one level of manipulation. And then we
also see that uh that BBU that net and Yahoo
was had UH basically told the president with or without you, uh,
he was going uh to quote you too. I guess
UH that by the time Puriam was coming, they were
absolutely going to attack Iran uh and they were going
to withhold uh withhold the right to use whatever means necessary.
Now that implies the use of nukes that they don't
officially have. Have nudge nudge, wink wink. And that's unaccepted.
We can't allow that for a lot of reasons because
if you anyone using nukes, even a tactical nuke a
you know, that completely up ends the mad calculus apple cart.
So we can't allow that. So, and we're concerned about
operational security of our own forces, which I think we
saw was very, very low anyway, even even with us
going in like we did. So this manipulation campaign to
get the president off his not just campaign promises, but
his philosophical foundation of what a foreign policy for America
first should look like. I think was was was planned,
It was too pronged, it was very effective and very
most probably amplified by some of those very close to him.
I'm looking at you, Susie Wiles, and Susie has allies.
The cabinet is factionalized, and Susie has allies within the cabinet.
I don't want to go too far into that, but
but but that's what I see getting us to where
we are, and that's very troubling to me.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, at the same time, we've seen this
sort of unprecedented push throughout the kind of civilian side,
through the media. This is something that you know, fear
is brought up yesterday talking about the series of purchases
in you know, the mainstream world. Obviously you have Barry
Weiss rising to a position of prominence the free press,
but also you know what happened with TikTok and others.
And when this war first kicked off two weeks ago
plus or minus, that was sort of the first thing
I noticed is that my feed, my information was very
very different than the last the twelve day war right
between Israel and Iran last year. We weren't seeing the
sort of things that we saw before, and you realized
very quickly that non traditional narratives were being suppressed very,
very heavily. Similarly, we've seen an insane response from Epstein class, right,
those sort of people. For instance, one of the things
that you know, I noticed very quickly is that many
of these Zionists who have been clamoring for longer than
I've been alive, we need to get Iran, we need
to kill their leadership. Well, as soon as they got
what they wanted, instead of taking a victory lap saying
we did it, awesome, great, they pushed even harder. Right,
you have people sort of making claims about Turkey, which
you know, look like I'm not a fan of Turkey.
I don't want to live there, but they are a
country in NATO that's a very difficult you know, ask
to wage some sort of war against Turkey. And in
the media we've seen political figures from across the spectrum,
I mean not across the spectrum, but basically across the
board losing their minds. And one of the things is
that there's been a very deliberate effort to cast opposition
to this war as one of two things. You were
either a Holocaust denying Nazi or an isolationist. This is
almost a direct quote from Ben Shapiro, who blamed the
fact that, according to him, fifty three percent of Republicans
under fifty don't believe the Wikipedia version of the Holocaust.
And he says this is a rise of dangerous conspiracy thinking.
You've heard the term the Bircher's thrown around, like we
need to get rid of this crazed conspiratorial thinking. It
says that Israel got us into this war. Mark Gerberwitz
in the New York Post he wrote an article making
that exact same claim that if you oppose this, you
believe that there is a shadowy Jewish cabal controlling the world.
This blood libel. That's the only reason you can oppose this.
And I think it's pretty clear that there are a
multitude of reasons to oppose this war, a multitude of
reasons to say this isn't a good idea. Now you
mentioned the operational security, one of the things we've seen
being sort of tossed around is the supposed commando option.
What it's sort of become in you know, in media,
the term they're using for it, which is the idea
of using special forces. We can't really confirm or deny
those rumors that that is planned to occur, but the
alleged target seem to be very very dangerous for our assets.
It would involve flying a lot of very expensive guys
that there aren't a lot of into airspace where they
could be shot down and killed, sort of another version
of what we saw with Operation Red Wings. This is
setting aside the diplomatic fallout, right the countries and the Gulf,
who understandably are quite peeved at us, let alone, you know,
South Korea who's had their THAD batteries hijacked, right taken,
and so the idea that this is the opposition to
this war is motivated out of some sort of cheap
ethnic hatred is completely and totally absurd, and really at
the core of this, I think are two issues, which
is one, what does it mean to be sovereign? What
does it mean to be a sovereign nation? And two
what does it mean to be a serious nation? A
nation that has civilizational concerns instead of this sort of
you know, primary focus on I guess we could say
prosperity if even that and uh.
Speaker 4: Yeah, particular kind of a particular kind of prosperity. But
but let's back up, because you've got a ton there. Yeah, yeah,
there's a lot there. But what I would say, let's
let's let's be very uh let's be very rational and
step back and try to put this in uh in
a press conference uh speak to begin with, and then
let's get more granular and more gritty. I think in
wartime there's always a temptation to collapse the range of debate. Okay,
so anytime bullets start flying, there's just the the the
the window gets smaller, regardless, that's part of that is
is not just governmental but human nature. Okay, we're we
we want to U pull together, and that ends up
pulling at the at the limits of of ideological view
as well. So I want to I want to say,
that's kind of a natural thing. But if you question
the wisdom of a conflict, not just this one, but anyone,
you're told you must be. This is historically in this country,
you must be either an isolationist or motivated by prejudice.
And yet historically American foreign policy debate has included the
realist tradition, which asks a different question, not whether we
like or dislike a country, but whether given conflict actually
serves the long term interests of the United States. And
that should always you should always push for that to
be valid. That is a valid question, no matter what.
And the way and the way you ensure it's legitimacy
is say, hey, look, I'm I'm absolutely pro us and
and I don't want our guys killed. You do see
some I have seen some weird you know, there's some
weird fringes where you know, maybe our guys getting killed
will serve our long term purpose. Look, I just don't that.
I don't want to entertain that those the guys who
are man, the guys who are fighting, regardless of whether
I agree or disagree with whether they ought to be
over there. They're Americans, and if we're going to be
if we're going to see America as not just this
propositional thing, then we have to be pro flesh and
blood Americans. Right, So I kind of want to step
against that. But to your great greater point is I
see kind of this, And tell me if you think
I'm wrong here, but I kind of see this effort
to Ukrainify the United States, this Ukrainification, and what does
that look like? Well, okay, bear with me. Who was
Zelenski before? When when Ukraine was actually a normal going
concern back in the day. He was he was a
TV guy, He was a TV star, He made people laugh.
He you know, he was comedian, but he was you know, uh.
And and who is the cabal that now runs the
country that we helped put into power? But the US
foreign policy gang helped put into power because Maydahan was
absolutely we pushed that along, if not gendered up completely ourselves.
Look who the controlling interests are in the country now?
That really doesn't reflect the the people in Ukraine. Okay,
So I don't want to get too ethnically specific about that.
But you can put two and two together, and I
see a similar effort being done without having to go
the Bircher or the conspiracy route. I just think you
see a very similarly uh uh some of the same
incentives driving the the the ruling class here. And no,
I don't think uh Jews are the boogeyman that secretly
run the world. There's just not enough of them. Do
I think they represent a type of cosmopolitan collectivist GDP
first citizen of the world because that makes most sense
for a diasporic people, and therefore because we're the most
because that's the most rationalist take. That's the Do I
see all those incentives aligning? Yes, and uh so that's
kind of where I see. I see this kind of
uni ukrainification and process at play here, and I think
it would be easily. I mean, look, the history of
Russia shows this. Only seventeen percent of Russians were Bolshevik
at the time of the revolution, So it's easy for
a unification of incentives around some of these same goals
to hold a greater than let's call it democratic mass
impetus or influence. And I think that's what's going on,
rather than a Elders of zion kind of view of things.
I think they just there is a there's a confluence
of incentives and views that Nea Kon's Zionists, collectivists kind
of new new wave in the sense of there's a
certain part part of the tech community that sees this
as the kind of the atheist rationalist what's the next
step of human evolution. There's a part of that, there's
a part that really isn't that's more more right oriented,
but there's a portion that that's and and the confluence
of all these kind of points in that direction, but
it But finally to your final point is is this
what serious nations do? And that's the big question because
if serious nations are see a civilizational cohesiveness to their
to their identity, and that stands a thwart this cosmopolitanism,
this this uh what we've been talking about, the open
society kind of thing, and and serious nations are civilizational
and civilizational nations ask the questions that we just asked,
is this in the long term civilizational interests of the
United States? Rather than does this make does this make
arrow go up? Long term? I don't think it does
that at all. But But but that's the thinking behind it.
So that's kind of that's that's a lot. Your question
was a lot, but that's kind of where my head
is on on on all this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that that that question of like what
is best for the nation is really at the core
of this, and I think that's part of why you've
seen a deliberate attack on so called isolationism, which is,
let's be honest, it's a slur. It is intended to say,
you have a ridiculous opinion, We don't need to talk
to you because look.
Speaker 4: Like islence you. It's meant to put you in an
ideological internment camp. That's what it is. Okay, we can't
do real internment camps anymore because we've in our egalitarianism,
we said that's the one thing that FDR did that
was wrong, But we can as freaking surely put you
in an ideological internment camp. And that's what that's meant
to do. Anyway.
Speaker 3: Go on, Well, and I mean you've seen as part
of this ongoing fight between sort of con inc and
you know, whether you would call it the new Right,
I mean, this has been going on since the election,
but particularly since you know, the Israel hamas war kicked off,
is that there's been a deliberate attempt to purge the unbeliever. Right.
We've seen this throughout you know, different young Republican organizations.
We saw this at Heritage, We've seen this at you
know a number of levels. And particularly this term isolationism
is oftentimes bundled with an idea that, oh, you just
hate one America or you hate the president. And I
don't think that's a particularly compelling argument, seriously, but it
has been used and it is currently being used to
do exactly that, to sort of create this ideological internment
camp where we can just section you off, dismiss you
sort of out of hand. But I think part of
the reason that this slur doesn't stick is that myself
and many other people look at, you know, a history
of recent wars that were done quite poorly, but we
can think of many other armed conflicts that we think
we're a good idea. You know, I may be in
the minority, but I think by doctrine at the time,
both Korea and Vietnam were legitimate. Right within that framework,
they made sense. You know. Okay, maybe it didn't work
out great, but like at least, you know, you can
within the sort of constraints at the time, is a
reasonable decision.
Speaker 4: Yeah, So as a philosophy, was that a viable and
valid philosophical view to foreign policy? Yes? Absolutely, okay, And so.
Speaker 3: The reason I bring that up is, you know this,
I am not despite the fact that I'm good friends
with him, I'm not in this Scott Horton camp on war.
You know, I don't believe that war is fundamentally illegitimate.
It is a thing people do. It is a horrible thing,
but it comes, like the seasons. It is something that
people do. So given that when I am told, well,
I must accept seemingly the complete sort of surrender of
my nation's sovereignty, my nation's right to decide on its
own matters of war and peace, that isn't really an
issue with isolationism. It's an issue about, well, what is
the point of this country? Are we independent? Are we
a civilization? Because you and I spoke on the phone
a week ago plus or minus about comments from Secretary
of State Marco Rubio, and I realized that he later
walked these back. In my mind, it's sort of an
open question as to whether he walked back those statements
because they were untrue or because he shouldn't have said
it out loud.
Speaker 4: That shot collar, Uh, that burns after a while.
Speaker 3: Yes, And he basically intimated that the whole reason we
got into this is because Israel was going anyway and
we were worried that without our support they would go nuclear, right,
a situation we don't want.
Speaker 4: That's right, And Okay, I loved it that he came
out and said that. It was like, oh, we're gonna
talk about the elephant room, finally, finally.
Speaker 3: Right, And so okay, let's discount that. You know, you,
my imaginary critic, might say, well, Rubio walked those statements back. Okay, Well,
let's simply look at the interests of Israel and America
what we both want, and sure there are areas where
those are aligned, but as with any two nations, there
are gaps, and seemingly this war is being waged to
serve the interest of Israel and not ours. Here's one
more example when you have the President saying, and he
was joking when he said this, well, we killed our
first choice for the next Iranian leader, and our second
and our third right, all of our plans to have
a regime change were stymied by everyone getting blown up.
That indicates to me that that really isn't what we
wanted to have happen. That strike, at least as far
as I know, was carried out by Israel, and now
we have become thoroughly embroiled in this conflict, which again
seems to be in Israel's interest and not ours. I
mean down to the point where you have you know,
oil tankers with our flag on them getting blown up
in the strait of horror moods, which is a situation
that we definitely don't want for fairly obvious reasons. So again,
the idea that the only possible objection to this is
one of either isolationism or sort of undue hatred to
a certain ethnosectarian group, to me, that doesn't hold up,
because I'll admit I'm no friend of the state of Israel.
I don't particularly like it, as that should be no
shock to my viewers. But I can set that aside.
I could say, you know what, I'm biased. I have
these sort of inclinations, but setting those aside, this doesn't
seem to be a good deal or my guys, my team,
the nation I live in, and so I think that
that question of sovereignty is very close to the core
of this issue. Are we in charge? Because it doesn't
feel as if we are kick it back to you Ron.
Speaker 4: Well, what you're getting at, ultimately is the question of legitimacy.
So I gave a talk in college station earlier this
where anyway earlier this week, and one of the questions was, well,
is this going to erode the support for Trump? And
my answer is that legitimacy always flows from one simple question.
I don't care if you're a king or an emperor,
or a local representative or president, whatever it is, it's
do the people believe that you have their interests at heart?
They don't even look. Being a good guy helps only
inso much as they think you might be more trustworthy
to do those things. Uh. Being a bad guy kind
of hurts, I guess at the margin, but not really
a good guy bad guy. Uh, your ultimate philosophical standpoint,
All of that goes away in mass democracy if if
you think if that, if I represent you, period, you're
gonna make things better for me, and you're doing your
best to do so. It's why guys like Clinton who
didn't do that but were very, very good at convincing
people that that that that was his only point of living,
that that's why they do well. It's why uh Reagan,
who wasn't you know, maybe the brightest guy in the world,
but was a very good communicator, could do so. Obama
the same thing, was a horrific resident, but immensely popular
because people believed all he had to do was get
on TV, and people believed he represented them, at least
the majority did. So this whole operation calls into question
because of number one, it goes against look at me
being all continental. Number one, it goes against the president's
stated goals of his foundational beliefs, and number two against
his promises to uphold those things. And then number three,
as it's come out that we're doing this because another
nation basically you know, wag the dog, so to speak.
So it's a question of legitimacy. Ultimately, does this does
the president? Is he's staking his legitimacy? Is that the tape?
Is that the stakes he's bet here? And I think yes, Now,
is he uniquely talented in the ability to could he
go on TV? I mean, one of the reasons I'm
not really trading around all this is I mean, I
think this is going really badly, but I can't trade
around it very much because he could go on TV
and convince, hey, we're winning, we're doing great. So so
he has a unique capability to convince people that even
though he's going against everything he promised, that he's not
just by saying he's not. And he look, he's been
very open about this in the past. You know his
famous line about, look, I could murder somebody on Fifth
Avenue and you know that whole deal. So but that's
kind of where I think the the that's the hinge
that all this turns on. And I think that again
it gets to this not knowing what you what? Uh what?
Fearas and Darryl spoken on this. But but operationally there's
some real problems because it looks like we were spoofing
some some satellite data to show that more there were
more uh straight transits than there were. That's bad. I mean,
that's really bad.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 4: The the strike on Oman is really bad because there
that's far enough out of the theater that we kind
of thought that that wasn't in play. And Iran is like, hey,
look we're gonna make this. We're gonna make this as
painful as possible, and we can keep popping up. I mean,
we've got a good uh, we've got a good target list.
It's clear they're getting help with our civilizational rivals, for
our civilizational rivals. And my again not to beat a drum,
but the fact that it's not being viewed as civilizational
rivals but more operation it's pure tactics is really troubling.
And I think there's a good chance there might be
some operational we're we're we're, we're doing this on We're
doing this talk on Thursday the twelfth, and this coming weekend.
I think that there absolutely may be some stuff go down,
and that's tactically questionable. That really concerns me because what's
holding this all together is the fact that we don't
have is that we have established air supremacy. We have
we do have the ability to kind of if we
can find something, we can vomit. But that's those are
all tactical wins, they're not civilis. They're not strategic wins,
because again, because of what I just said, they can
go launch a missile at Oman, they can. Two ships
got hit in Basra last night overnight. Uh uh, our
ship got that US flag tanker got hit, so strategically,
strategically it's not going well, and then civilizational goals aren't
going well. So the tactics are only going to carry
you so far. And if the tactics go bad, then
it's it's all downhill, and then the legitimacy comes into question.
So I don't want a black pill, because ultimately the
president is way better than any of the alter you know,
any alternative in play. I want him to succeed. I
want our other goals to succeed. I want the Monroe
Doctrine to be absolutely upheld. I want immigration to be limited,
if not reversed. I want the courts to be brought
down to their constitutional rightful place. I want the executive
to have article to power. I want the legislature to
have to be to go to to legislate again as
opposed to grandstand and just eternally be playing budgetary games.
And so all these things are very important to me.
And if this, if we lose this, then I think
all those other things might get lost as well, and
that's that's very, very troubling to me. So I don't
want a blackpill, but I'm concerned.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's an interesting thing. I've spoken about this on
air before, but because I am very much aware of
the fact that I am in a bubble, I talk
to people who don't have normal opinions basically what I do.
So I cast my net as far as I could
to try and figure out what is the public perception
of this, and by and large, everything I heard back
was very negative. And one of the common pieces that
I'm getting is this sort of outrage of like, wait
a minute, you couldn't get the Save Act done, you
couldn't get XYZ done, But the moment that Israel wants
your help, they snap their fingers and we're there. And
in a lot of the negative coverage, or to say,
the kind of neo conservative coverage of this, you see
this term a grievance politics, which is sort of a
derivation of the woke right thesis that I've spoken about extensively,
which basically the idea is if you use grievance politics,
you complain about something you feel that you aren't given
a fair shake. That is fundamentally a legitimate that's just
what the left does. And I really disagree with that
analysis because in my mind, a grievance is dependent on
whether it is a legitimate or an illegitimate grievance. So
if I say, well, I'm really mad that, you know,
more men than women compete at X y Z competitive field,
you know, whether that's you know, Wall Street or professional athletics,
and I think something should be done about it because
it's not fair. Well, that's kind of an illegitimate grievance.
We're gonna be honest, right, there aren't a lot of
women shaped like shack. They're probably not going to be
a bunch of them in the NBA, thank.
Speaker 4: The Lord.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean go to certain parts of the Deep
South and they're getting close.
Speaker 4: But in all seriousness, right, somebody's got it. Somebody's got
to get those hormones put in the milk and all that. So,
I mean that's true.
Speaker 3: And apparently a friend of the show, Merek from the
Good Old Boys, he's into that, so you know what,
there's an all audience for it. But in all seriousness, right,
that would be an illegitimate grievance, right, nothing can be
done about it. But the idea that all grievances are
illegitimate is kind of stupid because there are very legitimate
cases where people have gotten a raw deal. If you
are American, you may remember at this little scuffle with
the British about exactly that we felt as if we
were getting the short end of the stick, a raw deal.
Speaker 4: Yes, perfect.
Speaker 3: So the idea, the idea that where this is going,
this may be in an article soon. I've been playing
with it, but point is right.
Speaker 4: Okay, which point? Which are yourni platforms?
Speaker 3: I won't say yet, but in all seriousness, right, this
is another very cynical rhetorical device. The idea that if you,
if you object to this lack of sovereignty, if you
object to these unmet promises, and say, why are you
you using your capital to accomplish the goals of someone
else who doesn't vote for you, who isn't part of
allegedly your nation. That seems to me to be a
very legitimate grievance. Entirely so. And the idea that if
you feel as if you're getting a raw deal, that
you're some sort of secret SJW. You know that you're
just as bad as the woke. I mean, it's completely
and transparently absurd and one of the things that I've
found worrisome coming from both the commentariat and also from
the administration is the weak to absent messaging, which is,
what are we doing here, right, what is the goal?
What is the stated goal? How long are we going
to be doing this? And effectively the administration has been
relatively silent on that front, and the commentariat has basically said, well,
if you object to this, you're an isolationist, left wing
woe Corshoe theory nazi who's so stupid. We don't don't
have to talk to you. And I understand what you
said earlier that you know, in times of conflict, the
overton window shrinks, right, There's an instinct to rally around
the flag. That's very human and very natural. But in
my mind, it seems as if we were in the
midst of a very dangerous sort of rhetorical failing where
there really seems to be no narrative for our guys
other than our government is completely and totally occupied. And
if you're in charge of that government, that's a negative
outcome for you. You don't want to be seen as illegitimate
or incompetent. And I cast my mind back to the
very real time during the Biden years, where many people
felt the same thing. They felt as if this government
is illegitimate, it's a bunch of crooks. They're incompetent, they're petty,
they're tyrannical, and in a situation where got in basically
on a protest vote, right basically on a make that
stop happening, and there have been wins, particularly on immigration.
I was very encouraged by some of the targets of
dose initially albeit you know that has gone away, but.
Speaker 2: Nonetheless right ready set.
Speaker 5: This is Cheltnam and at Live score Bet, we're celebrating
by giving you a ten euro free bet when you
bet ten euros on the first race every day of
the festival, whether you're a Cheldham novice or a seasoned
pro be there when the next chapter is written. Cheltenham
with Live score Bet. This is total betting, first cash
bet on first race of Cheltenham each day, minimum odds
evens excludes each way bets. Free bet up to ten
euros u same day on horse racing terms apply gamblingcare
dot I E eighteen plus.
Speaker 3: A great many people gave Donald Trump a Mandy and
that Mandy sure had a foreign policy component. You know,
the anti war coalition is always has been some fraction
of first the Tea Party, then MAGA, but the fact
that not only has that foreign policy commitment been abandoned,
which I think, even if I don't like it, MAGA
could have held up under right. If it was everything
you wanted domestically and some foreign adventures, I think most
people would take that deal. But when it is both
none of that and less and less of the domestic concerns,
when you know you have, as Trump said right, a
major oral refinery going in apparently staffed and funded by Indians,
that rankles people. People get legitimately upset, They have legitimate grievances,
and look, it seems that there needs to be an answer,
and I don't know where that answer is coming from,
because neither the administration or the media allied to them
are providing that. So I threw a bunch at you.
There ron much chance to good with that.
Speaker 4: Well, first of all, real quick, I'll speak to the
Indian refinery deal. We did that to ourselves. It's impossible
for if it's a it's a four to six billion
dollar investment in order to get something like that off
the ground and going, and if you do it domestically,
you have an immense and I mean immense target on
your back from all the political uh the all the players,
and it's it increases the risk of your uh uh
of ever getting that you know, any return on that
capital and so on. So the way this was set
up was through a basically like a swap. It's it's
a purchase agreement that that makes valid the ahead of time,
the the the capital interest in the in the project
that'll be mostly Americans, staffing, building, all of that. It's
just it's just but we did that. We did that
to ourselves in the sense of we've created this this
environment where it's very hard for people to do great
things anymore because there's some left wing special interest group
that can, through injunction, make your life impossible. So so really,
if we're going to and we need more we've got
we're cheap oil producer now in the world. We need
more refinery capacity. We had to do this and the
only way it was going to get done was through
FOURIGN dollars. I hate to be the bearer of that,
but that's where your country is right now. So it's bad,
but it's bad for different reasons than people think it is,
if that makes any sense. Okay, So sorry, to put.
I'll take off my nerd finance hat for a minute
and go back to what you mention. You mentioned, you
mentioned and our the grievance culture in our founding, And
so why did and these were philosophical guys who in
the seventeen seventies, These were smart, honorable people. These weren't
just you know, these weren't four chan chuds. These were
absolute elite kind of folks. And why did they and
they were concerned with these things? Why did they consider
the grievance against England legitimate? And it was because it's
the thing that makes every grievance either legitimate or illegitimate.
And it's a metaphysical question. And it gets back to
it's the King was responsible personally for the for all
his colonial states, okay around the world, but specifically to
the American to the American project, the American colonies, and
he personally had there was this there was this royal
pledge on the king's honor to protect and ensure the
prosperity and safety. And the King, in a bit of
political trouble, offloaded the responsibility to Parliament without without any representation.
You always hear about that, and we always hear, oh,
no taxation without representation. It was much deeper than that.
It was a philosophical, metaphysical argument of honor and loyalty
and pledge and all these things. That's why in the
declaration and these things are called out, it's on our
sacred honor. They were calling out the king to his
metaphysical commitments. And so you can always judge the legitimacy
of aggrievance by its metaphysical commitment. And the problem is
we have said metaphysics is off the table. We're not
gonna think about that. It is all tactics. It is
all positivism. Positivism in other words, law is what I
say it is, rather than law is is legislated rather
than discovered. The classical understanding is we look for that
which is true by nature, physicis and by and and
we're always going to do that imperfectly because we don't
have divine revelation to every single instance. But but but
we seek to determine that which is true and legislate thustly,
as opposed to positivism, which is is it's pure custom. Okay,
it's purely what we decide, because that's just and and
so that metaphysical. Uh so, there's this metaphysical understanding that
that we we thought the king was held and then
we still want to hold the president to of honor.
You made a promise. You've got to keep that because
you represent us. You are the one person the entire
country votes for, one person that the entire country ordains
we lay our hands on. I mean, it's the form
of our government as Presbyterian, it is we ordain you
as presiding elder. That's what president means as presiding elder
over not just the executive branch, but the representation to
the foreign nations. And you have a vice elder in
the Secretary of State who helps you out. Okay, and
if there is If you don't keep those promises, then
metaphysically you are illegitimate and our grievances are valid. Does
that chang? Does that philosophical chain make sense?
Speaker 1: Oh?
Speaker 3: One hundred percent. And I realized there's a there's a
fair critique someone could level at you and I, which
is why are you engaging with these arguments because they're
clearly not genuine. It is clearly I will say literally
whatever to get you to shut up. That's fair. That's
what they say, is this isn't a real argument in
the way that you and I might have an argument, Ron,
But also I think it's important to really dig into
the details of how this war is being legitimized, of
what they are trying to say to get us ever
more involved in this pointless, stupid conflict. It is not
for our interests, and if you make that objection, they
will cast all possible slings and arrows at you to
try and get you to go away. And fundamentally, I
think that the problem is this isn't going away. Say
what you will about the state of Israel. They have had,
as the kids say, a generationally bad run. This has
been a really tough two to three years for their
public perception in America. Whether that is what we saw
with Operation Midnight Hammer, obviously you know the what happened
to Gaza. We have the Epstein files and now this,
and clearly there are many people in this administration and
elsewhere who really want everyone to stop talking about Epstein.
Do I think everything in the files is true? No,
clearly not. There's a bunch of random FBI tip lines
about you know, George H. W. Bush eating babies that
probably aren't true, but nonetheless it.
Speaker 4: All have problems with with with George, but probably probably
not one of the probably not one of the sins
he regularly.
Speaker 3: At least it doesn't make the top five. But you
a seriousness, right, you have again this same core question
of who is in charge and how does this work?
Because obviously there's many salacious things in the Epstein files.
You know, the man was a pimp for underage women.
He was a very bad man who I sincerely hope
as being Kentucky Fried in hell. But there's an additional
thing you can learn from that, which is the way
that this system works is not how you and I
were told in school that it was. It works very,
very differently, and many people have come to that conclusion.
And when you have that piece of information, that model
delivered to you, and then like six weeks later, you're like,
wait a minute, why are we in this war that
seemingly nobody seventy to ninety percent depending on which pole
you look at, supports this doesn't seem to be in
our interest. You can't blame people for drawing a logical conclusion, right,
connecting those two points of data. It's not a huge leap,
and I think that one of the problems that we
face across the West. You're seeing this in the UK
rapidly in America, is that much like the off ramps
for this conflict, where we're not really sure how we
could get out of it even if we want to.
I don't understand where that attitude goes. Because we had
the Democrats in power, motivated a lot of people to
protest against what they saw is corruption and tyranny, and
now you have the Trump administration, who I have not
been particularly harsh to. I've supported many of their wins.
I view my relationship as sort of calling balls and strikes.
There've been good things and there've been bad things. But fundamentally,
if that movement is discredited, if the broad public consensus
is new boss same as the old boss, we're not
in charge. We have no way to redress our grievances.
I don't know where that energy goes. And just as
it has created a very volatile situation in the UK.
I speak to many people about this. I don't pretend
to understand your politics, Britishers, but nonetheless it seems to
be increasingly volatile. I don't understand. I don't understand a
way for that to go pleasantly here when there is
seemingly no political way to address grievances unless you are
a foreign interest group, a country that starts with the
letter I, Seemingly those are the only ones who can
get anything out of this system. And one of the
stories in my mind of the twenty twenty four election
was certain people realizing, if this continues, my situation is
at risk, rich and powerful people who basically realize that
if Biden, if we continue in that direction, I don't
get to be rich and powerful anymore. And obviously, you
know certain of those people are profiting from this arrangement,
you know, whether they're involved in certain technical fields or others.
But fundamentally, if we have a major energy crisis, if
the strait of horror moves is shut down, if you
know countries across the world are desperate for petroleum products LNG,
that's a problem for a country that doesn't actually make anything, right,
that can't really spin up a new refinery overnight anymore.
And again, going back to this the core central conceit
of this that seems to be a very legitimate objection
to this war. And I don't know where that person
would go to have those grievances redressed. Ron, I'm curious
to get your thoughts.
Speaker 4: Well, how much time we have? What are we looking at?
Speaker 3: Yeah, we had another ten minutes plus or minus.
Speaker 4: Okay, So I think the bigger question and that you
raised it the first of all, that is why are
we Why are we concerned? Why what interest does this serve?
And the and the way we went down this path is, well,
there's the geopolitical reality. And the geopolitical reality is that
there are uh several major choke points around the world
that control that the control of which is the control
of UH of of International GDP. It just that's the
way it works. So so UH Panama, Malacca, Suez, Horror,
mus Bosporus, Dardenell's Bosporus, Dartnell's not so much because the economic,
but because of the strategic But and so we were
always concerned.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 4: Once oil was discovered and in the Middle East and
was a huge deal, Suez and Horror moves became hugely
important from a sense of those whoever controlled those things
had way more leverage on the international system. We went
through this is you know, everybody remembers seventy four being
all about Watergate, but we were embroiled in a massive
bear market because of the seventy three seventy four oil crisis,
you know, and and so on, and then later on
you saw again in seventy nine, and then and then
in later when Iraq took Kuwait, you saw a similar thing.
So but but the control of these choke points is
hugely important in a in a world where we trade. Okay,
So that's and we are in the world. So and
that has to do with just the reality of post
World War two. We were going to have a world
economy because that's how we rebuilt Europe, and so these
things start to have a momentum of their own. So
why do we give it too It's about Iran. Well,
we've always cared. That's why the CIA have put this
Shaw in power back in fifty three, I believe that
was fifty three, and we had great relations with Iran,
and Iran was a natural balance. You can go and read,
or you don't have to read. You can listen to
Nixon's interviews about the balance of Iran and Israel as
civilizational and Middle East balancing there and also Egypt and Turkey.
And it made this kind of four legged stool and
Nixon with Kissinger's help and running on kind of a
knee or Morgenthal philosophical framework that was perfect. It made sense,
and it gave us the leverage with which to support
Pakistan against China. All these different things that had going
on that the public didn't even know about because Nixon
wasn't a blowhard and he anyway. But that's why we care,
and that's ultimately why we got in bed with Israel
because in the seventies after Watergate, we lost all control
over all. This with Carter's foreign policy was terrible. We
were giving away the world. We had no real way
to exert influence abroad. The Russians were ascendant or the
Soviets were ascendant, and Israel bombed a reactor using American
hardware F sixteen's and F fifteen's in this incredible raid,
and we saw Israel as and this is coming after
in Tebby and the fallout of Munich, and we saw
Israel as a way to up our reputation because they
were really good at doing this crazy military stuff and we,
frankly were terrible. I mean, we don't know if you remember,
but in seventy nine the reason Delta forhor was Force
was really created was to go and rescue the hostages
after the Shaw was deposed in the Iotola original Iatola,
Kamane took a bunch of American hostages and we did
this big Delta Force operation that was a massive failure.
A bunch of people got killed. And Israel was this beacon.
I'm just telling you how it was. Most of you know,
I was old enough to remember this. They were an
operational success. So that's how we went down this path
of teaming up with them, and it created this entire
with the geopolitical stresses of these choke points and Israel
being this seemingly they're winning and we're losing, We're going
to partner with them, and it created this huge momentum
that has just increased over time. And that's how we
got where we are. And we need somebody to stand
up and reassert our civilizational pre eminence and our operational
authority in order to stand athwart that. And that man
is not Donald Trump. It's just not. He is doing
all these other great things. And the question is is
this going to bring his ability to do all these
other great things down? And I don't know the answer
to that. I hope not, because I love all these
other things, but he's not going to be the one
to stand up to I mean, he's too personal. Look
who put as his technical as his negotiating team, Wick
Coffin Kushner. These are two Zionists who who have zero
technical understanding of the of of of what was going on,
completely out of their league. I mean, uh so he's
just not that guy, and and I love him. I
want him to succeed, but he's not the guy to
stand up to Israel. It's just not gonna happen. So
I don't want to end on that note, but I
know we're running out of time. But that's kind of
where I see things.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there's there's something to that. I think that realistically,
like there are there are many many negative side effects externalities,
if you will, to this war continuing. And one of
the things that I've i say, long predicted I don't
know if this has been going off long enough to
say that, is that it's entirely possible or the president
to move the goalposts because we haven't really had a
victory condition and so I think it's entirely possible for
one to be made up after the fact, oh, this
war was entirely designed to cripple the Iranian navy or
to do something else. And we're done. And you've heard
the president say that. You've heard the President say this
war is over or we want and you know what,
it may be stupid, it may not be like technically true,
but I'll take it. I will take an end to
this conflict. I don't really care how it happens, because
not only do I think it's a colossal waste of life,
not only do I think it has the potentiality to
destabilize the world, let alone you know, our nation, and
so you know what, whatever it takes to end this
within certain limits, fair enough, right? And do I have
faith that this will, you know, mark some major change
in our relationship with Israel during this administration. No, I don't.
But I think and I this is conspiratorial, But I
have to imagine that in Tel Aviv they're running the
mental calculation on how long support for Israel is politically
viable in the US. Because the numbers I'm seeing they're
not good, even in the Republican Party aren't good. And
so I think it is very much in their interest
to get us into as much of a mess as
they can as quickly as possible. Yes, because that support
may not be guaranteed in the future. And I don't
know if that's a sorry bron Well.
Speaker 4: No, do you think The question I have is is
do you think that that? Do you think the Israelis
believe that greater Israel is an achievable goal over time?
Speaker 3: I don't know, because this is a point that you've
seen from Carlson and others, which is just because you
want something doesn't mean it's possible. And that has been
a major concern of mine as well, which is setting
aside my personal feelings about Israel, the question is are
there goals even possible? Is this something that can be done?
Speaker 4: Because realist does that, That's what you have to do.
You have to live in the world on the right.
We are the faction of the real that's what that's
what grounds everything that we're about. So you have to
ask these questions.
Speaker 3: Well exactly and when I look at you know, seemingly
a desire to turn Iran into Gaza, to turn Iran
into Syria, you know.
Speaker 4: This is non functional Libya.
Speaker 3: Is that possible? Because we've to quote Lindsay Graham, pounded
Iran to phrase he really likes saying. I'll let you
speculate as to why. But okay, we've done that for
two weeks. Now do we have the material to keep
that going? That is an open question. At least judging
by our our missile interceptors, we are running out of material.
Speaker 4: Yeah, we have shallow magazine.
Speaker 3: Depth and okay, well, assuming we need at least some
of those for other things. Right, you don't want to
go dry trying to blow up Iran. They're still there,
like sure, you know, the Supreme Leader isn't sure. You know,
a couple hundred other people aren't. But seemingly Iran still stands.
It is still a nation, It still has the capacity
to endure. And so if we have wasted all of
these resources blowing up, you know, a non negligible number
of Iranians, but not enough to turn it into Syria
or to Kasa, well what have we done here? Realistically?
What have we done?
Speaker 4: We killed?
Speaker 3: Okay, we killed an eighty seven year old man with
prostate cancer. Yeah, okay, you probably didn't need a drone
to do that. You could have just waited, to be
blunt about it. And so that goal of Greater Israel.
It seems to me to be impossible. Israel's in my mind,
a very bad strategic situation. Their domestic political situation seems
to be chaotic. You saw the same footage I did
of you know, crowds in the street upset about Netanyahu.
Speaker 4: Tel Aviv's getting pounded. They are censoring, they're censoring the deal.
But I mean, you can find the you know, a
lot of Ai. But but anyway, keep going.
Speaker 3: Sorry, well exactly, and if you look at what happened
in you know, Operation Midnight Hammer, the Twelve Day War,
seemingly Israel got cold feet. They didn't like how hard
they were getting hit. And one other thing we need
to keep in mind, Iran has not maximally escalated this war.
There are targets they have not hit, whether it's the
desalinization plant, whether it's you know, Israeli nuclear facilities, oh.
Speaker 4: Symbolic stuff. They could hit Holocaust, Holocaust Center, they could
hit the Knesse, they could.
Speaker 6: Hit uh, they could hit the uh uh, the the.
Speaker 4: Where they could hit. They could hit the city of David.
There's a lot of there's why there They're not going
to hit the whaling Wall because I don't think there.
I don't think they're uh there. Uh. Their targeting error
is tight enough to hit the wall and not accidentally
hit dome of the rock. So that's not gonna happen. Okay,
target is pretty good now with their drones. They could
but their drones don't carry enough punch to bring down
the and that's another topic for another day. But but uh,
but they could absolutely hit at the Kannesse, the decel plants.
They could hit h the Holocaust Center, that is, as
you know, kind of a religious deal. They could hit
the Mount of Olives, which which is covered with the
Jewish Elite's Jewish Elite dead. You know, it's a massive cemetery.
If you've ever been there, it's it's actually quite beauty.
I mean, if you're a Christian, Jerusalem is is phenomenal
to visit just to see.
Speaker 3: We'll take your word for it, Ron, because I don't
have an an overly inflated view of my importance. But
also if I did get black bagged, I think the
general consensus would be you were kind of asking for it.
I may, I may scratch.
Speaker 4: It's amazing, I would you know, just objectively, as a Christian,
it's amazing. I mean going and seeing the siege wall,
their siege ramp at Masada that was built by the
Romans in eighty seventy starting in late seventy seventy one
and is still there. There's amazing. You know, the caves
at Cuamorum where we get you know, anyway, I could
go on and on, I hate, but you're right. Israel
Iran could go, could go ham on all that, on
every one of those things I just mentioned, but they
don't have to because all they have to do. Look,
here's the wind conditions for the US. It's going to
be at least this no more missiles are flying at
forget just Israel, at our at our Arab coalition states.
I mean, do you know what they're in Bahrain and
Abu Dhabi and so on and so forth, these places
that live off to a large degree oil, but also
so tourism. How many tours are going to be visiting
those places until this is sealed and done. So we've
broken this is pottery barn. We have gone in with
a nine iron and taken it to all the furniture
and everything hanging on the walls.
Speaker 3: Well, and one of the things that I can't stop
thinking about is the damage to the Golf States, both
in our relationship with the Golf States, but also the
international relationship or sorry, reputation, rather of a place like Dubai, who,
at least according to the Daily Mail, which I realize
is not you know, the paper of record, but you
know they do report things from time to time. They
are charging.
Speaker 4: Dubai is what is what London used to be? You
go over there and that that's oh yeah, it's it's
English spoken, elite kind of deal, and they are freaking out.
This is not it's yea plant run what's that?
Speaker 3: To that point, Roun, they've arrested and charged a sixty
year old man from Britain or filming the missile strikes,
which one indicates they're freaking out. And two, if you
know anything about the sort of people who go to Dubai,
they basically go there because it's like, to your point,
what London used to be. It is a place for
rich people to hang out. And if all of a
sudden you're not only getting hit with missiles, that becomes
less fun. Singapore starts to look a lot more attractive.
And two, if you're the all of a sudden getting
black bagged and thrown in a you know, a prison
that I imagine is not particularly pleasant. That sends a
message that this is not the safe playground of the wealthy.
It has becomes.
Speaker 4: Expat rich xpac community. It's what Hong Kong was before
ninety seven that went away Macal which went away. Singapore
is to a certain degree. Uh, I love Singapore. Singapore
is in a is is in a real demographic shredder
right now. So uh uh we need to pray for
the land of uh of uh Lee Kwan Yu. But
but these places are slowly but surely, these these these
uh cities of refuge to borrow a levitical term, are
are going away and uh and we're helping. And that's
that's a canary that is uh looking a little uh
that's in the mind and not looking real good. You know,
that's a warning sign again if we're gonna be a
civilizational bulwark and if we're the champions of the West,
and right now it's not looking like we are. The
last thing and then I think we both probably got
to go. Is what does this do to Jordan? Jordan
has been our most loyal ally. They do everything for us.
They'll host that they they will put up with whatever
and have been friends, and we are you know, what
are we doing with those guys if we're if we're
giving the signs that we're kind of on board with
a greater Israel idea, because guess what's right in the
They're not stopping at the West Bank, They're not stopping
at a mind, They're going all the way to the
northern half of our northern third of Saudi. So what
do we tell what are we saying to your point,
to our to our golf allies, our Arab and I'm
talking real allies, guys who have stood with us. You
know what should we be able to say, Hey, look,
we're just gonna let that whole part of the world
go away. But you can't because the safety of the
world depends on mutually assured destruction. And all it takes
is the one the one group over there that has
the bomb is the one that I'm least confident in
and keeping it in their pants. And so we're we're
they've got us by the short hairs, and we have
to find a way out. And this all goes to
Israel's got to decide whether it wants to be part
of the West or part of the East. I think ultimately,
if they keep going down this road, they abandon us.
I mean, because we're gonna ultimately, democratically, we're gonna aband
We're if zoomers start voting, this is going to be
you know, President Newsom or President whoever is going to
be like, screw this, there's we aren't playing this game,
and they're gonna have to pivot east.
Speaker 3: Well to the point of what is that are they Well,
I shouldn't say that. I have no commentary on that,
but I mean, I think it would be somewhat difficult
to tell. You know, King Abdullah the second. Yeah, I
know that seems scary, but have you considered the fact
that you're a Nazi? That's why you don't like this? Again,
it's absurd, It's patently absurd. Yeah, And that's again why
I just want to reiterate, this war needs to end.
Much damage has already been done. It can be smoothed
over ultimately, but if this continues, we are going to
start losing things, whether that is people, whether that is allies,
whether that is global shipping, and for what for the
insane jinguistic ambitions of a certain Middle Eastern democracy is
that the point of America is that what we are
spending all of this capital to do, alienating our friends abroad,
alienating our domestic voters right from the political class. Are
we going to spend all of that for this pipe dream?
Sincerely hope not, But Ron, we are over time, this
has been a great conversation. Where can people find you?
Speaker 4: All right? For the American Mind, which is a publication
of the Claremont Institute, a right occasionally for responsible stake craft,
all right, for American Reformer. And then I have a
substack that I'm actually have gotten very active on that.
And then I'm on x and you can find me
at Ron Dodson. And you know, probably something I'll say
that will hopefully make you happy but occasionally make you mad.
That means I'm I'm just trying to think through these
things like we all are.
Speaker 3: As far as my stuff The Jay Burden Show Apple,
Spotify YouTube, I'd imagine this is going out to some
new people. The last episode with Fears and Darryl went
by the standards of substack quite viral. So, like I said,
you can find me pretty much anywhere you listen to
podcasts if you want the episodes early in ad free.
You can do so on Patreon, substack, or gum Road.
I realized it's a little annoying, but this is what
I do. It's my full time job, and I appreciate
your support, and I feel that you know I'm offering
you something in exchange for that. You get the same
content everywhere. You're not missing out on anything. But it's
a little quality of life thing for people who support me.
If you're interested in my writing, you can find it
in Chronicles Magazine or Junto as well as my own substack.
I've as I've been writing more elsewhere, I've been doing
so less on my own personal substack, but still you
could find my thoughts there. Canna start. Check out our
sponsor Axious Remote Fitness and Coaching, or a new sponsor,
Fox and Son's Coffee. They sent me a whole bunch
of stuff. The Ethiopian's quite good. He's a friend of mine,
friend of Cryptos as well our mutual friend Ron. Good guy.
You should support his business. You can use code Jay
Burden for fifteen percent off, which is very generous. I
thought it was five percent the first ad read I did,
but it's three times that so if you're interested in
coffee check him out again. Ron preciate it. It's a
really great episode. Man and everyone at home, keep your
head up. I can't last forever. Good night.