Kind: captions
Language: en
As a former CIA operative, what do you
read into the fact that the FBI is being
so silent about the uh attempted
assassination of Trump, the
assassination of Charlie Kirk and the
Epstein files? The FBI is leaning into
the way our government is divided,
meaning how it's actually divided by the
by our founding fathers. the legislative
branch, the executive branch, the
judicial branch, FBI falls under the
judicial branch, the president falls
under the executive branch, and of
course, Congress, the House, all falls
under the legislative branch. So, the
three branches of government are built
to keep each other's in check,
>> but they're also built to kind of
protect their own
um vertical, their own duties. So, I
think FBI understands there's certain
duties that they have that are defined
by their role in government. and it
doesn't matter what the house or the
president has to say, those duties can't
be messed with. But then you also have
this layer where Cash Patel was put in
place by Donald Trump, the executive. So
you already have some of this
cross-pollination that's unique and it's
it's unclear what it all means. Like do
we hear Trump talking about the Epstein
files because he knows that the judicial
branch isn't going to release anything?
Is he letting this whole thing play out
in in uh the House of Representatives
because he knows that no matter how many
votes happen in the House or the Senate?
At the end of the day, the judicial
branch is going to be who determines
what gets shared, what gets redacted,
what gets kept and held back. And in all
of those scenarios, Donald Trump has
done what he can do to have the Epstein
files released. And he knows that that
the assassination attempts, the
assassination of Charlie Kirk, like
these all blend between branches of
government. And along with the checks
and balances also comes a certain amount
of of distancing of responsibility.
>> But Cash like went out of his way to say
we're going to be super transparent. We
know how important this is to the
American people and then we've gotten
anything but. So certainly I as a
commentator on the internet start
speculating like crazy. Um, what do you
read into that behavior from uh like are
they are there signs that they're hiding
something? Are there signs that they're
just running a good investigation? Like
what do you see the signs being?
>> The signs for sure are there's there's
lots of things being hidden, but the
things that are being hidden aren't
necessarily nefarious. A lot of what's
hidden in government is actually
incompetence. And that's not something
comforting to know, but it's the truth.
>> But do you actually see signs of
incompetence? Oh, absolutely. Like you
see you see cashel and FBI coming out
and releasing details about arrests
before the actual state police who have
made the arrest are willing to share the
same details. You saw that very early on
with the with the first announcement
that they had apprehended a suspect in
the Charlie Kirk killing when in fact
what they had was an old man who said it
was me with no evidence, no proof. They
that was not a suspect. That was a
volunteer. But you saw it go out on on
official channels. you talk about in
social media. So you see these updates
that are coming out at the speed of
social media because Cash Patel is used
to working at the speed of social media.
He's not used to working at the speed of
government. And that has created all
sorts of questions about whether or not
he's fit for the role. And then that
bleeds into whether or not FBI is up to
snuff to do their job. And you can just
see how it it snowballs out of control
from there.
>> So do you think then that he just popped
off too early and now he's realizing I
got to keep my mouth shut until we
really know what's going on? I think in
that instance he learned an important
lesson about talking too fast, talking
too early and the importance of of
vocabulary, right? Government people who
are brought up and raised in government
when you've been a police officer, when
you've been an FBI agent and then you're
appointed as the director of FBI, you
already know this stuff because you
spent all of your formative career
building this this vocabulary for both
dodging responsibility but also for for
denoting responsibility. And then you
have somebody who's appointed to the
role who does not have that upbringing.
And now it's very easy for them to use
the wrong term in the wrong context. And
that's what we jump on. Unfortunately, I
think most of what media jumps on these
days is vernacular. They're jumping on
words and word usage, not thinking about
the intention behind the words. Cash
Patel was just trying to comfort the
American public and say, "Hey, FBI is
doing their job. We already have people
of interest that we're looking into."
But that's not the terminology he used.
That's the terminology we're accustomed
to. That's not the terminology he used.
And now that puts the president in a
place where he has to think whether or
not punitive action is required for his
FBI director. And there's and that's
just one case that we're all aware of.
There are hundreds of cases that FBI is
working through all the time that
they're communicating up to the White
House and back again. So what's what do
all of those cases look like? And and
what's the communication look like
between the White House and FBI
daytoday? And how is it different from
what it looked like when the whole world
saw it with the killing of Charlie Kirk?
>> Would you have expected more information
to come out by this point?
>> In effective professional government,
the public is the last to know. And
that's how it's supposed to be. We are
supposed to be focused on making it
through our everyday life. We're
supposed to feel safe. We're supposed to
feel comforted. We're supposed to feel
secure enough that we focus our energy
on our productivity. That's what we're
supposed to do. That's how our country
was designed. But now there's so much
distrust in government. Not just
distrust that the government's working
in our best interest, but also distrust
that the government's even competent.
>> There's so much distrust. We're actually
reducing our productivity
>> because we feel like we have to watch
our own back. We feel like we can't
necessarily trust the police. We feel
like maybe we can't trust our schools to
educate our children or even keep our
children safe. We feel like we can't
trust our neighbor because now the most
violent criminals are turning out to be
middle class white boys. So, like
there's all this stuff that's splitting
our attention that keeps us from doing
the one thing we're supposed to be able
to do, which is contribute to the
economy.
>> Going back to you looking at this as an
outsider who has been trained on picking
up on cues that other people might not
see. Uh, does it seem plausible that in
the case of Charlie Kirk's assassin that
he acted alone or do you see something
more coordinated? you know, of all of
the of all of the public
killings, and I mean, assassination
attempts, I'll I'll include in that that
we've seen uh to date, right? And you've
got two assassination attempts on the
president. You have the killing of the
United Healthcare CEO
>> um Brian Thompson in December of last
year. You have the killing of Charlie
Kirk this year. In each of those
instances,
you you can start to with a trained eye,
you can start to see how the
premeditated efforts were executed. And
some of them required prof seemingly
required professional intervention and
others were completely amateur. The
killing of Brian Thompson was a textbook
amateur operation, right? The guy was
cased by a single individual, Luigi
Manion, who then found him at a a moment
of vulnerability. That's a mix of luck
and planning, and then killed him in
plain sight in front of cameras and the
doorstep of his hotel. That's very
amateur, but he had he still showed some
very intelligent premeditated movements
to try to get off the X and cover his
tracks, and it was just luck that he was
captured in a McDonald's having French
fries after flirting with a waitress or
whatever the story is, right? The same
thing is true, I feel, with Charlie
Kirk. The the killer for Charlie Kirk
shows very strong amateur tendencies,
premeditated, but amateur tendencies.
And that lends itself to believe that
he's most likely operating alone in his
intent to kill. Does that mean that he
wasn't um collaborating or sharing his
plans with other people? Maybe. But I
don't I don't get the sense from what
I've seen of the evidence that he was
supported externally by foreign
governments or by um by rogue elements
inside our own country. He just the
evidence points to an individual who
made a plan and executed that plan
premeditatedly on a soft target. Candace
Owens would beg to disagree. Uh what do
you take in her breakdown of all of
this? Like to me this is a fascinating
thing that we're living through right
now. We have this massive velocity and
volume of information. Rightly, there's
nobody trying to censor us. So, people
are able to say what they think. Um,
some people may think that she's a
nefarious actor. That certainly is not
what I read into it. Uh, I don't think
that she's right. I think that she has a
bent towards the conspiratorial.
Um, but anybody's able to say what they
believe. And so, you're getting a lot of
narratives that are running wild. You're
getting citizen journalism or podcaster
journalism. I don't know what journalism
new thing. [laughter] Uh but yeah, what
do you what do you um see in the way
that Candace is putting pieces together?
>> So, I'm not I'm not very familiar with
Candace's argument overall, but here's
what I will say about
>> it's Israel.
>> Oh my gosh.
>> I'll just simplify it for you.
>> I mean, if that's the end conclusion,
I would I would love to poke holes in
the entire process. Either way, there's
an there's a very clear and predictable
anatomy to conspiracy which explains why
conspiracy happens. Conspiracy has
always happened. The the theory of a
conspiracy of a planned coordinated lie
has been around as long as the United
States and beyond. And it happens
anytime there's a factual event that's
immediately followed by an absence of
information. Anytime those two things
happen, a factual event followed by an
absence of information, it just invites
conspiracy because the human brain does
not like an open loop. It does not like
to not have a conclusion. It doesn't
like to not know the answer. It doesn't
like to accept um having to wait for a
conclusion, wait for uh resolution, wait
for more information. Our brains don't
like that. Our brains like very clear,
very closed, very consistent loops. It
keeps us happy. It keeps us satisfied.
keeps us feeling safe and secure.
>> So here with Charlie Kirk, like with mo
with any major criminal incident,
there's going to be a long absence of
information because the in order for our
legal system to prosecute, it has to go
through a process of building a case.
And if if that case building process is
is um undermined with with people
reaching in and knowing about
information and evidence before it can
be presented to the court, then it makes
it harder to build the case which makes
it harder for us to actually find the
justice that we are promising not only
for the victims but also for the
criminals who are also protected under
law as a US citizen. So, we have to
accept that if we want our system to
work the way that we all want our system
to work, we have to give space for the
courts to collect the information in
secret that they need to collect.
Otherwise, we're actually undermining
the evidence trail because we demand the
need to know. And that leads that that
gap of information leads to some
incredible conspiracies and conspiracy
theories that float around completely
unsubstantiated.
And you can make anything coincidental
or anything um uh accidental sound like
it's intentional until you kind of vet
it through an analytical process that
most conspiracy theorists don't vet.
We'll be right back to the show, but
first let's talk about the difference
[music] between marketing hype and
actual proof. When 5 million people buy
25 million shirts from the same company,
that's not a gimmick. That's proof.
proof that someone finally solved the
clothing problem that has plagued guys
for decades. And this holiday season,
that solution just became the easiest
gift decision you will make. True
Classic started with a simple mission.
Premium quality should not require a
premium price tag. Fit is tailored where
it matters. The fabric feels expensive
without the markup and it actually
lasts. No shrinking, no fading, no
falling apart. And that is why guys keep
coming back. Make holiday shopping easy.
Head to trueclassic.com/impact
[music]
and grab the perfect gift for everyone
on your list. [music] Again, that's
trueclassic.com/impact.
And now, let's get back to the show. All
right. So, if you were going to build a
um
module into Everyday Spy and you were
going to teach people how not to fall
prey to conspiracy theory, but we are in
a vacuum like we we have this der of
information like really use Charlie
Kirk's assassin. We don't know. The FBI
promised to tell us things, but they're
not telling us things. So, if you were
going to teach me how to deal in this
moment, even if it's just to sit
comfortably with uncertainty, how would
you walk me through it? How would you
help me dissect I get you don't know the
specifics, but how would you help me
dissect somebody like Candace who makes
like she comes with I'll say
coincidental receipts but nonetheless
receipts that in a John Nash sort of way
which people know more from like uh it's
always sunny in Philadelphia with like
all the strings like she can paint a
picture of look at how all of these
things are connected.
How do you help somebody have the
defenses to know when something is true
or likely to be true and how to debunk
information from somebody who is let's
say both well-meaning, intelligent and
coming with very specific examples. So
the answer is is kind of twofold. You
have to understand the difference
between um objective information versus
subjective information. Objective
information is information that can be
proven that can be verified and that is
coming from more than one source. So
proven if she's got receipts or proven
if she's got uh you know samples kind of
like with 911 people can show that there
are certain flight manifests that are
suspicious. They can show that there are
there are there's timing that's
suspicious. Like those are facts. That's
objective reality. Okay, cool. So you
have facts. That's one part of what
makes something objective. Another part
of what makes it objective is having
multiple sources of it, not just one
source. Many conspiracy theories all
boil down to one person or one location,
one source that started the theory and
then everybody else is repeating the
theory. That's called circular
reporting. When all the new information
actually ties back to one original
source, so you're always trying to find
multiple verifiable independent sources
when you're talking about objective
information. So, if if she's saying
certain receipts are valid, where is
somebody else independent of her
verifying the same information? How do
we know that the receipts are real? How
do we know that the receipts actually
have the connections that they have? Or
is it just suspicious? If it's just
suspicious, then it's not objective,
it's subjective. It's based on the
individual. It's based on feelings and
emotion. So you have to understand that
there's objective and subjective
information that that makes the
overwhelming amount of information that
we're dealing with difficult to
navigate. And then second to that, does
it make it difficult to navigate or
there's just such a volume of subjective
information that you have to filter it
out quickly?
>> I think of it like being in a river,
right? If anybody's ever tried to swim
in a fast river, if you've fallen off of
a whitewater raft into a fast river, you
know what this feels like, too. There's
an incredible volume of water that's
moving and it makes it hard for you not
just to stay afloat, but it also makes
it hard for you to move the direction
you want to move. So, it's actually hard
to move in the water because the flow of
the water, even if you swim arm over
arm, this water is going to overpower
you. So, many times you have to learn
how to navigate in that much volume of
water. In a white water situation, when
you fall into the water, you're actually
not supposed to try to swim upstream.
You're supposed to turn around and let
the water carry you and then you just
push yourself left or right and then the
water will eventually carry you to one
shore or the other because of the volume
of water. You do the same the same
amount of water with no flow in like a
pool or a lake and you can swim anywhere
you want. So that's how I see
information in our world right now.
We're in this this just tidal wave of
information, subjective and objective,
factual and feelings based. And if you
try to fight it, it's going to continue
to just choke you. There's a certain
element of you have to weave your way
into it to move where you want to move
or else you're not going to get where
you need to go. So that's when I talk
about navigating, I mean the word like
controlling your self, going where you
want to go, whether it's towards the
facts or whether it's towards the
fabrication. Like people choose where
they want to go in a lot of this stuff.
>> Okay, so we've got this massive torrent.
Uh we are though right now teaching the
course on how to figure out what is real
and what is not. So we've got objective
subjective. So we try to find things
that are corroborated by multiple people
that are establishing a simple thing
that this happened and we see it from
multiple angles. Then the second thing
that you need is some sort of index that
you can use to to
um compare the probability of
information against the reliability of
the source. So probability and and
reliability are very important when it
comes to analytical rigor around the
information or around the conclusion
that you're trying to to arrive at. If
something is coming from a highly
reliable source, but it's very unpredict
like it's um it's improbable, right? A a
very trusted source says that Russia's
going to drop a bomb in New York City.
That is a difficult thing to to analyze.
Whereas an a low reliability source
saying the same thing is much easier to
put at a lower probability. Similarly,
when you have a high reliable source
saying something that's also high
probability, something that's uh that's
highly likely. So if the if it's a
Russian [snorts]
nuclear missile general saying that I
received orders to launch a missile on
New York City, now all of a sudden
that's a very reliable source. And if
you have sigant that says that the
Russians are targeting New York City,
now you have something that's also very
likely. So it's a
>> sigant significant intelligant is
signals intelligence.
>> So you have a verified secondary source
sigant that matches the human
intelligence source, the general that
are both saying the same thing. Now all
of a sudden you have a high probability
incident. When you have single source
reporting like we're talking about here
in the Charlie Kirk case, that
immediately reduces the probability of
accuracy, the probability of likelihood.
And then when you have a low reliability
source, so you've got a low reliability
source and then you have an unlikely
situation because you don't have
secondary reporting saying that Israel
isn't involved in any way. So you have
this situation where in our index this
is very unlikely and low probability
that what she's saying is true. If
there's a second independent source
that's saying the same thing, that moves
up the probability scale. or if there's
a more reliable source, not just a
conspiracy theorist, then that also
would move up the probability scale. But
here we have uh we have single source
reporting from a low reliability source
that makes it less probable. Okay. One
thing that I know a lot of people that
buy into Candace specifically are
falling into the not falling into
they're aligning with the very
anti-Israel sentiment of they're
controlling a lot of things behind the
scenes maybe all the way to blackmail on
President Trump which is why they would
read Trump as acting like somebody
towards Israel that could only possibly
be being blackmailed because it's so
unpopular with his base but he's doing
it anyway. Um, you when I first
mentioned that was Candace's stance, you
immediately had a, "Okay, that's
ridiculous."
What is it about your world view that
has led you to believe the exact
opposite of what feels like the new
torrent of beliefs, which is Israel is
manipulating the world?
>> Um, yeah. How does your mental model
diverge from that? First of all,
everybody's trying to manipulate the
world. The the fact that we're focused
on Israel just kind of shows our
ignorance of the reality that
everybody's trying to shape the world.
The Chinese are trying to shape the
world. The Russians, the North Koreans,
the the Batswanians, right? You name
every country in the world is trying to
shape the world. We're all trying to
influence in in the the most beneficial
way for ourselves in our limited spheres
of influence, which some are very
limited. Some people may only be able to
influence their neighbor. Some can only
influence their family. Others can
influence entire, you know,
international markets. So, everybody's
trying to influence everybody. So, to to
single out Israel is is just juvenile.
Of course, Israel's playing a role. And
if they're playing an effective role, we
shouldn't be surprised because they have
very strong allies. They have a strong
economy. They have a uh a history that
has made them very self-reliant and um
and independent. So if they're good at
influencing that's then we shouldn't be
surprised by that. The United States is
also very good at this. The Russians are
also very good at this. The Chinese are
also very good at this. Why aren't
people blaming the Russians or the
Chinese or the North Koreans for what's
going on with Charlie Kirk? That leads
to the second point that it's because
there's an anti-Israeli sentiment. Our
country is so susceptible to these
nationalized
um biases. Do you remember when we had
Islamophobia?
>> Do you remember when we had Asia
Asophobia? Now we have Jewophobia,
Israobia, whatever you want to call it,
right? Like we we are so susceptible to
this in large part because as a
population we are so unskilled at
differentiating between information. So
we start to think that oh because Israel
is attacking and killing Palestinians in
Gaza
and because the whole world has turned
against them for that decision, they
must also be villains in many other
places. And now everywhere we see
villain, we can blame it on Israel.
That's that's not accurate. It's It's
not any more accurate than when we were
saying, "Oh, now that al-Qaeda blew up
the two buildings, uh, the Twin Towers
in New York, everything's terrorism."
That's not really true. And for sure,
what's terrorism is not always Islamic
extremism, and what's always Islamic
extremism isn't always al-Qaeda
specific. So, we've got to learn how to
differentiate between our feelings and
the facts that are out there. The one of
the big reasons that you heard me kind
of scoff at that is because there's
there's also an element of um that we
call blowback. Blowback in government is
is probably the the biggest concern that
we have. And that blowback can be public
blowback. But even worse than public
blowback for us is diplomatic or or
international blowback. When you make a
bad call that then becomes knowledge to
your allies and your rivals, there's a
blowback penalty that's very real.
Sometimes it means they stop trading
with you. Sometimes it means they stop
sharing intelligence with you. Sometimes
it means they stop cooperating with you.
They activate their own independent
cells inside your country. Whatever.
Israel does not want to risk that level
of blowback inside the United States.
They don't want to risk alienating the
United States, especially not the
conservative base of the United States.
>> You're saying by assassinating Charlie
Carter,
>> correct? What what would what would they
have to gain from that long-term outside
of the fact that we want to accuse
Israel of every villain that's out there
right now? What would they actually have
to gain empirically? What would they
actually have to gain substantially that
wouldn't have asymmetrical risk?
Instead, their fight's not with the
United States. their fight is with their
own survival because they're surrounded
by enemies on all sides. So, we want to
look at these through analytical laws or
what we call razors. Aam's razor is that
the simplest solution is often the
correct solution. But there's a second
razor that's called Hanland's razor. And
Hanland's razor says you should not
subscribe to conspiracy that which can
be explained through um incompetence.
Meaning incompetence is more likely than
conspiracy. So, what's really more
likely that Charlie Kirk was killed at a
public event as a soft target because
the security wasn't up to snuff to
prevent his killing? Is that more
likely? Or is it more likely that Israel
launched a secret operation to have him
killed and was so effective at it that
nobody has been able to collect evidence
to demonstrate that except one person?
What's more likely? What's more
probable? Which one's which one is the
one that actually meets the index of
possibility and source reliability?
Which one actually meets both conditions
of the razor? Which one actually meets
the idea of subjective and objective
information? When you look at it
professionally, that's why it's
laughable. We will return to the show in
just [music] a second, but first, let's
talk about the one advantage that beats
everything else in business. The market
does not reward perfection. It rewards
speed. Your competitor with a mediocre
product who launches today is going to
beat your perfect product that launches
in 6 months. Be the one who launches
first with Shopify. Start with hundreds
[snorts]
of readytouse templates that build a
beautiful online store matching your
brand [music] style. Shopify's AI tools
write product descriptions, page
headlines, and enhance your product
photography instantly. Create email and
social media campaigns like you have a
marketing team behind you. Shopify's
world-class enterprise handles it
automatically. No integration headaches.
Just start selling. Turn your big
business idea into reality with Shopify
on your side. Sign up for your $1 per
month trial and start selling today at
shopify.com/impact.
And now, let's get back to the show. I'm
going to channel what they they uh would
say. So, first I'll lay my thoughts on
the table so people know when I'm uh
pushing my own beliefs versus when I'm
channeling somebody else. Uh I think
we're going to find out the kid acted
alone. I think that there's enough
internal hatred in America that you do
see left-wing right-wing violence. I
don't think that you have to go much
further than somebody who uh becomes
radicalized by an ideology that says um
you're going to hurt people that I love
and so I'm willing to take you out
especially when I become the young
disaffected intelligent young man who is
hypereducated and undermployed. That's
going to be a phenomenon that we in the
west are not used to dealing with. And
for a long time we just thought we wash
our hands of it with video games and
pornography. And we're finding out that
that is not true. uh that Jordan
Peterson is right, that people have a
Christ complex and they want something
that makes them feel like they've done
they've carried their cross and they've
done something meaningful and even if
that means um shooting a healthcare CEO
and spending the rest of your life in
jail or getting the death penalty or uh
for your lover killing the person that
you think ideologically is the biggest
risk to their well-being and that people
get sucked up into a narrative which is
exactly what I think is happening to
Candace and other people but everybody
needs a world view and they're going to
tell themselves a story about the world.
And when that gets reinforced, there
there is quite literally no end to how
far they will go. No one's going to
remember Heaven's Gate, but like people
will literally kill themselves because
they think the aliens are coming to
whisk them away to heaven. Just
recently, we had people that thought
that the rapture was going to happen and
they were like giving away all their
stuff and selling their stuff. I mean,
just absolutely wild uh what people can
get sucked into. So anyway, that to me
seems the most obvious razor enabled
outcome. We'll see. Now, to go back to
what they're channeling, it goes
something like this. Um, Israel has
already proven that they are extremely
good at putting together very
future-facing, long-term plans to get
people. Uh the pager thing I think
really it it did two things. People had
to be like damn that's impressive that
they were able to create a distribution
network for pagers. Like that's so wild.
Uh so and then to kill people with such
precision in a coordinated fashion like
very very impressive. So people know
that they do that. And also I think um I
don't know if it was intentional, but
there's been a lot of media around how
savvy the MSAD is. Like I forget the
Steven Spielberg movie Munich. Munich
>> where they show like, oh, you um killed
a bunch of our athletes, bro. Forget it.
Like we're we are going to hunt you down
one after the other. So there's been
plenty of media around the just
relentlessness, the ruthlessness, the um
brilliant cunning that they have
displayed. So you've got that. So they
would say, "Well, hold on a second."
Like we know that they do this kind of
thing. And then Charlie Kirk was killed
days after saying, "I just lost a big
Jewish donor because I'm going to have
Tucker on um and I might be turning away
from it." So what motive does Israel
have? The motive that Israel has is that
Charlie Kirk was one of the most
effective people at turning that could
potentially turn the youth against
Israel. We couldn't have it. We can see
he's going in the Tucker anti-Israel
direction. Nope. Hard pass. Got to take
him out. So, first of all, you cannot
compare Israel's response to its ex
existential threats like Hamas, like
Hezbollah, like Iran. You can't compare
its response and preparation for those
threats to political threats like what
they would have in the United States
from a senator, a congressperson, a
president, anybody else, a nonprofit.
You can't compare the two. And you you
certainly can't compare the two in terms
of the budget that they will spend and
the risk, the blowback that they would
risk in response. The pager incident,
Hezbollah has been a existential threat
for Israel for decades. Decades. Why did
they have a plan in place to put
explosives into pagers? Because they
knew that Hezbollah and they knew that
Hamas was using pagers. They knew the
model. They had already done the
research. They knew the distribution
channel because it had been years in the
making because the threat was persistent
and always there. Now, there's all sorts
of intel operations that sit on a shelf,
right? We we the term shelving shelving
something actually comes from this idea
of military operations that are planned
out just in case and then shelved so
that in the event something happens like
a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. You're not
starting from scratch the day that you
find out. You can pull something off the
shelf that's 80% complete, 70% complete,
90% complete. MSAD in defense of the
nation of Israel, the existence of
Israel, that's an existential threat.
They have plans on the shelves that I'm
sure would send all of our heads
spinning. They knew what they were going
to do in Natans long before they ever
asked the president to drop bombs on the
Iranian uh enrichment facility. They
already knew how to sneak across the
border and launch drones. They had all
of that on the shelf possibly for the
last decade. They just chose to execute
it at a certain time. That's what
happens. That's what makes seem so
impressive. They essentially only have a
handful of enemies, but those enemies
are existential enemies where the United
States has binders full of enemies. And
almost none of those enemies are
existential enemies. So we don't put
nearly as much money or time into
planning that the MSAD puts into their
planning for a handful of threats. So to
say that Charlie Kirk meets the same
kind of budgetary or existential threat
that Hezbollah or Hamas or or Iran meets
is already flawed logic. It just doesn't
happen. And then when you think about
what is the most logical way to handle
the threat of him potentially turning
the youth against Israel, is it really
better to kill the guy or is it better
to spend a year or two trying to woo him
back into your favor? which wouldn't
seem unrealistic, right? Could you
arrange a large donation? Could you
arrange even a blackmail operation,
which is completely and totally uh
unlikely, but it would still be easier
to launch a blackmail operation that
somehow compromises him and forces him
to verbalize his support for Israel
rather than killing the guy because once
you kill the guy, you can't there's no
taking that back. The risk for blowback
is too high. So the fact that there that
there's an argument at all that because
of what MSAD is capable of with Hamas,
therefore they must also be capable of
that with every other target in the
world is a ludicrous argument just based
on how they prioritize their time, how
they prioritize their efforts. The other
thing that's important to talk about
here is the information warfare
landscape. It's so easy for us to forget
we're constantly in a landscape of
information warfare. Not only is there
information, not only is there good and
bad information, but there's also
intentionally bad information, what's
called misinformation, what's called
disinformation, and what's called
malinformation. Misinformation,
incomplete or incorrect, disinformation,
fully patentedly false, and
malinformation, which is true
information spun in a negative way. All
of those are part of the landscape, too.
Why did Israel let a movie like Munich
become so popular? Why did Israel
promote and and share on social media
their incursions into Iran and the
launching of their drones? Why did they
share footage of what the what happened
whenever uh whenever the pagers went
off? Because they're shaping that
information warfare landscape. They want
the whole world to overestimate their
capabilities.
Can they do amazing things? Yes. But
could they do that against 161
independent countries? No. They can do
it against a handful of imminent
existential threats to the homeland.
>> Okay, you brought up blackmail, by the
way. That was a wonderful argument.
>> I'm sorry, that was just a diet tribe.
>> That was great. Uh because I really
think this is gaining steam. And boy, do
I wish that people Well, I was going to
say, boy, do I wish that people would
look at history and go, "Pograms rear
their ugly head and never do we go. I'm
really glad that we killed a bunch of
Jews." We always end up going, "Oo,
those were monsters."
Um, but we're living through one of
those moments right now. And the
distressing part has become that people
go, "Yeah, but why do people keep
launching pograms on the Jews?" That's
the part where I'm like, "Oh my god."
First of all, there's an obvious answer
that when you have a minority that is
very successful in populist moments
where economics makes people uncertain
that anxiety has to be transmuted into
anger because anxiety feels horrible and
anger feels awesome. My audience will
have heard this too many times to count
but uh there was a study done very few
people but fascinating enough that uh if
you open somebody's skull and start
electroing their brain and you touch all
the regions for emotions and then ask
them which emotion did you enjoy the
most that you want me to press again
they will universally say anger. So
anger comes with certainty. It comes
with focus. It just feels good. It's an
aggressive forward moving thing. And so
when I hear pograms, I'm like literally
if you were just like flipping through
the pages of a history book and you're
like pogram, I'm like they're they're
having economic problems guaranteed
every time, 100% of the time.
>> Uh because you need someone to blame.
And so when you want to transmute the
anxiety into anger, you're like, who do
I aim my anger at? And so, uh, the right
question for me around Israel or Jews, I
guess, uh, is what is it in Jewish
culture that makes them so effective
that they can go into a strange land and
become very successful? Now, is it just
a focus on economics and they're just
very good with money? In which case,
learn about money. Uh, I don't
understand people's bizarre reaction.
There's a phenomenal book called Thou
Shalt Prosper written by a rabbi um a
gentleman named Rabbi Lupin and he goes
through I 100% I recommend this book. If
you're a business owner, if you're an
entrepreneur, you must read this book.
It literally answers the question that
you just asked. What is it about Jews
>> that makes it possible for this
religious um ideology to basically go
anywhere and be successful, financially
successful? I would argue and Rabbi
Lupin would argue that their financial
success is secondary. That what they're
actually successful at first is
community. They find real needs and real
uh real opportunities to enhance the
community that they are now part of and
then they just maximize their
contribution to the community which has
a secondary effect of maximizing cash
flow, maximizing revenue, maximizing
growth because they're servicing a need
in the community that nobody else has
previously serviced. And then as more
and more Jews kind of come together,
they also have a religious element of
supporting each other. So then you may
not be good at business but you have
somebody else in the synagogue who is
good at business and then they help you
to develop your business idea. They help
you to develop your business strategy.
They help you to do your marketing. They
help you to negotiate your lease. They
help you to manage your books because
that's part of the community. And then
as a result you end up having this
thriving
sector of people who share a faith.
Compare that to Christians. Compare that
to to Islam. Compare that to Buddhism.
We don't share the same focus on
community. We don't share the same focus
on finding gaps in the existing
community. We focus, many of those
religions focus first on their own kind.
And in fact, Jews don't focus on their
own kind first. They focus on on making
the most of the environment that they're
in at that moment. They kind of assume
hardship and they try to work their way
through the hardship first.
>> Wait, are you saying the Jews don't
focus on Jews first?
>> I don't. According to what I've read and
according to the book that I'm referring
to you right now,
>> that's not the first focus. The first
focus is wherever they relocate to, the
first focus is how do I serve? How do I
exist in this community?
>> I I'm not a scholar, but I have a
worldview right now that says that they
are very insular, that they do focus on
the Jewish community first. I'll be
interested to see if that's true. I am
very open to being wrong. But when I
mentally map them, I take away like oo
must remember this uh in terms of
helping each other. So helping people
that are on your team, however you
define team, but that you create a
community. You find a a closed system
and you say, "Cool, we're all going to
help each other so that we can rise up."
And then also, and I don't know if this
will hold up to historical scrutiny, but
um if they really do focus on money,
that's brilliant. And and I'm just PSA,
thou shalt listen to the the following
rant.
>> So uh I learned how to make money, but I
did not know how to invest money. And
the last six years of my life has been
basically about learning the economy.
And when I say everybody must learn the
economy otherwise you will be
manipulated by your government like
right now the the litany of people that
have lived and died under regimes that
were manipulating them economically is
so horrifying. And I see what America is
now doing. And it it's an organism doing
it to you. It's not like individual
people. It's just that the incentive
structure is such that uh the people
that have a a roll of the dice before we
started rolling we were talking about
playing games like D and D where you
roll your character and you give them
skills and traits based on rolls of the
dice. Humans are actually like that and
so we all have traits. the people that
really score high on the Mchavelian
scale and they really want to accumulate
power uh they are going to rise to the
top and they will learn as every empire
before them learns that oh you have to b
you have to counterfeit your own
currency is the fast way to say it. We
call it money printing or quantitative
easing. We give it fancy names but it is
literally just counterfeiting your own
currency and you realize that it
benefits the elite that know how to
invest in assets and it just absolutely
slaughters everybody else. So every
empire ever in all of history has done
the same thing. And so there's just
something in the human mind to avoid
being taken advantage of by that. You
must learn how it works because once you
learn how it works, it's like, "Oh my
god, the emperor really has no clothes
and a very small dick." And you're just
like, "I know exactly what the [ __ ] is
going on right now." And uh most people
just don't learn it. So the the way that
people go, "Oh, they do that and that's
so gross." I'm just like, "Fucking
hell." Like, please, for the love of
God, if it's that effective, will you
just learn the skill? Like, instead of
uh dismissing somebody, just be like,
"Oh, that must be really effective. Let
me go figure that out."
>> Uh, but that's not the moment that we're
in. The moment that we're in right now
is anybody that's good at that, I'm
going to take them down. And that is
really history says this is very
distressing and you become the bad guy
very fast.
>> You're I I love what you just said and
it's important I think it's important to
highlight that what you just said has a
handful of powerful truths that all need
to be broken out and detailed in order
for the lay person to understand, let
alone for the lay person to accept.
>> Yeah.
>> The tr the truth of what you just kind
of spat out. Right.
>> Much to my dismay. Well, but it's all
it's fair. You're dedicating a huge
portion of your life to teaching people
how to do this.
>> Enjoy it while it lasts. [laughter]
>> You're talking about that.
>> But I appreciate that you're you're
making that dedication. As a fellow
teacher, I appreciate the dedication to
trying. There's so many people who will
learn the information and like it's my
information. I have a client in in
Florida since a millionaire client. No,
he he and I have had the same
conversations you and you you and I just
had here,
>> right? over bourbon cigars at his giant
uh plantation.
Damn. And he's not sharing it. He's not
telling anybody. He's like, "Yeah, this
is the way it is. Sucks for everybody
else, but here's what I'm doing."
>> That's so wild. But that's how most
people are. That's when you understand
how the system works.
>> There's there's a instinctive an
instinctual response in the human brain
that makes it so that you know something
somebody else doesn't know, that means
you don't share it. Dude, people should
ha people like that should have to not
have to. They should understand the
utility in hanging a painting of Marie
Antuinette on their wall.
>> I don't I don't disagree with you. Um
but the reality is the reality. So I
there's two things I want to say kind of
to to close the door unequivocally in my
opinion on the Jewish topic, right?
>> First, read Thou Shalt Prosper. Go find
the book. Find it on audio. Find it in
the library. however you like to read,
read the book because it was incredibly
enlightening to me as a business owner
and as a as a member of the human race
to to read and understand more about how
Jewish people think through the lens of
a rabbi talking about business.
>> I loved it. It was life-changing for me.
I can't not do everything I can to
express people look up that book, thou
shalt prosper. And then second,
differentiating between Israel and
Judaism. It's an important distinction.
Israelis and Jews are two completely
different bodies. They might be they
might consist of many of the same
people, but Israel is a nation. It is a
it is an a government that has been
created with a with an infrastructure
above it. They don't separate between
church and state, but nevertheless,
Israel is a government. You have an
Israeli passport. You don't have a
Jewish passport, right? Judaism is a
faith. You can be a Jew and not be
Israeli. You can be Israeli and not be a
Jew. There's all sorts of differences
between the two, but we live in a world
where we we talk and we assume so
quickly that we put the two hand in
hand. There are plenty of Jews that
don't agree with the policies of Israel.
And it's important to have that
distinction between the two because the
government of Israel can be a ruthless
government. It is proving to be corrupt
in its own ways. It is proving to be
isolating in terms of its international
policy. But that doesn't mean that Jews
as a body of faith-based people all
reflect the same ideologies as their
government does.
>> I think you're exactly right that when
there is economic pressure, when there
is fear, people don't like the way fear
feels. They would rather feel anger. So
as fear reaches a peak, people find
something to focus their anger on. When
COVID was at its peak, we all hated the
Chinese. When World War II was at its
peak, we created concentration camps
here in the United States for Japanese
that were living inside the United
States.
>> We've ostracized everybody. I mean, if
if you're if you're an Indian in the
United States, you have felt what it's
like to have people racist against you
just because you're Indian. If you're
Chinese, if you're Korean, if you're
Mexican, we all know what it's like to
have America turn against us culturally
because of some fear from somewhere
else. Whether it's jobs and we all now
we're afraid of Mexicans or whether it's
uh whether it's fentinol and now we're
all afraid of columbombians or whatever
else like there's all sorts of reasons
where we choose anger in the face of
fear because of how it feels and the
Jews have been victim to that too. The
whole world knows about that when they
were victimized because they were the
target of anger in Germany and then that
it went the way it went. So we know that
that's that we're susceptible to that.
It takes effort to work against that. It
takes effort to say, "Hey, what else
could be the root cause to the pressure,
to the fear that I'm feeling right now
in our economy right now? What else
could be the real driver? Is it that is
it really a war in Venezuela that we
need? Is it really um to shut off H1
visas to foreigners? Is that really what
we need? Is that going to actually solve
my concern? or is that just focusing my
anger and giving me a very convenient
answer to close a loop in my mind that
allows me to sleep better at night so I
can focus back on my productivity.
>> All right, speaking of blackmail and
open loops, uh Epstein,
>> you've put a very interesting idea out
that he looks far more like an FBI
>> intel agent CI. I was like, I see. Uh,
walk me through that because this one
gets weirder by the day
>> in terms of Trump uh releasing it all.
You guys are still obsessed. What's
happening? H they better release
everything. Like it's so wild uh
watching him vacasillate watching um
Cash Patel and Dan Bonino go from bro
day one we got you
>> to uh I think of Putin every time men in
black suits coming up to them whispering
in their ear this is not how the
government works and them just suddenly
like nobody's interested. This this
one's crazy. This one feels like um the
ugly under the hood minations of the
world came up to the surface and people
are just like there's no way I'm going
to let you see how things actually work.
Um Drew, my producer who's just off
camera right now, hi Drew, uh has said
you'll never get the Epstein files. Like
he's been saying that from day one. How
what's happening? Give me the FBI angle.
Yeah, there's there's a um the truth is
somewhere in between the two extremes,
which is what so often turns out to be
true, right? So, um
Jeffrey Epstein was doing a lot of
illegal stuff on his own.
In the eyes of the justice system, a bad
guy doing bad things is useful. It's
helpful.
>> That's so wild
>> because bad guys doing bad things are
almost always connected to other bad
guys doing other bad things. And that
opens up this access route, this utility
for the Justice Department to say, "Oh,
well, now we have a smorgas board of bad
guys, but we only have access to these
bad guys through this one bad guy here."
So they created this process called a
CI, a