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 covert informant or a clandestine
informant. The CI's job is to inform and
to gain and grant access to a wider net
of bad guys.
>> And this is specifically an FBI thing.
It's specifically a a law enforcement
thing. Okay.
>> So
>> So would it be CIA or FBI?
>> CIA is not law enforcement.
>> Interesting.
>> Yeah. CIA's job is is intelligence
collection. Not not law.
>> They tend to kill people.
>> They used to be more able to kill people
than they currently are.
>> So law enforcement falls under under the
judicial branch. Intelligence collection
falls under the executive branch. That's
why the president can do whatever the
hell he wants to with CIA, but the
president cannot do whatever he wants to
with the FBI. Right? That's that's how
it was that FBI could could investigate
the president and how he decided to have
a backlash against the FBI. CIA, he just
says no. He just shuts off their budget
and and tells them he doesn't listen to
them and and stops using them. And
that's how you have the max the mass
exodus of 2016 that you had at CIA
during Trump's first administration. So
you have these two different branches of
government. One controls CIA, the
executive branch. One controls FBI, the
judicial branch. That also means that
Donald Trump can say release the Epstein
files and that doesn't have any impact
on the judicial branch. They don't have
>> but it's Cash Patel that makes that
decision or someone else.
>> So they can they can be pressured into
acting when the legislative branch and
the executive branch both work together
in a checks and balance way.
>> But like if Pam Bondi and Cash Patel say
we're releasing it is there's nobody
else, right?
>> Not really. Yeah. They can they can
choose to do that on their own as long
as it it fits American law. American law
is dictated by the legislative branch.
So here's why I'm saying this. I'm
saying this because even if
our legislative branch votes to have the
judicial branch release the files, that
does not mean that they control what
gets released or where it's released. So
the files might be released only to the
Senate Intelligence Committee or only to
a subcommittee in charge of law
enforcement, not to the American people.
You're not going to they're not going to
vote today and then tomorrow you're
going to have full access to every file.
They also might only release redacted
files because there's going to be lines
and details inside all of the files that
have law enforcement intelligence or
national security relevance. So, it's
all going to be redacted. You're already
seeing that in the emails that were
leaked recently from House members. Who
makes those redactions? The Department
of Justice makes those redactions. Why
do they make those redactions? is
they're protecting other cases that
they're trying to close for criminal
conviction. So release the files. What
what's laughable to me is that they can
release the files and the average
American still won't see them because
they're not going to be released to the
public. They'll be released to
subcommittees. They'll be released from
the current kind of bucket of control
they're in in the justice department and
they'll be released to the legislative
department and then the legislative
department and the subcommittees there
will determine whether or not it should
be released to the public or it should
go right back to the judicial department
because we have to protect XYZ case.
Epstein as a CI was incredibly valuable
because as much as he did bad things,
the people that he had in his sphere of
influence did worse things in the eyes
of the law. This is an uncomfortable
truth that people need to understand. In
the eyes of national security, a
pedophile is not that big a risk. Yo,
that sucks, but it's true. If you're
trying to protect a country, if you're
trying to protect national secrets, if
you're trying to protect our ability to
win a war against China, a guy having
sex with an underage child is not that
important. But when that pedophile is
connected to other world leaders, when
that pedophile is connected to
politicians that might be corrupt,
politicians that might be allowing
foreign influence in American policy,
now all of a sudden that person can be
granted amnesty in exchange for their
cooperation in advancing the cases for
all these other targets. That makes the
most sense in in any research I've done,
in any expert I've spoken to, in any
review of the evidence that we've gotten
so far on Epstein, that explanation
makes the most sense of any other that
the United States said, "Hey, you're
doing shitty. You're doing bad things.
Here's a whole list of things that we
can arrest you for and and convict you
for today." And he saw that list and
then they said, "Or you can cooperate
with us to bring down bigger fish." And
what's a guy like that going to say?
This isn't the mafia. He doesn't have to
worry about somebody, you know, whacking
him. He didn't think. So, he's like,
"Okay, I'll cooperate with you because
then if I cooperate with you, you bring
down some big fish. I don't ever go to
jail for the things that I have to do to
stay influential in my network. And now
I'm protected." Right? At the end of the
day, we all have two instincts that we
have to deal with. Our survival instinct
and our tribal instinct. And those those
are the two instincts that drive us.
Sometimes we're very survivalbased.
Sometimes we'll sacrifice our survival
to be part of a group. In that moment,
Epstein was like, I need to survive. I
need to take care of me more than I need
to take care of my friends, which are my
tribal instinct. And then life just is.
That's just how human beings are wired.
All of us have that same decision matrix
every day. And what do you think about
um was he exfilled by the FBI so they
could either protect their sources or
did somebody actually have him killed or
was this just a guy that was like I
don't want to go through the trial.
>> Yeah, I don't think he killed himself. I
I will say that
>> because of evidence.
>> What has been released to us so far when
I look at it, it just it doesn't make
biological sense to to be able to hang
yourself essentially off of a doororknob
at low out at at a low distance from the
ground. It's a very difficult thing to
do. So it it just seems biologically
improbable, not impossible, but
improbable. And then even though I have
I have I have supported wealthy people
who have been convicted and are going to
prison, I I provide counseling and I
provide um training
>> to sh to shape their mindset before they
go into prison.
>> Whoa.
>> Because they're going to come out of
prison, too, right? So I've I've helped
people in that way.
>> Okay. I've helped people in that way and
they all have that same thought that
Epste most likely had where they're
like, "It's all over. My wealth is gone.
My reputation is gone. My family will
forever hate me. My kids are better off
without me. So, I'm just going to kill
myself in jail. I'm just going to give
up and never talk to anybody again."
They all have that moment and it's just
a mindset moment that they have to work
their way through. Without a doubt,
Jeffrey Epstein had a consultant like me
who came in and coached him on his
mindset. Without a doubt, his attorneys
would have done it for sure. He had too
much wealth behind him for someone not
to invest in that way for him. So when I
think of probability, probability is he
would not have killed himself.
Probability is even if he tried
biologically it wouldn't have been
successful. So then what did happen? Was
he killed in an organized criminal
activity or was he or was he killed as a
political martyr of some sort? But most
likely, most probable to me, he was
violently attacked. Whether they
intended to kill him or just intimidate
him, I don't know. But that seems the
more likely case. That's completely
separate from his role as a CI. If he
would have been discovered as a CI, he
would have been even more likely to be
killed. If he was not known to be a CI,
they still wouldn't want to release the
details because to release the details
of his role as a CI would be to
undermine the all the other CIS in the
world right now who are providing
information about worse bad guys than
them to the FBI. The promise the FBI
makes, the promise CIA makes to all of
their assets is we will protect you. You
will provide us information. We will
protect you to the best of our ability.
The best of their ability when they're
protecting a US citizen in the United
States is pretty high.
It is uh like this one is wild to me in
terms of [snorts] um what what does it
say about the state of the government I
guess or just how dirty the work is new
that we've all been we've all believed
that we're good we've all believed that
we're on the right side of humankind and
we're a good and decent government. Why?
>> When I watched House of Cards, it didn't
seem plausible. So, it was fun. I
enjoyed it. Very over the top. I'm like,
get out of here. And then Epstein
happened. I was like, "Oh my god."
>> Like, this might actually be like the
level of chicainery that's actually
going on. That That's where I'm like,
"Wow, this is really hard to
metabolize." Again, you have to look at
those two razors that we talked about,
right? Aams razor and Hanland's razor.
Is it more likely that we only recently
became corrupt as a federal government?
Is it only recently that we became
highly politicized and and survival
oriented? Or have we always been that
way, but the advent of technology has
made it more transparent to the lay
person? Which one of those is more
likely? Well, if you keep if you take
the most simplest explanation, we've
always been that way. So it meets AAM's
razor to believe that we've always been
this way. We've always been this way.
It's just that technology has made it so
that you and I can now keep up with it
at a faster pace. And then if you look
at Hanland's razor, don't subscribe to
conspiracy that which can be explained
through uh idiocy. Then again, we've
always been this way. It's not that
we've been able to keep a secret. It's
just that nobody's had real time access
into so much information about what's
happening in government. We've never had
so many leaks. We've never had so much
press interest. We've never had so many
channels to communicate the information
that we're collecting. We've never had,
like you were saying before, um, podcast
journalism or social journalism or
community journalism, whatever, whatever
isms you want to call them. We've never
had that before. Everybody was too busy
working on an assembly line or trying to
scrape together two sticks to make a
light, right? We never we never had that
in the past. So, when I look through the
laws of analysis, it just confirms for
me what I learned when I was at CIA. The
average American has no concept of how
the government works. And the average
world citizen has no concept of how
their government works. And for sure
they have no concept of how the US
government works. The largest,
wealthiest, most militarily powerful
government in the world. You think that
we became that way by playing fair? You
think we became that way by by standing
on the moral high ground? That's not how
government works. That's never been how
government works. That will never be how
government works. The whole reason we
have a representative government is so
that we don't have to have blood on our
hands as the voters. We can elect
someone else to go do the dirty work.
>> Are we ever going to get transparency
into who Epste was and what he did?
>> I don't believe we will. I don't believe
we will because it doesn't benefit our
national security infrastructure to tell
the true story. We might get answers,
but we'll never know if the answers that
were given are complete, accurate, or
truthful because every government knows
you have to give the people something to
follow. And then you that doesn't have
to be the truth. Just like what's
happening right now in the Caribbean.
Why do we have a military buildup in the
Caribbean? Because of Venezuela? Run
that through the two razors that we
talked about. It doesn't make any sense,
but that's what we're being told. And
because we're being told that, we accept
that. Nobody's questioning whether or
not our military presence in the
Caribbean is due to something else.
>> You think it's China?
>> That's what I believe.
>> We'll get to that in a minute. If you
were advising the Trump administration
right now, how do you get enough Epstein
file out there, lie or otherwise, that
people go, "Cool. Got it. Check. Thanks.
We finally got the transparency that we
needed." You don't want people to say,
"Cool. I'm done." You always want to
have this red herring. This is the
definition of a red herring. A red
herring is is a useful tool that you can
use to to distract people. You want the
Epstein case to always be available as a
red herring. So, if I was advising the
Donald Trump organization, I would say
do exactly what you're doing right now.
Donald Trump, you tell the people
officially, I think that you should let
the House vote on releasing the files.
Even though the president as the leader
of the executive branch could do it
himself, he could tell the jud the
judicial branch to do it and and they
would arguably as commander-in-chief be
hardressed not to listen to him. But
he's not doing that. Instead, he's
making it the house's problem. He's
making it Congress's problem. So he's
like, "Hey, Congress, you do this thing
from the legislative branch and I'm
going to be the one that's the
figurehead saying the leader saying you
do the thing that's going to help the
American people." And then
simultaneously you're telling Cash
Patel, release whatever you need to
release that doesn't compromise current
investigations and anything that looks
bad on our current administration,
redact. Now Cash Patel, the leader of
the FBI, Pam Bondi, the the head of
Homeland Security, they can both go in
there and they can they can redact
anything that they that they decide
looks bad on the current administration
or is related to a current criminal
investigation and release that. And the
American people will say, "Oh, now we
have all the files, but what about all
these redactions?" And now the Justice
Department can always say those
redactions are critical for national
security. Because the stability of the
federal government, the survivability of
the current administration is considered
a national security priority.
>> Yeah, this is going to get weird. like
this has not been good for his
presidency and his inability to fix the
economy in a timely manner which I think
is impossible but nonetheless uh is a
double whammy. We we shall see.
>> I think Donald Trump is also
>> he's a very practical personality. No
matter how you cut it, you can kind of
accept that there's a pragmatism when
you look at it through the lens of
Donald Trump protecting Donald Trump.
that survival instinct.
He's [snorts] any any failure that he
has in a campaign promise
is something that he can distract from.
He also promised to not start any new
wars and he's gone back on that several
times, right? He's turning into a very
conflict-oriented president, not only
with Iran, but also with Venezuela. That
complet that goes completely against the
campaign promise. He's done an about
face on releasing JFK files. He's done
an about face on releasing Epstein
files. Those were also campaign
promises.
uh you you see him trying to like trying
to boost the economy in traditional
ways. The traditional ways are not that
different from the way Biden or Obama
tried to boost the economy either. Even
though he tries to make it look
different, he knows that probability
wise this is his last term and coming
out of this term he wants all the
benefits of being a former president and
he wants to shore up as few risks as
possible that carried over with him into
the presidency. So, Donald Trump's there
to take care of Donald Trump and the
United States will be a secondary
benefit, but that's his primary goal.
The holidays are all about finding the
perfect gift. But this time of year, not
every deal is actually what it seems.
Scammers go hard and they are getting
more creative by the day and they are
trying to trick everybody into sharing
their payment info through methods like
fake shopping sites and giveaways that
are too good to be true. Luckily, Cash
App's 247 fraud monitoring helps detect
and alert you for unusual card activity
should someone gain access to your card,
so you can act fast if something seems
off. You can also lock or unlock your
Cash App card instantly right in the app
for extra control and peace of mind.
Stay one step ahead of scams this season
and keep your money secure with Cash
App. For a limited time only, new Cash
App customers can use our exclusive code
to earn some additional cash. For real.
Just download Cash App. Use our
exclusive referral code secure 10 in
your profile. Send $5 to a friend within
14 days and you'll get $10 dropped right
into your account. Terms apply. That's
money. That's Cash App. Cash [music] App
is a financial services platform, not a
bank. Banking services provided by Cash
Apps Bank Partners. Prepaid debit cards
issued by Sutton Bank, member FDIC. See
terms and conditions at cash.app/legal/
us/en-us/card-aggreement.
Promotions provided by Cash App, a Block
Inc. brand. Visit
cash.app/legal/mpodcast
for full disclosures. The election is
existential now on both sides. So, uh,
Trump is obviously going after his
political rivals. If the Republicans
win, I would imagine that whoever comes
into office will pardon Trump just to
end all of that. Uh, I believe he can't
pardon himself, so that's off the table.
But if the Democrats win, they're going
to go after him legally in a big way.
So, the bad news is that becoming
president is now existential in office
and out of office. And this is why if I
were advising Trump, I would say
whatever you do, don't pursue Obama.
That would be a huge mistake because
they will come after you tfold and then
when it switches again, they will come
after them tenfold.
So anyway, we're in a super weird death
loop. But um talk to me about Venezuela.
So, China is the thing that I'm very sad
anytime people get distracted because uh
while I would love to hold hands and
march into the future with China as an
ally um but we not decouple but we get
realistic about not letting anyone
control certain aspects of our way of
life. Uh certainly not somebody who has
proven that they will very rapidly
become an adversary. Um what is
Venezuela all about? How does China
figure into this and what should we do?
>> I'll I'll answer your question directly
first and then I'll kind of backfill it
with why I think I think the way I
think. I believe Venezuela is a red
herring. I believe that all of the
Venezuela talk and the Venezuela focus
is not actually the focus of the
president, not actually the focus of the
Department of War as it's now called. I
believe that that is all a red herring
that's being given to us as a pill that
we'll accept because we all kind of
agree Venezuela's we don't know anything
about it. That's what we all really
believe. We don't know anything about
Venezuela except Maduro bad and we all
hate drugs. So if you can
>> speak for yourself [laughter] Andrew
Bamante now.
>> So if you can if you can affiliate
Venezuela with drugs then boom. Yeah, of
course we're against it. Ra let's let's
blow up boats and let's show American
power off the coast of our own country.
I mean, who doesn't want to cheer for
that? I lived in Tampa. It gives you a
giant erection every time an F22 takes
off and you're like, "Fuck yeah, that's
America, right?" Like, when you're
standing in the field and there's Abram
tanks that are driving by, the whole
world rumbles and you're like, "Fuck
yeah, that's America." Trust me, I get
it. I get it. And now we get to do that
off the coast of Florida. And of course,
Texas and of course Mississippi,
Louisiana, we're all like, "Fuck yeah,
they found like we're awesome because we
get to do it here. We've been projecting
that power worldwide. We don't get to
rah rah rah when it's, you know, off the
coast of Israel.
>> But here it's different. So all of that
to say, I believe Venezuela is a big red
herring. Now, why do I believe that
that's a big red herring? When you look
at the actual evidence, the objective
realities of the claims that are being
made. We're fighting a drug war against
naroterrorisms or naroterrorists, right?
The term naroterrorist
has an actual definition, right? Right.
And that definition for a terrorist has
to be the use of violence to gain a
political change. That's that is what's
required of a terrorist. They must use
violent lethal attacks in an effort to
force political change. Narot terrorists
would just be drugfunded or drugreated
terrorists. That's the definition that's
out there for everybody to look up.
Well, the cartels aren't doing that. The
cartels aren't using violence,
particularly not violence against the
United States, to change politics.
That's where the argument comes from
recently that they're trying to say,
"Oh, no, Maduro weaponized cocaine. He
weaponized cocaine specifically to
attack Americans." Even if that was the
case, what's the political change that
he's trying to drive? Because that's the
important part about a terrorist. They
have to be driving a political agenda.
Secondly, only 15% of all the cocaine at
most only 15% of the cocaine that enters
the United States comes through
Venezuela. Um 100 of 100% of it almost
is created in Colombia. But then a small
fraction is sent through Venezuela and
then shipped up to um Puerto Rico where
it goes into the American postal system
and then it can be shipped all over the
United States. A small percentage.
Upwards of 90% of all cocaine goes
through Mexico. So why are we focused on
Venezuela? If we're trying to fight
cocaine, why wouldn't why wouldn't we
focus on Mexico? Why are we focused on
Venezuela? Doesn't make any sense in
terms of volume. Then you start to think
about other issues. What one of
Venezuela's top two military weapons
partners are Russia and China. Russia
historically, China more currently.
Venezuela also maintains one of the
largest amphibious assault forces in all
of Latin America. And guess who provided
all of their amphibious assault weapons?
>> China.
>> China. So if you really want to know
what an amphibious assault would look
like of China against Taiwan, you want
to get a look under the hood of what the
amphibious assault looks like in
Venezuela. What do their capabilities
look like? What do the weapons look
like? How would they use them? China's
number one trading partner is actually
Pakistan. So China's number one weapons
importer is Pakistan. Pakistan buys the
most Chinese weapons. But almost all of
the weapons that Pakistan buys from
China are focused on ground warfare and
airborne warfare, radar detection, uh
ballistic missiles, etc. that they're
using against India. It doesn't give us
any and Pakistan's a US ally. So we know
everything we need to know about Chinese
weapons because our Pakistani partners
are probably giving us the information.
But we know very little about China's
amphibious assault capability. But
Venezuela would be our best insight into
that. Add into that mix the fact that
the Panama Canal was a major focus of
Trump during the presidential
administration because he claimed that
China controlled the Panama Canal.
That's not fully correct. The more
correct way of saying it would be that
China controlled the entrance and exit
ports of the Panama Canal. They were
predominantly owned by a Hong Kong
subsidiary. In March of this year, Trump
demanded that that Hong Kong subsidiary
sell a majority stake to US investment
company BlackRock, I believe it was. So
then in August of this year, that that
transfer actually happened. So it was
only in August, August 25th of this year
that the Panama Canal became majorly
owned by US investment firms instead of
majority owned by Chinese investment
firms. And then within two weeks after
that date, the first drug boat was blown
up off the coast of Venezuela. really.
So, I'm not saying we have smoking guns,
but I'm saying we have multiple verified
uh independent sources of information
that point to the fact that our conflict
in Venezuela actually isn't about
Venezuela.
>> So, uh the boats that we're blowing up,
are they us going, "Oh, these are narco
boats or these boats that China is
working with them to do a thing and we
want to keep sending a message to
China."
>> No, I I believe that they're actually
carrying drugs. And if you look at some
of the not only the drug boats between
Mex or between Venezuela and United
States, but even the drug boats that are
going to Europe, like they're busted old
boats. They're handmade. They're leaky.
They're they're they're they're not
they're not um significant enough that
you would imagine they'd be worth a six
figure missile to blow them up,
>> right? But that's what we're doing.
>> Maybe it's five, maybe it's a $50,000
missile, not a $100,000 missile that
we're using to blow up the boat. Either
way, it's a $50 boat.
>> [snorts]
>> So, I do believe that there really are
drugs. I do believe those drugs really
are moving. And I do believe that we
really are impacting the flow of drugs,
but we're impacting a part like a a
fraction of the 15% maximum of cocaine
flow that's actually coming into the
United States. If we really
>> I totally buy that that's all a red
herring, but now I want to understand.
So, if this is really I think we're
already in a cold war with China. That
seems patently obvious to me. So in in
the rubric of this is a cold war with
China, why what are we doing blowing up
the boats? Is it just a reminder we have
these missiles? I mean, it seems
>> to consolidate our military in the
Caribbean
>> to justify sending them there.
>> Yeah. To justify sending our military to
the Caribbean because China not only
predominantly owned the entrance and
exit port for the Panama Canal,
>> they predominantly own multiple
>> people in Panama, not Venezuela. So do
you
>> It's that it's that part of the ocean.
>> Mhm. Right.
>> But do you think there's a clandestine
battle that's happening that we just
aren't aware of?
>> Uh, so I think the answer to that is the
simplest answer is yes. My the book that
I wrote about my own experience with CIA
talks about the start of what we call a
shadow conflict with China, right? An
intelligence battle, an intelligence war
with China.
>> And the big difference between the Cold
War that you and I live through the tail
end of with Russia and
>> Oh, I live through the whole thing. I'm
[laughter] older than you, my friend.
Not the whole thing, I suppose, since it
started out World War II, but but the
big difference between the Cold War with
Russia and I don't know, we should come
up with a name for it. Let's just call
it the Rice War. I'll be I'll be racist.
>> Damn.
>> The rice war that we're dealing with.
>> You heard it here first, everybody.
>> The rice war that we're dealing with now
is that during the Cold War, the United
States had no economic reliance on
Russia. They were two completely
separate economies.
>> Yep. But now we have a major economic
reliance on our largest geopolitical
adversary. So it's not so easy to have a
standard cold war where we just turn a
cold shoulder and we put up an iron
curtain. Now we have to meet over rice.
We have to talk. We have to pretend like
we're friends even though we wonder
who's poisoning the rice, right? On both
sides. I kind of like this this analogy
right now. Nice, right? Especially since
I think we grow the rice and they
actually buy our rice. There's all sorts
of interesting [ __ ] up things about
our relationship with China,
>> but that's what we're dealing with. So,
we can't just out China. If we out
China, we go back into a tariff war. We
stop getting plastics. They stop getting
chips. It all gets really [ __ ] messy.
So, we have to find this way to like be
in bed together, but still kick each
other under the sheets. It reminds me It
reminds me of the sport water polo. I
don't know if you follow water polo.
>> I know enough about it to know exactly
where you're headed.
>> Yes. I I knew nothing about water polo
till I went to college and then I became
friends with a water polo player and I
only then discovered it's a dirty
[ __ ] sport under the water they do
horrible things to each other and then
they just pass the ball up top. So when
we watch we get to see all this cool
action above the water but all the nasty
shit's happening under the water. That's
what this war is like with China right
now. So
>> China owns huge chunks of the Caribbean.
China has massive leases on
infrastructure and military bases and
ports all across the Caribbean. They
have rare earth mineral rights across
the Caribbean. Their major shipping
routes go through the Caribbean. We move
all of our [ __ ] to the Caribbean just to
tell the Chinese, "Don't forget. Don't
forget this is our house." And that's
what we're doing here right now. We've
consolidated our forces. Look how fast
it happened when we were fighting
Venezuela. How fast do you think it's
going to happen if you mess with us? How
fast can we take your car your Caribbean
investments? How fast can we cut off
your flow not just to the American uh
the American market, but also to all of
your own rare earth minerals and all of
your supply chains in the Caribbean? And
oh, by the way, if you think that you're
going to continue to grow influence in
Latin America and South America, which
it has, China's increased its
partnerships all across Latin America,
>> massively
gold corridor.
>> Yeah. By the way, don't forget that
we're their neighbor. It's a huge
message. It's a huge message that was
arguably effective enough to walk China
off the tariff cliff that Trump just
closed with them recently. That is a
very good breakdown. I knew that this
was a move about China, but to be
honest, I had not started putting the
pieces together of specifically what
they're doing. I didn't realize how much
of China's shipping went through the
Caribbean. That is very interesting. Um,
how do you see this playing out? is
China. So, first of all, this is one of
those I have to be very careful because
I really want to believe this. Uh, but
I'm hearing reports that Xi is losing
power in China. Now, for anybody that
follows the timeline of China, Deng
Xiaoping, listen, he was the Tienman
Square guy, so only clap so hard, but
he's also the one actually responsible
for China's great leap forward. Um,
Xi is a reversion to Mao.
>> And so seeing Xi come into power and
turn the Mau spot on and start purging a
whole bunch of people uh start really
going back to their communist ways. That
makes me uneasy
uh for the Chinese people. Now they may
tell me not to worry and they love it.
Entirely possible. But as somebody who
has just an absolute allergic reaction
to um Mao, Stalin, Lenin, like a a
massive allergic reaction. I'm looking
at this going, I really hope he's losing
power. Do you um have you paid close
attention? Is he losing power? Is that
just a pipe dream on my behalf?
>> Well, I don't think it's just on your
behalf. So, Xiinping is one of the
strongest leaders that China has ever
seen. Um he's very much like a Putin.
He's very much like a Netanyahu to the
Chinese. There are many people who
celebrate him as a hero, not necessarily
as any kind of villain.
>> Right?
>> So your allergic reaction is a valid
reaction as a westerner, but as an
eastern, we have to try to look at the
situation through their eyes. Under
Xiinping in the last 10 years their
country has modernized increased their
GDP increased their global positioning
increased the their um reduced their
reliance on manual fabrication and
manufacturing increased their reliance
on high technology which increases their
overall standing not only as a as a
center of excellence in a modern first
world country but also as a global
alternative to the United States. That's
what she's goal is. The reason he's
turning back to Mauist tendencies isn't
because he believes that communism is
the way of the future. It's because he
understands that consolidated power
means he can move faster. Whereas
>> I think he also looked at Russia and was
like, we're not going to let that happen
here.
>> And so these capitalists like, yeah,
useful, but they get a bit uppy. But I
know how to handle that
>> possibly. But the the the point is what
what all of the world authoritarians are
trying to do right now, whether it's
Putin or whether it's Netanyahu. I do
classify him as authoritarian, right?
Again, Israel is different than Jews.
>> Israel knows that Netanyahu is an
authoritarian. You know, I'm talking to
you, Israel. Um, but either way,
Xiinping understands that he needs to
bypass the process to move fast enough.
When you look at their when you look at
I mean, the most obvious thing to look
at is their is their fighter aircraft.
If you compare Chinese fighter aircraft
to American and Russian fighter
aircraft, there's only like seven of
them that are in production right now.
Every one of their aircraft is almost a
carbon copy of either an American model
or a Russian model. It's crystal clear
that they're fabricating based off of
stolen stolen plans.
>> Right?
>> They even number them the same way,
right? We have an F-35. They have a J35.
Why is it called J35? because the J
stands for Geng which is the word
fighter in Chinese. So it's literally
the F-35, right? They they have they've
modeled this all the way down to the to
the SU10. So they've got this they they
copy and then they refabricate on their
own. And that largely took off in 2017.
In 2017 you started to see a huge
reduction in Chinese importing of
technology, specifically technology that
was related to their military
infrastructure. And it was because they
had finally grown their own indigenous
capability to create high performance
weapons, high performance engines, high
performance avionics, high performance,
you name it, technology.
>> And that started to become their new
mantra. China knows that the United
States gained global dominance because
we stopped creating corn and soybeans
and we started creating
financial tools and we started creating
software and we started creating weapons
and we started creating digital
>> healthcare devices, storage devices,
computers, software, the cloud, etc.
>> So that's what China's been focusing on.
Telecom technology, AI, robotics,
they've been focusing on that the whole
time that we were focusing on a war on
terror. So from 2001 when we got
distracted by a global war on terror,
they started focusing in on how can we
just suck the west dry of technological
information and use this as an
opportunity to build our future economy.
That's all under she's guidance. So the
average Chinese person sees the rise of
their middle class. The average Chinese
person sees more money, more power, more
influence, more global standing. They
can reach more parts of the world. The
world welcomes the Chinese in a way it
never did before outside of the United
States. Do they still have a real estate
crisis? Yes. Do they still have an aging
population? Yes. But so does South
Korea. So does Japan. So do lots of
pro-Western Asian countries. So does the
United States. So is it really such a
big deal? Like we we try to keep a
scorecard. You can't keep a scorecard
between East and West that you couldn't
imagine two more different cultures than
American culture and Chinese culture.
Thanks for letting me. I give you these
longass answers today. I apologize.
>> Why?
>> Because it seems [laughter]
>> what whatever is educational. I want to
learn more. So, I'll take it. If I think
you're uh going too hard in a tangent,
well, first, yes, we could edit it, but
I would just interrupt you. Um, okay.
So, that all makes sense. Is China going
to take Taiwan?
>> I still believe that China is is on
track to take Taiwan.
>> Do we have a timeline? We we all think
that it's going to we all assume it's
some kind of military takeover. My
original estimate was that China would
make aggressive moves on Taiwan before
the 2024 election.
In hindsight, you can actually see that
I I estimated correctly. They didn't
launch an amphibious assault of Taiwan.
Instead, what they did is they launched
an espionage campaign that shaped the
election of the prime minister of Taiwan
>> in October of 23, just before the
election in the United States, and just
before Donald Trump took over in 24. So,
you can see right now Taiwan has a split
government. The prime minister is
pro-independence,
but the parliament is predominantly,
majorly pro-China reunification.
>> Wow. I didn't realize there was a
movement inside of Taiwan.
>> Oh, absolutely. The KMT is a ma the KMT
which was interestingly the original
group that left the mainland um under
Chiang Kaishek to take refuge in Taiwan.
They were the original people who
separated from China and now they are
the ones that want to reunify back with
the homeland. So it's a very interesting
turn in politics, very similar to how
our
>> it feels like to me if the southern
states and the northern states had split
and all of a sudden you know whatever
years later the south is like actually
we want to reunify with the northern
states like it feels like they would
still be bitter rivals.
>> Right. Exactly. And that's what's so
interesting that they're not. The KMT is
pro-reunification,
whereas there's the real movement on
Taiwan has been a movement of
independence. That's been what's really
been interesting about the growth of
Taiwan. It never intended to be a an
independent country. It dep it intended
to reunify and kind of take back over
from Maadong. Changen Kai-shek was
backed by the United States when he took
refuge on Taiwan. They all expected they
would come back and take the country
again. It just never happened. So that's
changed over time to now just be a
reunification party in general and and
they own they control the majority of
the parliament on Taiwan. So you you
have a split government in Taiwan very
much like you have a split government
here in the United States.
>> So we're already seeing China
>> heavily invest in espionage information
warfare. Another fantastic search term
for anybody who wants to look this up
themselves is just Chinese espionage on
Taiwan, Chinese information warfare,
Chinese covert influence on Taiwan.
You'll see it. It's there. It's just not
making the front page of any newspapers,
right? So, they're making those moves
now. I believe China will take Taiwan
the same way they took Hong Kong in
2019. They did it administratively. They
changed laws. They created
administrative bridges that put Hong
Kong under Chinese Beijing control. And
then they just wrote laws and signed
those laws into law so that when they
moved into Hong Kong physically, anybody
who tried to resist was breaking the
law. And that gave them the reign that
they needed to get violent and and
arrest people. And we all forgot about
that because it happened at the same
time as co.
>> But in 2019, China went into Hong Kong
in a very violent, very abrupt, very big
way. And ever since then, Hong Kong has
been part of China. That's the MMO for
what they'll do in Taiwan. timeline.
That's the difficult part. She has
promised to reunify with Taiwan by I
believe it was 2027. I believe he made
that public promise as part of his 25-y
year plan. Um but he's and he has worked
very hard to meet his promises. He had a
promise in 2024 to be economically or to
be uh uh technologically dominant in the
world. And I think Chinese people would
agree he has met that goal. And now his
next big promise is reunification with
Taiwan. So between now and then, we
should probably expect some more big
moves from China.
>> Wowza, how do you think that'll play out
for the US? What will our reaction be?
>> I think we're going to sit on our thumbs
>> because it'll be administrative. That's
not violent. We have no part of it.
>> We Why Why put American troops in harm's
way? Why stand in the way of this rice
war that we're already in the middle of,
right? If we try to fight for Taiwan,
then China's just going to cut off our
access to other things that we need.
China cut off our access to to rare
earth minerals and we changed our almost
overnight we changed our narrative. They
know they have they have levers that
they can pull for us because we're
dependent on them. So the question will
become is Taiwan worth us
breaking our dependence and our reliance
on China? And what would that mean for
the United States to not have what China
is giving us? Not have uh disposable
goods, not have cloths and fabrics, not
have shoes, not I mean, what would that
actually look like? We don't even have
the manufacturing capability here to do
it. That's why we're making friends with
India, hoping that India will be there
for us when we cut ties with China. But
China's also making inroads with India
to make sure that India sides with them
when they cut ties when they cut ties
with us. So India is in the best
geopolitical position of any country out
there right now having the the two
largest economics economic superpowers
kind of vying for its affection
>> right
>> but uh I don't I believe that when China
makes its move on Taiwan will put up our
vote in the UN that it's that it's uh
illegal and it's not supposed to happen
and we should and you should back out
just like we're seeing with Ukraine and
Russia right now. All the all the UN
members who are like oh we vote against
this is a bad idea. You're breaking the
law, but they're not doing anything
else. That's how it's gonna work.
>> What about though um the TSMC
TMS the chips? Like how do we get around
that?
>> So Biden launched the chip act when he
was still in office here. And a part of
that chip act was not only creating an
avenue for TSMC to start building
manufacturing base here on the United
States or here in the United States, but
also creating [snorts] an indigenous
capability for the United States to
create their own high performance chips.
TSMC
doesn't have IP over the chips that they
create. Their chips that they create are
ours. Yes. But like we can't yet
manufacture.
>> Correct.
>> And as far as I know, the person that's
the closest is Elon with the new chip,
but they're making a chip specifically
for XAI. Either XAI or Tesla. I can't
remember which.
>> Uh but that's with TMSC. TSMC. I cannot
ever remember those four letters. I
think it's TS, TSMC, but somebody can
fact check us.
>> Yes. Um, so if China were to take Taiwan
administratively or otherwise and then
say you can no longer interface with
them since we cut them off for so long
from those chips, I can't imagine
they're going to smile on that. And that
would be a very
um like that's a kill shot.
>> That's because you're assuming that
China would cut them off.
>> That's why the United States doesn't
want a hot conflict on Taiwan
>> because if I get that. But like if I'm
China, listen, uh I've read enough about
China to prognosticate. So here's how I
think this is going to play out.
>> Uh I'm Xihinping. Yeah. In 2027, I'm not
going to cut off your access to chips
because there are things that I need to
do to make sure that I can squeeze you
to death. And so I'm going to make a
couple moves. Uh and then in whatever
2033, I'm going to start suddenly now
you can't get access to the chips that
you need. And so if the US does not get
very aggressive about
decoupling is always a risky word
because people really start going crazy.
But uh if we aren't able to make
ourselves technologically independent,
we are going to be in a very weakened
position. People need to only look to
the communications that Xi has done when
it's aimed at a Chinese audience where
he's like, "Yeah, we're going to start
being dismissive of the US on an
international stage." Like that was a
very conscious move. Uh, and so this is
how Thusidity's trap goes off where the
US is like, "Okay, we're not going to do
anything in Taiwan because we don't have
the plausible deniability that we do
need, but all of a sudden, uh, ooh,
sorry, did we sink a Chinese ship going
through the Caribbean? Our bad. Like, we
totally thought that was a Venezuelan
drug boat." So, it'll be it'll be things
like that that will just keep like
escalating the tension. Uh, China is
China believes that they have a mandate
from heaven to run the world. Uh, and
they can't have an uppidity declining
power like America stand in the way of
that. So, I mean, it's like 12 out of 16
times when a rising superpower has
collided with a declining superpower, it
has ended up in hot conflict.
>> Yeah.
>> So, maybe we're in the four out of 16,
but the odds aren't with us.
>> Correct. I I am on the same page as you
are and it's just a matter of when and
how those chips start to fall because
China outmaneuvered us for about 12
years by by building a rival or building
the the beginnings of a rival
technological economy. And in creating
that rival, it gave the rest of the
world an option. Do you buy from the
United States or do you buy from China?
You all need this technology. You all
need cell phones. You all need laptops.
You all need um MRI machines. You all
need, you know, pacemakers. You all need
it. So, who are you going to buy it
from? The United States at the same
premium that they've always charged
because they've been the global
monopoly. Or are you going to buy it
from us, our Chinese alternative, which
might be less effective, might be less
good, might just be a copy of them, but
it comes at a much reduced price. more
and more countries of the world are
buying Chinese. They're buying Chinese
alternatives, which is not only
diminishing our economy. It's also
diminishing the premium that we put on
our own materials. And the only solution
that we've been able to come up with so
far is to start tariffing the rest of
the world and negotiating if you stop
buying Chinese and you start buying
American, we'll reduce your tariffs.
That was the whole tariff war that that
that Trump put in motion that nobody
seemed to understand at the moment and
hopefully they understand that now. He
wasn't trying to like increase tariffs
to make money from Europe. He was trying
to to create an artificial negotiating
point to get Europe to concede to United
States technology rather than Chinese
technology. Especially when the majority
of the cars, the electric cars in
Germany are Chinese. The electric cars
in Spain are Chinese. The electric car
in France are Chinese. They're not
American electric cars. So you see all
of this playing out. I agree with you. A
hot conflict is the most likely
conflict. Traditionally speaking, China
knows that too. And both countries know
that as soon as a hot conflict erupts.
As as soon as there is interstate war,
everybody loses. They both lose people,
they lose reputation, they lose
technology, they lose growth
opportunity, they lose economic
benefits. they lose because that's what
history has shown us. So, how long can
they can they um kind of keep this rice
war in perpetuity
and in the hopes that the United States
melts down on its own or what we're
talking about here, China is going to
melt down on its own? They're hoping for
an internal meltdown without ever having
to resort to hot conflict.
>> Talk to me about America's meltdown.
What do you think the likelihood is?
I mean, when you when you put it in
probabilities, econ I'm only talking
about an economic meltdown. I believe
that all of our woes are tied to our
economy.
>> You and me both.
>> Um, and I don't see us taking any steps
that are going to resolve our economy
right now. So, my my estimate is that 10
to 15 years is kind of 10 to 15 years is
our window to fix our economy, but I
don't think anyone's going to fix it.
So, it's really after the 15-year mark
that we're going to be either in a hurt
locker where we have declined too much
to fix ourselves or we're actually on
the fringe of social meltdown or
political meltdown. So, but I do believe
we have about 15 years to figure it out.
The question is, are we willing to put
ourselves in a a great depression that
we start for ourselves in order to fix
our own financial problems?
That's really the only solution that we
have because just like you were saying
earlier, all the economic incentives for
a government are inflationary. Create
more currency, increase the value of
assets artificially, make the wealthy
who own the assets artificially
wealthier using more dollars that
actually value at less per dollar. And
that's how you keep everybody appeased.
and you squeeze the b the the bottom
class and the middle class gets squeezed
because they have they have no way of
investing in assets, but the overall
wealth remains predominantly high. Do
you ever watch Dexter?
>> No, my wife does. And so I've seen like
little snippets of it and there was a
spoiler alert. Uh there was a very
interesting scene where a serial killer,
not Dexter, has a woman on a ledge and
he's like, "You have to jump." And she's
like, "Can you please push me?"
>> Mhm.
>> And he goes, "That's not how this
works." And she's like, "But I don't
know if I can." And he goes, "Well, I
bet if I go get your kids and start
throwing them off sooner or later,
you're going to jump."
>> And that's the position that the
American economy is in right now. We are
going to fall.
If we jump, we can actually fix things.
If we wait to be pushed, then it's too
late. And we really can't get we can't
make ourselves jump. It's so wild and
it's been I mean I've talked about it
many times exactly what you do. It's
called a beautiful deleveraging which is
a terrible word for everyone is going to
suffer but we'll try to make sure
everybody suffers
>> roughly on par so that nobody feels
singled out. Um but we're all going to
suffer. But on the other side of this
like we can get back to like growth and
being the America that we used to be.
people just can't do it. It's It's the
same way I feel when people are like,
"Americans won't pick strawberries or
whatever." I'm like, "Well, if there's
no other option, they'll pick the [ __ ]
out of those strawberries." The problem
is right now they can get government
subsidies. And the really bad news is as
you subsidize them, you
are pushing us off the cliff. And so,
sure, they they fall a little bit later,
but they fall a lot harder. Yeah.
>> So, there's a lot more blood splattered
on the ground. It's just it it's one of
those where getting people to pay
attention long enough to actually
understand the thing that you just
explained um is impossible, I'm finding.
And so, it's terrifying
>> when I because I I try to educate my
company um on where where our economy is
going because I want I want the people
that work for my company to have the
most success possible. And I understand
that just by virtue of the fact that
they work for my company and don't own
my company, that already puts them at a
disadvantage. So I try to get them to
understand how this works. And I
recently had a conversation with a few
of the folks that are my full-time
staff. And this seems to connect with
them, right? We have to hire a new
person just because of the growth of the
company. We have to hire a new person.
So, as we were evaluating how much we
were willing to pay and who we were
going to find and what our
qualifications were, my people
themselves landed on the conclusion
like, "Oh, we're in a down economy right
now. Everybody's looking for work. So,
we'll be able to get a very good person
at a very low price. They understood
economics enough to understand that they
have negotiating power. We have the job.
>> There's lots of people out there looking
for the job, right? So, we don't have to
pay the person what they're worth. We
just have to pay them what the market is
worth. And the market right now is down.
So, we can get a $90,000 a year person
for $75,000 a year. And they understood
that. And I was like, I was super proud
of them. I was like, "Yes, you get it.
That is with everything else in our
economy right now, too, right?
Everything is desperate. Everything is
on the decline." So, so not only are you
are you is a welled educated, skilled,
hardworking professional, not only are
they worth less in terms of dollars
right now, but the dollars that you will
be paying them will actually be worth
less every year moving forward that you
continue to pay them. So, I'm going to
we're going to pay somebody $75,000 a
year who's worth $90,000 a year. And
then next year when we pay them the same
salary, we're actually paying them less
because the dollar is going to decrease
in value. Yeah.
>> And project that over three or five
years. And then it started to really
connect with the people in my company.
They're like, "Oh shit."
>> They connected it to their own salary.
And they're like, "That means that the
money I'm making right now is going to
be the same next year, but worth less."
>> Yeah.
>> It's going to buy less car. It's going
to buy less milk. It's going to buy less
eggs. And then I was like, "Yeah, that's
why I want to encourage you to learn
about how to invest, how to invest in
the market, how to invest in currency,
how to invest in anything." I had a
another wealthy client who was like,
"All you [snorts] have to do is throw a
dart at the NASDAQ." And wherever it
lands, you're more likely to have
success there than if you keep your
money in cash.
>> Sad, but true. For a while, it all gets
very volatile very fast.
Um,
I love sitting down with you. Uh, where
can people follow along with you?
>> You'll always find me at
everydayspy.com. You'll find me on
social media everywhere at everyday spy.
I have a YouTube channel for Andrew
Bamonte.
>> Yes, you do. And it's killing [laughter]
it.
>> I appreciate you very much, sir. Uh, and
then of course you'll find me on
bookshelves now all over the world with
my with my CIA memoir,
>> bestselling author.
>> New York Times bestseller. It's amazing,
man. I appreciate you. And that book is
called Shadow Cell. And uh yeah,
anywhere people want to find me, I'm
happy to meet them there.
>> I love it. All right, everybody. If you
haven't already, be sure to subscribe.
And until next time, my friends, be
legendary. Take care. Peace.
We just had a socialist elected to the
be mayor of the biggest financial city
in the world. Um what do you take away
from that? Do you think that that's
going to make New York City better? Is
this a good direction for