Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Two Hundred Seventy Five: The Donroe Doctrine

Transcript

Episode Two Hundred Seventy Five: The Donroe Doctrine · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcomed episode two hundred and seventy five of the Death
0:03
Speaker 1: of the Journalism podcast. My name is John Ziglar, I'm
0:05
Speaker 1: your Hostin today's show, President Trump starts off the new
0:08
Speaker 1: year with taking over Venezuela, and that might just be
0:13
Speaker 1: the beginning the Mondani socialism era begins in New York City.
0:19
Speaker 1: CBS News tries to reboot by extending an olive branch
0:23
Speaker 1: to the right. There is major fallout in Minnesota from
0:26
Speaker 1: citizen Journalism and my analysis of the football playoffs in
0:31
Speaker 1: TV rating situation. Plus a sneak peek at next week's
0:35
Speaker 1: very special episode of the podcast. Happy New Year to you.
0:40
Speaker 1: Hope you had a good start to twenty twenty six.
0:42
Speaker 1: Hope it was better than it was for Nicholas Medoro
0:45
Speaker 1: and his wife. As you probably know, the President, I guess,
0:49
Speaker 1: former president of Venezuela and his wife were, in the
0:53
Speaker 1: words of President Trump, kidnapped by US armed forces. I
0:58
Speaker 1: can't believe I've been saying this and brought to the
1:00
Speaker 1: United States to face charges for narco terrorism and for
1:07
Speaker 1: all sorts of other things that he has apparently allegedly
1:10
Speaker 1: done as the dictator of Venezuela. This is so much
1:16
Speaker 1: to talk about here. The first thing I want to
1:19
Speaker 1: reference is that this was a truly amazing military operation.
1:24
Speaker 1: That this was even more spectacular than what happened last
1:30
Speaker 1: year with the bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities. That
1:35
Speaker 1: this really was America from an execution standpoint at its
1:40
Speaker 1: absolute best. Incredible, so incredible that I'm not sure we
1:44
Speaker 1: fully appreciate it. And to do this without any deaths
1:49
Speaker 1: on the American side, a few injuries that are apparently
1:53
Speaker 1: not life threatening, with incredible precision to pull off this mission.
1:59
Speaker 1: It's remarkable. And if it doesn't make you proud to
2:01
Speaker 1: be an American and proud of our armed forces, I
2:04
Speaker 1: don't know what possibly could. So that's a given. Now.
2:08
Speaker 1: As far as the decision to take Maduro out and
2:14
Speaker 1: bring him to the United States to face drug charges,
2:18
Speaker 1: that's a very complicated situation. I'm going to try to
2:21
Speaker 1: break this down the best that I can. Now. Marco Rubio,
2:24
Speaker 1: who apparently is in charge of everything these days, almost
2:27
Speaker 1: literally the Secretary of State, and you know he has
2:31
Speaker 1: got all sorts of different jobs within the administration and
2:33
Speaker 1: maybe even leader of Venezuela might soon be one of them.
2:37
Speaker 1: He was emphasizing that this was a law enforcement operation.
2:42
Speaker 1: He was also trying to peg this on the idea
2:45
Speaker 1: that Medoro is not the legitimate leader of Venezuela, he
2:49
Speaker 1: was not properly elected, he's a dictator, and that therefore
2:52
Speaker 1: we had the moral right and maybe even the obligation
2:56
Speaker 1: to take him out. And when we had the opportunity,
3:00
Speaker 1: we took it, and we executed it with brilliant efficiency.
3:05
Speaker 1: And it was Rubio who really focused on the illegitimacy
3:09
Speaker 1: of Maduro. Now, because this was the first line of
3:14
Speaker 1: argument that became public, I had an interesting conversation with
3:18
Speaker 1: my thirteen year old daughter Grace in seventh grade when
3:23
Speaker 1: we were learning of this, because we're on the West coast,
3:25
Speaker 1: and you know, by the time we woke up, this
3:27
Speaker 1: was actually kind of old news. But I was explaining
3:30
Speaker 1: to my wife and my daughter that we had just
3:33
Speaker 1: taken out the leader of Venezuela, and Grace was very
3:37
Speaker 1: curious about this. She's a Trump fan, she is very
3:41
Speaker 1: curious about politics, and she legitimately asked me, so, why
3:46
Speaker 1: did we do this? What was the justification? And I
3:50
Speaker 1: told her it was because he was illegitimate. Medora was illegitimate,
3:53
Speaker 1: and then she said, well, what made him illegitimate? And
3:56
Speaker 1: then I kind of played a little bit of a
3:57
Speaker 1: practical joke on her, and I went through a list
4:00
Speaker 1: of things that Donald Trump has done which I think
4:04
Speaker 1: are consistent with him being more of a king than
4:08
Speaker 1: as an elected president. And at first she had no
4:10
Speaker 1: idea what I was doing. It wasn't until I added
4:14
Speaker 1: on that his country was about to celebrate their two
4:17
Speaker 1: hundred and fiftieth anniversary and he was trying to put
4:20
Speaker 1: his face on a coin that she realized I was
4:24
Speaker 1: actually talking about Donald Trump. And then my wife chimed
4:28
Speaker 1: in and said that dad's pulling a joke on you.
4:31
Speaker 1: But I then did explain to her the Trump administration,
4:36
Speaker 1: the Mark Arrubio argument that this was about legitimacy. But
4:42
Speaker 1: I never really believed it was about legitimacy or about
4:45
Speaker 1: a law enforcement operation. And to be clear, you know
4:49
Speaker 1: a law enforcement operation. This is a hell of an arrest.
4:52
Speaker 1: In the amount of money and the risk to lives
4:56
Speaker 1: and treasure that it would take to pull off the
4:59
Speaker 1: arrest of two people, there's no possible way that that
5:03
Speaker 1: is the only motivation. Could it be part of the motivation? Obviously, yeah, sure,
5:09
Speaker 1: And clearly, there is a difference between why you might
5:12
Speaker 1: do something in reality and the way that you're going
5:16
Speaker 1: to portray it publicly. So I get the argument that
5:20
Speaker 1: this was a law enforcement operation, but that's not the
5:22
Speaker 1: primary motivation. It would be insane if it was, given
5:26
Speaker 1: the risks that were involved, in the expense that was involved.
5:30
Speaker 1: And to be clear, on the law enforcement operation side,
5:33
Speaker 1: the Biden administration was taking essentially the same position for years,
5:37
Speaker 1: except they just didn't have the balls to do anything
5:39
Speaker 1: about it. So I get the law enforcement operation argument,
5:43
Speaker 1: but that's not really the reason why this happened, and
5:47
Speaker 1: the legitimacy issue is really not the issue that would
5:51
Speaker 1: have been the prime motivator, because if that was the case,
5:54
Speaker 1: we'd be doing nothing else but taking out illegitimate leaders
5:58
Speaker 1: all across the world. The reason why this happens here
6:02
Speaker 1: and now is that there's some sort of at least
6:05
Speaker 1: perceived national interest at stake in Venezuela, and that's where
6:13
Speaker 1: the issue of oil and minerals and Venezuela's importance to
6:20
Speaker 1: China and Russia come into the equation. Now, as I
6:25
Speaker 1: was learning about this this remarkable action, I immediately thought, Okay,
6:32
Speaker 1: this has got to be at least in part about
6:35
Speaker 1: Venezuela's oil. Everybody knows anything about Venezuela that they have among,
6:42
Speaker 1: if not the largest mass of untapped oil reserves in
6:50
Speaker 1: the entire world. And it's not just that they have
6:53
Speaker 1: a massive amount of oil. It's a certain kind of oil,
6:56
Speaker 1: very heavy oil, that is pretty rare out the rest
7:00
Speaker 1: of the world. So I immediately thought about Donald Trump's view
7:05
Speaker 1: of the Iraq War. And I've always felt like this
7:08
Speaker 1: was a very underrated issue when it came to Trump,
7:12
Speaker 1: even back when he started running for president in twenty fifteen,
7:16
Speaker 1: because Trump liked to pretend and I do believe this
7:19
Speaker 1: is a pretend situation. This is not based in reality.
7:22
Speaker 1: He likes to pretend that he was always against the
7:25
Speaker 1: Iraq War because the Iraq War turned out, in perception
7:28
Speaker 1: at least to be a disaster. So Trump, of course,
7:32
Speaker 1: because he was not really a political figure at the time,
7:35
Speaker 1: he can pretend to take almost any position he wants.
7:38
Speaker 1: I have never seen any legitimate evidence at all indicating
7:42
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump was vociferously or otherwise publicly against the
7:48
Speaker 1: Iraq War until it was already deemed to be a disaster.
7:53
Speaker 1: So I think he's making that up. I remember he
7:57
Speaker 1: made up, what I believe, he made up a story
7:59
Speaker 1: about how he and Sean Hannity would have private phone
8:02
Speaker 1: conversations about this at a time period that made no
8:06
Speaker 1: sense that he was talking on the phone with Sean
8:08
Speaker 1: Hannity about this, But there's never been any public evidence.
8:11
Speaker 1: In fact, the only interview I've ever seen involving Trump
8:15
Speaker 1: indicated that he at least somewhat tacitly supported the Iraq
8:19
Speaker 1: war back when it was a very popular endeavor. But
8:23
Speaker 1: the reason why I think this is really relevant to
8:26
Speaker 1: the Venezuela situation is that Trump always argued, or at
8:31
Speaker 1: least often argued, when talking about the disaster that was
8:35
Speaker 1: a rock, that we should have taken a rock's oil.
8:39
Speaker 1: And that always struck me as one odd and two significant,
8:46
Speaker 1: because the reality is, if he really believed that, he
8:51
Speaker 1: probably wasn't against the war at all to begin with,
8:55
Speaker 1: because he would at least be keeping open the possibility that,
8:58
Speaker 1: either directly or indirectly, we were taking a rock soil.
9:01
Speaker 1: But we never did that. But it also indicated to
9:05
Speaker 1: me the way that Trump thinks, the way he thinks
9:08
Speaker 1: about other countries, the way he thinks about armed conflict,
9:13
Speaker 1: About nation building, he says he's very much against nation building.
9:17
Speaker 1: Back that was a huge part of his campaign. He's
9:19
Speaker 1: the peace president. He's against nation building. He's not going
9:23
Speaker 1: to put American lives and treasure on the line for
9:26
Speaker 1: regime change. Maga loved that that he was the anti
9:32
Speaker 1: establishment Republican. He's not a neo Kon. That's what Maga
9:37
Speaker 1: would have told you up until, you know, a few
9:39
Speaker 1: days ago. And now all of a sudden, this appears
9:42
Speaker 1: to be the beginning of a brand new Trump doctrine.
9:45
Speaker 1: He himself has called it the not the Monro doctrine,
9:49
Speaker 1: but the doctrine. I'm not making this up. He's called
9:53
Speaker 1: it the doctrine to play off of the Monro doctrine
9:58
Speaker 1: and using his name Donald. I mean, just crazy, crazy stuff.
10:02
Speaker 1: But back to the issue of a rock and the oil.
10:06
Speaker 1: So when I learned about this, I immediately said, Okay,
10:09
Speaker 1: this has got to be at least in part, if
10:11
Speaker 1: not in majority, about Venezuela's oil. But I did not
10:17
Speaker 1: expect Trump to openly and fully admit to it. That
10:23
Speaker 1: was something that either politically or just from the standpoint
10:27
Speaker 1: of his advisors telling him it wouldn't be a good
10:30
Speaker 1: idea or instinctually him deciding, you know what, it's just
10:34
Speaker 1: not worth the risk. I just didn't think that Trump
10:37
Speaker 1: would acknowledge, and certainly not openly admit. But he not
10:41
Speaker 1: only openly admitted it, he went way out of his
10:44
Speaker 1: way to make it a prime part of the argument
10:48
Speaker 1: for why we were doing what we were doing in Venezuela,
10:52
Speaker 1: and even a justification for why we're now quote running
10:57
Speaker 1: the country. He didn't try to hide from the issue
11:00
Speaker 1: of okay, what now. Well, you know, when you think
11:04
Speaker 1: about the echoes of the Iraq War, and this is
11:08
Speaker 1: kind of in the history of the United States, of
11:10
Speaker 1: these situations, we're very very good at toppling regimes. You
11:14
Speaker 1: might even say we're experts at it. It might be
11:16
Speaker 1: the thing we do best, but we're not real good
11:19
Speaker 1: about what happens next. And Trump, you would think, considering
11:25
Speaker 1: the fact that he won the twenty sixteen Republican nomination
11:28
Speaker 1: in part based upon the perception that he would be
11:31
Speaker 1: different than, for instance, the Bushes were in a situation
11:36
Speaker 1: like Iraq, you would think he would be very, very
11:38
Speaker 1: concerned about that perception. But no, he turned right into
11:42
Speaker 1: the curve, and he did so so dramatically that I'm
11:46
Speaker 1: going to do something a little bit unusual. Usually I
11:49
Speaker 1: would play you clips that I found to be most
11:51
Speaker 1: interesting from Trump or from Rubio or from other members
11:56
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration explaining the decision behind this, and
12:01
Speaker 1: I would analyze them. I'm not gonna do that. I'm
12:03
Speaker 1: actually gonna play a clip from John Stewart and The
12:07
Speaker 1: Daily Show. I'm gonna do this for a couple of reasons.
12:10
Speaker 1: One because it has several Trump clips in it in
12:14
Speaker 1: this segment that I'm gonna play for you too, because
12:17
Speaker 1: I actually think John Stewart, even though he's a liberal,
12:20
Speaker 1: is often somewhat fair, at least by liberal media standards,
12:24
Speaker 1: and he's often very funny, and I think he's very
12:28
Speaker 1: funny in this particular situation. And to set this up,
12:32
Speaker 1: Stuart is going through the justification for why we took
12:37
Speaker 1: out Maduro in Venezuela, and he's kind of taking the
12:40
Speaker 1: same attitude that I just described to you. My gosh,
12:44
Speaker 1: you know, is this really about the oil? Well, we're
12:46
Speaker 1: not gonna say it's about the oil, right, and then
12:49
Speaker 1: Trump continues to say just that, oh yeah, definitely, this
12:53
Speaker 1: is really all about the oil. And here's what it
12:57
Speaker 1: sounded like on The Daily Show on Comedy Central.
13:00
Speaker 2: Generally, in American history, when we intervene in another country,
13:05
Speaker 2: whether true.
13:05
Speaker 3: Or not, we come up with a high minded pretense,
13:09
Speaker 3: liberating a people, spreading democracy, introducing baseball to the Japanese.
13:16
Speaker 3: They complained at first, but it's totally worth it. On
13:20
Speaker 3: what moral foundation will this conflict be framed.
13:24
Speaker 1: We're going to have presence in Venezuela as it pertains
13:27
Speaker 1: to oil, but we're going to get the oil flowing
13:29
Speaker 1: the way it should be.
13:33
Speaker 2: Seems a little on the nose. Oil precious commodity, certainly,
13:40
Speaker 2: but not the reason a country formed two hundred and
13:42
Speaker 2: fifty years ago on the ideas of liberty and self
13:45
Speaker 2: determination would go into a country and snatch.
13:48
Speaker 1: A man at night.
13:49
Speaker 2: There must be a slightly more noble pretense. We're going
13:53
Speaker 2: to be taking out a tremendous amount of wealth out
13:56
Speaker 2: of the ground.
13:56
Speaker 1: We need total access. We need access to the oil.
14:02
Speaker 1: Sir again, let me let I see where we're going here.
14:06
Speaker 2: Do you mind just reframing that I'm not quite clear
14:10
Speaker 2: on the high minded principle behind this.
14:13
Speaker 1: The other words, we'll be selling oil. Is this your
14:22
Speaker 1: first war?
14:23
Speaker 2: I mean, what the all right, let's table this for now.
14:26
Speaker 2: Senator Lindsey Graham, you're an old hand at warmongering.
14:32
Speaker 1: You've done this a bunch. You're on the plane.
14:35
Speaker 2: Can you help this dude out with the CASA's belly
14:38
Speaker 2: and keep Trump from bringing it back to oil.
14:42
Speaker 1: They're gonna be Americans alive today because he shut down
14:46
Speaker 1: a narco terra state called Venezuela.
14:48
Speaker 2: This is a good thing, not a bad thing.
14:52
Speaker 3: And the oil companies are going to go in and
14:54
Speaker 3: rebuild this system.
14:56
Speaker 1: God damn.
15:00
Speaker 2: What we can't even be conspiracy here is now? I
15:13
Speaker 2: think they did it for the oil. Yeah, no, I
15:15
Speaker 2: did it for the oil.
15:19
Speaker 1: Is there any other reason? Can you give us anything?
15:21
Speaker 2: There's a lot of issues, human rights violations, political prisoners
15:25
Speaker 2: down to Venezuela. We could certainly free them and improve
15:28
Speaker 2: the lives of dissidence.
15:29
Speaker 4: You're going to demand that Elsea Rodriguez let opposition figures
15:33
Speaker 4: return or free any political prisoners.
15:35
Speaker 1: We haven't gotten to that yet. Right now, what we
15:37
Speaker 1: want to do is fix up the oil, fix up
15:39
Speaker 1: the cutty.
15:46
Speaker 4: Yes, we'll get the people out of jail, but first
15:48
Speaker 4: we have to liberate the oil from its ground, the
15:52
Speaker 4: prison that oil has been locked up for millions of years,
15:57
Speaker 4: yearning to burn free.
16:00
Speaker 2: Obviously I'm being cynical. It's not purely for oil. Even
16:05
Speaker 2: Secretary of Commerce Howard Luttnik on the plane could tell
16:07
Speaker 2: you that on his way out of the bathroom.
16:09
Speaker 1: They have steel. You have minerals, right, all the critical minerals.
16:13
Speaker 1: They have a great mining history that's gone rusky so steel,
16:20
Speaker 1: aluminum minerals. These mother Firs.
16:26
Speaker 2: Are going full conquissta door in front of our eyes.
16:31
Speaker 1: I mean, they got oil, steel minerals.
16:33
Speaker 3: Oh, and don't forget about the spices.
16:35
Speaker 1: Spices.
16:38
Speaker 4: We'll load our ships with cinnamon and cardimen and.
16:42
Speaker 1: Oil and everything. Bagels you'll see now. To me, that
16:47
Speaker 1: summed it up pretty well. And I thought John Stewart
16:50
Speaker 1: did a really good job in that segment of the
16:53
Speaker 1: Daily Show. One because it was funny, and two because
16:57
Speaker 1: a sense, in a weird way, there's kind of a
17:00
Speaker 1: respect that Stuart has for what Trump is doing. That
17:04
Speaker 1: he's being honest about it. He's not bullshitting. He's embracing
17:09
Speaker 1: what used to be a forbidden concept, even if we
17:14
Speaker 1: were really doing it now, you know, The irony of
17:17
Speaker 1: the comparison to a rock was that was the perception
17:20
Speaker 1: when it came to a rock, but it really wasn't
17:22
Speaker 1: the reality. And you know, in my recollection, I don't
17:26
Speaker 1: even think that we saw a significant decrease in the
17:30
Speaker 1: price of gasoline after the Iraq invasion. In fact, for
17:33
Speaker 1: probably for a long period of time, there was no
17:36
Speaker 1: positive impact at all, might have even been a negative impact.
17:40
Speaker 1: And so Bush kind of got hurt on both ends.
17:45
Speaker 1: There was the perception that this is a war for oil,
17:48
Speaker 1: but we got none of the benefit when it came
17:51
Speaker 1: to the reality. Well, whether it's just because of his
17:54
Speaker 1: attitude towards this whole concept and we saw it during
17:59
Speaker 1: the rock war, or whether or not maybe he's learned
18:02
Speaker 1: from the mistakes of what happened with a rock with Bush.
18:06
Speaker 1: Who knows. Trump has a completely different attitude, and in
18:10
Speaker 1: a weird way, I respect it, and you know, one
18:14
Speaker 1: because it's the truth, and two because maybe and I'm
18:20
Speaker 1: gonna underline maybe three or four times here, maybe just
18:23
Speaker 1: maybe there is a strategy at work here. I don't
18:29
Speaker 1: know yet. A day or two after that segment on
18:33
Speaker 1: The Daily Show with John Stewart, Trump just announced on
18:37
Speaker 1: social media that he's going even further than I think
18:41
Speaker 1: most people expected, and much more quickly on the issue
18:45
Speaker 1: of oil, by announcing the following quote. I am pleased
18:51
Speaker 1: to announce that the interim authorities in Venezuela will be
18:55
Speaker 1: turning over between thirty and fifty million barrels of high quality,
19:01
Speaker 1: sanctioned oil to the United States of America. This oil
19:06
Speaker 1: will be sold at its market price, and that money
19:09
Speaker 1: will be controlled by me, as President of the United
19:14
Speaker 1: States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit
19:18
Speaker 1: the people of Venezuela and the United States. I have
19:23
Speaker 1: asked Energy Secretary Chris Wright to execute this plan immediately.
19:28
Speaker 1: It will be taken by storage ships and brought directly
19:32
Speaker 1: to unloading docks in the United States. Thank you for
19:36
Speaker 1: your attention to this matter. Donald J. Trump, President of
19:40
Speaker 1: the United States of America. Now separate from the issue
19:45
Speaker 1: of whether or not this is in the best interest
19:48
Speaker 1: of the United States. What Trump did there is extraordinary
19:53
Speaker 1: on so many levels. The mind boggles as to all
19:57
Speaker 1: of the troubling and dangerous p that that sets that
20:03
Speaker 1: a president United States could simply, unilaterally, on his own
20:07
Speaker 1: decide to take out a foreign leader whether they're illegitimate,
20:11
Speaker 1: and whether or not they're a narco terrorist or not,
20:15
Speaker 1: and just decide. Okay, here's the deal. We're going to
20:20
Speaker 1: allow I guess what's left of the regime to stay
20:23
Speaker 1: in power. But in order for that to happen, you
20:26
Speaker 1: have to give us an enormous amount of your oil.
20:30
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, I'm gonna be in charge
20:33
Speaker 1: of this. I Donald Trump, am gonna be solely in
20:37
Speaker 1: charge of this. By what authority? I have no idea.
20:40
Speaker 1: I mean, there's so many questions that need to be
20:42
Speaker 1: answered about how exactly this would work. I'm flummixed. I'm confused.
20:49
Speaker 1: I'm troubled by all of that. However, I'm trying to
20:54
Speaker 1: be as open minded and as fair as possible in
20:59
Speaker 1: the bigger picture here, I'm trying to figure out what
21:02
Speaker 1: is really going on. And this gets me to really
21:06
Speaker 1: the existential question that I have been asking about Donald
21:10
Speaker 1: Trump for ten years We're going on to eleven years now,
21:15
Speaker 1: since he came on the political scene, the presidential scene
21:18
Speaker 1: in the mid twenty fifteen. And that question is is
21:22
Speaker 1: Donald Trump playing checkers or is he playing chess? That
21:28
Speaker 1: to me is the number one question, and it has
21:31
Speaker 1: always been the number one question about Donald Trump on
21:34
Speaker 1: almost any topic, and generally I have been in the
21:38
Speaker 1: camp that he is at best a checkers player. I've
21:44
Speaker 1: even joked that he might be playing Shoots and Ladders
21:47
Speaker 1: or candy Land. I mean, because there doesn't seem to
21:50
Speaker 1: be a rhyme or reason, it doesn't seem to be
21:52
Speaker 1: a lot of strategy to it. And I'm almost always
21:57
Speaker 1: in the camp of Trumps a checkers player, a chess player. Now,
22:02
Speaker 1: I've been wrong on a couple of occasions because of
22:05
Speaker 1: that assumption. I did not think, for instance, that he
22:08
Speaker 1: was going to do what he did with the Iranian
22:10
Speaker 1: nuclear facilities that appeared to be much more of a
22:15
Speaker 1: chess move. He also didn't chick it out. I presumed
22:18
Speaker 1: he was going to check it out. He did not,
22:20
Speaker 1: even though he was using the two week thing, which
22:22
Speaker 1: is usually a tell that he's going to check it out,
22:24
Speaker 1: because he's hoping that something will happen and people will
22:27
Speaker 1: be distracted and he'll be able to get away with,
22:30
Speaker 1: you know, not taking the bold move. Well, he surprised me,
22:34
Speaker 1: and I was wrong there, and I think that was
22:36
Speaker 1: probably the right move as of right now. It's you know,
22:39
Speaker 1: there's been no negative that we know of, no negative
22:43
Speaker 1: implications for what happened in Iran, and so therefore I
22:48
Speaker 1: have to at least be open to the possibility that
22:51
Speaker 1: maybe there's a chess game going on here. And when
22:56
Speaker 1: this Venezuela move is immediately followed by I talk about
23:01
Speaker 1: taking out the regime in Cuba and in Columbia and
23:06
Speaker 1: maybe even Mexico, and is Iran on the table, and
23:11
Speaker 1: an extraordinary i'mount of talk about Greenland, which causes a
23:16
Speaker 1: massive problem with VISIVI NATO because it's Denmark that you know,
23:22
Speaker 1: allegedly controls Greenland, although no one can really fully explain
23:26
Speaker 1: to me, at least not that I can figure out
23:27
Speaker 1: why they have control over Greenland. But okay, fine, but
23:31
Speaker 1: there's no question that you know, if we do take
23:35
Speaker 1: quote unquote Greenland, that that's probably gonna blow up NATO,
23:38
Speaker 1: or at least press NATO to the very edge of implosion.
23:45
Speaker 1: And of course, when I'm hearing all of this about
23:47
Speaker 1: we're gonna do regime change here, we're gonna do regime
23:50
Speaker 1: change there, I'm not just thinking about the fact that, okay,
23:53
Speaker 1: what happened to the peace maker Trump, the guy wants
23:57
Speaker 1: to win the Nobel Peace Prize very very badly. And
24:00
Speaker 1: the guy who says, you know, he doesn't want to
24:02
Speaker 1: do nation building, that's number one. Number two. When I
24:05
Speaker 1: start thinking about the places where we could or should
24:08
Speaker 1: be doing regime change, I immediately think of, Hey, what
24:12
Speaker 1: about us here in California. I'd love to see some
24:15
Speaker 1: regime change in California. Wouldn't you love to see the
24:18
Speaker 1: US military take out Gavin News Or how about New
24:22
Speaker 1: York City? I mean, we could do a regime change
24:26
Speaker 1: in New York City too, And I could totally see
24:28
Speaker 1: that big in the best interest of the United States
24:31
Speaker 1: of America. And I'm only being half facetious, by the way.
24:34
Speaker 1: But when it comes to this idea that all of
24:37
Speaker 1: a sudden there is this radical alteration, I mean just
24:44
Speaker 1: whiplash inducing radical change in the way that the Trump administration,
24:49
Speaker 1: in Trump himself is seeing the issue of global expansion,
24:55
Speaker 1: regime change, nation building, what have you. I have to
25:00
Speaker 1: think that there's really only two possibilities here. One is
25:06
Speaker 1: Trump has lost his fucking mind, and you know, he's
25:09
Speaker 1: just acting spastically, which is possible to now any other president.
25:16
Speaker 1: I would not presume that that's a logical scenario, but
25:21
Speaker 1: with Trump, it is it's not the scenario I want
25:24
Speaker 1: to believe it, and as of right now, it's not
25:28
Speaker 1: the scenario. I do believe it. I believe the more
25:33
Speaker 1: likely scenario is the chess scenario that rightly or wrongly,
25:41
Speaker 1: Trump and people in his administration believe that the entire
25:48
Speaker 1: global situation is in tremendous flux, that we are no
25:55
Speaker 1: longer living in the post World War two era, that
26:00
Speaker 1: everything needs to be reevaluated. And there are some logical
26:05
Speaker 1: reasons for why they may have suddenly come to this realization. Now,
26:13
Speaker 1: some of them are geopolitical, but the number one issue
26:18
Speaker 1: that comes to mind is artificial intelligence. I've not heard
26:22
Speaker 1: anybody talk about this, but I'm just trying to put
26:24
Speaker 1: the pieces together logically. I'm always looking for a logical
26:27
Speaker 1: scenario to explain everything that we know, and is it possible.
26:33
Speaker 1: Is it possible that the administration is looking at the
26:39
Speaker 1: map and looking at potential scenarios, and looking at China
26:45
Speaker 1: and looking at Russia and the growing alliance between China
26:49
Speaker 1: and Russia, and realizing Venezuela's value to China and Russia
26:55
Speaker 1: and game planning this out in a world where a
27:00
Speaker 1: I may completely reshuffle the deck of the entire global
27:06
Speaker 1: power structure. I've used the deck analogy when it comes
27:11
Speaker 1: to AI before, and I think it's a pretty good one.
27:15
Speaker 1: We are potentially underlying potentially. I'm not one hundred percent
27:19
Speaker 1: there that this is going to happen. In fact, I've
27:22
Speaker 1: gone through in the last episode of the podcast why
27:24
Speaker 1: I think it might not happen. But we are in
27:27
Speaker 1: a world that could potentially, in fairly short order have
27:31
Speaker 1: a reshuffling of the deck, because no one really knows
27:35
Speaker 1: how that's all going to turn out when it comes
27:36
Speaker 1: to AI, and currently as it stands, and we proved
27:42
Speaker 1: it with this operation in Nicaragua, the United States is
27:46
Speaker 1: in an extremely powerful position, especially vis a VI our military,
27:52
Speaker 1: and I wonder whether or not there is a thought
27:57
Speaker 1: within the Trump administration that the world is on the
28:01
Speaker 1: verge of a massive sea change. We currently have the power,
28:08
Speaker 1: we currently have the ability to do a lot of
28:11
Speaker 1: things that we've never done before, mainly out of self restraint.
28:16
Speaker 1: But if we don't use our power now in the reshuffle,
28:23
Speaker 1: we may lose it. We may not have the dominant
28:26
Speaker 1: position that we currently enjoy, but don't use because of restraint.
28:33
Speaker 1: Some others might say principles, you could. I'm not arguing
28:37
Speaker 1: whether it's a positive or negative, But the reality is
28:40
Speaker 1: we have been incredibly restrained ever since the end of
28:44
Speaker 1: World War Two when it comes to the use of
28:47
Speaker 1: our military superiority. And you know, I think by and
28:51
Speaker 1: large you could justify that that was the right decision,
28:55
Speaker 1: but that was in a stable world. What if I
28:59
Speaker 1: like you to think about this, If you're somebody who
29:02
Speaker 1: was dead set against this entire procedure and where it
29:06
Speaker 1: seems like this is going with all these other countries
29:09
Speaker 1: being named, I'd like you to consider again. I'm not
29:13
Speaker 1: saying this is the facts. I'm not saying this is
29:15
Speaker 1: the truth. I'm considering this as a plausible scenario. This
29:19
Speaker 1: is the chess scenario where either Trump were more likely
29:24
Speaker 1: somebody else in his administration realizes that if we don't
29:29
Speaker 1: use it, we may lose it, and that we need
29:33
Speaker 1: to be able to put all the chips in the
29:36
Speaker 1: best order possible for this reshuffle to mix a metaphor,
29:42
Speaker 1: and that under that scenario, the rules change, the threshold
29:48
Speaker 1: for action changes, the urgency changes. And one of the
29:54
Speaker 1: things I've noticed, and as you know, I'm big into psychology,
30:00
Speaker 1: into self interest. One of the things that I have
30:03
Speaker 1: noticed in the statements of Trump and of Marc Rubio
30:09
Speaker 1: and Stephen Miller and Lindsey Graham and some others that
30:14
Speaker 1: have been integral in this process is there seems to
30:18
Speaker 1: be an urgency. Trump mentioned Greenland within twenty days. Where
30:26
Speaker 1: did that come from? Is that the new two weeks?
30:29
Speaker 1: I honestly don't know. It just seemed odd that twenty days.
30:34
Speaker 1: What's going on? And if you know, I've been asked
30:39
Speaker 1: many times on social media, what is your take on
30:43
Speaker 1: this whole situation? And my general response has been I
30:49
Speaker 1: don't know yet, because I feel like there's something missing
30:54
Speaker 1: from what we're being told, that there's an incredibly important
30:57
Speaker 1: piece of information here that is not known publicly that
31:03
Speaker 1: could change our perception of what is happening. Now that's
31:06
Speaker 1: the chess scenario. We could still be in the checkers
31:10
Speaker 1: of the candy Land scenario, or even worse, where Trump
31:13
Speaker 1: has just lost his fucking mind and no one wants
31:15
Speaker 1: to tell him no, and now he's drunk on the
31:18
Speaker 1: whole idea of using the US military because he's a
31:21
Speaker 1: tough guy, and I'm sure it gives him his jolly's
31:25
Speaker 1: for him to be in charge of the most powerful
31:28
Speaker 1: military of the history of the world and seeing these
31:31
Speaker 1: incredible operations unfold on his screen in the White House.
31:36
Speaker 1: I am fully open to that scenario, but that's not
31:39
Speaker 1: what I want to believe, and logically, I would like
31:43
Speaker 1: to believe there's another scenario that is at least as likely,
31:47
Speaker 1: if not more likely, And that scenario is the idea
31:52
Speaker 1: that something at least within the perception of the administration,
32:00
Speaker 1: dramatically and somewhat sunded, suddenly changed. Now, this wasn't that
32:06
Speaker 1: sudden when it comes to Venezuela. In retrospect, you know
32:09
Speaker 1: this was being planned for a very very long time,
32:11
Speaker 1: and publicly there were signs of it, I mean, blowing
32:14
Speaker 1: up drug boats outside of Venezuela and that kind of thing.
32:18
Speaker 1: And certainly Maduro had plenty of warning, or should have
32:22
Speaker 1: had plenty of warning, even though he was completely taken
32:24
Speaker 1: off guard by the attack itself. But I'm talking about
32:28
Speaker 1: this entirely new philosophy, this Donro doctrine that's coming out
32:35
Speaker 1: of the blue to start twenty twenty six. It feels,
32:41
Speaker 1: it feels, and part of me is hoping for this,
32:44
Speaker 1: even though this is a very dangerous scenario because it
32:46
Speaker 1: would mean that the administration is working on the premise
32:51
Speaker 1: that something really, really big and dark and dangerous is
32:55
Speaker 1: in the process of happening. I did see one expert say,
33:00
Speaker 1: and this is just one quote unquote expert, but he was,
33:02
Speaker 1: you know, he spoke with a lot of conviction, and
33:07
Speaker 1: his belief was that somebody in the administration believes that
33:11
Speaker 1: we are headed for World War three and we are
33:14
Speaker 1: getting prepared for that. Now. I have no expertise in
33:18
Speaker 1: that realm, I can see some logic to that. I'm
33:23
Speaker 1: not trying to be alarmist. I would like to think
33:26
Speaker 1: this is more about if you think about, you know,
33:29
Speaker 1: the next war, is it going to be an Ai war?
33:34
Speaker 1: Is Ai really at the core of this? I think
33:38
Speaker 1: that would make more sense than any other scenario that
33:41
Speaker 1: are plausible explanation that I have heard in this so far.
33:47
Speaker 1: So I guess my bottom line on this. Am I
33:51
Speaker 1: against this or am I in favor of this? It
33:54
Speaker 1: depends on whether or not we're playing checks or chess.
33:58
Speaker 1: That's really what it comes down to. Now. If it's chess,
34:03
Speaker 1: I'm still hesitant about whether or not this is the
34:06
Speaker 1: right move one because I don't know fully what the
34:11
Speaker 1: real threats are and what the long term strategy is.
34:14
Speaker 1: I don't have a lot of faith because Trump is
34:16
Speaker 1: not a long term strategy kind of guy. I don't
34:20
Speaker 1: know who's calling the shots if it's not Trump. But
34:24
Speaker 1: I'm also very concerned about the time continuum here. I
34:29
Speaker 1: talked a lot about this when it came to tariffs,
34:33
Speaker 1: and I think there's an important comparison to be made here.
34:36
Speaker 1: Part of why I was not in support of the
34:39
Speaker 1: Trump tariffs is that one, I don't believe in tarriffs.
34:43
Speaker 1: But okay, I'm fine, I'm willing to listen to you
34:46
Speaker 1: if you want to tell me why you think they're
34:48
Speaker 1: a good idea. The theory behind the tariffs seemed to be,
34:53
Speaker 1: although there was conflicting and contradictory messaging on this, but
34:57
Speaker 1: it seemed to be that this would save a American
35:00
Speaker 1: manufacturing in the long run. But my point to that
35:04
Speaker 1: was that takes too long for American companies to believe
35:10
Speaker 1: that they're going to be protected by the tariffs to
35:14
Speaker 1: the extent of where they're willing to start building factories
35:17
Speaker 1: and completely changing the fundamentals of their operating systems is
35:23
Speaker 1: going to take one an enormous amount of faith and
35:26
Speaker 1: two an extremely long period of time. You don't have
35:31
Speaker 1: that one because you're Donald Trump and you change your
35:33
Speaker 1: mind willy nilly, so no one's gonna have total faith
35:36
Speaker 1: in what you're promising. But two, because you're only in
35:40
Speaker 1: office for four years. You might be a lame duck
35:45
Speaker 1: if the Republicans lose the House and maybe even the
35:49
Speaker 1: Senate in the twenty twenty six midterms, So you don't
35:52
Speaker 1: have the time to pull this off. You know, for
35:56
Speaker 1: the tariffs to work the way that Trump, in his
35:59
Speaker 1: fantasy were world would like to believe that they would work,
36:02
Speaker 1: it would take at least six, eight, ten years at least,
36:07
Speaker 1: and Trump doesn't have that. Well, now let's use that
36:11
Speaker 1: situation and compare it to what's going on now. Well,
36:15
Speaker 1: Trump claims we're gonna get thirty to fifty million barrels
36:18
Speaker 1: of oil from Venezuela. My understanding is that they're not.
36:23
Speaker 1: Their production is crap, and partially because Meduro destroyed the economy.
36:29
Speaker 1: I mean, they're the poster child for how socialism is
36:32
Speaker 1: completely and totally failed, and that their oil industry is
36:36
Speaker 1: in complete disrepair and to get it up and running
36:42
Speaker 1: would take an extreme amount of time and resources and effort.
36:48
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, are even positive that American
36:51
Speaker 1: oil companies would feel like it was in their self
36:53
Speaker 1: interest to do so? I mean, I don't know. I mean,
36:56
Speaker 1: if this worked, you're gonna significantly low or the price
37:00
Speaker 1: of gasoline? Is that something that the oil companies are
37:04
Speaker 1: all that interested in? I don't know. I think it's
37:07
Speaker 1: a legitimate question that should be asked and answered. But
37:11
Speaker 1: the point of this is these things are going to
37:14
Speaker 1: take time, and I don't think Trump has it. I'm
37:19
Speaker 1: also confused with regard to okay, and let's pretend that
37:24
Speaker 1: his claim that the new portion of the regime, or
37:28
Speaker 1: the non Maduro portion of the regime, has in fact
37:32
Speaker 1: agreed to give him what he wants, because that seems
37:35
Speaker 1: to be the premise here. I mean, this is awfully shaky,
37:38
Speaker 1: in my opinion, but it appears as if us taking
37:41
Speaker 1: over the country is based upon, almost in totality, the
37:45
Speaker 1: idea that anybody who's still calling the shots in Venezuela,
37:49
Speaker 1: whether it's the new vice president, orned president or somebody else,
37:53
Speaker 1: that they're going to be so afraid that what happened
37:56
Speaker 1: to the Meduro can happen to them that they're going
37:58
Speaker 1: to do whatever the hell we say. I get that
38:01
Speaker 1: that might work for a short period of time, but
38:06
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, if you don't have boots on the ground
38:09
Speaker 1: in a very significant way, how do you enforce that
38:12
Speaker 1: in the long run, especially if the people of Venezuela
38:17
Speaker 1: aren't going to see immediate benefits from this arrangement. So
38:23
Speaker 1: I see a lot of trouble on the horizon here
38:27
Speaker 1: if there is not a strategic plan that makes sense
38:31
Speaker 1: and can be implemented in this short amount of time
38:34
Speaker 1: that exists. But I really think in the bigger picture
38:39
Speaker 1: it is extremely significant, extremely significant, and potential that we're
38:46
Speaker 1: not just talking about Venezuela here, that the administration is
38:49
Speaker 1: openly talking about Cuba, Colombia, Mexico, Greenland. And I don't understand,
38:55
Speaker 1: because I'm not an expert in this area, the strategic
38:58
Speaker 1: importance of Greenland. I guess it must have strategic importance.
39:04
Speaker 1: But the urgency, the urgency and the risk involved and
39:09
Speaker 1: pissing off all of our NATO allies and potentially blowing
39:13
Speaker 1: NATO up over this indicates to me. I go back
39:16
Speaker 1: to that same premise. There's really only two options here.
39:20
Speaker 1: Either Trump has lost his fucking mind, or there's something
39:24
Speaker 1: much bigger growing here, whether it's AI related or something else.
39:31
Speaker 1: That there is a belief within this administration that the
39:34
Speaker 1: world is about to change and that we need to
39:38
Speaker 1: be prepared for it, and it doesn't mean playing by
39:44
Speaker 1: the normal rules. That the stakes are so high that
39:47
Speaker 1: we need to play by new rules. Again, I get
39:52
Speaker 1: very antsy when I start giving anybody more credit that
39:56
Speaker 1: they maybe deserve, especially when that person is Trump. I'm
40:00
Speaker 1: just evaluating based upon the actions that I have seen
40:04
Speaker 1: and what I'm perceiving in the statements, and I'm trying
40:07
Speaker 1: to figure this out logically from a human perspective, and
40:12
Speaker 1: that's the scenario that makes the most sense to me.
40:15
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean it's the scenario that's actually in play.
40:20
Speaker 1: It could very well be the first one, which is
40:23
Speaker 1: that this is Trump being Trump, and in a month
40:25
Speaker 1: we're going to be on to a completely new subject
40:28
Speaker 1: and we will have forgotten about Greenland, and you know,
40:32
Speaker 1: Venezuela will be left in chaos or in a vacuum.
40:37
Speaker 1: I could totally see that scenario too. I'm just I'm
40:41
Speaker 1: outlining what I see is the two most logical and
40:47
Speaker 1: probable scenarios, although I'm totally open to another one that
40:52
Speaker 1: might be more logical and more probable, And I fully
40:56
Speaker 1: acknowledge that neither of these scenarios are good. The one situation,
41:01
Speaker 1: we've got a crazy man who who has completely abandoned
41:06
Speaker 1: the entire foreign policy philosophy that got him elected just
41:10
Speaker 1: over a year ago. And in the other one, we're
41:12
Speaker 1: preparing for a massive alteration in the global power structure.
41:21
Speaker 1: But if the scenario number two is in play, then
41:25
Speaker 1: I can see the logic of this. And if and
41:30
Speaker 1: it's a huge if, and if this is in play,
41:34
Speaker 1: you know, I can see, I can see down the
41:38
Speaker 1: tunnel a situation where Trump may not only be doing
41:42
Speaker 1: the right thing, he might end up doing something that
41:46
Speaker 1: saves America. I know that sounds crazy coming from me,
41:49
Speaker 1: an ardent Trump critic from the beginning on all this,
41:53
Speaker 1: but I'm just trying to figure out the truth of this,
41:57
Speaker 1: and I don't feel like we have enough information. And
42:02
Speaker 1: if I knew what the plan was, and if I
42:04
Speaker 1: knew whether or not there was enough time to execute
42:07
Speaker 1: such a plan, I'd be able to give a better
42:09
Speaker 1: analysis and I'm sensing that maybe what I'm providing is
42:13
Speaker 1: not very satisfying to anybody, But I'm just giving you
42:18
Speaker 1: my take personally based upon what I'm perceiving, and I, frankly,
42:24
Speaker 1: I don't think that I in fact, I know I
42:26
Speaker 1: haven't heard anybody else put it in these terms before.
42:29
Speaker 1: I mean, we're really there's the only way to make
42:32
Speaker 1: this make sense is one extreme or the other, and
42:35
Speaker 1: neither of these extremes is good. And I'm not even
42:40
Speaker 1: a hundredscent sure which one I'm rooting for. I mean,
42:43
Speaker 1: you know, the first scenario where Trump has lost his
42:46
Speaker 1: mind and we're just going shooting from the hip, almost literally,
42:50
Speaker 1: and thank goodness, we have the best military in the
42:52
Speaker 1: world that doesn't end up screwing this situation up, and
42:57
Speaker 1: Trump ends up smelling like a rose even though he's
42:59
Speaker 1: lost his mind. That's not very good, but at least
43:02
Speaker 1: it may be survival and survivable, and it doesn't mean
43:06
Speaker 1: that we're in the midst of some massive global conflict.
43:09
Speaker 1: But when you consider how significant Venezuela is to China
43:14
Speaker 1: and Russia, I think that's that's really the key to
43:18
Speaker 1: understanding this. And I would love to know who's really
43:23
Speaker 1: in Trump's ear on this, and I have to say, Marca,
43:27
Speaker 1: Rubio is coming out looking great as far as I
43:31
Speaker 1: can see. I mean, he is so good on these
43:35
Speaker 1: television shows when he's batting, you know, these liberal hosts
43:40
Speaker 1: who very much want to make this operation look bad
43:43
Speaker 1: and make him look bad. He doesn't shy away from
43:47
Speaker 1: any of these interviews. He usually directly answers the question.
43:52
Speaker 1: He often embarrasses the interviewer, like he did with Margaret
43:54
Speaker 1: Margaret Brennan, who often is easily embarrassed on CBS's face
43:59
Speaker 1: the day. But I do feel at least somewhat vindicated
44:03
Speaker 1: by the fact that in twenty sixteen I supported Mark Rubio,
44:07
Speaker 1: not Donald Trump, to be the Republican presidential nominee, and
44:12
Speaker 1: he would have been a great president. Mark Rubio unlikely
44:15
Speaker 1: he'll be president. Maybe he'll be Jade Vance's vice presidential
44:20
Speaker 1: nominee in twenty twenty eight. I think that's certainly plausible,
44:24
Speaker 1: maybe even probable. And you know, I think there's also
44:28
Speaker 1: a pretty dunk good chance that the twenty thirty two
44:31
Speaker 1: election between President Gavin Newsom and Mark Rubio will be
44:35
Speaker 1: a pretty dark good one. Maybe Rubio DeSantis in twenty
44:39
Speaker 1: thirty two, going up against Gavin DUSA. But I don't
44:42
Speaker 1: want to get ahead of myself here. So that's the
44:46
Speaker 1: situation with regard to how I perceived this situation in Venezuela.
44:52
Speaker 1: The Democrats, of course, in my opinion, are embarrassing themselves
44:56
Speaker 1: by knee jerk being against this, not even really being
45:02
Speaker 1: open minded to Okay, what's the strategy, what's the plan,
45:05
Speaker 1: what's in the best interest of the United States of America.
45:08
Speaker 1: The New York Times came out against it almost immediately,
45:12
Speaker 1: although weirdly the Washington Post kind of sort of supported
45:15
Speaker 1: it on that editorial page. On the MAGA side of things,
45:20
Speaker 1: the Alliance of Lunacy, as I referred to it, Tucker
45:24
Speaker 1: Carlson and Candice Owens and Meghan Kelly to various degrees,
45:28
Speaker 1: seemed to be against the operation of Venezuela. Marjorie Taylor Green,
45:34
Speaker 1: who still seems to be auditioning now that she's leaving
45:37
Speaker 1: Congress for a job at either CNN or MS NOW
45:42
Speaker 1: or maybe one of the major networks as a commentator,
45:45
Speaker 1: which is something I predicted several weeks ago. She came
45:49
Speaker 1: out against it on the America First Front, But I
45:53
Speaker 1: have to say, I know this sounds incredibly wimpy, but
45:59
Speaker 1: I'm in the middle this. I need more information. I
46:02
Speaker 1: need to see how this plays out. I am open
46:05
Speaker 1: to this new strategy of the world. Now, you know.
46:09
Speaker 1: I have always been somebody who is in favor of
46:13
Speaker 1: US military intervention under the right circumstances. I believe one
46:18
Speaker 1: in the idea that America, for lack of a better term,
46:23
Speaker 1: does need to be the world's policeman because no one
46:26
Speaker 1: else is willing or able to do that job. I
46:29
Speaker 1: also believe in the fuck around and find out theory,
46:32
Speaker 1: which Secretary of War Pete Hegstadt literally articulated, which I'm
46:36
Speaker 1: not sure was a great idea for the Secretary of
46:38
Speaker 1: War to use that kind of language, but he literally
46:42
Speaker 1: used the fuck around and find out philosophy. I do
46:46
Speaker 1: think there's value to that. I mean, think about if
46:48
Speaker 1: this was just an isolated situation, and this is a
46:51
Speaker 1: scenario that makes sense to me too. Let's pretend this
46:53
Speaker 1: is purely isolated. They decided, you know what, we have
46:57
Speaker 1: the legal justification, we have the moral justification of him
47:00
Speaker 1: being a illegitimate dictator. We have the self interest of
47:04
Speaker 1: oil and minerals and We're gonna take this guy out,
47:07
Speaker 1: and part of the residual benefit of taking out Maduo
47:11
Speaker 1: is that a whole bunch of other bad actors are
47:13
Speaker 1: gonna be shitting their pants and they're gonna be much
47:16
Speaker 1: more malleable that you know, maybe that's the third scenario.
47:19
Speaker 1: If I had to come up with one, that that's
47:21
Speaker 1: the much more isolated scenario. And then all this other
47:25
Speaker 1: talk Cuba, Columbia, Mexico, Ron Greenland, maybe that's all just
47:29
Speaker 1: bullshit to make everybody quake in their boots. That's you know,
47:35
Speaker 1: that third scenario also makes some sense to me, and
47:39
Speaker 1: you know, maybe that's even the most likely scenario. But
47:42
Speaker 1: I am not against that, and I do believe in
47:46
Speaker 1: the theory of use it or Lose it. We could be
47:48
Speaker 1: living in a completely different world five or ten years
47:51
Speaker 1: from now, and what we think are massive advantages today
47:56
Speaker 1: may no longer be massive advantages, and we may be
47:59
Speaker 1: ruing the day that Oh my gosh, think about the
48:03
Speaker 1: position we were in in twenty twenty six, and we
48:06
Speaker 1: didn't use our power to protect ourselves from what this
48:11
Speaker 1: new world order was going to bring. So again, I
48:16
Speaker 1: need more information of those three scenarios. I outlined I'm
48:21
Speaker 1: basically thirty three percent on all of them, maybe slightly
48:25
Speaker 1: towards the one about World war or some iteration of that,
48:31
Speaker 1: maybe related to artificial intelligence. Has this administration freaked out
48:36
Speaker 1: and with far greater urgency than it previously had, especially
48:40
Speaker 1: on the issue of foreign intervention. Now I mentioned that
48:43
Speaker 1: Venezuela is basically the poster child for how socialism always fails,
48:50
Speaker 1: and it's kind of ironic, maybe a bit telling, who knows,
48:54
Speaker 1: maybe even somewhat subconsciously connected that New York City is
48:59
Speaker 1: now officially run by unabashful or unabashed socialist zor On Mandani.
49:07
Speaker 1: I mean, he is proud to be a socialist, and
49:10
Speaker 1: he is the real deal. He's not a fake socialist.
49:13
Speaker 1: He's the real deal. And his inauguration was basically essentially
49:17
Speaker 1: a wet dream for socialists. Bernie Sanders played a major role.
49:23
Speaker 1: AOC was there. He was inaugurated on the Qur'an. I mean,
49:30
Speaker 1: the rhetoric that was used was extremely socialistic Marxist. By
49:37
Speaker 1: the way, I should at least point out because right
49:39
Speaker 1: wingers are always overplaying their hand a lot like liberals
49:44
Speaker 1: do when it comes to the issue of hypocrisy in
49:47
Speaker 1: the media, but they tried to claim that Mandani gave
49:51
Speaker 1: a Nazi salute and that it got no mainstream or
49:55
Speaker 1: legacy media coverage, unlike what happened during the trumpetont inauguration,
49:59
Speaker 1: when Elon Musk got criticized for giving what appeared to
50:03
Speaker 1: be a Nazi salute. I did not believe that Elon
50:06
Speaker 1: Musk gave the Nazi salute, but I could at least
50:08
Speaker 1: understand given the nature of the subject matter he was
50:12
Speaker 1: talking about, and given the violent nature of the gesture itself,
50:18
Speaker 1: not to mention, given his own beliefs and being from
50:21
Speaker 1: South Africa and all that, I could at least understand
50:24
Speaker 1: why someone might question it. It I didn't think it was,
50:27
Speaker 1: but I could at least understand it. What Mondani did
50:30
Speaker 1: was not a Nazi salute. He was literally waving with
50:33
Speaker 1: his fingers. You couldn't quite make that out from the
50:36
Speaker 1: clip that was most popularly used by right wing influencers.
50:41
Speaker 1: But that was just a complete bogus controversy. But more importantly,
50:46
Speaker 1: what Mandani said and the entire imagery of the event
50:51
Speaker 1: was incredibly disturbing, And I really think that conservatives are
50:56
Speaker 1: a bit overconfident, a bit glib about the Mandani situation
51:03
Speaker 1: in New York City. One because they don't live in
51:05
Speaker 1: New York City, and so they think, wow, you know what,
51:08
Speaker 1: fuck those liberals, They're about to get what they deserve.
51:11
Speaker 1: And they also think that this is going to fail spectacularly.
51:14
Speaker 1: So the rest of the country is going to see
51:17
Speaker 1: this and it's actually going to be good for us.
51:20
Speaker 1: That's possible, but that's playing with fire in my opinion,
51:25
Speaker 1: especially given what we have seen in parts of Europe
51:29
Speaker 1: that have effectively been taken over by a lot of
51:34
Speaker 1: what Mandani represents, both the issue of socialism and the
51:40
Speaker 1: issue of being very pro Muslim, pro Islam, seemingly being
51:45
Speaker 1: anti Semitic, maybe even being anti white. And so I
51:51
Speaker 1: get very very nervous because, yes, this could end up
51:55
Speaker 1: being terrible for socialism, but this also could provide a foothold.
52:00
Speaker 1: And it's important that people understand just how serious Mondani
52:05
Speaker 1: is about this. He's not fucking around now. Whether or
52:09
Speaker 1: not he's gonna be able to do anything close to
52:11
Speaker 1: what he claims is a totally different question. I mean,
52:13
Speaker 1: he's already seemingly starting to give up on the idea
52:16
Speaker 1: of making buses free. Instead, he's now focusing on lowering
52:20
Speaker 1: the price of World Cup soccer tickets, which is hilarious
52:24
Speaker 1: since there's not even a World Cup Soccer event in
52:28
Speaker 1: New York City. So you know, maybe a lot of
52:32
Speaker 1: this is going to be bluster and he's just not
52:34
Speaker 1: gonna be able to get done what he wants. But
52:37
Speaker 1: his rhetoric is incredibly scary, and this got a lot
52:41
Speaker 1: of attention, but it deserves to be played. This was
52:46
Speaker 1: the key line from his inaugural speech where he said
52:52
Speaker 1: that we're going to replace the frigidity of rugged individualism
52:58
Speaker 1: with the warmth of collectivism. We will replace the frigidity
53:03
Speaker 1: of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism. That line,
53:11
Speaker 1: talk about frigidity, I mean that should really send cold
53:16
Speaker 1: shivers up your spine, because that is going right at
53:20
Speaker 1: the heart, right at the heart of Americanism. I mean,
53:25
Speaker 1: it really is. And I found it interesting, And I
53:27
Speaker 1: know this is the way that it's usually phrased in
53:30
Speaker 1: socialist circles, but it's interesting that they use the word
53:33
Speaker 1: rugged individualism because rugged individualism, at least in my mind,
53:39
Speaker 1: and I think in the minds of most Americans, is
53:42
Speaker 1: a positive way of phrasing this, and so in a
53:47
Speaker 1: way that's actually almost scarier that they're willing to put
53:53
Speaker 1: it out there that no, no, no, no, no, we
53:54
Speaker 1: don't want rugged individualism. We want the warmth of collectives.
54:01
Speaker 1: And what that means to anybody with half a brain
54:04
Speaker 1: and an understanding of history is no, no, no, We're
54:07
Speaker 1: gonna cut the balls off of what made America great
54:11
Speaker 1: and we're just all gonna cuddle together in the warmth
54:14
Speaker 1: of collectivism and hope it all turns out, because we're
54:17
Speaker 1: just gonna pretend that people are gonna still produce at
54:20
Speaker 1: the same levels even though there's no incentive to do so.
54:24
Speaker 1: Rugged individualism is based upon the idea that there's an
54:28
Speaker 1: incentive structure in place for you to take chances, to
54:31
Speaker 1: take risk, to do hard work, and to be able
54:37
Speaker 1: to get ahead. But if there's no incentive to do
54:41
Speaker 1: that and everybody just cuddles in the warmth of collectivism,
54:46
Speaker 1: guess what happens. You turn into Venezuela and it's a
54:51
Speaker 1: total disaster. But to a stupid person and to a
54:55
Speaker 1: person that is angry at society because they haven't been
54:59
Speaker 1: given what they think they deserved, that sounds appealing It
55:03
Speaker 1: also sounds an awful lot like Kamala Harris's favorite phrase,
55:09
Speaker 1: which she suddenly stopped using once she became all of
55:12
Speaker 1: a sudden the Democratic presidential nominee when Joe Biden dropped
55:15
Speaker 1: out in twenty twenty four, which was, of course, what
55:20
Speaker 1: can be unburdened by what has been? That's actually very
55:25
Speaker 1: similar in a lot of ways to replacing the rigidity,
55:28
Speaker 1: the frigidity, the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth
55:33
Speaker 1: of collectivism. To me, is very similar to what can
55:37
Speaker 1: be unburdened by what has been. What can be unburdened
55:43
Speaker 1: by what has been was always Hey, forget about all
55:46
Speaker 1: those principles and traditions and our history and what made
55:51
Speaker 1: America great. No, no, we had to think about how
55:54
Speaker 1: awesome we could make it for everybody if we just
55:56
Speaker 1: adopted socialism or Marxism. That's essentially what that meant. It
56:02
Speaker 1: was coded language. And if you don't believe that this
56:07
Speaker 1: is more than just theory or them just using language
56:12
Speaker 1: that they don't really means. There was a clip that
56:16
Speaker 1: went viral from twenty twenty two by a woman by
56:20
Speaker 1: the name of se A Weaver. I think it's how
56:22
Speaker 1: you say. Her name se A Weaver, who has been
56:25
Speaker 1: named Mandanie's tenant Director or tenant Czar. I've seen different
56:30
Speaker 1: descriptions of what her job is, but she's basically in
56:34
Speaker 1: the portion of the administration dealing with housing and rental
56:39
Speaker 1: properties and tenants' rights right now. She's extremely liberal. But
56:45
Speaker 1: what she says here is among the most frightening statements
56:49
Speaker 1: I've ever heard from someone who now holds a position
56:53
Speaker 1: of real authority in now the you know, obviously New
56:57
Speaker 1: York City, the biggest and most influential city, not just
57:02
Speaker 1: in America, but maybe in the world. And I have
57:06
Speaker 1: said for a long time, and I'm sure people thought
57:08
Speaker 1: I was crazy when I did it. I've said for
57:10
Speaker 1: a long time that I believe that eventually, especially in
57:14
Speaker 1: places like here in California and other liberal bastions like
57:19
Speaker 1: New York City, that they are going to take away
57:24
Speaker 1: personal property, and that they're going to do it because
57:28
Speaker 1: they don't believe in the concept of personal property, and
57:33
Speaker 1: that this is just the natural evolution of the way
57:38
Speaker 1: government is working. We're working towards this. We just basically
57:42
Speaker 1: have to these are my words. We basically just have to,
57:45
Speaker 1: you know, erode the resistance to what we want to do,
57:51
Speaker 1: which is the land belongs to all of us. It
57:54
Speaker 1: doesn't belong to individuals. In other words, not rugged individualism,
57:58
Speaker 1: but the warmth of collects that we collectively all own
58:02
Speaker 1: this land, even the land that you've paid a lot
58:04
Speaker 1: of fucking money for and paid a lot of taxes on. No, no, no,
58:08
Speaker 1: here is what this woman really believes. Again, this is
58:11
Speaker 1: from a couple of years ago, but I'm sure she
58:13
Speaker 1: hasn't changed her opinions now she's in a position of power.
58:16
Speaker 1: What she said about her belief system regarding who actually
58:21
Speaker 1: owns property in America.
58:24
Speaker 5: I think the reality is is that for centuries we've
58:28
Speaker 5: really treated property as an individualized good and not a
58:33
Speaker 5: collective good. And we are going to and transitioning to
58:37
Speaker 5: treating it as a collective good and towards a model
58:41
Speaker 5: of shared equity will require that we think about it differently,
58:45
Speaker 5: and it will mean that families, especially white families, but
58:50
Speaker 5: some POC families who her homeowners as well, are going
58:54
Speaker 5: to have a different relationship to property than the one
58:58
Speaker 5: that we currently have.
59:00
Speaker 1: Now it's not just that clip that's been going viral.
59:03
Speaker 1: This woman, not surprisingly at all, has also put out
59:07
Speaker 1: a lot of very crazy tweets, some of them are
59:10
Speaker 1: clearly racist against white people. My guess is Mondani is
59:14
Speaker 1: not going to back down, and as of this taping,
59:17
Speaker 1: she is still going to be holding this position. I
59:20
Speaker 1: think he would be probably crazy, given his basis support,
59:24
Speaker 1: to give up on this woman. You know, whether or
59:27
Speaker 1: not there's some way to isolate her, I don't know,
59:29
Speaker 1: but and I also don't know how much powers is
59:31
Speaker 1: you gonna have. But it's representative of what these people
59:35
Speaker 1: really believe and how dangerous this movement is. This cannot
59:41
Speaker 1: be looked at as humorous or you know, this is
59:46
Speaker 1: going to be great when they fail. If this gets traction,
59:50
Speaker 1: and it already has enough traction where these people are
59:53
Speaker 1: running New York City and they are a running the
59:56
Speaker 1: state of California, look out. We are in a very
1:00:01
Speaker 1: very dangerous territory. Thanks for listening to today's free drop
1:00:06
Speaker 1: of the abbreviated show. If you're interested in listening to
1:00:09
Speaker 1: the entire show, you must become a patron. Please go
1:00:13
Speaker 1: to Patreon that's p A t R e O N
1:00:17
Speaker 1: dot com Patreon dot com. Slash the Death of Journalism
1:00:24
Speaker 1: with John Ziggler. My name is j h n z
1:00:27
Speaker 1: I E g l e R. That's Patreon dot com
1:00:32
Speaker 1: slash The Death of Journalism with John Ziggler. Good luck
1:00:38
Speaker 1: to you on that, But that's how you can subscribe.