Latest / INSPIRE STORY / #0146 _STORY INSPIRE: Decisions that transforman, with Michael Shellenberger

Transcript

#0146 _STORY INSPIRE: Decisions that transforman, with Michael Shellenberger · INSPIRE STORY

• 0:04
  Speaker 1: The joe rogan experience train by day joe rogan podcast
• 0:08
  by night all day good to see.
• 0:12
  Speaker 2: You sir thanks for having me back.
• 0:14
  Speaker 3: My pleasure always yeah so much crazy shit going on
• 0:18
  in the world in and even before we scheduled this
• 0:21
  like uh more crazy stuff has happened the war broke
• 0:24
  out all kinds of.
• 0:25
  Speaker 2: Things yeah how are you uh how are you feeling
• 0:28
  about the president trump that's.
• 0:31
  Speaker 3: A Open-ended question.
• 0:33
  Speaker 2: Do you text with him and talk to him?
• 0:35
  Speaker 3: Occasionally. Yeah, occasionally he'll send me a text. I get
• 0:38
  these like true social posts of things that he's saying.
• 0:43
  But this whole fucking Iran thing, man, like did you
• 0:49
  see this coming?
• 0:50
  Speaker 2: No, definitely. I don't know. I mean who did? I
• 0:54
  mean when did he even decide? Their national security strategy
• 0:57
  they put out in November– basically just said we've degraded
• 1:00
  their capacity. It's a win. There was no sense in
• 1:02
  which there would be additional action. I think it ushers
• 1:06
  in a new paradigm, completely the older post-war era.
• 1:10
  Speaker 3: Is just over.
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada, articulated that at
• 1:14
  the World Economic Forum, probably better than the Trump administration did,
• 1:18
  saying very clearly that older rules-based order is gone. You
• 1:22
  saw AOC try to sort of articulate it, but she
• 1:24
  sort of fell apart at the So this is an
• 1:29
  administration that is, I mean, and I don't even think
• 1:31
  they're thinking, I wrote a piece and I decided not
• 1:33
  to publish it because I was sort of like decapitation
• 1:36
  doesn't really work for regime change, but it's not clear
• 1:39
  that they're really out for regime change or they're just
• 1:42
  asserting power, shaking up things. I mean, some of it's
• 1:46
  art of the deal, changing the person that we're negotiating with.
• 1:48
  That's Venezuela and Iran. Is it really going to change
• 1:52
  those regimes? I don't think most people don't think so,
• 1:54
  but I'm not sure that that's what they're going for.
• 1:56
  They're just going for An assertion of American power in
• 2:00
  service of American interests and then what happens in Iran,
• 2:04
  what happens in Venezuela, I don't think they care that
• 2:05
  much about. At least they're not behaving as though they do.
• 2:08
  Speaker 3: Well, neither thing made any sense to me, the Venezuela thing.
• 2:13
  I mean look, they wanted him out forever and he
• 2:18
  definitely stole the election to get in there in the
• 2:20
  first place and he was a dictator. But at least
• 2:23
  that one was at least clean. They go in, kidnap him,
• 2:27
  get him out. This one's nuts. Like in what's happening
• 2:30
  in Tel Aviv, it's hard to know what's real and
• 2:33
  what's not because there's a lot of fake video going
• 2:36
  around and a lot of weird posts on X. So
• 2:39
  it's– when I do peek in, it's hard to know
• 2:42
  and you have to listen to Grok and then Grok's
• 2:46
  dismantling a lot of the fake videos.
• 2:51
  Speaker 2: What are the fake videos that you're– This.
• 2:52
  Speaker 3: Is like fake videos of– You know, like an insane
• 2:57
  amount of bombs dropping down on the city. But it
• 2:59
  seems like there's a massive amount of destruction in Tel Aviv.
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I haven't checked in lately, but I'm assuming. Was
• 3:05
  that just today or?
• 3:06
  Speaker 3: Yesterday. Yeah. Yeah.
• 3:10
  Speaker 2: I mean, I think the president is, there's been some,
• 3:12
  you know, Rubio said something about how, oh, we had
• 3:14
  to act because we knew that Israel was going to
• 3:16
  act anyway. And I think people interpreted it. And Netanyahu
• 3:19
  was in the White House a lot. I think this
• 3:21
  president has shown whether you like him or not, you know,
• 3:24
  and there's certainly things that I'm unhappy about and have criticized.
• 3:28
  But I think Trump is in charge. Like he's making
• 3:30
  these decisions. There's nobody behind him. There's nobody pulling for
• 3:33
  all of that. You know, the Russians or whoever, you know,
• 3:36
  are these now the Israelis? You know, it's just he's
• 3:39
  clearly I mean, Elon gave him, you know, two hundred
• 3:42
  fifty million dollars and he still didn't give him even
• 3:44
  the electric car credit, you.
• 3:46
  Speaker 3: Know, like.
• 3:47
  Speaker 2: Like Trump is in charge. You know, like I think
• 3:49
  that's one of the big lessons from this. And I
• 3:51
  don't think that I think that means that there's not
• 3:53
  a lot of like second order thinking here. Like, oh,
• 3:56
  what's the move after that? He doesn't know. He's just acting.
• 3:59
  That's what's so wild about it is that this older
• 4:02
  foreign policy establishment, which, you know, was like, let the
• 4:05
  experts decide what the right foreign policy is.
• 4:15
  Speaker 4: What?
• 4:16
  Speaker 3: President who?
• 4:17
  Speaker 2: I don't think– For real? For a minute before Munich.
• 4:21
  But I don't think it's going to come back and
• 4:22
  I think that that's what the prime minister of Canada realized.
• 4:25
  I think that's what the Europeans are starting to realize
• 4:27
  is that this is a completely different world that we
• 4:29
  live in than the one we lived in just a
• 4:31
  couple of years ago.
• 4:32
  Speaker 3: Which just doesn't make any sense to me unless we're
• 4:34
  acting on someone else's interests, like particularly Israel's interests. It
• 4:37
  just didn't make any sense to me. Like if they
• 4:40
  had supposedly dismantled their chances of making a nuclear bomb,
• 4:45
  Whether or not that's true, I mean it's so hard
• 4:48
  to know.
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: He was unsatisfied and just like he was like, I'm
• 4:52
  not getting anywhere in these negotiations and I'm going to
• 4:55
  replace the person I'm negotiating with. It's just– turn over
• 4:59
  the table. Like change things up. You're not getting anywhere.
• 5:02
  And you could say he was too impatient. Their view
• 5:05
  was the democrats were too patient with Iran. They kept
• 5:08
  trying with Iran. Iran– they weren't giving them what they wanted.
• 5:11
  I'm not defending it. I'm just saying– I think that's
• 5:14
  what explains it. They haven't done a very good job
• 5:17
  explaining it because I think that it just sounds to
• 5:20
  some extent like what it is, which is that it's–
• 5:23
  they're acting without– they're sort of like, well, does it
• 5:26
  result in regime change in Iran? We don't know. They
• 5:27
  might say that we want that or whatever. But that's
• 5:29
  not ultimately– they're not acting on the basis of achieving
• 5:32
  regime change.
• 5:33
  Speaker 3: But it just seems so insane based on what he
• 5:36
  ran on. I mean this is why a lot of
• 5:37
  people feel betrayed, right? He ran on no more wars
• 5:41
  and these stupid senseless wars and then We have one
• 5:45
  that we can't even really clearly define why we did it.
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: Well, but he said he's against endless wars. Well, they're
• 5:53
  all endless. Do you ever.
• 5:55
  Speaker 3: Hear Rumsfeld talk about Iraq when it first happened?
• 5:58
  Speaker 2: Tell me.
• 5:59
  Speaker 3: They were talking about like six weeks. Six weeks.
• 6:01
  Speaker 4: Oh, yeah.
• 6:02
  Speaker 3: Six weeks. Yeah.
• 6:05
  Speaker 2: But they put– that was ground force and I know
• 6:07
  that they've not ruled that out. For me, that would
• 6:09
  be– They have?
• 6:10
  Speaker 3: They have.
• 6:10
  Speaker 2: They have not. My understanding is that they have not.
• 6:12
  Speaker 3: I thought you said in now.
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: I have now. But they don't seem eager to go
• 6:16
  into– I mean my– I criticize the Venezuela action because
• 6:21
  I sort of was like how are you possibly going
• 6:22
  to run Venezuela? And then I think a little bit
• 6:24
  more time passed. I was like, oh, they're not. They're
• 6:26
  not going to try to run Venezuela. Like that's not
• 6:28
  what this is.
• 6:30
  Speaker 3: They just wanted to take over the oil.
• 6:32
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and even there, I mean the oil, it's not
• 6:36
  significant at any global level. I don't– it's hard– I
• 6:38
  don't even think it's really about the oil. I don't
• 6:40
  think it's about the oil. I don't think it's about
• 6:41
  the oil in Iran either.
• 6:42
  Speaker 3: Well, the oil reserves are significant. It's just the type
• 6:46
  of oil and how to extract it is extremely difficult.
• 6:49
  Speaker 2: It's the worst, Joe. It's in the– like the big
• 6:52
  abundant reserves are in the Amazon. So you're talking about–
• 6:55
  what a nightmare. It's super far away. It's terrible. You
• 6:58
  had a guerrilla conflict. If you had a guerrilla conflict
• 7:00
  breakout around those oil facilities, I mean it's already more
• 7:02
  expensive because you have to heat up that particular type
• 7:05
  of– it's really heavy oils. to heat it up to
• 7:09
  get it out of the ground. Then you have to
• 7:10
  heat it to transport. It's a total nightmare. I just,
• 7:12
  I mean, and as a conservationist, I would say that
• 7:14
  would be the last place I'd want to see us
• 7:17
  getting oil from. There's a lot of other places that have,
• 7:19
  have oil. We shouldn't be going into the Amazon.
• 7:22
  Speaker 3: So what, if anything makes sense to you about this
• 7:27
  attack in Iran?
• 7:29
  Speaker 2: I don't know that I'm, I'm not, I'm not sure
• 7:31
  what I think of it. I mean, I don't, I
• 7:32
  don't like it. I don't like, I mean, the whole
• 7:35
  older system was that you had this international system The U.S.
• 7:39
  Security Council would have to agree. The Congress would have
• 7:41
  to agree. That's all gone now. I mean it's just
• 7:43
  a totally different– this guy is just acting. He says
• 7:48
  he's not getting where they want to get in the
• 7:49
  negotiations with the Iranians. So he says we have some
• 7:51
  leverage over you and we're going to use it.
• 7:54
  Speaker 3: But clearly Israel wanted this.
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: Israel has its own motivations I think.
• 7:58
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: But I don't think– I think it's not quite accurate
• 8:00
  to say that– I just don't think– I think all
• 8:04
  the evidence shows that Trump is his own man and
• 8:06
  he is the president and Like literally he couldn't even
• 8:09
  give– he couldn't even give Elon the battery subsidy that
• 8:11
  he wanted.
• 8:11
  Speaker 3: You know what I mean? It's like … I get that.
• 8:13
  Speaker 2: I've never seen a– I mean I've never seen a
• 8:15
  politician act that independently. I mean a president act that independently.
• 8:19
  So I'm skeptical of– I mean I think that Rubio
• 8:24
  was sort of like, well, they were going to attack
• 8:26
  and so we had to– there's some of that. But
• 8:28
  I just think Trump is doing what he wants to
• 8:31
  do and we should … You.
• 8:32
  Speaker 3: Really think it's that simple? Trump is doing what he
• 8:34
  wants to do. That's it?
• 8:35
  Speaker 2: Yes.
• 8:35
  Speaker 3: You don't think people are influencing him? Because there's a
• 8:37
  lot of war hawks around him, right? There's a lot
• 8:39
  of people that want this and have for a long time.
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: I mean, Netanyahu's in there, but then Tucker was in
• 8:44
  there a bunch. But do you think.
• 8:46
  Speaker 3: Tucker has the kind of influence that Netanyahu has?
• 8:49
  Speaker 2: Well, I mean, I guess if you just base it
• 8:51
  on the outcome, then the answer is no.
• 8:52
  Speaker 3: No.
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: But that's what I'm saying. I just think he listens
• 8:57
  to everybody, but I just don't think it's Russians aren't
• 9:00
  behind him. I mean, Trump is, look what he's been through.
• 9:02
  I mean, he's, you know, he's got where he is.
• 9:04
  There's no way he's going to They don't have anything
• 9:06
  on him. That's why– How do you know that? I
• 9:08
  don't think they have anything on him.
• 9:09
  Speaker 3: But how do you know that? Because he doesn't behave
• 9:10
  that way.
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: Well, he could, but I'm not– we don't see any
• 9:12
  evidence for it.
• 9:13
  Speaker 3: Well, you wouldn't see any evidence until it broke out. Sure.
• 9:16
  Until they released it.
• 9:17
  Speaker 2: Yeah. And we'll get– I'm sure we'll get into Epstein.
• 9:20
  But I mean I just think when you don't have
• 9:22
  evidence of something, then you can't assume that it's happening.
• 9:26
  I haven't seen any– I've seen evidence that Trump is
• 9:29
  fully independent with– particularly this case of Elon surprised me.
• 9:33
  I would have thought at a minimum– you'd give your
• 9:35
  largest campaign contributor the one thing he wants. I mean
• 9:40
  Doge was something he wanted too. But– and then I
• 9:43
  look at Iran and I kind of go– Trump has
• 9:45
  always won. I mean Trump has been– he said he
• 9:47
  doesn't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon for a
• 9:49
  really long time. I don't know the exact date but
• 9:51
  certainly ….
• 9:51
  Speaker 3: Well, no one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon
• 9:54
  other than Iran, right? Yeah.
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: I think that the– Or their allies. He also put
• 9:58
  it this way. He was also critical of the democrat's
• 10:00
  approach which was the sort of the mainstream IAEA-approved approach
• 10:05
  because of course under international law, Iran has the right
• 10:07
  to a nuclear– to nuclear energy and to nuclear facilities
• 10:11
  including nuclear centrifuges and the enrichment. Iran has a right
• 10:16
  to all that under international law and so– and Trump
• 10:19
  doesn't agree with that and he's not going to let
• 10:20
  international law get in his way.
• 10:22
  Speaker 3: So when you say he has a right to it,
• 10:25
  you're talking just about nuclear power, right? Yeah, right.
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: But that includes enrichment. So– To a certain point.
• 10:31
  Speaker 3: Right. But they've already surpassed that point, right?
• 10:34
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and I believe– if I'm wrong, I'll correct it
• 10:37
  on X. But I don't think it specifies the level
• 10:40
  of enrichment– is part of the issue. And then you've
• 10:42
  got these centrifuges. And so it's all been a cat
• 10:44
  and mouse game. I personally do not doubt for a
• 10:46
  minute that Iran wants nuclear weapons. And that's what's been
• 10:48
  going on. I think most people think that, but the
• 10:51
  Obama administration was like, we can do, you know, we
• 10:53
  can lift sanctions in exchange for controlling their nuclear program.
• 10:56
  Trump has not for a very long time agreed with
• 10:58
  that approach. I think he was criticizing it for many
• 11:01
  years before 2016, before he decided to run, but, um,
• 11:05
  definitely for the last 10 years.
• 11:06
  Speaker 3: Did you, um, Read the thing today that came out
• 11:10
  that they're discussing some sort of a leak transmission that
• 11:14
  seems to be an activation of terror cells.
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: Iranians have?
• 11:19
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 11:20
  Speaker 2: No, but I'm not surprised.
• 11:21
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 11:21
  Speaker 2: Sounds bad.
• 11:23
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 11:23
  Speaker 2: That's one of the things that obviously– that was the
• 11:25
  first thing I thought of. I was like, oh, great.
• 11:27
  Are we going to get a bunch of Iranian suicide
• 11:30
  bombers in the United States now?
• 11:31
  Speaker 3: It's obviously– I don't know if it's going to be
• 11:33
  suicide bombers, but I would imagine it would be something
• 11:36
  a little bit more destructive than that. Could be.
• 11:40
  Speaker 2: I don't know what they can get in. I mean
• 11:41
  there's– Sean Ryan has been having folks on that say that.
• 11:44
  People are getting in with heavy artillery. I just don't
• 11:47
  know the status of it. Well, the real problem is–
• 11:50
  They can do a lot.
• 11:50
  Speaker 3: For four years, the border was wide open.
• 11:53
  Speaker 4: Oh, yeah.
• 11:53
  Speaker 3: And definitely some people from the Middle East got through.
• 11:58
  And we have no idea like what is– I mean
• 12:01
  I'm sure there are some intelligence agencies that have an
• 12:03
  understanding of what the threat is.
• 12:07
  Speaker 2: I hope so. I mean, I think we see that
• 12:08
  these terrorists are able to do an incredible amount of
• 12:10
  damage with pretty simple rifles, you know, and sometimes, uh,
• 12:14
  was it the French, uh, the, the club, the, um,
• 12:18
  that particular terrorist action, there were other people that were
• 12:21
  using bombs that like only killed one or two people,
• 12:23
  but the guys with the machine guns were able to
• 12:25
  gun down like dozens of people. So certainly it's terrible.
• 12:28
  That's scary. I think none of us want to, I
• 12:30
  think that's where a lot of Americans, when it happened,
• 12:32
  the reason so many people were against it, I believe
• 12:34
  a majority is against it is because you're like, great.
• 12:36
  What are we, you know, First of all, is it
• 12:38
  going to be another endless war? And second of all,
• 12:40
  are we going to get a bunch of terrorist actions here?
• 12:42
  I think if we did, I don't think support for
• 12:44
  the war goes up. I think it goes down.
• 12:46
  Speaker 3: Oh, for sure. Yeah. I mean it's just such a–
• 12:52
  I mean the whole situation internationally has been so tense
• 12:58
  already with what's going on in Gaza, with what's going
• 13:01
  on in Ukraine. It's like– and to add this to
• 13:04
  the pile, it's like– I mean– It genuinely feels like
• 13:09
  there's a real possibility that we might be entering World
• 13:12
  War III.
• 13:15
  Speaker 2: How would that– what would that look like?
• 13:18
  Speaker 3: I don't know. I never expected Iran to start attacking.
• 13:23
  They launched bombs into UAE, Dubai. I mean where else?
• 13:28
  Speaker 2: I think they expected that though, right? I mean it
• 13:30
  makes Iran look– Iran looks pretty isolated. I mean I
• 13:34
  will say I was totally– obviously– maybe not obviously but
• 13:37
  very much on the left and was opposed to all
• 13:38
  the stuff Reagan was doing. I remember even in the 80s.
• 13:42
  But it's like he really did– I'm not going to
• 13:45
  say he was the only reason. There was obviously a
• 13:47
  bunch of weakening within. But I mean he really did
• 13:50
  push back against communism. He challenged the entire foreign policy
• 13:53
  establishment on the basic view of just kind of keeping it.
• 14:00
  keeping the communists where they were. And instead, Reagan really
• 14:02
  pushed back against it and said, it's got to be
• 14:04
  regime change. It sort of almost had a moral, certainly
• 14:07
  there's a defense buildup, but a moral argument. And I
• 14:09
  think it had a big impact to bring down communism.
• 14:12
  So the Iranian, I obviously have very mixed feelings about it.
• 14:18
  The Iranian regime is just so evil and so awful
• 14:20
  that every time you see videos of people taking these
• 14:24
  courageous actions, you're like, somebody bring that regime down. On
• 14:27
  the other hand, That country is pretty– the people of
• 14:30
  that country are pretty radical and the Shah in 1979–
• 14:32
  I just spent last night watching all the old 60
• 14:35
  Minutes from the 70s. They're amazing. But the Shah was
• 14:38
  really modernizing the country. There was a lot of wealth
• 14:41
  coming in. There was a lot more inequality. There was
• 14:43
  also a lot more state repression from his intelligence services.
• 14:48
  But the country was full of radical Muslims who wanted–
• 14:52
  when all that instability, they wanted to revert back to
• 14:54
  a radical Islamist regime and that's still– Now, I've seen
• 14:58
  other estimates to say that the current regime is incredibly
• 15:01
  unpopular in Iran. But how that works out, it's really
• 15:05
  hard to say. But there is something– I caution my
• 15:07
  own– I talk back to my own anti-interventionist instincts when
• 15:10
  I think about Reagan just being like we're not going
• 15:13
  to do just containment strategy anymore. We're actually going to
• 15:16
  talk back to communism because people deserve to be free.
• 15:20
  And now, is everything better for– is everything fine in
• 15:23
  Russia now? maybe not, but I mean, communism was just awful,
• 15:26
  you know, just a totally soul killing, you know, crushing,
• 15:31
  you know, a giant lie. I mean, it's awful totalitarianism.
• 15:34
  So I think we have to kind of keep that
• 15:36
  in mind. And especially when you're in a moment of
• 15:38
  just such incredible chaos, like we're in now, I told
• 15:41
  my students, I'm like, you get to live through one
• 15:44
  of the most interesting moments in history, certainly in the
• 15:47
  last 80 years, because the entire paradigm of Where the
• 15:50
  United States had these allies and everything is going to
• 15:52
  go through the security council and we're going to try
• 15:53
  to make it to the UN and there's got to
• 15:55
  get agreements and all this stuff. That's just gone. I
• 15:58
  mean it's just– it's gone to the part where they
• 16:00
  don't even– where you're kind of like how are you–
• 16:01
  what's going to happen inside Iran? They're like that's not
• 16:03
  our concern. We hope that there's an overthrow of the
• 16:05
  government but they're not– we're not like going to necessarily
• 16:08
  commit to that.
• 16:09
  Speaker 3: Well, they're also calling on the people to rise up,
• 16:12
  which is– I mean look at what they did with
• 16:17
  the protesters. I mean they killed thousands of people.
• 16:21
  Speaker 2: And look at Iran and Venezuela. They don't have internal–
• 16:24
  the opposition is not united. There's not a united opposition
• 16:28
  with a united figure. I mean remember it was so
• 16:29
  interesting watching 79 with these protests against the Shah were
• 16:32
  going on. The left and the Islamists made an alliance
• 16:36
  in Iran, something really interesting topic I'm only starting to
• 16:40
  explore right now. But they made an alliance. So they'd
• 16:43
  be holding up the Ayatollah Khomeini pictures in the street.
• 16:45
  Like they had their guy. And the left was like, look,
• 16:48
  we're just going to go with this guy. I think
• 16:49
  he was making promises to the left around allowing more liberalism.
• 16:54
  And then they came in and just consolidated into this
• 16:56
  really hardline Islamist regime. But they had a guy. We
• 17:01
  don't have a guy in Venezuela. We don't have a
• 17:04
  guy in Iran. I don't know if there's anybody in
• 17:06
  Cuba really. In the older regime under like the Biden,
• 17:11
  the open society people, the open society establishment, they had
• 17:13
  somebody for Venezuela, this Machado woman. But Trump gets up
• 17:17
  there and he just goes, yeah, she doesn't have enough support.
• 17:19
  So she's not with us. Gone. Like they recognize that
• 17:22
  they don't have– there's nobody with an opposition street cred
• 17:26
  that can come into power. So I think– and they
• 17:28
  know that. They're not like unaware of that. So I
• 17:32
  think some of the like, oh, they should rise up
• 17:33
  and whatever. It's a little half-hearted. I don't know that
• 17:36
  they believe that that's going to happen. They're certainly not–
• 17:38
  they don't seem to be offering them material support.
• 17:42
  Speaker 3: So it's just a symbolic gesture to talk about it.
• 17:47
  Speaker 2: Sounds like it. And I mean in this kind of
• 17:49
  the– this beautiful collapse of communism, which occurred so peacefully
• 17:54
  with the Berlin Wall and the– eventually just sort of
• 17:56
  like it's just in the vibes. The guards are just like, yeah,
• 17:59
  we're not guarding this wall anymore and it's just over.
• 18:01
  And it was just over. It was kind of like
• 18:03
  a moral collapse. I'm not so sure that they're going
• 18:06
  to get that in Iran. It doesn't seem like it.
• 18:08
  Speaker 3: It seems like they've been preparing for this for a
• 18:10
  long time.
• 18:11
  Speaker 2: The Iranians?
• 18:12
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 18:13
  Speaker 2: They're dug in. Now it's the sun and he's just
• 18:15
  part of the– he represents the– The– I would say
• 18:18
  the IGRC, the security forces. I mean it's their guy.
• 18:22
  I mean it's what you would do. It's rally around
• 18:24
  the flag. It's classic what happens. And so– but you
• 18:28
  never know. I mean these guys then might just negotiate
• 18:32
  more what the Trump administration wants. I think the Trump
• 18:34
  administration is like, we'll just keep killing your leaders until
• 18:37
  we get somebody in there that will make a deal
• 18:38
  with us. I think that's how Trump thinks about it.
• 18:42
  That's my best guess.
• 18:45
  Speaker 3: You're smiling. Do you think this is funny?
• 18:47
  Speaker 2: Because it's funny because it's it's so Joe, it's just
• 18:51
  like you just look at all the think tanks and
• 18:54
  all the white papers and the State Department and the
• 18:56
  planning and whatever. And it's just like Trump's just he's
• 18:59
  going to listen to Tucker. He's going to listen and
• 19:02
  he's going to decide what to do.
• 19:04
  Speaker 3: This episode is brought to you by Visible. Folks, there's
• 19:07
  one thing nobody wants this season, and that's getting catfished.
• 19:12
  And it's not just dating profiles that are putting you
• 19:14
  at risk. It's also big wireless carriers. You know the type.
• 19:18
  Looks great at first. Promises a low price. But once
• 19:21
  you're locked in, surprise fees and an expensive bill that
• 19:25
  isn't what you were expecting. Your knight in shining armor?
• 19:29
  Visible Wireless. It's one-line wireless with unlimited data and hotspot
• 19:35
  for just $ 25 a month, taxes and fees included. Now
• 19:40
  that's a green flag. The best part, Visible is all digital,
• 19:44
  so you can switch as fast as you can swipe.
• 19:47
  Don't fall for the trap of getting catfished by wireless.
• 19:50
  Visit visible.com to learn more and start loving your wireless carrier.
• 19:55
  Terms apply. See visible.com for plan features and network management details.
• 20:02
  Is that good?
• 20:04
  Speaker 2: I don't know if it's good. I mean, we don't
• 20:07
  know yet. I mean, I think part of it is,
• 20:08
  is it going to work? Part of you goes, is
• 20:10
  it moral? And you're like, well, but does it work
• 20:12
  to have better outcomes? I don't know. We're in a
• 20:15
  realm of absolute chaos.
• 20:17
  Speaker 3: We're also in a realm where AI is going to
• 20:20
  be powering autonomous weapons if not already.
• 20:23
  Speaker 2: I mean that is going on. That is so interesting,
• 20:26
  this thing with Anthropic and the DoD and what's happening there.
• 20:29
  That is really interesting.
• 20:31
  Speaker 3: So initially Anthropic was hesitant to allow them to use
• 20:34
  autonomous weapons, right?
• 20:36
  Speaker 2: I don't know the status of it, but you saw
• 20:37
  the open AI, the head of open AI autonomous, uh,
• 20:41
  it was, she was the head of autonomous weapons. I
• 20:43
  think I'm not, don't, don't get me exactly right, but
• 20:45
  she just quit like a couple of days ago. It
• 20:47
  was on X and it was just like a huge story.
• 20:50
  So you have a bunch of, you have, you have,
• 20:52
  you have a rift in between now. Now I think, um,
• 20:57
  you know, Sam and Elon are both on board and
• 21:01
  want to keep working with the DOD, but it looks
• 21:02
  like anthropic broke and, And then Hegseth was like, well,
• 21:07
  but then we're going to punish you for this. That's
• 21:10
  very consistent with a kind of nationalist vision, which is
• 21:14
  that– which the Trump administration has, which is that your
• 21:17
  security strategy, your economic strategy, your border strategy, it's all
• 21:21
  a– your industrial strategy, it's all a single thing. Your
• 21:24
  trade strategy, it's all a single thing. And I think
• 21:27
  for Trump, it's just– you're either asserting power and using
• 21:31
  your leverage and demanding more or you're engaged in managed decline.
• 21:35
  You're just giving up. Part of me, I have mixed
• 21:38
  minds on it because on the one hand, I'm with
• 21:40
  the kind of– I kind of go let's invest at home.
• 21:42
  We have Skid Row to clean up. We should be
• 21:46
  focused on that, not on trying to do regime change
• 21:49
  or bombing other countries or creating other problems. On the
• 21:51
  other hand, I think there's something right about defending the West.
• 21:56
  I mean defending Western civilization, defending our institutions, our norms,
• 22:02
  our liberal values, and nobody has done that. And we
• 22:05
  just had a guy in power that opened our borders,
• 22:09
  that kind of gave a blank check to Ukraine. It
• 22:12
  seems like at a minimum with Trump, you have somebody
• 22:14
  that is taking responsibility in ways where Biden would be like, well,
• 22:19
  we're going to do what, you know, we're going to
• 22:20
  work with our allies. And it was just all kind
• 22:22
  of like, it was like, it was all kind of
• 22:24
  going to be decided in this, you know, what Curtis
• 22:28
  Yarvin famously calls the cathedral, you know, just the single
• 22:31
  thing of the media and the think tanks and the
• 22:34
  academics and And Trump was like, it's not working. And
• 22:37
  the working class of this country elected me to show
• 22:41
  strength and to demand a better return on our investment
• 22:44
  in terms of protecting our allies for our people. So
• 22:47
  that part of it I think is really overdue and
• 22:50
  really necessary, an assertion of why the West is special,
• 22:53
  why we need to defend the West. Is bombing Iran
• 22:58
  and replacing the commanding with his son, is what's happening
• 23:02
  in Venezuela, is that the right approach to that? I
• 23:04
  don't know. But I think we were– the system was failing.
• 23:07
  I mean the open society system, which was supposed to
• 23:09
  be this liberal system of tolerance, it became intolerant. It
• 23:14
  became totalitarian. It created a censorship industrial complex. They weaponized
• 23:18
  the intelligence communities. We started getting ourselves into conflicts that
• 23:23
  we– that was not clear why we were in them,
• 23:25
  including Venezuela– I mean sorry, including Ukraine. I mean with Ukraine,
• 23:28
  it's like that war only continues because we continue to–
• 23:33
  arm it. Like if we stopped, if we just were like,
• 23:36
  let's just have the, you know, just cut a deal
• 23:39
  wherever the border is right now. And you're just like,
• 23:41
  that's where it's going to stop. Then you can, I mean,
• 23:44
  I don't know, I'm not sure what's preventing that from Trump.
• 23:46
  I think he's annoyed with Putin, but yeah, I mean,
• 23:49
  my view is like, I don't see an interest in
• 23:51
  that war continuing. I don't know how it's in the
• 23:54
  interest of the working, of working class Americans or Americans.
• 23:57
  And I have the same questions about Iran and Venezuela
• 24:00
  and But I think that is a totally different paradigm
• 24:03
  than the one that we had from 1945 to 2024.
• 24:06
  Speaker 3: Well, the idea of tolerance for– with the last administration,
• 24:11
  that seems just to be a narrative. It seemed to
• 24:14
  be a political strategy of keeping the borders open to
• 24:17
  increase populations in blue states, raise the census, get more
• 24:21
  congressional seats and then a path to citizenship where you'd
• 24:24
  have permanent voters. That's what it seems like. And then
• 24:27
  there's also a ton of Medicaid fraud that's wrapped up
• 24:31
  in that that we're now seeing.
• 24:34
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's part of it. I mean the
• 24:35
  Times did a piece on why Biden left the borders
• 24:38
  open and it.
• 24:39
  Speaker 3: Was– What was there?
• 24:40
  Speaker 2: It was a funny piece. Like there was this– it
• 24:43
  was– part of it, he's so out of it, right?
• 24:46
  Like there were just– it was not clear. Like there
• 24:48
  wasn't clear. There was like a meeting where he was like, yeah,
• 24:50
  we're going to just do this thing. They kind of
• 24:52
  concluded that– I think Cecilia Munoz, who's one of the
• 24:56
  more moderate advocates and was in the Obama administration, I
• 24:58
  think she said something like Biden just wanted to give
• 25:01
  the left– just felt like he wanted to give the
• 25:03
  left what they wanted. And that's what the Soros think
• 25:06
  tanks and the very progressive immigration groups have been advocating.
• 25:12
  He did the same thing on climate. So it makes sense.
• 25:14
  I know Elon talks a lot about how, oh, it's
• 25:16
  about importing voters and whatnot.
• 25:18
  Speaker 3: Maybe.
• 25:20
  Speaker 2: But it's not even clear that that's a good strategy
• 25:21
  that's going to work.
• 25:23
  Speaker 3: Why not?
• 25:23
  Speaker 2: Well, because first of all, we don't know the Latinos.
• 25:26
  Like why are like why do we assume Latinos are
• 25:28
  all going to vote for Democrats?
• 25:31
  Speaker 3: Well, if you've got them all on Medicaid and Social Security.
• 25:36
  Speaker 2: The numbers there are– it's actually more– Europe is definitely
• 25:40
  the case that you have higher rates of crime and
• 25:43
  higher rates of social services among migrants. Here are– Latino
• 25:47
  migrants traditionally really thrive. They do much better than the
• 25:53
  mostly Muslim immigrants in Europe. So I mean, I'm skeptical.
• 25:58
  I mean, the other thing, the other statistic that I
• 26:00
  learned from David Shore, who's like the one of the
• 26:03
  top Democrat pollsters when he was talking to Ezra Klein
• 26:05
  after the 2024 elections, he was like, if all eligible
• 26:09
  voters had voted, Trump would have won by three percentage
• 26:12
  points rather than one point five. So it's also so
• 26:15
  I always think it's kind of funny because the Republicans
• 26:16
  are always like trying to make it harder for people
• 26:18
  to vote. But under that calculation anyway– and maybe it's
• 26:21
  just Trump. Maybe other republicans won't.
• 26:23
  Speaker 3: Be able to do it. When you say harder for
• 26:24
  people to vote, what do you mean? You mean mail-in voting? Yeah,
• 26:27
  just the whole effort to– But the problem is mail-in
• 26:30
  voting has always been a vector for fraud.
• 26:35
  Speaker 2: That's– it may be. I don't know how much of
• 26:37
  it there is. I've seen different things on it.
• 26:39
  Speaker 3: That goes back like decades. People have been talking about
• 26:43
  mail-in voting just being too open to fraud.
• 26:45
  Speaker 2: Well, but then– maybe. But then the question is, does
• 26:47
  it really benefit– I mean in other words, if David
• 26:50
  Shore is right, if everybody who could vote had voted,
• 26:53
  Trump would have won like basically by twice the margin.
• 26:57
  Speaker 3: Well, I don't know if that's necessarily true. But when
• 26:59
  I see laws like what California has where you're not
• 27:02
  allowed to show ID, there's only– I mean I've tried.
• 27:06
  Tried to find some sort of charitable way where that
• 27:08
  would make sense other than you want to open the
• 27:11
  door for fraud. There's nothing. This narrative that they say, oh,
• 27:15
  poor people don't have– see Kamala Harris. They don't have
• 27:19
  a Xerox machine.
• 27:20
  Speaker 2: No, but you ever see the thing– I think it
• 27:22
  was a guy– I don't know if he did it
• 27:22
  for free press. A guy was going around interviewing– Well,
• 27:26
  first he interviewed liberals at like I think UC Berkeley
• 27:28
  and he was like, you know, do you think that
• 27:30
  you should have to have an ID to vote? And
• 27:31
  they were like, no, because black people don't have IDs.
• 27:34
  Speaker 3: That's just because they're hearing that on NPR. No, no,
• 27:36
  I know. Of course.
• 27:37
  Speaker 2: But they believe that.
• 27:38
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 27:38
  Speaker 2: I mean– but I don't know if you saw that.
• 27:40
  It's an incredible video because then he goes to like–
• 27:42
  I think he goes to Harlem or he goes to
• 27:43
  like a black neighborhood in New York and he was
• 27:46
  just asking black people. He's like, do you have an
• 27:48
  ID on you? It was like everybody was like, yeah.
• 27:50
  Like what's the matter with you?
• 27:51
  Speaker 3: Well, it's also we just got done with. three years
• 27:54
  if you need an ID to prove that you have
• 27:56
  been vaccinated. So you need to be able to have
• 27:59
  that to go to work, to get on a plane,
• 28:01
  to eat at a restaurant. It didn't make any sense.
• 28:04
  It was so immediately contradicting what had just gone down
• 28:08
  months earlier. It's just stupid.
• 28:10
  Speaker 2: Well, yeah, that was about that was because the left
• 28:12
  wanted to control people's behavior. And on voting, they the
• 28:16
  old I know because I just when I talk to
• 28:18
  my progressive friends about it, what you know, and family
• 28:20
  and friends, it's It's very much like, no, we can't
• 28:23
  put barriers in the way of voting because that's what
• 28:24
  they did during Jim Crow. I mean that's where it
• 28:26
  goes back to.
• 28:27
  Speaker 3: The idea is not a barrier. It's just an insurance
• 28:30
  that you're a citizen while you're voting.
• 28:32
  Speaker 2: And then they say there's really not much– they say
• 28:34
  there's very little fraud. I'm just telling you what they say.
• 28:37
  I'm not saying I agree.
• 28:38
  Speaker 3: Who is they though?
• 28:39
  Speaker 2: Progressives. Progressives, yeah.
• 28:40
  Speaker 3: Do you believe that? That's horseshit. That's a horseshit.
• 28:42
  Speaker 2: I think they believe it. I'll put it that way. Yes,
• 28:45
  I do.
• 28:45
  Speaker 3: I think they just say it because that's the thing
• 28:47
  that everybody says. I think it's a groupthink thing. I
• 28:50
  mean I think if you sit down with any rational
• 28:53
  person and no one's watching, there's no cameras on them,
• 28:57
  and you ask them, does that make any sense? No
• 28:58
  one would say it makes any sense. Most people in
• 29:01
  this country who are citizens have some form of ID
• 29:04
  or can get some form of ID. And it's entirely
• 29:06
  reasonable to ask people to prove that you are who
• 29:10
  you are if you're voting for the president of the
• 29:12
  United States. That seems pretty reasonable.
• 29:15
  Speaker 2: I find it totally reasonable and I support it. I'm
• 29:17
  just saying that if you make it– I'm just saying
• 29:19
  you may– Republicans may– it may result in outcomes that
• 29:23
  are not the predictable ones that they think they'll get.
• 29:25
  Just because Trump– at least– and Trump is maybe a
• 29:28
  special case. But I mean he's able to turn out.
• 29:31
  reluctant voters. Like he motivated people to vote.
• 29:34
  Speaker 3: Because people were fed up with what had gone on
• 29:36
  in the last four years. And I think the open
• 29:39
  border was... the biggest one i mean it was one
• 29:41
  of the biggest ones because people just felt hopeless like
• 29:44
  this is crazy like what you're doing you're letting in
• 29:48
  what's equivalent at least if you're if you're just being
• 29:52
  charitable it's 10 million people it was it was huge
• 29:56
  if you're just being conservative it's 10 times austin You
• 29:59
  let 10 Austins in in four years of people who
• 30:03
  you have no idea who they are.
• 30:06
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 30:06
  Speaker 2: And Americans were on board with closing the borders. And
• 30:09
  then when it came time to actually asking all the
• 30:12
  getting those folks to leave that came in, all the
• 30:14
  support disappeared.
• 30:15
  Speaker 3: Right. I mean, well, it's not asking them to leave.
• 30:18
  It's showing up at Home Depot and just rounding people
• 30:20
  up and raiding places and going to restaurants and pulling
• 30:23
  people out of their houses and I think people got
• 30:26
  very uncomfortable with the idea of militarized police wearing masks
• 30:29
  on the street. Yeah. And then when you find out
• 30:31
  that these guys have only been trained for seven weeks
• 30:34
  and they get a $ 50, 000 signing bonus. And then you
• 30:37
  find out that a giant percentage of them are Latino,
• 30:41
  which is kind of crazy. You know, like the two
• 30:43
  guys who shot that guy in Minnesota, they're both Latino.
• 30:46
  Speaker 2: And yeah, I mean, that's what you get when you
• 30:48
  have completely untrained, unprepared people.
• 30:51
  Speaker 3: Disasters like that. The whole Minnesota thing with Alex Preddy
• 30:54
  is a complete clusterfuck. I still have not seen verification
• 30:59
  of whether or not the narrative that makes sense is true.
• 31:04
  But the narrative that makes sense was that there was
• 31:06
  an accidental discharge of his gun as they were pulling
• 31:09
  it away from him. And then that led to them
• 31:11
  thinking that maybe he still had the gun on him
• 31:14
  because you're in the chaos of arresting someone. Someone says
• 31:16
  he has a gun. A gun goes off and then
• 31:19
  they shoot the guy.
• 31:20
  Speaker 2: Yeah. I bet when you go– I bet when they
• 31:22
  do the proper evaluation of it, they're going to find
• 31:25
  multiple mistakes.
• 31:26
  Speaker 3: I'm sure.
• 31:27
  Speaker 2: By the law enforcement in that situation.
• 31:28
  Speaker 3: That– and then there was the thing with the woman
• 31:30
  who got shot where you have a guy who had
• 31:33
  almost been run over just a couple of weeks before
• 31:36
  and been dragged in his car. The guy who shot
• 31:38
  her had been dragged by another vehicle.
• 31:41
  Speaker 2: I didn't see that.
• 31:42
  Speaker 3: I think he got dragged like 300 feet too, something crazy.
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 31:46
  Speaker 3: So when a car is coming at him, you could
• 31:48
  imagine this guy has got some PTSD from that.
• 31:51
  Speaker 2: He should not have been– he should not have been– No.
• 31:55
  Speaker 3: And also Alex Freddie– He certainly shouldn't have said that
• 31:57
  fucking bitch like after he shoots her in the face too.
• 32:00
  That's crazy too. Yeah.
• 32:02
  Speaker 2: I mean the reaction– just the heartlessness of the reaction
• 32:05
  to the killings was terrible. Including by the administration. That's
• 32:08
  probably why Kristi Noem ended up having to go.
• 32:10
  Speaker 3: But then on the other side– These protests are organized.
• 32:13
  They're organized and they're paid for, which is also something
• 32:17
  to be– that people need to understand. These are not
• 32:19
  organic protests. It's not organic that it just happened to
• 32:22
  be taking place in the very same place where you
• 32:25
  found hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud, right? This
• 32:28
  is one of the clearest, most obvious distractions you've ever
• 32:31
  seen like in the public arena where you have these
• 32:36
  people who are being paid to protest. They give them
• 32:41
  money to go out there and protest. They give them signs.
• 32:43
  They're organizing it. They have signal groups. They're doxing all
• 32:47
  these different ice workers. They find out what their license
• 32:50
  plate numbers are. They find out where they're staying. They
• 32:53
  go to the hotel. The cops, the local cops are
• 32:55
  being told to stand down. So you've got it like this,
• 32:59
  this convergence of all these factors that lead to chaos. And,
• 33:05
  you know, Mike Benz was talking about it. He was
• 33:09
  essentially saying it's a mathematical thing and that if you
• 33:12
  have these things play out, you're going to have a
• 33:15
  certain amount. It was Mike Benz, right? He was saying
• 33:17
  that there was a certain amount of people that are–
• 33:18
  you're going to have incidences. You're just playing it out
• 33:21
  over the numbers, certain amount of these protests. You have
• 33:25
  organized protests. You have untrained ICE agents. You have a
• 33:28
  lot of chaos. You have support for people screaming in
• 33:31
  the streets. Someone gets shot. Boom, and then it moves
• 33:34
  the needle. And this is calculated. Yes. They want this
• 33:38
  to happen. They want it to happen this way because
• 33:40
  then this kills all the support for people that, you know,
• 33:44
  we're kind of on the fence whether or not I
• 33:46
  should be deporting all illegals. Excuse me. They should– excuse me.
• 33:54
  Whether they should just go after violent criminals and then
• 33:58
  there's these weird narratives like, Oh, only 14 percent are
• 34:02
  violent criminals that have been arrested. It was 60 percent
• 34:05
  of criminals, 60 percent of the people plus were criminals.
• 34:10
  And like what what by what definition violent criminals like
• 34:13
  what do you like? What do you is it OK
• 34:16
  if they just come in here and rip people off? Like,
• 34:18
  are you fine with that? It's just like the violent
• 34:21
  ones we need to get rid of.
• 34:22
  Speaker 2: Like, I think they didn't. Yeah, they did.
• 34:24
  Speaker 3: They did it.
• 34:25
  Speaker 2: Fairly poor job of it? Like, why were they focused
• 34:28
  on Minneapolis? I think most people don't understand how radical
• 34:31
  the left in Minneapolis is, because you think of it
• 34:34
  as a Midwestern place, but it's actually got a long
• 34:36
  radical left tradition. And as you were saying, I mean,
• 34:39
  Alex Preddy, he should have been arrested several days before
• 34:42
  when he had a gun on him and got into
• 34:44
  an altercation with police. They should have arrested him then,
• 34:47
  and then they could have, the judge could have done
• 34:49
  a lot of different things, but they could have taken
• 34:50
  away his gun. They could have put a restraining order
• 34:52
  on him so that next time he showed up, And
• 34:54
  people would know to look for him. Then he would
• 34:56
  have been kept out of the area.
• 34:57
  Speaker 3: Do you know the story about the gun that he
• 34:59
  was carrying? No. OK. So he's carrying a gun called
• 35:02
  a Sig P320, which is notorious for accidental discharges. Not
• 35:08
  not mean there's lawsuits all over the place. There's videos
• 35:10
  of cops in precincts bending over to pick something up
• 35:15
  and the gun goes off in his holster. There's a
• 35:17
  ton of these. So I don't know if this is
• 35:20
  completely accurate because this is obviously the fog of chaos
• 35:24
  of these type of altercations and situations. But there's a
• 35:28
  video that many people have reviewed and it's their conclusion
• 35:33
  that if you watch the video when one of the
• 35:36
  ICE officers removes his gun, even though he does not
• 35:39
  have his finger on the trigger, has his hand on
• 35:41
  the gun and his fingers on the slide, as he's
• 35:44
  moving off, it appears the gun goes off. Now they've
• 35:48
  zoomed in on it and shown that it does look
• 35:51
  like the gun's going off and it does correspond with
• 35:54
  the sound of a gunshot. It's just hard to know.
• 35:58
  Speaker 2: You hear a gunshot in the video.
• 35:59
  Speaker 3: Yes, but I don't know if it's legitimate. It's hard
• 36:01
  to know. But if it was any other gun, like
• 36:03
  say if it was a Glock, I would say that
• 36:05
  doesn't make any sense. His finger's not on the trigger.
• 36:07
  It's not going to go off. But that gun is
• 36:09
  notorious for going off. There's a guy online that he
• 36:14
  shows a video where he takes the gun and he
• 36:17
  manipulates the slide and it goes off. And it goes
• 36:21
  off without nothing touching the trigger. No one's pulling on it.
• 36:25
  It's just if you have– the other problem is people
• 36:28
  alter guns, OK? So the issue with the SIG was
• 36:34
  they– They had– I believe up to 2017, they had
• 36:38
  a lighter trigger. And this lighter trigger, if the gun
• 36:41
  was dropped or if something happened to it, it was
• 36:44
  going off. And they determined it's– the gun does not
• 36:47
  have an internal safety like some other guns do. I'm
• 36:50
  not an expert, so I don't know exactly what the
• 36:53
  trigger mechanism is. But my understanding is that the trigger
• 36:57
  mechanism is different than their other guns. Like they have
• 36:59
  another gun that's notoriously reliable. It's a SIG P365. You
• 37:04
  could drop that gun. It's not going to go off.
• 37:06
  It's not known for accidental discharge. But the 320 is known.
• 37:09
  And there's tons of videos of people demonstrating this online.
• 37:13
  There's a video where they're on a range and a
• 37:16
  gun goes off in a guy's holster. And the range
• 37:19
  instructor says, what the fuck just happened? And this guy,
• 37:24
  he points to the gun that went off. And he said,
• 37:27
  is that a SIG gun? And he goes, yeah, he goes,
• 37:29
  get that fucking thing off the range. So it's that notorious.
• 37:33
  It's one particular model. And it just happened to be
• 37:37
  the one particular model that Alex Preddy was carrying, which
• 37:40
  is fucking crazy.
• 37:42
  Speaker 2: Well, his behavior was really reckless. It's really hard for
• 37:46
  people to hold two ideas in their mind at the
• 37:48
  same time. Like Ice messed that up. Right.
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: Clearly.
• 37:51
  Speaker 2: Clearly. And Alex Preddy, I mean we see the earlier
• 37:54
  video where he kicks out the taillight of the ICE vehicle. Right.
• 37:57
  And he's– I mean he's got a gun in the
• 37:59
  waistband of his jacket. It's hidden by the jacket. He
• 38:01
  gets into this altercation with the police. I mean I
• 38:04
  had– when I posted about it, I didn't say this.
• 38:07
  But a lot of the responses were suicide by cop.
• 38:09
  People were like suicide by cop. I mean– and I'm
• 38:11
  not making that claim. But I mean his behavior was–
• 38:15
  I mean the recklessness of the gun choice mirrors the
• 38:18
  recklessness of his behavior in those instances.
• 38:20
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 38:21
  Speaker 2: And I heard people being like, oh, well, he was
• 38:23
  just defending that poor woman. There was a police officer
• 38:26
  engaged in an arrest of a person and Alex Pretty
• 38:29
  intervened in that. I mean I think you can mess
• 38:31
  around about it.
• 38:31
  Speaker 3: It was a little– I don't know if it was
• 38:33
  an arrest. The police officer shoved this woman.
• 38:37
  Speaker 2: Yeah, he was in an altercation with somebody. Yes. You
• 38:40
  don't go– in other words, people go, oh, you got
• 38:42
  to put yourself in– what do you think you're– like
• 38:44
  what do you think is going on here? Like you
• 38:46
  should put himself in between that.
• 38:47
  Speaker 3: No. The way the ICE officer– it wasn't a police officer, right?
• 38:51
  It's an ICE officer. Do you call them police? The
• 38:53
  way the ICE officer reacted to the woman, that bothered me.
• 38:58
  Like he just shoved this lady, like stepped forward and
• 39:02
  fully shoved her. That's when Alex Prady gets involved and
• 39:05
  then pepper spray comes out and then.
• 39:08
  Speaker 2: And Alex Prady should have absolutely filmed that. Should have
• 39:10
  filmed the whole thing. That's exactly what you should have done.
• 39:13
  Speaker 3: Well, other people were filming it. It was clear.
• 39:14
  Speaker 2: There's cameras all over the place. But don't– Multiple angles.
• 39:17
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 39:17
  Speaker 2: So– but it's like– I just don't think that's appropriate behavior.
• 39:23
  Speaker 3: That's fair.
• 39:23
  Speaker 2: That's not the tradition of like– I mean I think
• 39:26
  there's a nonviolent left-wing tradition that's actually quite beautiful. and spiritual.
• 39:31
  Speaker 3: I agree.
• 39:31
  Speaker 2: It's Thoreau and Gandhi and King. That's not what was
• 39:35
  going on in Minneapolis. That's not at all what's going on.
• 39:38
  Speaker 3: This is a part of the problem with these things
• 39:40
  being organized, right? Organized, paid protests and also people being radicalized.
• 39:44
  by narratives. Then, of course, very different than what was
• 39:48
  going on with the civil rights movement, you have social media.
• 39:53
  So people are like radically pushed in one direction or another.
• 39:57
  And it's not clear whether or not that's organic. It's
• 40:01
  not clear. Is this the voice of the people or
• 40:04
  Is this bot farms that are pushing things in one
• 40:06
  direction or another? Is it– I mean there's a lot
• 40:10
  of people that I cautiously watch their posts on X
• 40:15
  where I know that they're AI. I know it's AI.
• 40:18
  I can just tell by the way they write.
• 40:20
  Speaker 2: It's awful now. There's so much AI slop on X
• 40:22
  right now.
• 40:22
  Speaker 3: It's bad. Yeah. It's weird because– It does muddy the
• 40:27
  water and it does fuck with discourse, but it also
• 40:30
  radicalizes people one way or the other. It radicalizes people
• 40:32
  towards the right, radicalizes people towards the left. It's not good.
• 40:37
  And I think this guy, whatever his mental health struggles were,
• 40:40
  they appeared to exist. It seems like he was a
• 40:43
  troubled guy already. So a thing comes along that defines them,
• 40:48
  a cause that they're going to stand up for and
• 40:51
  fight for because their life's probably a fucking mess. And
• 40:55
  their mind is probably a mess and they look at
• 40:57
  this– they look at it like it's this black and
• 40:59
  white binary situation.
• 41:01
  Speaker 2: For sure.
• 41:01
  Speaker 3: Good guys and bad guys and let's fuck all these
• 41:04
  fascists and these kicking taillights and getting involved in pushing
• 41:09
  matches with ICE agents. It's like that's crazy. Like all
• 41:12
  that stuff should and can get you arrested.
• 41:15
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I think on the organized issue– remember
• 41:18
  like the civil rights movement was really well organized. Right.
• 41:21
  Speaker 3: But people weren't being paid for it. It wasn't being
• 41:24
  promoted on social media. It wasn't people's job. There are
• 41:27
  people in America right now that are unemployed that are
• 41:29
  paid protesters for a living.
• 41:32
  Speaker 2: Oh, I mean that's the entire like left-wing NGO sector
• 41:35
  is basically that.
• 41:36
  Speaker 3: Right. Yeah.
• 41:37
  Speaker 2: I mean that's like– we saw– I see it at
• 41:38
  the level of San Francisco and for homelessness. They just
• 41:41
  go and– you work at a government-funded or Soros-funded NGO
• 41:45
  and then you do– All that civil disobedience stuff on
• 41:47
  your free time and– but I was– I just think–
• 41:50
  I think that you were right when you were saying
• 41:52
  like– because I think it's– the problem is not the organization.
• 41:55
  The problem is that the organization in Minneapolis had a
• 41:57
  goal of causing exactly what occurred. The organization around the
• 42:02
  civil rights movement was to desegregate soda counters. And so
• 42:07
  one of them was about actually– I mean the other
• 42:10
  thing is that brought– pull back a little bit further.
• 42:12
  Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement was about
• 42:15
  affirming our liberal democratic western civilization. Black people wanted to
• 42:19
  be a part of it. This stuff where you're like
• 42:22
  we want to open the border and defund the police
• 42:26
  and basically start attacking all of these institutions of liberal
• 42:30
  democratic civilization, that's different. That's a radicalized left.
• 42:34
  Speaker 3: That's fundamentally different. He defines it best as suicidal empathy.
• 42:39
  Speaker 2: I don't agree with Gad on that.
• 42:41
  Speaker 3: No? You don't think it's suicidal empathy?
• 42:43
  Speaker 2: What do you think it is? I don't think it's
• 42:44
  either suicidal or empathic because empathy is like fundamentally.
• 42:48
  Speaker 3: Well, he applies that to a lot of progressive ideas,
• 42:51
  not just the immigration thing. I don't think he necessarily–
• 42:55
  I think it was actually long before the immigration thing
• 42:57
  that he was talking about, suicidal empathy. The idea being
• 43:00
  that you need the rule of law to have a
• 43:03
  safe and peaceful society.
• 43:04
  Speaker 2: Yes, that part is true.
• 43:05
  Speaker 4: You do.
• 43:06
  Speaker 2: That part is true.
• 43:06
  Speaker 3: Yeah, you need– No violence. You need no crime. And
• 43:10
  when you're taking criminals and just releasing them from jail
• 43:13
  and you have no cash bail and you're doing all
• 43:15
  these things, if you want to put on the fucking
• 43:17
  tinfoil hat, you would do that because you want chaos.
• 43:21
  Because you want chaos so you can have more rules
• 43:24
  and tighten down on people and have more control over
• 43:26
  the civilization.
• 43:28
  Speaker 2: I mean I think in that– I mean I think
• 43:31
  like it's not empathic to allow more violent crimes. Like
• 43:36
  I don't think that's empathy towards victims. So I don't
• 43:38
  think– I wouldn't call it empathy. And not only that
• 43:40
  but like when you look at like who these folks
• 43:43
  are– and I spent a lot of time looking at
• 43:44
  them and was one of them. They hate Western civilization.
• 43:48
  They hate the United States of America. They hate capitalism.
• 43:51
  Like it's an anti-civilization thing that's motivating it. And that's
• 43:55
  not to say that like MSNBC watchers don't feel– oh,
• 43:58
  I feel bad for that person. But I mean I
• 44:00
  always– it's like the people I hear complaining about ICE,
• 44:04
  they don't know anything. any illegal immigrants. They've never talked
• 44:08
  to them other than maybe their server, but they don't
• 44:11
  even really talk to their gardeners or their maids. It's
• 44:15
  like the idea that empathy implies a deep understanding of
• 44:20
  someone's situation. And so I think it's a misdescription of empathy.
• 44:25
  I think in some ways it's more quite the opposite
• 44:27
  of that, that they're actually not showing empathy for all
• 44:30
  the people that are hurt by their policies, whether it's
• 44:32
  open borders or enabling addiction or euthanizing poor and mentally
• 44:38
  ill people in Canada or transing kids. I don't think
• 44:41
  that those things are empathic. And the person that's doing
• 44:45
  them I don't think is suicidal. If anything, they're actually
• 44:48
  quite full of themselves and quite arrogant about what they're doing.
• 44:52
  I mean I use the word pathological altruism in San
• 44:56
  Francisco and I say it's close to Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
• 45:00
  Maybe it is Monkhausen syndrome by proxy. But I don't
• 45:02
  think it's– I worry about affirming– because I think that's
• 45:06
  how progressives go. They go, oh, well, if we– if
• 45:08
  the homeless are worse off, that's just because we care
• 45:11
  so much. I just don't think that's the case.
• 45:13
  Speaker 3: Well, that's– the homeless thing is nuts because the homeless
• 45:17
  thing is just a scam. And we know that basically
• 45:20
  because of California. Like California, what's happened with the whole
• 45:24
  homeless budget? It's so insane and that they vetoed audits
• 45:29
  of these budgets. There's been $ 24 billion spent. No one
• 45:34
  knows where it went. There's no accountability. And then the
• 45:37
  homeless situation increases.
• 45:39
  Speaker 2: Well, that's why. I mean remember it's like– it's funny.
• 45:41
  Like my students just did a– we have something– we've
• 45:44
  been working on it too, like the Canadian euthanasia program.
• 45:47
  And it's like every year the numbers just keep going
• 45:49
  up and up. And it reminds me of when you
• 45:51
  interview homeless service providers in San Francisco, they'll be like, Yeah, no,
• 45:55
  we're doing an amazing job. Every year we serve more
• 45:57
  and more people. It's like, right, you have all the–
• 46:00
  you have the wrong incentives. You're trying– you have an
• 46:03
  incentive to serve to– you have incentive to create homelessness
• 46:06
  and that's what they've done.
• 46:07
  Speaker 3: Well, if you get more money, if you have more homeless,
• 46:09
  your incentive is now not to eliminate homelessness because that's
• 46:13
  your job.
• 46:13
  Speaker 2: Right. That's how you make all your money.
• 46:15
  Speaker 3: When I first was alerted to that, I was like
• 46:17
  I can't believe this is real. Like when you find
• 46:20
  out the amount of money that's involved in homelessness, like
• 46:24
  that They spent $ 24 billion. OK, where did that go?
• 46:28
  And then there's no accountability? OK. There's no fraud? You're
• 46:32
  saying there's no fraud? Zero?
• 46:34
  Speaker 2: Well, I wish there was fraud. I mean somebody was
• 46:36
  sort of like can we expose– like Nick Shirley exposed
• 46:39
  the daycares not doing anything in Minnesota. I was like
• 46:42
  I wish the homeless service providers weren't doing anything. If
• 46:46
  they were stealing the money, then there would be a
• 46:47
  lot less homelessness.
• 46:49
  Speaker 3: Well, so you think they're actually using the money to
• 46:53
  create homelessness? Oh, yeah.
• 46:54
  Speaker 1: Oh, yeah.
• 46:55
  Speaker 2: I mean think about like– so San Francisco was like
• 46:57
  between $ 100, 000 and $ 120, 000 a year per homeless person. I
• 47:01
  think LA had a bargain of something more like $ 25, 000.
• 47:05
  That's just San Francisco. That doesn't count the $ 24 billion
• 47:09
  that California gave. So that money is going to single
• 47:14
  resident occupancy hotel owners.
• 47:15
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 47:16
  Speaker 2: It's going to nonprofit service providers who are just bringing
• 47:19
  food and alcohol and drug paraphernalia to make it easier
• 47:24
  for people to do drugs and overdose and live in
• 47:27
  tents on the street. It's very expensive to kill that
• 47:31
  many people that way. That's what San Francisco has proven.
• 47:34
  Speaker 3: Right, but it's really about the amount of people where
• 47:37
  that's their industry. There is an industry in taking care
• 47:42
  of the homeless situation and addressing the homeless situation. And
• 47:47
  Coleon Noir, when he was on the podcast, he was
• 47:49
  explaining to me that he went to San Francisco and
• 47:51
  he was like, why is it so bad up here?
• 47:53
  Do they need money? He's like, no, no, no. This
• 47:55
  guy was a lawyer. He's a lawyer as well. He
• 47:58
  was explaining it to him like, no, no, no. These
• 47:59
  people are getting money to deal with the homeless situation
• 48:03
  and some of them are making quarter million dollars a
• 48:05
  year and more, which is just nuts. And then it's
• 48:09
  not getting better. It's only getting worse. And yet they
• 48:13
  still keep getting that money. So it's like there's zero
• 48:15
  incentive to make it better. There's only an incentive to
• 48:18
  make it worse. And then when you have no accountability,
• 48:21
  so there's no auditing of the money. Twenty four billion
• 48:24
  dollars is a lot of fucking money. So where who's
• 48:27
  getting greased up? Where's that money going?
• 48:29
  Speaker 2: Mostly it's into the it's into the temporary what they
• 48:32
  call they call it permanent propaganda word propaganda. It's a
• 48:35
  permanent supportive housing. It's neither permanent nor supportive. It's. often
• 48:40
  warehousing addicts where they die. I mean, we know that
• 48:42
  they die at very high levels in those little, this
• 48:44
  is a little crummy, you know, single resident occupancy rooms.
• 48:47
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 48:47
  Speaker 2: They bought a lot of motels that were, you know, low,
• 48:51
  low income, you know, low, you know, cheap motels converting
• 48:54
  them having, but they don't really, there's no, I mean,
• 48:57
  all that money should have gone into a centralized addiction
• 49:00
  and psychiatric care system. Cal psych is what it should
• 49:03
  have been. And instead it's just, it's just kind of, yeah,
• 49:06
  it's just, Basically incentivizing people to live on the streets
• 49:10
  and use hard drugs and die in overdose.
• 49:13
  Speaker 3: It's just so crazy. I mean if you wanted to
• 49:14
  make it better, you would incentivize them and pay them
• 49:17
  based on the amount of people that are no longer homeless.
• 49:19
  Speaker 2: Right. But they don't do that.
• 49:20
  Speaker 3: But then the problem with that is, well, you're eventually
• 49:22
  going to fix it all and then your business is
• 49:24
  going to go away. Right.
• 49:26
  Speaker 2: And that's all happening– I think it's all happening unconsciously.
• 49:30
  Like there's no room. There's no like secret room where
• 49:33
  they're rubbing their hands and being like, oh, we're going
• 49:35
  to make a lot of money this way. It's just–
• 49:37
  When you interview them, it's a very basic view. It's
• 49:41
  just these people are victims. They're victims of white supremacy
• 49:44
  and capitalism and to victims, everything should be given and
• 49:47
  nothing required.
• 49:48
  Speaker 3: Well, I think that's a nice narrative. But I think
• 49:51
  once you start getting monthly paychecks from the homeless industrial complex,
• 49:56
  I think your incentive is to keep this party going. Well, sure.
• 50:00
  That's your job.
• 50:01
  Speaker 2: But they think it's good. I mean they go– this
• 50:02
  shows how good we're doing that we got a bigger
• 50:04
  budget this year and– That's how they rationalize it.
• 50:08
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 50:10
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 50:11
  Speaker 3: I mean it's a sign of a very sick society,
• 50:13
  hence the title of your book, San Francisco, Sicko, which
• 50:17
  is a great title. I mean it's a sick place
• 50:20
  and it was one of my favorite cities. It was
• 50:23
  an amazing city. I filmed my Netflix special there in 2016.
• 50:27
  So in just the amount of time, in 10 years,
• 50:30
  it's completely fallen apart. When I was there in 2016,
• 50:33
  it was great. I mean, there was always a lot
• 50:36
  of homeless people there, but you have that in any
• 50:38
  liberal city. But it was never an epidemic. It was
• 50:41
  never like tents everywhere and shit on the streets. That
• 50:44
  wasn't the case. It was just, you know, it was
• 50:47
  a liberal city, a progressive liberal city, but it was cool.
• 50:51
  There was a lot of outdoor music. It was fun.
• 50:53
  It was a great place to go to restaurants and
• 50:56
  people walked around. It was a great city. Filled with intelligent, interesting,
• 51:02
  open-minded people. Man, I lived there when I was a
• 51:04
  little kid. I was there during the Vietnam War. From
• 51:07
  age 7 to 11, I lived in San Francisco.
• 51:10
  Speaker 2: It's a little bit better now. Is it? They've had
• 51:11
  a new mayor. Yeah, a little bit. I mean I
• 51:14
  want to acknowledge– I can't lie about it. It's a
• 51:16
  little bit better. I agree. I interview a lot of
• 51:18
  people still about what's going on. It's still there.
• 51:22
  Speaker 3: Did you see what happened with the mayor?
• 51:24
  Speaker 2: With his security guard?
• 51:25
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 51:25
  Speaker 2: Got pulled down?
• 51:26
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 51:26
  Speaker 2: First of all, security guard needs.
• 51:28
  Speaker 3: To learn some fucking jiu-jitsu. The way he let that
• 51:31
  guy grab him, he didn't pummel. He didn't do anything.
• 51:33
  It looked like he had no understanding of what to
• 51:36
  do when that guy grabbed his body. That was wild.
• 51:39
  How is he a security guard? That's crazy. How can
• 51:41
  you be a security for the mayor– If you literally
• 51:44
  don't know what to do in a clinch.
• 51:45
  Speaker 2: I thought he looked like he didn't really see the
• 51:47
  guy as a threat or something. Like maybe he thought
• 51:49
  he was just a crazy homeless guy or something.
• 51:50
  Speaker 3: Even if I didn't see a guy as a threat.
• 51:53
  If a guy grabs me like that, I'm not going
• 51:56
  to let him get that position on me.
• 51:58
  Speaker 2: That's crazy. Apparently he cut his back of his head.
• 51:59
  Speaker 3: He banged him on the ground. He body slammed him
• 52:02
  onto the fucking concrete.
• 52:03
  Speaker 2: Kind of a metaphor for the whole situation.
• 52:05
  Speaker 3: The mayor just walks away. Dot, dot. And he walked
• 52:08
  away like it was nothing. Like he walked away. He
• 52:10
  didn't run.
• 52:10
  Speaker 2: Did you see though? Because I saw that video and
• 52:12
  I couldn't tell if the mayor actually saw what was happening.
• 52:15
  Speaker 5: 100%.
• 52:15
  Speaker 2: It seemed like he was going– he was looking that
• 52:17
  way and this guy was just laughing.
• 52:18
  Speaker 3: No, he was here when they started physically struggling with
• 52:22
  each other. And then when they're struggling with each other,
• 52:25
  he walks off. And then the guy gets body slammed.
• 52:27
  Speaker 2: It was the weirdest video to watch. Yeah, because they
• 52:29
  both seem so nonchalant. Yeah. As a metaphor for the city.
• 52:33
  Speaker 1: This is a different angle. The mayor actually is running
• 52:35
  off to get help.
• 52:36
  Speaker 3: Oh, he is. Running off? Yeah.
• 52:37
  Speaker 1: Let me refresh this real quick.
• 52:39
  Speaker 3: What was it? Yeah.
• 52:43
  Speaker 1: So there's the mayor right there.
• 52:44
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 52:45
  Speaker 4: He pushes this guy here in a second. The mayor
• 52:48
  sort of, as soon as he gets to the sidewalk,
• 52:50
  he takes off.
• 52:51
  Speaker 3: So why are they hanging out with this guy in
• 52:53
  the first place?
• 52:54
  Speaker 2: That looks like they're in Camden right there.
• 52:55
  Speaker 3: Oh, so the security guard started it, and he doesn't
• 52:58
  know what the fuck he's doing.
• 53:00
  Speaker 1: And there's the mayor over here.
• 53:01
  Speaker 3: Okay. Oh, look at his shitty technique.
• 53:03
  Speaker 2: Oh, this is a much better video.
• 53:05
  Speaker 3: And the other guy's a lot stronger than him. So
• 53:07
  the mayor, he's... He walks off.
• 53:09
  Speaker 2: Hold on.
• 53:09
  Speaker 1: He starts running right.
• 53:11
  Speaker 2: He seems relaxed.
• 53:12
  Speaker 4: Okay.
• 53:13
  Speaker 3: Okay. Yeah, he did start walking slowly and then starts–
• 53:17
  He's not going to get help. That guy started it all.
• 53:22
  He pushed that guy. If you're a security guy, the
• 53:24
  last thing you want to do when there's one of
• 53:26
  you and two of those other guys is deal with
• 53:30
  a situation that way where you push a guy.
• 53:32
  Speaker 2: I have to say, it's so interesting you say it.
• 53:34
  I'm always surprised when I see them do– like that
• 53:36
  was the same thing that happened with the pretty.
• 53:37
  Speaker 3: We were just talking about it. Don't you think this
• 53:40
  guy is probably armed too? I mean– But also, he
• 53:46
  shouldn't have pushed that guy that way. I mean, the
• 53:48
  whole thing is fucking stupid.
• 53:49
  Speaker 2: Look at the chaos. Is somebody else just running around,
• 53:52
  another homeless person or something?
• 53:53
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 53:53
  Speaker 3: Yeah. The other guy is probably talking shit. I bet
• 53:56
  that guy is funny. I bet he's– the guy with
• 53:58
  the big coat on? I mean, I don't– for the
• 54:04
  life of me, none of it makes sense. Right. None
• 54:07
  of it makes sense. The mayor walking off casually and
• 54:10
  then eventually running– It doesn't make sense. The security guy
• 54:13
  just walked up to those guys and pushed them. When
• 54:16
  your details to take care of the mayor, you should
• 54:18
  be escorting him around that and getting him away from
• 54:22
  any potential trouble. Like the brazenness of just walking up
• 54:26
  and pushing that guy. Well, you don't know how to
• 54:27
  fight at all. It's very clear when you watch the
• 54:30
  way they grappled with each other. He doesn't know what
• 54:32
  he's doing. This episode is brought to you by Intuit TurboTax.
• 54:36
  April 15th is coming fast. There's been so many tax
• 54:40
  law changes this year, which means you're going to need
• 54:42
  an expert who has your back. You're in luck. TurboTax
• 54:46
  now has in-person locations nationwide. Walk into their tech-enabled stores
• 54:52
  and meet face-to-face with a TurboTax full-service expert who will
• 54:56
  get your best outcome. Your expert works to get you
• 55:01
  every dollar you deserve while updating you as you go
• 55:04
  about your day. Head to TurboTax.com to find a store
• 55:09
  near you.
• 55:10
  Speaker 2: Seems like we're having a lot of security problems in
• 55:12
  our society right now. It's wild, right? I can't believe
• 55:17
  the pushing. I mean, that's the pretty thing. Pushing, is
• 55:19
  that like a... Is that like an important law enforcement technique?
• 55:22
  I mean what is that exactly?
• 55:23
  Speaker 3: Well, not only that. He pushed a small woman. The
• 55:26
  ICE guy just completely just full-on shoves this small woman.
• 55:31
  Speaker 2: Which means he was emotionally out of control first, right?
• 55:33
  It means that he was angry. He was angry. These
• 55:36
  guys are not like special forces guys.
• 55:38
  Speaker 3: They're not well-trained. These guys are– that's seven weeks. Seven
• 55:42
  weeks and a lot of them are financially incentivized because
• 55:44
  like if you can get $ 50, 000– like if you're in
• 55:47
  debt and then you could take this job on– When
• 55:50
  they get the $ 50, 000, how long do they have to
• 55:53
  stay on the job for to have that money, to
• 55:56
  have that signing bonus? Or is it one of those
• 55:58
  things where you get the $ 50, 000 as a signing bonus
• 56:02
  but you pay it like a record deal type deal?
• 56:05
  It's not really your money. You have to make it
• 56:07
  up later.
• 56:07
  Speaker 2: I imagine, yeah.
• 56:08
  Speaker 3: But still, if you can get $ 50, 000, there's a lot
• 56:11
  of people that will take that job.
• 56:13
  Speaker 2: Yeah. They're just– Yeah, it was just a bunch of
• 56:17
  bad choices made by the Trump administration on that one.
• 56:20
  Speaker 4: Someone's read comments saying they have no personal experience, but
• 56:24
  they've heard that it's $ 50, 000 over four years. If you're
• 56:27
  in good standing at the end of those four years.
• 56:30
  Speaker 3: Oh, so you only get it after four years. Right.
• 56:33
  But for some people that have no job opportunities and
• 56:37
  nothing on the horizon, that $ 50, 000 looks like, look, it's
• 56:41
  an extra $ 25, 000 a year or an extra $ 25, 000. For
• 56:47
  four years? For 50 for four years?
• 56:49
  Speaker 4: Another person says that's incorrect. It's broken to 10 payments
• 56:51
  once at 90 days, then once every year for four
• 56:54
  more years.
• 56:54
  Speaker 2: Anyway. It's broken.
• 56:55
  Speaker 3: Either way, it's $ 50, 000 that you would not have been
• 56:58
  able to make ordinarily.
• 57:00
  Speaker 2: I mean we had police shortages before 2020. We had
• 57:03
  a bunch of police shortages after that, mostly by police
• 57:06
  officers who were just felt mistreated by the society and
• 57:09
  by their local mayors who said that they were evil.
• 57:12
  Speaker 3: Well, didn't a lot of cops resign when Donnie got elected?
• 57:15
  Speaker 2: Oh, I'm sure. And then a COVID– and then a
• 57:18
  bunch of police officers were driven out during COVID. So
• 57:20
  there was already– our security forces have been– and they
• 57:25
  were just– people underestimate how important it is to feel
• 57:29
  like important in your job and respected. And it's not
• 57:32
  just about the money because they would be offering more money.
• 57:34
  But I think a lot of people are like, oh, no,
• 57:35
  I don't want to be in a job where people
• 57:36
  are like spitting at me or throwing urine and feces.
• 57:38
  Speaker 3: Well, not just at a job where your life is
• 57:41
  on the line.
• 57:41
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Your life is already on the line and then
• 57:44
  you're mistreated by the wider society, which actually creates additional
• 57:47
  risks as this chaos in Minneapolis shows. So, yeah, it's
• 57:51
  just– people want to believe that they're doing something– That
• 57:54
  is appreciated by the community. And so when the community
• 57:57
  decides that they're against policing, your civilization is pretty far gone.
• 58:00
  Speaker 4: Right.
• 58:00
  Speaker 3: But this is the difference between policing and this ICE thing.
• 58:03
  The ICE thing is a different thing, right? They're looking
• 58:06
  at it differently. It's not like you're watching a violent
• 58:08
  altercation take place. The police show up and people are
• 58:10
  spitting on them like you're trying to break up a
• 58:13
  violent crime. This is different. They're looking at it like
• 58:16
  in the progressive narrative. It's like no one is illegal
• 58:19
  on stolen land and we need to have open borders
• 58:22
  and illegals or immigrants rather are the foundation of this
• 58:26
  country and you hear all that– those narratives.
• 58:29
  Speaker 2: The president and the administration, they wanted to pick a
• 58:31
  fight obviously with this left-wing– with activists in this left-wing city.
• 58:35
  They thought it would redound to their benefit to show
• 58:37
  how crazy the left was and it backfired on them.
• 58:40
  Speaker 3: Well, I think they wanted to do something about the
• 58:42
  amount of illegal fraud that was just recently exposed in Minneapolis.
• 58:46
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 58:47
  Speaker 2: But I don't know that that's– but you wouldn't do
• 58:49
  it with ICE raids though. I mean … Well, it's
• 58:52
  illegal immigrants.
• 58:53
  Speaker 3: If you have illegal immigrants that are responsible for hundreds
• 58:55
  of millions of dollars in fraud and you know at
• 58:58
  least some of them are illegal, it seems rational that
• 59:01
  you would send ICE in to find out who's illegal
• 59:03
  and who's not and put a stop to some of it.
• 59:05
  And there's also this nationwide focus on this one place
• 59:09
  because of the Nick Shirley videos.
• 59:11
  Speaker 2: Yeah, though I think that the motivate– my understanding is
• 59:15
  that the motivation was to motivate people that are here
• 59:19
  illegally to self-deport. And so that that's the main part
• 59:22
  of the strategy is to show a force because, of course,
• 59:24
  it's– they wanted the publicity. They wanted people to be
• 59:27
  scared and self-deport. They claim– That 1.3 million people self-deported
• 59:33
  or 1.4 and then another 400,000 or 600,000 deported through
• 59:37
  the normal channels. And apparently they're just limited to how
• 59:39
  many people they can actually deport through the normal channels.
• 59:42
  But they can get– people can self-deport. They can just go.
• 59:45
  Because of course there's this thing called E-Verify where you
• 59:47
  just have the employers have to prove that everybody you're
• 59:50
  employing is here legally. And they don't want to do that.
• 59:53
  The Trump administration doesn't want to do that because they'll
• 59:55
  upset in particular like the agricultural lobby. But others who
• 59:58
  depend on construction, who depend on– so it's a funny–
• 1:00:03
  it's not great. I don't know. I'm not saying that
• 1:00:05
  there's– that I have the perfect answer to the other one.
• 1:00:08
  But obviously like politically the president doesn't feel like they
• 1:00:11
  can do e-verify and maintain support from the business community
• 1:00:15
  for his political agenda anymore. So you end up– but
• 1:00:18
  you end up with a kind of underclass that's here
• 1:00:20
  illegally but that's protected because they're working in a sector
• 1:00:24
  that the president and the administration wants to protect. But
• 1:00:28
  then you're also self-deporting people. I'm not sure exactly how
• 1:00:32
  they're thinking about it but that appears to be what
• 1:00:35
  the heart of their goal is.
• 1:00:37
  Speaker 3: Well, this was always what a lot of people on
• 1:00:39
  the left back in the day did. would say that
• 1:00:42
  illegal immigrants was– this was like a Koch brothers thing.
• 1:00:46
  This was like a right-wing thing, that they wanted this
• 1:00:48
  for exactly what you just described and that this is
• 1:00:52
  not a left-wing progressive idea and that what it would
• 1:00:55
  do is would lower the wages for the lower class
• 1:00:59
  and the middle class of this country and it would
• 1:01:00
  be bad for the citizens. And so you don't want
• 1:01:03
  unchecked illegal immigration. Unchecked illegal immigration would just be for
• 1:01:07
  the right. Because they're the ones who own these massive
• 1:01:09
  corporations that are profiting off of illegal labor. They don't
• 1:01:12
  have to pay them benefits. They don't have to pay
• 1:01:14
  them health care, any of the things that are– that
• 1:01:18
  cost money.
• 1:01:19
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean on the left was always balancing a
• 1:01:22
  sort of open society. They wanted– the Soros Foundation always
• 1:01:26
  wanted to have a free movement of people. That was
• 1:01:28
  sort of their view of why– part of why the
• 1:01:30
  Holocaust occurred is that you couldn't move– or at least
• 1:01:33
  the persecutions, you couldn't move people as easily– But then
• 1:01:36
  you had the working class, you know, who were negatively
• 1:01:38
  affected by bringing in migrants who would push down wages
• 1:01:41
  and unions who are a big part of the Democrat Party.
• 1:01:44
  So the Democrats were sort of divided on it for
• 1:01:47
  a while, but they managed it. And Hillary and Obama
• 1:01:49
  would sort of if you look at when they were
• 1:01:51
  competing in 2008, they were very carefully like there was
• 1:01:55
  a whole thing around like driver's licenses, whether she would
• 1:01:58
  give them or not. And Obama accused Hillary of of
• 1:02:01
  kind of playing both sides of it, you know, typical thing.
• 1:02:04
  But they also both spoke out strongly against mass migration.
• 1:02:08
  Fast forward 10 years– fast forward much more than that.
• 1:02:11
  It was at 16 years into today and now you've
• 1:02:14
  got a much more working class Republican Party who is
• 1:02:17
  unified around keeping the borders closed and restricting the supply
• 1:02:21
  of low-income unskilled workers because– I mean it's just– I
• 1:02:25
  mean– It was really weird to watch people that are
• 1:02:27
  always defending supply and demand and economics and economic policy
• 1:02:31
  then say, oh, no, but having open borders and having
• 1:02:33
  all these working class people come in is going to
• 1:02:36
  have no impact on wages when obviously it would. And
• 1:02:39
  I think that's now– that's also now gone. I think
• 1:02:42
  that's another thing that's just– Trump has just changed. I
• 1:02:44
  don't think you're going to see Democrats going back to
• 1:02:47
  advocating that kind of mass migration again.
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 3: Right, but you could see a world where they would
• 1:02:54
  push back against what has happened. They would say the
• 1:02:57
  barbaric nature of some of these ice raids and then
• 1:03:00
  saying– there's a filter of ice water in that too
• 1:03:03
  if you'd like. You don't have to not have your bottle.
• 1:03:06
  Speaker 2: We don't care. Oh, I think it's in the shot.
• 1:03:09
  Speaker 3: No, it doesn't matter. We don't care. It doesn't matter.
• 1:03:12
  But you could see how they could go back to
• 1:03:15
  a much looser border policy.
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 2: I think they won't. I think they won't. I think
• 1:03:20
  the closed border– I mean I think that that sweet
• 1:03:23
  spot of public opinion is like people really want to–
• 1:03:25
  I think it was just really.
• 1:03:28
  Speaker 3: But I don't think public opinion supported an open border
• 1:03:31
  even on the left during those last four years. But
• 1:03:34
  yet they did it anyway and they were moving people
• 1:03:36
  to blue states. They were moving people to swing states.
• 1:03:40
  They were flying people in, busing people. They were doing
• 1:03:42
  it on purpose.
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 2: Isn't that also though because the blue state governors were
• 1:03:45
  more welcoming of them?
• 1:03:47
  Speaker 3: There's a little bit of that, but there was also
• 1:03:49
  the idea that you're going to juice up the congressional
• 1:03:51
  seats because you're going to change the census.
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 2: Maybe, although California lost seats, right?
• 1:03:56
  Speaker 3: Well, because California has done such a fucking terrible job
• 1:03:59
  of governing their state. It's so– that place is so crazy.
• 1:04:03
  Like every time there's some new law that they're trying
• 1:04:06
  to push through, some new bill. I'm like, do they
• 1:04:08
  just want everyone to leave?
• 1:04:10
  Speaker 2: Well, they drove the billionaires out, right?
• 1:04:12
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:04:12
  Speaker 2: I mean I know they drove out David Sachs, came
• 1:04:14
  to Austin. I think Mark Zuckerberg moved to Florida. I
• 1:04:17
  heard rumors of Steven Spielberg. I don't know if that's–
• 1:04:19
  I don't want to spread disinformation. I don't want to
• 1:04:21
  spread misinformation, but I heard he was leaving. But yeah,
• 1:04:24
  it's called.
• 1:04:24
  Speaker 3: The– With the amount of waste and fraud, why would
• 1:04:34
  you– you don't think there should be some accountability to
• 1:04:37
  how much fucking waste and fraud that has been clearly– demonstrated,
• 1:04:43
  like you, the solutions just give more money. Oh, and
• 1:04:47
  they can do it because they have it. So what
• 1:04:49
  you just give more money and now it's $ 30 billion
• 1:04:52
  goes to homeless with no accountability. Like, what are you,
• 1:04:55
  what are you saying? Like, where do you think this
• 1:04:56
  money is going to go where it's actually going to
• 1:04:58
  help people and affect things in a positive way? There's
• 1:05:01
  been no indication that that's the case, that the real
• 1:05:04
  problem is that They just haven't had enough money from
• 1:05:06
  the billionaires. That's fucking ludicrous. That idea is– it's such
• 1:05:10
  a lazy, intellectually lazy way of framing this whole discussion.
• 1:05:16
  It's saying, oh, they don't want to pay their fair share.
• 1:05:18
  Fuck you. That's not what's going on here. What's going
• 1:05:21
  on here, you have a completely incompetent government that's absolutely
• 1:05:24
  corrupt and they want more money.
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 5: Oh, yeah.
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 3: Gas is like $ 8 a gallon almost now. That's bananas.
• 1:05:32
  Speaker 2: They were going to shut down– I mean the refiners
• 1:05:33
  are being shut down. That initiative, the billionaire's tax, is
• 1:05:38
  an SEIU initiative. So meaning it's the union that covers
• 1:05:42
  healthcare workers like nurses. They're very radical, very radical left.
• 1:05:46
  And the money is to provide Medicaid for undocumented immigrants.
• 1:05:51
  That's what they want it for, right? So like that's
• 1:05:53
  the whole thing. And so you literally get the– this
• 1:05:56
  is like– this is what people worry about democracy. It's
• 1:05:59
  very democratic democracy. But you get these powerful unions and
• 1:06:03
  they're able to change the laws like that. I mean
• 1:06:05
  it's called the Curley effect because there was a Boston
• 1:06:07
  mayor named Curley who made everything so bad for his
• 1:06:10
  political opponents that they left. But the consequence was that
• 1:06:13
  he ended up gaining more power. So when everybody moves
• 1:06:17
  to– when all the like moderate democrats move to Austin
• 1:06:20
  or Miami or Denver or wherever, California just ends up
• 1:06:24
  locked in more to a progressive agenda. That's the problem.
• 1:06:28
  Speaker 3: Well, I think the idea is that it's so good there.
• 1:06:31
  That most people are just going to tolerate whatever new
• 1:06:34
  bullshit they throw your way.
• 1:06:35
  Speaker 2: 100 percent. And also, I mean it seems like the
• 1:06:37
  tech community is now backing the San Jose mayor who's running,
• 1:06:41
  who's a very– he's a democrat, very moderate. But he's
• 1:06:45
  been critical of Gavin.
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 3: Running for governor?
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Mad mayhem. So keep your eyes on him. I
• 1:06:50
  mean he's not– he's not like– Maybe the most exciting guy,
• 1:06:54
  but he's definitely running as a moderate.
• 1:06:56
  Speaker 3: That might be good.
• 1:06:57
  Speaker 2: I think he's getting some money. It seems like exciting
• 1:06:59
  people are a fucking problem. I know. He might be
• 1:07:01
  enough to– I don't know. It's hard to say, but
• 1:07:04
  it does look like– because, I mean, look, there's plenty
• 1:07:05
  of– the tech community only woke up politically in 2024.
• 1:07:10
  That's how long it took. And it really took things
• 1:07:14
  getting so bad where they were telling Marc Andreessen, as
• 1:07:16
  he said to you on your show, that they were
• 1:07:18
  shutting off whole parts of AI. The Biden administration was
• 1:07:20
  openly threatening– A.I. and this huge new and, you know,
• 1:07:24
  there's concerns. I'm not saying that there's not. But I
• 1:07:26
  think that I think at some point the tech community,
• 1:07:28
  which had been, you know, either leaning Democrat, you know,
• 1:07:32
  for a long time since the Obama era, you know,
• 1:07:35
  or wanted to stay out of politics because they just
• 1:07:37
  want to focus on their machines and their investments. They
• 1:07:39
  don't really want to be involved in politics, but they
• 1:07:41
  woke up in 2024. And so hopefully because it's not
• 1:07:44
  I mean, when you see what Soros has done and
• 1:07:46
  you really appreciate the power that one billionaire can have.
• 1:07:50
  You kind of go, why is there nothing like that
• 1:07:53
  on the other side? Why is it so dominated by Soros?
• 1:07:56
  And so I hope that that's starting to happen. But yeah,
• 1:07:58
  when you start to chase out the billionaires and the
• 1:08:00
  billionaires just give up on California, then it's got to
• 1:08:02
  be whoever is remaining to try to put the money
• 1:08:05
  behind the guy that can get some change there.
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 3: Yeah, that's– I mean I don't see a pathway where
• 1:08:13
  California anytime soon turns around. I don't see how it could.
• 1:08:17
  I feel like it's– the momentum has shifted so far.
• 1:08:21
  In a terrible direction and the solutions are always tax more,
• 1:08:26
  take more money from people. You see of this completely corrupt, irresponsible, fraud-ridden,
• 1:08:34
  wasteful government that wants more of your money. And the
• 1:08:37
  solution is if we take more money, we're going to
• 1:08:40
  make things better, which is just insanity.
• 1:08:43
  Speaker 2: I mean things that can't go on don't. So, I mean,
• 1:08:47
  you could see it, right? I mean, say Matt Mahan
• 1:08:49
  or somebody more moderate gets in to be governor. Rick
• 1:08:52
  Caruso runs for L.A. mayor again. I mean, honestly, like,
• 1:08:56
  if somebody can't defeat Karen Bass after she let Los
• 1:08:59
  Angeles burn away, which is now– we now know for
• 1:09:02
  a fact was just totally preventable, absolutely preventable. I was
• 1:09:05
  saying at the time but now we know. They tried
• 1:09:08
  to rewrite the report but it's clear it was totally preventable.
• 1:09:11
  Speaker 3: How did they try to rewrite the report?
• 1:09:12
  Speaker 2: Well, the report– said, here's all the things that the
• 1:09:15
  fire department should have done that didn't happen. And ultimately,
• 1:09:19
  the mayor is the one that chooses the fire chief
• 1:09:22
  and fires the fire chief. And the mayor was– they
• 1:09:25
  were warned. And she goes to– flies to Ghana for
• 1:09:27
  this little junket presidential inauguration, palling around when she should
• 1:09:30
  have been in LA with a– at a command headquarters.
• 1:09:34
  And if she wasn't, then Gavin should have been You know, Schwarzenegger,
• 1:09:38
  towards the end of his administration, they would just mobilize
• 1:09:40
  planes full of water, you know, huge, these huge cargo
• 1:09:43
  planes full of water before there were fires just to
• 1:09:46
  start to circulate, just to get ready to put stuff out.
• 1:09:49
  This idea that there was this idea promoted that it
• 1:09:52
  was inevitable that the fires that, oh, eventually it's just, no,
• 1:09:55
  like it's absurd. Like, of course you can protect it
• 1:09:58
  with adequate fire. Oh, the pipes weren't big enough. No,
• 1:10:01
  like maintain your reservoirs, have water in them. Even the
• 1:10:05
  one that was like was like not repaired yet, which
• 1:10:08
  should have been repaired. They could have kept, they could
• 1:10:10
  have air gapped the pipes so that it didn't contaminate
• 1:10:12
  the water supply, but left it for firefighting. They didn't
• 1:10:15
  do that. They didn't station the engines where they needed
• 1:10:17
  to station them. Nobody was on, you know, it's like
• 1:10:20
  they're not taking responsibility. Like they weren't taking responsibility for it.
• 1:10:24
  So anyway, to the point being, get a new governor,
• 1:10:27
  you get a better mayor of LA. You've got a
• 1:10:28
  guy in San Francisco now who I think still has
• 1:10:30
  a lot of potential. I mean, this latest video, you know,
• 1:10:34
  Showing the chaos there. But with that, I think you
• 1:10:36
  could fix things.
• 1:10:37
  Speaker 3: Well, that's not him though. Yeah, it's not his fault.
• 1:10:39
  His– the criticism of him is he walked away too casually.
• 1:10:42
  That's it.
• 1:10:43
  Speaker 2: No big deal. Yeah, so I mean I think there
• 1:10:45
  is a way for California to come out and my
• 1:10:47
  view is like, look, you've got– it's on the tech billionaires.
• 1:10:53
  I know some of them have left and obviously they
• 1:10:54
  don't need– but there's still a lot of billionaire rich
• 1:10:57
  guys in California that are perfectly capable of financing– an
• 1:11:01
  alternative effort. The vote, you know, 75 percent of San
• 1:11:04
  Francisco voters want to arrest people using fentanyl in public.
• 1:11:09
  They want to arrest them. OK, that sounds so that's
• 1:11:12
  so taboo and progressive. That's 75 percent of San Francisco voters.
• 1:11:16
  So the voters are not they're not the radical left.
• 1:11:20
  Some ways they're radicalized in their hatred of Trump and
• 1:11:22
  the Trump derangement syndrome. But I mean, everyone like Caruso
• 1:11:25
  and Mahan and anybody else there will all just be
• 1:11:28
  able to say they hate Trump like everybody else.
• 1:11:30
  Speaker 3: Well, I think they've seen the consequences of these policies. Oh, yeah.
• 1:11:33
  Speaker 2: People are really– it's not like anything has changed that significantly.
• 1:11:38
  They will– in fact, when I interview people in San Francisco,
• 1:11:40
  they're a little reluctant to admit that it's gotten better
• 1:11:43
  because I think they don't want to take any pressure
• 1:11:45
  off the politicians. So, I mean, I do think it's rescuable,
• 1:11:50
  but it's hard.
• 1:11:51
  Speaker 3: When you say it's gotten better, like how so?
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 2: Mostly the encampments are being broken up. Now, you see
• 1:11:56
  a little You see more of that sort of thing
• 1:11:58
  that we just saw in the video where there's like–
• 1:12:00
  I call them like a little more of like a nest.
• 1:12:02
  There's just a little– So it's not an entire block. Yeah,
• 1:12:06
  the whole block.
• 1:12:06
  Speaker 3: Not like Skid Row.
• 1:12:07
  Speaker 2: That's in Oakland.
• 1:12:08
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 1:12:08
  Speaker 2: That's in Skid Row.
• 1:12:09
  Speaker 3: Oakland is nuts.
• 1:12:10
  Speaker 2: Oakland is– Oakland might not be savable. They had a
• 1:12:13
  chance to save themselves and they ended up voting for
• 1:12:15
  the wrong person for mayor and it's just as bad
• 1:12:18
  as ever. So– but I think if you get San Francisco,
• 1:12:21
  LA and a new governor in place, I think you've
• 1:12:24
  got– The makings to save it.
• 1:12:26
  Speaker 3: Have you seen this video where this guy does this
• 1:12:28
  description of what's going on in Oakland and then drives
• 1:12:31
  across the county line into the next place and it's
• 1:12:33
  immediately all done? And you just see what the difference
• 1:12:37
  between two different forms of government and how it works?
• 1:12:40
  Speaker 2: I didn't see that one, but I saw the one
• 1:12:41
  between Venice and Santa Monica.
• 1:12:43
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:12:43
  Speaker 2: I was there when the Venice and Santa Monica was similar.
• 1:12:46
  You're like, why aren't there any tents there? It's like,
• 1:12:48
  that's Santa Monica.
• 1:12:49
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 2: It's different.
• 1:12:50
  Speaker 3: Well, there's still some.
• 1:12:52
  Speaker 2: Santa Monica got bad too.
• 1:12:53
  Speaker 3: But they cleaned it up a little bit better. Yeah.
• 1:12:56
  But Venice is bananas. It's just– but Venice is nothing
• 1:12:59
  compared to Skid Row. Skid Row is 50 blocks.
• 1:13:02
  Speaker 2: Venice is OK now. Is it? Venice is OK now.
• 1:13:04
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:13:04
  Speaker 2: They cleaned that up pretty quickly and then they– and
• 1:13:07
  then the voters fired their city council member who represented
• 1:13:10
  them who was total crazy radical, Chesa Bodine level radical
• 1:13:14
  and replaced him with a more moderate person. So– but yeah.
• 1:13:17
  Speaker 3: So like when you go to the beach, it's not
• 1:13:19
  chaos anymore?
• 1:13:19
  Speaker 2: I mean– I'm not going to, there's always, it's, but
• 1:13:23
  I mean, remember before it was just, it was tense everywhere.
• 1:13:25
  I mean, it was chaos. And then we dug in,
• 1:13:28
  you know, it was like crazy. So no, that's gone.
• 1:13:31
  But Skid Row, it's bad as ever.
• 1:13:33
  Speaker 3: Skid Row is 50 blocks. 50 blocks is so crazy.
• 1:13:37
  50 blocks of tents and homeless people. When we first
• 1:13:41
  heard that, I was like, that's gotta be wrong. It's
• 1:13:42
  probably five blocks. No, it's five, zero, 50 blocks. That's
• 1:13:46
  an enormous amount of land. That's completely covered by homeless encampments.
• 1:13:51
  Speaker 2: There's like a whole genre of like influencers when they
• 1:13:55
  first visit Skid Row because everyone hears about it. And
• 1:13:57
  then you see like their tweets are just like– they're
• 1:13:59
  just like, oh, I couldn't believe– like I think it's
• 1:14:01
  like maybe Ben Shapiro or– there's various conservative influencers who
• 1:14:04
  have gone to Skid Row and they're like, I had
• 1:14:06
  no idea. There was a comic– You have no idea
• 1:14:08
  until you see it.
• 1:14:09
  Speaker 3: There was a comic from the comedy store that filmed something.
• 1:14:12
  He went like undercover and he had– like in his past,
• 1:14:17
  he had some– I don't think– I think currently he
• 1:14:20
  was sober when he did this. But he decided to
• 1:14:22
  go there and film and stay in one of these
• 1:14:25
  encampments just to show what it was like. And this
• 1:14:27
  is like 2006-ish, 2006-ish, somewhere around there. It was fucking
• 1:14:33
  nuts even back then. And we talked about the story
• 1:14:37
  of how Skid Row with the whole Jerome Hotel and
• 1:14:41
  how it all– it started. Skid Row was the place
• 1:14:44
  where they would take all the homeless people and all
• 1:14:47
  the people that were problematic and they would move them
• 1:14:49
  there and keep them there. And the idea was that
• 1:14:51
  you just keep them out of Beverly Hills, keep them
• 1:14:53
  away from Hollywood. We're doing movies and we've got famous
• 1:14:57
  people walking around. We can't have homeless people. So just
• 1:14:59
  snatch them up, take them downtown and contain them. So
• 1:15:03
  they had them contained in this area and they called
• 1:15:06
  it Skid Row. And then it just kept getting bigger.
• 1:15:09
  Speaker 2: It's not that different from the tender one in the
• 1:15:11
  sense that those are places where the single resident– those
• 1:15:13
  are the places where the really cheap hotels were. They
• 1:15:15
  were like often for like working people that were in
• 1:15:18
  town temporarily, like temporary hotels. Some of them would just
• 1:15:21
  be cages. There were no walls. Like you would just
• 1:15:23
  get your own little– that was how primitive they were.
• 1:15:25
  And then it just evolved over time and then they
• 1:15:27
  became– all of them became subsidized for the homeless. But yeah,
• 1:15:31
  it's– I don't think– I think California– I think it's
• 1:15:34
  important– I think with Trump– And again, like them or
• 1:15:37
  hate them or disagree or whatever, you see the potential
• 1:15:40
  of this country in particular to make a big change.
• 1:15:44
  And I think that it's ultimately resulted from an unleashing
• 1:15:48
  of social media made it all possible. It allowed for
• 1:15:51
  people to get accurate information for the first time in
• 1:15:54
  a different paradigm. So I don't want to lose hope
• 1:15:56
  on the Golden State.
• 1:15:58
  Speaker 3: But you lost hope on Oakland.
• 1:16:00
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:16:01
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:16:03
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but maybe I never had hope for Oakland.
• 1:16:07
  Speaker 3: One point in time, Oakland was great.
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean Jerry Brown actually brought it up a bit.
• 1:16:11
  Got more development there. But yeah, it's all about governance.
• 1:16:15
  Speaker 3: Yeah, it is. I guess.
• 1:16:19
  Speaker 2: Hey, can I use the bathroom?
• 1:16:20
  Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, sure. We'll pause. We'll be right back, folks.
• 1:16:23
  I just sent Jamie something funny that someone just sent
• 1:16:27
  me about San Francisco. There's this guy. I think he
• 1:16:30
  calls himself the Gay Republican.
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 2: The gay Republican?
• 1:16:35
  Speaker 3: There's a lot of those actually, but– which is– shouldn't
• 1:16:39
  shock people.
• 1:16:40
  Speaker 2: They're closeted about the Republican part now. That's the thing.
• 1:16:43
  Speaker 3: Well, it depends on how wealthy they are. I mean
• 1:16:45
  some of them are pretty– Peter Thiel, pretty open about it.
• 1:16:48
  Speaker 2: He was– yeah, about his Republicanism.
• 1:16:50
  Speaker 3: Watch this.
• 1:16:52
  Speaker 6: We refuse to release crime surveillance videos because it will
• 1:16:55
  make people racist. Releasing videos would create a racial bias
• 1:17:00
  in the riders against minorities on the trains. Why would
• 1:17:03
  it do that, San Fran Transit? Why would it create
• 1:17:06
  a bias? Is there a reoccurring theme among the people
• 1:17:10
  committing crimes?
• 1:17:14
  Speaker 2: You could say that about European crime statistics as well.
• 1:17:16
  That's also why the Germans actually... In particular, but I
• 1:17:20
  think other European countries did not want to release.
• 1:17:22
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 1:17:23
  Speaker 2: But they did get them out. They have come out now.
• 1:17:26
  Speaker 3: And the UK. Yeah. Yeah.
• 1:17:28
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:17:29
  Speaker 3: So let's move on to happier subjects, shall we? So
• 1:17:33
  what do you think about all this UAP talk? It's
• 1:17:36
  one thing that Trump has said that he's going to
• 1:17:39
  release whatever files that they might have on UAPs, alien
• 1:17:46
  terrestrial beings, all this jazz. I talked to Jesse Michaels
• 1:17:50
  about it. He is highly skeptical. And he said the
• 1:17:53
  people that are involved are all old guard and they're
• 1:17:59
  just– it's just going to be a bunch of horseshit. Maybe.
• 1:18:02
  Speaker 2: I mean just first of all, look. I mean I
• 1:18:04
  think whatever you think about the phenomenon, this is amazing.
• 1:18:07
  I mean the president just said he's going to release
• 1:18:08
  all these things. So I mean after decades of saying
• 1:18:11
  we're not interested in this. We're not following this. We're
• 1:18:15
  shutting down Blue Book. There's nothing there. They're like– he's
• 1:18:19
  saying– so I mean that right there is I think amazing.
• 1:18:22
  And I thought the whole thing was amazing. Like Obama
• 1:18:24
  comes out and he goes, well, there's definitely aliens. Oh,
• 1:18:26
  but they're not under Area 51 unless they're hiding it
• 1:18:29
  from presidents, which is like a well-established conspiracy theory. So
• 1:18:33
  to have Obama even say that. And then Trump comes
• 1:18:35
  up and he goes, Obama revealed classified information with a
• 1:18:40
  little grin on his face because he's a little rivalry
• 1:18:42
  with Obama. I might help him out by declassifying. And
• 1:18:45
  then a few hours later he did. I mean I–
• 1:18:48
  What can't you like about that? I mean, I think that, well,
• 1:18:51
  it's theater.
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 3: That's what you can't like.
• 1:18:53
  Speaker 2: It's theater.
• 1:18:54
  Speaker 3: But I mean, until something really comes out, this is
• 1:18:57
  just another distraction to keep us from thinking about all
• 1:19:00
  the other things that are going on.
• 1:19:01
  Speaker 2: But you can't be so, I mean, we should get
• 1:19:03
  into Epstein files too, because I do think I have
• 1:19:05
  a different view of Epstein now, but, um, Look, I
• 1:19:08
  just think we've been asking for more transparency like we
• 1:19:10
  had in this very brief period in the mid-70s with
• 1:19:13
  the church committee hearings. It really took a whole Watergate.
• 1:19:16
  It took something big. It's been over 50 years. We
• 1:19:19
  got a lot of Epstein files. Yes, there's some missing,
• 1:19:22
  but we got JFK files, Amelia Earhart files, and now
• 1:19:24
  we're going to get some UFO files. Is it going
• 1:19:26
  to be everything? Of course not. There's just no way.
• 1:19:29
  But I don't think like– I think we should hold–
• 1:19:32
  we should be happy that like there is an acknowledgment
• 1:19:36
  that there's a lot of government files. And that there's
• 1:19:38
  some commitment to release them because I do think like
• 1:19:41
  it's easier to get new Epstein files released after you
• 1:19:44
  have some Epstein files released than if you have none.
• 1:19:47
  And I feel the same way about UFOs.
• 1:19:49
  Speaker 3: Okay. So it's easier to get more UFO files released.
• 1:19:54
  But like release– What do we want?
• 1:19:57
  Speaker 2: I think one of it is like what do we want?
• 1:20:00
  And I've been– I respect John Greenwald a lot. He
• 1:20:03
  runs something called theblackvault.com. where he has been FOIAing. He's
• 1:20:08
  been issuing Freedom of Information Act requests on UAP, but
• 1:20:11
  also a ton of other issues since the mid-90s. When
• 1:20:14
  he was like 15 years old, he became obsessed with
• 1:20:16
  doing FOIA requests. And he has identified a number of
• 1:20:20
  documents that we know exist with redactions. One of them
• 1:20:24
  is the UAP task force, which has a line that
• 1:20:27
  just says potential explanations. The first explanation is redacted, it's
• 1:20:31
  blacked out. The second one is some sort of natural phenomenon.
• 1:20:34
  Number three is blacked out, it's redacted. unredact those i
• 1:20:37
  mean come on guys you can't tell me what we
• 1:20:39
  have to protect our sensor data come on guys i
• 1:20:42
  mean like that's not sensor data uh tell us what
• 1:20:45
  the potential explanations are are in terms of the sensor
• 1:20:48
  data john also made a great point do you remember
• 1:20:50
  when the the pentagon released the video of the russian
• 1:20:53
  jet uh dumping fuel on one of our drones uh
• 1:20:57
  there's like a famous video where they show it's a
• 1:20:59
  hostile act by the russians jumping fuel on our drone
• 1:21:02
  when was this Just recently. I mean it must have
• 1:21:04
  been within the last year or so. So like they're
• 1:21:07
  not– we do see– they do release.
• 1:21:10
  Speaker 3: Warfare.
• 1:21:11
  Speaker 2: Various times they do release things and you can kind
• 1:21:14
  of go, OK, that means that we have– I don't
• 1:21:16
  think– what I'm saying is the main excuse has been
• 1:21:19
  not to reveal our methods for getting– we're just talking
• 1:21:23
  about UAP here, getting photographs and video. We know that
• 1:21:28
  a huge amount of it exists. They haven't even released
• 1:21:31
  the full– gimbal and go fast videos. There's a whole
• 1:21:35
  bunch more video left.
• 1:21:36
  Speaker 3: Really?
• 1:21:37
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:21:37
  Speaker 3: So the video that came out, those were whistleblower leaks, right?
• 1:21:41
  Speaker 2: Eventually they released them formally though, the Pentagon did. So
• 1:21:45
  there's much more of that.
• 1:21:47
  Speaker 3: And particularly, sorry to interrupt you, but was it the
• 1:21:50
  gimbal or the go fast where there was many more crafts?
• 1:21:54
  Speaker 2: I believe that there was, so there's three videos, right?
• 1:21:57
  It's gimbal, go fast, and then What was the one
• 1:22:01
  where the Tic Tac video moves out of the frame?
• 1:22:04
  My understanding is that there's significantly more video for all
• 1:22:07
  of those. And then I also– my understanding is also
• 1:22:09
  there's just a lot of other videos, particularly from those
• 1:22:12
  two incidents, certainly have. There's so much more sensor data
• 1:22:15
  because we know those incidents had a lot more going on, right,
• 1:22:19
  and just was filmed by those videos. So I think
• 1:22:22
  that now there is– I was going to say the
• 1:22:24
  UAP community. There isn't really– an organized one, although Jesse's
• 1:22:27
  doing an amazing job of organizing it. We should be
• 1:22:30
  really specific and say, you know, here's what we want.
• 1:22:33
  I did a piece with John Greenwald. Representative Nancy Mace
• 1:22:37
  wrote an open letter to the intelligence and military community saying,
• 1:22:42
  here's a set of documents that we want to release.
• 1:22:44
  So I think the good news is we're like, look,
• 1:22:46
  the president said he wants this. We've identified a bunch
• 1:22:48
  of documents, identified a bunch of videos and film.
• 1:22:51
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:22:51
  Speaker 2: I mean, are they going to withhold stuff? Are they
• 1:22:53
  going to mislead?
• 1:22:54
  Speaker 3: Probably.
• 1:22:55
  Speaker 2: But that's been the story for 80 years.
• 1:22:57
  Speaker 3: Yeah. You saw the age of disclosure, right? Yes, of course. OK.
• 1:23:00
  So I think they make a really good point in
• 1:23:02
  age of disclosure that if they did release things, the
• 1:23:07
  real problem is misappropriation of funds lying to Congress and
• 1:23:12
  the fact that some of these– you would assume that
• 1:23:17
  The way these things are being handled, if they do
• 1:23:19
  have crafts, if they are– if there is some sort
• 1:23:21
  of a back engineering program, that back engineering program is
• 1:23:25
  going to be held by a military contractor. So whatever
• 1:23:29
  the contractor is, whether it's Rocketdyne or whoever has it, right?
• 1:23:34
  You would imagine that the other competing groups would be
• 1:23:38
  very pissed off that they didn't have access to this
• 1:23:41
  thing and they could sue them. The misappropriation of funds,
• 1:23:45
  lying to Congress, people could go to jail. Also, most
• 1:23:49
  likely fraud. There's got to be tons of fraud. If
• 1:23:52
  there's so much money that's being like shuffled away into
• 1:23:55
  these black ops projects, if there's no oversight, then who
• 1:24:01
  knows where the money is going, right? So there's a
• 1:24:03
  problem there. If you open up the books and people go,
• 1:24:07
  why was there a $ 100 million check written here? Where's
• 1:24:10
  the $ 2. 3 billion that's missing here?
• 1:24:12
  Speaker 2: And Yeah, I have doubts now. I mean I have
• 1:24:15
  to say I didn't finish watching it, but Jesse just
• 1:24:17
  dropped a video with him and Eric Weinstein and Eric Davis.
• 1:24:21
  Speaker 3: Who's him? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Eric Davis. Jesse, yeah.
• 1:24:24
  Speaker 2: So Jesse, Eric.
• 1:24:24
  Speaker 3: I haven't seen that yet.
• 1:24:25
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I found it really– it really made me question
• 1:24:29
  whether there's any there there.
• 1:24:32
  Speaker 3: What does Eric Davis do?
• 1:24:34
  Speaker 2: Eric Davis, you know who he is? He's got the
• 1:24:35
  bushy beard and he's in Age of Disclosure and is
• 1:24:40
  part of the whole Bigelow– That whole OSAP, ATIP. He
• 1:24:46
  was a– I don't know his exact– he's a scientist.
• 1:24:49
  But he was sort of talking about– because I think
• 1:24:51
  Eric Weinstein was asking these really hard questions like, OK, well,
• 1:24:53
  like how many people are in this reverse engineering program
• 1:24:57
  and what is it? And I just found his answers
• 1:25:00
  to be very thin.
• 1:25:01
  Speaker 3: So I'm– I haven't seen it yet, so I can't
• 1:25:03
  comment on that. But I know– Eric is both skeptical
• 1:25:08
  and open-minded at the same time.
• 1:25:10
  Speaker 2: There is a– Like, yeah, I just– I definitely think
• 1:25:14
  there's a lot more than they've revealed. I think my
• 1:25:17
  skepticism on the reverse engineering stuff– I mean obviously there's
• 1:25:21
  crash retrieval because they're just retrieving– it could be foreign
• 1:25:24
  or they're retrieving something. The reverse engineering, I mean if
• 1:25:27
  it's advanced tech, nuclear just took so– I mean I'm
• 1:25:30
  just familiar with the history of nuclear. It just took
• 1:25:32
  so much effort to create nuclear energy and you'd have
• 1:25:36
  these huge– it was a huge enterprise, thousands of people working.
• 1:25:40
  If they're not– I mean that's why I kind of
• 1:25:41
  go– and I mean a whole other form of propulsion.
• 1:25:44
  I mean it's just really– it would require so many–
• 1:25:47
  such a big bureaucracy. That's where I'm a little skeptical
• 1:25:51
  that that exists because I don't know how you maintain
• 1:25:54
  a cover-up that long. But I could be wrong. I
• 1:25:56
  mean as people have pointed out, they've maintained secrecy of
• 1:26:01
  a lot of things for a really long time. So
• 1:26:03
  it's not inconceivable.
• 1:26:05
  Speaker 3: Well, especially when you're dealing with government contractors and military contractors.
• 1:26:08
  They've done a– I mean they have a long history
• 1:26:12
  of keeping a tight lip when it comes to all
• 1:26:15
  sorts of top secret projects that they're working on.
• 1:26:18
  Speaker 2: I mean it's weird because like if you look at
• 1:26:19
  the UAP task force, which was created by people that
• 1:26:22
  had– it comes out of– they have OSAP and then
• 1:26:24
  AATIP and then UAP task force and then they create Arrow,
• 1:26:27
  which is much more like what Blue Book was, which
• 1:26:30
  is– their whole point is to debunk and dismiss. I
• 1:26:33
  think that's the whole point. It's just to say we
• 1:26:36
  looked into it and there's nothing there. So then they–
• 1:26:38
  and they cherry pick. The cases, like they don't actually
• 1:26:41
  deal with stuff that they can't explain. That's what Arrow's
• 1:26:44
  point is. But the UAP task force was people that
• 1:26:46
  seemed genuinely interested in it and they have potential explanations
• 1:26:50
  in three separate things. That means that they didn't know themselves.
• 1:26:53
  And so I would think that if you– if there
• 1:26:55
  was some reverse engineering program, then you would have a
• 1:26:58
  better idea than just three potential explanations.
• 1:27:02
  Speaker 3: But that's assuming they actually got access.
• 1:27:04
  Speaker 2: The UAP task force people?
• 1:27:05
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 1:27:07
  Speaker 3: Because if they open themselves up for– if they do
• 1:27:11
  have access, then you open up those questions, misappropriation of funds,
• 1:27:14
  lying to Congress, military contractors having access to these vehicles.
• 1:27:19
  I would imagine that's too messy.
• 1:27:20
  Speaker 2: They get very mumbly. They get very mumbly at that point.
• 1:27:24
  I find when you start kind of like, well, what
• 1:27:25
  is it and how many people kind of– it's a
• 1:27:27
  lot of like– I mean that's how I– that was
• 1:27:30
  my interpretation of this. I think that it's– I'm much
• 1:27:34
  more with Jacques Vallée' s view of the phenomenon, and I
• 1:27:37
  think that it– that they don't know what it is.
• 1:27:41
  I think they have a lot more photos and videos
• 1:27:45
  showing– demonstrating this incredible phenomenon, but I'm not sure that
• 1:27:49
  they know what it is. And I'm pretty skeptical that
• 1:27:50
  they have a secret reverse engineering program just because I
• 1:27:54
  don't see how they would have carried it out for
• 1:27:56
  this long. Because Jesse's theory, of course, is that it
• 1:27:59
  would date back to the 50s. Yeah. And it just–
• 1:28:03
  There's just too many possibilities for too many deathbed confessions
• 1:28:06
  from people to reveal this knowledge.
• 1:28:09
  Speaker 3: But don't you think you would keep a really close
• 1:28:13
  watch on anyone who had any access to any of
• 1:28:16
  these things and that would be very threatening to them
• 1:28:18
  like Bob Lazar?
• 1:28:21
  Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean I don't know. You believe Bob Lazar.
• 1:28:24
  Speaker 4: I do.
• 1:28:25
  Speaker 3: Yeah. I don't know what he was working on, whether
• 1:28:27
  or not it was ours or something else or what.
• 1:28:30
  But I don't think he's a liar. He's had the
• 1:28:32
  same story forever.
• 1:28:34
  Speaker 2: Well, then we should go demand the documents. I mean,
• 1:28:35
  that would be something where we just need to be like, look,
• 1:28:39
  these are the documents that we want and it's on
• 1:28:41
  this place these years.
• 1:28:44
  Speaker 3: Well, one of the things that Bob said is he
• 1:28:45
  thinks some of the documents that he was shown were
• 1:28:47
  horseshit and he thinks it's on purpose. He thinks that
• 1:28:50
  those fake documents, that the fake narratives are a hook
• 1:28:55
  so that if somebody does spill the beans, they know
• 1:28:58
  exactly who would. Who was doing it? Because they could
• 1:29:02
  point to like maybe if you're involved in X program,
• 1:29:07
  they give you some bullshit narrative on top of the
• 1:29:09
  real truth, right? They'll make up some stuff. That way
• 1:29:13
  if you really– well, the government told me X and
• 1:29:15
  you go, oh, OK. He learned it from this. He's
• 1:29:18
  a part of this program. Now we've narrowed it down
• 1:29:20
  to 250 employees. Let's start scouring these people.
• 1:29:24
  Speaker 2: And bring them in for questions. Yeah, counterintelligence. Yeah, I
• 1:29:26
  mean it seems like– so you know the MJ-12 documents. Yes.
• 1:29:29
  There's one of them that is this incredible document. I
• 1:29:32
  mean just if it's a forgery– most people I think
• 1:29:34
  think it's a forgery or it's a hoax or whatever.
• 1:29:36
  It's so well done. It's the manual on extraterrestrial crash
• 1:29:39
  retrieval with different morphologies. Have you ever seen this?
• 1:29:43
  Speaker 3: No.
• 1:29:43
  Speaker 2: Have you ever seen it? It's an amazing document. Like
• 1:29:45
  I spent– Went down a long rabbit hole. Look, I
• 1:29:48
  would say most ufologists think it's fake. So it's not
• 1:29:51
  even me. What's incredible about it, they show like the
• 1:29:54
  old books from the library. They'd show who checked it out.
• 1:29:56
  They had all these names. So then you kind of
• 1:29:59
  go like the only people really. I mean it seemed
• 1:30:02
  like the level of sophistication to create this would have
• 1:30:05
  been the government. And so then you're sort of like, well,
• 1:30:08
  why would they have done that? One of the answers
• 1:30:09
  is it was just– this is called passage material to
• 1:30:12
  be able to detect counterintelligence activities. I'll tell you another
• 1:30:16
  one that I can't quite figure out. I mean, there's
• 1:30:18
  a lot of effort. And why that narrative? I mean,
• 1:30:22
  another thing people say is they'll go, well, they're using
• 1:30:24
  the UAP stuff as cover for secret weapons programs. And
• 1:30:28
  you're like, well, why would that work as cover? And
• 1:30:31
  they go, well, because then it's a way to distract attention.
• 1:30:34
  I was like, why would that distract attention? Wouldn't that?
• 1:30:38
  attract attention you go don't if you as opposed to
• 1:30:40
  like within the military like look we don't this is
• 1:30:42
  this is secret research you know that's really important national
• 1:30:45
  security we don't pay attention instead they're like oh no
• 1:30:47
  this is ufo crash retrieval so don't pay attention to
• 1:30:50
  it that seems like you're a recipe for creating more
• 1:30:54
  interest in ufos yeah so there's a lot of things
• 1:30:57
  that the government has done where you're like it's almost
• 1:30:59
  like assuming that is by the way that we know
• 1:31:01
  that like we know that the government the u.s air
• 1:31:04
  force did In the early 80s, make this guy Paul
• 1:31:07
  Benowitz go crazy who was seeing things over Kirtland Air
• 1:31:10
  Base and then this guy Richard Doty.
• 1:31:11
  Speaker 3: How did they make him go crazy?
• 1:31:14
  Speaker 2: They would be feeding him all this information, convincing him
• 1:31:16
  of an alien attack and he basically ended up going
• 1:31:19
  crazy from it. It's this amazing story told by this
• 1:31:22
  book Mirage Men, also a documentary. You look and you
• 1:31:26
  kind of go and they go, well, it was to
• 1:31:27
  cover up a secret weapons program at Kirtland Air Base.
• 1:31:30
  It's like– I'm not even disbelieving it but it's like
• 1:31:34
  that's just such a– Like why would that be the
• 1:31:38
  best way to do that? And why would you be
• 1:31:40
  so sure that that wouldn't attract interest from people rather
• 1:31:43
  than distract it? So there's a bunch of things that
• 1:31:45
  don't make sense. And so even if it is all–
• 1:31:49
  which is the skeptic view is that it's some combination
• 1:31:52
  of government disinformation, sci-fi, dreams, hypnosis, hypnagogic states, and then
• 1:32:00
  kind of the power of belief. I just reviewed this
• 1:32:03
  new book on Barney and Betty Hill where the author
• 1:32:06
  thinks that it was– that really it was a combination
• 1:32:09
  of her– it was the stress of being an interracial couple,
• 1:32:13
  her nightmares and then hypnosis where they then confabulate this
• 1:32:17
  whole story. That's the basic skeptic view is that it
• 1:32:22
  was sort of– but the government is involved in it.
• 1:32:24
  And that's always strange because you're like, why would the
• 1:32:26
  government be participating?
• 1:32:27
  Speaker 3: The government's involved in the Betty and Barney Hill story?
• 1:32:29
  Speaker 2: No, no, in the UFO, in creating– in these UFOs.
• 1:32:32
  Assuming that they did the MJ-12 or somebody did the MJ-12,
• 1:32:35
  but certainly in the case of– Right.
• 1:32:37
  Speaker 3: Why would they have any organizations? Why would they have anything, right?
• 1:32:41
  Speaker 2: Why would they have– Why would you be doing– like
• 1:32:44
  the thing with like the Paul Doty and the Paul
• 1:32:46
  Benowitz or the Richard Doty and Paul Benowitz is like
• 1:32:50
  why was that the best– I mean it's just– Why
• 1:32:52
  was that the best way? Like somebody has observed strange
• 1:32:55
  activity over Kirtland Air Base and they discover this. Why
• 1:32:58
  was that the right approach? I don't follow it. And
• 1:33:02
  you had AJ Gentile on who did the stuff on
• 1:33:05
  crop circles. We saw– they saw military disinformation around those
• 1:33:09
  activities in Britain. So you see a lot of ….
• 1:33:13
  Speaker 3: The crop circle thing is weird.
• 1:33:14
  Speaker 2: Really weird.
• 1:33:15
  Speaker 3: Because you want to just write it off. I mean
• 1:33:18
  I wanted to write it off. I'm like, oh, this
• 1:33:19
  guy is with boards. They're making designs. But then you
• 1:33:22
  see some of the designs and how the wheat is
• 1:33:25
  actually woven and how they have these exploded nodes, almost
• 1:33:29
  like they're microwaved. And they've examined these things and it
• 1:33:32
  seems like there's some energy that's created these things. And
• 1:33:35
  also the sheer size and scale of some of these
• 1:33:40
  things with no footprints leading into them or out of them.
• 1:33:44
  And just the geometric precision of some of them, it's
• 1:33:49
  really weird. Like there's– Of course, it's eyewitness accounts. It's
• 1:33:53
  hard to know if they're being accurate. But people who've
• 1:33:55
  flown over areas where there's nothing there, flown back two
• 1:33:58
  hours later, and there's these football field size Mandelbrot sets.
• 1:34:04
  Speaker 2: There's the Julius set over next to Stonehenge was the
• 1:34:07
  one that the guy flew over and there was nothing there.
• 1:34:09
  And a couple of hours later, there was the Julius set,
• 1:34:12
  which is a spectacular set.
• 1:34:14
  Speaker 3: That's incredible. Fractal. Right.
• 1:34:16
  Speaker 2: I'll tell you, it's even weirder.
• 1:34:17
  Speaker 3: With incredible precision. That's what's really as much precision as
• 1:34:19
  you can get by folding over wheat. But when you
• 1:34:22
  look at it like from above and you don't get
• 1:34:25
  to the micro, you're looking at these things that like
• 1:34:31
  they really do scale in a fractal way. It's very
• 1:34:35
  fucking strange and difficult to reproduce. You would imagine something
• 1:34:39
  like that would take a long fucking time to plot
• 1:34:41
  out and plan everything. He would take multiple people. You'd
• 1:34:44
  have to measure and remeasure. You'd have to have some
• 1:34:47
  sort of tools and instruments not just to fold over
• 1:34:51
  the wheat. But if you're going to interweave the wheat,
• 1:34:54
  like what is your method of doing that? And how
• 1:34:56
  are you doing it where this one is one dimension
• 1:35:01
  and then the next one is precisely three-fifths of that dimension?
• 1:35:05
  The next one is slightly– and they're fractal.
• 1:35:08
  Speaker 2: Well, it gets really even weirder than that. So you
• 1:35:10
  know how I just described this case of this Air
• 1:35:13
  Force counterintelligence guy driving this guy, Paul Benowitz, crazy. That
• 1:35:17
  book is written by Mark Pilkington. Mark Pilkington is one
• 1:35:21
  of two guys that claim to have created all the
• 1:35:24
  crop circles. The other guy is a guy named John Lundberg. AJ,
• 1:35:28
  in his video about the crop circles, accuses John Lundberg. Again,
• 1:35:34
  they call it the circle makers. They have a website
• 1:35:37
  they keep updated. He accuses him of being a British
• 1:35:40
  intelligence agent. AJ does, or at least he strongly implies it.
• 1:35:45
  And part of that is because there was a bunch
• 1:35:47
  of weird stuff on the website about MI5 and the CIA.
• 1:35:51
  And then Lundberg went to a school. This is all
• 1:35:53
  very circumstantial, so I'm not defending. I'm just saying what
• 1:35:55
  AJ said. Then Lundberg went to a school that shares
• 1:35:57
  a courtyard with an MI5 campus or an MI5 training area.
• 1:36:03
  I asked Mark– I have like three hours of interviews
• 1:36:06
  with Mark who I'm– is a really interesting person. I
• 1:36:09
  asked him directly if they had any connection to military intelligence.
• 1:36:12
  He said absolutely not.
• 1:36:15
  Speaker 3: It's hard to … Which is what you would say.
• 1:36:17
  Speaker 2: Well, of course you're allowed to say it if you are.
• 1:36:18
  But I'm not making any accusations. But Yeah, I mean
• 1:36:21
  he claimed that they made all of them. And there's
• 1:36:24
  some of them– have you ever seen the massive– there's
• 1:36:26
  one that was absolutely massive.
• 1:36:28
  Speaker 3: Yeah, pull some of them up, Jamie, so we can
• 1:36:30
  get some.
• 1:36:30
  Speaker 2: There's the Julius set. There's another one that's so big
• 1:36:34
  it's really hard to see. But he said that he
• 1:36:35
  wasn't at that one.
• 1:36:36
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:36:37
  Speaker 2: That's the famous– that's the Julius set. It's gorgeous. Well,
• 1:36:39
  the big one right there is in the middle. That
• 1:36:40
  one is just crazy.
• 1:36:41
  Speaker 3: I mean these are enormous.
• 1:36:44
  Speaker 2: Yeah, they're enormous.
• 1:36:44
  Speaker 3: Go full screen on that. It's– they're so big. And,
• 1:36:50
  I mean, the amount of precision involved in them is
• 1:36:54
  kind of spectacular.
• 1:36:55
  Speaker 2: Now, Mark denies that they have exploded nodes, and he
• 1:36:59
  denies that they're interwoven. AJ says that they are definitely
• 1:37:03
  interwoven and have exploded nodes. And there was even an
• 1:37:05
  article in Science Magazine, which, you know, argues that they
• 1:37:09
  were made by humans, but that they point out the
• 1:37:12
  exploded nodes. So, yeah, maybe that's it.
• 1:37:15
  Speaker 3: What's weird, too, is there's, like, how did you do this? Where, how,
• 1:37:20
  what's the, where's the evidence of people trampling through this
• 1:37:23
  with equipment? No, it's all missing. Like it's strange. And
• 1:37:29
  then also no one's caught doing them.
• 1:37:31
  Speaker 2: How about the pie? Here's the other one. I asked
• 1:37:33
  Mark about this and he didn't know about it, but
• 1:37:35
  do you know the pie one?
• 1:37:36
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:37:37
  Speaker 2: It was apparently, I'm pretty sure it's the first time
• 1:37:40
  that it was a visual explanation of pie. That's my
• 1:37:43
  understanding of it. Now, maybe he's, Maybe there's someone– I
• 1:37:46
  haven't seen anything earlier than that. But that's like on
• 1:37:48
  its own is really amazing that that was the first
• 1:37:50
  time that they had created a visual representation of Pi.
• 1:37:54
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:37:56
  Speaker 2: Completely with like the– yeah, that's it. It's like there's
• 1:37:59
  another image that will show how it is Pi, probably
• 1:38:02
  that one right there.
• 1:38:03
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:38:05
  Speaker 2: And so that's an extremely sophisticated thing.
• 1:38:09
  Speaker 3: Extremely.
• 1:38:10
  Speaker 2: Crop circle.
• 1:38:10
  Speaker 3: Right. I mean, imagine the type of intelligence that you'd
• 1:38:15
  have to possess to pull this off and then not
• 1:38:19
  let anybody know that you did it. And it's just
• 1:38:23
  for funsies. Just for funsies in a field.
• 1:38:26
  Speaker 2: Yeah. it's um and then you know these mit researchers
• 1:38:29
  went out that's also part of it and they tried
• 1:38:30
  to do it and it just wasn't it wasn't nearly
• 1:38:33
  as good.
• 1:38:34
  Speaker 3: Yeah what is this article okay yeah it is very
• 1:38:38
  fucking weird yeah it's very weird and it but the
• 1:38:41
  whole ufo thing is very weird it You know, the
• 1:38:46
  Jacques Vallée books are very interesting. And I've read three
• 1:38:49
  of his books so far. And I've had him on
• 1:38:52
  a couple of times. And the last time I had
• 1:38:54
  him on, I really went on a deep dive and
• 1:38:57
  I read two of his books right before he came on.
• 1:38:59
  And one of the more interesting things is the really
• 1:39:02
  old stories, like the stories from the 1700s, the 1800s,
• 1:39:06
  where they lack the context of spaceships, the idea behind it,
• 1:39:12
  like none of that stuff exists. But yet you get
• 1:39:15
  Almost at least you could say, oh, I could understand
• 1:39:20
  how they would be describing it this way. But it's
• 1:39:23
  kind of the same thing that other people have been describing.
• 1:39:26
  The Zimbabwe story, a lot of these other stories, it's
• 1:39:29
  kind of the same story over and over and over again,
• 1:39:32
  which makes you go, OK, well, what does it have
• 1:39:36
  to be from outer space? Or is it possible that
• 1:39:39
  there is something here that is like far older? than
• 1:39:45
  us that has somehow or another removed itself from our view.
• 1:39:50
  Speaker 2: Or is it social contagion and people– I mean I'm
• 1:39:54
  always struck by it. It's always like the aliens always
• 1:39:56
  are like, oh, protect your environment and avoid nuclear war.
• 1:39:59
  Speaker 3: It's like, oh, thanks.
• 1:40:00
  Speaker 2: Like we didn't know we needed to do those until
• 1:40:01
  you guys showed up. It makes more sense as like
• 1:40:05
  you could see it as a– I mean I got
• 1:40:07
  very into– I haven't interviewed her yet but I'm about to.
• 1:40:09
  There's an anthropologist at Stanford named Tanya Lerman who And
• 1:40:12
  she's done this incredible work on religions where she– like
• 1:40:17
  good anthropologists and also this guy, Bowman. Like they're agnostic
• 1:40:21
  on whether or not like those beings are real. Like
• 1:40:24
  they're just like we're really interested in like the culture
• 1:40:27
  and the psychology and the experience of it. But she
• 1:40:30
  had this– she was like– did her field work with
• 1:40:33
  magicians and witches in England. You know, like modern witches
• 1:40:37
  and– not magicians like magic tricks but like the old–
• 1:40:41
  who's the famous magician, not Gandalf.
• 1:40:44
  Speaker 3: Houdini?
• 1:40:44
  Speaker 2: No, no, the British one, Merlin, right? Oh. But like
• 1:40:49
  old style, right? But they were like, so she didn't
• 1:40:51
  really believe in it, but they were like, you have
• 1:40:53
  to practice witchcraft in order to do this. And she
• 1:40:56
  had like multiple anomalous experiences. One of them that she
• 1:40:59
  woke up and there was five druids in her room
• 1:41:02
  beckoning to her. And people were like, is it a dream?
• 1:41:05
  And she's like, no, it's not a dream. She had
• 1:41:07
  another instance where they were trying to conjure energies to
• 1:41:11
  shut down her watch. And she felt a huge energy
• 1:41:14
  surge through her and shut off her watch. And her
• 1:41:17
  point is that she thinks that the practice– we put
• 1:41:21
  too much focus on the beliefs. But she says like
• 1:41:23
  the practices themselves– I don't know if she would say conjure.
• 1:41:26
  I also interviewed Diana Pasulka on it. They would say
• 1:41:29
  more like reveal these different realities. So they're much more–
• 1:41:34
  it's a very interesting set of work because they're not
• 1:41:37
  They're not trying to answer the question of whether the
• 1:41:39
  druids were really in her room or not. I mean
• 1:41:42
  the watch thing apparently definitely happened.
• 1:41:46
  Speaker 3: Apparently definitely is a weird way to phrase it.
• 1:41:48
  Speaker 2: Apparently to her definitely.
• 1:41:51
  Speaker 3: I know. You know what I'm saying? It's like show me, man.
• 1:41:56
  The conjuring thing is strange because that's a reoccurring theme
• 1:41:59
  that you go outside and you have like these experiences
• 1:42:04
  where you say I'm not afraid. Come show yourself to
• 1:42:08
  me and give it enough time with enough intention. Apparently
• 1:42:12
  things will appear in the sky.
• 1:42:14
  Speaker 2: My favorite one is the black guy talking about Yahweh,
• 1:42:17
  where the local ABC newscaster goes out. And it's going
• 1:42:20
  to be one of those, ha-ha, this guy thinks that
• 1:42:22
  he can conjure UFOs. And they go out with him
• 1:42:24
  and he conjures an orb. Did you ever see that one?
• 1:42:27
  That's like an incredible– that's like one of my favorite–
• 1:42:30
  Where is that? Of those videos. And the newscaster is
• 1:42:32
  like– literally they see him calling his– I think it's
• 1:42:34
  like an NBC affiliate or an ABC affiliate somewhere. Jamie
• 1:42:38
  can probably find it. But it's– he literally calls his boss.
• 1:42:42
  The newscaster is like, oh, the story has turned out
• 1:42:44
  a little differently than I thought. It's like one of
• 1:42:46
  my favorites. I'm sure you could say, oh, it's a
• 1:42:48
  balloon or whatever. But it like comes in and out.
• 1:42:50
  I mean it's really– and it comes right as he's
• 1:42:53
  calling it.
• 1:42:54
  Speaker 3: That's the weird thing is I've talked to multiple people
• 1:42:57
  that have actually done this. Oh, people. That have gone
• 1:43:00
  out with these air quotes experts and they go out
• 1:43:05
  to some deserted area and you call these things.
• 1:43:09
  Speaker 2: There's a second guy, white guy, that also does it
• 1:43:12
  and Reuters did a whole story on him because apparently
• 1:43:14
  there's a whole bunch of people around that they saw it.
• 1:43:17
  And of course Jake Barber, who's this former contractor, helicopter pilot,
• 1:43:22
  contractor for Special Forces … announced that he was going
• 1:43:25
  to go and conjure UFOs and bring one down. They're
• 1:43:30
  just sitting right up there.
• 1:43:32
  Speaker 5: We met up with Prophet Yahweh, seer of Yahweh at
• 1:43:35
  Doolittle Park off Lake Mead.
• 1:43:37
  Speaker 7: We picked the day, we picked the time, and we.
• 1:43:40
  Speaker 2: Picked the location.
• 1:43:41
  Speaker 7: Everyone's going to think you're absolutely nuts.
• 1:43:43
  Speaker 3: Well, I thought I was absolutely nuts.
• 1:43:45
  Speaker 5: Until he says he saw UFOs. Over the years, 1,500
• 1:43:49
  of them.
• 1:43:50
  Speaker 7: Can we make it 1,501 today?
• 1:43:51
  Speaker 2: What do you think? I'll try it.
• 1:43:54
  Speaker 7: He says the voice in his.
• 1:43:56
  Speaker 5: Head told him to go public now, so we took
• 1:43:58
  him up on his offer and we scanned the skies.
• 1:44:01
  Speaker 2: Nothing but a few clouds.
• 1:44:03
  Speaker 7: When the prophet started praying for a sighting, I wasn't
• 1:44:05
  exactly convinced.
• 1:44:06
  Speaker 1: I pray, O Yahweh, that you send a sighting so
• 1:44:09
  that they know that I am not mentally ill.
• 1:44:12
  Speaker 2: I am not a false prophet like those who seek
• 1:44:15
  to kill me.
• 1:44:17
  Speaker 3: Oh, people are trying to kill him?
• 1:44:21
  Speaker 5: You can barely see it, a white speck. Then, another sighting.
• 1:44:28
  Photojournalist Jonathan Hawkins locks in on it. Let's take a
• 1:44:31
  closer look here. It's an orange sphere that appeared out
• 1:44:34
  of nowhere. I call the boss with an unexpected change
• 1:44:37
  in my story.
• 1:44:39
  Speaker 7: I could see it clear as day.
• 1:44:41
  Speaker 3: In fact, it's bright.
• 1:44:42
  Speaker 2: I can't believe this. It's moving pretty fast. It's going
• 1:44:45
  to Nellis Air Force Base. It wants to be seen.
• 1:44:48
  Speaker 7: We called Nellis to see what these things might be.
• 1:44:51
  Guess what? They didn't call us back. But this thing
• 1:44:53
  started coming back toward us.
• 1:44:55
  Speaker 2: It's coming toward us now, I think.
• 1:44:58
  Speaker 1: What?
• 1:44:58
  Speaker 7: See, it's coming toward us.
• 1:45:01
  Speaker 3: Whoa, man! Oh, hallelujah!
• 1:45:06
  Speaker 7: Then, a few seconds later, it disappeared.
• 1:45:08
  Speaker 2: It's going back up in space.
• 1:45:11
  Speaker 5: Prophet Yahweh isn't concerned. He says it'll be back.
• 1:45:16
  Speaker 3: I would take this more seriously if that guy didn't
• 1:45:18
  have your reporter voice.
• 1:45:19
  Speaker 2: It's amazing. That's part of the charm of it. I
• 1:45:23
  think it's... I love it because I don't think it's
• 1:45:27
  going to convince any skeptics. But it's like one of
• 1:45:29
  the few things in our world where it inspires a
• 1:45:32
  set of like wonder and a set of awe. And
• 1:45:36
  for those of us that struggle with our faiths, it's
• 1:45:39
  inspiring because it is sort of a spiritual– like I
• 1:45:42
  mean he calls himself Yahweh, right? So there's like– it
• 1:45:44
  wasn't about like gray aliens or whatever. It was just
• 1:45:47
  something else. And that's what I mean about like why
• 1:45:49
  I'm more valet. His work explains all of this much
• 1:45:53
  better than the sort of the extraterrestrial hypothesis did, and
• 1:45:58
  he's had that since 68.
• 1:45:59
  Speaker 3: Well, I think what he does best is not explain it. Yeah.
• 1:46:02
  Speaker 2: He doesn't– yeah.
• 1:46:03
  Speaker 3: There really isn't an explanation, but here's what we know.
• 1:46:07
  Speaker 2: He calls it a control system though.
• 1:46:08
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:46:09
  Speaker 2: Which is sort of like– I asked Diana. I was like,
• 1:46:12
  how is that different from God? Because he's sort of
• 1:46:15
  a control system that is– his view is that there's
• 1:46:17
  a control system that's evolving human consciousness– And it will
• 1:46:20
  manifest different things in relation with humans over time. And
• 1:46:26
  so he looks at the St. Mary apparitions in Spain
• 1:46:32
  and the airships of the late 19th century where people
• 1:46:35
  saw these things that look like zeppelins even though they
• 1:46:38
  hadn't been invented yet. All of these things, he says,
• 1:46:41
  his view is they're sort of being sort of produced
• 1:46:44
  in some relationship as well with our culture. That's Vallée' s
• 1:46:48
  argument and that sounds a lot like God in some
• 1:46:50
  ways when you say control system.
• 1:46:52
  Speaker 5: Right.
• 1:46:52
  Speaker 3: What does that mean? Like is it a higher life
• 1:46:55
  form that is monitoring us? Like that's the secular version
• 1:47:01
  of religion for a lot of these people that are
• 1:47:03
  really interested in aliens. Like that there's some advanced being
• 1:47:06
  that's making sure we don't fuck everything up completely.
• 1:47:10
  Speaker 2: Certainly for me, that's my interest. I mean I– Like, again,
• 1:47:13
  this anthropologist, Lerman, you know, she says, you know, William
• 1:47:16
  James is this famous Harvard psychologist who wrote a book
• 1:47:19
  about the varieties of the religious experience in 1902. And
• 1:47:23
  he says everybody wants to kind of be like, is
• 1:47:25
  it real or not real? Is, like, this world just
• 1:47:27
  what we see? And he says, I think there's something more.
• 1:47:30
  There's not– so this very, you know, skeptic or debunker thing,
• 1:47:35
  which is like, oh, no, it's just got to be
• 1:47:36
  a– that thing's got to be a bird or it's
• 1:47:38
  a– it's like, well, but it really– you haven't– Just
• 1:47:41
  calling it that. And as they point out, it's like
• 1:47:42
  they showed up when they wanted to. I mean it's
• 1:47:44
  a pretty amazing– if it's just a coincidence, it's a
• 1:47:47
  really amazing one. And so I think for me it's
• 1:47:49
  like– because I am a Christian and it is hard
• 1:47:53
  to believe in an all-powerful and all-good God because he
• 1:47:56
  obviously allowed the Holocaust to occur and allows terrible things
• 1:47:59
  to occur. But I love that segment and there's– I
• 1:48:03
  love– there's another one I love right now. It's like
• 1:48:05
  a British woman in the 50s doing an interview about
• 1:48:07
  seeing what she calls a Mexican hat UFO over her house.
• 1:48:11
  And the kids saw it and she– everybody in the
• 1:48:14
  village made fun of her and they ridiculed her and
• 1:48:16
  she's like, but it's you know, but it's, I saw
• 1:48:18
  it and it was real. And it was like, it's like,
• 1:48:20
  those are like our, those are spiritual experiences, I think.
• 1:48:25
  So I don't know that, like, I want the files
• 1:48:27
  released from the government. I'm also skeptical that it's going
• 1:48:30
  to tell us what it is because I think at
• 1:48:33
  some level we're not supposed to get more, much more
• 1:48:35
  information about what it is. I think it's, Something else
• 1:48:38
  is going on. Or maybe it's having a positive effect.
• 1:48:42
  I think it's– I think one of the– sometimes people
• 1:48:44
  get really mad at UFO believers. Like skeptics get really
• 1:48:47
  like angry. Like how do they– whatever. They get so mad.
• 1:48:51
  And I'm always like– but like how often do you
• 1:48:52
  see them causing real harm or problems? I mean we
• 1:48:55
  had one cult where they– like a few people killed themselves.
• 1:48:58
  But for the most part– They cut their balls off first.
• 1:49:00
  Speaker 3: Yeah. Great.
• 1:49:01
  Speaker 2: So UFO– like for the most part UFO– people are
• 1:49:04
  interested in UFOs. are dreamy seekers, spiritual. Um, and I
• 1:49:09
  think it's, um, I, I, I think it's wrong to,
• 1:49:12
  I think it's lovely and wonderful. And it reminds us of,
• 1:49:15
  you know, that we're small on the one hand, we're
• 1:49:17
  humble about our knowledge and there's just surrounded by mystery.
• 1:49:20
  I mean, you're so much of your career and this,
• 1:49:23
  this platform has been to allow us to talk about
• 1:49:26
  things that are unexplained and that, or where the explanations
• 1:49:29
  don't really seem to explain it. There's something more As
• 1:49:33
  William James would say, there's something more. And I think
• 1:49:36
  that the denial of anything more, this idea that, oh,
• 1:49:38
  we know everything and we don't know anything.
• 1:49:41
  Speaker 3: That's hubris.
• 1:49:41
  Speaker 2: It's just crazy.
• 1:49:43
  Speaker 3: Those people are silly. They're more silly than the believers
• 1:49:47
  because this idea that like, look, if you have a
• 1:49:52
  completely novel experience, like say if you are Commander David
• 1:49:55
  Fravor and you encounter this tic-tac shaped object that's hovering
• 1:50:00
  over something that appears to be a ship that's under
• 1:50:02
  the water this thing takes off at a absolutely preposterous
• 1:50:07
  speed that is documented both in radar and visually and
• 1:50:12
  on camera right so they've got video of this thing
• 1:50:15
  moving they say that it went from above 50,000 feet
• 1:50:19
  above sea level to sea level in less than a
• 1:50:22
  second which would require more energy than the entire United
• 1:50:27
  States produces in a year in order to get an
• 1:50:30
  object to move that quickly. And it does that with
• 1:50:33
  no heat signature. Okay. If this is all true, just
• 1:50:37
  that alone. Now imagine you have this completely novel experience
• 1:50:41
  and because I haven't had it and you haven't had
• 1:50:44
  it and Jamie hasn't had it. Well, it's very simple
• 1:50:48
  and easy to dismiss it. But if this happened, what
• 1:50:51
  do you, what, What do you expect the person to do?
• 1:50:55
  What do you expect a decorated pilot in the Navy,
• 1:51:00
  a guy who has a rock-solid record, who is– there's
• 1:51:05
  nothing about him that screams that he's a kook or
• 1:51:08
  he's mentally ill. And when you talk to him, he's
• 1:51:10
  incredibly meticulous, very intelligent, very disciplined.
• 1:51:17
  Speaker 2: His face, it looks like he had a spiritual experience.
• 1:51:20
  There's a smile on his face. I went to the–
• 1:51:22
  when I was in Delhi, I went to the Jain
• 1:51:24
  temple and I went to the Hindu temple. And I'm
• 1:51:26
  not Jain. I'm not Hindu. But I had a look
• 1:51:29
  on my face that reminded me– that sort of like
• 1:51:33
  that starry eye, the look in your face where you've
• 1:51:36
  experienced the wonder and the awe of being alive and
• 1:51:40
  we're on this planet and we don't really understand it
• 1:51:42
  all but it's beautiful and it's OK.
• 1:51:44
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 1:51:45
  Speaker 2: I think that that's the spiritual– I mean that's where
• 1:51:48
  it's like he's been touched by– I don't– I'm not
• 1:51:50
  imposing this, but he's sort of touched by God in
• 1:51:52
  some way or touched by something.
• 1:51:54
  Speaker 3: Something.
• 1:51:54
  Speaker 2: And it's not– Something extraordinary.
• 1:51:56
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 1:51:56
  Speaker 2: And the thing– look, I think the other thing you
• 1:51:58
  read that environment, you're like that thing showed dominance in
• 1:52:01
  that environment. So on the one hand, it showed itself
• 1:52:03
  to be– Technological dominance. You call it technological.
• 1:52:05
  Speaker 3: Whatever.
• 1:52:06
  Speaker 2: Valet might call it spiritual dominance.
• 1:52:07
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 1:52:08
  Speaker 2: So– but that's for me what's special about it and
• 1:52:12
  I think it's not going to go away and– I
• 1:52:15
  don't think we're going to get to the answer. I
• 1:52:17
  don't think the government– how could the government– I don't
• 1:52:20
  think they know. Even if there was some contact, I
• 1:52:23
  don't know if that would really tell you all the answers.
• 1:52:26
  Speaker 3: Well, what I could imagine is that they have acquired
• 1:52:32
  both eyewitness, video, radar, all the various sensors, data. And
• 1:52:40
  they have done this with multiple instances of these things.
• 1:52:44
  And they are trying to assess what this is. And
• 1:52:48
  they have a longstanding study of these things that would
• 1:52:53
  both be disturbing and confusing to a lot of people
• 1:52:58
  and disruptive to society. I'm sure you're aware of Hal
• 1:53:01
  Puthoff and what happened with him during the Bush administration
• 1:53:04
  where they brought him in. And they essentially told Hal
• 1:53:07
  Puthoff– now, this is assuming Hal is telling the truth
• 1:53:10
  and I have no reason to think he's lying. They
• 1:53:12
  brought him in and a bunch of other scientists and
• 1:53:15
  a bunch of other thinkers and said, I want you
• 1:53:19
  to create a chart. On one side, list the positive
• 1:53:23
  aspects of disclosure. On the other side, what are the
• 1:53:26
  negative ramifications of disclosure? Government, religion, the finances, all the
• 1:53:33
  different things that could happen in the world. And the
• 1:53:35
  negatives outweighed the positives. They decided not to disclose. But
• 1:53:40
  the premise that he was brought in with this was
• 1:53:42
  saying we have acquired physical crafts that are not of
• 1:53:46
  this world. We have biological entities that are not of
• 1:53:50
  this world. And we are part of some sort of
• 1:53:52
  a back engineering program. We want to release this information.
• 1:53:56
  What would happen if we did? And their conclusion was chaos. Chaos.
• 1:54:02
  Speaker 2: Well, Trump didn't seem to go through that checklist and
• 1:54:04
  come up with the same answer.
• 1:54:05
  Speaker 3: I don't think he got that memo.
• 1:54:08
  Speaker 2: But also I do think– I think he ignores the
• 1:54:11
  memos from experts in general.
• 1:54:12
  Speaker 3: Right. If he was in office and that was the
• 1:54:14
  case and they came to him and someone like Tucker
• 1:54:17
  or someone that's influential to him could sit down with
• 1:54:20
  him and talk to him and he thought it would
• 1:54:21
  gain their favor, he might just release it.
• 1:54:23
  Speaker 2: I mean it's wild because on the one hand it
• 1:54:25
  looked like it was spontaneous. But on the other hand,
• 1:54:27
  Laura Trump. who's like someone that's like a trusted family
• 1:54:30
  member who's like really competent. Like they sent her in
• 1:54:32
  to like take over the RNC and fix it and
• 1:54:34
  fire all the people and get their loyalists in there.
• 1:54:37
  She was out there talking, saying that, you know, oh,
• 1:54:39
  Trump is– I was hearing a lot of noise, but
• 1:54:42
  it wasn't from people that I trusted, so I didn't
• 1:54:44
  report anything on it. But I was hearing a lot
• 1:54:45
  of noise too that the Trump administration was considering doing something,
• 1:54:48
  but you didn't know. I didn't know if it was
• 1:54:49
  circular reporting. But I thought the Laura Trump thing was
• 1:54:52
  interesting because I don't think– I don't see her as
• 1:54:55
  sort of a– She's not just speculating or bullshitting. She's
• 1:54:59
  a trusted source for that. So she said that and
• 1:55:04
  then Obama was asked about it and then Trump made
• 1:55:06
  that announcement. So I don't know what they have planned.
• 1:55:08
  We were pushing on the intelligence community privately to release
• 1:55:11
  the stuff and it was going nowhere.
• 1:55:13
  Speaker 3: The Obama thing was nuts because the guy didn't have
• 1:55:14
  any follow-up questions.
• 1:55:16
  Speaker 2: That was part of what was really weird about it. Also,
• 1:55:18
  they put it in a speed round. Like it's like
• 1:55:22
  why would you put it in a speed round?
• 1:55:23
  Speaker 3: Which is probably why he didn't have follow-up questions if
• 1:55:26
  you think about it that way. But I mean that's
• 1:55:28
  just a massive dropping of the ball. The guy says
• 1:55:31
  aliens are real. How do you know? How do you
• 1:55:33
  know is the next question, right? It's right there. How
• 1:55:35
  do you know aliens are real?
• 1:55:36
  Speaker 2: Well, yesterday– the day after then he said, oh, I
• 1:55:38
  just meant theoretically and there's life in the universe and stuff.
• 1:55:40
  Speaker 3: Well, why don't you ask that? So you catch him
• 1:55:43
  on the spot instead of when it becomes this big
• 1:55:45
  viral moment and everybody is talking about it. And then
• 1:55:48
  he comes up with a rational explanation for why he
• 1:55:50
  said that. Yeah.
• 1:55:51
  Speaker 2: I mean– and he told– Obama told one of the
• 1:55:54
  late night hosts. I can't remember if it was Kimmel
• 1:55:56
  or Colbert or somebody. But he said– they said something like,
• 1:55:58
  tell us what you know. And he said, I can't
• 1:56:00
  tell you. There's things I can't tell you. So I
• 1:56:02
  mean he obviously knows more than he said. Right.
• 1:56:05
  Speaker 3: Otherwise he would say there's nothing.
• 1:56:06
  Speaker 2: And then Trump said that he knows more. It was
• 1:56:08
  very interesting.
• 1:56:09
  Speaker 3: I talked to Trump about it. He won't tell you shit.
• 1:56:13
  Speaker 2: He kind of moved around. There's a lot of things.
• 1:56:14
  Speaker 3: I know some things. There's a lot of– it's very crazy.
• 1:56:18
  Speaker 2: Yeah. But he won't tell you anything. They said they
• 1:56:20
  weren't going to release the Epstein files and that came out.
• 1:56:22
  So I just kind of go– no, I have a
• 1:56:24
  different– I don't know if you want to get into it.
• 1:56:26
  But I have a slightly different view of Epstein than
• 1:56:28
  I think I did.
• 1:56:29
  Speaker 3: Well, before we get into that, you know Tucker's thoughts
• 1:56:33
  on this whole UFO, UAP thing? He thinks they're like
• 1:56:37
  angels and demons from the Bible. And he thinks that
• 1:56:41
  they've always been here. And I'm sure you're aware of
• 1:56:44
  like the Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch, which
• 1:56:47
  was one of the original biblical texts that wasn't included
• 1:56:50
  in the canon, but just because of a few rabbis
• 1:56:52
  decided it didn't jive with the Torah. And they found
• 1:56:56
  the Book of Enoch along with the Book of Isaiah
• 1:56:59
  as a part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. And when
• 1:57:04
  you find out that there was a biblical text that
• 1:57:08
  was contemporary to books that did make it into the
• 1:57:12
  Old Testament and that they talk about the watchers– Who
• 1:57:16
  come from above and mate with humans and create this
• 1:57:20
  race of giants called the Nephilim who destroy everything and
• 1:57:24
  consume everything. And you're like, what the fuck is this? Like,
• 1:57:27
  what is this? And just stop and imagine if those
• 1:57:30
  rabbis hadn't– like if that hadn't been excluded. Like Wesley
• 1:57:36
  Hopf is great talking about this stuff. He's a real
• 1:57:39
  historian when it comes to. really understanding the history of
• 1:57:43
  these biblical texts. And he's absolutely fascinated by it. And
• 1:57:46
  he's like, yeah, it's kind of crazy that they just
• 1:57:49
  decided to not put that in the Bible. Imagine if
• 1:57:52
  they did. And part of when you're going to church
• 1:57:55
  and they're going over the Old Testament, like, okay, this
• 1:57:59
  week we're going to go over the book of Enoch
• 1:58:02
  and we're going to figure out who the watchers are. Like,
• 1:58:06
  what is that? Like, what is that story? The crazy
• 1:58:09
  thing that... Wes Huff told me was that the book
• 1:58:12
  of Isaiah that they found in the Dead Sea Scroll
• 1:58:15
  predates the oldest version of the book of Isaiah by
• 1:58:19
  more than a thousand years when they found it. They
• 1:58:23
  found out that there was a book of Isaiah that
• 1:58:25
  is a thousand years older than the one they thought
• 1:58:27
  was the oldest one. And it is verbatim. It's verbatim
• 1:58:32
  from the one that's a thousand years later. Wow. Which
• 1:58:34
  is kind of crazy. Wow. But then it's also in
• 1:58:37
  the same fucking caves as the book of Enoch. It's
• 1:58:41
  all together there in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
• 1:58:43
  Speaker 2: Amazing. I mean we've had this– we've been fed this
• 1:58:47
  story that sort of all of these religions and myths
• 1:58:50
  from the past are all just false. Right. They're all
• 1:58:53
  just hallucinations.
• 1:58:54
  Speaker 4: Right.
• 1:58:55
  Speaker 2: They're all just lies.
• 1:58:56
  Speaker 3: I don't believe that.
• 1:58:57
  Speaker 2: It's just really– it's really arrogant actually. Like it's like, well, no.
• 1:59:01
  Now like we've been around for– humans have been around
• 1:59:03
  for like millions of years. But the last 150 years,
• 1:59:04
  it's like we really figured it all out and we
• 1:59:07
  figured out that all human knowledge before– whatever, some recent
• 1:59:11
  time period is nonsense. Yeah, I think that's quite arrogant.
• 1:59:16
  Speaker 3: It's very arrogant. But look, I'm a believer that history
• 1:59:19
  is far older than we think it is. And I
• 1:59:21
  think the more time goes on, the more that gets revealed.
• 1:59:24
  So when you're talking about something that's four or five
• 1:59:28
  thousand years old, I think really you're talking about a
• 1:59:31
  retelling of a far older story. And I think there's
• 1:59:37
  It's very difficult when you're dealing with people that don't
• 1:59:40
  have an understanding of science. The written language is fairly new.
• 1:59:44
  It's an oral tradition for generations before it's ever written down.
• 1:59:49
  So my question with all this is always like, what
• 1:59:52
  were they trying to talk about? What were they trying
• 1:59:55
  to say? What was the original experience that someone documented
• 2:00:00
  in story? And then that story was relayed over and
• 2:00:04
  over and over again, generation after generation. Until it's eventually
• 2:00:07
  written down and then they study it and take it literally.
• 2:00:10
  And then also translating it from Aramaic, which is the
• 2:00:15
  Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient Hebrew, all these different languages to
• 2:00:19
  Latin and Greek and eventually English. But what's the original story?
• 2:00:25
  What are they trying to document? What is this important
• 2:00:29
  knowledge that they want to share? And how screwed up
• 2:00:32
  would that get? over the generations and generations of talking
• 2:00:36
  about it, but what ultimate truth is in there? Like,
• 2:00:39
  I'm absolutely fascinated by the story of Jesus Christ, because
• 2:00:43
  if you wanted to come up with a way that
• 2:00:46
  people would live that would absolutely be far more beneficial
• 2:00:52
  than just going on natural instincts and tribal behavior, you
• 2:00:55
  would follow Jesus' teachings. Like, I can't find a flaw
• 2:01:02
  in the way he tells you to live life. There's
• 2:01:06
  a lot of religions that involve, you know, torturing nonbelievers
• 2:01:11
  and raping infidels and being able to do terrible things
• 2:01:15
  to the people that don't believe your religion. There's none
• 2:01:18
  of that in Christianity. It's all forgiveness. It's all treating
• 2:01:22
  your brother and your neighbor as if they're you. Like
• 2:01:27
  it's a beautiful way to live life.
• 2:01:29
  Speaker 2: Are you Christian?
• 2:01:30
  Speaker 3: Well, I go to church. I have been for quite
• 2:01:32
  a while. Okay. I've been doing it for the last
• 2:01:34
  three or four years.
• 2:01:35
  Speaker 2: But that's not really an answer to the question.
• 2:01:36
  Speaker 3: Well, because I don't know. I think it's very interesting.
• 2:01:41
  And I do believe that if you follow the teachings
• 2:01:45
  of Jesus Christ, you will live a better life. I
• 2:01:47
  really do believe that. And one of the things I
• 2:01:49
  talk about is like the people that I go to
• 2:01:51
  church with are the most fucking polite people I've ever
• 2:01:54
  met in my life. They're so kind and so nice.
• 2:01:57
  And everybody lets you out of the parking lot. Everybody's like,
• 2:01:59
  you go, you go. It's like the one– like it works.
• 2:02:03
  You know what I'm saying? Like if people are trying
• 2:02:05
  to find an idea, does that mean I believe people
• 2:02:07
  came back from the dead? Does that mean I believe
• 2:02:09
  Moses part of the Red Sea? Not really. No, it
• 2:02:14
  seems like that's most likely a story where people are
• 2:02:17
  telling it generation after generation after generation. But there's probably
• 2:02:22
  something happening. There's probably some truth to it. Then you
• 2:02:26
  take into account some of the stories from the Old
• 2:02:27
  Testament like the book of Ezekiel, which I'm absolutely fascinated by.
• 2:02:31
  Book of Ezekiel and his account of the wheel within
• 2:02:33
  a wheel and the fire flashing forth continually and in
• 2:02:38
  the midst of the fire as it were gleaming metal.
• 2:02:40
  Like what the hell is that? Like what is that?
• 2:02:43
  Like what are these stories? And in the midst of
• 2:02:46
  this gleaming– there's the likeness of four living creatures. Like, OK.
• 2:02:52
  They darted to and fro like the appearance of a
• 2:02:55
  flash of lightning. OK. What is that? Like what are
• 2:02:58
  they– what were they trying to say? And what was
• 2:03:01
  the original experience that people documented that was so important?
• 2:03:05
  Speaker 2: And it might have been a lot more similar to
• 2:03:06
  these UFO experiences. That's the point.
• 2:03:09
  Speaker 3: And I think this is one of the things that
• 2:03:10
  Tucker goes back to.
• 2:03:12
  Speaker 2: The Christian story is so beautiful and so important. Renée
• 2:03:17
  Girard's view of Christianity is really stopping the cycle of scapegoating.
• 2:03:23
  Scapegoating where– and I'm seeing it right now as part
• 2:03:26
  of the reason we've been pushing back against the moral
• 2:03:28
  panic on Epstein is that you scapegoat the thing. Traditionally,
• 2:03:33
  it literally was a goat, but you scapegoat the person
• 2:03:35
  or whatever.
• 2:03:35
  Speaker 3: Wait a minute. Originally, it was a goat?
• 2:03:36
  Speaker 2: It really was a goat. Yeah, it was a goat.
• 2:03:39
  Speaker 3: Really?
• 2:03:39
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it would carry the sins of the community.
• 2:03:42
  Speaker 3: Oh, you'd sacrifice the goat?
• 2:03:43
  Speaker 2: I think you would send it away to die or something.
• 2:03:45
  Speaker 4: Oh.
• 2:03:45
  Speaker 2: But over time, it became people.
• 2:03:47
  Speaker 3: That's what a scapegoat was? Yeah. Oh. Yeah. Interesting. Yeah.
• 2:03:52
  Speaker 2: It's always a goat.
• 2:03:53
  Speaker 3: Goats are the devil. Goats are everything. Goats get a
• 2:03:57
  bad rap.
• 2:03:57
  Speaker 2: Goats are in your lobby, aren't they? Those are elk. No,
• 2:04:01
  in your lobby. No, there's a big difference. Yeah, but
• 2:04:04
  I mean so Christianity puts an end to that. It
• 2:04:06
  says stop scapegoating. I mean they scapegoated Jesus really. I
• 2:04:10
  mean you kind of go– you scapegoat– the purpose of
• 2:04:12
  the scapegoating was to– was for the community to unite
• 2:04:17
  the community together. And scapegoat to put all of its
• 2:04:20
  sins on one thing and then kill it or get
• 2:04:23
  rid of it, and that was the way the community
• 2:04:24
  would restore unity. Christianity said, no, we're not going to
• 2:04:28
  do it that way. That's immoral. And so he, without sin,
• 2:04:34
  should be the first to cast a stone. Jesus wasn't
• 2:04:36
  saying that prostitution– was good or anything. He was saying
• 2:04:41
  that we should not be scapegoating. You know, you've got
• 2:04:43
  sins too. So don't scapegoat this person. That's a really
• 2:04:46
  radical moment in human history. And it really is what
• 2:04:49
  allowed humans to spread. It creates a universal, I mean,
• 2:04:52
  Christianity is the first universal, it's really universal religion. Maybe
• 2:04:56
  it's not the only, but it's a universal religion. It
• 2:04:58
  says everybody, you know, is a child of God and it's,
• 2:05:01
  and it's evangelical and wants other people to become Christian.
• 2:05:04
  That's very That's different from other religions where I'm like
• 2:05:07
  this is my god. I've got my own god here
• 2:05:09
  and we're the best and you suck.
• 2:05:10
  Speaker 3: And they make it very difficult to join. Yeah.
• 2:05:13
  Speaker 2: And it's not to say that Christians– obviously there was
• 2:05:16
  fighting the Muslims and there's some interesting revisionism there. But
• 2:05:20
  it's a beautiful religion.
• 2:05:22
  Speaker 3: There's terrible things that have been done under the guise
• 2:05:25
  of Christianity. But if you listen to the teachings of
• 2:05:28
  Jesus Christ, they're not following his teachings. So it's like
• 2:05:32
  it's just human behavior. That they have tagged on to Christianity.
• 2:05:37
  So when people say Christianity is responsible for horrible atrocities,
• 2:05:40
  I say no. I say humans are. Because if it
• 2:05:44
  was actually Christianity, you would be following the teachings of
• 2:05:47
  Christ and there would be none of those things.
• 2:05:49
  Speaker 2: I mean anti-Semitism is not Christian.
• 2:05:52
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 2:05:52
  Speaker 2: So true Christianity is not that.
• 2:05:55
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 2:05:57
  Speaker 2: I think it's lovely and I hope there's a revival
• 2:05:59
  of some of it. I'm not sure there is.
• 2:06:00
  Speaker 3: I think there is more now than before. There's a
• 2:06:03
  lot of young people that are getting into Christianity.
• 2:06:07
  Speaker 2: I think it's good to– I think it's also– I
• 2:06:09
  mean essentially with the UFO thing, it's an awareness that
• 2:06:12
  there's a higher power. So one can sort of say, look,
• 2:06:14
  the UFO thing, it's not the same as Christianity or whatever.
• 2:06:16
  But this awareness that like we're not– like there's something
• 2:06:19
  else going on. There's something more. There's something higher than
• 2:06:22
  us and that we should be humble about. in the
• 2:06:24
  face of this gigantic mystery. I think that puts us
• 2:06:28
  in a better mentality.
• 2:06:30
  Speaker 3: It certainly does. And if anything, if he's not the
• 2:06:33
  son of God, if this was an actual historical figure,
• 2:06:37
  what an insanely wise human being who didn't have these
• 2:06:42
  thoughts that are inherent to all of us of vengeance
• 2:06:45
  and lust and greed. He has none of these.
• 2:06:49
  Speaker 2: So radical. Also, you've heard it said before that you should,
• 2:06:53
  you know, Love your friends and hate your enemies. I
• 2:06:55
  say to you, you should love your enemies. I mean
• 2:06:57
  that's just– it's like the hardest– I'm not there. I
• 2:07:02
  think very few people are there. But it's certainly the
• 2:07:05
  right aspiration, isn't it?
• 2:07:08
  Speaker 3: Yeah, it's the right aspiration. And Tucker thinks that this
• 2:07:12
  whole UFO thing is somehow connected to the spiritual realm.
• 2:07:17
  Speaker 2: Well, because we've been told for so long that there
• 2:07:19
  is no spiritual realm, that spiritual realm is just a
• 2:07:22
  mental illness. It's like the Yahweh thing.
• 2:07:25
  Speaker 3: But the problem is the people that tell you that
• 2:07:27
  are all mentally ill. They're all very unhappy. Like atheists,
• 2:07:31
  like secular, like hardcore atheists are some of the most unhappy,
• 2:07:35
  depressed people I know. I don't see like incredibly happy
• 2:07:39
  unless they do a lot of mushrooms. And those people
• 2:07:41
  tend to not be atheists anymore. That's the one weird thing.
• 2:07:44
  People that have had like intense breakthrough psychedelic experiences, one
• 2:07:47
  of the first things they go, maybe there is a god.
• 2:07:50
  Like maybe I don't know what I'm talking about because
• 2:07:54
  if I just experienced that and that's a real thing
• 2:07:57
  that you could have while alive on earth where you
• 2:08:00
  are confronted with divine wisdom and love in some weird
• 2:08:04
  strange form and when there's a lot of people that
• 2:08:06
  believe that that's the source of a lot of religious
• 2:08:08
  experiences and instead of alienating and making those things illegal
• 2:08:14
  we should study them and make them a part of
• 2:08:16
  the religious experience and Because it's probably what they were originally.
• 2:08:21
  Speaker 2: Well, that's right. And so now that people are having
• 2:08:23
  spiritual experiences with UFOs, it's wonderful. And they should talk
• 2:08:26
  about them and kindle them. I think the thing about
• 2:08:29
  psychedelics that's so interesting is that– at least my experience
• 2:08:32
  with them– was that you don't become so attached to
• 2:08:37
  your ideas and your beliefs.
• 2:08:38
  Speaker 5: Right.
• 2:08:39
  Speaker 2: And so– which is a big problem in our society
• 2:08:42
  is people that get too attached to their– their egos
• 2:08:44
  get attached to their beliefs as opposed to like, oh,
• 2:08:46
  I thought that– I mean I've made– I've made my
• 2:08:49
  whole career out of being wrong about things and then
• 2:08:51
  correcting them. But I think it's hard because you do–
• 2:08:55
  it's really– It's a great quality. Thank you. It's a
• 2:08:57
  very– but it's still– I hate it. I hate being wrong.
• 2:09:00
  It's totally natural to hate it. But I do think
• 2:09:03
  like having a practice that makes you go– you are
• 2:09:06
  not your beliefs. There's something there. You have an existence there.
• 2:09:11
  separate from the things that you wrote on your blog
• 2:09:13
  or you wrote on X. And don't be so attached
• 2:09:15
  to them. Right.
• 2:09:16
  Speaker 3: Don't make them your identity. Yeah.
• 2:09:19
  Speaker 2: And that it's actually there's something really quite– there's an
• 2:09:23
  awful part of when you feel like you got something wrong.
• 2:09:25
  But then there's another part where you're like, oh, it
• 2:09:27
  feels good to get it right and you feel clean.
• 2:09:29
  And that's like– that's what we should be going for.
• 2:09:32
  But it does require– for me, being humble about my
• 2:09:36
  limitations before some higher power is really important. place to begin.
• 2:09:40
  Because if you think there's no higher power or the
• 2:09:43
  other one is like souls, we don't talk about souls enough.
• 2:09:46
  A new friend of mine at the university was talking
• 2:09:49
  about how important it is to really to care for
• 2:09:52
  your soul and to care about other people's souls. That's
• 2:09:55
  one of the things that Christianity is so good at,
• 2:09:57
  that you have something divine inside of you connected to
• 2:09:59
  something divine outside of you and that your behaviors affect
• 2:10:01
  its treatment. And, you know, when you tell people that
• 2:10:05
  you're just, you know, A meat suit and you're just
• 2:10:09
  worm food and your life doesn't matter and that it's
• 2:10:12
  all just random and pointless. That's a terrible story. It
• 2:10:17
  makes people feel terrible. But when you kind of go–
• 2:10:20
  there was one of the most beautiful– I loved all
• 2:10:22
  the Charlie Kirk videos that went out after his death
• 2:10:24
  because there were so many ones where he had these
• 2:10:25
  beautiful moments. But he's talking to these women that are
• 2:10:27
  doing the OnlyFans. Did you see that one?
• 2:10:29
  Speaker 3: No.
• 2:10:30
  Speaker 2: And they're describing– they're trying to shock him and saying
• 2:10:33
  just really kind of crude things about their sexuality and
• 2:10:36
  how like the sex they have, it doesn't matter to them.
• 2:10:39
  And he was like, I just don't believe that. I
• 2:10:40
  think you have a soul. I think God has a
• 2:10:42
  purpose for you. What a much lovelier way to engage somebody.
• 2:10:48
  And it wasn't a– he didn't feel like he was
• 2:10:50
  morally condemning them. He was actually saying God loves you.
• 2:10:53
  And so for me, Christianity brings– that is the part
• 2:10:57
  of Christianity that I think is so special. But it
• 2:10:59
  is hard. I mean, one of the things that this
• 2:11:00
  anthropologist that I'm really into is talking about, she says
• 2:11:02
  it's the more the God, the more different the God
• 2:11:05
  is from humans, the harder it is to believe in them.
• 2:11:09
  And so people like Christians in particular, she would talk
• 2:11:11
  about their even evangelical ones are always complaining about not
• 2:11:15
  believing enough and not having enough faith because it is
• 2:11:17
  so hard because you have the Holocaust problem, the problem
• 2:11:20
  of evil. Why, if the god is all-powerful and all-good,
• 2:11:23
  is he allowing the Holocaust?
• 2:11:24
  Speaker 3: Why do you allow Hiroshima?
• 2:11:25
  Speaker 2: Why– you know, these terrible things. And part of the
• 2:11:28
  answer for Christians has been, well, because he wants us
• 2:11:30
  to exercise free will and to be in touch with
• 2:11:33
  our better sides and to realize our potential as moral
• 2:11:38
  humans and moral souls. And that's a pretty good answer.
• 2:11:42
  But it is– I was glad to hear her say that.
• 2:11:45
  People struggle with it because I certainly do as well.
• 2:11:48
  Speaker 3: Well, I mean– I think everyone struggles with it. I'm just,
• 2:11:53
  I'm really fascinated by it. I'm fascinated by it because
• 2:11:57
  when I go to church and I listen to them
• 2:11:58
  talk about various passages in the Bible, my mindset is
• 2:12:03
  always like, what was the real experience? Like, what are
• 2:12:07
  we missing out of these tales? What are we missing
• 2:12:10
  out of these recounting of these experiences? What happened? I
• 2:12:15
  don't think it was nothing. I really don't.
• 2:12:18
  Speaker 2: I think there's something.
• 2:12:19
  Speaker 3: Real to it and And again, it works. That's the
• 2:12:24
  main one for me. It's like you want to live
• 2:12:27
  a better life? Like if you live as a Christian,
• 2:12:29
  you'll have a better life. You'll have a more love-filled,
• 2:12:32
  more wonderful life. That's real. And this idea that, oh,
• 2:12:36
  it's fairy tales.
• 2:12:39
  Speaker 2: Is it?
• 2:12:40
  Speaker 3: If it's a method for life that gives you a
• 2:12:43
  more rich and loving and peaceful life, Isn't that better
• 2:12:48
  for everybody? Isn't that a real thing? That's a real thing.
• 2:12:52
  There's no way you can know whether or not any
• 2:12:55
  of the stories in the Bible happened exactly as described.
• 2:12:58
  We can't know. So you have to have this leap
• 2:13:00
  of faith. You know, and it gets weird. Like Jesus
• 2:13:04
  comes back on a white horse. Like, hey, slow down.
• 2:13:07
  You know, like Revelations. The book of Revelations is weird.
• 2:13:10
  But what's really weird is some of these people think
• 2:13:14
  that– What's going on in Iran is to light the
• 2:13:17
  fire to bring– to have Jesus return, to light the
• 2:13:21
  signal fire. Like did you hear those recountings by that–
• 2:13:25
  these non-commissioned officers that went into these briefings, combat briefings? Oh, no. OK.
• 2:13:32
  Here's one of them because I saved it because it's
• 2:13:34
  so kooky that I read it and I was like, wait.
• 2:13:36
  What the fuck did they say to him? Because it's
• 2:13:39
  so crazy.
• 2:13:40
  Speaker 2: I tend to be– my knee jerk is anti-apocalyptic because
• 2:13:44
  I don't see apocalyptic movements doing a lot of good
• 2:13:48
  in the world.
• 2:13:49
  Speaker 3: Yeah, that's probably better off.
• 2:13:51
  Speaker 2: I think a lot of Christians have ignored the book
• 2:13:54
  of Revelations. Yeah, I think focusing too heavily on that
• 2:13:58
  particular book probably leads to bad outcomes. OK.
• 2:14:01
  Speaker 3: So this was the story that I read. This was
• 2:14:03
  in Yahoo. I'll send this to you, Jeremy, so you
• 2:14:05
  can get this. So we could put this up on
• 2:14:09
  the board. Did you find the thing? Okay. He urged
• 2:14:11
  us to tell our troops that this was all part
• 2:14:13
  of God's. Now, this is a combat readiness briefing. Urge
• 2:14:19
  us to tell our troops this is all part of
• 2:14:21
  God's plan. And he specifically referenced numerous citations of the
• 2:14:24
  book of Revelations referring to Armageddon and the imminent return
• 2:14:27
  of Jesus Christ. He said that President Trump has been
• 2:14:31
  anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran
• 2:14:34
  to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth. And
• 2:14:39
  they said that the guy was saying this had a
• 2:14:40
  giant smile on his face, which made it all the weirder. Like,
• 2:14:44
  see if you could find that in there. Does it
• 2:14:46
  say that? No, it's not in that particular article. Oh,
• 2:14:50
  this is just military.com.
• 2:14:51
  Speaker 2: Sounds like someone complained about it.
• 2:14:52
  Speaker 3: Oh, yeah. A bunch of people complained. There's actually like
• 2:14:54
  a lawsuit.
• 2:14:56
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 2:14:56
  Speaker 3: Religious freedom law.
• 2:14:57
  Speaker 2: You risk like the whole self-fulfilling prophecy with that one.
• 2:14:59
  Speaker 3: Well, it's all just like, what are you talking about?
• 2:15:01
  Wait a second.
• 2:15:02
  Speaker 2: What are you doing? What machines, what weapons do you control?
• 2:15:05
  Speaker 3: Yeah, there's a lot of fucking religious kooks. So it's not. just,
• 2:15:09
  and also that is not how Jesus Christ would handle it.
• 2:15:12
  Let's go bomb Iran. That's how Jesus is going to
• 2:15:13
  come back. Like, do you think he would tell you
• 2:15:15
  that's the right way to do it?
• 2:15:16
  Speaker 2: Like, how did you interpret the text?
• 2:15:20
  Speaker 3: Like, how did you interpret that in the text? Okay. Uh,
• 2:15:23
  before we, so we're, we're deep into this show. So
• 2:15:26
  the Epstein stuff.
• 2:15:27
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 2:15:27
  Speaker 3: So what is your take on this? All right.
• 2:15:29
  Speaker 2: Well, so I changed your position. Yeah, I've changed. I think, uh,
• 2:15:33
  it's been a bunch of time with the files. Um,
• 2:15:36
  I will say I think– I did do a piece
• 2:15:37
  where I do think that the shrimp is a code
• 2:15:40
  word for young women. I'm pretty sure about that.
• 2:15:44
  Speaker 3: What do you think pizza is a code word for?
• 2:15:45
  Speaker 2: Well, that was– OK. So then I did a– I
• 2:15:48
  did– I had this article about code words in the
• 2:15:50
  Epstein files and I did the shrimps. And then I
• 2:15:53
  had some stuff about pizza and grape juice in there,
• 2:15:55
  about grape soda. And my co-author, Alex, was like, dude,
• 2:15:58
  you can't go. If you can't go full Pizzagate, you
• 2:16:00
  got to– so we kept it out. And then the
• 2:16:03
  Times mentioned the pizza thing. So I wrote some on
• 2:16:06
  X about it. But I ended up taking it down
• 2:16:08
  because I was like, I don't really know this one.
• 2:16:10
  I mean, what weirded me about the pizza one was
• 2:16:13
  where his urologist was like, take your erection dysfunction pills
• 2:16:18
  and then we'll go out and get pizza and grape soda.
• 2:16:21
  And I was like, that is creepy, you know, as hell.
• 2:16:25
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 2:16:25
  Speaker 2: So but I don't the shrimp one. I'm like. Ninety-five
• 2:16:30
  percent of it means young women because you just see
• 2:16:31
  how they talk about it. I think I proved it
• 2:16:33
  in my piece. There's other ones like people are like
• 2:16:35
  the jerky is like cannibalism and whatever. It's like, well,
• 2:16:38
  it didn't help that the restaurant owner was like– the
• 2:16:41
  restaurant's name was like cannibal and something. But I'm skeptical
• 2:16:46
  that that's what that was.
• 2:16:48
  Speaker 3: Well, you would be skeptical unless you were part of
• 2:16:50
  some of these fucking bizarre satanic rituals and then you
• 2:16:52
  would go, oh my god, it's real. Like there are– look.
• 2:16:56
  People have sacrificed people, right? Can we agree to that.
• 2:17:00
  Speaker 2: In human history?
• 2:17:01
  Speaker 3: Yeah. Oh, sure.
• 2:17:02
  Speaker 2: Of course.
• 2:17:02
  Speaker 3: And there have been satanic rituals throughout history. Can we
• 2:17:05
  agree to that?
• 2:17:06
  Speaker 2: Sure.
• 2:17:06
  Speaker 3: OK. So there has been cannibalism in history. We agree
• 2:17:10
  to that? OK.
• 2:17:11
  Speaker 2: Unfortunately, a lot.
• 2:17:12
  Speaker 3: Actually, there was a lot.
• 2:17:13
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 2:17:14
  Speaker 3: Why wouldn't we think they're talking about that? We don't
• 2:17:17
  want to believe it, right? Is that what it is?
• 2:17:19
  Speaker 5: No.
• 2:17:19
  Speaker 3: We don't want to believe that these people, these– Multi-millionaires
• 2:17:24
  and billionaires that go to this island and engage in
• 2:17:27
  all this crazy shit aren't doing something like child sacrifice
• 2:17:31
  or cannibalism.
• 2:17:32
  Speaker 2: Well, let's start with the thing that I think a
• 2:17:34
  lot of us thought it was, which is that it
• 2:17:36
  was an intelligence community sex blackmail operation. That's what made
• 2:17:42
  it for me a story. I mean a creepy guy
• 2:17:46
  doing creepy things. There's just that's, we call that a
• 2:17:49
  dog bites man story. You know, what makes it a
• 2:17:51
  man bites dog story is like, is that you kind
• 2:17:53
  of go, wow, it's like Mossad and CIA running a honeypot.
• 2:17:55
  I mean, that's the premise of Whitley Webb's two volume book,
• 2:17:59
  One Nation Under Blackmail. But when you look at it, like,
• 2:18:04
  we don't see that. We see one case where Epstein
• 2:18:08
  emails himself something that sounds like it's in the voice
• 2:18:12
  of the Bill Gates science advisor, Boris Karsich, I believe
• 2:18:15
  is the name. And in it, they talk about, oh,
• 2:18:18
  you know, it's the famous email where he says, oh,
• 2:18:20
  you know, I got STDs. It says you got STDs
• 2:18:24
  from Russian hookers or from Russian women, and then you
• 2:18:27
  tried to slip antibiotics or you wanted me to slip
• 2:18:29
  antibiotics in Melinda's drink. And Melinda, like, they asked her
• 2:18:33
  about it.
• 2:18:33
  Speaker 3: It was awful.
• 2:18:33
  Speaker 2: It doesn't, like– That's not– it's weird what that is.
• 2:18:39
  So first of all, it's not even clear what that is.
• 2:18:40
  Speaker 3: Hold on a second. We're just talking about emails.
• 2:18:42
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 2:18:43
  Speaker 3: Right? So who knows what was said? Just from the email,
• 2:18:49
  we know that there at least implies that he's got
• 2:18:52
  dirt on people and that he is exercising– is doing
• 2:18:58
  something with this dirt that he has on Epstein or
• 2:19:01
  on Bill Gates rather. Yeah, although— So we're very limited
• 2:19:05
  in the amount of data that we possess, right? Because
• 2:19:08
  we just have emails between him and other people. Inside
• 2:19:11
  those emails, we find a lot of creepy shit. We
• 2:19:14
  find that one description where he was talking to this
• 2:19:17
  woman where she said, I'm doing investigating a story about
• 2:19:22
  an island where they bring children for sex. And he goes,
• 2:19:25
  she almost had a heart attack when I told her
• 2:19:27
  that person is me.
• 2:19:29
  Speaker 2: Well, he was talking about the rumors and gossip about him.
• 2:19:33
  But he wasn't saying that he's bringing children to his
• 2:19:35
  island for sex.
• 2:19:36
  Speaker 3: But that is what he said. But if you look
• 2:19:38
  at the text.
• 2:19:38
  Speaker 2: No, he said they're talking about me.
• 2:19:40
  Speaker 3: No, no, no. She said, I'm doing a story on
• 2:19:45
  a guy who brings children to his island for sex.
• 2:19:50
  And he says she almost had a heart attack when
• 2:19:53
  I told her that person is me.
• 2:19:56
  Speaker 2: The person that... You're being charitable.
• 2:19:59
  Speaker 3: But you're being charitable because that's not what the text says.
• 2:20:02
  What the text says is Someone's bringing children to an island.
• 2:20:06
  I told her that person was me. He didn't say
• 2:20:09
  I told her that's a bullshit rumor. I let her
• 2:20:12
  know that's not true.
• 2:20:13
  Speaker 2: But that's very much in his style. I mean, look,
• 2:20:15
  let's back up to the intelligence.
• 2:20:16
  Speaker 3: Wait a minute. Why would you why would you dismiss that?
• 2:20:19
  Speaker 2: We can pull it up and look at it. I
• 2:20:20
  just think I think what we see from the files
• 2:20:25
  and I think Mike Benz has sort of pointed out
• 2:20:26
  the ways in which Epstein might have been a contractor
• 2:20:29
  or a financier or somebody hiding money for the intelligence community.
• 2:20:33
  Beyond that, I don't see any evidence that he was
• 2:20:37
  doing much for the intelligence community, if at all.
• 2:20:40
  Speaker 3: But you're only getting emails and only half of the emails, right?
• 2:20:45
  So there's only 3 million emails that have been released.
• 2:20:48
  There's another 3 million that the FBI possesses that they're
• 2:20:50
  not releasing, right?
• 2:20:52
  Speaker 2: 100 percent. It's possible.
• 2:20:53
  Speaker 3: So why would you draw any conclusions based on only
• 2:20:57
  50 percent of the data? And then if there is
• 2:20:59
  50 percent of the data that hasn't been released, why?
• 2:21:03
  Is that way worse? Because this stuff is fucking nuts.
• 2:21:06
  Like this is nuts. Like take your erection pills so
• 2:21:10
  we can go get grape soda. OK, what? It's weird.
• 2:21:14
  This lady is investigating a place where they– an island
• 2:21:16
  where they bring children for sex. I told her it
• 2:21:18
  was me. What?
• 2:21:19
  Speaker 2: Well, we should put that one up. I want to
• 2:21:21
  look at that one.
• 2:21:21
  Speaker 1: OK.
• 2:21:21
  Speaker 2: I mean I think– I mean here you're talking about–
• 2:21:26
  you're talking about– so first of all, I think the
• 2:21:29
  picture is of a guy that is fully in charge
• 2:21:34
  of his life and he's doing– he's like– he is
• 2:21:37
  like amazing at getting people to love him and care
• 2:21:40
  about him. People call him their best friend. In Florida,
• 2:21:43
  clearly he was abusing girls and was busted for that.
• 2:21:47
  I think he was doing that because he's a pervert.
• 2:21:50
  I don't think– I didn't see– I don't see blackmail
• 2:21:53
  coming out of that. And then you get to later–
• 2:21:55
  And you've got– OK. You've got the Bill Gates thing,
• 2:21:58
  which doesn't even appear to be from Epstein. It appears
• 2:22:01
  to be for Boris. And remember Boris, the science advisor,
• 2:22:03
  wanted Gates to pay for like a bigger apartment for
• 2:22:06
  him in New York. It appeared to be part of
• 2:22:08
  him threatening Gates to get something that Boris wanted. So
• 2:22:12
  maybe Epstein was advising him on it. But I mean
• 2:22:15
  to have a– the other thing I'm struck by these emails, Joe,
• 2:22:19
  is that there are so many different attorneys, people at
• 2:22:23
  the FBI– People in the Eastern District, the Southern District,
• 2:22:26
  the Florida Southern District, they would all have to be
• 2:22:29
  in on it. And I'm skeptical because– Why would they
• 2:22:32
  all have to be in on it? Well, because they
• 2:22:33
  would– they're in these– I mean they're in this– they're
• 2:22:35
  reviewing the information. They're trying to bring action against them.
• 2:22:41
  Speaker 3: Well, it depends on who are the powerful people that
• 2:22:44
  are implicated and what kind of influence they have. Over
• 2:22:48
  what gets released and what doesn't get released. Clearly, names
• 2:22:51
  were redacted that are powerful people that are not victims.
• 2:22:55
  So that shows you right there that there's some influence.
• 2:22:58
  Speaker 2: But there's a reason to do that.
• 2:22:59
  Speaker 3: Why?
• 2:23:00
  Speaker 2: Because they're not guilty.
• 2:23:02
  Speaker 3: OK. What about the one where the guy says– where
• 2:23:04
  Epstein says, I like the torture video? He probably did.
• 2:23:09
  Speaker 2: I think someone did find the torture video.
• 2:23:11
  Speaker 3: Why would you redact the name of the person who
• 2:23:13
  sent you a torture video if you're not trying to
• 2:23:15
  protect a powerful person?
• 2:23:16
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that's the sultan. Is that right?
• 2:23:18
  Speaker 3: Okay, but that was– someone had to just figure that out.
• 2:23:21
  Speaker 2: I mean, look, the redactions are sloppy.
• 2:23:23
  Speaker 3: No, no, no. That's evidence that you're trying to protect
• 2:23:27
  a powerful person.
• 2:23:28
  Speaker 2: Well, but they didn't though in a lot of cases, right?
• 2:23:30
  Speaker 3: But they did right there.
• 2:23:32
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean the redactions– They were making them. I
• 2:23:34
  mean it was like– But they rejected.
• 2:23:36
  Speaker 3: A lot of powerful people's names. Yeah.
• 2:23:38
  Speaker 2: But I mean look at– like we're in the midst–
• 2:23:40
  I mean literally the people that are being canceled for this,
• 2:23:43
  like Peter Attia, these people are like victims of– we're
• 2:23:46
  in the middle of a complete moral panic. I mean
• 2:23:50
  we're now– it's like Me Too version two. I mean
• 2:23:53
  people are having to leave boards. I mean look, these
• 2:23:55
  are people I don't like. I'll just be honest. Like
• 2:23:57
  part of me hesitated because I don't like Larry Summers.
• 2:23:59
  I don't like Bill Gates. I don't care about Sarah Ferguson.
• 2:24:04
  You know, I didn't say anything. Then they came for
• 2:24:06
  Peter Atiyah. You know, it's a little bit like, like
• 2:24:10
  Peter Atiyah, like, like he didn't do anything wrong and
• 2:24:13
  he just like lost his job with CBS. And, you know,
• 2:24:16
  he's sort of now they're under this cloud and people go, oh,
• 2:24:19
  but he was in the hospital and his wife was,
• 2:24:21
  or he was with, his wife was in the hospital.
• 2:24:23
  We don't, like, what are we doing here? Like we're
• 2:24:25
  getting involved in Peter Attia's like personal life. And so
• 2:24:29
  but he has to get fired for that. I mean,
• 2:24:31
  it's gone way too far. Sarah Ferguson had to step down,
• 2:24:34
  even though, you know, she said these people, I don't
• 2:24:36
  like them. Like, these are not people I agree with
• 2:24:40
  or think their behavior is. But I don't see– So
• 2:24:43
  they're not guilty of crime. I don't– yeah, they're not– yeah,
• 2:24:46
  they're not– like they were like– they were all making
• 2:24:47
  a big deal out of like– well, so first of all,
• 2:24:49
  let me just say I'm glad they released the files.
• 2:24:50
  Speaker 3: Tighten that thing down.
• 2:24:51
  Speaker 2: I think they– You keep moving that thing around.
• 2:24:54
  Speaker 3: Every time you do it, it bumps.
• 2:24:56
  Speaker 2: I'm just like– I think like– I mean I'm glad
• 2:25:02
  the files were released. There was definitely problems with the redactions.
• 2:25:06
  There was also a case where the members of Congress
• 2:25:08
  were trying to get stuff redacted. Names got redacted of
• 2:25:11
  people that– Like I know in one case there were
• 2:25:13
  people that were getting licenses for guns that had nothing
• 2:25:15
  to do with Epstein on a list. In another case,
• 2:25:18
  other people's names were revealed who were not guilty of anything.
• 2:25:21
  So that's why you protect those people. I think we–
• 2:25:24
  you go– everybody– the logic right now is that anybody
• 2:25:27
  who had any interaction with Epstein had to have known
• 2:25:30
  of all the abuse he was doing and are somehow
• 2:25:33
  responsible for it. I think that's not right.
• 2:25:35
  Speaker 3: But a lot of these people were hanging out with
• 2:25:37
  him and doing business with him after he was arrested.
• 2:25:39
  Speaker 2: So this is all post-2008 and it was very public.
• 2:25:43
  Speaker 3: OK.
• 2:25:43
  Speaker 2: So then what is our view of people that do
• 2:25:46
  the crime and serve the time? I mean the left
• 2:25:50
  view has been that.
• 2:25:51
  Speaker 3: Stop right there. He didn't serve any time.
• 2:25:53
  Speaker 2: He served a year.
• 2:25:54
  Speaker 3: OK. He did not go to jail for a year.
• 2:25:56
  He did house arrest. Yes. It was a very sweetheart
• 2:25:59
  deal and the– was it the prosecuting attorney or whoever
• 2:26:02
  it was? was told that he was intelligence.
• 2:26:05
  Speaker 2: And this is why they were giving him the sweet character.
• 2:26:08
  By the way, I looked into that.
• 2:26:09
  Speaker 3: Yeah?
• 2:26:09
  Speaker 2: Yeah, we looked into that one, and that was heard secondhand.
• 2:26:14
  So that wasn't even heard from Acosta directly. Someone said
• 2:26:18
  that they heard Acosta say that, and they told the
• 2:26:19
  Vicki Ward, and I believe her source is anonymous.
• 2:26:22
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 2:26:23
  Speaker 2: So that's weak. And, you know, Mike, I mean, when
• 2:26:25
  Mike Benz was in here, and Mike has done a
• 2:26:27
  deep dive of this, he's sort of like, look, at best,
• 2:26:29
  you get Epstein tied up with intelligence and With the
• 2:26:31
  Iran-Contra stuff.
• 2:26:33
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 2:26:33
  Speaker 2: But he wasn't– I mean there's two things to see here.
• 2:26:36
  With his relationship to the intelligence community, he was at
• 2:26:38
  best a contractor financier, which means he's not an important
• 2:26:40
  player in deciding clandestine operations. It was the head of state.
• 2:26:46
  Speaker 3: He said he killed Cold Fusion. I mean … He
• 2:26:50
  said he killed Pons, his work on Cold Fusion.
• 2:26:55
  Speaker 2: I mean I don't know. Did he? I mean Cold Fusion,
• 2:26:59
  they keep doing it, right?
• 2:27:00
  Speaker 3: No, they haven't done it yet.
• 2:27:01
  Speaker 2: Well, I know Carl Page, the founder– the brother of
• 2:27:04
  the– But.
• 2:27:05
  Speaker 3: He stated that he killed Cold Fusion Research.
• 2:27:08
  Speaker 2: Because he cut off funding for it?
• 2:27:10
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 2:27:10
  Speaker 2: Well, but there was– I.
• 2:27:11
  Speaker 3: Mean it didn't work, right? He manipulated people. I don't
• 2:27:14
  know that. He say he killed it. Why would he
• 2:27:16
  kill it?
• 2:27:17
  Speaker 2: Because it didn't work.
• 2:27:18
  Speaker 3: Or maybe it did work and it's problematic that it
• 2:27:20
  does work because it kills all these people that have
• 2:27:22
  all this other money in various energy modalities.
• 2:27:25
  Speaker 2: I just– I mean I go fusion is like a
• 2:27:27
  whole– I mean the idea that we have a secret–
• 2:27:29
  that we've secretly tapped cold fusion and are hiding it
• 2:27:32
  for some reason.
• 2:27:33
  Speaker 3: Or that he was on the way to breaking through
• 2:27:35
  to cold fusion and then they killed all of his research.
• 2:27:38
  Speaker 2: But why?
• 2:27:39
  Speaker 3: You don't think that could be– because there's so many
• 2:27:41
  people that have money and all these other types of energy.
• 2:27:45
  Speaker 2: I just don't buy that you could– first of all,
• 2:27:46
  that technology is super difficult. To get nuclear fission was
• 2:27:51
  this enormous undertaking, huge numbers of people. The Cold Fusion
• 2:27:54
  stuff was always– The cold fusion stuff is really fringe.
• 2:27:59
  I mean it was like we're going to be in
• 2:28:00
  the lab and doing.
• 2:28:01
  Speaker 3: But you're not a physicist. So how do you know that?
• 2:28:04
  Speaker 2: Well, I mean I interview a lot of physicists and
• 2:28:05
  talk about it. I mean the big fusion projects are
• 2:28:08
  incredibly difficult. They keep announcing advances in them. They can't
• 2:28:11
  get them. Cold fusion is not even considered a mainstream
• 2:28:15
  fusion project. So to assume that there's some secret– I
• 2:28:19
  just think this is why I have a problem with
• 2:28:20
  the whole reverse engineering thing is I just kind of
• 2:28:22
  go you'd have to have– So many people working on
• 2:28:26
  it and covering it for such a long time. I
• 2:28:27
  don't know how you get away with that.
• 2:28:29
  Speaker 3: Well, what if he was on the verge of a
• 2:28:30
  breakthrough but this guy steps in and stops funding and
• 2:28:35
  puts some leverage on the university? Clearly, he had dirt
• 2:28:38
  on a bunch of people that were at high levels
• 2:28:40
  of many universities. That's why a bunch of these guys
• 2:28:42
  had to step down. Didn't the head of Harvard step down?
• 2:28:45
  Speaker 2: I think it's exaggerating.
• 2:28:46
  Speaker 3: Didn't the head of Harvard step down?
• 2:28:49
  Speaker 2: Because of him?
• 2:28:50
  Speaker 3: Wasn't there a connection between Jeffrey Epstein.
• 2:28:52
  Speaker 2: Well, I mean Larry Summers, you mean?
• 2:28:53
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 2:28:54
  Speaker 2: Well, Larry Summers was– he had to step down because
• 2:28:57
  he made those remarks about women as president and then
• 2:29:00
  he just had to step down as professor. And I
• 2:29:03
  say this– look, I say this genuinely as someone that
• 2:29:05
  is not a Larry Summers fan. I don't think– I
• 2:29:07
  think it's ugly what he did. It's terrible. He was
• 2:29:10
  trying to get advice from Larry Summers about how to
• 2:29:11
  bed a Chinese economist and they were gross in their
• 2:29:14
  emails and it's terrible. But I don't think that you
• 2:29:17
  lose a job at Harvard over that. I don't think
• 2:29:19
  that Peter Thiel should lose his job at CBS over that.
• 2:29:22
  We've got– that's– we're in Me Too territory.
• 2:29:23
  Speaker 3: I understand and I agree with– I see what you're saying.
• 2:29:25
  But what I'm saying is clearly he had influence over
• 2:29:29
  some very high and powerful people at universities.
• 2:29:32
  Speaker 2: He also exaggerated his influence. He took a lot of
• 2:29:35
  credit for Santa Fe Institute, which was a lot of
• 2:29:38
  other people. I mean he's really interesting and smart. Like
• 2:29:42
  he gave a thing to Bannon, talking to Bannon about it.
• 2:29:45
  That was really interesting. But he was also– Steve Pinker
• 2:29:48
  talked about him as a kibitzer, like a– kind of
• 2:29:50
  a bullshitter. And he was like, we also saw in
• 2:29:54
  the files, I think it really overlooked, we saw how
• 2:29:56
  he made his money. Like he needed to get a
• 2:30:00
  deal with the Department of Justice for his client, Ariana DeRothschild.
• 2:30:04
  He hires Catherine Rumler, who was Obama's White House chief counsel.
• 2:30:09
  And she goes and makes a deal at the Department
• 2:30:10
  of Justice, $ 45 million fine for the Rothschilds, $ 10 million
• 2:30:14
  for Catherine Rumler, $ 25 million for Jeffrey Epstein. Everyone's like,
• 2:30:18
  where did his money come from doing deals like that?
• 2:30:21
  Like you realize– I mean one of the things– Succession
• 2:30:24
  actually had a little subplot about it. Like there's a
• 2:30:27
  few people in the world that do these crazy high-level deals,
• 2:30:30
  like often like mergers and acquisitions, that have these obscene
• 2:30:33
  fees because they're taking some tiny percentage. I've seen– was
• 2:30:38
  operating– I think the other thing we didn't realize is
• 2:30:40
  that when you read the files is the levels at
• 2:30:42
  which Epstein was operating. I mean his social and emotional
• 2:30:46
  intelligence is just off the charts, which is often rare
• 2:30:49
  among somebody that's that good analytically, someone that really understands
• 2:30:53
  like investments in the economy to be so– I mean
• 2:30:55
  he was a master manipulator. So I don't think it's
• 2:31:00
  fair to say to people you had an association with
• 2:31:04
  him after he was convicted of this crime. Rich guys– look,
• 2:31:09
  we have a totally separate system of justice for rich people.
• 2:31:11
  I think we've known that for a really long time.
• 2:31:13
  It's terrible. I condemn it. We should find solutions to it.
• 2:31:17
  That's what Epstein used to get out of it. I
• 2:31:19
  don't see any evidence that intelligence helped him. We got
• 2:31:22
  other problems. The victims, Virginia Jafri, she claimed that she
• 2:31:27
  had sex with Dershowitz. She then goes, oh, I was
• 2:31:29
  wrong about that. I mean there's a lot of those
• 2:31:31
  victim testimonials that are untrustworthy. So you get yourself in
• 2:31:35
  a situation where you start to.
• 2:31:37
  Speaker 3: Put like– Some of them are probably prostitutes. Yeah. Yeah.
• 2:31:40
  Speaker 5: Yeah.
• 2:31:41
  Speaker 2: And that's the other one is we– I did some
• 2:31:43
  reporting where we helped to– we found a 14-year-old girl
• 2:31:47
  who was being trafficked on the streets. She turned 15
• 2:31:49
  in the process of us reporting on it. We were
• 2:31:52
  covering these PIs. They get the police involved. The police
• 2:31:55
  go get her. She's orphaned. She goes and backs and
• 2:31:59
  lives with her aunt. She's back on the street, voluntarily
• 2:32:02
  back on the street. Nobody wants to talk about it.
• 2:32:03
  It's like– It's like you go rescue people and they're
• 2:32:07
  in that world. So these situations are much more complex
• 2:32:10
  than– I think the final thing on Epstein that kind
• 2:32:13
  of made me question is that I, like a lot
• 2:32:16
  of other people, had assumed that someone murdered him. But
• 2:32:19
  you start looking at the evidence for that. Look, maybe
• 2:32:21
  more will come out. And even this last round, last
• 2:32:24
  few days, there's some new things that people point to.
• 2:32:26
  But they actually are not actually evidence of it. They
• 2:32:29
  said– You know, Epstein's brother's attorney– or Epstein's brother's examiner
• 2:32:34
  said that he broke his hyoid bone and the hyoid
• 2:32:38
  bone is not usually broken in hangings, only in strangulations. Actually,
• 2:32:42
  it is broken in hangings, particularly for older people.
• 2:32:44
  Speaker 3: But it was broken in three places.
• 2:32:45
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and that– I mean, and that's like– And it's
• 2:32:47
  low on his neck. Yeah, and they– and that happens.
• 2:32:50
  Speaker 3: Also, the lady who was the guard deposited money into
• 2:32:54
  her account.
• 2:32:54
  Speaker 2: I saw that. But that doesn't– what does that mean?
• 2:32:56
  Speaker 3: OK.
• 2:32:56
  Speaker 2: She also Googled his name.
• 2:32:59
  Speaker 3: Before he died.
• 2:33:01
  Speaker 2: All that's totally.
• 2:33:02
  Speaker 3: Okay.
• 2:33:02
  Speaker 2: But it's like, let me do it.
• 2:33:03
  Speaker 3: Why are you dismissing? I don't understand why you're dismissing this.
• 2:33:06
  Because if you're going to. I'm not dismissing it. I'm saying. Well,
• 2:33:08
  hold on. You are. But hold on. You are. Because
• 2:33:10
  if you do have a guard and all of a
• 2:33:12
  sudden this guard acquires several payments. She made several deposits.
• 2:33:17
  One of them was $ 5, 000 just 10 days before he died.
• 2:33:21
  And then the cameras are cut. Okay. And then they
• 2:33:25
  mysteriously don't pay attention to the cell. of one of
• 2:33:28
  the most important defendants of any case, any gigantic public
• 2:33:33
  case involving enormously famous public figures. And then this guy
• 2:33:39
  hangs himself while he's on suicide watch?
• 2:33:41
  Speaker 2: Now remember, he tried to commit suicide.
• 2:33:42
  Speaker 3: I understand, but why are you not letting me finish
• 2:33:44
  what I'm saying? Because that alone is weird. That alone
• 2:33:48
  is weird. That the cameras are cut, that there's no
• 2:33:50
  video of it. The whole thing is weird. You don't
• 2:33:53
  think it's weird? Well, I think– You don't think it's
• 2:33:55
  weird that this guy, that he just finds a way
• 2:33:57
  to hang himself in this cage?
• 2:34:00
  Speaker 2: I thought– I had that same story. I was like
• 2:34:02
  the cameras are cut. The security guards are asleep. All
• 2:34:05
  those things are true. All those things are true. It's
• 2:34:08
  also true that the cameras went out a long time
• 2:34:11
  before that night. It didn't just go out that night before.
• 2:34:14
  Security guards fall asleep at night all the time. He
• 2:34:19
  attempted suicide I believe 18 days before.
• 2:34:21
  Speaker 3: Eighteen days before, he said that his roommate tried to
• 2:34:24
  kill him. Did you know that? Do you know his
• 2:34:26
  roommate was a cop that had killed four people in
• 2:34:28
  contract killings? His cop. roommate his cellmate was a murderer
• 2:34:34
  he was a guy who was a drug dealing cop
• 2:34:36
  who had killed four people in contract killings and that
• 2:34:40
  was his fucking jailmate and 18 days before he said
• 2:34:43
  that guy tried to kill him but he said that's
• 2:34:45
  his is there any look at that guy yeah that
• 2:34:47
  is his fucking cellmate why would you put a guy
• 2:34:51
  who's one of the most high profile defendants in any
• 2:34:53
  case ever In a cell with a hired killer who's
• 2:34:57
  a giant gorilla, like this huge fucking jacked Italian guy.
• 2:35:02
  Speaker 2: But he wasn't in the cell with him that night.
• 2:35:04
  He was by himself in the cell that night.
• 2:35:05
  Speaker 3: He was the guy who 18 days before Epstein said
• 2:35:08
  tried to kill him.
• 2:35:09
  Speaker 2: But Epstein tried to kill himself. I don't think there's
• 2:35:12
  any doubt about that, right?
• 2:35:13
  Speaker 3: I don't know if there's– I've never seen him say it,
• 2:35:16
  but I do know that he said that guy tried
• 2:35:18
  to kill him and they found him unresponsive 18 days before.
• 2:35:22
  He said that guy tried to kill him.
• 2:35:25
  Speaker 2: And couldn't he have lied about that?
• 2:35:26
  Speaker 3: That guy was trying to get money.
• 2:35:27
  Speaker 2: Couldn't he have lied about that?
• 2:35:30
  Speaker 3: Video outside cell during Jeffrey Epstein's first suicide attempt no
• 2:35:33
  longer exists. How weird. Yeah. Why would he lie about that?
• 2:35:37
  Speaker 2: He's in a cell with a guy.
• 2:35:40
  Speaker 3: Who he's already saying this guy is trying to extort him.
• 2:35:42
  He's already saying this guy is trying to get money
• 2:35:44
  from him. And this guy is a known killer. He's
• 2:35:47
  killed four people in contract killings. How did you not
• 2:35:51
  know about that?
• 2:35:51
  Speaker 2: I will say it's possible.
• 2:35:52
  Speaker 3: Hold on.
• 2:35:53
  Speaker 2: How did you not know about that? I did know
• 2:35:54
  about that.
• 2:35:55
  Speaker 3: You knew about the guy being a contract killer that
• 2:35:57
  was a cellmate?
• 2:35:58
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I knew that story. But, I mean, he didn't
• 2:36:00
  have a cellmate at the night of his death, right?
• 2:36:03
  That was one of the mistakes they made is that
• 2:36:04
  because he was supposed to be on suicide watch, he
• 2:36:07
  was supposed to have a cellmate, didn't have a cellmate.
• 2:36:09
  I think that– look.
• 2:36:10
  Speaker 3: I don't know, but 18 days before he did have
• 2:36:12
  a cellmate and 18 days before he said that guy
• 2:36:14
  tried to kill him.
• 2:36:15
  Speaker 2: But 18 days before he tried to commit suicide. That's
• 2:36:17
  my understanding.
• 2:36:17
  Speaker 3: I don't know if that's true though. I don't know
• 2:36:20
  if that's true. I don't know why they would put
• 2:36:22
  him in jail with a contract killer.
• 2:36:24
  Speaker 2: Well, I mean how many– who's in that jail? Aren't
• 2:36:27
  the people in that jail pretty rough?
• 2:36:28
  Speaker 3: His cellmate is a contract killer. Why would he be
• 2:36:33
  in a cell with a cop who's a contract killer?
• 2:36:36
  Speaker 2: I mean, aren't there a lot of bad guys in that?
• 2:36:38
  Speaker 3: The night Jeffrey Epstein claimed his cellmate tried to kill him.
• 2:36:40
  New documents reveal Jeffrey Epstein claimed his cellmate tried to
• 2:36:44
  kill him in an incident before his death.
• 2:36:46
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but we don't know if that's true.
• 2:36:49
  Speaker 3: Yeah. Yeah. Why are you dismissing it?
• 2:36:52
  Speaker 2: I'm not dismissing it, Joe. Maybe more evidence will come out.
• 2:36:54
  Speaker 3: I'm just saying, like, if you look at the evidence
• 2:36:56
  we have to dismiss it.
• 2:36:57
  Speaker 2: No, I'm saying I was confident it was a homicide.
• 2:37:00
  And now, you know, are you aware of this?
• 2:37:03
  Speaker 3: Yeah, of course. All that. You were aware that he
• 2:37:05
  tried to kill us. Of course. You were aware that
• 2:37:07
  he said that. Well, how come you never brought it
• 2:37:10
  up before? You seem shocked when I brought it up.
• 2:37:12
  Speaker 2: Well, because because my understanding is it was a suicide
• 2:37:15
  attempt 18 days.
• 2:37:16
  Speaker 3: OK, but if he said this guy tried to kill him.
• 2:37:19
  18 days before. Why didn't you take that into consideration? No,
• 2:37:23
  it is.
• 2:37:23
  Speaker 2: I mean, I'm just saying that was all– But it
• 2:37:25
  doesn't seem like– No, when.
• 2:37:27
  Speaker 3: I go– It doesn't seem like you took it into
• 2:37:28
  consideration at all and you're looking to dismiss it.
• 2:37:30
  Speaker 2: I didn't– no. My view earlier was that it was
• 2:37:33
  a homicide because the hyoid bone doesn't break when you
• 2:37:37
  have hangings. He said he didn't want to commit suicide.
• 2:37:40
  The video went out. The security guards are asleep. I
• 2:37:44
  mean this was a– there was a huge investigation of
• 2:37:47
  this by the inspector general. So the number of people
• 2:37:50
  that would have had to been involved in this conspiracy
• 2:37:52
  and cover-up is very large. And it's a large number
• 2:37:55
  of people who are in this job for– to be do-gooders.
• 2:37:59
  And so I'm very– I mean that's– look, maybe there
• 2:38:01
  will– so maybe there was some evidence that will come out.
• 2:38:03
  Speaker 3: They're not in the job to be do-gooders. Oh, yeah,
• 2:38:05
  they are. Sometimes they're in the job to be do-gooders.
• 2:38:08
  Sometimes they're influenced by very powerful figures that want a
• 2:38:11
  particular result. Does that not happen?
• 2:38:14
  Speaker 2: But we underestimate– But hold on a second.
• 2:38:16
  Speaker 3: Does that not happen in the real world? Of course.
• 2:38:17
  It does, right? And wouldn't you imagine if you're dealing
• 2:38:20
  with multiple billionaires that may be compromised by the evidence
• 2:38:24
  that this guy is going to relay in a trial
• 2:38:26
  that that would be one of the times that they
• 2:38:28
  would want to exert that kind of influence? It's possible.
• 2:38:30
  Speaker 2: And like I said, in our piece we wrote it's possible.
• 2:38:33
  But I think at this point we don't know. I
• 2:38:35
  don't think we have the evidence either way. And that's
• 2:38:38
  for me– that's the change. I went from I think
• 2:38:40
  it was a homicide to now I don't know. I
• 2:38:42
  didn't understand that he committed suicide 18 days before.
• 2:38:45
  Speaker 3: No, no, no. He didn't commit suicide 18 days before.
• 2:38:48
  His cellmate tried to kill him 18 days before.
• 2:38:52
  Speaker 2: That's what he said, right?
• 2:38:54
  Speaker 3: They found him unresponsive. He said, my cellmate tried to
• 2:39:00
  kill me.
• 2:39:00
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but how do we know that? Why would we
• 2:39:02
  think he's.
• 2:39:02
  Speaker 3: Telling the truth? Okay, and then was it reported that
• 2:39:04
  it was an attempted suicide to try to dismiss the
• 2:39:07
  fact that his cellmate was trying to kill him? Because
• 2:39:09
  they wanted his cellmate to kill him? We don't know.
• 2:39:12
  But you can't dismiss that.
• 2:39:13
  Speaker 2: The psychologist thought he was suicidal. They, you know, I think,
• 2:39:17
  my understanding, he could have lied about the roommate. He
• 2:39:20
  didn't want to have a roommate killed. That's like why–
• 2:39:23
  and they didn't have a roommate.
• 2:39:24
  Speaker 3: Why would you want to have a roommate who was
• 2:39:25
  a fucking contract killer, who was a sociopathic cop, who
• 2:39:29
  killed four guys?
• 2:39:31
  Speaker 2: But if you're a contract killer and you're in Epstein's cell,
• 2:39:36
  why would you want Epstein to die in your cell?
• 2:39:39
  Speaker 3: Because you want to kill him because people are going
• 2:39:40
  to give you like extra cigarettes at the commissary or something.
• 2:39:43
  Speaker 2: Do we have any evidence for that though?
• 2:39:44
  Speaker 3: Who fucking knows? No, but who fucking knows?
• 2:39:45
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but we don't know.
• 2:39:46
  Speaker 3: It's a guy who already kills people and he's in
• 2:39:48
  jail forever. He's going to be in jail forever. So
• 2:39:51
  for that guy, you say, will you kill that guy
• 2:39:53
  for me? Like it's not even much of a stretch.
• 2:39:56
  Speaker 2: It's not much of a stretch that Epstein would have
• 2:39:57
  killed himself.
• 2:39:59
  Speaker 3: It's not much of a stress that that guy killed
• 2:40:01
  him either if he's telling the truth that there was
• 2:40:03
  a report 18 days before that that guy tried to
• 2:40:05
  kill him.
• 2:40:06
  Speaker 2: We just don't know. I mean that's– We certainly don't know.
• 2:40:08
  Speaker 3: But I don't understand why you would want to make
• 2:40:10
  the conclusion that he tried to kill himself.
• 2:40:11
  Speaker 7: It's not a conclusion.
• 2:40:12
  Speaker 3: And that this guy who's a contract killer was not
• 2:40:15
  actually trying to kill him when he said he was
• 2:40:17
  18 days before.
• 2:40:19
  Speaker 2: Well, Joe, I mean I– please don't misrepresent. I'm saying
• 2:40:22
  I don't know and that– the change for me is
• 2:40:24
  going from– Really looking like a homicide to really not
• 2:40:28
  knowing because there's some evidence that I had not considered
• 2:40:31
  before that. Right.
• 2:40:32
  Speaker 3: You know, the guy who did the autopsy was the
• 2:40:33
  guy from that autopsy show on HBO who– his name
• 2:40:37
  is Michael Badden and he was famous for– The official autopsy. No, no, no.
• 2:40:40
  The one his brother authorized because.
• 2:40:42
  Speaker 2: He was famous for catching people. I don't think he
• 2:40:43
  did an autopsy though. He was a medical examiner, right?
• 2:40:46
  He's a medical examiner. He's also famous for– he's also paid.
• 2:40:49
  Speaker 3: Site conducted a post-suicide watch report. Epstein denied suicidality. And stated,
• 2:40:56
  I have no interest in killing myself and that it
• 2:40:59
  would be crazy to take his life, although he was
• 2:41:02
  depressed and unhappy about his current legal situation. He was
• 2:41:05
  told he will remain on psychological observation in the near term.
• 2:41:09
  Speaker 2: He said, look, you see him in there.
• 2:41:10
  Speaker 3: He says.
• 2:41:11
  Speaker 2: He says he didn't recall he got the marks on
• 2:41:13
  his neck. So he didn't blame that on.
• 2:41:15
  Speaker 3: But no, no, no. That's that's here. But the other
• 2:41:18
  details from the other report said that he complained that
• 2:41:21
  the guy tried to kill himself, that his cellmate rather
• 2:41:24
  tried to kill him.
• 2:41:25
  Speaker 2: Can you go back?
• 2:41:26
  Speaker 3: OK, we can find that again. But I do.
• 2:41:29
  Speaker 2: I don't think– but Joe, I think the– I don't
• 2:41:31
  think that you've got it. I don't think you've got it.
• 2:41:33
  I don't think you've got the– I don't think we've
• 2:41:35
  nailed the case that it was a homicide at all.
• 2:41:37
  Speaker 3: Well, I'm not saying that I know. Yeah. But I'm
• 2:41:40
  saying– OK.
• 2:41:40
  Speaker 2: So then we agree we don't know.
• 2:41:42
  Speaker 3: Yes. But you're dismissing these major factors of him being
• 2:41:46
  in a cell with a contract killer, him saying 18
• 2:41:49
  days before the guy tried to kill him. Then finding
• 2:41:51
  him unresponsive that someone tried to strangle him 18 days before.
• 2:41:54
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but I mean there's just– you can make a
• 2:41:56
  case either way is my point. You can make the
• 2:41:58
  case that he was murdered.
• 2:42:00
  Speaker 3: You certainly can. But at a certain point in time
• 2:42:02
  when enough circumstantial evidence, it's fucking weird. Like the cameras
• 2:42:05
  being down, the guards being asleep.
• 2:42:07
  Speaker 2: The cameras were down. I think– I don't want to–
• 2:42:09
  don't quote me on exactly. But they weren't down like
• 2:42:11
  that day before or something. They were down for a
• 2:42:13
  while before. And the security guards fall asleep all the time.
• 2:42:18
  Speaker 3: What did you find about the– The roommate trying to
• 2:42:21
  kill him?
• 2:42:22
  Speaker 4: I mean, this is their report of it. I was
• 2:42:24
  trying to find his, but this is in this report
• 2:42:27
  right here. He was found in a fetal position. Laying
• 2:42:31
  on the floor snoring.
• 2:42:32
  Speaker 3: Epstein told officers that Taglioni, cellmate, had tried to kill
• 2:42:37
  him and that had been harassing him. Taglioni claimed he
• 2:42:41
  had been asleep and woke up to see Epstein with
• 2:42:43
  a string around his neck. Right. Does that make fucking sense?
• 2:42:46
  Speaker 2: Well, actually, but Joe, just to– He.
• 2:42:48
  Speaker 3: Says the guy tried to kill him.
• 2:42:50
  Speaker 2: And if Epstein– so the result of this is that
• 2:42:53
  Epstein doesn't have a cellmate, right? So Epstein doesn't want
• 2:42:56
  to have– if you want to kill yourself, you don't
• 2:42:58
  want a cellmate, right? So you can interpret the same
• 2:43:02
  amount of facts.
• 2:43:03
  Speaker 3: If you want a guy to go back and finish
• 2:43:06
  the job, you shut the cameras off and you open
• 2:43:08
  the cell and you let this guy kill him.
• 2:43:10
  Speaker 2: But they shut the cameras off– when they shut the
• 2:43:11
  cameras off though.
• 2:43:13
  Speaker 3: It doesn't matter. There's no– No, it does matter.
• 2:43:14
  Speaker 7: There's no– Because the machine got broke.
• 2:43:16
  Speaker 3: Even the video that's there has been edited. The one
• 2:43:19
  video they show of the outside of the cell, a
• 2:43:20
  minute's missing from it. There's a lot of weird shit
• 2:43:23
  to it, man.
• 2:43:24
  Speaker 2: I agree. But it's not– Where you should arrive on,
• 2:43:27
  in my view, where the facts lead you is that
• 2:43:29
  we don't know. And so that's a difference for me
• 2:43:33
  than just saying.
• 2:43:34
  Speaker 3: That's safe. We don't know. But it is kind of
• 2:43:36
  fucking weird that he's in a cell with a contract killer.
• 2:43:38
  Kind of fucking weird that he made a complaint that
• 2:43:40
  the contract killer tried to kill him 18 days before.
• 2:43:43
  Speaker 2: Not if you're trying to get– So did they remove
• 2:43:45
  that guy from his cell?
• 2:43:46
  Speaker 3: Is that what happened?
• 2:43:48
  Speaker 2: He did. Yeah, he was by himself obviously the night
• 2:43:49
  he killed himself or was killed.
• 2:43:52
  Speaker 3: Or was killed. Did you find the email where he's
• 2:43:56
  talking about the lady on the island where she's saying
• 2:44:02
  that we brought children to– that someone brought children to
• 2:44:04
  an island?
• 2:44:05
  Speaker 2: Remember, he's faced with life in prison. He loved his decadent,
• 2:44:10
  hedonistic life. There's plenty of motivations for him to kill
• 2:44:13
  himself rather than live in prison the rest of his life.
• 2:44:16
  Speaker 3: Right.
• 2:44:16
  Speaker 2: And remember– I think it was like a day or
• 2:44:18
  two before he lost his bail appeal. So he thought
• 2:44:21
  he'd get on bail. He didn't even get on bail.
• 2:44:22
  He's going to be stuck there. The psychologist didn't believe him.
• 2:44:28
  She thought he was suicidal. And so one way you
• 2:44:32
  interpret it is that they messed up. They did a
• 2:44:34
  bad job. They should have known that he was suicidal
• 2:44:38
  and they should have had a roommate there. The guards
• 2:44:40
  should not have fallen asleep. They should have fixed the
• 2:44:42
  video camera.
• 2:44:43
  Speaker 3: I just can't imagine such a high profile defendant and
• 2:44:46
  you're not watching him like a fucking hawk. I would
• 2:44:49
  imagine a guy like that would be in protective custody
• 2:44:52
  with no fucking shoelaces, no way to hang himself.
• 2:44:56
  Speaker 2: I think you overestimate our prison system.
• 2:44:59
  Speaker 3: I would think that you would do your very best
• 2:45:02
  in this case to make sure that this guy is watched.
• 2:45:05
  Speaker 2: They didn't.
• 2:45:05
  Speaker 3: They bring him to trial.
• 2:45:06
  Speaker 2: I mean they didn't. They should have had a roommate
• 2:45:08
  in his cell and they didn't. Well.
• 2:45:09
  Speaker 3: They put him in a fucking cell with a killer.
• 2:45:12
  So it seems a little bit more than that.
• 2:45:13
  Speaker 2: But when you say it that way, you make it
• 2:45:15
  sound like the killer was in the cell the night
• 2:45:17
  he was killed.
• 2:45:17
  Speaker 3: I make it sound like this killer was in the
• 2:45:19
  cell with him when he said the killer tried to
• 2:45:21
  kill him. Right.
• 2:45:22
  Speaker 2: But or he tried to kill himself.
• 2:45:24
  Speaker 3: Isn't that a little weird?
• 2:45:25
  Speaker 2: Why didn't the guy do it then? Why didn't it work?
• 2:45:27
  Speaker 3: Well, he probably choked him unconscious and thought he was
• 2:45:30
  dead and he survived. They found him unresponsive.
• 2:45:33
  Speaker 2: Or he tried to kill himself. And then when they said,
• 2:45:36
  why did you try to kill himself? He blames it
• 2:45:37
  on the roommate. So he doesn't have to have a
• 2:45:38
  roommate anymore.
• 2:45:40
  Speaker 3: It's possible. Yeah. So find that email where he says
• 2:45:44
  that it's him.
• 2:45:46
  Speaker 1: I'm trying to. I don't have access to the files
• 2:45:49
  right now. The thing I was using is gone.
• 2:45:51
  Speaker 3: Yeah. It's gone?
• 2:45:52
  Speaker 4: Ian Carroll's app was really good.
• 2:45:56
  Speaker 1: And they've taken it down because they're going to make
• 2:45:57
  it public. And that was only in beta.
• 2:45:59
  Speaker 2: Gmail. You can use Gmail.
• 2:46:00
  Speaker 5: I know.
• 2:46:01
  Speaker 1: I was digging through that too. And I've got so
• 2:46:03
  many fucking tabs open.
• 2:46:04
  Speaker 2: You guys have moved around a lot. So if you
• 2:46:05
  kind of go. So for me, if I go, we
• 2:46:07
  don't know if it was a homicide or suicide. The
• 2:46:10
  intelligence community work was– appears to be of a long
• 2:46:13
  time ago and he was a contractor. We don't have
• 2:46:17
  any other evidence of a sex blackmail operation other than
• 2:46:20
  that email. Now, there is one other thing that I
• 2:46:22
  thought was– so one for the theory that he's a
• 2:46:28
  blackmailer is that he put– like we have emails of
• 2:46:30
  him putting cameras in Kleenex boxes, hidden cameras in Kleenex
• 2:46:33
  boxes with motion detectors. Was that in order to engage
• 2:46:37
  in a blackmail operation? No. Or was he just a pervert?
• 2:46:41
  Speaker 3: You don't necessarily have to blackmail people. Okay. Your friend
• 2:46:47
  told me about the projects he's doing researching a really
• 2:46:50
  bad guy who gets children for sex sent to his island.
• 2:46:54
  She almost fainted when I told her that person is me.
• 2:46:59
  That seems pretty clear. No, no.
• 2:47:00
  Speaker 2: I think he's saying that she's writing a story. It
• 2:47:04
  was about him, but I don't think he's admitting that.
• 2:47:07
  He's bringing children to his island for sex.
• 2:47:09
  Speaker 3: I don't know about you, but if I was sending
• 2:47:12
  an email and I was talking about someone researching someone
• 2:47:17
  who's sending children to an island for sex. I would
• 2:47:20
  also include that I let her know that that was bullshit.
• 2:47:23
  Speaker 2: Well, she ends up coming in and meeting with them, right?
• 2:47:25
  You've seen the follow up to this?
• 2:47:27
  Speaker 3: No.
• 2:47:27
  Speaker 2: So she ends up coming to meet with her. And
• 2:47:29
  I don't know if he like gives her money or
• 2:47:31
  something or funds her, but it's like. Yeah, I mean– Well,
• 2:47:36
  we would have to talk to her. The thing is
• 2:47:37
  that like without justifying– I mean I think that after 2008,
• 2:47:41
  there's not– I don't think there's any evidence and I
• 2:47:44
  could be wrong. There's not a lot of evidence that
• 2:47:46
  anybody under age came to– that Epstein abused anybody under 18.
• 2:47:51
  I'm not defending abusing women over 18, but that did
• 2:47:55
  seem like a pretty big change.
• 2:47:57
  Speaker 3: Epstein associate found dead in Paris prison cell.
• 2:48:00
  Speaker 1: After he said he was going to flip.
• 2:48:03
  Speaker 3: Shocker. Weird. Maybe he got sad too.
• 2:48:05
  Speaker 2: Well, maybe. He's one of the co-conspirators. I mean people
• 2:48:09
  kill themselves a lot. Psychopaths also kill themselves a lot.
• 2:48:12
  Speaker 3: Also, people get people killed because they're going to flip.
• 2:48:16
  Speaker 2: It's possible and it's just– we just need evidence for it.
• 2:48:20
  Speaker 3: Yeah. So. This is really– if you're going to kill somebody,
• 2:48:22
  you should probably make it so that there's not a
• 2:48:24
  lot of evidence, right? Yeah. How did they find him dead?
• 2:48:28
  Did he kill himself?
• 2:48:29
  Speaker 1: He hung in a cell. Oh.
• 2:48:32
  Speaker 3: Hung himself.
• 2:48:32
  Speaker 2: Did a lot of sheets in there.
• 2:48:33
  Speaker 3: Hung himself. Hanged himself.
• 2:48:36
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 2:48:36
  Speaker 1: However you want to word it.
• 2:48:37
  Speaker 2: So then it's like– They should make those sheets out
• 2:48:39
  of hemp. So then the theory would be what? That
• 2:48:41
  Bill Gates hired a contract killer to– I didn't say that.
• 2:48:44
  Who did it then?
• 2:48:45
  Speaker 3: Who knows? Yeah. Well, who knows what– who knew what
• 2:48:48
  about what and when?
• 2:48:50
  Speaker 2: I don't know. But I don't think it's the intelligence
• 2:48:51
  community because we're not seeing– I just– we're not– I
• 2:48:54
  mean Mike came in here and you guys talked for
• 2:48:56
  a long time and Mike is not suggesting.
• 2:48:57
  Speaker 3: Well, there's no evidence that it was– I mean, we
• 2:49:01
  don't have like clear cut. He did this and they
• 2:49:04
  killed these guys because of that. We don't have that. Right. Yeah.
• 2:49:08
  Speaker 2: So, I mean.
• 2:49:09
  Speaker 3: But we also don't have three million files.
• 2:49:12
  Speaker 2: We also like the things that we don't. He doesn't
• 2:49:14
  need blackmail to make money.
• 2:49:16
  Speaker 3: Well, he also doesn't need blackmail in order to be
• 2:49:19
  able to get people to do things and influence them.
• 2:49:22
  And if you have video of people fucking people and
• 2:49:25
  doing things they're not supposed to be doing and you're
• 2:49:27
  giving them drugs and. You got them on this island
• 2:49:29
  for these wild parties. They're more inclined to do things
• 2:49:33
  that would do stuff for you.
• 2:49:35
  Speaker 2: I mean, it's possible. I mean, I'll tell you, I mean,
• 2:49:36
  FBI confiscated a lot of films and videos. They had that.
• 2:49:39
  I was always very suspicious of that. The fact that
• 2:49:41
  he's talking about hidden cameras and motion. It's very bad.
• 2:49:44
  Speaker 3: Well, that was the narrative before that there was thousands
• 2:49:47
  of hours, hours rather of horrible videos. Yeah.
• 2:49:51
  Speaker 2: So it's possible that there was. Now, I don't know that.
• 2:49:55
  Speaker 3: I would be– Visitors describe a bathroom reminiscent of James
• 2:49:59
  Bond movies hidden beneath a stairway lined with lead to
• 2:50:01
  provide shelter from attack and supplied with closed circuit television
• 2:50:05
  screens and a telephone, both concealed in a cabinet behind
• 2:50:08
  the sink, wrote the Times. The townhouse is now reportedly
• 2:50:11
  owned by Wexner's even more mysterious protege, Jeffrey Epstein.
• 2:50:16
  Speaker 1: That was in 2003.
• 2:50:17
  Speaker 3: So this is even before his arrest. Yeah.
• 2:50:21
  Speaker 2: And also the other part of it, think of this.
• 2:50:22
  Remember when Jeff Bezos was blackmailed? And he was just
• 2:50:26
  like– Yes. He was like, I'm just going to– Well.
• 2:50:28
  Speaker 3: That was just love letters to– in Lawrence Sanchez.
• 2:50:31
  Speaker 2: They were pretty racy.
• 2:50:33
  Speaker 3: Yeah. But I mean it was– still, it was private,
• 2:50:35
  personal things where he was sending them to a woman
• 2:50:39
  he loved.
• 2:50:39
  Speaker 2: It shows the risks of engaging in blackmail. And so
• 2:50:43
  Epstein– But.
• 2:50:44
  Speaker 3: That turned out to be a dummy. That was like
• 2:50:46
  someone's brother, right?
• 2:50:48
  Speaker 2: So but Epstein– I mean in other words, if you
• 2:50:50
  use it, like if you actually like use your blackmail–
• 2:50:54
  I think it's very hard then to maintain your reputation
• 2:50:58
  as somebody– now maybe it was sort of hovering, never articulated.
• 2:51:00
  He was attracting people. I mean what's so striking about
• 2:51:03
  it is he's attracting people to him. He's got all
• 2:51:06
  this bonhomie. Oh, come hang out with Chomsky and Ehud
• 2:51:09
  Barak and all these people. It's like a really good time.
• 2:51:12
  I think then being like, oh, I have blackmail material
• 2:51:15
  on you. You need to do it. I mean he's
• 2:51:16
  getting people to do what he wants them to do
• 2:51:19
  for money and– You know, for feeling like good vibes,
• 2:51:24
  being in on some Israeli peace talks. I don't then
• 2:51:27
  see him going around. And maybe– look, again, like I
• 2:51:29
  totally– maybe– I just haven't seen the evidence that he's
• 2:51:32
  going around being like, oh, I have black material on you.
• 2:51:35
  You have to do what I want. He got Clinton.
• 2:51:37
  Speaker 3: He probably got– Why do you think he's filming everybody then?
• 2:51:41
  Speaker 2: That is– he could be a pervert. I mean there's
• 2:51:44
  plenty of evidence of perversion, right?
• 2:51:47
  Speaker 3: Oh, the ranch thing. Investigators are finally looking to Jeffrey
• 2:51:50
  Epstein's New Mexico ranch. Federal authorities apparently never searched the property,
• 2:51:54
  but now state authorities will reopen a 2019 investigation. About time,
• 2:51:59
  New Mexico. It's great.
• 2:52:00
  Speaker 2: It's great.
• 2:52:01
  Speaker 4: Someone on Twitter had a– or X has a very
• 2:52:03
  long– I was reading it earlier and got bored, but
• 2:52:06
  it's very long about the link with the lottery.
• 2:52:09
  Speaker 3: Oh, yeah.
• 2:52:10
  Speaker 2: How they won the lottery.
• 2:52:11
  Speaker 3: It's weird.
• 2:52:12
  Speaker 1: Wait until that– if that's accurate.
• 2:52:14
  Speaker 3: It's weird.
• 2:52:15
  Speaker 2: I agree.
• 2:52:15
  Speaker 3: That one's crazy.
• 2:52:16
  Speaker 2: I mean Mike also points out that he– was leased
• 2:52:19
  this incredible mansion in New York by the State Department.
• 2:52:22
  But then the State Department like sued him. So it's–
• 2:52:25
  they're like– if he was like really– Didn't.
• 2:52:27
  Speaker 3: Les Wexner give him a house in Manhattan?
• 2:52:30
  Speaker 2: And then– well, didn't that– didn't the big house– that
• 2:52:32
  was the– this was a previous mansion.
• 2:52:34
  Speaker 3: People are just giving him fucking mansions.
• 2:52:37
  Speaker 4: What about that thing I told you about someone found
• 2:52:38
  that the person who notarized that $ 10 transfer of the
• 2:52:42
  house conveniently filmed like the best 9-11 footage? And those
• 2:52:49
  are the three million– like the timing of those missing
• 2:52:51
  files is right around the 2001 to 99 time period.
• 2:52:55
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 2:52:56
  Speaker 2: I mean we– I think the files are important is
• 2:52:58
  that we saw he's able to make his money as
• 2:53:00
  a high-level fixer. We saw people were really into him.
• 2:53:04
  People loved him. He was magnetic. He's able to get
• 2:53:07
  people to do things that he wants without using that
• 2:53:10
  as a tool. And we're not seeing– I just don't
• 2:53:13
  see– I don't think we're seeing any signs or footprints
• 2:53:16
  or any of that of engaging in blackmail. We have
• 2:53:18
  the cameras.
• 2:53:19
  Speaker 3: We don't have half of the files.
• 2:53:22
  Speaker 4: Yeah.
• 2:53:24
  Speaker 3: What we have is weird. The grape soda, the shrimp,
• 2:53:27
  the pizza references, the jerky, all that stuff is weird.
• 2:53:31
  This lady saying that there's an island where a bad
• 2:53:34
  guy is bringing children for sex. She almost fainted when
• 2:53:36
  I said that person is me. All this stuff is
• 2:53:39
  kind of fucked, right? Would you admit it's kind of fucked?
• 2:53:42
  Speaker 2: The shrimps one, they're definitely talking about– they're objectifying women.
• 2:53:45
  Speaker 3: Children for sex. Don't you think that's kind of fucked?
• 2:53:47
  Speaker 2: I think it's– I think that he was– I mean
• 2:53:50
  my interpretation– I mean one interpretation of it is that, yeah,
• 2:53:52
  he's freely admitting on an email that he's trafficking children.
• 2:53:57
  I find that difficult to believe, that you would put
• 2:54:00
  that– I mean if you're going to say that he
• 2:54:01
  doesn't put the blackmail stuff in email but he's going
• 2:54:03
  to put in an email that he's bringing children to
• 2:54:06
  the island. I mean I think he's being sarcastic there.
• 2:54:09
  I think he's saying, oh, that guy is me. Like
• 2:54:12
  that's what they say about me.
• 2:54:14
  Speaker 3: Why wouldn't you elaborate? I mean, if you're sending this
• 2:54:18
  to someone who knows you?
• 2:54:19
  Speaker 2: The person he sends it to knows that it's not true.
• 2:54:21
  Speaker 3: How? That's why.
• 2:54:22
  Speaker 2: I mean, I think that person works for him, right?
• 2:54:25
  Speaker 3: Masha?
• 2:54:25
  Speaker 2: Is that one of the women that he had?
• 2:54:27
  Speaker 3: I don't know.
• 2:54:29
  Speaker 2: I just– I don't think that's him saying I'm– Maybe. Yeah.
• 2:54:33
  Speaker 3: Maybe. All right. We got to wrap this up. Anything else?
• 2:54:37
  Speaker 2: I got one. Someone gave me a video. I thought
• 2:54:40
  I can share it with you guys.
• 2:54:41
  Speaker 3: Of what?
• 2:54:42
  Speaker 2: A UFO video.
• 2:54:43
  Speaker 3: Oh, okay.
• 2:54:44
  Speaker 2: How we make it a tradition to end– Every sesh
• 2:54:48
  with a– can I send it to Jamie?
• 2:54:49
  Speaker 3: Yeah. You could airdrop it too. All right. Is it compelling?
• 2:54:54
  More compelling than Yahweh's video? You didn't like the Yahweh video? No,
• 2:54:59
  it was kind of interesting.
• 2:55:00
  Speaker 2: All right.
• 2:55:01
  Speaker 3: He's fun.
• 2:55:01
  Speaker 2: Is it compelling?
• 2:55:02
  Speaker 3: All right.
• 2:55:03
  Speaker 2: You guys will decide. Or no, here, I sent it
• 2:55:05
  to– oh, can I ask you something?
• 2:55:07
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 2:55:08
  Speaker 2: I was curious about?
• 2:55:09
  Speaker 3: What?
• 2:55:09
  Speaker 2: Oh, I was going to say, you know, Elon– You
• 2:55:13
  think Elon knows more than he's letting on about UAPs?
• 2:55:16
  Speaker 3: Yes.
• 2:55:16
  Speaker 2: How do you know that?
• 2:55:18
  Speaker 3: Well, because he works with NASA. If he knows something,
• 2:55:22
  he knows something. Also, some people have told me that
• 2:55:24
  he knows some things.
• 2:55:25
  Speaker 2: But don't you ask him privately?
• 2:55:26
  Speaker 3: He don't tell me shit.
• 2:55:27
  Speaker 2: Okay.
• 2:55:27
  Speaker 3: I got a big mouth.
• 2:55:29
  Speaker 2: I asked somebody that was high up in his operation.
• 2:55:31
  Speaker 5: Yeah?
• 2:55:32
  Speaker 2: We were on the record, but I won't reveal who
• 2:55:35
  they are, what they said.
• 2:55:36
  Speaker 3: What they say.
• 2:55:37
  Speaker 2: And they go, I said, you guys must be, I
• 2:55:39
  was like, at SpaceX, you guys must just like have to.
• 2:55:41
  Don't you have to edit out like UFOs that you get?
• 2:55:43
  And the person just looked at me and they just said,
• 2:55:46
  Elon's really close with the federal government. That was all
• 2:55:49
  they said.
• 2:55:50
  Speaker 3: Good. All right. Let's play this. Oh, no.
• 2:55:53
  Speaker 2: It doesn't look like much.
• 2:55:53
  Speaker 3: Is there audio? What am I looking at?
• 2:55:58
  Speaker 2: This is her video in here. I think she zooms in.
• 2:56:02
  I don't.
• 2:56:05
  Speaker 3: Know what we're looking at.
• 2:56:07
  Speaker 2: It's here in Texas.
• 2:56:10
  Speaker 3: What are you looking at, lady? Okay. It's like most
• 2:56:17
  UFO videos. I know. It's just a dot. It gets better?
• 2:56:20
  Speaker 2: It's 30 seconds, guys. Come on.
• 2:56:21
  Speaker 3: Okay. Let me see.
• 2:56:22
  Speaker 4: I'm tripping out right now.
• 2:56:25
  Speaker 3: She's tripping. It looks like it's... You know her? Is
• 2:56:29
  she your friend?
• 2:56:30
  Speaker 2: She's my friend. What the fuck is that?
• 2:56:33
  Speaker 3: Is she intoxicated while this is happening?
• 2:56:35
  Speaker 2: No, no, she's not. And this is not far from here.
• 2:56:37
  It's somewhere in Texas. I think she zooms in at
• 2:56:40
  the end. No.
• 2:56:43
  Speaker 3: Well, we still got 10 seconds for it to get good. Oh,
• 2:56:48
  my God. What? Oh, she doesn't.
• 2:56:51
  Speaker 2: I thought she had a. Once she showed me, she
• 2:56:54
  zoomed in on it.
• 2:56:55
  Speaker 3: That's much better.
• 2:56:56
  Speaker 2: Disappointing.
• 2:56:57
  Speaker 3: We probably should have looked at that. Just cut that
• 2:56:59
  all out. All right. Let's wrap it up. Thank you, sir.
• 2:57:02
  Appreciate you. Thanks for having me, Joe.
• 2:57:03
  Speaker 6: Good to see you.
• 2:57:04
  Speaker 3: All right. Bye, everybody.
• 2:57:05
  Speaker 5: Bye.