Loading...
Loading...

The Joe Rogan Experience
Train my day, Joe Rogan podcast my night all day!
Good to see you, sir.
Thanks for having me back.
My pleasure, always.
Yeah.
So much crazy shit going on in the world.
And even before we scheduled this, like more crazy stuff has happened.
The war broke out, all kinds of things.
Yeah.
How are you feeling about the President Trump?
That's an open-ended question.
Do you text with him and talk to him?
Occasionally.
Yeah, occasionally he'll send me a text.
I get these like truth social posts of, you know, things that he's saying.
But this whole fucking I ran thing, man.
Like, did you see this coming?
No, definitely.
I don't know.
I mean, who did?
I mean, when did he even decide?
You know, their national security strategy, they put on November.
Basically just said we've degraded their capacity.
It's a win.
There was no sense in which there would be additional action.
I think it ushers in a new paradigm.
Completely like the older post-war era is just over.
Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada, articulated that.
The World Economic Forum.
Probably better than the Trump administration did.
Saying very clearly that older rules-based order is gone.
You saw AOC try to sort of articulate it.
But she sort of fell apart the Munich Security Conference in February.
So this is an administration that is, I mean, and I don't even think they're thinking.
I wrote a piece and I decided not to publish it because I was sort of like decapitation
doesn't really work for regime change.
But it's not clear that they're really out for regime change.
Or they're just asserting power, shaking up things.
I mean, some of it's art of the deal, changing the person that we're negotiating with.
That's Venezuela and Iran.
Is it really going to change those regimes?
I don't think most people don't think so.
But I'm not sure that that's what they're going for.
They're just going for an assertion of American power in service of American interests.
And then what happens in Iran, what happens in Venezuela?
I don't think they care that much about.
These are not behaving as though they do.
Well, not neither thing made any sense to me.
The Venezuela thing, I mean, look, they wanted him out forever.
And he definitely stole the election to get in there in the first place.
And he was a dictator.
But at least that one was at least clean.
They go in, kidnap him, get him out.
This one's nuts.
Like, and what's happening in Tel Aviv?
It's hard to know what's real and what's not.
Because there's a lot of fake video going around and a lot of weird posts on X.
So it's, you know, when I do peek in, it's hard to know.
And you have to listen to Grock.
And then Grock's dismantling a lot of the fake videos.
Mm-hmm.
Wait, wait, wait, wait are the fake videos that you're thinking of?
There's just like fake videos of, you know, like an insane amount of bombs dropping down in the city.
But it seems like there's a massive amount of destruction in Tel Aviv.
Yeah, I haven't checked in lately, but I'm assuming.
Was that just today or yesterday?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, I think the president is, there's been some just, you know, Rubio said something about how,
oh, we had to act because we knew that Israel was going to act anyway.
And I think people interpreted it in Netanyahu, who's in the White House a lot.
This, I think this president has shown whether you like him or not, you know,
and there's certainly things that I'm unhappy about and have criticized.
But I think Trump is in charge.
Like he's making these decisions.
There's nobody behind him.
There's nobody to point for all of that, you know, the Russians or whoever's something, you know,
or these, now the Israelis.
You know, it's just he's clearly, I mean Elon gave him, you know, $250 million and he still,
you know, didn't give him even the electric car credit, you know, like,
like Trump is in charge, you know, like I think that's one of the big lessons from this.
And I don't think that I think that means that there's not a lot of like second order thinking here,
like, oh, what's the move after that?
He doesn't know.
He's just acting.
That's what's so wild about it is that this older foreign policy establishment,
which, you know, was like let the experts decide what the right foreign policy,
you know, all these think tanks, and that's just gone now.
It's just irrelevant in this presidency.
And I don't think it'll come back.
Like if you get a Gavin Newsome or a president AOC,
I don't think it's going to come back.
And I think that that's what the Prime Minister can.
I think that's what the Europeans are starting to realize is that this is a completely different world
that we live in than the one we lived in just a couple of years ago.
Which just doesn't make any sense to me unless we're acting on someone else's interests, like particularly Israel's interests.
It doesn't just didn't make any sense to me.
Like if they had supposedly dismantled their chances of making the nuclear bomb,
whether or not that's true, I mean, it's so hard to know.
He was unsatisfied, and just like he was like, I'm not getting anywhere in these negotiations.
And I'm going to replace the person I'm negotiating with.
It's just, you know, turn over the table, like change things up.
You're not getting anywhere.
And you could say he was too impatient.
And their view was the Democrats were going to be like,
I'm not defending it, I'm just saying, I think that's what explains it.
They haven't done a very good job explaining it because I think that it just sounds to some extent like what it is.
Which is that it's they're acting without, they're sort of like, well, does it result in regime changing in Iran?
We don't know.
They're acting without, they're sort of like, well, does it result in regime changing
around?
We don't know.
They might say that we want that or whatever, but that's not ultimately, they're not,
they're not acting on the basis of achieving regime change.
But just seems so insane based on what he ran on.
I mean, this is why a lot of people feel betrayed, right?
He ran on no more wars and these stupid senseless wars and then we have one that we can't
even really clearly define why we did it.
Well, but he said he's against endless wars.
Well, they're not.
They're all endless.
Well, if we hear Rumsfeld talk about Iraq when it first happened, they were talking about
like six weeks.
Six weeks.
Oh, yeah.
Six weeks.
Yeah.
But they put, that was ground force and I know that they've not ruled that out.
For me, that would be, they have, they have not, my understanding is that they've not,
I thought you said it now.
Yeah, no.
But they don't seem eager to go into, I mean, I criticized the Venezuela action because
I sort of was like, how are you possibly going to run Venezuela?
And then I think a little bit more time passed and I was like, oh, they're not, they're
not going to try to run Venezuela.
Like that's not what this is.
They wanted to take it over the oil.
Yeah.
And even there, I mean, the oil, it's not significant at any global level.
I don't, it's hard.
I don't even think it's really about the oil.
I don't think it's about the oil.
I don't think it's about the oil in Iran, either.
Well, the oil reserves are significant.
It's just the, the type of oil and how to extract it is extremely difficult.
That's the worst joke.
In the, like the big, a big abundant reserves are in the Amazon.
So you're talking about it.
What a nightmare.
It's super far away.
It's terrible.
You had a gorilla conflict.
If you had a gorilla conflict break out around those oil facilities, I mean, it's already
more expensive because you have to heat up that particular type of, it's, you know, it's
really heavy oils, if you heat it up to get it out of the ground, then you have to heat
it.
Transport's a total nightmare.
I just, I mean, and as a conservationist, I would say that would be the last place
I'd want to see us getting oil from.
There's a lot of other places that have, have oil.
We shouldn't be going into the Amazon.
So what if anything makes sense to you about this attack in Iran?
I don't know that I'm not, I'm not sure what I think of it.
I mean, I don't, I don't like it.
I don't like, I mean, the whole older system was that you had this international, you know,
security council would have to agree.
The Congress would have to agree.
That's all gone now.
I mean, it's just a totally different.
This guy is just acting, you know, he says, he's not getting where they want to get in
the negotiations with the Iranians.
So he says, we have some leverage over you and we're going to use it.
Similarly is real one of this is real has its own motivations, I think, but I don't think,
I think it's not quite accurate to say that I just don't think, I think all the evidence
shows that Trump is his own man and he's the president and like literally he couldn't
even give back, he couldn't even give Elon the battery subsidy that he wanted.
Yeah.
I get that.
I've never seen a politician, I mean, I've never seen a politician act that independently.
That's, I mean, a president act that independently.
So I'm skeptical of, I mean, I think that, I think that Rubio was sort of like, well,
they were going to attack and so we had to, you know, there's some of that, but I just
think Trump's doing what he wants to do.
And we should.
You really think it's that simple?
Trump's doing what he wants to do.
Yes.
Yes.
You don't think people are influencing him?
Because there's a lot of war hawks around him, right?
There's a lot of people that want this and have for a long time.
I mean, Netanyahu is in there, but then Tucker was in there a bunch.
But do you think Tucker has the kind of influence that Netanyahu has?
Well, I mean, I guess if you just based it on the outcome, then the answer is no.
But that's what I'm saying.
I just think, he listens to everybody, but I just don't think it's, Russians aren't behind
him.
I mean, Trump is, look what he's been through.
I mean, he's, you know, he's got where he is.
There's no way he's going to, they don't have anything on him.
That's why I know that.
I don't think they have anything on him.
But that's what he knows that way.
Well, he could.
But I'm not, we don't see any evidence for it.
Well, you wouldn't see any evidence until it broke out.
Sure.
And they released it.
Yeah.
And, and well, we'll get it.
I'm sure we'll get into Epstein, but I mean, I just think when you don't have evidence
of something, then you can't assume that it's happening.
I haven't seen any evidence.
I've seen evidence that Trump is fully independent with it, particularly this case of Iran, surprised
me.
I would have thought at a minimum, you'd give your largest campaign contributor the one
thing he wants.
I mean, doge was something he wanted to, but, and then I look at Iran and I kind of go,
you know, Trump is always one.
I mean, Trump has been, he said he doesn't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon for a really
long time.
I don't know the exact date.
But certainly.
Well, no one wants him to have a nuclear weapon other than Iran, right?
Yeah.
I think that the, he was, he also put it this way, he was also critical of the Democrats
approach, which was the sort of the mainstream IAEA approved approach because of, of course,
under international law, Iran has the right to a nuclear, to nuclear energy and a nuclear
facilities, including nuclear, nuclear, nuclear, the centrifuges and the enrichment.
Iran has the right to all that under international law.
And so, and Trump doesn't agree with that and he's not going to let international law get
in this way.
So when you say he has a right to it, you're talking just about nuclear power.
Yeah.
Right.
Right.
But that includes enrichment.
So, you know, to a certain point.
Right.
But they've already surpassed that point.
Right.
I don't believe I, you know, if I'm wrong, I'll correct it on acts, but I don't think
it specifies the level of enrichment is part of the issue.
And then you've got these centrifuges.
And so it's all been a cat and mouse game.
I personally do not doubt from it that Iran wants nuclear weapons.
And that's what's been going on.
I think most people think that.
But the Obama administration was like we can do, you know, we can lift sanctions in exchange
for controlling their nuclear program.
Trump has not for a very long time agreed without approach.
I think he was criticizing it for many years before 2016 before he decided to run.
Definitely for the last 10 years.
Did you read the thing today that came out that they're discussing some sort of a leak
transmission that seems to be an activation of terror cells?
Iranians have?
Yeah.
I'm not, no, but I'm not surprised.
Right.
It sounds bad.
Yeah.
That's one of the things that obviously, that was the first thing I thought of was like
oh, great, are we going to get a bunch of Iranian suicide bombers in the United States
now?
It's obviously not.
Maybe suicide bombers, but I would imagine it would be something a little bit more destructive
than that.
It could be.
I don't know what they can get in.
I mean, there's Sean Ryan's been having folks on that say that.
Yeah.
People are getting in with heavy artillery.
I just don't know the status of it.
Well, the real problem is they can do it for four years.
The border was wide open.
Oh, yeah.
And definitely some people from the Middle East got through.
And we have no idea.
Like what is we?
I mean, I'm sure there are some intelligence agencies that have an understanding of what
the threat is.
I hope so.
I mean, I think we see that these terrorists are able to do incredible amount of damage with
pretty simple rifles.
You know, and sometimes was it the French, the club, that particular terrorist action,
there were other people that were using bombs that like only killed one or two people,
but the guys with the machine guns were able to gun down like dozens of people.
So certainly it's terrible.
That's scary.
I think none of us want to, I think that's where a lot of Americans when it happened.
The reason so many people were against it, believe the majority is against it, is because
you're like, great.
Well, we, you know, first of all, is there going to be another endless war in Second
of all?
Are we going to get a bunch of terrorist actions here?
I think if we did, I don't think support for the war goes up.
I think it goes down for sure.
Yeah.
I mean, it's just such a, I mean, the whole, the whole situation internationally has been
so tense already with what's going on in Gaza, with what's going on in Ukraine.
It's like, and to add this to the pile, it's like, I mean, it genuinely feels like there's
a real possibility that we might be entering World War III.
How would that, what would that look like?
I don't know.
I never expected Iran to start attacking, you know, they launched bombs into UAE, Dubai,
I mean, where else?
They expected that.
I mean, it makes Iran look, Iran looks pretty isolated.
I mean, I will say, you know, I was totally, obviously, maybe not, obviously, but very much
on the left and was opposed to all the stuff Reagan was doing, I remember even in the 80s,
but it's like he really did, I don't know how to say he was the only reason, there was
obviously a bunch of weakening within it, but I mean, he really did push back against
communism.
He challenged the entire foreign policy establishment on the basic view of just, you
know, of just, of just kind of keeping it, you know, keeping, keeping the communists
where they were.
And it said Reagan really pushed back against it and said, it got to be regime change,
it sort of almost had a moral, sort of there's a defense buildup, but a moral argument.
And I think it had a big impact to bring down communism.
So I'm, you know, the Iranian, it's, I'm, I'm obviously, I have very mixed feelings
about it.
The Iranian regime is just so evil and so awful that, you know, you're, you're, every
time you see videos of people taking these creates actions, you're like, somebody bring
that regime down.
On the other hand, that country is pretty, the, the people of that country are pretty
radical.
And the Shah in 1979, I just spent last night watching all the old 60 minutes from the
70s.
They're amazing.
But the, the Shah was really modernizing the country.
There was a lot of wealth coming in.
There was a lot of more inequality.
There was also a lot more state repression from his intelligence services.
But the country was, you know, full of radical Muslims who wanted, you know, that, when
all that instability, they wanted to river back to, you know, a radical Islamist regime.
And that's still, you know, I've seen other estimates to say that, you know, the current
regime is incredibly unpopular in Iran, but, you know, how that works out, it's really
hard to say.
But there is something, I caution my own, I talk back to my own anti-interventionist instincts
when I think about Reagan just being like, you know, we're not going to do just containment
strategy anymore.
We're actually going to talk back to communism because people deserve to be free.
And now, is everything better for, you know, is everything fine in Russia?
Maybe not, but I mean, communism was just awful, you know, just a totally soul killing,
you know, crushing, you know, a giant lie, I mean, it's awful to tallitarianism.
So I think we have to kind of keep that in mind.
And especially when you're in a moment of just such incredible chaos like we're in now,
I told my students, I'm like, you get to live through one of the most interesting moments
in history certainly in the last 80 years because the entire paradigm where the United States
had these allies and everything's going to go through the security council and we're
going to try to make it through the UN and there's got to get agreements and all this
stuff.
That's just gone.
I mean, it's just, it's gone to the part where they don't even, where you're kind of like,
how are you, what's going to happen inside Iran, they're like, that's not our concern.
We hope that there's an overthrow of the government, but they're not, we're not like going to
necessarily commit to that.
And they're also calling on the people to rise up, which is, you know, I mean, look,
look at what they did with the protesters, I mean, they killed thousands of people.
And look at Iran and Venezuela, they don't have internal, the opposition is not united.
There's not a united opposition with a united figure.
I mean, remember it was so interesting watching 79 when these protesters against the shower
going on, they're the left and the Islamists made an alliance in Iran, something I'm
very, it's something really interesting topic, I'm just only starting to explore right
now, but they made an alliance, they'd be holding up, I had, you know, they'd be holding
up the eye to hold a committee pictures in the street, like they had their guy.
And the left was like, look, we're just going to, you know, go with this guy, I think
he was making promises to the left around allowing, you know, more, you know, liberalism.
And then they came in, I just consolidated into this really hard line, Islamist regime,
but they had a guy, we don't have, you know, we don't have a guy in Venezuela, we don't
have a guy in Iran.
I don't know if there's anybody in Cuba really, you know, the, in the older regime under
like the Biden, the open society people, the open society establishment, they had somebody
for Venezuela, this machado woman, but Trump gets up there and he just goes, yeah, she
doesn't have enough support.
So she's not with us gone, you know, like they recognize that they don't have, there's
nobody with a opposition, you know, street cred that can come into power.
So I think they, and they know that they're not like unaware of that.
So I think some of the like, oh, they should rise up in whatever, it's a little half-hearted.
I don't know if they believe that that's going to happen.
There's certainly not, they don't seem to be offering them, you know, material support.
Right.
So it's just a symbolic gesture to talk about it.
Sounds like it.
And I mean, in this kind of the, this beautiful collapse of communism, which occurred so peacefully
with the Berlin Wall in the garden, eventually just sort of like, it's just in the vibes.
Yeah.
And the guards are just like, yeah, we're not guarding this wall anymore.
It's just over, you know, and it was just over and it was like, there's a kind of like
a moral collapse.
Not so sure that they're going to get that in Iran doesn't seem like it.
It seems like they've been preparing for this for a long time.
The Iranians.
Yeah.
They're dug in.
Now it's the sun.
And he's just part of the, he represents the, I was the IGRC, the security forces, I mean,
it's their guy.
It's what you would do.
It's rally around the flag.
It's classic.
What happens?
But, you know, you never, you never know.
I mean, these guys then might just negotiate more with the Trump administration wants.
I think the Trump administration is like, we'll just keep killing your leaders until we
get somebody in there that will make a deal with us.
I think that's, I think that's how Trump thinks about it.
Really?
That's my, that's my best guess.
You're smiling.
Do you think this is funny because it's funny because it's, it's so, Joe, it's just like,
you just look at all the think tanks and all the white papers and the state department
and the plane and whatever.
And it's just like, Trump's just, he's going to listen to Tucker.
He's going to listen to, yeah, and he's going to decide what to do.
This episode is brought to you by Visible.
Folks, there's one thing nobody wants this season and that's getting catfished.
And it's not just dating profiles that are putting you at risk.
It's also big wireless carriers.
You know the type looks great at first, promises a low price, but once you're locked
in, surprise fees and an expensive bill that isn't what you were expecting.
Your night and shining armor, Visible wireless.
It's one line wireless with unlimited data and hotspot for just $25 a month taxes and
fees included.
Now that's a green flag.
The best part, Visible is all digital so you can switch as fast as you can swipe.
Don't fall for the trap of getting catfished by wireless.
Visit Visible.com to learn more and start loving your wireless carrier.
Terms apply.
See Visible.com for plan features and network management details.
Is that good?
I don't know if it's good.
I mean, I just, we don't know yet.
I mean, I think part of it is, is it going to work?
Part of you guys, it moral and you're like, well, does it work to have better outcomes?
I don't know.
We're in a realm of absolute chaos.
We're also in a realm where AI is going to be powering autonomous weapons if not already.
I mean, that is going on.
That is so interesting.
This thing with the anthropic and the DOD and what's happening there, that is really
interesting.
So initially, anthropic was hesitant to allow them to use autonomous weapons, right?
I don't know the status of it, but you saw the open AI, the head of open AI autonomous.
It was the head of autonomous weapons, I think.
I'm not, don't, don't give me exactly, but she just quit.
Like a couple of days ago, it was on X, and it was just like a huge story.
So you have a bunch of, you have a rift in between, now, I think, Sam and Elon are both
on board and want to keep working with the DOD, but it looks like anthropic broke and
then, and then Hegseth was like, well, but then we're going to punish you for this.
That's very consistent with the kind of nationalist vision, which is that, which the
Trump administration has, which is that your security strategy, your economic strategy,
your border strategy, it's all a single, your industrial strategy, it's all a single thing.
Your trade strategy, it's all a single thing.
And I think for Trump, it's just, you're either asserting power and using your leverage
and demanding more, or your engaged and managed decline.
You're just giving up, you know, and I, part of me, I'm, of mixed minds on it because
on the one hand, I'm with the kind of, I kind of go, let's invest at home, we have all,
you know, we have skid row to clean up, you know, we should be focused on that, not
on trying to do regime change or bombing other countries or creating other problems.
On the other hand, I think there's something right about defending the West.
I mean, defending Western civilization, you know, defending our institutions, our norms,
our liberal values, and nobody's done that.
And we just had a guy in power that was, that opened our borders, that kind of gave
a blank check to Ukraine.
It seems like, at a minimum with Trump, you have somebody that is taking responsibility
in ways where Biden would be like, well, we're going to do what, you know, we're going
to work with our allies.
And it was just all kind of, like, it was like, it was all kind of going to be decided
in this, in this, you know, what Kyrgyi Arvin famously calls the cathedral, you know,
just the single thing of the media and the think tanks and the academics and, and Trump
was like, it's not working.
And the working class of this country elected me to, to show strength and, to demand a better
return on our investment in terms of protecting our allies for our people.
So that part of it, I think, is really overdue and really necessary and assertion of why
the West is special, why we need to defend the West is bombing Iran and replacing the,
you know, the commanding with his son is, Masha'at, you know, is what's having to be
against.
Is that the right approach to that?
I don't know.
But I think we were, the system was, was failing.
I mean, the open society system, which was supposed to be this liberal, you know, you
know, system of tolerance that became intolerant, it became totalitarian, it created a censorship
industrial complex.
They, they weaponized the intelligence communities.
We, you know, started getting ourselves into conflicts that we, that was not clear why
we were in them, including Venezuela, I mean, sorry, including Ukraine, I mean, with
Ukraine, it's like, that war only continues because we continue to arm it.
Like if we stopped, if we just were like, let's just have the, just, you know, just cut
a deal wherever the border is right now, and you're just like, that's where it's going
to stop, then you can, I mean, I don't know, I'm not sure what's preventing that from Trump,
I think he's annoyed with Putin, but, yeah, I mean, my view is like, I don't see an interest
in that war continuing, I don't know how it's in the interest of the working, of working
class Americans or Americans, and I have the same questions about Iran and Venezuela and
Cuba, but I think that is a totally different paradigm than the one that we had from 1945
to 2024.
Well, the idea of tolerance for, you know, with the last administration, that seems just
to be a narrative.
It seemed to be a political strategy of keeping the borders open to increase populations
in blue states, raise the senses, get more congressional seeds, and then a path to citizenship
where you'd have permanent voters.
That's what it seems like.
And then there's also a ton of Medicaid fraud that's wrapped up in that that we're now
seeing.
Yeah, I think that's part of it.
I mean, the time is to the peace on why Biden left the borders open, and it was a funny
peace.
Like, there was this, it was, you know, part of it, he's so out of it, right?
Like, there was just, it was not clear, like, there wasn't clear, there was like a meeting
where he was like, yeah, we're going to just do this thing.
They kind of concluded that, I think Cecilia Munoz, who's one of the more moderate advocates
and was in the Obama administration, I think she said something like, Biden just wanted
to give the left, just felt like he wanted to give the left what they wanted.
And that's what, you know, the Soros think tanks and the, you know, the very progressive
immigration groups have been, you know, have been advocating, did the same thing on climate.
So it makes sense.
I know Elon talks a lot about how, oh, it's about importing voters and whatnot, maybe,
it's not even clear that that's a good, that's a strategy that's going to work, you know,
why not?
Well, because, first of all, we don't know that Latinos, like, why are like, why do we
assume Latinos are all going to, you know, vote for Democrats?
Well, if you've got them all on Medicaid and social security, the numbers there are,
it's actually more complicated.
Europe is definitely the case that you have higher rates of crime and higher rates of social
services among migrants.
Here are Latino migrants traditionally, you know, you know, really thrive.
You know, they do much better than the, mostly Muslim immigrants in Europe.
So I, you know, I skipped, I mean, the other thing, I, the statistic that I learned from
David Shore, who's like the one of the top Democrat pollsters when he was talking to Ezra
Klein after the 2024 elections, he was like, if all eligible voters had voted, Trump
would have won by three percentage points, rather than 1.5.
So it's also, so I always think it's kind of funny because the Republicans are always
like trying to make it harder for people to vote.
But under that calculation anyway, and maybe it's just Trump, maybe other Republicans won't
do it.
When you say harder for people to vote, what do you mean?
You mean mail-in voting?
Yeah, just the whole effort to, but the problem is mail-in voting has always been a vector
for fraud.
That's, it may be, I don't know how much of it there is, um, I've seen different things
on it.
Like decades people have been talking about mail-in voting, just being too open to fraud.
Well, but then maybe, but then the question is, does it really benefit?
I mean, in the words, if David Shore is right, if everybody who could vote had voted, Trump
would have won, like, basically by twice the margin.
Yeah.
Well, I don't know if that's necessarily true, but when I see laws like what California
has where you're not allowed to show ID, there's only, I mean, I've tried, tried to find
some sort of charitable way where that would make sense other than you want to open the
door for fraud.
There's nothing.
Well, narrative that they say, oh, poor people don't have like, you see Kamala Harris.
They don't believe that.
They don't have a Xerox machine, like, no, but you ever see the thing?
I think it was a guy, I don't know if you do it for free press.
A guy was going around interviewing, um, well, first he interviewed liberals at, like,
I think you see Berkeley and he was like, you know, do you think that you should have
to have an ID to vote?
And they're like, no, because black people don't have IDs and like, that's just, and then
he goes, he's hearing that.
No, I know, of course, but they believe that.
Yeah.
I mean, but then I don't know if you saw that it's an incredible video because then he goes
to like, I think he goes to Harlem or he goes to like a black neighborhood in New York
and he was just asking black people, it's like, do you have an ID on you?
It was like, everybody was like, yeah, like what's the matter with you?
Well, it's also we just got done with three years of you need an ID to prove that you
have been vaccinated.
So you need to be able to have that to go to work, to get on a plane, to eat at a restaurant.
It didn't make any sense.
It was so immediately contradicting what had just gone down, you know, months earlier.
It's just stupid.
Well, yeah, that was about, that was because the left wanted to control people's behavior
and on voting, they, the old, I know, because I, when I talked to my progressive friends
about it, what, you know, and family and friends, it's, it's very much like, no, we can't
put barriers in the way of voting because that's what they did during Jim Crow.
I mean, that's where it goes back to.
ID is not a barrier.
It's just an insurance that you're a citizen while you're voting.
And then they say there's really not much.
They say there's very little fraud.
I'm just telling you what they say.
I'm not saying I agree.
I'm just saying.
Who is they though?
Progressive?
Yeah.
Do you believe that?
That's horseshit.
That's a horseshit.
I think they believe it.
I'll put it that way.
Yes.
I do.
I think they just say it because that's the thing that everybody says.
I think it's a group thing.
I mean, I think if you sit down with any rational person and no one's watching, you know,
there's no cameras on them and you ask them, does that make any sense?
No one would say it makes any sense.
Most people in this country who are citizens have some form of ID or can get some form of
ID.
And it's entirely reasonable to ask people to prove that you are who you are if you're
voting for the president of the United States.
That seems pretty reasonable.
I find it totally reasonable and I support it.
I'm just saying that if you make it, I'm just saying that you may, Republicans may, it
may result in outcomes that are not the predictable ones that they think they'll get.
Just because Trump at least, and Trump is maybe, you know, a special case.
I mean, he was able to turn out reluctant voters, like he motivated people to vote because
people were fed up with what had gone on in the last four years.
And I think that open border was the biggest one.
I mean, it was one of the biggest ones because people just felt hopeless.
Like this is crazy.
Like what you're doing, you're letting in what's equivalent at least, if you're just
being charitable, it's 10 million people.
It was, it was huge.
It was being conservative.
It's 10 times Austin.
You let 10 Austin's in in four years of people who you have no idea who they are.
Yeah.
And Americans were on board with closing the borders.
And then when it came time to actually asking all the, getting those folks to leave that
came in, all those supports appeared, right?
I mean, well, it's not asking them to leave.
It's showing up at Home Depot and just rounding people up and raiding places and going to restaurants
and pulling people out of their houses.
I think people got very uncomfortable with the idea of militarized police wearing masks
on the street.
Yeah.
And then when you find out that these guys have only been trained for seven weeks and they
get a $50,000 signing bonus.
And then you find out that a giant percentage of them are Latino, which is kind of crazy.
You know, like the two guys who shot that guy in Minnesota, they're both Latino.
And yeah, I mean, that's what you get when you have completely untrained, unprepared people.
Well, that's just like that.
The whole Minnesota thing with Alex Prede is a complete clusterfuck.
I still have not seen verification of whether or not the narrative that makes sense is true.
But the narrative that makes sense was that there was an accidental discharge of his gun
as they were pulling it away from him.
And then that led to them thinking that maybe he still had the gun on him because you're
in the chaos of arresting someone.
Sometimes as he has a gun, a gun goes off and then they shoot the guy.
Yeah.
I bet when you go, I bet when they do the proper evaluation of it, they're going to find
multiple mistakes.
I'm sure.
By the law enforcement.
That.
And then there was the thing with the woman who got shot where you have a guy who had
almost been run over just a couple of weeks before and been dragged in his car.
The guy who shot her had been dragged by another vehicle.
Oh, I didn't see that.
He got dragged like 300 feet to something crazy.
So when a car is coming at him, you could imagine this guy's got some PTSD from that.
And he should not have been so he should not have been no.
And also, I'll certainly it shouldn't have said that fucking bitch like after he shoots
her in the face too.
That's crazy too.
Yeah.
I mean, the reaction, just the heartlessness of the reaction was terrible, including by
the administration.
That's probably why Christy know him and that having to go.
But then on the other side, these protests are organized.
They're organized and they're paid for, which is also something to be take that people
need to understand.
These are not organic protests.
That's not organic that it just happened to be taking place in the very same place where
you found hundreds of millions of dollars in fraud, right?
This is one of the clearest, most obvious distractions you've ever seen, like in the
public arena where you have these people who are being paid to protest.
They give them money to go out there and protest.
They give them signs.
They're organizing it.
They give signal groups.
They're doxing all these different ice workers.
They find out what their license plates numbers are.
They find out where they're staying.
They go to their hotel, the cops, the local cops are being told to stand down.
So you've got it like this convergence of all these factors that lead to chaos and you
know, Mike Benz was talking about it and it was essentially saying it's a mathematical
thing.
That if you have these things play out, you're going to have a certain amount, it was
Mike Benz, right?
It was saying that it was a certain amount of people that are, you're going to have
incidences.
You're just playing it out over the numbers.
Certain amount of these protests, you have organized protests, you have untrained ice
agents, you have a lot of chaos, you have support for people screaming in the streets.
Someone gets shot, boom, and then it moves the needle.
This is calculated.
Yes.
They want this to happen.
They want it to happen this way because then this kills all the support for people that
you know, we're kind of on the fence, whether or not I should be deporting all the
legals, what, excuse me, what it should, excuse me, whether they should just go after
violent criminals and, and then there's these weird narratives like, oh, only 14% are
violent criminals that have been arrested, give us 60% are criminals, 60% of the people
plus were criminals.
And like what, by what definition violent criminals, like, what do you, is it okay if they
just coming here and rip people off, like, are you fine with that, it's just like the
violent ones we need to get rid of, like, I think they didn't, yeah, they did a fairly
poor job of it.
Like, why were they focused on, on Minneapolis?
I think most people don't understand how radical the left in Minneapolis is, it's a Midwest
different place, but it's actually got a long radical left tradition.
Yeah.
And as you were saying, I mean, Alex, pretty, he should have been arrested several days
before when he had a gun on him and got into an altercation with the police.
They should have arrested him then and then they could have, the judge could have done
a lot of different things, but they could have taken away his gun, they could have put
a restraining order on him.
So the next time he showed up and people will know to look for him, then he would have
been, you know, kept out of the area.
Do you know the story about the gun that he was carrying?
No.
He's carrying a gun called a SIG P320, which is notorious for accidental discharges.
Not, not mean there's lawsuits all over the place.
There's videos of cops in precincts bending over to pick something up and the gun goes
off in his holster.
There's a ton of these.
So I don't know if this is completely accurate because this is obviously the fog of chaos
of these type of altercations and situations, but there's a video that many people have reviewed
and it's their conclusion that if you watch the video when one of the ice officers removes
his gun, even though he does not have his finger on the trigger, has his hand on the gun
and his fingers on the slide, as he's moving off, it appears the gun goes off.
Now they've zoomed in on it and shown that it does look like the gun's going off and
it does correspond with the sound of a gun shot.
Okay.
It's just hard to know.
There is a sound.
You hear a gun shot in the video?
It's legitimate.
It's hard to know.
But if it was any other gun, like say if it was a Glock, I would say that doesn't make
any sense.
His finger's not on the trigger.
It's not going to go off.
But that gun is notorious for going off.
There's a guy online that he shows a video where he takes the gun and he manipulates the
slide and it goes off.
And it goes off without nothing touching the trigger.
No one's pulling on it.
It's just if you have the other problem is people alter guns.
Okay.
So the issue with the SIG was they had, I believe up to 2017, they had a lighter trigger.
And this lighter trigger, if the gun was dropped or if something happened to it, it was going
off.
And they determined it's, the gun does not have an internal safety, like some other
guns do.
It's not an expert, so I don't know exactly what the trigger mechanism is.
But my understanding is that the trigger mechanism is different than there are other guns.
If they have another gun that's notoriously reliable, it's a SIG P365, you could drop
that gun.
It's not going to go off.
It's not known for accidental discharge.
But the 320 is known.
And there's tons of videos of people demonstrating this online.
There's a video where they're on a range and a gun goes off and a guy's holster.
And the range instructor says, what the fuck just happened?
And this guy, he points to this, you know, the gun that went off and he said, is that
a SIG?
And he goes, yeah, he goes, get that fucking thing off the range.
So it's that notorious, it's one particular model.
And it just happened to be the one particular model that Alex Pretty was carrying, which
is fucking crazy.
Well, his behavior was really reckless.
I, it's really hard for people to hold two ideas in their mind at the same time, like
ice messed that up, I think, clearly.
And Alex Pretty, I mean, you see the earlier video, you know, where he kicks out the tail
light of the ice vehicle, and he's, I mean, he's got a gun in the waistband of his, of
his jacket.
He didn't buy the jacket.
He gets into this altercation with the police.
I mean, I had to, but when I posted about it, I didn't say this, but one of the other responses
were suicide by cop, people were like suicide by cop.
I mean, and I'm not making that claim, but I mean, his behavior was, I mean, the, the
recklessness of the gun choice mirrors the recklessness of his behavior in those instances.
And I heard people being like, oh, well, he, you know, he was just defending that poor woman.
There was a police officer engaged in a rest of a person, and Alex Pretty intervened
in that.
I mean, I think you can mess around about it.
Well, it was a little, I don't know if it was an arrest, the police officer shoved this
woman.
Yeah, he put, he was in an altercation with somebody.
Yes.
You don't go, in other words, people go, oh, you got to put yourself in.
What do you think you're like, what do you think's going on here?
Like, you should put himself in between that.
No.
The way the, the, the ice officer wasn't a police officer, right?
It's an ice officer.
Do you call them police?
The way the ice officer reacted to the woman did, that bothered me.
Like he just shoved this lady, like, like, step forward and fully shoved her.
That's when Alex Pretty gets involved, and then pepper spray comes out and then, and
Alex Pretty should have absolutely filmed that, should have filmed the whole thing.
That's exactly what it should have been.
A lot of people were filming it.
It was clear.
There's cameras all over them.
So, but don't, I mean, multiple angles.
Yeah.
So, but it's like, I just don't think that's appropriate behavior.
That's, that's not, that's not the tradition of like, man, I think there's a non-violent
left-wing tradition that's actually quite beautiful and spiritual and the row and Gandhi
and King.
That's not what was going on in Minneapolis.
Well, that's not at all what's going on.
This is a part of the problem with these things being organized, right?
Organized paid protests and also people being radicalized by narratives.
Then of course, very different than what was going on with the, the civil rights movement.
You have social media.
So people are like, radically pushed in one direction or another and it's not clear whether
or not that's organic.
It's not clear.
Is this the voice of the people or is this bot farms that are pushing things in one direction
or another?
Is it, I mean, there's a lot of people that I cautiously watch their posts on, on X where
I know that they're AI.
I know it's AI.
I can just tell by the way, right?
It's awful now.
There's so much AI slop on.
It's right now.
It's weird.
Yeah.
It's weird because it does muddy the water and it does fuck with discourse, but it also
radicalizes people.
One way or the radicalizes people towards the right, radicalizes people towards the left.
It's not good.
And I think this guy, whatever his mental health struggles were, they appeared to exist.
It seems like he was a troubled guy already.
So a thing comes along that defines them, a cause that they're going to stand up for
and fight for because their life's probably a fucking mess and their mind is probably a
mess.
And they look at this, they look at it like this is black and white, binary situation.
For sure.
Good guys and bad guys and let's fuck all these fascists and these kick and tail lights
and, you know, get involved in pushing matches with ICE agents is like, that's crazy.
And all that stuff should and can get you arrested.
Yeah.
I mean, I think on the organized issue, remember, like the civil rights movement was really
well organized.
Right.
But people weren't being paid for it.
It wasn't being promoted on social media, it wasn't people's job.
There are people in America right now that are unemployed that are paid protesters for
a living.
Oh, I mean, that's the entire, like, left-wing NGO sector is basically that.
Right.
Yeah.
I mean, that's like that.
We saw, I see the level of San Francisco and for homelessness.
They just go and you work at a government funded or Soros funded NGO and then you do all
that civil disobedient stuff on your free time.
But I was, I just think, I think that you were right when you're saying like, because I
think it's, the problem is not the organization.
The problem is that the organization in Minneapolis had a goal of causing exactly what occurred.
The organization around the civil rights movement was to desegregate soda counters.
Yeah.
Yeah.
One of them was about actually, I mean, the other thing is that brought, pulled back a
little bit further, Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement was about affirming
our liberal democratic western civilization.
Black people wanted to be a part of it.
This stuff where you're like, we want to, you know, open the border and defund the police
and basically start attacking all of these institutions of liberal democratic civilization.
That's different.
That's a radicalized left.
It's what gets not.
It's what gets not clear.
He defines it best as suicidal empathy.
I don't agree with Gat on that.
No, you don't think it's suicidal empathy because either suicidal or empathic because empathy
is, empathy is like what he applies that to a lot of progressive ideas, not just the
immigration thing.
I don't think he necessarily, I think it was actually long before the immigration thing
that he was talking about at suicidal empathy.
The idea being that you need the rule of law to have a safe and peaceful society.
That's what it's true.
You do.
That's what it's true.
You need no violence, you need no crime and when you're taking criminals and just releasing
them from jail and you have no cash bail and you're doing all these things, if you want
to put on the fucking tinfoil hat, you would do that because you want chaos because you
want chaos so you can have more rules and tighten down on people and have more control
over the civilization.
I mean, I think it's not empathic to allow more violent crime.
I don't think that's empathy towards victims, so I wouldn't call it empathy.
Not only that, but when you look at who these folks are and I spent a lot of time looking
at them and was one of them, they hate Western civilization.
They hate the United States of America.
They hate capitalism.
It's an anti-civilization thing that's motivating it and that's not to say that MSNBC watchers
don't feel, oh, I feel bad for that person, but I mean, I always, you know, it's like the
people I hear are complaining about ice.
They don't know any illegal immigrants.
They've never talked to them, other than maybe their server or that, you know, but they don't
even really talk to their gardeners or their, or their, you know, their, their maids.
It's like the idea that they empathy implies a deep understanding of someone's situation
and so I think it's a misdescription of empathy.
I think in some ways, it's more quite the opposite of that that they're actually not showing
empathy for all the people that are hurt by their policies, whether it's open borders or enabling
addiction or euthanizing poor and mentally ill people in Canada or trans-ing kids.
I don't think that those things are empathic and the person that's doing them, I don't think
is suicidal.
If anything, they're actually quite full of themselves and quite arrogant about what they're doing.
I mean, I use the word pathological altruism in San Francisco and I say it's close to
Monkhausen Syndrome by proxy.
Maybe it is Monkhausen Syndrome by proxy, but I don't think it's, I worry about, I worry
about affirming, because I think it's how progressive is going to go, oh, well, if we,
if the homeless are, are worse off, that's just because we care so much.
I just don't think that's the case.
Well, that's the homeless thing is nuts because the homeless thing is just a scam and we know
that basically because of California, like California, what's happened with the whole
homeless budget is so insane and that they vetoed audits of these budgets.
There's been $24 billion spent, no one knows where it went, there's no accountability,
and then the homeless situation increases.
Well, that's why.
I mean, remember, it's like, it's funny, like my students just did a, we have something,
we've been working on it too, like the Canadian euthanasia program, and it's like every
year the numbers just keep going up and up, and I remind you, when you interview homeless
service providers in San Francisco, they'll be like, yeah, no, we're doing an amazing job
every year.
We serve more and more people.
It's like, right, you have all the wrong incentives.
You're trying, you're, you have an incentive to serve, to, you have an incentive to create
homelessness, and that's what they've done.
Well, if you get more money, if you have more homeless, your incentive is now not to
eliminate homelessness because that's your job.
Right.
That's how you make all your money.
It was alert to that.
I, it was like, I can't believe this is real.
Like, when you find out the amount of money that's involved in homelessness, like that,
they spend $24 billion, okay, where'd that go?
Where, and then there's no accountability?
Okay.
There's no fraud.
You're saying there's no fraud?
Zero?
Well, I wish there was fraud.
I mean, somebody was sort of like, can we expose, you know, like, make surely expose
the daycare is not doing anything in Minnesota.
I was like, I wish the homeless service providers weren't doing anything.
Right.
They're stealing the money and then there'd be a lot less homelessness.
Well, so you think they're actually using the money to create homelessness?
Oh, yeah.
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, think about like, so San Francisco was like, between $100 and $120,000, a year per
homeless person, I think, I think LA at a bargain of something more like $25,000, that's,
that's just San Francisco, that doesn't count the $24 billion that California gave.
So that money's going to, you know, single resident occupancy hotel owners, it's going
to non-profit service providers who are just bringing food and, you know, alcohol and
drug paraphernalia to make it easier for people to do drugs and overdose and live in tents
on the street.
That's, it's very expensive to kill that many people that way.
That's what San Francisco has proven.
Right.
But it's really about the amount of people where that's their industry.
Yeah.
There is an industry in taking care of the homeless situation and addressing the homeless
situation.
And you know, Coli on noir, when he was on the podcast, he was explaining to me that he
went to San Francisco and he was like, why is it so bad up here?
Do they need money?
He's like, no, no, no.
This guy who's a lawyer is explaining, he's a lawyer as well.
He's explaining it to him.
Like, no, no, these people are getting money to deal with the homeless situation and some
of them making $4 billion a year and more, which is just nuts.
And then it's not getting better.
It's only getting worse and yet they still keep getting that money.
So it's like, there's zero incentive to make it better.
There's an only incentive to make it worse.
And then when you have no accountability, so there's no auditing over the money, $24 billion
is a lot of fucking money.
So where's, who's getting greased up?
Where's that money going?
Mostly it's into the, it's into the temporary what they call, they call it permanent, it's
propaganda work.
Propagand, it's a permanent supportive housing.
It's neither permanent nor supportive.
It's often warehousing addicts where they die.
I mean, we know that they die at very high levels in those little, this is a little crummy,
single-reson occupancy rooms.
They bought a lot of motels that were low income, low cheap motels, converting them, but
they don't really, there's no, I mean, all that money should have gone into a centralized
addiction and psychiatric care system.
How psych is what it should have been?
And instead, it's just, it's just kind of, yeah, it's just basically incentivizing people
to live on the streets and use hard drugs and die and overdose.
It's just so crazy.
I mean, if you wanted to make it better, you would have incentivized them and paid them
based on the amount of people that are no longer homeless.
Right.
But they don't do that.
But then the problem with that is, well, you're eventually going to fix it all and then
your business is going to go away.
Right.
And that's all happening.
I think it's, I think it's all happening unconsciously, like there's no room, there's
no like, you know, secret room where they're rubbing their hands and being like, oh,
they're going to make a lot of money this way.
It's just, you know, when you interview them, it's a very basic view.
You know, it's just, these people are victims, they're victims of white supremacy and capitalism
and, and so victims, everything should be given and nothing required.
Well, I think that's a nice narrative, but I think once you start getting monthly pay
checks from, from the homeless industrial complex, I think you're incentive is to keep
this party going.
Well, sure, but they, they, they, they, but they think it's good.
I mean, they, they go, this shows how, how good we're doing that we got a bigger budget
this year.
And that's how they, that's how they rationalize it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Oh, I mean, it's a sign of a very sick society, hence the title of your book, San Francisco,
Sikko, which is a great title.
I mean, it's a sick place and it was one of my favorite cities.
It was an amazing city.
Well, California is in my Netflix special there in 2016.
So in just the amount of time in 10 years, it's completely falling apart.
When I was there in 2016, it was great.
With the, I mean, there was always a lot of homeless people there, but you have that
in any liberal city, but it was never an epidemic.
It was never like tense everywhere and shit on the streets.
That wasn't the case.
It was just, you know, it was a liberal city, a progressive liberal city, but it was cool.
There was a lot of outdoor music.
It was fun.
It was a great place to go to restaurants and people walked around.
It was a great city filled with intelligent, interesting, open-minded people.
Man, I lived there when I was a little kid.
I was there during the Vietnam War from age seven to 11.
I lived in San Francisco.
It's a little bit better now.
They cut a new mayor.
Yeah, a little bit.
I mean, I want to acknowledge, I can't lie about it.
It's a little bit better.
I agree.
I interview a lot of people still about what's going on.
It's still there.
What did you see would happen with the mayor?
With his security guard.
Yeah.
Yeah.
For sure.
You need to learn some fucking jujitsu.
The way you let that guy grab him, he didn't pummel.
He didn't do anything.
He looked like he had no understanding of what to do when that guy grabbed his body.
That was cool.
How is he a security guard?
That's crazy.
How can you be a security for the mayor if you literally don't know what to do in a
clinch?
I thought he looked like he didn't really see the guy as a threat or something.
Like maybe he thought he was just crazy.
Even if I didn't see a guy as a threat.
If a guy grabs me like that, I'm not going to let him get that person.
Yeah, he's a positional man.
He's probably cut his back of his head and set back on the ground on the body slamming
on to the fucking concrete.
And then, kind of a metaphor for the whole situation.
And then he just walks away.
And he walked away, like it was nothing.
Like he walked away.
Not even running.
Did you see though, because I saw that video, and I couldn't tell if the mayor actually
saw what was happening.
He was like, he was looking that way and his guy was here when they started physically
struggling with each other.
And then when they're struggling with each other, he walks off.
And then the guy gets bodyslide.
It was the weirdest video to watch.
Yeah, but because it is so nonchalant,
the most, yeah, as a metaphor for the city.
It's just a different angle.
The mayor actually is running off to get help.
Oh, he is, okay.
Running off?
Yeah, me and me refresh this real quick.
What was it?
Yeah.
Show me.
So there's the mayor right there.
Okay.
He pushes this guy here in a second.
The mayor sort of, as soon as he gets this side watch,
it takes off.
So why are they hanging out with this guy in the first?
That looks like they're in camera right there.
So the security guy started it and he doesn't know
what the fuck he's doing.
And there's the mayor over here.
Okay.
Oh, look at his, like, shitty technique.
Much better video.
And the other guy's a lot stronger than him.
So the mayor, he starts off on, he takes,
he starts running right.
He seems relaxed.
Okay.
Okay, he did start walking slowly and then starts with that.
That's gonna get help.
That guy started it all.
He pushed that guy.
If you're a security guy, the last thing you want to do
and there's one of you and two of those other guys
is deal with the situation that way where you push a guy.
I'm, I have to say, it's essentially said,
I'm always surprised when I see them do,
like that was the same thing that happened with the Freddie.
We're just talking about it.
What do you think this guy's probably armed too?
I mean, but also, he shouldn't push that guy that way.
I mean, the whole thing is fucking stupid.
Look at the chaos.
There's somebody else just running around
and they're homeless person or something.
Yeah.
Yeah.
The other guy's probably talking shit.
I bet that guy's funny.
I bet he's a fucking guy with a big coat on.
I mean, I don't, for the life of me,
none of it makes sense.
Right.
None of it makes sense.
The mayor walking off casually and then eventually running.
It doesn't make sense.
The security guy just walked up to those guys and pushed him
when your details take care of the mayor.
He should be escorting him around that
and getting him away from any potential trouble.
Like the brazenness of just walking up and pushing that guy,
well, you don't know how to fight at all.
It's very clear when you watch the way they grapple
with each other.
He doesn't know what he's doing.
This episode is brought to you by Intuit TurboTax.
April 15th is coming fast.
There's been so many tax law changes this year,
which means you're going to need an expert
who has your back, you're in luck.
TurboTax now has in-person locations nationwide.
Walking to their tech-enabled stores
and meet face-to-face with a TurboTax full-service expert
who will get your best outcome.
Your expert works to get you every dollar you deserve
while updating you as you go about your day.
Head to TurboTax.com to find a store near you.
Seems like we're having a lot of security problems
in our society right now.
It's wild, right?
I can believe the pushing, I mean, that's the same
the pretty thing.
Like pushing, is that like an important law enforcement
technique?
I mean, what is that?
Well, not only that, he pushed a small woman.
The ice guy just completely, just full-on shoves
this small woman.
Which means he was emotionally out of control first, right?
I mean, he was angry.
He was angry.
These guys are not like special forces guys.
They're not well trained.
These guys are the seven weeks.
Seven weeks and a lot of them are financially incentivized.
Because if you get $50,000, if you're in debt,
and then you could take this job on,
when they get the $50,000, how long do they
have to stay on the job for to have that money,
to have that signing bonus?
Or is it one of those things where you get the $50,000
as a signing bonus, but you pay it like a record deal
type deal?
It's not really your money.
You have to make it up later.
I imagine it.
But still, if you can get $50,000, there's
a lot of people that will take that job.
Yeah.
They're just, yeah, it was just a bunch of bad choices,
made by the administration on that one.
Someone's Reddit comments saying they have no personal
experience, but they've heard that it's 50K over four years.
If you're in good standing at the end of those four years.
So you only get it after four years.
But that might not add to that.
But for some people that have no job opportunities and nothing
on the horizon, that $50,000 looks like, look,
it's an extra 25K a year or an extra 25K for four years,
for 50 for four years.
Another person says that's incorrect.
It's broken in 10 payments once at 90 days
then once every year for four more years.
Anyway, it's broken.
Be the way.
It's $50,000 that you would not have been able to make
ordinarily.
I mean, we had police shortages before 2020.
We had a bunch of police shortages after that, mostly
by police officers who were just felt mistreated by the society
or by their local mayors who said that they were evil.
Well, didn't a lot of cops resign when Adam Donney got elected?
Oh, I'm sure.
And then a COVID, and then a bunch of police officers
were driven out of drink COVID.
So there was already our security forces have been,
you know, and they were just people underestimate
how important it is to feel like important in your job
and respected.
And it's not just about the money,
because they would be offering more money.
But I think a lot of people are like, oh, no,
I don't want to be in a job where people are like
spitting at me or throwing urine.
People not just get a job where your life is on the line.
Yeah, your life is already on the line,
and then you're mistreated by the wider society,
which actually creates additional risks, you know,
as this chaos in Minneapolis shows.
So yeah, it's just people want to believe that they're doing
something that is appreciated by the community.
And so when the community decides that they're against
policing, your civilization's pretty far gone.
Right, but there's a difference between policing
and this ice thing.
The ice thing is a different thing, right?
They're looking at it differently.
It's not like you're watching a violent altercation take place.
The police show up and people are spitting on them.
Like you're trying to break up a violent crime.
This is different.
They're looking at it like in the progressive narrative
is like, no one's illegal on stolen land.
And we need to have open borders and illegals
or immigrants rather are the foundation of this country.
And you hear all that, those narratives.
The president and the president of the administration
wanted to pick a fight obviously with this left wing,
with activists in this left wing city,
they thought it would write down to their benefit
to show how crazy the left was and it backfired on them.
Well, I think they wanted to do something
about the amount of illegal fraud that was just recently
exposed in Minneapolis.
But I don't know if that's, but you wouldn't do it
with ice raids though.
I mean, but it's illegal immigrants.
If you have illegal immigrants that are responsible
for hundreds of millions of dollars at the fraud
and you know, at least some of them are illegal,
it seems rational that you would send
ice in to find out who's illegal and who's not
and put a stop to some of it.
And there's also this nationwide focus on this one place
because of the Nick Shirley videos.
Yeah, though I think that the motivate,
my understanding is that the motivation was to motivate
people that are here illegally to self-deport.
And so that that's the main part of the strategy
is this show of force because of course it's,
they wanted the publicity,
they wanted people to be scared in self-deport.
They claim that, you know,
one point, I think three million people self-deported
or at one point four and the other 400,000
or 600,000 deported through the normal channels.
And apparently they're just limited
to how many people they can actually deport
through the normal channels,
but they can get, people can self-deport, they can just go.
Right.
And because of course there's this thing called e-verify
where you just have the employers have to prove
that everybody you're employing is here legally
and they don't want to do that.
Drum administration doesn't want to do that
because they'll upset in particular
like the agricultural lobby,
but other construction, who depend on,
so it's a funny, it's not great.
I don't know, I'm not saying that there's,
that I have the perfect, you know, answer to the other one,
but obviously like politically the president
doesn't feel like they can do e-verify
and maintain support from the business community
for his political agenda.
So you end up,
but you end up with a kind of underclass
that's here illegally, but that's protected
because they're working in a sector
that the president and the administration wants to protect,
but then you're also self-deporting people.
I'm not sure exactly how they're thinking about it,
but that appears to be what the heart of their goal is.
Well, this was always, a lot of people on the left
back in the day would say that illegal immigrants was,
this was like a Koch brothers thing.
This was like a right wing thing
that they wanted this for, for exactly what you just described.
And that this is not a left wing progressive idea
and that what it would do is would lower the wages
for the lower class, the middle class of this country
and it would be bad for the citizens.
And so you don't want unchecked illegal immigration,
unchecked illegal immigration would just be for the right
because they're the ones who own these massive corporations
that are profiting off of illegal labor,
they don't have to pay them benefits,
they don't have to pay them healthcare,
any of the things that cost money.
Yeah, I mean, on the left was always balancing
a sort of open society.
They wanted, the Soros Foundation always wanted
to have a free movement of people to,
that was sort of their view of why,
on part why the Holocaust occurred
is that you couldn't move, at least the persecutions,
you couldn't move people as easily.
But then you had the working class
who were negatively affected by bringing immigrants
who had pushed down wages and unions
who were a big part of the Democrat party.
So the Democrats were sort of divided on it for a while,
but they managed it and Hillary and Obama would sort of,
if you look at when they were competing in 2008,
they were very carefully, like there was a whole thing
around like driver's licenses,
whether she would give them or not,
and Obama accused Hillary of kind of playing both sides
of it, you know, typical thing.
But they also both spoke out strongly against mass migration,
fast forward 10 years, you know,
fast forward much more than that.
It was at 16 years into today.
And now you've got a much more working class
Republican party who's unified around
keeping the borders closed
and restricting the supply of low income unskilled workers.
Because, I mean, it's just, I mean,
it was really weird to watch people
that are always defending supply and demand
and economics and economic policy,
then say, oh no, but having open borders
and having all these working class people come in
is going to have no impact on wages when obviously it would.
And I think that's now, that's also now gone.
I think that's another thing that's just Trump has just changed.
I don't think you're going to see Democrats going back
to advocating that kind of mass migration again.
Right, but you could see a world where they would push back
against what has happened,
what they would say, the barbaric nature
of some of these ice raids.
And then saying, this is a filter of what ice water
isn't that, too, if you'd like.
But you don't have to not have your bottle.
We don't care.
Oh, I think it's in the shot.
No, it doesn't matter.
We don't care.
It doesn't matter.
But you could see how they could go back
to a much looser border policy.
And get back to what they're doing.
Because it wasn't they won't, I think they won't.
I think the closed border, I mean,
I think that that sweet spot of public opinion
is like, people really want to close,
I think it was just really,
but I don't think public opinion supported
in an open border, even on the left.
No, during those last four years,
but yet they did it in any way.
And they were moving people to blue states.
They were moving people to swing states.
They were flying people and busing people.
They were doing it on purpose.
Isn't that also the, because the blue state governors
were more welcoming of them?
There's a little bit of that,
but there was also the idea that you're going
to juice up the congressional seats
because you're going to change the census.
Maybe although California lost seats, right?
Well, because California's done such a fucking
terrible job of governing their state.
It's so, that place is so crazy.
Like every time there's some new law
that they're trying to push through, some new bill.
And like, do they just want everyone to leave?
Well, they drove the billionaires out, right?
Yeah.
I mean, I know they drove out David Sacks,
came to Austin.
I think Mark Zuckerberg moved to Florida.
I heard rumors this Steven Spielberg.
I don't know if that's, I don't want to spread
disinformation.
I don't want to spread misinformation,
but I heard he was leaving.
But yeah, it's called the,
the thing that drives me the most nuts
is when these progressive talking heads saying,
they don't want to pay their fair share.
With the amount of waste and fraud, why would you?
You don't think there should be some accountability
to how much fucking waste and fraud
that has been clearly demonstrated?
Like the solution is just give more money.
Oh, and they can do it because they have it.
So what, you just give more money
and now it's $30 billion goes to homeless
with no accountability?
Like, what are you saying?
Like, where do you think this money's going to go?
It's actually going to help people
and affect things in a positive way.
There's been no indication that that's the case.
That the real problem is,
they just haven't had enough money from the billionaires.
That's fucking ludicrous.
That idea is ludic, it's such a lazy,
intellectually lazy way of framing this whole discussion.
That's saying, oh, they don't want to pay their fair share.
Fuck you.
That's not what's going on here.
What's going on here,
you have a completely incompetent government
that's absolutely corrupt and they want more money.
Oh, yeah.
Gas is like $8 a gallon almost now.
That's bananas.
They were going to shut down.
I mean, the refiners are being shut down.
In that initiative, the billionaires tax is an SEIU initiative.
So meaning it's the union that covers healthcare workers
like nurses.
They're very radical.
Very radical left.
And the money is to provide Medicaid
for undocumented immigrants.
That's what they want it for, right?
So that's the whole thing.
And so you literally get the,
this is what people worry about democracy.
It's very democratic,
but you get these powerful unions
and they're able to change the laws like that.
I mean, it's called the Curly effect
because there was a Boston mayor named Curly
who made everything so bad for his political opponents
that they left.
But the consequence was that he ended up gaining more power.
So when everybody moves to,
when all the moderate Democrats move to Austin
or Miami or Denver or wherever,
California just ends up locked in more
to a progressive agenda.
That's the problem.
Well, I think the idea is that it's so good there
that most people are just going to tolerate
whatever new bullshit they throw your way.
100%.
And also, I mean, it seems like the tech community
is now backing the San Jose mayor who's running,
who's a very, he's a Democrat, very moderate.
But he's been critical of Gavin running for governor.
Yeah, Matt Mayhan.
So keep your eyes on him.
I mean, he's not, he's not like,
maybe the most exciting guy,
but he's definitely running as a moderate.
That might be because of some money.
Yeah, it seems like he's exciting.
People are like a problem.
I know.
They want, he might be enough to,
I don't know, it's hard to say,
but it does look like,
because I mean, look, there's plenty of,
the tech community only woke up politically in 2024.
That's how long it took.
And it really took things getting so bad
where they were telling Mark Andrewson,
as he said to you on your show,
that they were shutting off whole parts of AI.
The Biden administration was openly threatening AI
and this huge new, and there's concerns.
I'm not saying that there's not,
but I think that, I think at some point,
the tech community, which had been, you know,
either a leaning Democrat, you know, for a long time,
since the Obama era, you know,
or wanted to stay out of politics,
because they just wanted to focus on their machines
and their investments.
They don't really want to be involved in politics,
but they woke up in 2024 and so hopefully,
because it's not, I mean, when you see what Soros has done
and you really appreciate the power
that one billionaire can have,
you kind of go, why is there nothing like that,
you know, on the other side?
Why is it so dominated by Soros?
And so I hope that that's starting to happen,
but yeah, when you start to chase out the billionaires
and the billionaires just give up on California,
then it's gotta be whoever's remaining
to try to, you know, put the money behind the guy
that can get some change there.
Yeah, that's, I mean, I don't see a pathway
where California anytime soon turns around.
I don't see how it could.
I feel like it's, the momentum has shifted so far
in a terrible direction,
and the solutions are always tax more,
take more money from people,
and you see of this completely corrupt, irresponsible,
fraud-ridden, wasteful government
that wants more of your money,
and the solution is, if we take more money,
we're gonna make things better,
which is just insanity.
I mean, things that can't go on don't.
So, I mean, you could see it, right?
I mean, say Matt Mahan or somebody more moderate,
gets him to be governor,
Rick Carusa runs for LA mayor again.
I mean, honestly, like, if somebody can't defeat
Karen Bass after she let Los Angeles burn away,
which is now we now know for a fact,
was just totally preventable, absolutely preventable.
I was saying at the time,
now we know, they tried to rewrite the report,
but it's clear it was totally preventable.
How did they try to rewrite the report?
Well, the report said, here's all the things
that the fire department should have done
that didn't happen, and ultimately,
the mayor is the one that chooses the fire chief
and fires the fire chief,
and the mayor was warned.
And she goes to Fleistagana for this little junket,
presidential inauguration,
piling around when she should have been in LA
with a cometta command, headquarters,
and if she wasn't, then Gavin should have been,
Schwarzenegger towards the end of his administration,
they would just mobilize planes full of water,
these huge cargo planes, full of water,
before they were fires, just to start to circulate,
just to get ready to put stuff out.
This idea that, there was this idea promoted
that it was inevitable that the fires,
that eventually it's just, no, like it's absurd.
Like, of course you can protect it with adequate fire,
and put, oh, the pipes weren't big enough, no.
Like, maintain your reservoirs,
have water in them,
even the one that was not repaired yet,
which should have been repaired,
they could have kept,
they could have air-gapped the pipes
so that it didn't contaminate the water supply,
but left it for firefighting, they didn't do that,
they didn't station the engines,
where they needed a station.
Now, nobody was on, it's like,
they're not taking responsibility,
like they weren't taking responsibility for it.
So, anyway, to the point being,
get a new governor, you get a better mayor of LA,
you've got a guy in San Francisco now
who I think still has a lot of potential,
this latest video showing the chaos there,
but with that, I think it's time to fix him though.
That's not his fault.
His, you know, the criticism of him
is he walked away too casually.
That's it.
Yeah, so I mean, I think there is a way
for California to come out,
and my view is like, look, you've got,
it's on the tech billionaires.
They, you know, and I know some of them have laughed,
and obviously they don't need it,
but there's still a lot of billionaire rich guys
in California that are perfectly capable
of financing an alternative effort.
The vote, you know, 75% of San Francisco voters
want to arrest people using fentanyl in public.
They, they want to arrest them.
Okay, that sounds so, that's so taboo and progressive.
That's 75% of San Francisco voters.
So the voters are not, they're not the radical left.
Some ways they're radicalized
and they're hatred of Trump
and the Trumpet arrangement syndrome,
but I mean, everyone like Caruso and Mahan
and anybody else there will all just be able
to say they hate Trump like everybody else.
I think they've seen the consequences of these policies.
Oh yeah, there's, people are, people are really,
there's not like anything has changed that significantly.
They will, in fact, when I interview people in San Francisco,
they're a little reluctant to admit
that's gotten better because I think they don't want
to take any pressure off the politicians.
So I mean, I do think it's, it's rescuable, but it's hard.
When you say it's gotten better like Caruso.
Mostly the encampments are being broken up.
Now you see a little, you see more of that sort of thing
that we just saw in the video where there's like,
I call them like a little more like a nest.
You know, there's just a little home.
So it's not an entire encampment.
Like yeah, the whole block is broken up.
Not like that.
That's in Oakland.
Yeah.
That's in Skid Row.
Oh, Oakland's not.
Oakland is, Oakland might not be savable.
They had a chance to save themselves
and they ended up voting for the wrong person for mayor
and it's just as bad as ever.
So, but I think, if you get San Francisco L.A.
and a new governor in place,
I think you've got the makings to save it.
I've ever seen this video with Skid
does the subscription of what's going on in Oakland
and then drives across the county line
into the next place and it's immediately all done.
And you just see what the difference
between two different forms of government
and how it works.
I didn't see that one,
but I saw the one between Venice and Santa Monica.
Yeah.
I was there when the Venice and Santa Monica
was someone like, you're like,
why aren't there any tents there?
It's like, that's Santa Monica.
Yeah.
It's different.
Well, there's still some.
Santa Monica got bad too.
Yeah.
But they cleaned it up a little bit better.
But Venice is bananas, it's just,
but Venice is nothing compared to Skid Row.
Skid Row's 50 blocks.
Venice is okay now.
Venice is okay now.
Yeah, they cleaned that up pretty quickly
and then they, and then the voters fired their city council
member who represented them
who was total crazy radical Chesa Badine level radical
and replaced them with a more moderate person.
So, but yeah, it's like when you go to the beach,
it's not chaos.
No, I mean, I'm not, there's always,
but I mean, remember before it was just,
it was tense everywhere.
I mean, it was, hey, everywhere.
And they would dug in, you know, it was like crazy.
So, no, that's gone, but Skid Row, it's bad as ever.
Skid Row is 50 blocks.
50 blocks is so crazy.
50 blocks of tents and homeless people.
When we first heard that, I was like,
that's gotta be wrong, it's probably five blocks.
No, it's five zero.
50 blocks, that's an enormous amount of land
that's completely covered by homeless in campus.
There's like a whole genre of like influencers
when they first visit Skid Row,
because everyone hears about it.
And then you see like their tweets are just like,
they're just like, all I couldn't believe,
like I think it's like maybe Ben Shapiro
or there's various conservative influencers
who've gone to Skid Row and they're like,
I had no idea.
There was a common idea until you see it.
There was a comic from the comedy store
that filmed something.
He went like undercover and he had like in this past,
he had some, I don't think,
I think currently he was sober when he did this,
but he decided to go there and film
and stay in one of these encampments
just to show what it was like.
And this is like 2006-ish somewhere around there
and it was fucking nuts, even back then.
And we talked about the story of how Skid Row
with the whole Jerome hotel and how it all started.
Skid Row is the place where they would take
all the homeless people and all the people
that were problematic and they would move them there
and keep them there.
And the idea was that you just keep them out of Beverly Hills,
keep them away from Hollywood.
We're doing movies and we've got famous people walk around.
We can't have homeless people.
Just snatch them up, take them downtown and contain them.
So they had them contained in this area
and they call it Skid Row and then it just kept getting bigger.
It's not that different from the tender one
in the sense that these are places
where the single resident,
those are places where the really cheap hotels were.
They were like often for like working people
that were in town temporarily, like temporary hotels.
Some of them would just be cages.
There were no walls, like you would just get your own.
That was how primitive they were.
And then it just evolved over time
and then they became, all of them became subsidized
for the homeless.
But yeah, it's, I think California, I think it's important.
I think with Trump and again,
like him or Haydom or disagree whatever,
you see the potential of this country in particular
to make a big change.
And I think that it's ultimately resulted
from a unleashing of social media made it all possible.
It's allowed for people to get accurate information
for the first time and a different paradigm.
So I don't want to lose hope on the Golden State.
But you lost hope on Oakland.
Yeah.
Yeah, but maybe I never had hope for Oakland.
So one point, I'm Oakland was great.
Yeah, I mean Jerry Brown actually brought it up a bit.
Got it more development there.
But yeah, it's all about governance.
Yeah, it is.
Yes.
Hey, can I use the bathroom?
Yeah, sure.
We'll pause.
We'll grab back folks.
I just sent Jamie something funny
that someone just sent me about San Francisco.
This is this guy.
I think he calls himself the gay Republican.
The gay Republican?
There's a lot of those actually.
But which is, it shouldn't shock people.
They're closeted about the Republican part now.
That's the thing.
Well, it depends on how wealthy they are.
I mean, some of them are pretty, you know, Peter Teal.
Pretty open about it.
He will, he was, yeah, but it's Republicanism.
What's this?
Fran Transit.
We refuse to release crime surveillance videos
because it will make people racist.
Releasing videos would create a racial bias
in the riders against minorities on the trains.
Why would it do that, San Fran Transit?
Why would it, why would it create a bias?
Is there a reoccurring theme among the people
committing crimes?
You could say that about European crime statistics as well.
That's also why the Germans actually, in particular,
but I think other European countries
did not want to release.
Right.
But they did get them out.
They have come out now.
And the UK?
Yeah.
Yeah.
So let's move on to happier subjects.
Shall we?
So what do you think about all this UAP talk?
It's one thing that Trump has said that he's going to release
whatever files that they might have on UAPs,
alien terrestrial beings.
Oh, it's Jess.
I talked to Jesse Michaels about it.
He is highly skeptical.
And he said the people that are involved are all old guard.
And it's just going to be a bunch of horseshit.
Maybe.
Just first of all, look, I think whatever
you think about the phenomenon, this is amazing.
I mean, the president just said he's
going to release all these things.
So after decades of saying, we're not interested in this.
We're not following this.
We're shutting down blue book.
There's nothing there.
They're like, he's saying.
So I mean, that right there is, I think, amazing.
And I thought the whole thing was amazing.
Obama comes out and he goes, well, there's definitely aliens.
Oh, but they're not an area 51.
Unless they're hiding it from presidents, which
is like a well-established conspiracy theory.
So to have Obama even say that.
And then Trump comes up and he goes, Obama
revealed classified information with a little grin
on his face, because he's a little rivalry with Obama.
I might help him out by declassifying.
And then a few hours later, he did.
I mean, I, what can't you like about that?
I mean, I think that, well, it's theater.
That's what you can't like about.
It's theater, but I mean, we just saw something really
comes out.
This is just another distraction to keep us
from thinking about all the other things that are going on.
But you can't be so, I mean, we should get
into Epstein files too, because I think I have
a different view of Epstein now.
But look, I just think we've been asking for more transparency
like we had in this very brief period in the mid-70s
with the church committee hearings.
It really took a whole watergate.
It took something big.
It's been over 50 years.
We got a lot of Epstein files.
Yes, there's some missing.
But we got JFK files, Amelia Earhart files,
and now we're going to get some UFO files.
Is it going to be everything, of course not?
Like there's just no way.
But I don't think like, I think we should hold,
but we should be happy that there is an acknowledgement
that there's a lot of government files
and that there's some commitment to release them,
because I do think like, it's easier to get
new Epstein files released after you have
some Epstein files released than if you have none.
And I feel the same way about UFOs.
Okay.
So it's easier to get more UFO files released,
but like release, like did you want?
What I think one of it is like, what do we want?
And I've been, you know, I respect John Greenwald a lot.
He runs something called the black vault.com,
where he has been foyering.
He's been issuing, you know, freedom of information
and direct requests on UAP, but also a ton of other issues
since the mid 90s, when he was like 15 years old,
he became obsessed with doing a foyer request.
And he has identified a number of documents
that we know exist with redactions.
One of them is the UAP task force,
which has a line that just says potential explanations.
You know, the first explanation is redacted, it's blacked out.
The second one is, you know, some sort of natural phenomenon.
Number three is blacked out, it's redacted.
Unredactives.
I mean, come on guys, you can't tell me,
well, we have to protect our sensor data.
Come on guys, I mean, like that's not sensor data.
Tell us what the potential explanations are.
On terms of the sensor data, John also made a great point.
Do you remember when the Pentagon released the video
of the Russian jet dumping fuel on one of our drones?
There's like a famous video where they show,
as I hostile act by the Russians jumping fuel on our drone.
When was this?
Just recently, I mean, must have been within the last year or so.
So like, they're not, we do see, they do release,
you know, warfare, various times they do release things
and you can kind of go, okay, that means that we have,
I don't think what I'm saying is,
the main excuse has been not to reveal our methods
for getting, you know, we're just talking about UAP here,
getting, you know, photographs and video.
We know that a huge amount of it exists.
They haven't even released the full, you know,
gimbal and go fast videos.
There's a whole bunch more video left.
Really?
So just really, yeah.
So the video that came out, those were whistleblower leaks,
right?
Eventually, they released them formally, though.
The Pentagon did.
So there's much more of that.
So, and the, particularly started interrupting,
but was the gimbal or the go fast
where there was many more crafts?
I believe that there was, so there's three videos, right?
It's gimbal go fast and then what was the one where,
the TicTac video moves out of a frame.
My understanding is that there's significantly more video
for all of those.
And then I also, my understanding is also,
there's just a lot of other videos,
particularly from those two incidents,
certainly have, there's so much more sensor data from,
because we know those incidents had a lot more going on,
right, than just was filmed by those videos.
So I think that now, there is, I was going to say,
the UAP community, there isn't really an organized one,
although Jesse's doing an amazing job of organizing it,
we should be really specific and say, you know,
here's what we want.
I did a piece with John Greenwald,
Representative Nancy Mace wrote an open letter
to the intelligence and military community saying,
here's a set of documents that we want to release.
So I think the good news is we're like, look,
President has said he wants this.
We've identified a bunch of documents,
identified a bunch of videos in film.
Yeah, I mean, are they going to withhold stuff,
are they going to mislead probably,
but that's been the story for 80 years.
Oh, yeah, you saw the age of disclosure, right?
Yes, of course.
Okay, so I think they make a really good point
in age of disclosure that if they did release things,
the real problem is misappropriation of funds
lined Congress and the fact that some of these,
you would assume that the way these things are being handled,
if they do have crafts, if they are,
if there is some sort of a back engineering program,
that back engineering program is going to be held
by a military contractor.
So, so whatever the contractor is,
whether it's rocket dined or whoever has it, right?
You would imagine that the other competing groups
would be very pissed off that they didn't have access
to this thing and they think it's too.
The misappropriation of funds lined Congress,
people could go to jail, also, most likely fraud.
There's gotta be tons of fraud.
If there's so much money that's being like shuffled away
into these black ops projects,
if there's no oversight, then who knows
where the money's going, right?
So there's a problem there, if you open up the books
and people go, why was there a hundred million dollar
check written here?
Where's the 2.3 billion that's missing here?
And, you know, I'm, yeah, I have doubts now.
I mean, I have to say, I didn't finish watching it,
but you know, Jesse just dropped a video with him
and Eric Weinstein and Eric Davis.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, Eric Davis, yeah.
So Jesse, Eric, I haven't seen that yet.
Yeah, I found it really, it really made me question
whether there's any there there.
What does Eric Davis do?
Eric Davis, you know, who he is?
He's got the bushy beard and he's in age of disclosure
and is part of the whole, you know, big low,
you know, that whole a sap atyp.
He was a, I don't know if it was exact.
He was a scientist.
Okay.
But he was sort of talking about like,
because I think Eric Weinstein was asking these really
hard questions like, okay, well, like,
how many people are in this, you know,
reverse engineering program?
And what is it?
And I just found his answers to be very thin.
So I haven't seen it.
That's how I can't comment on that.
But I know, Eric is both skeptical
and open-minded at the same time.
There is a, like, yeah, I just,
I definitely think there's a lot more than they've revealed.
I think my skepticism on the reverse engineering stuff,
I mean, obviously there's a crash retrieval
because they're just retrieving,
it could be foreign or there was,
retrieving something.
The reverse engineering, I mean,
if it's advanced tech, nuclear just took so much,
I mean, I'm just familiar with the history of nuclear,
just so much effort to create nuclear energy
and you'd have these huge, there's a huge enterprise,
thousands of people.
If they're not, I mean, that's why I kind of go,
and I mean, a whole other form of propulsion,
I mean, it's just really, it would require so many,
so such a big bureaucracy.
That's where I'm a little skeptical that that exists
because I don't know how you maintain a cover up that long,
but I could be wrong.
I mean, as people have pointed out,
they've maintained secrecy of a lot of things
for a really long time, so it's not inconceivable, but.
Well, especially when you're dealing
with government contractors and military contractors,
they've done, I mean, they have a long history
of keeping a tight lip when it comes to all sorts
of top secret projects that they're working on.
I mean, it's weird because of like,
if you look at the UAP task force,
which was created by people that had, you know,
it comes out of, they have all SAP and then A-tip
and then UAP task force, and then they create Aero,
which is much more like what Blue Book was,
which is their whole point is to debunk and dismiss.
I think that's the whole point.
It's just to say that we looked into it
and there's nothing there,
so then they, and they cherry pick the cases,
like they don't actually deal with the stuff
that they can't explain.
That's what Aero's point is.
But the UAP task force was people
that seemed genuinely interested in it,
and they have potential explanations
and three separate things,
so that means that they didn't know themselves.
And so I would think that if you,
if there was some reverse engineering program,
then you would have a better idea
than just three potential explanations.
But that's assuming they actually got access.
The UAP task force people.
Yeah.
Yeah, I mean, at some point,
if they open themselves up for,
if they do have access, then you open up those questions,
Mr. Probation of Funds,
Line of Congress, military contractors having access
to these vehicles, I would imagine that's too messy.
They get very mumbly,
they get very mumbly at that point.
I find, I mean, you start kind of like,
well, what is it and how many people kind of,
it's a lot of like, you know,
I mean, that's how I,
that was my interpretation of this.
And I think that it's,
I'm much more with Jacques Valle's view of the phenomenon,
and I think that it,
that they don't know what it is.
I think they have a lot more,
photos and videos showing,
demonstrating this incredible phenomenon,
but I'm not sure that they know what it is.
And I'm pretty skeptical that they have
a secret reverse engineering program,
just because I don't,
I don't see how they,
how they would have carried it out for this long.
Because Jesse's theory, of course,
is that it would day back to the 70s.
Yeah.
And it just,
there's just too many possibilities
for too many deathbed confessions from people
to reveal this knowledge.
So,
But don't you think you would keep a,
really close watch on anyone
who had any access to any of these things,
and that would be very threatening to them,
like Bob Bazar.
Yeah.
I mean, I don't know.
You believe Bob Bazar.
I do.
Yeah.
I don't know what he was working on,
whether or not it was hours or something else or what,
but I don't think he's a liar.
He's at the same story forever.
Well, then we should go demand the documents.
I mean, that would be something where,
we just need to be like,
look, these are the documents that we want,
and it's on this place these years.
Well, one of these at Bob's studies,
he thinks some of the documents that he was showing
were horseshit,
and he thinks it's on purpose.
He thinks that those fake documents,
that the fake narratives are a hook,
so that if somebody does spill the beans,
they know exactly who would,
who was doing it,
because they could point to,
like maybe if you're involved in X program,
they give you some bullshit narrative
on top of the real truth, right?
They'll make up some stuff.
That way, if you really,
well, the government told me X,
and you go, oh, okay, he learned it from this,
he's a part of this program.
Now, we've narrowed it down to 250 employees.
Let's start scouring these people
and turning them into questions.
Spring just slid into your DMs.
Grab that boho look for that rooftop dinner,
those sandals that can keep up with you,
and hang some string lights to give your patio a glow up.
Spring's calling.
Ross, work your magic.
Yeah, counterintelligence.
Yeah, I mean, it seems like that,
so you know the MJ-12 documents.
There's one of them that is this incredible document.
I mean, just if it's a forgery,
most people I think it's a forgery or it's a hoax or whatever.
It's so well done.
It's the manual on extraterrestrial crash retrieval
with different morphologies.
You've ever seen this?
No.
You've seen it's amazing document.
Like I spent, we didn't like a long rabbit hole.
Look, I would say most ufologists think it's fake.
So it's not even me.
I was incredible about that.
They show like, you know, like in the old books,
from the library, they'd show who checked it out.
They had all these names.
So then you kind of go like the only people, really.
I mean, it seemed like the level of sophistication
to create this would have been the government.
And so then you're sort of like,
well, why would they have done that?
One of the answers is it was just,
this is called passage material
to be able to detect counterintelligence activities.
I'll tell you another one that I can't quite figure out.
I mean, it says a lot of effort to,
and why that narrative, I mean,
another thing I was people say is they'll go,
well, they're using the UAP stuff
as cover for secret weapons programs.
And you're like, well, why would that work as cover?
And they go, well, because then it's a way to distract attention.
I was like, well, why would that distract attention?
Wouldn't that attract attention?
You go, don't, if you, as opposed to like,
within the military, like, look, we don't,
this is, this is secret research,
you know, that's really important in national security.
We don't have to pay attention.
Instead, they're like, oh no, this is UFO crash retrieval.
So don't pay attention to it.
That seems like your recipe for creating more interest
in UFOs.
Yeah.
So there's a lot of things that the government has done
where you're like, it's almost like assuming that is,
by the way, that we know that like,
we know that the government, the US Air Force, did,
you know, in the early eighties,
make this guy, Paul Benowitz, go crazy,
who was seeing things over Curtlyn Air Base,
and then this guy, Richard Dodie, you know,
how they make him go crazy?
They would be feeding them all this information,
convincing them of an alien attack,
and he basically ended up going crazy from it.
It's this amazing story told by this, by this book,
Mirage Men, also documentary,
and you look and you kind of go and they go,
well, it was to cover up a secret weapons program
at Curtlyn Air Base, and it's like,
it's like, I'm not even disbelieving it,
but it's like, that's just such a,
like, why would that be the best way to do that?
And why would you be so sure that that wouldn't attract
interest from people rather than distract it?
So there's a bunch of things that don't make sense,
and so even if it is all, you know,
which is the skeptic view, you know,
is that it's some combination of government disinformation,
sci-fi, you know, dreams, hypnosis,
hypnogodgic states, and then kind of the power of belief.
You know, I just reviewed this new book on Barney and Betty Hill
where the author thinks that it was,
that really it was a combination of her,
it was the stress of being an interracial couple,
her nightmares, and then hypnosis,
where they then confabulate this whole story.
That's the basic skeptic view,
is that it was sort of,
but the government's involved in it,
and that's always strange,
because you're like,
why would the government involved in the Betty and Barney Hills?
No, no, in the UFO,
in creating, in this UFO,
assuming that they did the MJ-12,
or somebody did the MJ-12,
but certainly in the case of,
right, why would they have any organizations?
Why would they have anything, right?
Why would they have, why would you be,
why would you be doing,
like the thing with like the Paul Dodie and the Paul Benowitz,
or the Richard Dodie and Paul Benowitz,
is like, why was that the best,
I mean, it's just,
why was that the best way,
like somebody has observed strange activity
over Curtlyn Airbase,
and they discovered this.
Why was that the right approach?
I don't, I don't follow it,
and you had AJ Gentile on,
who did the stuff on crop circles,
we saw it, they saw military disinformation
around those activities in Britain,
so you see a lot of,
crop circle things weird, really weird.
Cause you wanna just write it off.
I mean, I wanted to write it off,
I'm like, oh, there's guys with boards,
they're making designs,
but then you see some of the designs
and how the wheat is actually woven,
and how they have these exploded nodes,
they're almost like they're microwaved,
and they've examined these things,
and it seems like there's some energy
that's created these things,
and also the sheer size and scale
of some of these things with no footprints leading
into them or out of them,
and just the geometric precision of some of them,
it's really weird.
Like there's, of course it's eyewitness accounts,
it's hard to know if they're being accurate,
but people who flown over areas,
where there's nothing there,
flown back two hours later,
and there's these football field,
size, mandal-brought sets.
Those the Julius set over next to Stonehenge
was the one that the guy flew over,
and there was nothing there,
and a couple of hours later,
there was the Julius set,
which is a spectacular,
yeah, it's incredible.
Right, I'll tell you, it's an incredible precision.
That's what's really as much precision
as you can get by folding over wheat,
but when you look at it from above,
and you don't get to the micro,
you're looking at these things
that they really do scale in a fractal way.
It's very fucking strange and difficult to reproduce.
You would imagine something like that
would take a long fucking time to plot out and plan,
you would take multiple people,
you'd have to measure and re-measure,
you'd have to have some sort of tools and instruments,
not just to fold over the wheat,
but if you're gonna interweave the wheat,
what is your method of doing that?
And how are you doing it where this one is one dimension,
and then the next one is precisely three-fifths
of that dimension,
the next one is slightly in their fractal?
Well, it gets really even weirder than that,
so you know how I just described this case
of this Air Force counterintelligence guy driving this guy,
Paul Bennett, what's crazy, I can't remember first.
That book is written by Mark Pilkington.
Mark Pilkington is one of two guys
that claim to have created all the crop circles.
The other guy's a guy named John Lundberg.
AJ, in his video about the crop circles,
accuses John Lundberg,
again, the circle makers, they have a website,
they keep it updated.
He accuses him of being a British intelligence agent,
AJ does, or at least he strongly implies it.
And part of that is because there was a bunch of weird stuff
on the website about MI5 and the CIA,
and then Lundberg went to a school,
this is all very circumstantial,
so I'm not defending, I'm just saying what AJ said.
Then Lundberg went to a school that shares a courtyard
with an MI5 campus or an MI5 training area.
I asked Mark, I have like three hours of interviews
with Mark, who I'm a really interesting person.
I asked him directly if they had any connection
to military intelligence, he said absolutely not.
It's hard to...
Which is what you would say.
Well, of course you're allowed to say it if you are,
but I'm not making any accusations,
but yeah, I mean, he claimed that they made all of them.
And there's some of them, have you ever seen the massive,
there's one that was absolutely massive?
Yeah, post some of them up, Jamie,
so we can get some.
There's the Julia set, but there's another one.
There's so big, it's really hard to see,
but he said that he wasn't at that one.
Yeah, that's the famous, that's the Julia set's gorgeous.
Well, the big one right there is in the middle,
that one's just crazy.
These are enormous.
Yeah, they're enormous.
Go full screen on that.
It's, they're so big.
And I mean, the amount of precision involved in them
is kind of spectacular.
Now, Mark denies that they have exploded nodes
and he denies that they're interwoven.
AJ says that they are definitely interwoven
and have exploded nodes.
And there was an even an article in Science magazine,
which argues that they were made by humans,
but that they point out the exploded nodes.
So yeah, maybe that's it.
What's weird too, is there's like, how did you do this?
Where, what's the, where's the evidence of people
trampling through this with equipment?
No, it's all missing.
Like, it's strange.
And then also, no one's caught doing them.
How about the blind?
Here's the other one I asked Mark about this
and he didn't know about it.
But do you know the pie one?
Yeah.
There was apparently, I'm pretty sure
it's the first time that it was a visual explanation of pie.
That's my understanding of it.
Now, maybe there's someone,
I haven't seen anything earlier than that,
but that's like on its own is really amazing
that that was the first time that they had created
a visual representation of pie.
Yeah.
And completely with like the, yeah, that's it.
It's like, there's another image that will show
how it is pie, probably that one right there.
Yeah.
And so that's a extremely sophisticated.
Extremely.
Cops are cool.
I mean, imagine the type of intelligence
that you'd have to possess to pull this off
and then not let anybody know that you did it.
And it's just for funsies.
Just for funsies in a field.
Yeah, it's some, and then you know these MIT researchers went out,
that's also part of it and they tried to do it
and it just wasn't, it wasn't nearly as good.
Yeah, what is this article, sir?
Why are you guys at the time?
OK, it is very fucking weird.
Yeah.
It's very weird, but the whole UFO thing is very weird.
It, you know, the Jacques Vallet books are very interesting
and I've read three of his books so far.
And I've had him on a couple of times.
And the last time I had him on,
I really wanted a deep dive and I read two of his books
right before he came on.
And one of the more interesting things
is the really old stories.
Like the stories from the 1700s, the 1800s,
were they lack the context of spaceships,
the idea behind it, like none of that stuff exists.
But yet you get almost, at least you could say,
oh, I could understand how they would be describing it this way.
But it's kind of the same thing
that other people have been describing.
This is a Bobway story, a lot of these other stories.
It's kind of the same story over and over and over again,
which makes you go, okay, well, what,
does it have to be from outer space?
Or is it possible that there is something here
that is like far older than us
that has somehow or another removed itself from our view?
Or is it social contagion and people,
I mean, I've always struck by it's always like the aliens
always are like all protect your environment
and avoid nuclear war.
It's like, oh, thanks, like we didn't know,
we needed to do those until you guys showed up.
And it makes more sense is like, you could see it as a,
I mean, I got very into, I haven't interviewed her yet,
but I'm about to, there's an anthropologist
at Stanford named Tonya Lurman.
And she's done this incredible work on religions
where she, like, anthropologist and also this guy, Bowman,
like they, they're agnostic on whether or not
like those beings are real.
Like they're just like, we're really interested in like,
the culture and the psychology and the experience of it.
But she had this, she, she was like, did her field work
with magicians and witches in England?
You know, like, you know, like modern witches
and not magicians like magic tricks,
but like the old, who's the famous magician?
I can't offer that.
No, no, the British one, Merlin, right?
Oh.
But like, old style, right?
Like, but they were like, so she didn't really believe in it,
but she would, they were like, you have to practice witchcraft
in order to do this.
And she had like multiple anomalous experiences,
one of them that she woke up and there was five druids
in her room, backening to her and people like, is it a dream?
And she's like, no, it's not a dream.
She had another instance where they were trying to like conjure
energies to like turn off, to like shut down her watch.
And she felt a huge energy surge through and shut off her watch.
And her point is that she thinks that the practice,
she's, she, we put too much focus on the beliefs,
but she says like the practices themselves,
I don't know if she would say conjure.
I also interviewed Diana Passilco on it.
They would say more like reveal these different realities.
So they're much more, it's a very interesting set of work
because they're not, they're not trying to answer the question
of whether the druids were really in her room or not.
I mean, the watch thing, you know,
apparently definitely happened.
But apparently definitely is a weird way to put it.
Apparently to her, definitely.
I know, you know what I'm saying?
It's like show me, man.
The conjuring thing is strange because that's a recurring theme
that you go outside and you have like these experiences
where you say I'm not afraid, come show yourself to me
and give it enough time with enough intention.
Apparently things will appear in the sky.
My favorite one is the black guy talking about Yahweh
who with the local ABC newscaster goes out
and it's going to be one of those,
this guy thinks that he can conjure UFOs
and they go out with them and he conjures an orb.
Do you ever see that one?
No.
That's like an incredible, that's like one of my favorite
of those videos and the newscaster is like,
he literally they see him calling his,
I think it's like an NBC affiliate
or an ABC affiliate somewhere,
Jamie can probably find it.
But if it's, he literally calls his boss,
the newscaster is like all the stories turned out
a little differently than I thought.
It's like one of my favorites.
I'm sure you could say oh, it's a balloon or whatever
like comes in and out.
I mean, it's really, and it comes right as he's calling it.
That's the weird things.
I've talked to multiple people that have actually done this.
Oh people, it's that have gone out
with these, you know, air quotes experts
and they go out to some deserted area
and you call these things.
There's a second guy, white guy that also does it
and Reuters did a whole story on them
because apparently there's a whole bunch of people around
that they saw it and of course Jake Barber
who's this former, you know, a contractor,
helicopter pilot contractor for special forces
announced that he was gonna go and conjure UFOs
and bring one down.
They're here, they're just sitting right up there.
We met up with profit Yahweh,
Sierra of Yahweh at Do Little Park Off Lake need.
We picked the day, we picked the time
and we picked the location.
Everyone's gonna think you're absolutely nuts.
Well, I thought I was absolutely nuts.
Until he says he saw UFOs.
Over the years, 1,500 of them.
If we make it 1,500, one today, what do you think?
I'll try it.
He says the voice in his head told him to go public now.
So we took him up on his offer and we scanned the skies.
Nothing but a few clouds.
When the profit started praying for a sighting,
I wasn't exactly convinced.
I pray Yahweh that you send a sighting
so that they know that I am not mentally ill.
I am not a false prophet.
My bones will seek to kill me, say aye.
Oh, people are trying to kill him?
Oh, brother, look at their deals.
You can barely see it, a white speck,
then another sighting.
They were just like, I got it, I got it, I got it.
Photojournalist Jonathan Hawkins locks in on it.
Let's take a closer look here.
It's an orange sphere that appeared out of nowhere.
I call the boss with an unexpected change in my story.
I can see it clear as day.
In fact, it's bright.
I can't see it.
It's moving pretty fast.
It's gone to Nellis Air Force Base.
It wants to be seen.
We called Nellis to see what these things might be.
Guess what?
They didn't call us back.
But this thing started coming back toward us.
Coming toward us now, I think.
What?
See, it's coming up toward us.
Whoa, man.
Oh, how did Luyah.
Damn, a few seconds later, it disappeared.
It's going back up in space.
Profit Yahweh isn't concerned.
He says it'll be back.
I would take this more seriously
if that guy didn't have your reporter voice.
It's amazing.
This is part of the charm of it.
I think it's, I love it because I don't think it's
going to convince any skeptics.
But it's like one of the few things in our world
where it inspires a set of wonder and a set of awe.
And for those of us that struggle with our faiths,
it's inspiring because it is sort of a spiritual,
like I mean, he calls himself Yahweh, right?
So there's like, he wasn't about like,
gray aliens or whatever, it was just something else.
And that's what I mean about like why more valet,
his work explains all of this much better.
And then the sort of the extraterrestrial hypothesis did.
And he's had that since 68.
Well, I think what he does best is not explain it.
Yeah, he doesn't, yeah.
There really is an explanation,
but here's what we know.
He calls it a control system though.
Yeah, which is sort of like, I asked Diana,
I was like, is that, how is that different from God?
Because he's sort of a control system that is, his views
that there's a control system that's evolving human
consciousness and it will manifest different things
or in relation to the humans over time.
And so he looks at the, you know, the apparition,
the Maria, or Saint Mary apparitions in Spain
and the airships of the late 19th century,
where people saw these things that look like the Zeppelin's,
even though they hadn't been invented yet,
all of these things, he says,
his view is the sort of being sort of produced
in some relationship as well with our culture.
That's Valle's argument.
And that sounds a lot like God in some ways.
We say control system.
Right, what does that mean?
Is it a higher life form that is monitoring us?
Like that, that's the secular version of religion
for a lot of these people that are really interested in aliens.
Like that there's some advanced being
that's making sure we don't fuck everything up completely.
It's certainly for me, that's my interest.
I mean, I, like, again, this anthropologist, Lerman,
you know, she says, you know, William James
is this famous Harvard psychologist,
wrote a book about the varieties
of the religious experience in 1902.
And he says, everybody wants to kind of be like,
is it real or not real?
Is like this world just what we see?
And he says, I think there's something more.
There's not.
So this, this very, you know, skeptic or debunker thing,
which is like, oh, no, it's just gotta be a,
that thing's gotta be a bird or it's a, it's like, well,
but it really, you haven't just calling at that.
And as they point out, it's like,
they showed up when they wanted to.
I mean, it's a pretty amazing,
if it's just a coincidence, it's a really amazing one.
And so I think for me, it's like,
because I am a Christian and it is hard to believe
in all powerful and all good God
because he obviously allowed the Holocaust to occur
and allowed terrible things to occur.
But I love that, that segment and there's,
I love there's another one I love right now.
I was like a British woman in the 50s,
doing an interview about seeing what she calls
a Mexican hat UFO over her house.
And the kids saw it and she,
and everybody in the village made fun of her
and they really killed her and she's like,
but it's, you know, but it's, I saw it and it was real
and it was like, it's like, those are like our,
those are spiritual experiences, I think.
So I don't know that like, I want the files released
from the government.
I'm also skeptical that it's gonna tell us what it is
because I think at some level,
we're not supposed to get more,
much more information about what it is.
I think it's, or something else is going on
or maybe it's having a positive effect.
I think it's, I think one of the,
sometimes people get really mad at UFO believers,
like skeptics get really angry, like how do they,
there's just, you know, whatever they get so mad
and I'm always like, but like,
how often do you see them causing real harm or problems?
I mean, we had one cult where they,
you know, like a few people killed themselves.
But for the most part, they cut their balls off first.
Yeah, it's great.
So, you know, UFO, like for the most part,
UFO, people who are ancient UFOs,
are dreamy seekers, spiritual,
and I think it's, I think it's wrong to,
I think it's lovely and wonderful
and it reminds us of, you know,
that we're small on the one hand,
we're humble about our knowledge
and there's just surrounded by mystery.
I mean, you're, so much of your career
and this platform has been to allow us to talk about things
that are unexplained and that,
or the explanations don't really seem to explain it.
There's something more as William James
would say there's something more
and I think that the denial of anything more,
this idea, oh, we know everything
and we know we don't know anything.
That's humorous.
It's just crazy.
But those people are silly.
They're more silly than the believers
because this idea that like, look,
if there is a, if you have a completely novel experience,
like say, if you are a Commander David Fraver
and you encounter this Tic-Tac-shaped object
that's hovering over something
that appears to be a ship that's under the water,
this thing takes off at a absolutely preposterous speed
that has documented both in radar and visually and on camera.
So they've got video of this thing moving.
They say that it went from above 50,000 feet above sea level
to sea level in less than a second,
which would require more energy
than the entire United States produces in a year
in order to get an object to move that quickly.
And it does that with no heat signature.
If this is all true, just that alone.
Now imagine you have this completely novel experience
and because I haven't had it and you haven't had it
and Jamie hasn't had it, well,
it's very simple and easy to dismiss it.
But if this happened, what do you expect the person to do?
What do you expect a decorated pilot in the Navy,
a guy who has a rock solid record,
who is, there's nothing about him that screams
that he's a cuck or he's mentally ill.
And when you talk to him, he's incredibly meticulous,
very intelligent, very disciplined.
His face, it looks like he had a spiritual experience.
He's a smile on his face.
I went to the, when I was in Delhi,
I went to the Jane temple and I went to the Hindu temple
and I'm not Jane, I'm not Hindu.
But I had a look on my face that reminded me,
that sort of, that sort of like that starry eye,
the look in your face where you've experienced the wonder
and the awe of being alive and we're on this planet
and we don't really understand it all,
but it's beautiful and it's okay.
And I think that's the spiritual,
I mean, that's where it's like he's been touched by,
I don't, you know, I'm not imposing this,
but he's sort of touched by God in some way
of a touch by something and it's not.
Something extraordinary.
Yeah.
And the thing, look, I think the other thing,
you read that environment.
You're like, that thing showed dominance in that environment.
So on the one hand, it showed you such
to be, call it technological.
What, whatever.
Valle might call it spiritual dominance, you know.
So, but that's for me what's, what's special about it
and I think it's not gonna go away
and I don't think we're gonna get to the answer.
I don't think, I don't think the government,
how could the government, you know, I don't think they know
and even if there was some contact,
I don't know if that would really tell you all the answers.
Well, what I could imagine is that they have acquired
both eyewitness, video, radar, all the various sensors,
data and they've done this with multiple instances
of these things and they are trying to assess what this is
and they have a long standing study of these things
that would both be disturbing and confusing
to a lot of people and disruptive to society.
I'm sure you're aware of how put off
and what happened with him during the Bush administration
where they brought him in and they essentially told
how put off.
Now, this is assuming how's telling the truth
and I have no reason to think he's lying.
They brought him in and a bunch of other scientists
and a bunch of other thinkers and said,
I want you to create a chart on one side
list the positive aspects of disclosure
and the other side, what are the negative ramifications
of disclosure, government, religion, the finances,
all the different things that can happen in the world
and the negatives outweighed the positives
and they decided not to disclose.
But the premise that he was brought in with this
was saying we have acquired physical crafts
that are not of this world.
We have biological entities that are not of this world
and we are a part of some sort of a back engineering program.
We want to release this information.
What would happen if we did?
And their conclusion was chaos.
Trump didn't seem to go through that checklist
and go with the same answer.
I don't think he got that memo.
But also I do think he ignores the memos
from experts in general.
If he was in office and that was the case
and they came to him and someone like Tucker
or someone that's influential to him
could sit down with him and talk to him
and he thought it would gain their favor.
He might just release it.
I mean, it's wild because of the one hand
it looked like it was spontaneous
but they had Laura Trump who's someone
that's like a trusted family member
who's really competent like they sent her in
to take over the RNC and fix it and fire all the people
and get their loyalists in there.
She was out there talking saying that,
I was hearing a lot of noise
but it wasn't from people that I trusted
so I didn't report anything on it.
But I was hearing a lot of noise too
that Trump administration was considering doing something
but you didn't know I didn't know if it was circular reporting.
But I thought the Laura Trump thing was interesting
because I don't think, I don't see her as sort of
she's not just speculating or bullshiting.
She's a trusted source for that.
So she said that and then Obama was asked about
and then Trump made that announcement.
So I don't know what they have planned.
We were pushing on the intelligence community
private lead to release the stuff
and it was going nowhere.
The Obama thing was nuts
because the guy didn't have any follow-up questions.
That was part of what was really weird about it.
Also they put it in a speed round.
Like it's like, why would you put it in a speed round?
Which is probably why he didn't have follow-up questions
if you think about it that way.
But I mean, that's just a massive dropping of the ball.
The guy says aliens are real.
How do you know?
How do you know is the next question, right?
It's right there.
How do you know aliens are real?
So yesterday, the day after then he said,
oh, I just meant theoretically
and there's life in the universe.
Well, why don't you ask that?
So you catch them on the spot instead of
when it becomes this big viral moment
and then everybody's talking about it
and then he comes up with a rational explanation
for why he said that.
Yeah, I mean, and he told,
Obama told one of the late-night hosts,
I can't remember if his chemo or Colbert or somebody,
but he said, they said something like,
tell us what you know and he said,
I can't tell you, there's things I can't tell you.
So I mean, he obviously knows more than he said.
Otherwise, he would say there's nothing.
And then Trump said that he knows more.
He was very interesting.
You know, I talked to Trump about it.
He won't tell you shit.
He kind of a lot of things,
those of things, there's a lot of, it's very crazy.
But you know, they said they weren't going
to release the Epstein files and that came out.
So I just kind of go,
now I have a different, I don't know if you want to get it,
but I have a different view of Epstein than I think I did.
Well, before we get into that, you know,
Tucker's thoughts on this whole UFO, UAP thing.
He thinks they're like angels and demons from the Bible.
And he thinks that they've always been here.
And you know, I'm sure you're aware of like the book of Enoch,
the book of Enoch, which was one of the original biblical texts
that wasn't included in the canon,
but just because of a few rabbis,
decided it didn't jive with the Torah.
And they found the book of Enoch along with the book of Isaiah
as a part of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
And when you find out that there was a biblical text,
that there was contemporary to books
that did make it into the Old Testament
and that they talk about the watchers
who come from above and mate with humans
and create this race of giants called the Nephilim
who destroy everything and consume everything.
And you're like, what the fuck is this?
Like what is this?
And just stop and imagine if those rabbis hadn't been excluded.
Like Wesley Hopf is great talking about this stuff.
He's a real historian when it comes to really understanding
the history of these biblical texts
and he's absolutely fascinated by it.
And he's like, yeah, it's kind of crazy
that they just decided to not put that in the Bible.
Imagine if they did and part of when you're going to church
and they're going over the Old Testament,
okay, this week we're going to go over the book of Enoch
and we're going to figure out who the watchers are.
Like what is that?
Like what is that story?
The crazy thing that Wes Hopf told me was that
the book of Isaiah that they found in the Dead Sea Scroll
predates the oldest version of the book of Isaiah
by more than 1,000 years when they found it.
They found out that there was a book of Isaiah
that is 1,000 years older than the one they thought
was the oldest one, and it is verbatim.
It's verbatim from the one that's 1,000 years later.
Which is kind of crazy.
But then it's also in the same fucking caves
as the book of Enoch.
It's all together there in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Amazing.
And we've had this, we've been fed this story
that sort of all of these religions and myths
from the past are all just false.
They're all just hallucinations.
They're all just lies.
I don't believe that.
It's just really, it's really arrogant actually.
Like it's like, well no, now we've been around for,
humans were around for like millions of years,
but the last 150 years, we really figured it all out.
And we figured out that all human knowledge
before whatever, some recent time period is nonsense.
Yeah, I think that's quite arrogant.
It's very arrogant, but I'm a believer
that history is far older than we think it is.
And I think the more time goes on, the more that gets revealed.
So when you're talking about something
it's four or five thousand years old,
I think really you're talking about a retelling
of a far older story.
And I think there's, it's very difficult
when you're dealing with people
that don't have an understanding of science.
The written language is fairly new.
It's an oral tradition for generations
before it's ever written down.
So my question with all this is always like,
what were they trying to talk about?
What were they trying to say?
What was the original experience
that someone documented in story?
And then that story was relayed
over and over and over again,
generation after generation,
until it's eventually written down
and then they study it and take it literally.
And then also translating it from Aramaic,
which is the Dead Sea Scrolls, Ancient Hebrew,
all these different languages to Latin and Greek
and eventually English.
But what's the original story?
Like what are they trying to document?
What is this important knowledge that they want to share?
And how screwed up would that get
over the generations and generations
of talking about it?
But what ultimate truth is in there?
Like I'm absolutely fascinated
by the story of Jesus Christ
because if you wanted to come up with a way
that people would live,
that would absolutely be far more beneficial
than just going on natural instincts
and tribal behavior.
And you would follow Jesus' teachings.
Like I can't find a flaw in the way
he tells you to live life.
There's a lot of religions that involve,
you know, torturing non-believers
and raping infidels and being able to do terrible things
so the people that don't believe your religion.
There's none of that in Christianity.
It's all forgiveness.
It's all treating your brother
as in your neighbor as if they're you.
Like it's a beautiful way to live life.
Are you Christian?
Well, I go to church.
I have been for quite a while.
Okay.
So I've been doing it for the last three or four years.
But that's not really an answer to the question.
Well, because I don't know.
I think it's very interesting.
And I do believe that if you follow the teachings
of Jesus Christ, you will live a better life.
I really do believe that.
And one of the things I talk about is like,
the people that I go to church with
are the most fucking polite people I've ever met in my life.
They're so kind and so nice.
And everybody lets you out of the parking lot.
Everybody's like, you know, you know,
it's like the one point.
Like it works.
You know what I'm saying?
Like if people are trying to find an idea,
does that mean I believe people came back from the dead?
Does that mean I believe Moses part of the Red Sea?
Not really.
No, it seems like that's most likely a story
where people are telling it generation after generation
but there's probably something happening.
There's probably some truth to it.
Then when you take into account some of the stories
from the Old Testament, like the Book of Ezekiel,
which I'm absolutely fascinated by.
Book of Ezekiel and his account of the wheel within a wheel
and the fire flashing forth continually
and in the midst of the fire as it were gleaming metal,
like what the hell is that?
Like what is that?
Like what are these stories?
And in the midst of this gleaming,
the likeness of four living creatures,
like okay, they darted to and fro
like the appearance of a flash of lightning.
Okay, what is that?
Like what are they trying to say
and what was the original experience
that people documented that was so important?
And it might have been a lot more similar
to these UFO experiences.
That's the point.
Yeah, I think this is what one of the things
that Tucker goes back to.
The Christian story is so beautiful and so important.
You know, Renee Gerard's view of Christianity
is really stopping the cycle of scapegoating.
You know, scapegoating where,
and I'm seeing it right now as part of the reason
we've been pushing back against the moral panic
on Epstein is that you scapegoat the thing,
you know, traditionally literally it was a goat,
but you scapegoat the person or whatever it was.
But originally it was a goat.
It really was a goat.
Yeah, it was a goat, yeah.
Really has a goat.
Yeah, it would carry the sins of the community.
Are you sacrificing the goat?
I think you would send it away to die or something.
But over time, it became two people.
That's what a scapegoat was.
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Interesting.
Yeah.
And then it's a goat.
But generally the devil goats are everything.
Oh, go get a bad rap.
Goats are in your lobby aren't they?
Or those, those are elk.
No, in your lobby.
No, that's a big difference.
Yeah, but I mean, so Christianity puts it into that.
It says stop scapegoating.
I mean, they scapegoated Jesus really.
I mean, you kind of go that you scapegoat the way
the purpose of the scapegoating was
to, was for the community to unite the community
and scapegoat to put all of its sins on one thing
and then kill it or get rid of it.
And that was the way the community would restore unity.
Christianity said, no, we're not going to do it that way.
That's immoral.
And so, you know, he with the, you know, without sin
should be the first cast of stone.
Jesus wasn't saying that prostitution was good or anything.
He was saying that we should not be scapegoating.
You know, you've got sins too.
So don't scapegoat this person.
That's a really radical moment in human history.
And it really is what allowed humans to spread.
It creates a universal.
I mean, Christianity is the first universal.
It's really universal religion.
Maybe it's not the only.
But it's a universal religion.
It says everybody, you know, is a child of God
and it's, and it's evangelical.
And once other people to become Christian,
that's very, that's different from other religions.
I'm like, this is my God.
I've got my own God here and we're the best and you suck.
And they make it very difficult to join.
Yeah.
And it's not to say that Christians, you know,
obviously there was, you know, fighting the Muslims
and there's some interesting revisionism there.
But it's a beautiful religion.
There's terrible things that have been done
under the guise of Christianity.
But if you listen to the teachings of Jesus Christ,
they're not following His teachings.
So it's like, it's just human behavior
that they have tagged on to Christianity.
So when people say Christianity is responsible
for horrible atrocities,
I say, no, I say humans are.
Because if it is actually Christianity,
you would be following the teachings of Christ
and there would be none of those things.
I mean, anti-Semitism is not Christian.
Right.
So true Christianity is not that.
So I think it's lovely and I hope there's a revival
of some of it.
I'm not sure there is.
I think there is more now than before.
There's a lot of young people that are getting into
Christianity.
I think it's good to, I think that's also,
I mean, essentially with the,
we were talking about the UFO thing,
it's an awareness that there's a higher power.
So one can sort of say, look, the UFO thing,
it's not the same as Christianity or whatever.
But this awareness that like we're not,
like there's something else going on,
there's something more,
there's something higher than us
than that we should be humble in front of,
in the face of this gigantic mystery.
I think that puts us in a better mentality.
It certainly does.
And if anything, if he's not the son of God,
if this was an actual historical figure,
what an insanely wise human being
who didn't have these thoughts that are inherent
to all of us of vengeance and lust and greed,
he has none of these.
So radical also, you've heard it said before
that you should love your friends and hate your enemies.
I say to you, you should love your enemies.
I mean, that's just, it's like the hardest,
I'm not there.
I think very few people are there,
but it's certainly the right aspiration.
Yes.
Yeah, it's the right aspiration.
And Tucker thinks that this whole UFO thing
is somehow connected to the spiritual realm.
And that we're...
Well, because we've been told for so long
that there isn't a spiritual realm.
That spiritual realm is just a mental illness.
Right.
You know, it's like, I love it.
He's like the Yahweh thing.
But the problem with the people that tell you that
are all mentally ill.
They're all very unhappy.
Like, asius, like secular, like hardcore atheists,
some of the most unhappy, depressed people, I know.
I don't see like incredibly happy
unless they do a lot of mushrooms.
And those people tend to not be atheists anymore.
That's the one weird thing.
People that have had like intense breakthrough psychedelic
experiences, one of the first things to go,
maybe there is a God.
Like maybe, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about,
because if I just experienced that
and that's a real thing that you could have while alive
on earth, where you are confronted
with divine wisdom and love.
In some weird, strange form.
And when there's a lot of people that believe
that that's the source of a lot of religious experiences.
And instead of alienating and making those things illegal,
we should study them and make them a part
of the religious experience.
Because it's probably what they were originally.
Well, that's right.
And so now that people are having spiritual experiences
with UFOs, it's wonderful.
And they should talk about them and kindle them.
I think they think about psychedelics
so interesting is that my experience with them
was that you don't become so attached to your ideas
and your beliefs.
And so, which is a big problem in our society,
is people that get too attached to their egos,
get attached to their beliefs as opposed to like,
oh, I thought that.
I've made my whole career out of being wrong
about things and then correcting them.
But I think it's hard because you do,
it's really, it's a great quality.
It's all thank you.
But it's still, I hate it.
I hate being wrong and it's totally natural to hate it.
But I do think like having a practice that makes you go,
you are not your beliefs.
There's something that you have an existence separate from
the things that you wrote on your blog or you wrote on X
and just don't be so attached to them.
Right, don't make them your identity.
Yeah.
And that it's actually, there's something really quite,
there's an awful part of when you feel like
you've got wrote something wrong.
But then there's another part,
you're like, oh, it feels good to get it right
and you feel clean.
And that's like, that's what we should be going for.
But it does require, for me, being humble
about my limitations before some higher power
is a really important place to begin.
Because if you think there's no higher power,
or the other one is like souls,
we don't talk about souls enough.
A new friend of mine at the university
was talking about how important it is to really,
to care for your soul and to care about other people's souls.
That's one of the things that Christianity is so good at.
That you have something divine inside of you
connected to something divine outside of you
and that your behaviors affect its treatment.
And when you tell people that you're just a meat suit
and you're just warm food and your life doesn't matter
and that it's all just random and pointless,
that's a terrible story.
It makes people feel terrible.
But when you kind of go and know you,
there was one of the most beautiful,
I loved all the Charlie Kirk videos
that went out after his death
because there were so many ones
where he had these beautiful moments.
But he's talking to these women that are doing the only fans.
Did you see that one?
No.
And they're just scribing,
they're trying to shock him and saying
just really kind of crude things about their sexuality
and how like the sex they have, it doesn't matter to them.
And he was like, I just don't believe that I think you have a soul.
I think God has a purpose for you.
What a much lovelier way to engage somebody.
And it wasn't a,
he didn't feel like he was morally condemning them.
Right.
He was actually saying God loves you.
And so for me, Christianity brings,
if that is the part of Christianity,
I think it's so special.
But it is hard.
I mean, one of the things that this anthropologist
that I really wanted to just talking about,
she says it's the more the God,
the more different the God is from humans,
the harder it is to believe in them.
And so people like Christians,
in particular, she would talk about their,
even evangelical ones are always complaining
about not believing enough and not having enough faith.
Because it is so hard,
because you do have the Holocaust problem,
the problem of evil,
why if the God is all powerful and all good?
Is he allowed in the Holocaust?
Why do you allow Hiroshima?
Why, you know, these terrible things?
And part of the answer for Christians
has been, well, because he wants us to exercise free will
and to be in touch with our better sides
and to realize our potential as moral humans and moral souls.
And that's a pretty good answer.
But it is, I was glad to hear that,
her say that people struggle with it
because I certainly do as well.
Well, I mean, I think everyone struggles with it.
I'm just, I'm really fascinated by it.
I'm fascinated by it because when I go to church
and I listen to them talk about various passages
in the Bible, my mindset is always like,
what was the real experience?
Like what are we missing out of these tales?
What are we missing out of these recounting
of these experiences?
What happened?
I don't think it was nothing.
I really don't think there's something real to it.
And again, it works.
That's the main one for me.
It's like, you want to live a better life.
Like if you live as a Christian, you'll have a better life.
You'll have a more love filled, more wonderful life.
That's real.
And this idea that, oh, it's fairy tales.
Is it, if it's a method for life
that gives you a more rich and loving and peaceful life?
Isn't that better for everybody?
Isn't that a real thing?
That's a real thing.
There's no way you can know whether or not any
of the stories in the Bible happened exactly as described.
We can't know.
So you have to have this leap of faith totally it.
You know, and it gets weird like Jesus comes back
on a white horse like, hey, slow down.
You know, like revelations.
Book of revelations is weird.
But it's not like what's really weird is some of these people
that think that what's going on in Iran
is to light the fire to bring, to have Jesus return,
to light the signal fire.
Like, did you hear those recaltings by that,
these non-commissioned officers that went
into these briefings, combat briefings?
Oh, no.
Yeah, okay.
Here's one of them, because I saved it.
Because it's so kooky that I read it and I was like,
wait, what the fuck did they say?
Because it's so crazy.
They tend to be anti, my knee jerk is anti-apocalyptic
because I don't see apocalyptic movements
doing a lot of good in the world.
So yeah, that's probably better off.
I think a lot of Christians have ignored
the book of revelations.
I, yeah, I think focusing too heavily on that particular book
is probably leads to bad outcomes.
Okay, so this was the story that I wrote.
This was in Yahoo, I'll send this to you, Jamie,
so you can get this so we can put this up on the board.
Did you find that thing?
Okay, here are just to tell our troops
that this was all part of God's,
now this guy goes, this is a combat readiness briefing.
Or just to tell our troops,
this is all part of God's plan.
And he specifically referenced numerous citations
of the book of revelations referring to Armageddon
and the imminent return of Jesus Christ.
He said that President Trump has been anointed by Jesus
to light the signal fire in Iran
to cause Armageddon and mark his return to earth.
And they said that the guy was saying this
had a giant smile on his face,
which made it all the weirder.
Like, see, if you could find that in there,
does it say that?
No, it's not in that particular article.
This is just someone come military.
It's like someone complained about it.
Oh yeah, a bunch of people complain.
There's actually like a lawsuit.
Yeah, religious freedom law.
You risk like the whole self-fulfilling prophecy
with that one.
Well, it's all so sick.
What do you do?
Wait a second, what are you doing?
What machines, what weapons do you control?
Yeah, there's a lot of fucking religious kooks.
So it's not just, and also,
that is not how Jesus Christ would handle it.
Let's go bomb Iran, that's how Jesus gonna come back.
Like, do you think he would tell you
that's the right way to do it?
Like, how did you interpret the text?
Does the town very Jesus see?
Yeah, the Jesus ages see.
Like, how did you interpret that in the text?
Okay, before we, so we're deep into the show,
so the Epstein stuff.
All right, so what is your take on this?
All right, well, so I've changed your position?
Yeah, I've changed.
I think it's been a bunch of time with the files.
I will say, I think, I did do a piece
where I do think that the shrimp is a code word
for young women.
I'm pretty sure about that.
What do you think pizza is a code word for?
Well, that was, okay, so then I did a,
I did, I had, I had a article about
code words in the Epstein files and I did the shrimps.
And then I had some stuff about pizza
and grape juice in there about grape soda
and my co-author Alex was like, dude, you can't go.
If you can't go full pizza gate, you know, like you gotta,
you gotta be like, so we kept it out.
And then the times mentioned the pizza thing.
So I wrote someone X about it,
but I ended up taking it down because I was like,
I don't really know this one.
I mean, we're, we're, we're to me out the pizza one
was where his urologist was like,
take your erection dysfunction pills
and then we'll go out and get pizza and grape soda.
And I was like, that is creepy, you know, as hell.
So, but I don't, the shrimp one,
I'm like 95% I mean, it's young women
because you just see how they talk about it.
And I think I proved it in my piece.
There's other ones like people were like,
the jerky is like cannibalism and whatever.
It's like, well, it didn't help that the restaurant owner
was like, the restaurant's name was like cannibal
and something like that.
But I'm skeptical that that's what that was.
So, well, you would be skeptical
unless you were part of some of these fucking
bizarre satanic rituals and then you would go,
oh my god, it's real.
Like there are, look, people have sacrifice people, right?
Can we agree to that in human history?
Yeah, sure, of course.
And there have been satanic rituals throughout history.
Can we agree to that?
Sure.
So there has been cannibalism in history.
We agree to that.
Okay, unfortunately a lot, actually, there was a lot.
Yeah.
Why wouldn't we think they're talking about that?
We don't want to believe it, right?
Is that what it is?
We don't want to believe that these people,
these multi-millionaires and billionaires
that go to this island and engage in all this crazy shit
aren't doing something like child sacrifice or cannibalism.
Well, let's start with the thing
that I think a lot of us thought it was,
which is that it was an intelligence community
sex black male operation.
That's what made it for me a story.
I mean, a creepy guy doing creepy things.
There's just, that's, we call that a dog-wise man story.
You know, what makes it a man-by-dog story is like,
is it you kind of go, wow, it's like Masad
and CIA running a honey pie?
I mean, that's the premise of Whitley Webb's two volume book,
One Nation Under Black Male.
But when you look at it, like, we don't see that.
We see, we see one case where Epstein emails himself,
something that sounds like it's in the voice
of the Bill Gates Science Advisor Boris Carcic,
I believe is the name.
And in it, they talk about, oh, you know,
it's the famous email where he says, oh, you know,
I got STDs, it says you got STDs from Russian hookers
or from Russian women and then you tried to slip antibiotics
or you wanna meet a slip antibiotics and Melinda's drink
and Melinda, like, they asked her about, it was awful.
It doesn't like, that's not, it's weird what that is.
So first of all, let me clear with that in a second.
We're just talking about emails, right?
So who knows what was said, just from the email,
we know that there are at least implies
that he's got dirt on people
and that he is exercising,
is doing something with this dirt that he has on Epstein
or on Bill Gates or other.
Yeah, although we're very limited in the amount of data
that we possess, right?
Because we just have emails between him and other people.
Inside those emails, we find a lot of creepy shit.
We find that one description where he was talking
to this woman where she said, I'm doing a,
I'm doing investigating a story about an island
where they bring children for sex
and he goes, she almost had a heart attack
when I told her that person is me.
Well, he was talking about the rumors and gossip about him
but he wasn't saying that he's bringing children
to his island for sex.
But that is what he said.
But if you look at the text.
No, he said they're talking about me.
No, no, no.
She said, I'm doing a story on a guy
who brings children to his island for sex
and he says she almost had a heart attack
when I told her that person is me.
The person that I, my interpretation.
You're being charitable.
I'm not, well, I...
But you're being charitable because that's not what the text says.
What the text says is, someone's bringing children
to an island, I told her that person was me.
He didn't say, I told her that's a bullshit rumor.
I let her know that's not true.
But that's very much in his style.
I mean, look, look, let's back up to the intelligence.
But wait a minute, why would you,
why would you dismiss that?
Well, we can pull it up and look at it.
I just think, I think what we see from the files
and I think Mike Benz has sort of pointed out
the ways in which Epstein might have been a contractor
or a financier or somebody hiding money
for the intelligence community.
Beyond that, I don't see any evidence
that he was doing much for the intelligence community
if at all.
But you're only getting emails and only half of the emails.
So there's only three million emails that have been released.
There's another three million of the FBI possesses
that they're not releasing.
100% is possible that there's something there.
Why would you draw any conclusions based
on only 50% of the data?
And then if there is 50% of the data that hasn't been released,
why is that way worse?
Because this stuff is fucking nuts.
Like this, this is nuts.
Like take your erection pills so we can go get grape soda.
Okay, what?
And it's weird.
This lady is investigating a place where they,
an eye on where they bring children for sex.
I told her it was me.
What?
Well, we should put that one up.
I want to look at that one.
Okay.
I mean, here you're talking about,
you're talking about, so first of all,
I think the picture is of a guy
that is fully in charge of his life.
And he's doing, he's like, he is like,
amazing at getting people to love him
and care about him.
People call him as their best friend.
In Florida, clearly he was abusing girls
and was busted for that.
I think he was doing that because he's a pervert.
I don't think, I didn't see,
I don't see blackmail coming out of that.
And then you get to later and you've got,
okay, you've got the Bill Gates thing,
which doesn't even appear to be from Epstein.
It appears to be for Boris.
And remember, Boris, the science advisor,
wanted Gates to pay for like a bigger apartment
for him in New York.
It appeared to be part of him threatening Gates
to get something for that Boris wanted.
So maybe Epstein was advising him on it.
But I mean, to have a,
the other thing I'm struck by these emails, Joe,
is that there are so many different attorneys,
people of the FBI, people in the Eastern District,
the Southern District, the Florida Southern District,
they would all have to be in on it.
And I'm skeptical because...
Why would they all have to be in on it?
Well, because they're in this,
I mean, they're in this,
they're reviewing the information.
They're trying to bring, you know,
they're trying to bring action against them.
Like they would...
Well, depends on who are the powerful people
that are implicated and what kind of influence they have
over what gets released
and what doesn't get released.
Clearly, names were redacted
that are powerful people that are not victims.
So that shows you, right there, that there's some influence.
But there's a reason to do that.
Why?
Because they're not guilty.
Okay, what about the one where the guy says,
where Epstein says, I like the torture video.
So why would they do it, dad?
Someone could find the torture video.
Why would you redact the name of the person
who sent you a torture video for that?
And that's you're not trying to protect a powerful person.
Yeah, that's the Sultan, is that right?
Okay, but that was someone had to just figure that out.
I mean, the redactes are sloppy.
That's, no, no, that's evidence
that you're trying to protect a powerful person.
Well, but they didn't, though, in a lot of cases.
But they did right there.
Yeah, I mean, the redactions, they were making them.
I mean, they was like,
my understanding is that there was a lot of powerful people's names.
Yeah, but I mean, look at like we're in the midst,
I mean, literally the people that are being canceled for this,
like Peter Atilla, these people are like victims
of we're in the middle of a complete, you know,
moral panic.
I mean, we're now, it's like me too, version two.
I mean, people are having to leave boards.
I mean, look, these are people I don't like.
I'll just be honest.
Part of me hesitated, because I don't like Larry Summers.
I don't like Bill Gates.
I don't care about Sarah Ferguson, you know,
I didn't say anything.
Then they came for Peter Atilla.
You know, it's a little bit like,
like Peter Atilla, like he didn't do anything wrong.
And he just like lost his job with CBS.
And, you know, he's sort of now,
they're under this cloud and people go,
oh, but he was in the hospital and his wife was,
he was with Episcopal, his wife was in the hospital.
We don't, like what are we doing here?
Like we're getting involved in Peter Atilla's,
like personal life.
And so, but he has to get fired for that.
I mean, it's gone way too far.
Sarah Ferguson had a step down, even though she,
you know, she said, I mean, like these people,
I don't like them.
Like these are not people I agree with
or think their behavior is, but I don't see,
so they're not guilty of crime.
I don't, yeah, they're not, yeah, they're not guilty of it.
Like they were like, they were all making a big deal out of,
like well, so first of all, let me just say,
I'm glad they released the files.
I didn't think that you could.
I think they, you keep moving that thing around.
It's every time you do it, bumps.
I was like, let me just check.
Um, I, I, I think like, you know, they were,
I mean, I'm glad the files were released.
There was definitely problems with the redactions.
There was also a case where the members of Congress
were trying to get stuff redacted.
Names got redacted of people that, like I know in one case,
there were people that were getting licenses for guns
that had nothing to do with Epstein on a list.
In other case, other people's names were revealed
who were not guilty of anything.
So that's why you, you protect those people.
I think we, you go, everybody, the logic right now
is that anybody who had any interaction with Epstein
had to have known of all the abuse he was doing.
Okay.
And are somehow responsible for a lot of it.
It's not right.
Okay, but a lot of these people were hanging out
with them and doing business with them after he was arrested.
So this is all close to the state and it was very public.
Okay, but, okay, so then, so then what is our view
of people that do the crime and serve the time?
I mean, the left, the left view has been stopped right there.
He didn't serve any time.
Do you know, he served a year?
Okay, he did not go to jail for a year.
You know, he didn't house arrest.
Yes, it was a very sweet heart deal.
And the prosecute, was it the prosecuting attorney
or whoever it was, was told that he was intelligence.
And this is why they were giving it on the street.
That was a, by the way, that's, I looked into that.
Yeah.
Yeah, that we looked into that one.
And that was, I'm heard second hand.
So we don't even, that wasn't even heard
from a costa directly.
Someone said that they heard a costa say
that they told the Vicky Warden,
I believe her source is anonymous.
Yeah.
So that's a week.
And, you know, Mike, I mean, when Mike Benz was in here
and Mike has done a deep dive this,
he's sort of like, look, at best,
you get Epstein tied up with intelligence
with the Iran Contra stuff.
Right.
But he wasn't, I mean, there's two things to see here.
With his relationship with the intelligence community,
he was at best a contractor financier,
which means he's not an important player
in deciding clandestine operations.
It was the, it's, you know, the head of state.
He said he killed cold fusion.
I mean, he said he killed Ponds, his work on cold fusion.
I mean, I don't know, did he?
I mean, I, cold fusion, they keep doing it, right?
They haven't done it yet.
Well, I know Carl Payne, the founder, the brother of the,
but he stated that he killed cold fusion research
because he cut off funding for it.
Yeah.
Well, but there was, I mean, manipulated people.
I don't know that.
Well, they say killed it.
Why would he kill it because it didn't work?
Or maybe it did work and it's problematic
that it does work because it kills all these people
that have all this other money
and various energy modalities.
I just, I mean, I go fusion is like a whole,
I mean, the idea that we have a secret
that we've secretly tapped cold fusion
and are hiding it for some reason.
Or that he was on the way to breaking through to cold fusion
and then they killed all of his research.
Or, but why?
You don't think that could be done
because there's so many people that have money
and all these other types of energy.
I just don't buy that you could.
First of all, that technology is super difficult
to get nuclear vision was this enormous undertaking.
Huge numbers of people.
The cold fusion stuff was always,
the cold fusion stuff is really fringe.
I mean, it was like, we're going to be in the lab
and doing, you know, but you're not a physicist.
So how do you know that?
Well, I mean, I interview a lot of physicists
and talk about it.
I mean, the big fusion projects are incredibly difficult.
They keep announcing advances in them.
They can't get them.
Cold fusion is not even considered
a mainstream fusion project.
So to assume that there's some secret
and I just think this is why I have a problem
with the whole reverse engineering thing
is I just kind of go, you'd have to have
so many people working on it
and covering up for such a long time.
I don't know how you get away with that.
Well, what if he was on the verge of a breakthrough
but this guy steps in and stops funding
and put some leverage on the university?
Clearly, he had dirt on a bunch of people
that were at high levels of many universities.
That's why a bunch of these guys had to step down.
Didn't the head of Harvard step down?
I think it's exaggerating.
Didn't the head of Harvard step down?
Because of him?
That wasn't there a connection
between Jeffrey Epstein?
Well, I mean, Larry Summers, you mean?
Or, well, Larry Summers was, you know,
he had to step down because he made those remarks
about women as president
and then he just had to step down as professor.
And I say this, look, I say this genuinely
as someone that is not a Larry Summers fan.
I don't think, I think it's ugly what he did.
It's terrible.
He was trying to get advice from Larry Summers
about how to bet a Chinese economist
and they were gross and their emails and it's terrible.
But I don't think that you lose a job at Harvard over that.
I don't think that Peter T. H. should lose his job
at CBS over that.
We've got that.
I understand.
I understand.
I see what you're saying.
But what I'm saying is clearly he had influence
over some very high and powerful people.
He also exaggerated his influence.
He took a lot of credit for Santa Fe Institute,
which was a lot of other people.
I mean, he's really interesting and smart.
You give a thing to, you know, ban and talking to ban
and about it, that was really interesting.
But he was also Steve Pinker talked about him as a cabitzer,
like kind of a bullshitter.
And he was, like, we also saw in the files.
I mean, it really overlooked.
We saw how he made his money.
Like, he needed to get the Roths.
He needed to get a deal with the Department of Justice
for his client, Ariana DeRoth's child.
He hires Catherine Rumler, who was Obama's White House
Chief Counsel, and she goes and makes a deal
at the Department of Justice, $45 million
for the Roths' child's 10 million
for Catherine Rumler, $25 million for Jeffrey Epstein.
Everyone's like, where did his money come from?
Doing deals like that.
Like, you realize, I mean, one of the things,
succession actually had a little subplot about it.
Like, there's a few people in the world
that do these crazy high-level deals,
like often like mergers and acquisitions,
that have these obscene fees,
because they're taking some tiny percentage.
Epstein was operating.
I think the thing we didn't realize
is that when you read the files,
is the levels of which Epstein was operating.
I mean, his social and emotional intelligence
is just off the charts, which is often rare
among somebody that's that good analytically,
someone that really understands
like investments in the economy to be.
So he was a master manipulator.
So I don't think it's fair to say to people,
you had an association with him after he's convicted
of this crime.
Rich guys, look, we have a totally separate system
of justice for rich people.
I think we've known that for a really long time.
It's terrible.
I condemn it.
We should find solutions to it.
That's what Epstein used to get out of it.
I don't see any evidence that intelligence helped him.
You know, we've got other problems.
The victims, Virginia Jeffree.
She claimed that she had sex with Dershowitz.
She then goes, oh, I was wrong about that.
I mean, there's a lot of those victim testimonials
that are untrustworthy.
So you get yourself in a situation where you start to put,
like some of them were probably prostitutes.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And that's the other one is we did some reporting
where we helped to, we found a 14 year old girl
who's being trafficked on the streets.
She turned 15 in the process of us reporting on it.
We were covering these PIs.
They get the police involved.
The police go get her.
She's orphaned.
She goes and backs and live with her aunt.
She's back on the street, voluntarily back on the street.
Nobody wants to talk about it.
It's like you go rescue people and they're in that world.
So these situations are much more complex than,
I think the final thing on Epstein that kind of made me question
is that I like a lot of other people
how to assume that someone murdered him.
But you start looking at the evidence for that.
Look, maybe their moral will come out.
And even this last round, last few days
are some new things that people point to.
But they actually are not actually evidence of it.
They said Epstein's brother's attorney
or Epstein's brother's examiner said that he broke
his high-oid bone and the high-oid bone is not usually broken
and hanging is only in strangulations.
Actually, it is broken and hanging,
particularly for the older people.
Broken in three places.
Yeah, and that's like, and it's low on his neck.
Yeah, and that happens.
Also, the lady who is the guard deposited money
into her account.
I saw that, but that doesn't, what does that mean?
Okay, well, she also Googled his name before he's got it.
All that's totally...
Okay, but it's like, let me see.
Why are you dismissing?
I don't understand why you're dismissing this.
Because if you're going to pay...
I'm not dismissing it, I'm saying it.
But hold on, you are.
But hold on, you are.
Because if you do have a guard,
and all of a sudden this guard acquires several payments.
She made several deposits.
One of them was $5,000, just 10 days before he died.
And then the cameras are cut, okay?
And then they mysteriously don't pay attention
to the cell of one of the most important defendants
of any case, any gigantic public case,
involving enormously famous public figures.
And then this guy hangs himself while he's on suicide watch.
No, remember, he tried to commit suicide.
I understand, but why are you not letting me finish what I'm sorry?
Because that alone is weird.
That alone is weird.
That the cameras are cut, that there's no video of it.
The whole thing is weird.
You don't think it's weird?
Well, I think...
You don't think it's weird that this guy
that he just finds a way to hang himself in this cage?
I thought I had that same story.
I was like, the cameras are cut.
The security guards are asleep.
All those things are true.
All those things are true.
It's also true that the cameras went out a long time
before that night.
It didn't just go out that night before.
Security guards fall asleep at night all the time.
He attempted suicide.
I believe 18 days before.
18 days before he said that his roommate tried to kill him.
Did you know that?
Do you know his roommate was a cop
that had killed four people in contract killings?
His cop roommate, his cellmate, was a murderer.
He was a guy who was a drug dealing cop
who had killed four people in contract killings.
And that was his fucking jail mate.
And 18 days before he said that guy tried to kill him.
But he said that.
Is there any doubt that he...
Look at that guy.
That is his fucking cellmate.
Why would you put a guy who's one of the most
high-profile defendants in any case ever
in a cell with a hired killer who's a giant gorilla?
Like this huge fucking jacked Italian guy.
But he wasn't in the cell with him that night.
He was by himself and saw that night.
He was the guy who 18 days before Epstein said
tried to kill him.
But Epstein tried to kill himself.
I don't think there's any doubt about that, right?
I don't know if there's...
I've never seen him say it,
but I do know that he said that guy tried to kill him.
And they found him unresponsive 18 days before.
He said that guy tried to kill him.
And couldn't he have lied about that?
That guy was trying to get money.
Couldn't he have lied about that?
Video outside cell during Jeffrey Epstein's first suicide attempt
no longer exists.
How weird.
Yeah, why would he lie about that?
He's in...
Because he doesn't want to have a...
Because he doesn't want to have a right.
Who he's already saying this guy's trying to extort him.
He's already saying this guy's trying to get money from him.
And this guy is a known killer.
He's killed four people in contract killings.
How did you not know about that?
I will say it's possible.
How did you not know about that?
I did know about that.
You knew about the guy being a contract killer?
No, I knew that story.
Yeah, I knew that story, but I mean,
he didn't have a cellmate at the night of his death, right?
That was one of the mistakes they made.
Is that because he was on suicide watch,
he was supposed to have a cellmate.
Didn't have a cellmate.
I think that looked...
I don't know, but 18 days before he did have a cellmate.
18 days before he said that guy tried to kill him.
But 18 days before he tried to commit suicide.
That's my understanding.
No, that's true though.
I don't know if that's true.
I don't know why they would put him in jail
with a contract killer.
Well, I mean, who's in that jail?
Aren't the people in that jail pretty rough?
His cellmate is a contract killer.
Why would he be in a cell with a cop
who's a contract killer?
I mean, aren't there a lot of bad guys in there?
The night Jeffrey Epstein claimed
his cellmate tried to kill him.
New documents revealed.
Jeffrey Epstein claimed his cellmate tried to kill him
in an incident before his death.
Yeah, but we don't...
Okay, but...
We don't know if that's true.
Okay, yeah.
Why are you dismissing it?
I'm not dismissing it, Joe.
Look, maybe more evidence will come out.
I'm just saying, like, if you look at the evidence,
you're looking to dismiss it.
No, I'm saying, I was confident it was a homicide,
and now I'm not.
You know where you were aware of this?
Yeah, of course.
All that stuff.
You were aware that he tried to kill us, of course.
You were aware that he said that.
Well, how come you never brought it up before?
You seem shocked when I brought it up.
Well, because my understanding is
it was a suicide attempt.
18 days before.
Okay.
But if he said this guy tried to kill him 18 days before,
why didn't you take that into consideration?
No, it is.
I mean, I'm just saying...
It doesn't seem like...
No, it doesn't seem like you took it into consideration at all.
And you're looking to dismiss it.
I didn't know.
I, my view earlier was that it was a homicide
because the highway bone doesn't break when you have hangings.
He said he didn't want to commit suicide.
The video went out, the security guards are asleep.
I mean, this was a huge investigation of this
by the Inspector General.
So the number of people that would have had to been involved
in this conspiracy and cover-up is very large.
And it's a large number of people
who are in this job for to be do-gooders.
And so I'm very...
I mean, that's...
Look, maybe they're...
Oh, okay.
So maybe they're with some editing.
They're not in the job to be do-or.
Sometimes they're in the job to be do-gooders.
Sometimes they're influenced by very powerful figures
that want a particular result.
Yeah.
Does that not happen?
But we underestimate...
But hold on to something.
Does that not happen in the real world?
Of course, of course, of course.
And wouldn't you imagine if you're dealing with
multiple billionaires that may be compromised
by the evidence that this guy's gonna relay in a trial
that that would be one of the times
they would want to exert that kind of influence?
It's possible.
And like I said, in our piece we wrote, it's possible.
But I think at this point we don't know.
I don't think we have the evidence either way.
And that's for me, that's the change.
I went from, I think it was a homicide to now I don't know.
I didn't understand that he committed suicide
18 days before.
No, no, no.
He didn't commit suicide 18 days before.
He should sell mate tried to kill him 18 days before.
That's what he said, right?
They found him unresponsive.
He said, my cellmate tried to kill me.
Yeah, but how do we know that?
Why would we think this time?
Okay, and then was it reported
that it was an attempted suicide
to try to dismiss the fact that his cellmate
was trying to kill him?
Because they wanted his cellmate to kill him?
We don't know, but you can't dismiss that.
The psychologist thought he was suicidal.
They, you know, I think I'm,
I understand he could have lied about the room.
He didn't want to have a roommate.
That's like why, and they didn't have a roommate.
But why would you want to have a roommate
who's a fucking contract killer?
Well, it was a sociopathic cop who killed four guys.
But if you're a contract killer
and you're in Epstein's cell,
why would you want Epstein to die in yourself?
Because you want to kill him
because people are going to give you like extra cigarettes
at the commissary.
Do we have any evidence about that?
Who's fucking knows?
No, but who fucking knows?
Yeah, but we don't know.
Is a guy who already kills people
and he's in jail forever.
He's going to be in jail forever.
So for that guy, you say,
will you kill that guy for me?
Like that, it's not even much of a stretch.
It's not much of a stretch
that Epstein would have killed himself.
It's not much of a stretch
that that guy killed him,
either if he's telling the truth
that there was a report 18 days before
that that guy tried to kill him.
We just don't know.
I mean, that's what we really don't know,
but I don't understand why you would want to make
the conclusion that he tried to kill himself.
It's not the, it's not the conclusion
who's a contract killer was not actually trying to kill him.
When he said he was 18 days before.
Well, Joe, I mean, please don't mess with us.
I'm saying I don't know.
And that the change for me is going from
really looking like a homicide
to really not knowing
because there's some evidence
that I had not considered before that.
Right.
You know, the guy who did the autopsy
was the guy from that autopsy
showing HBO, who his name is Michael Baton
and he was famous for the official autopsy.
No, no, no, the one his brother authorized
because he was famous for catching autopsy though.
He's a medical examiner.
He's a medical examiner.
He's also famous for, he's also paid
site conducted a post suicide watch report
Epstein denied suicideality
and stated I have no interest in killing myself
and that it would be crazy to take his life
all the though he was depressed and unhappy
about his current legal situation.
He was told he will remain on psychological observation
in the near term.
He said, like I see even there, he says.
He says he didn't recall.
He got the marks on his neck.
So he didn't blame that on.
But no, no, no, that's that's here.
But the other details from the other report
said that he complained that the guy tried to kill himself,
that his cellmate rather tried to kill him.
Can you go back?
Okay, we can find that again, but I don't, I don't think,
but Joe, I think the, I don't think that you've got it.
Okay, I don't think you've got it.
I don't know you've got the, I don't think you've,
I don't think we've nailed the case
that it was a homicide at all.
Well, I'm not saying that I know.
Yeah, but I'm saying, okay, so then we agree we don't know.
Yes, but you're dismissing these major factors
of him being a cell with a contract killer,
him saying 18 days before the guy tried to kill him,
then finding one responsive that someone tried to strangle him
18 days before.
Yeah, but I mean, there's just is,
you can make a case either way is my point.
You can make the case that he was,
he was murdered, he made a case using it,
but at a certain point in time,
when enough circumstantial evidence,
it's fucking weird, like the camera's being down,
the guard's being asleep.
But the cameras were down,
I think I don't wanna, don't call me in exactly,
but they weren't down like that day before
or something, they were down for a while before.
And the security guards fall asleep all the time.
What did you find about the roommate trying to kill him?
I mean, this is the, this is like their report of it.
I was trying to find his, but this is this report here
who's found in the fetal position,
laying on the floor, snorkeling.
Epstein told the officers that Taglioni,
Selmate had tried to kill him,
and that had been harassing him.
Taglioni claimed he had been asleep and woke up
to see Epstein with a string around his neck.
Does that make fucking sense?
Well, yeah, actually, but Joe, just to,
so if you want to try to kill him.
And if Epstein, but so, and the result of this
is that Epstein doesn't have a Selmate, right?
So Epstein doesn't wanna have a,
if you wanna kill yourself, you don't wanna Selmate.
So if you want the same sort of,
you can do the same amount of facts.
If you wanna go, gotta go back and finish the job,
you shut the cameras off and you open the cell,
and you'll let this guy kill him.
That's why the cameras off, when they shut the cameras off, though.
It doesn't matter, there's no,
it doesn't matter.
There's no video that's there's been edited.
The one video that's shown the outside of the cell,
a minute's missing from it.
There's a lot of weird shit to it, man.
I agree, but it's not, where you should arrive on,
in my view, where the facts lead you, is that we don't know.
And so that's, that's, that's, that's me, then, just saying.
That's safe.
Well, yeah.
But it is kind of fucking weird
that he's in a cell with a contract killer,
kind of fucking weird that he made a complaint
that the contract killer tried to kill him, 18 days before.
Not if you're trying to get it.
Did they remove that guy from his cell?
Is that what happens?
He did, yeah, he's by himself, obviously,
the night he killed himself, or, or was killed.
Or was killed.
Find the, did you find the email
where he's talking about the lady on the island,
where she's saying that we brought children to a,
that someone brought children to an island?
Remember, he's faced with life in prison.
He loved his decadent, he didn't stick life.
There's plenty of motivations for him to kill himself
rather than live in prison the rest of his life.
Right.
And remember, recent, like, I think it was like a day or two
before he lost his bail appeal.
So he thought he'd get on bail.
He didn't even get on bail.
He's gonna be stuck there.
The, the psychologist didn't believe him.
She thought he was suicidal.
And, and so there are, so one way you interpret it
is that they messed up.
They, they did a bad job.
They, and they should have, they should have known
that he was suicidal and they should have had a roommate there.
They, the guards should not fall asleep.
They should have fixed the video camera.
All these can imagine are such a high profile defendant
and you're not watching him like a fucking hawk.
I would imagine that a guy like that would be
in protective custody with, you know, no fucking shoelaces,
no, no way to hang himself.
I think you overestimate our prison system.
I would think that you would do your very best in this case
to make sure that this guy is watched.
They didn't, they bring him to trial.
They didn't, they, they should have had a roommate
in a cell and they didn't.
Well, they put him in a fucking cell with a killer.
So it seems a little bit more than that.
But then you, when you say it that way,
you make it sound like the killer was in the cell
the night he was killed.
I make it sound like this killer was in the cell
with him when he said the killer tried to kill him.
Right, but or he, that's not a little weird.
That's not a little weird.
Why didn't the guy do it then?
Why didn't it work?
Well, he probably choked him unconscious
and thought he was dead and he survived.
They found him unresponsive.
Or he tried to kill himself.
And then when they said, why did you try to kill him?
So if he blames it on the roommates
so he doesn't have to have a roommate anymore, it's possible.
Yeah.
So find that email where he says that it's him.
I'm trying to.
I don't have access to the files right now
that the thing I was using is gone.
Yeah, it's gone.
Ian Carroll's app was really good.
And it is, they've taken a down book
as they make a public that was only made up.
Gmail, you,
Jamel's, I was digging through that too
and I got so many things to have open.
You guys have moved around.
So for me, if I go, if I go,
we don't know if it was a homicide or suicide.
The intelligence community work was,
appears to be of a long time ago
and he was a contractor.
We don't have any other evidence
of a sex blackmail operation other than that email.
Now, there is one other thing that I thought was,
so one for the theory that he's a blackmailer
is that he put,
he's like, we have emails of him
putting cameras in clean Xboxes.
Hidden cameras in clean Xboxes
with motion detectors.
Was that in order to engage in a blackmail operation?
Or was he just a, was he just a perfect blackmail people?
Okay, your friend told me about the projects
he's doing researching a really bad guy
who gets children for sex sent to his island.
She almost fainted when I told her that person is me.
That seems pretty clear.
I think, no, no, I think he's saying that
she's writing a story, it was about him,
but I don't think he's admitting that
he's bringing children to his island for sex.
I don't know about you,
but if I was sending an email
and I was talking about someone researching someone
who's sending children to an island for sex,
I would also include that I let her know
that that was bullshit.
Well, she ends up coming in meeting with them, right?
You've seen the follow up to this?
No.
So she ends up coming in meeting with her
and I don't know if he like gives her money or something
or funds her, but it's like, yeah, I mean.
Well, we would have to talk about her.
Well, the thing is that without justifying,
I mean, I think that after 2008,
there's not, I don't think there's any evidence,
and I could be wrong, there's not a lot of evidence
that anybody under age came to,
that Epstein abused anybody under 18.
And I'm not defending abusing women over 18,
but that did seem like a pretty big change.
Epstein associate found dead in Paris, prison cell.
Paris said he was gonna flip.
Huh, shocker.
Weird, maybe he got sad too.
Well, maybe.
He's one of the co-conspirators of the results.
I mean, people kill themselves a lot.
You know, psychopaths also kill themselves a lot.
Also, people get people killed because they're gonna flip.
It's possible, and it's just,
it's just, we just need evidence for it.
Yeah.
So this is really, if you're gonna kill somebody,
you should probably make it so that there's not a lot of evidence.
Right?
Yeah, I mean, in this case, did he kill himself?
He hung in a cell.
Yeah.
He hung himself.
A lot of sheets in there, hung himself.
Hanged himself.
How are you gonna word it?
So then it's like,
they should make their sheets out of that.
So then the theory would be what?
That Bill Gates hired a contract killer,
or who did it then?
Who knows?
Yeah.
Who knows what, who knew what about what and when?
But I don't think it's the intelligence community
because we're not seeing,
I just, I mean, Mike came in here
and you guys talked for a long time
and Mike's not suggesting.
Well, there's no evidence that it was.
I mean, we don't have like clear cut.
He did this and they killed these guys because of that.
We don't have that.
Right.
Yeah.
So, I mean.
But we also don't have three million files.
We also, like the things that we don't,
he doesn't need blackmail to make money.
Well, he also doesn't need blackmail
in order to be able to get people to do things
and influence them.
And if you have video of people fucking people
and doing things they're not supposed to be doing,
you're giving them drugs and you got them on this island
for these wild parties,
they're more inclined to do things
that would do stuff for you.
I mean, it's possible.
I mean, I'll tell you,
FBI confiscated a lot of films and videos.
They had that.
I was always very suspicious of that.
The fact that he's talking about hidden cameras
and mission networks is very bad.
Well, that was the narrative before that.
There was thousands of hours,
hours rather of horrible videos.
Yeah.
So it's possible that there was,
now I don't know that I would be,
but visitors describe a bathroom reminiscent
of James Bond movies hidden beneath the stairway
lined with lead to provide shelter from attack
and supplied with closed circuit television screens
and a telephone.
Both concealed in a cabinet behind the sink
wrote the Times.
The townhouse now reportedly owned by Wexner's
even more mysterious protégé, Jeffrey Epstein.
No, 2003, so yeah.
So this is even before his arrest.
Yeah.
And also the other part of the thing with this,
remember when Jeff Bezos was blackmailed
and he was just like, yes.
He was like, I'm just going to,
well, that was just love letters to,
in Lawrence.
They were pretty racy.
Yeah, I mean, it was still,
it was private, personal things
where he was sending him to a woman he loved.
It shows the risks of engaging in blackmail.
And so that turned out to be a dummy.
That was like someone's brother, right?
So, but Epstein, I mean, in other words,
if you use it, like if you actually like use your blackmail,
I think it's very hard then to maintain your reputation
as somebody, now maybe it was sort of hovering
never articulated.
He was attracting people.
I mean, what's so striking about it is he's attracting
people to him.
He's got all this bond of me.
Oh, come hang out with Chomsky and A-Hood Barak
and all these people, it's like a really good time.
You know, I think then being like,
I have blackmail material on you, you need to do it.
I mean, he's getting people to do what he wants them to do
for money, you know, for feeling like good vibes,
being in on some Israeli peace talks.
I don't then see him going around.
And maybe I look again, like I totally convey,
maybe I just haven't seen the evidence
that he's going around being like,
oh, I have blackmail material on you,
you have to do what I want.
He got Clinton, he probably got,
why do you think he's filming everybody then?
That is, he could be a pervert.
I mean, there's plenty of evidence of perversion, right?
Oh, the ranch.
Investigators of finally looking to Jeffrey Epstein's
Dumexco Ranch, federal authorities apparently never searched
the property, but now state authorities will reopen
a 2019 investigation about time, Dumexco.
It's great.
It's great.
Someone on Twitter had a, or X has a very long,
I was reading it earlier and got bored,
but it's very long about the link with the lottery.
Oh, yeah.
How they won the lottery.
It's weird.
Just wait till that, if that's accurate.
It's weird, I agree.
That one's crazy.
I mean, Michael also points out that he was least,
this incredible mansion in New York by the State Department,
but then the State Department like sued him.
So it's, you know, they're like, he were quick.
If he was like,
Do the less Wexner give him a house in Manhattan?
And then it, well, didn't that, didn't the big house,
that was the, this was a previous mansion.
The State Department.
Give it a fucking mansion.
Yeah.
What that thing I told you about someone found
that the person who notarized that $10 transfer
of the house conveniently filmed like the best 9-11 footage.
And that those are the three million,
like the timing of those missing files
is right around the 2001, I'm purely, yeah.
I mean, we, I think that what the files are important
is that we saw he's able to make his money
as a high level fixer.
We saw people were really into him.
People loved him.
He was magnetic.
He's able to get people to do things that he wants
without using that as a tool.
And we're not seeing, I just don't see where,
I don't think we're seeing any signs or footprints
or any of that of engagement in blackmail.
We have the cameras.
We don't have house of the files.
Yeah.
What we have is weird.
The grape soda, the shrimp, the pizza references,
the jerky, all that stuff is weird.
This lady saying that there's an island
where a bad guy's bringing children for sex.
She almost fainted when I said that person's me.
All this stuff is kind of fucked, right?
Yeah.
It's kind of fucked.
The shrimps one, they're definitely talking about
what they're objectifying when.
Children for sex, do you think that's kind of fucked?
I think that he was,
I mean, one interpretation of it is that,
yeah, he's freely admitting on an email
that he's trafficking children.
I find that difficult to believe.
That you would put that, I mean,
if you're gonna say that Lloyd doesn't put
the blackmail stuff in email,
but he's gonna put it in an email
that he's bringing children to the island.
I mean, who is he?
I think he's being sarcastic there.
I think he's saying, oh, that guy is me.
Like, that's what they say about me.
Why wouldn't you elaborate?
And, I mean, if you're sending this to someone
who knows you, the person who sends it to you
knows that it's not true.
That's why.
I mean, I think that person works for him, right?
Masha, is that one of the women that he had?
I don't know.
I just, I don't think that's him saying I'm.
Maybe.
Yeah, maybe.
All right, we gotta wrap this up.
Anything else?
Well, no.
I got someone gave me a video, I thought I'd,
I can share it with you guys.
Of what?
A UFO video.
Oh.
We make a tradition to end every sash with a,
kind of send it to Jamie.
Yeah, you get air drop it.
Two.
Is it compelling?
More compelling than Yahweh's video?
You don't like the Yahweh video?
That was kind of interesting.
All right, it's fun.
Is it compelling?
All right, I mean, you guys will decide,
or not, here I send it to.
Okay, I'll ask you something.
Yeah, I was curious about.
What?
Oh, I was gonna say, you know, Elon,
you think Elon knows more than he's
left on about UAPs?
Yes.
How do you know that?
Well, because he works with NASA.
If he knows something, also,
some people have told me that he knows some things.
But don't you ask him privately?
He don't tell me shit.
Okay, I got a big mouth.
I asked somebody that was high up in his operation.
Yeah, we were, we were on the record,
but I won't reveal who they are, what they said.
What they say.
And they go, I said, you guys must be,
I was like at SpaceX, you guys must just like have to,
don't you have to edit out like UFOs that you get,
you know, the person just looked at me and they just said,
Elon's really close with the federal government.
That was all they said.
Good.
All right, let's say play this.
Oh, no.
It doesn't look like it.
Just play.
What am I looking at?
This is her, this is her video in here.
I think she shows, I think she zooms in.
I don't know what we're looking at.
It's here in Texas.
What are you looking at, lady?
Okay.
It's like most UFO videos.
It's just a dog.
No, let it, let it, just let it.
It gets better.
30 seconds, guys, come on.
Okay.
I'm just sure we're being out right now.
She's tripping.
It looks like it's, you know her, is she your friend?
She's my friend.
Is that, is she intoxicated?
I think she's, no, no, she's not,
and this is like a, not far from here.
It's somewhere in Texas.
I think she zooms in at the end.
No.
Well, we still got 10 seconds for it to get good.
That is, oh, my God.
Oh, she doesn't, I thought she had a,
when she, when she showed me, she zoomed in on it
and it was much better.
Disappointing.
We probably should've looked at that.
Just cut that all out.
Okay.
All right.
Let's wrap it up.
Thank you, sir.
Appreciate how much you enjoyed the video.
All right.
Bye, everybody.
The Joe Rogan Experience



