Kind: captions
Language: en
Jeffrey Epstein's story was never about
sex. It was an illusion. Like the dress
some see as blue and others see as gold.
Intelligence agencies exploit the same
trick. They shape what you notice and
distort what it means. Enter compromant.
The art of collecting dirt to control
the powerful. Today, former CIA officer
Andrew Bamonte reveals how Epstein style
ops really work and why the truth is
often too useful to reveal. Bust Monte
and I discuss how to minimize truth
blindness without seeing lies in
everything. Without further ado, I bring
in Andrew
Bustamante. At the international level,
it seems like a pretty dark game is
being played. And right now, the fact
that you had Cash Patel come into being
the new FBI director on the promise of
one of things that, hey, we're going to
release these Epstein files. Now, the
Epstein files to me seem like this is a
key point of leverage, and I can't tell
whether they're not releasing the files
because in doing so, they will tip their
hand to how they gain a whole lot of
leverage or if the people that they have
leverage over already, there's just too
many, too powerful, and it would be like
um spilling all of your uh leverage in
one sort of dump. And now you don't even
have that leverage. I don't think you're
reading it wrong, personally.
So secrets are leverage. What you know
that somebody else doesn't know, 100%
that's leverage. But secrets have kind
of two dimensions on their graph of
value. There's the intensity of the
secret, right? That's one part of the
graph, but then there's the timing of
its release, the timing of when you make
the secret public, so it's not secret
anymore. What you're always trying to do
is find the point where you get the
highest level of intensity at the right
time so that you can maximize the impact
of releasing the secret. Epstein files,
JFK files, UA UAP UFO files, all of
those things where we only see partial
releases, partial redactions, partial
declassification.
That's showing us that the government
believes there's a moment of impact
between the timing of that release and
the and the intensity of that secret
that gains them leverage for whatever
they want to do next. It's not something
they're doing to be nice. It's not
something they're doing to pay us back.
It's something that they're doing
because they need that leverage for what
comes next. Remember the China spy
balloon incident? Oh yes. In the leadup
to the China spy balloon
incident, nobody was talking about
really much of anything. They they were
talking about China, but they weren't
talking about UFOs and they weren't
talking about China spying on the
continental United States. They were
talking about the threat of China
overall. Then the balloon presented
itself and there were days, just a few
days in advance where they started
talking about there's a UFO in the sky.
There's a UAP. Nobody knows what it is.
So all the UFO people got really geared
up, but the typical American was like,
"Me, more UFO sightings. We don't really
believe in that." Then the [ __ ] hit that
it was a spy balloon from China. and
pictures started coming across and that
shit's over. Like Virginia, people are
losing their [ __ ] minds,
right? There was a reason that that was
released. There's a reason that it
wasn't released 2 days before and it
wasn't released 2 days after. It was
released at that moment. And it was
because the US needed the support of the
American people before it launched F6 or
F-22s to shoot down this [ __ ] balloon
over the coast of Virginia knowing that
shrapnel or debris might land on
someone's house. Right? They wanted to
shoot it down over the ocean, but they
needed to have insurance just in case
they screwed it up or the winds changed
or something, right? So now we release
it's a China spy balloon. It gives us a
chance to show off our weaponry,
highlight the threat of China, rally
America around a new threat, and it
gives us plausible deniability so that
if we do shoot down a balloon, and if
something does fall on somebody's
church, at least we're like, "Hey, we're
protecting the homeland, you know, we're
not a bad evil government." Mhm. But
then immediately after that, there were
like three or four more balloons in the
sky. What were all of those called?
UFOs. And then in the following weeks,
all people were talking about was these
these UFOs. Are they more balloons? We
don't know. The government's only
calling them UFOs and UAPs because there
wasn't a reason to call them what they
really were, right? That's that's how
the government plays leverage. How do I
play my card now to get what I need in
this like reliable period of time
knowing that there's a there's a shelf
life for the secret and there's a shelf
life for the release. So I'm off target
with your Epstein files, but that's the
same thing I'm seeing. The intensity
doesn't match the timing to release the
secrets yet. It could be that they're
trying to cover up something that's
embarrassing. It could also be they have
something so good now is not the right
time to release it. H is it also
possible like when I look at the JFK
files that seems more like a dissipation
of energy like we want to sort of drip
and dra it out for a long time uh so
that by the time you have everything
it's like there's really nothing here
because if there was really nothing
there from the beginning and it wouldn't
have mattered released 40 years ago why
didn't they release it 40 years ago and
then the Epstein files just it seems
impossible that this is the one that you
hide by hiding it now you just seem
complicit. So it seems to me that there
has to be something so damning in that
file that they'll take the reputational
hit for saying because they said we're
going to release it and now they're not.
Correct. And that you're seeing that
matrix play out right now. Let's use the
JFK files as a comparison. Right? If we
had have if we would have released the
details of the JFK file in the late 60s
or early 70s, right? If that would have
happened then and there would have been
signs that the FBI were tracking
somebody who was already in relationship
with the Soviets and there was this CIA
Soviet police overlap like all the stuff
that's been released in the recent
tranches. If that would have come out
then it would have been a major issue.
So they didn't release it then. Instead
they release it now when the intensity
level is much less. So the timing is
much less. So just like you have times
where you want to release stuff to gain
leverage, maybe you want that leverage
to negotiate, maybe you also want that
leverage to to dissipate, to slow boil
out. So now it's like, oh, of course the
Soviets were tracking the person. We've
been hearing about it in conspiracy
theories for decades. So now the
conspiracy theories are just being
validated. So what's the leverage we're
gaining by releasing it now? The
leverage that we're gaining is that the
current president can say, "I released
files that nobody else released. I made
this publicly accessible when nobody
else did." Right? the stuff that we're
seeing in the JFK files was was
absolutely intensely desired back then,
but by releasing it now, we gain a
different kind of leverage. So with
Epstein, my suspicion is that we're my
suspicion is that people don't fully
know how deeply tied he was to foreign
governments, to foreign intelligence
agencies, maybe even to American
intelligence agencies. people don't know
the extent. So, they're afraid to
release what they have because if if
they find out more later on or if
somebody else finds out more later on,
it could be really bad. Especially in
the current geopolitical arena that
we're in now, right? When when Putin is
vying for power against Russia or Putin
is vying for power against Trump.
Netanyahu and Trump are close and far
and close and far and then you've got
complete transformation in the Middle
East between Saudi Arabia and Syria.
Like the whole world is kind of a tinder
box right now. Nobody knows who's the
next power
broker. This is not the time when you
want to say we know something only to
find out 6 months from now that we
didn't know at all. Right? For Russia to
use that moment to gain leverage to
release classified files that are that
are released on Reddit, let's say, that
show that they knew something about
Epstein that we didn't release to our
own people. I'm obsessed with having a
mental model that gives me predictive
validity.
uh the more I read about history, the
more I see things like COVID, Epstein,
whatever is my hypothesis becomes in a
time of crisis, experts, the elites,
they're going to use that as an
opportunity not to respond to the
crisis, but to leverage it to gain more
power, more control. And I have a
feeling looking at the Epstein file, and
I'm not like a historian of this, but
the mental model that I'm building is
there are going to be people on that
list that this is going to cause
problems for. So that's one level.
Powerful people simply do not want the
headache. Could also be that they have
footage of them doing truly evil things.
That obviously is going to be something
they want to keep under wraps. But the
other one that is might be the most
interesting of them is simply I'm
beginning to map that um people that run
the world are effectively immoral. And
like you said, it's just leverage. And
so there is a darkness to that that
exists in the human soul that people in
power know that exists in the human soul
and that they willingly use it to gain
leverage and that all of the even the
power broker people come out of the
woodwork right into the honey trap. So
the analogy that I use
is geopolitics, the narratives that we
make at the international level, it's a
magician. This is all slight of hand.
the line between good and evil runs
through every human heart and that you
can get a distressing amount of people
to do something that is evil and then
governments leverage that to wage uh
what I think is economic warfare
um to create the world that we see right
now where houses are out of reach and
all that. But to me, all of this stuff
is tied. I don't disagree that it's all
tied. I also don't disagree that it's
complicated because what you just laid
out is not a simple model, right? It's a
complicated model. I think both of those
things have more truth and validity than
they do misdirection or miscalculation,
right? To simplify it all, however, what
we learn at CIA is that everything is
based on consequences and outcomes.
There is no good and evil. There is no
right and wrong. The average person
struggles with that because from the
time you're little, you're conditioned
to believe in good and evil, right and
wrong. Right? You go to church to fight
evil, to believe in good. There's hero
super or superhero movies about people
who are heroes and people who are
villains, right? Right and wrong, good
and bad. These are these are things that
are are
man-made boundaries to help a developing
brain learn social norms. That's why
those things
exist. The the church, the public school
system, your your kitchen table, all of
those things are are there to help
reduce the complexities of life to
something simple, something binary,
black, white, good, bad, you know, pure,
evil, hero,
villain. We're always trying to unpack
that. As we grow in experience and age,
we have to unpack those things. We have
to walk those things back. Some people
are more gifted at walking those things
back, which is why CIA does so much
recruiting from people who are on the
spectrum. When you say walking it back,
you mean to step outside of the frame of
morality. What we call it at the agency
is moral flexibility. Not to step out of
it, but to walk beside it. There's times
when you want to get back into your
morality. There's times when you want to
step outside of that morality and adopt
a different, more flexible version of
morality to get to an end, to get to an
outcome that benefits you, right?
Because really what we're talking about
at the end of the day is survival
instinct. All human beings have an
innate desire to survive. We don't live
in an environment, we don't live in a
world where our survival is threatened
equally. M when you are living in the
suburbs of Chicago, you are not in a
position of threat like somebody who
lives on the outskirts of of cartoon.
Completely different levels of threat,
but both individuals feel like survival
is king. But to survive in the suburbs
of Chicago, you might need to drive a
BMW, modern series, whatever, so that
you get accepted socially. outside of
cartoon, you might just need to, you
know, know the right time to go to the
market so you don't get a drone to drop
a bomb on you right now, right? That's
they're different levels of
survivability, but the mindset is the
same. I say that because what we see
worldwide, what we see playing out in
headlines is not that much different
than what plays out in the boardroom or
plays out in the bedroom even. People
are constantly trying to
survive when we have the opportunity to
thrive.
We have an opportunity to take
calculated risks and grow exponentially.
We have an opportunity to make
significantly more money than we make
right now. We have an opportunity to get
more sleep, have better relationships.
Everything could be better, especially
in the first world. But we're locked in
this mindset of, well, if I do that
thing that's going to help me make more
money, am I doing the right or the wrong
thing? Am I being good or bad? Am I a
hero or a villain? And because of that,
we're constantly trapped in this model
that doesn't actually serve us. So CIA's
job is to train its officers to step
outside of that that less optimized
model into a more optimized model that
we call four outcomes. I just want to
keep that guidepost. Four outcomes.
That's interesting because it's so true
at the level of the individual. I think
there is something more terrifyingly
pathological when you take it to the
nation state level because from the
mental model that I've built and please
punch me in the mouth if this isn't true
but the mental model that I've built is
that to pull that off the government
knows that you're trapped in your
morality the Colonel Jessup from a few
good men and the government playing the
role of Colonel Jessup is like listen so
that you can live in that la land of
your morality I have to stand on a wall
and kill people. And you need men like
me to stand on this wall and kill
people. And if I tell you that every now
and then I have to turn inward and kill
one of you to make sure that I can keep
this charade going so that you can live
that life, then that's what we're going
to [ __ ] do. And when people in the
morality frame look at the government
and the way they actually behave, it it
is a level of repugnant that is
terrifying. Now, when people are in the
moral frame and they look at their
governments and they realize, oh my god,
like to get to this end, you've been
morally flexible in a way that I find
aborant, uh, now there's like this
massive cognitive dissonance. I'm going
to lay out a scenario that's a little
bit conspiracy theory, okay? And I want
to get a sense of whether I I don't need
to know if you think or believe it to be
true. I want to know if you think it
fits within the framework of how
governments actually act. Do you know
the sinking of the Lucatania? No, I I
mean I do partially. This story is so
awesome. Now, I'll try to mile marker
the things where most historians will
agree and I'll try to point out where
historians would be like Tom's out of
his mind. Okay. Um not that I'm coming
up with these theories though. These are
definitely things that I've read from
researchers and other historians. Okay.
But the the sinking of the Lucatania was
in 1915. This is a real communication
internal memo that Winston Churchill
wrote where he said, uh, we need to find
a way to attract neutral ships to our
shores as a way of embroiling the US
with Germany. Meaning, we want to get
passenger ships here that aren't
considered military vehicles. We want to
get them shot and sunk because if
America doesn't enter the war e uh
England that part of the um access is
going to end up losing and so we've got
to find a way and so there that part is
that communication exists and the that
what I just said is very close to
verbatim. Okay. Then you've got things
that happened but are more questionable.
So what happened is the Lucatania was
retrofitted to be able to carry
munitions, explosives, etc. Okay. Why
they did it, I won't comment on. They
did it. Now, one of the reasons, this
part is conspiracy that people put
forward is that the State Department had
reason to financial reason to want the
US to enter the war, but they had to
make it palatable to the American
people. So, they're now working with
Church Hill, who has stated in this
communication that this is their plan.
Uh, so the boat was retrofitted. We know
that. Now, did the State Department
start doing things like that or work
with the DoD to start doing things like
that? Um, so that I mean, technically,
it would have been the British because
it was a British ship, but that it gets
retrofitted so they know that it sounds
more like a military vehicle to the
Ubot. That is an outcome. Why they did
it is up for grabs. Uh, another thing
that we know happened is they said that
this was a civilian ship and that there
was no munitions on it. Well, decades
after it gets sunk, they find that there
were six million rounds, m million
rounds of ammunition on the boat. So,
they lied about that for a very long
time that we know happened. It's been
verified. And then here are a whole host
of things that do end up happening.
Whether they were the intent of
everything, again, this is up for grabs.
The Germans knew that the British were
probably up to something like this,
trying to get a civilian vessel to trick
a yubot to get them to sink it, either
by putting munitions on it or whatever.
So, the German government took out ads
in the US newspaper saying, "Hey, this
is a thing, and just so you know, don't
ride on these ships, especially if
they're carrying munitions and they're
going to a war zone. We have the right
to sink them." And supposedly the State
Department stopped those ads from being
run except one got through and it ran
and guess what ships uh dates it ran
next to the Lucatania. So right next to
the Lucatania is an ad like in this
regional newspaper put there by the
German government saying hey these boats
are being loaded with munitions. You've
got to be careful like if you ride one
of these boats likely to get sunk. Okay.
Then the Lucatania going across to
England. They pull back. It was supposed
to be escorted. They pulled the escort
back. They um steered it into a slightly
new direction where the British Admiral
T had intercepted German communication
saying that there were Ubot in that area
and they told the uh captain of the
Lucatania to slow down. So you divert
its course into an area where you know
there's Uborts. Did you do it on
purpose? Did they just get super
unlucky? The chaperone ship was called
back to shore. Did they do it on
purpose? Was it unlucky?
But Lucatania ends up getting shot. All
the munitions explode. Boat sinks and
128 Americans are killed amongst the
1,200 total people that end up dying.
The propaganda machinery goes nuts and
says, you know, basically they've killed
American troops and the sentiment in
America goes from nobody wants to be in
the war to now they're inflamed. Two
years later we're in the war. Now you
you can put that together of just it's
just unlucky, man. war and these things
happened and you know yes Churchill was
thinking about it but he didn't I mean
that was they weren't really doing it uh
sure they lied about the munitions but
they were really just trying to sneak it
over or was it Churchill goes we can't
lose so put the munitions on and it
either makes it and we get munitions or
they sink it because we've had to
retrofit the thing and it sounds like it
and we drive it into the most dangerous
area and now we get the thing that we
want which is the US ends up becoming
more likely to get into the
And when I read that one, I was like,
"Okay, admittedly, I don't I cannot see
into the hearts of men. I only know the
parts that we can prove." But you look
at that and you go, "Man, this is really
uncomfortable that
leaders do think like that." Yeah. Now,
let's move away from the Lucatania and
go to Sinir, Israel, Palestine. And
Sinir goes, I'm gonna take hostages. I'm
not going to give them back. And now
I've grabbed a hold of Israel and Israel
keeps saying, "Let go, let go, let go."
And they're just punching me, senoir, in
the face by killing Palestinians over
and over and over. And I know if I let
go, they'll stop punching me. But I'm
not going to let go because I want them
to punch me. And it's like, god damn,
dude. It's so this very distressing
mental map that I'm building is
uh there are again I'm saying this
because I'm trapped. I like being
trapped here. Let me be very clear. I am
trapped in a moral framework that says
yikes. This is really gross. uh that
leaders will
sacrifice because maybe thank God
America joined World War I. Maybe that
is good and the world moved in a better
direction. Yeah. Uh maybe it's good that
Israel is standing up and defending
itself. Maybe it's also horrible as
[ __ ] And so talk me off a ledge because
the more I look at history and current
affairs, the more I am just like whoa.
Like there are dead shark eyes in these
power players as far as I can see. We'll
get back to the show in a second, but
first let's talk about what's happening
out there. Business is chaos right now.
Trade wars, supply chain disasters, cash
flow problems. If you can adapt fast,
you are finished. Complete visibility
into everything is your key to survival.
And that's exactly what Netswuite by
Oracle delivers and it's why over 41,000
businesses depend on it. Netswuite is
the number one cloud ERP because it
brings everything together in one place.
Your accounting, your finances, your
inventory, your HR, all of it connected.
The AI in Netswuite handles all the
repetitive tasks automatically so your
team can focus on what actually moves
the needle. Netswuite shows you exactly
what's stuck, what it's costing you and
how to fix it fast. If your revenue is
at least seven figures, download the
free ebook, Navigating Global Trade:
Three Insights for Leaders
at theory. Again,
that's theory. And now, let's get back
to the show. Uh, the ledge I'm going to
try to talk you off of
isn't a ledge of calculated intent
because I think you're actually more
right than you are wrong when you look
at it and describe it the way you're
describing it. Right? You're looking at
the facts, assessing the facts, looking
at the outcomes that would come as a
result of those facts. There's a matrix
in the middle that I'll introduce you to
that I think is the only piece that that
you have either not stated out loud or
maybe you don't you're not aware of it
yet. But otherwise, I I think you're
more right than you are wrong. Yikes.
Yikes is the right way to think about
it. The ledge that I want to walk you
back from is a a ledge
of of feeling like you are at risk
because of it. Because at the end of the
day, you're also focused on your
survival just like I'm focused on my
survival because our our brains, our
biological brains, the pink matter in
our heads hasn't evolved at the speed of
the environment around us. So, we have
AI and we have, you know, push button
banking and we have antibiotics. We have
incredible technology around us that
keeps us alive and helps us to thrive.
But biologically, we're still cavemen.
Like, we haven't had the 10,000 years to
like evolve our brains like we need so
that we can actually see threats for
what they really are. We still blow
threats out of proportion. So, I I want
to walk you back from the ledge of
feeling like these
calculations threaten you. And I want to
emphasize why the calculations exist and
how you can benefit from understanding
them more than placing any kind of moral
judgment or or living in your in your
box, right? Your trap as you've called
it. One of the amazing things about
people is that people have something
called mass
psychosis, which means that as groups of
people come together, their
individuality starts to blend into a new
norm, right? So you by
yourself, you can maintain your own
beliefs and principles and ideas and
moral guidepost, right? But as soon as
we put you with somebody else, you start
to blend in with them. It might only be
2% different from what you believe, but
you start to become something else. The
same thing happens when you start to
bring family units together or community
units together or employer units
together. You've heard of a company
culture. What is a company culture? It's
a unique culture that the people who
come into the company start to adopt.
They might have believed in, you know,
independence and innovation and
disruption before, but now that they
come into a company, now it's the
company's brand of disruption and the
company's brand of innovation, right?
They they adopt a norm to belong to what
they are are ad attaching themselves to.
Right? That's a type of psychosis, the
type of of mental model that's adopted
because they want to have a biased group
of people that that they belong to. It's
a cognitive bias. It's the in-group
bias,
right? As those groups get larger and
larger, what do they become? They become
countries. They become governments. So
going back to your Lucatania example,
what was Churchill the most interested
in? Protecting the lives of individuals
in the UK or in Britain or protecting
the British government? What was he
actually more afraid of happening? The
destruction of lives or the destruction
of the government? His job was to
protect the government. Because as long
as a government
exists, then the ideology of a country
exists. Individuals come and go, right?
The US government isn't there to protect
the American people. It's there to
protect the American government. Right?
We take an oath when we join any kind of
DoD, CIA organization. Anytime you join
a national security organization, you
take an oath that says to support and
defend the
Constitution against all enemies,
foreign and domestic. Constitution is
what defines what is the government. You
don't take an oath to defend the
American people. You take an oath to
defend the Constitution. It's a very
different thing. American people come
and go. America looks very different now
than it looked in
1955, right? You can't defend the people
because the people all have different
opinions of that change, that evolve.
Some people are educated, some people
are less educated. Some people are
educated from the wrong schools. Some
people are educated from outdated
schools. I mean, anybody who's spent a
Thanksgiving with their grandparents
knows, thank God, America isn't what
those people grew up in anymore. But one
day we'll be the grandparents. So why do
we think that our government is there to
protect us? It's not. It's there to
protect the way we live. It's there to
protect the ideology of a country. So
Churchill understood that and he
understood that there are actions that
we can take that increase the
probability of a favorable outcome that
benefits us in this current conflict in
a way that preserves the longevity of
Britain. That's the matrix that I wanted
to introduce you to. Right? this idea.
There's a a second matrix uh or a matrix
that we use in Intel that talks about
probability versus reliability. And the
probability of an outcome and the
reliability meaning the the
trustworthiness of the information that
we're getting, right? Those two things
together help us determine what actions
we do take and what actions we don't
take because we want to take an action
that we have a high reliability. We
highly believe that the probability is
equally high, right? So we have we have
strong information that we deem to be
true that this this action that we take
will have a high probability result that
benefits us. So we want to take high
probabilities of high reliability
information. We don't want to take
somebody one time said one thing and we
were like oh that's that's an
interesting nugget that gives us a high
probability of success. That's not
reliable. But when multiple people are
saying something and it has a high
probability of g us giving us the
outcome we want then we take action. So
the idea of retrofitting a civilian
passenger ship and inviting more
passenger ships into a region
specifically in the hopes that that a
mistake will happen or even better a
mistake doesn't happen like what
happened here. The lucatania wasn't a
mistake. It was carrying ammunition. It
was carrying weapons that supported a
conflict. So the Germans weren't wrong
in sinking it technically, right? But by
controlling what we shared about it to
the people, we were able to control what
the people or Britain was able to
control and the US was able to control
how the population interpreted. Why did
it matter? Because the population thinks
through that lens of mass psychosis.
Same thing with weapons of mass
destruction in Gulf War. Yeah. Right.
Same thing with 911. 911 happened. We
were all afraid of terrorists. India and
Pakistan are at each other's throats
right now for the same [ __ ]
terrorists in Pakistan that are doing
the same kind of [ __ ] they were doing
before. Where was Osama bin Laden
killed? Pakistan. Who was an ally to the
United States during the war on terror?
Pakistan. Who didn't give America the
ability to fly in and kill Osama bin
Laden? Pakistan. So, we took that
authority on our own. I say that because
the the example that you have in World
War I just plays out over and over again
throughout the world of conflict. You
look at what's happening right now with
Hamas and Israel. I would argue that
there's multiple reasons why Hamas is
getting the outcome they
want. Even though Israel is also getting
certain outcomes that they want
also, now there's a leverage game
because Hamas understands that if they
capitulate, Israel's not going to slow
down. There's no reason for them to
believe that Netanyahu is going to stop
committing atrocities across Gaza if
they give him his hostages. No reason to
believe that. Same thing between Russia
and uh and Zalinsky and Ukraine. They're
at a place now where they have more to
gain by not cooperating than they have
to gain by cooperating.
That all of those situations to in their
perspective increase the probability of
favorable outcomes for their individual
countries. Putin believes he will make
Russia stronger. Netanyahu believes he
will make Israel stronger. Hamas
believes they will survive through this
conflict and radicalize more Muslim
Palestinians than ever before.
Zalinsky believes that he's going to
somehow return 1991 borders to Ukraine,
even though his own top generals is
telling him he won't. They're all doing
it because they think like individuals.
Because when you get a group of humans
together, they start to become a new
singular organism. And the organism in
many cases is the is the government
itself, its own entity. Um, okay. So,
are there limits? So, taking it back to
Epstein, hey, I'm gonna I'm not saying
you, but I'm just saying they went and
got pedophiles presumably allegedly,
right? Uh, for a whole bunch of powerful
people and it's like if somebody had
that similar view, like is it like,
yeah, no limits. I don't like it, but
there's no limits. It doesn't sound
right to say there's no limits, but I'm
using the word right and wrong. I'm
trying to actually ask myself like,
and here's the rubric. Here's the here's
the scenario that's going on in my head
with your question. Right here is an
American citizen standing right here.
Right.
33year-old mother of a 18-month-old
child. She lives in Wisconsin. She goes
to work every day online trying to make
her Etsy store work. And she's been
married for seven years. And she's a a
positive, helpful, loved individual,
American citizen.
Here is a Pakistani citizen who's a
scumbag who was raped as a child and who
from that has become a pedophile because
now he doesn't understand sex. So his
only understanding of sex is what was
done to him. So now he's a pedophile in
Pakistan. Would I give him child porn to
get secrets from him to keep her
safe? I think I would. It keeps her
safe. Would I kill him to keep her
safe? I think I would because as long as
he exists, he might pose a threat to
her. And the world of reliability and
probability that I was just telling you
about that matrix. When we have high
reliable information that there's a high
probability that this guy is planning an
attack that might harm
her, what's my
limit? Because her could be my mom, her
could be my wife, her could be my
daughter, and this is my moment to
decide what I do to him. And I want to
do to him what I would hope somebody
would have done to protect my mom and
what I hope somebody will do one day to
protect my daughter. That's my
calculation because I'm thinking through
that lens of survivability. I need her
to survive. This is the future of our
country. This guy's already [ __ ] He's
already a bad guy. We got to remember
that we do horrible [ __ ] to bad people.
Bad according to our moral definitions
of right and wrong, good and bad.
They're already intending to do harm to
national security interests. If he wants
to blow up some dude in India, not my
problem. If he wants to rape some kid
from Singapore, not my problem, right?
She's my problem, not these other folks.
That's the calculation that we work
with. And inside that calculation, what
wouldn't I do to protect her? I don't
think there's much. Take Israel
Palestine. Obviously, there's so much
international outrage. In fact, there
was just a murder as we're recording
this of two Israeli embassy employees
where the guy was screaming free
Palestine. It's like, okay, well, from
his perspective, if he's running that
same calculus, then presumably he's
like, yeah, what's the problem? If I'm
able to draw attention to my cause and
get more supporters so that we can
defend ourselves, then all's fair,
right? Uh, take what's going on in South
Africa. um there's hundreds of years of
injustice and so yes, we're going to
kill a few white farmers and we're going
to take their land back. [ __ ] them. Like
I've got to think about mine um as an
international community when it's not us
fighting for us, but it's us fighting
for a moral framework. Or is that
delusion on my part? And Tom, you're
being ridiculous. This is all leverage.
This is just leverage. They put a bit of
lipstick on it that they call moral
framework, but this is really just
leverage. How do we think about it
internationally?
Your morals are being defined for you.
That's how you need to think about it.
You haven't defined them for yourself.
You weren't given the freedom or the
flexibility to define them for yourself.
You were put into a structured system, a
structured school system, a structured
educational system, a structured uh uh
religious system, a structured
professional system. Like you have been
shaped. So your morality has been shaped
by the government that sits at the
wheel. There was a time when it was
morally repugnant to think that black
people and white people were equal.
That was shaped and then it was changed
and now people would still argue that
there are there are plenty of racists
out there who still think black people
and white people aren't equal. But at a
government level, it's been moved. The
dial has been changed quite a bit.
Right? There was a time when we thought
that it was a great idea to have
children performing labor in the fields.
Now we don't think it's such a great
idea. There was a time when we thought
it was better to keep women
systematically underpaid. Now we're
going through a transition where are we
trying to systematically bring women up
to the same pay scale as men based
exclusively on their gender. So what's
morally acceptable changes over time?
Why is it you that changes? No. It's the
government that changes the levels of
what is morally acceptable and not
morally acceptable. Sometimes that comes
through social reform. Sometimes it's a
marriage of social reform and political
reform. Sometimes it's nothing more than
blind political ambition and people
trying to make a career in politics and
looking for a cause that they can stand
behind, right? And a cause that's going
to take them to the top. They don't even
believe in it themselves. They just want
to get the benefit of it and they use it
as leverage, right? That's the world
that we live
in. Russia prior to invading Ukraine
believed the met the surveys just came
out recently. Russians believe that the
most important thing was quality of
life. That's what the average Russian
believed in at a rate of like 65% of
Russians pled prior to the invasion of
Ukraine. For the first 18 months of
Ukraine, they still majority believed in
that. But there was a there was an
increasing belief that power and global
power and the respect for their global
power that opinion also started to rise.
So now two years plus later, Russians
believe predominantly that the most
important thing for them is the
perception of global power, not quality
of life. The the the contingent of
Russians that care about quality of life
is down like 25%. Compared to the group
that wants to believe that global power
is the most important thing. So Putin's
war in Ukraine and what the propaganda
machine and what the um context for the
the West versus East power struggle. All
of that has shaped what is now a new
level of moral priority for Russians
themselves. Right? The same thing is
happening to Palestinians. The same
thing is happening to Sunni Muslims all
across the Middle East. The same thing
is happening to Israelis. The same thing
is happening in America. Right? people
there is there's a bell curve of people
who are still undecided, right? That's
the majority of people. They're still
undecided. They they hear arguments on
both sides, but they generally keep
their conclusions to themselves. And
then you've got on the outsides of the
bell curve the two extremes. The one
extreme that's very vocal in favor of
whatever the action is, and the other
extreme that's very vocal against what's
happening, right? Everything breaks out
into the 8020 rule. So, those are what
we see the most. The dude who just shot
two people coming out of a young
diplomat's party, that dude was [ __ ]
up. There are better ways to get a more
effective outcome than that. But that
individual was an outlier. They weren't
able to process or think through the
better way to do it. Just like Luigi
Manion, he thought killing the CEO of
United Healthcare was the best, most
effective thing he could do to shed
light on the the problems with American
healthcare.
Some would say he did a good job and
they still do and other people say he
didn't. A lot of people. So that's it's
what we're getting at is that this idea
of morality is is given to you unless
you take control of it yourself and say
this is how it pertains to me. But I'm
reading a therefore. So uh your morality
is given to you. It's not real. This
stuff changes over time. Therefore at
the level of nation state you have one
job. Keep your nation safe.
be as morally flexible as you need to be
as and I would say the same lesson
applies to the individual right the
individual needs to understand your
government is not there to protect you
American government is not there to keep
us safe it's not there to serve us it's
not there to keep us safe it's there to
serve itself and as long as we serve
within the confines of what it has
dictated is beneficial for the American
public as long as we follow those rules
pay our taxes do things the way that
they let us do things right as long as
that's what we do they won't hinder us
they might even help us. But as soon as
you try to go outside of that, things
get much more difficult, right? As soon
as you try to live off the grid, things
become difficult. As soon as you try to,
you know, uh exercise whatever right you
interpret as yours, but they think is is
difficult, like just trying to take a
pet from one country to another country
becomes bureaucratically difficult.
Whenever you run into that bureaucratic
difficulty, what you're really running
into is you are outside of the norm that
the government has set in place to
maximize and optimize its own
survivability. Okay. So, I've been
thinking a lot about South Africa. As
you apply that framework, did you see
how Trump responded to uh the president
of South Africa recently? I I read a
little bit about it, but I didn't see
that was gangster. So, um the there are
definitely complexities. I'll give
people a very quick primer. Uh there are
multiple parties in South Africa. So,
it's not like the US where you just have
two parties. There's a bunch and they're
competing for attention. So there is a
guy in their legislature, whatever they
call it, parliament, whatever. Um, who
represents a party that has 10% of the
vote and he is talking about slitting
the throat of whiteness, direct quote,
uh, kill the boar, kill the farmers, the
boores or the Dutch settlers that came
over like in the 1600s. Um, just openly
calling for it and he's saying, "Look,
I'm not calling for the slaughter of
white people as of right now." And
they're like, "Uh, you can understand
why people would be very unnerved by
that yet." He's like, "Yeah, I can't
promise that that someone won't in the
future, myself or somebody else."
They're like, "What is happening?" So
the president of South Africa sits down
with the president, uh, Donald Trump,
and Trump plays him a video of this guy
saying all this crazy ass [ __ ] And, um,
as an international community, I think
people sort of sketch out of like,
"Okay, hold on a second. We're denying
people coming into our country uh as
refugees from a whole lot of places
where people are brown, but you've got
these white farmers in South Africa who
were a part of a very um racist regime
and apartheid and you're giving them the
status. I mean, clearly bad things are
happening. Some farmers, people argue
the number. Some farmers have been
attacked and murdered and their farms
have been taken and as far as I know,
people have not gone to prison for that.
Uh, and this guy who controls 10% of the
vote is saying we're going to
expropriate all their farms. So, we're
going to I mean, technically he's saying
we're going to kill them and take their
stuff. And he's saying even the
president's not going to be able to stop
us. So, he's calling for all of their
land to be given with no compensation
whatsoever.
And how do like how do you with this
framework which I consider it I really
worry when listening to you that you're
just at ground truth and that there's
you're not giving me any adornments to
hide behind. Uh but with that unadorned
just truth of how the human animal
works. How do we think about it? Do we
just go well if they've got mineral
rights then we're going to stand up
under the pretense of helping but this
is really about getting the mineral
rights that we need and nothing else.
Um, or do we go uh this is racist and we
have to stop it and of course we're
going to welcome farmers here. It would
be nice if we stood by the ideological
truths of America, right? And that we
would identify racism as what it is,
even if it's reverse racism and that we
would find some way to use our
international wasa influence to wasa was
the Arabic word for influence. Yeah. uh
we would use it to
to drive the morally right thing to do
in South Africa, right? It would be nice
if that's how we thought of it. But in
the world of limited resources where
American dollars, American hours,
American attention is limited. We have
to take into account that what's
happening in South Africa, what are the
probabilities that what happens there
will directly impact the national
security apparatus of the United States,
our 33-year-old mother,
right? How much of our time, attention,
and money should go into this issue to
keep her safe? I would argue that right
now, not much. And if there's mineral
rights to be gained, that gives us a
little bit of leverage that we can use
to try to do what what does benefit us
in the long run, right? Or maybe there's
some other leverage that we should use
instead. What that leverage is, I don't
know yet. I can see an intelligence
operation where this is our chance to
start growing our own covert influence
among the white population play into
their racism to start building our
informant pool to start shaping the
leaders that will come about when a
racist conflict like reaches a precipice
and it's black versus white inside South
Africa. Right? That's that's the
intelligence way of thinking about.
Don't think about the problem today.
think about the problem 10 years from
now and how do we set ourselves up to be
in a position of power 10 years from now
instead of right now, right? Because
right now it's kind of out of our
control. I would also say that
reliability and probability this a a
zealot with 10% of the vote who's
talking about, you know, waging war on
white people may sound scary, but what
are the actual probabilities he's going
to have success? What are the
probabilities that there isn't some
already existing radical group that's
not just going to assassinate that guy,
right? And if they do, what are we going
to do? If we start getting involved now,
then we're going to set ourselves up for
having to be involved if he is killed
later on by some contingent of, you
know, white elitist South Africans where
if we just keep our distance now, it's
their [ __ ] problem. They'll deal with
it. Yeah. Okay. Let's see how far this
goes. According to Jay Badacheria, the
new director of the NIH, they probably
funded the gain of research uh gain of
function research in the Wuhan lab,
which is probably according to Jay
Bodacharia where uh COVID emanated from
and he's making it sound like that's a
bad thing. Um, but is it really a bad
thing according to this paradigm if we
could make a biological weapon that we
could use to keep Americans safe? And
should we
surreptitiously run a an experiment on
the entire world population to see how
well this stuff
works? Looking through the lens of right
and
wrong, everybody has their own opinion,
right? But when it comes to long-term
strategic benefit, the only reason
chemical and biological weapons are
wrong is because we have a treaty that
says we won't we won't do that. In
reality, there's lots of situations
where we have treaties and people are
still developing options. Look at the
whole idea of weaponizing space, right?
Look at the idea of a space force. There
was a time when we didn't want to
weaponize space at all. Then we
developed the space force. Them days is
over. Them days is over. We wanted then
we developed the space force and now the
whole world is talking about like is it
the golden dome I think it's called now
golden dome y which is China is
supposedly going to get their quantum
computers off the ground by mining
helium on the dark side of the moon.
This is all probably conjecture but
still but don't don't forget China was a
China launched a missile to destroy
satellites to create debris in space in
what was that 2001 2003 something like
that right so it's already been kind of
proof of concept about weaponizing space
has already taken place I don't know why
we would think that biological chemical
weapons would be an exception right
they're they're in use in Sudan for
crying out loud I'm not saying we're not
doing it I'm saying um is it morally
right or wrong yeah it's not morally
right or wrong like I'm trying to find
the edges of when we talk about moral
flexib ility. Remember my goal, and this
is more for anybody listening than just
for you, but I am trying to figure out
how the world actually works. Not how I
want it to work, not how I think it
ought to work, how it actually works.
And every word out of your mouth while
it is sinking my stomach feels like it
has high predictive validity. And I just
want to keep going and seeing like uh is
that why CO played out potentially
allegedly the way that it did? Because
this was people going, "Yeah, but this
could be really useful to us." And if we
can uh get China to run the risk for us,
we'll fund it. We'll have them do it,
but they have to worry about whatever
mess comes out of this, but we'll get
the information that we need. There's a
sinister assumption there, right, that
we knew and were actively funding their
efforts to create a biological weapon.
Is it sinister according to this
framework if we think that it might help
save American lives in the long run?
That's where I think the intersection
really lies. If NIH was intentionally
funding China's development of their own
biological weapon to protect China,
that's some that's some sinister [ __ ]
That's we're spending American dollars,
American American money to help them
create something that helps them. Yeah,
that's that's wrong. That's wrong
morally. That doesn't serve the outcome
of a greater national security for the
United States.
However, I can see a lot of scenarios in
there where they were funding some kind
of research, but they were told the
research was different than what it
really was. I can also see situations
where they were funding research knowing
that it was going into the biological
development of a weapon specifically
because in parallel we were creating a
counter to that weapon. Right? That is
something that we very commonly do in
the United States. We allow bad guys to
do bad [ __ ] because we know they're
doing bad [ __ ] and we can develop the
counter as they're developing the
offensive weapon, right? It's how we can
h we ca