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 can counter hypersonic missiles or
we can counter biological weapons or we
can counter uh trade imbalances in
foreign countries, right? Because we let
bad [ __ ] happen knowing that we have
intel on the bad [ __ ] and we can develop
a counter now. So there could have been
any combination of the three of those
that went into the development if CO 19
was created intentionally to be a
biological weapon. There's also plenty
of situations where it was everybody was
funding the development of a novel virus
so that they could see how would we
combat a novel virus. Well, we can't run
simulations without having a novel virus
that we created. And maybe they even
created one that they knew was weak so
that they could run successful tests in
a limited population with a contingency
plan for in case that thing was
artificially released or accidentally
released. I don't believe that we have
enough information to say COVID was
developed with nefarious intent and
tested on the world population. I don't
believe that. I do think that there's we
have enough information to validate it.
But uh whenever one finds themselves in
a situation where they're squabbbling
over facts, I always say eject out of
that and just run it as a thought
experiment because I'm trying to map
global power. How does the global power
network, how do the men and women behind
the scenes that truly wield power, what
are they looking at? What moves are they
making? Leverage was your first
hypothesis. That makes a lot of sense to
me because it maps to what I think about
central banking and why they what I call
they steal just blindly. Uh because
money is fake. That's going to catch
people off guard, but just so I don't
have to spend a ton of time explaining
it, it really is true. Uh but because
it's fake, then you can just print print
print. If you control debt and the money
printer, you never have to worry about
going broke. Everybody else does. Um you
don't. So that all maps to that. But I
had never considered before that um
something like what happened with COVID
could have been intentional from a gain
leverage perspective and that people are
willing to sacrifice copious amounts of
people if it protects the constitution
or whatever country it is that you work
for. Uh so this is shockingly eye
opening. I don't want people to think
that I I just run with it. So anyway, as
a thought experiment within that
framework, um could you see a world in
which power brokers go, "All right,
we're going to kill a few hundred
thousand, maybe a million people with
the vaccine, but we're going to
understand how it works." I'm not saying
they did. I'm just saying, does that
track in terms of the type of thing that
somebody in that position would be like,
"Yeah, maybe." Yes, I think it does for
a few different reasons. China and the
United States at the time of COVID
especially were not in good terms.
Right? This was the the Trump trade war
was active. Trump was at a high point in
his in his popularity. You know, China
was trying to figure out what they were
going to do next. So for
China, the idea of developing a chemical
agent, whether it's a weapon or whether
it's a defensive ploy or whether it's
just a experiment for someone's
PhD, lots of reasons there why they
would be exploring medicine, right? to
try to differentiate themselves or make
them a world broker at best and at worst
with nefarious intents. It also makes
sense for China to release said virus as
a thought experiment. It makes sense to
release it because China's biggest
problem is excess population. China's
biggest drag is an aging population that
doesn't contribute and brings down the
average per capita of the average
productive individual. China knows
they're not going to become the world
superpower if they continue to carry a
population in the billions. Right there
there are two times as many people who
make up the employment base of China
than there are total population in the
United States. So that means working age
laborers there are 736 million in China.
Working age, right? People looking for
jobs. That's more than two times the
entire population of the United States,
children, elderly, working age. China
knows that in order for them to have a
per capita income that comes anywhere
close to our per capita income, which is
what's required to make a true middle
class, they can't carry billions of
people. So, it makes sense in a thought
experiment for them to say, well, well,
if we create something and it
accidentally gets out, what is the
probability that it's going to be
devastating to our population? What's
the probability that it might even be
beneficial to our population? And that's
what we saw happen with CO 19. That
doesn't necessarily mean that the United
States supported the release or that the
United States had anything to do with
the release. But it makes sense as a
thought experiment for China to say if
we develop it, we win. If we develop it
and it leaks, we still win. And if we
develop it and it leaks and it travels
around the world, that would be the only
place where we might lose unless we're
also the ones that have the vaccine for
it and then we win again. What I don't
think anybody calculated was the fact
that when CO 19 spread, governments shut
down. And when governments shut down, we
all started to see that our that all of
our line of logistical supply chain went
through China. That's where CO 19 really
changed the world. It wasn't in the fact
that it killed a bunch of old people and
sick people. I know a lot of people
won't like that that I said that. CO
changed the world because it showed the
entire [ __ ] world. We had let China
become the center of the hub and spoke
model for the entire globe. M and now
we've all since then we've all been
trying to fix that. We'll get back to
the show in a moment, but first let's
talk about one of the most valuable
advantages in content creation, speed.
The faster you go from idea to edit, the
more content you can win with. Opus Clip
makes that instant. If you're building a
brand or running a business, you already
know content is not optional and you
need a system. And for a lot of
creators, that system breaks at the
editing stage. Opus Clips AI powered
editor gives you prolevel video output
without the bottlenecks, budget, or
burnout. You can add branded intros,
generate AI B-roll with one click, tweak
captions, layout, voice over, all
without the tech overwhelm or a full
production team. It's drag and drop
simple, but powerful enough to keep your
brand sharp across every platform. No
more bottlenecks, just faster, better
content. If you're ready to go from idea
to upload without slowing down, go to
the link in our show notes and give it a
try for free right now. And now, let's
get back to the show. You said earlier
that this moment is a powder cake. What
is going on? India, Pakistan, Russia,
Ukraine, uh, Israel, Gaza, um, US,
China, Syria, absolutely Iran, Middle
East. Yeah, Iran hiding in the
background. Uh, what is happening? We
have we are sitting at such an intensely
interesting time in our history and I am
so happy that I get to be an adult
watching it happen right because in
multiple data points we are watching the
decline of American supremacy. We're
watching the dollar become less popular.
We're watching American influence uh
international influence reduce itself.
We're watching the rise of a new
anti-western power base, right, with the
with the combination of China, Iran, uh,
Russia, and other Iranian uh, North
Korean and and Iranian counterparts all
coming together to create a
counterbalance to the West. What a
fascinating time to be alive. It does
not mean we have a pleasant few decades
ahead of us. It doesn't mean that. Yeah.
But it does mean that the world that you
and I will see from our deathbed is
going to be so different than the world
that we see today and the world that we
saw when we were brought into this
world. Right. How dare you?
And that change I I find change to be a
necessary fact of life. Change certainly
a fact. Yeah. Change is something that
that will happen and the people who
succeed are the people who can adapt and
evolve with that change the most
effectively.
So essentially what we're seeing in my
opinion essentially what we're seeing
around the whole world is a question of
whether democracy is truly what serves
governments. You think that's what's
driving it? That's the question really.
And you can see and here's why I say
that. Most people would say that Donald
Trump is a populist and or possibly
authoritarian type of leader, right? I
think even Donald Trump would say that
he's somewhere in the mix, right? He is
not a professional politician
democratically elected through blah blah
blah blah blah, right? He's a he's
something else. We have literally
watched the recent elections in Canada
and Australia both elect far-left
leaning leaders specifically because
those leaders were anti-Trump and the
populations of those countries in the
moment were also anti-Trump. They didn't
have high chances of winning. These are
two strong American allies, Canada and
Australia, right? They're part of the
Five Eyes networks, the five countries
that share all intelligence, right? And
these these left-leaning leaders were
elected exclusively in a final push
because they were like, "We don't
believe in Donald Trump." And their
numbers soared and they were elected. So
now these countries are stuck with these
leaders, not because of their policies
or their backgrounds or their histories
of success, but because of their
political stance against Donald Trump.
Simultaneously, we see a leader in
Romania, a leader in Portugal. We see
continuing growth across, we see
Germany, we see these countries that are
quote unquote democracies doing the
opposite, voting in strong righting
authoritarian leaders specifically
because they are proTrump, right?
Germany is different because they
dissolved their parliament. They
dissolved their office of the chancellor
and then they couldn't come to a
conclusion on the next chancellor. And
then when they did come to a conclusion
on the next chancellor, the parliament
didn't endorse him and he had to go
through a second round of voting.
Germanyy's all [ __ ] up right now. And
that's Germany, man. One of the
wealthiest, st most stable, strongest
countries in Europe can't get their [ __ ]
together. Portugal's had multiple prime
ministers in the last three years. The
UK only recently landed on a prime
minister that they have let sit for
longer than a year. Like Europe is all
[ __ ] up in the for the same reasons
because the people can't decide. Do we
want democracy or do we want strong man
leadership? Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia
flourishing under strong man leadership.
Russia having the best years of the last
decade under strong man leadership.
Really? You think this is the best? They
what? The best for them in the last 10
years? Really? I thought their economy
was like getting hammered. Even as it's
getting hammered now, it's still better
than it was 5, seven, 10 years ago. They
yeah by mismapping Russia. The war in
Ukraine has created a wartime economy in
Russia and people are getting paid more.
They're producing more. Their economy
isn't happy, but it's better than it's
been. Right? China's in the same place.
China's struggling with their economy,
but they have they have a collective
enemy right now with the West. So,
especially with the tariffs that are
happening right now, right? Every
Chinese working age person is looking at
the United States thinking, "You are an
enemy of China because you're taking
away my job. You're shutting down my
factory. You're making it hard for me to
feed my kids. You're the enemy. You're
the enemy." What's What's that person
going to be in two years, 3 years, four
years? If they're not a direct soldier,
they're going to be somebody who's
looking for ways to get into some
military role that creates revenue from
a wartime economy. You were mentioning
this during your Lucatania uh example.
Governments have learned through the
lens of history, wartime is a huge
economic boost. The big concern that
Europe has with Russia is that Russia is
not going to stop after Ukraine. Not
because Russia actually has ambition
beyond Ukraine, but because they can't
they can't stop now that that engine has
been developed, now that they're
creating 1400 missiles, right? Why would
they stop? Instead, they would find
little small ways to keep the conflict
going and further test NATO, right?
That's what Europe is most concerned
about. So we live in this world where
where this is not just happening in one
or two pockets. It's happening
everywhere. Right. Do you think Putin is
so incentivized to keep it going that
the war just isn't going to end? So I
think Putin is incentivized to take what
he wants in Ukraine. No reason for him
to back out of Ukraine now. No reason
for him to stop and even come close to
accepting Zillinsk's terms because he's
he is doing what intelligence officers
do. He is
systematically degrading the influence
of Zalinski and trying to degrade the
influence of Donald Trump. The
difference being that Donald Trump knows
how this game works, so he knows how to
extricate himself from the degradation
and save his own reputation. But
Zillinski is [ __ ] Right? Zalinsky
once said, "I will never sit at the
table with Putin." Now Zalinski's
bitching about the fact that he went to
a table and Putin didn't show up. Right?
That makes Zillinsky look like an an
idiot. as if he doesn't do enough to
make himself look like an idiot. That
does not help. He has insisted on 1991
borders. His own like senior liaison to
for diplomacy around the world are
saying that's an unreasonable
expectation. So what kind of leader is
it when you know your your uh head of
the ministry of foreign affairs in the
United States is saying that the
president's goals are unrealistic. It's
it's a complete meltdown of any kind of
reputation. Putin understands it. All
Putin has to do is keep launching
ammunition and flying drones. [ __ ]
dude, this pisses me off. Zalinsky
launched a one of the largest drone
strikes on Russia in advance of the May
9th celebration. The May 9th celebration
is Russia's annual celebration to
celebrate the end of World War II and
the destruction of the Nazi party. Do
you remember what his original terms
were for invading Ukraine? Yeah. That
they were still Nazi. So somehow this
country that's trying to make itself
look like it's the victim literally
attacks Moscow the eve of a
celebration that's there to celebrate
the defeat of the Nazi party when the
original reason Putin went into Ukraine
was because he said there were Nazis
there. Like these are these are horrible
strategic decisions made over and over
again if not by Zalinsky than by the the
advisory board that he has he's taking
information from. assuming that that
advisory board is even trying to help
Ukraine. So my my point is terrifying.
Yeah. We have this incredible world that
is a powder cake working around us. You
have Trump in the Middle East to decide
whether or not Sunni Islam is going to
support the Palestinians or whether
they're going to try to bring Israel to
the table. You've got Netanyahu doing
[ __ ] on his own that the world disagrees
with, counting on America to back him
up, but Trump is distancing distancing
himself from Netanyahu. And that's
before you start getting into the stuff
like like the military. Pete Hegsathth,
our current Secretary of Defense, has
set only two priorities in motion for
the entire DoD. Only two. One, protect
the homeland. Do you know what the
second priority is? Degrade China.
That's it. Right. That is the memo
directing all of DoD. Two priorities.
Nothing else. Defend the homeland, which
basically means put missiles on our
shores, and degrade China. Nothing else.
not degrade adversaries, not counter,
you know, political uh whatever
dissident or or influence from the east,
none of that. It specifically says
degrade and deter China. It's amazing.
That is our world right now. Degrade
China with the DoD. Lots of different
ways. I mean, some of it's denying their
access to technology. Some of it is
actively seeking areas to frustrate or
uh waste their resources in third
country locations, right? Countering
their influence with the belt and road
initiative, countering their support to
Iran or Russia or North Korea, right?
Taking taking action with special forces
in zones where, you know, Chinese
interests are at play. Um some of it is
cyber attacks, some of it is space-based
assets, some of it is um information
warfare. Like there's lots of different
ways that you can degrade. And I think
what's happening is the United States is
understanding that China is a major
threat that no one has been calling
China. They've been calling it
Asia-Pacific, Pacific Rim, the East Asia
Pivot is what uh what Obama called it,
right? And that was
2008. It's 2025 right now. So we've been
we've been sugar coating this threat for
a long time. But now he is saying,
"Let's just call it what the [ __ ] it
is." How serious do you think the threat
of China is? When I look at Thusidity's
trap, when I look at the realities of
geopolitics, when I look at being in
second place is a lot worse than being
in first place, just like, yeah, we've
got to be looking there. When I look
closer at the corporate espionage stuff,
it's like, it's actually pretty serious.
when I look at that they're the hub and
spoke of the entire world's
manufacturing and you can't have an
adversary who might become your rival uh
sorry a rival who might become your
adversary you can't have them control
your drones when drones are how the war
is going to be fought am I just being
overly paranoid or is this really where
we're headed you're not being paranoid
you're being pragmatic right now China
is the single largest threat to the
United States if that's not an opinion
that's laid out in the director of
national intelligence intelligence
estimate that's laid out by the
secretary of defense that's been
communicated by by the president
multiple policies that have been set
forth like it's not
paranoia there's a huge narrative bias
that happens in media and other places
where they try to reduce it and they try
to soften it right they try to talk
about decoupling etc etc but they're our
largest threat and keep in mind that
this same conversation is happening
somewhere in China where that
conversation is saying the same thing
about us where they say the United
States is the single largest threat to
China, right? And the success of our
people and the success of our long-term
growth and success is being hampered and
reduced by American influence and
American activity. The fact that those
two conversations are happening in both
countries just goes to show where the
future is truly headed. Yeah. Right. And
all the examples you say are exactly
right. The the thing that has me the
most
kind of unnerved is that since about
2015, there have been multiple
economists who have come out and said
that the dollar is losing its influence
as the central currency of the world.
Right. Not losing quickly necessarily,
but there's absolutely a shift
happening. Yeah. When we then froze
assets from Russia because of Russia's
invasion of Ukraine, there was like $300
billion worth in assets. That was a huge
signal to China that said, "Hey, if
we're willing to do this to them, guess
what we're willing to do to you?" So now
China started decoupling from us. China
has its own issues that it's dealing
with, but let's not like be koi. We have
our own [ __ ] issues that we're
dealing with, too. They have their
economic issues, we have our economic
issues. They have their real estate
issues. We have our real estate issues.
They have their whatever. We have our
whatever. The difference is they have a
[ __ ] ton of people and their primary
target is like 150 miles off their
southern shore where our primary threats
are thousands of miles away from us and
it's going to take a whole hell of a lot
of professional military organization to
do anything against those threats.
Imagine a world where Russia launches a
limited campaign against Estonia, a NATO
country, at the same time as China
launches any kind of cyber attack or
aggression against Taiwan. What's the
United States going to do? What's NATO
going to do? Are we going to act on
Article 5 and go to Estonia's aid? Are
we going to let Estonia defend itself
for a little while to watch what
happens? Are we going to rush to Taiwan
to give Taiwan aid? Are we going to let
Taiwan work on its own for a little bit
to see what happens? Are we going to
divide our forces and go in two
different directions that have an entire
continent between them? What are we
going to do? This is what's happening at
the boardroom tables in in Moscow and
Beijing. Thoughts like this,
conversations like this, probability and
reliability matrix. Do you see them as
working in any sort of coordinated
fashion in that way or you're just
saying if China saw that Russia made
that move that they might do something?
I would say coordinated but not
necessarily collaborative, right?
Because what we're seeing is that the co
the cooperation that's growing between
Russia, Iran, North Korea, um
fundamentalist Islam, uh
China, they're not agreeing on an
ideology. They're not collaborating on
ideas. When it's pragmatic, they're
sending some of their advisers to go
help the other country, like we're
seeing with North Korean troops fighting
in Russia, right? Um, but we're also
seeing China sending troops to fight,
like mercenary troops to fight both for
Ukraine and for Russia. You've got lots
of opportunity for for countries to get
involved in Sudan and Syria where they
can test their technology. They can test
their tactics. Everybody understands,
all of our adversaries understand the
United States is is second to none when
it comes to real time war conflict
experience. We know what it's like to
get shot at in real time. We know what
it's like to run coordinated operations
in real time. NATO countries don't know
how to do that. China doesn't really
know how to do that. Russia has been
learning it for the last almost 3 years,
right? So that's a very valuable skill
to have and that's a skill that
everybody's very eager to develop. So
what I would say is because we see such
pragmatic cooperation between them, I
could see a phone call between Xiinping
and and Putin where they say, "Hey, this
is what I'm going to do on this day
about if you see it happen and it
benefits you, it would be really helpful
to me for you to do that thing, right?"
Or just giving you a heads up. I'm not
telling this to anybody else, but this
is going to happen. Maybe it'll happen
in July, right? And then they can plan
and they can plan in separate silos to
help keep compartmentation going. But
for sure we are seeing that all of those
countries are benefiting from the
cooperation with each other in a
collective push against western power.
The geopolitics, the strategy of this
moment where we no longer feel like a
hegeimon is uh it's going to be
interesting to see how it plays out. if
we if I'm running the scenarios and I'm
China, I realize that I'm in a stronger
position now than I probably will be
down the road. So, that's the part that
that unnerves me. That's an excellent
observation that people don't say
enough. This is something that uh people
have ridicule is a bit strong, but they
think I'm off the mark by thinking that
we need to bring some manufacturing back
to the US, but it just seems
self-evident. The one that I always
focus on is drones. Right now, China
just controls that. uh rare earth
minerals being actually processed.
China, it's like 95%. Yeah. And the
amount of the modern world that that
controls. And there's something
interesting going on with the conflation
of we want to be good people. Uh and
therefore we we don't want to do
anything that would hurt China. And
honestly, I don't want to do anything
that would hurt China if we weren't in
the scenario that we're in. It's like I
think so much of the American psyche is
built on certainly people my age is
built on this idea that we won World War
II. The Russians who we won World War II
uh we did it by the Japanese were dumb
enough to strike Pearl Harbor and we
just on a dime started making ships out
of nowhere and we feel like oh we can
still do that because it's the American
spirit not realizing no no this is that
was the American manufacturing pipeline
that we just aimed at something else. We
no longer have that pipeline. all been
outsourced to China. China is anything
but dumb. And so they understand we can
make everything for everyone. That was
the game
plan. So is it just that China can print
their way out of this better than we
can? That they're more poised to uh they
certainly don't mind depressing the
value of the yuan. And if they just
print print print print print print
print print print print print to keep
their economy going. Yes, they're um
inflating but they've like you said
they've got such a massive working
population that it's like yeah sorry
guys over the next 5 years you're going
to take a 25 30% hit. It is what it is
and uh I welcome you to come tell me
your your negative feelings and uh we've
got a nice camp for you. Yeah. Um so
yeah I don't know what they're waiting
for. I don't know if it's that um they
don't want it either and that's just uh
that's too messy. And if we can just
calmly take over the world, then we
will. And so that's strat number one. Um
and maybe it is Trump is just a loose
cannon enough. It's like no, we'll wait
this out. Like waiting 10 more years,
not a big deal for us. Uh and so we're
going to be obviously aggressively
trying to build alliances with other
countries because you're doing all this
dumb [ __ ] with tariffs. And so we're
going to build alliances, free trade,
look at us, China, free trade. Who said
anything different? Yeah. Um, man, it'll
be interesting. But my gut instinct is
that's what's playing out. That they've
got a long game in mind. They're willing
to be patient. They want to get Trump
out of office. They want to see if they
can uh get the um real estate problem a
bit more under wraps. Uh build more
alliances, beat the West in the trade
game, and then man, if if Trump's gambit
doesn't
work, I mean, look at it two ways. And
and now I'll speak this directly to all
the people that think I'm dumb for this
position. Look at it this way. Uh Trump
loses the trade war and China continues
to offer trade to the rest of the world.
How is that good? Right? whether you're
Europe or the US. How's that help you
exactly? Not not tracking that. You get
cheap [ __ ] I'll give you that. But
China then becomes the number one power.
And the only read I can have on that is
they just go, "Yeah, to your point, I'm
cool with the strongman thing. I'm tired
of this democracy [ __ ] Like, I'm
here for it. Let's go China." Otherwise,
I'm just like, "What are you thinking?"
Like, this is the away team. Uh
yeah, that that's bananas.
Alternatively, he wins. You may think
he's Trump with the trade war. You may
think he's a maniac, but if he can go in
uh destabilize things enough that he can
rejigger everything so that we're in a
better position and can afford, and this
is the part I don't think people
understand economics well enough to
understand what's really [ __ ] going
on. When you've got China that can
produce everything so cheaply, you can't
afford to do your own manufacturing. You
literally can't get people to do it. You
can't get the entrepreneurs to build the
factories. Building these [ __ ]
factories is hard as hell. Like you you
have to convince a lot of smart people
to go, "Oo, I can make a lot of money
doing that." And with China driving the
prices down, you can't. So you literally
can't bring the manufacturing back
without becoming dictatorial. And so now
you're stuck. Like they they will
literally boil your frog simply by going
we now manufacture everything and [ __ ]
you. Like we're going to go take Taiwan
because Taiwan can't resist. you can't
help them because uh sure you you've got
your crazy Lucky Palmer and all of his
microwave technology and you could try
to take down our uh our drones, but like
we're we are going to hit you with so
many waves of different things down to
dudes with sticks if we have to and we
will just overwhelm you. Just like
Russia is surviving the tech war in
Ukraine, right? They're they're proving
that concept is viable that you can take
a protracted approach and you can ma at
least maintain initial lines of
demarcation just with a war of attrition
right a rapid blitzkrieg style approach
and then once you have the lines it's
only changed like between 1 and 3% since
the start of the wares right with with
all the technology and all the
intelligence and all the money that's
gone into that Russia Russia isolated
and abandoned for you know a better part
of the first year still maintained their
lines of of attack right plus or minus
3%. M so absolutely China's watching
that. The only thing I would add to what
you're saying
um I live and my whole company lives to
bring spy principles into everyday life.
Right. Sometimes it's everyday life
principles that come into espionage and
people don't realize that one of the
foundations for what informs national
security policy is actually an economic
concept called porters p five forces. So
Porter's five Porter's five forces,
right? Porter's five forces is an
economic principle. It has to do with
industry, right? And those five forces
are the you've heard of them before most
likely. There's buying power, selling
power, the power of substitution, the
power of new entrance, and the power of
existing competition. Right? These are
the five powers that shape business. If
you want to make more money or or if you
want to start a business or if you want
to grow your business, you're always
looking for the balance of these five
forces. Are you a buyer, a a a seller,
are you a competitor? Are you a new
startup? Are you something else? Trump
and all of his tariffs have to do with
buying power. He knows that America buys
the most [ __ ] at the highest premium
that any one of the people who sell to
us could sell to someone else, but they
would sell and they'd get a smaller
margin and they would sell to a smaller
audience that wouldn't have the same
appetite. So, he's gambling on that.
It's a big gamble like you said, but he
understands like, hey, selling to one
American is the equivalent of selling to
five different countries in South
America. So, how long before someone
says, "Fuck trying to market, increase
my marketing cost, increase my
advertising cost, increase my shipping
to sell to five different countries in
Latin America, or I just accept whatever
the demands are to lower my tariffs so I
can work with the United States." That's
the game for Trump. It's just like
whenever you mark up the prices on your
product and then you offer a special
rebate, right? It's the same thing that
he's doing. That's buyers power. China
is leaning into sellers power and new
entrance. They're trying to offer
everything at the lowest possible price
because they're a very capable seller.
And they're also trying to to outpace
the United States by being a new a new
alternative, a substitute or a new
alternative for what the United States
has. That's why they're trying to get
involved in tech. That's why they're
trying to get involved in so many other
industries from electric vehicles to
telecommunications, etc. They're trying
to say, "Hey, you don't only have to buy
from America world. You can also buy
from us." Right? And there's a lot of
the world that's saying yes to that,
right? Trade from Mexico down, trade has
increased by like 38% with China in the
last 12 months. It has decreased by 24%
with the United States. Right? So now
China is gaining more trade ground in
South America and Central America. And
the United States isn't keeping the
same. The America is losing its trade
ground. Another thing that the Secretary
of Defense is highlighting, why is China
so interested in gaining more trade with
South America and Central America?
Because that's going to allow more
Chinese infrastructure, more Chinese
presence, all of that can be flipped and
dual purposed into intelligence and
military ambition because China has
something called a state-run enterprise,
right? Meaning the state runs the
commercial business. So they can put a
military antenna on the back of a
[ __ ] ice cream truck if they want to
because it's it's one and the same.
where here in the United States, we
divide military from commercial. All
right, we've got one more piece we've
got to deal with. Where's Iran hiding in
all of this? Um, so much what's going on
in the Middle East is proxy. Uh, is
China connected to Iran in any way?
What's that game? So Iran is a really
interesting animal right now
because for about the last 20-ish years
it's survived on this idea of an axis of
resistance where it is the money maker
and it's a huge money maker. People
don't realize Iran is the bread basket
of the of the Middle East. Everybody
buys all their agricultural goods from
Iran. It's green. It's lush. It's got
active farms and agriculture. So Saudi
Arabia, United Arab Emirates, uh,
Bahrain, all of our American allies all
buy, they're all enemies to Iran, but
they have carveouts where they buy from
Iran so that they have fresh vegetables
and produce, right? So Iran is the bread
basket, and then it sends those funds to
these um
radicalized proxies to carry out Iranian
interests abroad like Hamas and
Hezbollah. Want do do they just want a
caliphate? like they want an Islamic
state as far as the I can see.
Absolutely. It's it's called the Shia
crescent. What they want is the
expansion of Shia belief and ideology
throughout the Middle East with with
Iran at the center of it. That's that's
the concern that all of the Middle Sunni
Muslims have is that Iran wants a Shia
caliphate again, right? The larger thing
that Iran is looking for is to become a
sphere of influence that counters
Western influence. and they consider
Saudi Arabia to be Western influence.
So, it's really a constant game between
Iran and Saudi Arabia. When we talk
about the United States being involved,
that's just that's kind of like lip
service. The United States isn't really
involved in Iran. Iran doesn't wake up
every day and think about the United
States. They wake up every day and think
about Saudi Arabia, right? That's their
primary problem in their region. So,
they have all these proxies that they
support. And the proxies get confusing
because the proxies have their own
priorities. Hamas wants to counter uh
Israel. Hezbollah wants to counter
Israel. Houthis want their own
independence. So there's all these
different kind of split priorities among
the proxies that Iran supports. But your
original question is where does it fit
into all this? Iran's actually on its
heels right now. Hezbollah has been
mostly dismantled. Hamas has been
heavily dismantled. The Houthis somehow
are the shining like silver badge right
now for Iran. That's not a good sign,
right? But Iran's own internal military
capability is still largely unknown.
They couldn't defend themselves well
against the air strike that came from
Israel, but we don't know how much they
can actually organize and carry out
their own IRGC efforts. And most people
think the IRGC is very capable, the
Iranian Guard, right? So, we don't know
what Iran actually can do. And Iran's in
a position now where it might see
benefit from cooperating with Trump on a
nuclear deal because then that takes the
heat off of them, allows them to gain
more money, more power, more influence
in the region, especially as Saudi
Arabia is distracted with what's going
on in Israel. Right now, Saudi Arabia
has to protect Sunni Islam. And the
biggest enemy against Sunni Islam right
now is not Shia Islam. It's the [ __ ]
Netanyahu war going on in Gaza.
Interesting. So Iran's in this great
position where it's been hit hard, but
no one's really looking at it right now.
So it could rebuild, refund those
proxies, and never has there been a
better time to refund proxies because
Netanyahu's war against Gaza is
radicalizing could radicalize every
Palestinian in existence. Not to mention
any Sunni Islam member who's outraged by
the fact that that Israel has been
allowed to do what it's doing. Right? So
Iran knows that. So all it needs is
money and time and it can rebuild more
proxy forces.
Do you know of any connection between
China and Iran? There are a number of
connections. Um China is getting most of
its oil from Iran right now. Um Iran
gets a lot of its technology from China.
There's pragmatic relationships between
the two. Not to mention that Iran
understands that it needs to be aligned
with some sort of first world or quickly
developing country. And the only two
options out there are the United States
and China. And you can't really become
an ally of the United States unless you
follow American ideology. But anybody
can be an ally with China as long as
you're
pragmatically collaborative or
cooperative with their economy. So
interesting, man. The US, the West is
going to have to figure out if they're
willing to defend their values or not.
Correct. And decide what those values
are because even NATO can't [ __ ]
agree right now. Not not America to
Europe and most definitely not within
Europe itself. Even like bastion
European powers like Germany and Spain
and Portugal and France can't get on the
same [ __ ] page. Yeah. What do you
think is pulling them apart? I think
it's this question of how much do we
adhere to democracy and how much do we
adhere to democracy? That's interesting.
I don't think it's purely that. I think
that's a big part of it because how how
has this come up? The world really does
take its dance steps from the United
States. Right. Right. So when the United
States has a healthy democracy, when
it's left-leaning, when it's uh focused
on social issues, then the rest of the
world focuses on the same kind of thing.
Right? If you recall, most of the world
didn't take action on CO until the
United States took action on CO. China
did its own thing, but the Middle East
and Europe really didn't take action
until the United States took action. So
the world follows the US lead.
when the US when the world started to
see that the US was having its own
internal conflicts, do we go far right
or do we go far left? But we've we've
gotten away from this idea of center
government. Boy, have we ever. Right? So
then Europe had to start asking
themselves the same question. Do we go
far right or do we go far left?
Especially since far-left leaders in
Europe were staunchly opposed to
far-right leaders in the United States.
But Europe is heavily dependent on the
United States and they're waking up to
that fact. Trump has helped Europe to
understand, holy [ __ ] we have exported
so much of our health and well-being to
the United States. There they supply our
weapons, they supply our medical
technology, they supply our financial
institutions, they supply everything.
And now if the United States just shut
the door on Europe, Europe would be
[ __ ] And they know that which is why
you saw the previous German chancellor
start talking about you know Germany
becoming the new center of NATO and
decoupling from the United States and
investing more in their own internal
defense. But you haven't actually seen
good or bad for us. I think it'd be good
for us really. Here's the problem. When
we came out of World War II, we had an
attitude which was appropriate at the
time that we had to dominate everything.
We had to dominate our enemies and our
allies because today's allies can can
turn into tomorrow's enemies, right?
That's what happened basically from
World War II to World War or World War I
to World War II. Everybody thought
Germany was defeated and then all of a
sudden it had a war machine going,
right? Talk about a war building an
engine for an economy. That's exactly
what happened in Germany, right? So, the
United States oppressed everyone
economically, educationally,
behaviorally. We made slave labor in
Japan. And that's why Japan has the work
culture it has because coming out of
World War II, America basically put
every working age Japanese person to
like to work 12 hours a day, six days a
week relentlessly. And now they have a
culture where they're just they work all
the time. That's all Americans American
influence coming out of World War II.
That strategy isn't working so well
anymore. That strategy of oppressing
your allies has just made our allies
weak. Which means if we want to if we
want to support our allies, it really
means we have to do it for them. Which
is what we're seeing in Ukraine, right?
Poland sees that, they understand
that. Germany sees that, and they're all
thinking, "Holy [ __ ] if Russia actually
does become more aggressive against
Europe, how long before the United
States can't support all of us?" Like,
there are 10 countries that are NATO
countries that that are within striking
distance of Russia. M if Russia attacks
one, two, three of them at once, it's
all coming from one country to one
border. But for the United States and
for the rest of NATO, there's different
contingents in different countries and
different bylaws and different weaponry
that are all available and there's
different priorities. How do you compare
Estonia or Lithuania against, you know,
Romania or or Poland? Who gets the
priorities first? Who's more important?
Who's of greater strategic significance?
Who can actually handle enough airplanes
to defend themselves? Right? It's it's a
nuts situation and the old way of
business of doing business doesn't work
anymore.
Not to mention the fact that our
adversaries have learned from us and
they are doing something similar and
hybrid of their own. That's what you see
with China. China is now building
commercial ports in Central and South
America for commercial purposes, but
they're also deep enough and industrial
enough to take militaryrade hardware if
it's ever needed. And who controls that
port? not the country where it was
built, China, because they have a
hundred-year lease on the port like what
they're doing in Panama or what they're
doing in Brazil. Right. So now we have
to sit there and wonder, is it really
commercial use or is it just waiting to
be at a flip of a switch now? It can
take military ships. Yeah. Give Trump a
report card in the first 120, 30 days,
whatever it is. I think he's doing more
for us than we give him credit for.
Yeah. Yeah. I think he's doing more for
America than America gives him credit
for. And I think a lot of it's because
Americans have been systematically made
ignorant of what actually matters. What
actually matters is not the words that
come out of somebody's mouth. What
actually matters is not whether or not
they have like they like to look at
themselves in the mirror or whether or
not they change their mind or whether or
not they sound foolish. That's not what
actually matters in the person who leads
a country. What actually matters is is
that person willing and able to leverage
the capabilities of your country to give
you a better probability of success in
the future. I think Donald Trump is
doing that. He's testing it with
tariffs. He's testing it with with uh
his uh executive orders. He's testing it
with new relationships. I mean, the fact
that the the fact that the [ __ ] dude
is meeting with Saudis and and using
that meeting as a chance to show
Netanyahu, hey, I'm willing to meet with
the largest, strongest Sunnis in the
region, of which are very upset with
you, by the way, Netanyahu. And I'm
after I meet with them, I'm going to
take a trip over to meet with some folks
in Iran about their nuclear capability
that I might greenlight, even though I
know it threatens you. Like, that's [ __ ]
that Biden and Obama would have never
done. They'd be, "Oh, we we can't do
that, right? We we're too afraid of
upsetting these the Jewish diaspora in
the United States." Trump is like,
"Well, let's see what actually happens.
Let's see if this helps America." Well,
let's see if whether this hurts America.
But someone's got to at least try it.
Give it a grade.
85%. Solid B. All right. But what's cool
about that is sometimes your B can turn
into an A, but I've been a student and
B's can turn into D's, too. Yeah. Ain't
that the truth, brother? This has been
amazing. Where can people follow along
with you? If anybody wants to find me,
they can find me at Everyday Spy on any
social media platform. I have my own
YouTube channel and podcast. If you
follow me at Andrew Bamonte or if you
look up the term Everyday Spy, you'll
find your way to me pretty fast. You are
killing it on YouTube. So, I hope that
uh people find you there. And speaking
of finding amazing channels, if you
haven't already, be sure to subscribe.
And until next time, my friends, be
legendary. Take care. Peace. If you like
this conversation, check out this
episode to learn more. China has done
something extraordinary. In just a few
decades, they've lifted hundreds of
millions of people out of poverty,
mastered global manufacturing, and
position themselves as a true
superpower. But as they rise, the
question for the West isn't just how do
we compete, it's how