Professor Jiang x Nick Fuentes: Who Actually Runs The World? │ Jack Neel

-Trump is not in control. -Yes. The people that are orchestrating the tempo and the timeline of events are Israel. Yes, they're running themselves with religious fanatics. They believe that this war will usher in the end times. Do you think America should have a dictator? You need a dictator now. His system is so fundamentally broken. Totally agree. We're stuck. Who wields the most power? The answer is secret societies, the Freemasons, the Jesuits, and the classic example is the Rothschild family. Do you think Masons have any influence? I don't believe in the secret society thing. I don't believe in the Mason or Jesuit conspiracy or the Luminati. Rothschild's what you've kind of left out there is it's a Jewish family. They're also suffering from Frankus. What's the evidence for this? I don't have the evidence of the top of my head. It's not real. It's called Wikipedia. What do you think Nick misunderstands about Israel's influence on the world? Let's just give the Infinity Gauntlet to Nick. Okay, you're now Thanos. You know, with a snap of your finger, I will eliminate this group and then all the worst problems will be saw. What would you pick? Nick Fuentes and Professors Young. Welcome to the Jack Neil podcast. So Nick, would you care to introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about your background briefly? Sure. Yeah, I'm Nick Fuentes. I do a show called America First. And I've been doing it for about 10 years independently. And that's what I do. Cool. And Professor? Yeah. So first of all, Nick, it's great to meet you for the first time. And I really appreciate you coming all this way for this conversation. As you know, I was playing too much to cargo, but because of certain issues at the border, so I really appreciate you coming all this way. Absolutely. My gratitude and my appreciation. So my name is Professor Jiang. That is my internet moniker. I'm not actually a professor. But I have a YouTube channel called Predictive History. And my mission, my purpose, is try to analyze history and current events in a way that allows me to draw certain principles which will allow me to predict the future. And my goal is to promote this as a new academic discipline so as to raise human consciousness. Yeah, I'll get into what you both have said about each other's backgrounds later in the interview. But I think a good place to start here is you both agreed or stated that America has already lost the Iran War. But Nick, you've said the war was started because of corruption and Trump lost because he's simply stupid. So the first question here is, why do you think Trump launched a war on Iran and do you think America lost the Iran War? I think you start this war not for geopolitical reasons but for eschatological reasons. And my argument is that he has surrounded himself with religious fanatics, people like Peter Hexf. They believe that this war in the Middle East will usher in the end times. And I make this statement because if I just analyze this war from a game-ter perspective, it is very hard for me to find a logical reason why they start this war. And there's something that Nick and I can discuss. But I believe this war is a religious eschatological Mezzanic war. And Nick, why do you think Trump started this war? Well, I agree that there's an eschatological dimension to it. Obviously because it involves the greater Israel project and it involves the temple and it involves Iran's encirclement of Israel on every side of its borders with Hezbollah, Hamas, the PMF in Iraq, and so on. But I really believe you could trace it to precipitating geopolitical reasons. Which I don't think you would even disagree with that it started with a series of events that began when Trump pulled the side of the nuclear deal in 2018. Trump withdrew us from the JCPOA. By 2020, Iran stopped adhering to its commitments under the nuclear deal, enriching with all limitations, making a highly enriched uranium stockpile. It was when Joe Biden then got elected in 2020 and took office in '21. Immediately began a reconstitute the Iranian nuclear deal. And then with the help of China in '23, they tried to do a reproachment between Iran and Saudi Arabia. These were some of the factors I think why one Hamas attacked Israel. And then why Israel used that as a pretext to declare war not just on Hamas, but on all of Iran's proxies, including Hezbollah, the Assad regime, the Houthi rebels, the PMF in Iraq. And that basically started this inexorable process where to your point, they then got Trump elected. It was American Jewry, Israel moved to get Trump in office because they knew he was going to take us to war against Iran. And it would fulfill the larger project of making Israel the dominant regional power. And that guarantees their ability, then, to annex the West Bank, Gaza, and then destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque and rebuild the Third Temple. I think that's certainly a part of it. And do you have any disagreements with what he just said? No, I mean, I think he gave a very clear timeline. What I would argue is there had to be a reason why Trump withdrew the United States from the GCPOA, which is commonly referred to as the Obama nuclear deal with Iran. And the idea was that over time, the United States would live sanctions on Iran, as long as Iran agreed to abide by international inspections of its nuclear program. So Iran could use nuclear enrichment for its civilian nuclear program, but it could not use it for nuclear weapons. Also, we have to remember, at this time, they're out of the toilet, a Supreme religious leader had a fat law which strictly prohibited using uranium enrichment for nuclear weapon development, as well as to use nuclear weapons in a war. So there were a lot of constraints against Iran developing nuclear weapon. And by turning apart a GCPOA, or by Trump unilateral withdrawing from a GCPOA, it basically incentivized Iran to pursue nuclear or uranium enrichment. So that's what the GCPOA is, okay? So, but it was not just the GCPOA, that was the first step. Then what happened was Trump moved the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Juleszlo, which was extremely provocative, not just to the Palestinians, but basically to the entire world. There was consensus that Juleszlo would be a neutral territory because of its religious significance to all Abrahamic religions. Then you had Trump recognizing Israel's control over the Golden Heights from Israel. You also had the Abraham Accords. And then, of course, on during 3rd, 2020, Trump ordered the assassination of General Kasam Salamani, which was the most provocative act because he was the de facto ambassador of Iran in the Middle East. And for the longest time, he was actually working very closely with Americans to contain ISIS in that area. So, the question then is, we both agree there is this timeline of events, but where we might disagree is, what is motivating Trump in these events? And so, what I would argue is that somehow, Trump in his head became influenced by Zionism in America. And when I mean Zionism, I include both the issue of lobby as well as Christian Zionists. So, people like John Hadgey of a Christian United for Israel is following their plan to create as much chaos as possible in the Middle East in order to create the great racial project and then ultimately to provoke the war of God and my God. And unless we understand it that way, it's very hard to explain his actions. So, that's what my argument would be. I would just disagree that Trump is doing it for those reasons. I think that people around him, including the state of Israel, have created the conditions where there are fewer options for Trump other than the ones that would end in that situation. So, for example, because you're right, and a lot of people don't know this, it was Trump that promised in '16 to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. And people at that time, at least from the Trump movement of which I was a part of, they said, "Well, that's really no big deal." They said, "We're going to give the Zionist lobby a small concession, which is this embassy." In exchange, Adelson's going to give them $100 million in '16, '18, and 2020. So, people said moving an embassy, what's really the big deal? This is just a quid pro quo. But the precipitating event behind October 7th, what was October 7th called? It was al-Aqsa flood after the al-Aqsa mosque. This is when Hamas invades from Gaza and it was a direct response to provocative Jewish actions on the temple mount, where they were on the steps doing sacrifices and other things, specifically to incite Muslims to attack them. So, so much of Trump's recognition of Israel's sovereignty. Because again, it wasn't just moving the embassy, it was recognizing Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem as the eternal capital of Israel that created the conditions for a major clash between Palestinians and Israelis. And I think that that's a good example of how, clearly the Zionist lobby understood the significance of moving the embassy. They understood the religious eschatological dimension of, what does that mean when we move the embassy to Jerusalem? It means Israel controls a capital, which means then they're going to take the West Bank, which means then they're going to take the al-Aqsa mosque down and build the temple. I think Trump ideologically is not there. I think for him, it's more transactional. And so for him, it's more like how I described it, that he looks at someone like DeSantis, who was a representative at that time in 18. DeSantis was one of the biggest proponents of moving the embassy, pressuring Trump to move it. And I think Trump kind of looked at that like, all right, I'll let him have the embassy. If that's what gets designed as on board for the midterms and reelection. So that would only be maybe a slight disagreement there about Trump's motivations in particular. - Can you break down exactly what you believe Trump's motivations to be for the war, are they? - Well, the thing about the war is that, and I try to impact this on my show all the time, you have to talk about the strategic imperatives of every state. Israel's strategic imperative is the threat on the periphery, which is the Northern border Hezbollah funded and supplied by Iran through Syria. And that's been that way since '96 in the Clean Break memo, it's securing the Northern border. And they say we got to take down Iraq, take down Syria, then go for the head of the snake Iran, only then can we cut off Hezbollah and control our immediate surroundings. And what you understand is that for Israel to control its immediate periphery, they have to destroy Iran specifically its regime. They need regime change in particular. So Iran must respond to this. They see that Israel and the United States have been doing this to other states. They did it to Saddam Hussein and Iraq, Gaddafi and Libya, Assad and Syria. And so Iran knows regime survival is now their imperative. If the US and Israel is destroying every government, then the Iatola says, I'm next. How do I deter an attack from the US and Israel and ensure my survival? Only way to do that is a nuclear weapon. So that, but if they race towards a bomb, that will invite US aggression because the US has a non-proliferation policy. So Iran has to go in the middle, they call the threshold status. We'll be more closer to a nuclear bomb than maybe Saddam was, but not actually have an arsenal, which would trigger an attack from the US. But that Iran has an arsenal, that actually brings the United States into the picture. The US is not married to the idea of regime change. That's not a vital strategic interest for the United States, but non-proliferation is because the United States as global headgemon is unchallenged by middle powers like Iran. Iran can never win a war against the United States, invade the United States strategically defeat the United States. But if they had a nuclear bomb, theoretically, and then they miniaturized it and put it on an ICBM, then that could threaten the US and destabilize the whole order. So to put it simply, Israel wants Iran gone, so Iran gets a nuke. Iran getting a nuke means the United States has to make sure they don't have one. And this is what brings the United States into either make a deal like Obama did, or Trump comes into mold the grass and suppress this capability by bombing the nuclear complex and the missile program. - Right, so I guess what's Trump's goal, though, specifically? Is he just trying to survive this thing? - I think that Trump is, that's sort of the thing. And I think I agree with you on this. Trump is not in control. They are initiating and Trump is reacting to the situation. So for Trump, I think he's got domestic concerns, international concerns. He sees the Iran thing flare up. He wants Iran to be further from a nuclear breakout, meaning, you know, 'cause people confuse this like, Iran has the schematics to know how the blueprints to make a nuclear centrifuge in a bomb. It's just a question of, what's the timeline between deciding to make one and having one? And Trump wants to make that timeline as long as possible, kicking the can down the road. But he's being drawn further and further in by Israel. I think that's really the program. - Yeah, so I would agree. So let me talk about two things, okay? And I think both points will just boot you as your argument, which is that Israel is really the one that's pushing the agenda. And Trump is basically transactional, right? He is not actually in strategic control of the situation. So the first idea is, Nick is a completely right, the United States is committed to non-pollivation in the Middle East. A sort of Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon, then the United States has to intervene. But so if we just take that as a premise, then what we appreciate is a lot of Trump's actions don't actually make any sense. Because if you are committed to Iran not getting a nuclear weapon, first of all, you would not withdraw from a GCPOA. Because even if Iran was not, since they were genuine in following the GCPOA, there was an unnatural mandate in place. You could fool the United Nations, apply pressure on Iran. And that would give the United States more legitimacy, right? So if the first thing Trump should not have done withdraw from the GCPOA, that's the first thing. The second thing is you would not have assassinated on the first of the war, the al-Atola Qamané. Because he has been consistent in all his decades of power, Iran will not never develop a nuclear weapon. And so when you kill the al-Atola Qamané, you're almost incentivizing a new leader, his son, to negate the previous fatwa, and allow for the development of nuclear weapon. And the second thing you would not do, you would not assassinate the al-Atola, right? And the third thing you would not do, of course, is you would not, you know, literally, and for no reason, attack Iran, right? So it's not just assassinating the al-Atola, but there are six weeks of continuous bombing of the country. And Trump constantly said that they were intent on regime change, right? So it's almost like you're trying to provoke as much as possible, you ran into getting nuclear weapons. So that's the first point I would make, okay? So I think there are three major pillars to the clean brick memo. The first is to establish Israel as the regional hedgermon in the Middle East for balance of power. And the second is to have a clean break from the also peace process. Like let's not negotiate with the Palestinians because they're animals, right? They're just subhuman. They only understand force, right? If a dog is misbehaving, you beat the crap out of the stock. So let's show that we're so stronger than the Palestinians. But the third thing, which is really interesting is the clean brick memo also calls for decreasing its really dependence on the United States, right? So the clean brick is just like, let's just turn away from the current world order. And then you ask yourself, this is really odd because in the mid '90s, basically every policy maker in the world agreed that neoliberalism is a solution to Washington's senses. So why would you, Israel decide to turn away from neoliberalism? And the answer, if you think about it, the only answer is because of mezzanic Judaism, because of Zionism, because they believe that Israel is destined to achieve the greater racial project. And then usher in the end times when Zion will come and then God will come to be peace on earth forever. That's the only way to appreciate the clean brick memo, because it's just a radical departure from Orthodox thinking at that time. I'm not sure if you agree with my analysis. I do agree with that. I would say, I mean, clean break, your 100% correct. It means a clean break from the policy of land for peace, which is what they had been doing with Egypt and Jordan. In '79, they had Camp David Accords with Jimmy Carter and in order to make peace with Egypt, which was Israel's permanent enemy from '48 until '79, they had to give up the Sinai Peninsula, they had to give up control over Gaza. They were talking about doing the same thing with Syria by giving up the goal on. And then ultimately, they want to make peace with all the Arabs by giving land to the Palestinians, going back to the pre-67 borders, giving Palestine a state, and the Lycud party, which became ascended in the '70s, of which Netanyahu is a part of, basically said, '79, Camp David was a disaster. They said, Israel is such a small country. That's one thing we don't have enough of as land, land which has resources, land which can be utilized by the population. They said, so instead, we need to break from this policy. Instead of trading away the goal on the West Bank Gaza, they said, we actually have to just confront and destroy all our enemies in a systematic way. That was actually prefigured by Ode de Yunan's plan for the 1980s. He wrote the grand strategy for Israel and it goes even deeper than clean break, where they said, what we effectively have to do is rip apart all the powerful Arab or Muslim countries with sectarian and other divisions. So they said, we're going to go into Iraq and make it three countries, Kurdish, Sunni, and Shiite. And we'll go into Egypt and we'll make it a cop to Christian country and an Arab Muslim country and go in a Syria divided between the alloites, the Sunnis, the Kurds, and the Jews. And they said, what will be left is a mosaic of tribes with flags, small statelets, tiny states that are not big enough to challenge Israel. And to your point, that makes Israel a regional hegemon. That means they can take everything west of the Jordan River, take everything south of the Latani River and Lebanon, have these natural, defensible borders, larger territory. They don't have this like Palestinian state in the middle of their country. And what that fundamentally allows them to do is one, project power in the region, but two, to your point, that gives them maneuverability to go after the mosque. That's really what they fear is if Iran and all these other powerful Muslim countries are standing, then there would probably be a war with Israel. It might still be when Israel goes and topples the al-Aqsa mosque. But this is where I would say it's almost hard to discern where one argument ends and the other begins in the sense that for Israel to destroy the mosque, build the third temple, bring on the end times, they need full control over the periphery. They need to be a regional hegemon. That also is just a natural foreign policy that states pursue, I think, is to try to maximize their power. This is a realist perspective. And you could say it's aggressive or expansionist, but this is what Putin is doing in Ukraine. It's what China aims to do in Taiwan, which is a power is going to try to ascend the latter and become the dominant force in his region. So Nick, would you say the Greater Israel project is based in pragmatic reasons and the eschatology is the fuel to get people rallyed around it? Hit really quick. Did you know that Warren Buffett, one of the greatest investors of all time, thinks buying gold is a silly investment. Now clearly, a lot of people disagree considering gold is at all time highs this year, but whether you think Warren Buffett's right or wrong, today's sponsor, Kalshi, let's you take a side on gold without having to invest in it yourself. Kalshi is the CFTC-regulated US exchange where you can trade on real world events from your phone. Things like sports, politics, crypto, the economy, newsworthy events, etc. And they've just launched their new gold and silver perps, which lets you take a position on whether you think gold or silver is going to go up or down without having to buy or store them yourself. There's no expiration date. You don't need VPNs, you can fund your account with cash or crypto 24/7, and it has some of the lowest fees on the market. See, earlier this year, gold ran past $5,000 an ounce, and with everything going on in the economy, it's the market I'm personally the most interested in right now. Now always keep in mind that Kalshi lets you multiply your position, which makes your wins bigger, but your loss is bigger too. So if you want to check it out, use my link in the description and pinned comment. $50 and get $25 using my link. But anyway, guys, back to the podcast. Nick, would you say the Greater Israel Project is based in pragmatic reasons and the eschatology is the fuel to get people rallied around it? That's really the central question I think is, you know, is the Greater Israel Messianic vision the rationalization for a real politics strategy to expand the borders? Are they expanding the borders to realize the Messianic vision? And I think that both can be true in the sense that Netanyahu, I don't think, is a Messianic person. You know, he doesn't have a great relationship with Habad Lubavitch. I don't, you know, he has religious people in the coalition. I think he's more driven by grand strategy. I think though, however, there are people that are empowering him like Smotrich and Ben Gavir who are religious fanatics in his government. They wear arm bands and they speak in front of lecterns that have the Greater Israel map. They are Messianic Jews who, well, not strictly speaking Messianic Jews like believe in Jesus. But they believe in that Messianic prophecy of building the temple, ending the world. So, I think both motivate different people in Israel. Right. And sorry, sorry, I have to interrupt because Nick made a statement that we need to clarify. You said that Netanyahu does not have a great relationship with Habad Lubavitch. Yes. I, from all my research, I think Netanyahu was basically, it's almost like a tool of Habad Lubavitch in order to achieve their Messianic prophecy and I'll go over what, what I've learned. Okay. Sure. First of all, there's a very strong connection between Netanyahu, the Trump family and the Kushner family. Right? So, Fred Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu were good friends and the reason why was, in 1980s, Netanyahu was issues ambassador to our nations. So he was in New York and then Fred Trump, of course, was a very prominent real estate developer in New York City. The Kushner family and Netanyahu are very close. Netanyahu himself said that when he ever comes to United States, he often states with the Kushner. In fact, Gerk Kushner said that now and then he will give his bedroom to Netanyahu and he'll go sleep in the basement, okay? So that's my first thing, thing I discovered. There's a really close relationship between the Trump family, Netanyahu and the Kushner family. So the idea that Gerk Kushner and the American Trump just met randomly and they got married, I don't think it holds water. I think they probably knew each other since they were little. The other thing is Netanyahu was almost nurtured and mentored by Rebecca Snerson, who was the leader of the, how about Louis Vuitton moving for a long time. So there are videos on YouTube where Netanyahu just got elected to the connessed and then he goes to the rebel and says, well, you please support me, well, you please bless me. And the rebel says sure. And then there's another video a year later where Netanyahu goes to the rebel and the rebel just basically says to him, when is Mazar coming? And Netanyahu says he's coming and then we're working on it. And Rebecca Snerson is like, well, we have to hasten the process, right? So this is the leader of how about Louis Vuitton directing Netanyahu who has plug ambitions to hasten the coming of the Mazar. You will also find on YouTube a video of Sheldon Ailsen and Mirm Ailsen before their wedding going to the rebel asking for his blessing for their marriage. And so this is a hood that Adelson's, by the way, Adelson's are the main financial backers of both Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. Is that a fair statement? Oh, absolutely, yeah. Right. So Sheldon Ailsen was the major financial backer for Trump's 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns. And they're Zionist. Right. Well, they're very Zionist, yes, yes. And Sheldon Ailsen was also very prominent backer of Benjamin Netanyahu because Sheldon Ailsen is American. He could not actually financial support Netanyahu. But Sheldon Ailsen did spend a lot of money to buy up a lot of prominent Israeli media. And this media, this media was very supportive of Netanyahu. So I see all these connections. So I don't understand why Netanyahu and how about the Liberates are not aligned. I mean, they have Matt, obviously Netanyahu and Rebyshnerson, because they're in the Jewish community, you know, Netanyahu is the prime minister of Israel and so on. But if you actually know about Habad Lubovitch, they say they don't actually fully support the project of Israel. They believe that what precipitates the Messiah coming is not even necessarily the Jews resettling the land automatically or even claiming a country called Israel. They say it's the conversion of the Jews back to the religion, back to the law. They say that what precipitates the Messiah is the Jews coming back to Torah. And one of the reasons actually originally Habad Lubovitch was against Israel is because Israel is like a civic nationalist state that says we're based on like Jewish ethnicity and Jewish race. And Habad Lubovitch said it should be based on Torah. It should be based on the law and on the book and on the religions. That's why I say it's a little bit contentious. As far as Trump is concerned, I know that you have maybe more of like a fatalistic view of it that Trump was designated to be like a Cyrus to great type figure in the Jewish eschatology. He was going to be like a Messiah for the Jews. I think a counter example against this is that he was not the favorite of the Zionist lobby when he ran in 2015. Initially, Mary Madelson backed Rubio. They wanted Ted Cruz. Even after Trump won the nomination and then won the election in 16, when he lost power in 2020, the Jewish lobby moved against Trump and they actually wanted DeSantis to be the guy. DeSantis announced his run in May 23. And just before that, he traveled to Israel to meet with Mary Madelson, all the big Jewish donors. He announced with David Sachs and Elon Musk on Twitter who were fully behind him. And he was really the pro-Israel choice for the Republican primary for the 2024 election. And then when DeSantis had his failure to launch, it became clear by the summer he wasn't going to work out, then they all moved behind Nikki Haley in 2024. And they wanted her in October 23. I would say roughly to about March 24, design is placed her hopes on her to win. And it was only after she went to Israel on behalf of Mary Madelson and endorsed Trump that Trump got the blessing to get the $100 million check for Mary Madelson. So in other words, he was their last choice, even in 24, all the way after he ripped up the nuclear deal, after he moved the embassy, after he killed Kossum Soleimani, gave Israel the goal on, they still did not like him more than they liked DeSantis and Haley. So that would be my counter-argument. Right. Okay. So let me first respond to how about Luminous Derror ideology. So you're actually right, in that the end goal is for all Jews to convert back to the religion and to repent. And then this would actually usher in the end of the world according to the Kabbalah. So the, how about Luminous movement or Isaac Jews? And the basis for a lot of the ideology is the Kabbalah, the interpretation of the intention of God. And so what they believe is that the world is the way it is because the Jews have away from God. And this is the breaking of the world. So to repair the world, what must happen is all the Jews, because the Jews have the divine spark of God. And the Jews must come together, and then these divine sparks, divine sparks of light will then unify together. And this process happens when Jews repent. Okay. And the example is the story of King David. So King David sinned by marrying Bashiba, and killing her husband, Yuria, the high tide. But God punished David by killing his firstborn with Bashiba, and his cause David to fall into tremendous grief and beg for forgiveness and to repent. And what this did ultimately was solidify the relationship between King David and Yahweh and God. Because remember in the Bible, King David is a favorite of God, like more than anyone else, more so than even Moses. So that is what about Lurich wants to do, to force all Jews around the world to return to Israel, and then to repent. And then the question and is, how do you politically achieve this? Well, you do three things, right? First of all, you achieve the greater Israel project, because the greater Israel project is a covenant between Yahweh and Abraham. So they have to fulfill that. That's the first thing, the greater Israel project. The second thing is you need all Jews to return to Israel. The entire diaspora has to converge on Israel. And how do you do that? Through anti-Semitism, through conflict around the world that forces Jews to return to Israel, to seek safety and protection from God. The second thing, the third thing, and Nick refers to this a lot, is the building of the third temple, because that's where God lives. So the idea is, and Judaism is different from other religions, and people don't appreciate why. So don't appreciate the subtle difference, but Judaism is a worldly religion, meaning like you look at Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam, it's about when you die, you go to heaven, right? For the Jews is about bringing God to earth, right? So saying they don't believe in heaven. I actually don't know if they believe in heaven, but like for them, the end of the world is when God comes to Israel and lives amongst the Jews. And the third temple is meant to be his home, right? So you're right in that. How about Louvreach has this esotology in place? But if you look at what they have to achieve in order to obtain this esotology, then it's unfolding before our eyes, right? We are seeing the greater Israel project being implemented throughout the Middle East. We are seeing the rise of anti-Semitism throughout the world. And we are also seeing the growing conflict between maintaining Jews and Muslims on a temple mount, which may eventually lead to the destruction of the electric mosque, the building of the third temple. So all this is tracking. And I would argue that it's because Nayahu is following very much to how about Louvreach Blueprint for global Jewish redemption? Yeah, I guess I just disagree. I think that to say, Israel is the Habad Louvreach project to bring about the end times in Nayahu as an agent of this. I just think it's an oversimplification because again, Habad has not always even been in favor of the modern state of Israel even existing. It's much more controversial, I think, than you're making it seem. What event can you not explain without that position? Does that make sense? Yeah, well, you can't explain the electric mosque. So I think what both Nick and I think so I happen eventually is the electric mosque will be destroyed. Where's that at? And that's where the Jewish people believe is the third temple. In Jerusalem, there's a temple mount. And the temple mount is where they build the first temple, the Solomon's temple, and they built it as the house of God because the idea again is God wants to live with his people. God doesn't want us to go to heaven to be with him. God wants us to build a world in which he can come and live with us. So that's called Solomon's Temple. Solomon's Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians. I can't remember the exact year, but it was around 600 BC and then started to great conquer the Babylonians and then we turn the Israelite exiles to the land and spawns to the building of the second temple. But then the Romans destroyed the second temple. And the third temple has never been built and it is the mission of these Messianic Jews to build the third temple because that is the end of their eschatology. So if you look at the temple mount where the temple used to be, it's divided into two parts. The first part is the Al-Azik mosque, which is considered a third holy site in the Islamic world that is where Muhammad ascended to heaven. And then you have something called the Dom of the Rock. Dom of the Rock is where the foundation stone is. And the foundation stone for the temple. So what Nick and I believe is there will be a religious fanatical minority who wants to destroy the Dom of the Rock and the Al-Azik mosque to build a third temple. If that were to happen, then this would ignite a religious war the world has never seen before. Would you agree with that statement? I think so, yeah. Because then all Islamic people, Muslims would be religiously committed to destroying Israel and restoring the Al-Azik mosque. So you're saying that the main event that only makes sense with eschatologies has to do with the temple and then I asked you to clarify the Al-Axah thing. What were you saying there? I want to ask Nick this question. Have you had a chance to welcome him and hadn't yet? Yeah. Oh, yeah. On on a luxury corners, there is a poster. Yes. The Masaya is coming. River Snerson. How do you interpret that? Well, a lot of people believe he's the Messiah. That's right. Because he's a seventh-dynastic leader of the Habad-Lubavitch. And he's the final one. What would they say? Yes. Yes. Yes. But you know, so there's no disagreement that Habad-Lubavitch wants the Masaya to come and they're willing and into being. But I'm just saying that the idea that Netanyahu is a part of a conspiracy with Habad-Lubavitch to bring about this Messianic vision, I think it coincides with Israel's geopolitical interest, which is to destroy Iran. And that's what I said really is that it's hard to know where one begins and the other one ends because to achieve the Messianic prophecy, Israel needs to achieve its geopolitical goals. But states always pursue their geopolitical objectives. So the geopolitical goals have to be met before they destroy Al-Aqsa and Build a Third Temple. Yes. Because for, you know, what clean break in the plan for the 1980s is all about is securing the realm. That's actually what clean break is called the securing the realm, securing the northern border. And they say that in order for Israel to be safe, we got to get rid of Hezbollah. How do we get rid of Hezbollah? We got to get rid of Saddam, who's a bathist, who launch missiles at Israel. We got to go after Assad through which Hezbollah is furnished with support from Iran. And then we have to go after Iran, which is inciting this revolutionary Shiite movement across the Middle East. And only then can Israel be a regional hegemon when they're not encircled by Hezbollah Assad, Saddam Hussein, Iran, the Houthis, which was a later development. And so for Israel to eradicate all of its enemies is also just national security policy. But but then how does the Shionic Isaac Maas strengthen Israel's national security? Well, I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that, you know, doing those things might allow Israel to do that in the future. But that's not something that Niyahu is pledged to do. But I'm saying like, would we agree right now that there seems to be like an alliance of sorts. And how about Lubavitch is very much part of this alliance. So you have people like Niyahu who may not be religious, but there are geopolitical opportunities. And they want to strengthen Israel's national security. But also with this alliance, you have about Lubavitch. Yeah. And they really believe this is the end times. Again, if you walk around Manhattan, you just like look at these street corners. Like this guy, Robert Snierson is everywhere. And there is a vocal minority who believe this guy is Messiah. And when the when the end times come, he will reincarnate as the Jewish Messiah. And he will usher in the end of the world. And about Lubavitch, just so that people appreciate this is a very powerful people, because not only only do they have access to Trump, they also have access to the Zelensky. They also had access. They also have access to Vladimir Putin. Haven Malay is also part of this movement. So when Haven Malay first became president of Argentina, his first foreign visit, as I had of the state, was the grave of Robert Snierson, which is located in Queens, New York and also the wave of every snare sin is the most heavily visited Jewish holy site outside of Israel. Really? Yeah. So I think about a louvage fact is a major factor in geopolitics because I think there are much more influential than people appreciate. I agree they're more influential. I just I think you're maybe overstayed in the case that they're driving all these events because you're right. I mean, they are the nexus between Russia, the US, Israel. There is a there is a nexus point represented there. But you know, another one of their prophecies, for example, they think that Jews have to get to every corner of the globe before the end times can come is one of the hobo. I didn't know that. Yeah. Could you could explain that? They believe that Jews have to be in every part of the world. There has to be Jewish settlements and every literally every country and every part of the world before the end times can happen. That's one of the things that has to happen before the prophecy can be fulfilled. And is that not already happening because Zionism is right around the world. That's why there's, yeah. And they are. They're trying to settle everywhere. Argentina, Australia, Cyprus, Greece. I mean, I mean, a friend even told me they're a Zionist in Costa Rica and the locals are pissed because they're buying up a lot of land. So it seems to me the world is moving in a way that conforms to the eschatology of how about Lubavitch. Yeah. I think there's just a little more idiosyncratic than that. I think that you can't say that every revision is Zionist or maximalist, pro-Israel person is necessarily a tool of a bod Lubavitch. They're one faction that sits among world Jewry. But I don't think they're driving everything. Right. So another data point that I will bring up is, ever since the death of Robert Snares and he died in 1994. Okay. There's been a massive outreach program. So how about Lubavitch is responsible for the Borough-Fright Israel program? Right. Do you know about Borough-Fright Israel? Yeah. Right. Also, how about Lubavitch has built a campus program or on the United States or Harvard. This is called Harvard, how bad. The faculty advisor to Harvard, how bad is Alan Derseritz and the three most prominent members of Harvard, how bad are Jared Kushner, Natalie Portman, and Mark Zuckerberg. Then at Yale Law School, they also built a chapter called Saptight Society. And Cory Booker was one of founders of Yale Saptight Society and their members include Vivek Ramaswami, Albert Kobi, who is now number two at the Pentagon, behind Hexf. You also have Michael Knowles. These are very powerful people. And they're all affiliated in some way with how about Lubavitch. I just think it's a logical error. It's like when people used to say the world economic forum was controlling everything. And you say, well, what is the world economic forum? It's a forum for all the world's prominent business and political leaders that then meet in Davos. And so would you say the seed of the power is in the forum, is in the actual the Klaus Schwab-Ron Super National Group, or would you say the power lies in the individuals that then coalesce? Like so, for example, many of the people you mentioned, I don't know that they are like lureonic cobalists. I don't think the Marxism necessarily subscribes to that. Your point about about Lubavitch, one of the primary activities they do is just educating Jews about their own religion. And because they take that role, not just happens to be the forum where Jews get together and fraternize and organize and socialize, I don't think a necessarily means they really the answer is it's world Jewry. That's the term that I prefer. Because Lubavitch is only just one dynasty among others within the Hasidic facet of the Jewry. Yes, you're absolutely right. So how about Lubavitch only has about 100,000 members around the world. That's not that many people. And Nick is right in that, there are lots of family dynasties. This notion of dynasties is one dynasty. But at the same time, what I will say is of all these different Jewish groups, and there's lots of them. And there's lots of disagreements. And often they really hate each other. Have at Lubavitch people are often the most messianic, the most fanatical. Would you agree? Yeah, I agree with that. So there are three things that they do that have allowed them to basically grow at an exponential scale of these past few decades. The first thing that they do is they pull their resources. Meaning if you just say the average about Lubavitch member, he's actually pretty poor because he's spending all his time studying at Torah. He's not actually going in making money. But what they do is they pull their resources together. And so if you go to Brooklyn, a lot of real estate in Brooklyn is controlled by about Lubavitch. He's been there since I think 45 and they've been constantly pulling them money and investing in real estate. That's number one. Number two is they ostracize themselves from from from other groups. So they absolutely refuse to send their kids to public schools. They have their own school school system, as as Nink said. They will not their kids will not play with kids from other groups. So they ostracize themselves. And the third thing that they do is they have a lot of children, right? They read a lot. And then the question then is what's the energy that drives them, right? Well, how is it that they're able to live in poverty and have a lot of children and just isolate themselves from a larger American community? And I think it's just their mezzanic cabalism. And so even though they are in fact minority and there's just a French group, they are also extremely energetic. So so much so that they're willing to trade everything in order to cheat their escapology. So you're actually writing that Naya who is his politician, all he wants is more power. Jared Kushner is a real state developer. All he wants is more money. But if a group is coming to you and saying, you know what? We don't want the power. We want the money. We just want you to help us achieve a certain escapology. Just one thing in this grand script of us of ours, well, they'll probably say yes. And they'll probably be able to cheat their escapology. And it's not just again, this is not just Naya who it's also Donald Trump. It's also Vladimir Putin. It's also Zelensky having Malay. It's a lot of people who have who are in position of power and influence. My counter argument to that would be take somebody like Larry Ellison, for example. He's one of the richest guys in the world founder of Oracle deep connections with Trump because he donated at I think 60 million to his campaign in 24. Larry Ellison's an atheist because he is an ethnic Jew. And he is one of the biggest supporters of Israel that exists. I think Jerusalem Post or Times of Israel just did their top 50 most influential Jews list today. And Ellison's I think in the top five. He's one of the biggest private donors to the IDF. He got Netanyahu a lawyer to defend him against the corruption charges in Israel. He took over Tik Tok and is putting together this media company with his son and bury white. That's going to take over CBS news and CNN. The reason that he supports Netanyahu and Israel and the IDF and Trump and all this. It's not because he's a Messianek about Lubovitch cobalist. It's because he's a Jew. And he sees Israel as the last safe place for Jews. There is this is you know, and I think you're right about this. Anti-Semitism actually plays this like dialectical role in the Jewish prophecy. But somebody like Netanyahu or somebody like Larry Ellison, they don't necessarily need to be consciously motivated by a Messianek religious disposition to serve it. They have their own practical considerations. And that's why I just think it's so so what do you think Ellison's practical considerations are? Or just the only safe place for Jews? Is that really an acceptable answer compared to like a religious eschatology? Yes. I think that because he's an atheist. So he doesn't believe in God. And I don't think he believes in the end times. I think that he identifies as a Jew. And I think and I think you've made this point you're 100% right. A lot of Jews in America grew up in this milieu of like a kind of chauvinism. There's this idea like we just do things a little better. You know, we're a little smarter. We educate our kids. We don't act like the goyam. We don't act like the Gentiles. And this comes from their theology, which says that the goyam, the Gentiles are idolaters and they don't obey the law and so on. And so someone like Larry, I never said that by the way. You haven't. I've never said. I think he said something about the milieu in which they grew. Like you said, Marx grew up as an aristocrat in the milieu of his ancestors rabbis. And that speaks to the Jewish character of dialectical materialism. So that would sound right. I've said that Karl Marx. He has several generations of rabbis in his lineage and rabbis are essentially Jewish aristocrats. So he grew up in a very intellectual tradition. And he was probably influenced by the Kabbalah. But that's extent of what I'm saying. Yeah. In principle, what I'm saying is you understand the weight of Jewish custom, even if an individual doesn't subscribe to it. Like let's say, Larry Ellison, he's an atheist, but the cultural milieu he grew up and is informed by 3000 years of Jewish history. And it shapes those attitudes. So why are some of the, for example, someone like Epstein, Epstein says these kind of like contemptuous remarks about Gentiles. He says, like, are they're going to be goyem at this party or something like that? Epstein's probably like an atheist, but he grows up in a Jewish community going to maybe a Jewish day care, these sorts of things where those attitudes are there because of thousands of years of this insular in-group preference tribalism among this people. And anyway, so a point is with someone like Larry Ellison, I think he's a Jewish chauvinist. I think he's somebody that looks at Israel. And there's this identity where he says, oh, they're an upstart nation like me. They're entrepreneurial. They're go getters. They take initiative. There's this ethnic pride. He identifies with Israel as an ethnic Jew. And two, I think all Jews have this alien nation, especially the ones that live in the diaspora from the host country. And so they do feel like this is not really their home. For them, home is always going to be Israel. And that's why Israel has to be empowered because in the end, if anti-Semitism gets bad in America or Russia or wherever, that's the only place they're going to be safe. So there's something deep seated there as well. All right. So let me respond to this. I don't think Larry Ellison, first and foremost, thinks like a Jewish person. I think he, first and foremost, thinks like a capitalist, a transnational capitalist. So for him, it's just like, where do I, who would I work with? And what do I do in order to generate the greatest return on investment? And he's very supportive of Israel because Israel's interests align with his own business interests. So a lot of technology comes from Israel. Israel is one of the leaders in new technological development. There's a lot of capital flowing into Israel and out of Israel. And so it's not just Larry Ellison, who's aligned with Israel. You also have other capitalists like Peter Thiel, who is not a Jewish person, also aligned with Israel. So just to say that it's just Jews who support Israel, I think this incorrect. I think there are a coalition of interests that see a benefit in supporting Israel, including technologists, like Larry Ellison and Peter Thiel, including financial interests because Israel is a very good place to invest. You also have Christian Zionist, people like Sean Hannity and John Haji, who are even probably even more fanatical than most Jews in the United States. So I think it's a very broad coalition. So that's my first point. My second point is within this broad coalition, if you just look at history, often how this coalition basically moves is it's driven by a vector and this vector is the most fanatical members of this group. So everyone in this coalition is willing to move in this direction because it benefits everyone in this coalition. But where it moves is driven by the most energetic, most fanatical people. And what I'm saying is within this broad coalition, it's very broad coalition of people, how about Lubric is the most fanatical. And so it's really important for us to study their eschatology in order to figure out where Israel might move. So I don't, I do printed of history. I'm trying to figure out what drives human events, what drives history. So I'm trying to create a framework in my analysis and all my research. I think that how about Leverage has a lot more weight as much influential that people give them credit for. And that's my central argument. Yeah. I guess my disagreement is I think you're just over indexing on their influence and that's why I say someone like Larry Ellison or Trump, these are central figures driving the events in Israel. And they're not motivated by these messy, you know, whether it's a Jew or a Gentile, they're not motivated by the messianic beliefs. Professor, would you say that shared ethnicity or shared religion and eschatology are more able to help you predict, I guess, how people in power behave? So I sort of discount religious identity or racial identity in my analysis. And the reason why is families are much more likely to fight amongst each, like within family. People who are more similar aligned are much more likely to fight than people who are not. So the differences within groups are much greater than differences outside of groups. And that's something that I've learned in life by the study, by the study of history. So just to say that, you know, these Jews are all Jews and therefore they have a similar interest, doesn't really hold water because you actually look at Jews. They argue all the time. Have you been in Israel? No. Okay. I've been in Israel. I don't want to get killed over that. No, no, no. Okay. I want to issue in 2012 for a week. And the first thing that you realize when you get to Israel is, is release, argue all the time. They have actually no reason to argue and they will argue. Like you go to a store, a coffee house and you're like, I want to buy a cappuccino and the guy will be like, why do you want to buy a cappuccino? Like every icon was not good enough for you. It's a silly thing in the world. And like if you just look at their political system, it is the most dysfunctional political system in the whole world. I mean, um, it's amazing that you're able to cobble together a government because you have like a whole range of political parties and these political parties just fight, fight amongst themselves. Um, you know, there's a civil war bring, bring right now, uh, in Israel. And in fact, if Hamas did not actually launch their electric flood, if October something did not happen, then there might have been a civil war in Israel, right? So that event basically saved Nayahu from a political calamity. So, um, I don't think that it's, you can just say, it's just a Jews or, um, or, or any just one group because again, the differences and conflicts within groups is so much greater than the conflicts outside of groups and between groups. Drew, I think that's maybe our biggest disagreement is I think that, um, and maybe let me get some clarity on this because you say so the project of greater Israel is being driven by the, let's say the most spirited or energetic group, which is Habad Lubovitch and they're motivated by, by Messianism and you say their Messianism comes from their interpretation of Kabbalah. Now, do you believe that Kabbalah is a fundamentally Jewish phenomenon? Or do you think it's more, uh, narcissistic or esoteric? Okay. So, so let me clarify what I mean. Okay. So all that's happening in the Middle East cannot be driven by one person or one group. There has to be a broad coalition of interest. So greater Israel benefits a broad coalition of interests, um, it benefits capitalists, financiers, it benefits, uh, technologists, it benefits, um, Christian Zionism. It benefits, um, American interests, it benefits a lot of people, um, so, um, a lot of these things are happening because there's a broad coalition in, in, in place, but within this broad coalition, you also need, uh, people to push events along, right? And when they push events along, then other people can sit back and benefit. So how about Louvich is one pushing events along, but doesn't necessarily mean that they're in charge. It also does not mean they will get their way because it's entirely possible that the other groups at the, at, maybe get together and say, these guys are crazy. So let's just like, you know, um, betray them or, or, you know, change direction. Like, let's not love the allies to come on. Right. Right. Right. Let's not do that because that's just, it benefits no one. Right. So I think the out, the question of Mars is the big litmus test as to like, who's really in control. If they blow up the alliance of Mars, we can both agree that these religious, fanatics are in charge. Yeah. Totally. Um, and they don't blow up the Arctic Mars and they just achieve the greater racial project. Then that, then that aligns with a lot of geopolit, um, geopolitical interests. So that's my, that's, that's, that's what I believe. Okay. But in terms of Kabbalah, do you think Kabbalah is, because it's based on the Tanya, at least in Habad-Lubavet, which is not the Torah, it's not the written or oral Torah. It's a mystical book. Do you believe that Kabbalah is Jewish or do you, what do you think is a relation between Judaism and Kabbalah? Okay. So here you and I will disagree, all right. But I believe that what happened, um, is that throughout humanity, there has always been a mystical tradition within all, within all major religions. So within Christianity, there's Nazism, within Islam, there's Suvism, um, and the idea, um, is most people just see the material world, but these occultists, these mystics appreciate that the world is pure energy and pure consciousness. And um, I don't, I don't get too esoteric, but they believe that God is part of us and we're part of God. Okay. So Kabbalah, what's, what the Kabbalah is doing is trying to bring this mystical tradition into the, um, Jewish tradition because what separates the Jewish tradition from previous other traditions is they have a Bible, they have a written history of, of the relationship with, with God. And so they're trying to use, use this mystical understanding of the universe. Hermeticism to explain the stories all. the Bible. And this is what creates the Kabbalah. I think the Kabbalah is a very convoluted philosophy. And I think it will be impossible to find two Jewish Kabbalas who agree on the meaning of the Kabbalah. It is impossible. Right. I agree. Because I guess what I'm wondering is, if you're placing so much, because you said people are underestimating, let's say, or under-stating the influence of a Badloob of itch. And that's a Kabbalistic movement. Then you're saying it's sort of like an esoteric splinter within the Jewish community that is really extrinsic to Judaism driving this, right? If you think it's not Jewish in character. There are a lot of Jews out there who think that about Lewis movement is heresy. Yeah. Okay. And you could also make the argument. It's not halakik. So most Jews in the world who are religious believe that you cannot force the hand of God. That is heresy. That is pure evil. They think that how about Lewis is forcing the hand of God. And that's why they're promoting the traditional project. That's why they are trying to usher in the end times and build the third temple. So how about Lewis is a very French movement. And I would also point out that even with how about Lewis's movement, most people don't even know what's going on, right? I mean, most people just go to about Lewis schools and they learn to be good people and they learn the points of the Torah. And that's it. They don't really appreciate the grand scheme at work. It's only a few people that really have a sense of where this movement is is going. And these people were apologised of, so what's really important for people to appreciate is Wabish Nersen was the seventh and final red day of how about Lewis. Okay. So in other words, they see Wabish Nersen as the Messiah who we incarnate at the end of times. And so the how about Lewis is basically run by committee of rabbis who are students of his. And so who are trying to implement this eschatology in order to bring back their teacher. And if you look at how about Lewis rich. And again, I don't know it that well. I'm not really study them that deeply, probably know what I do. But I would say there's also a element of septine fricansum within how about Lewis rich. And that's and and septine fricansum for people who don't know is considered the greatest heresy in the Jewish tradition. It's considered the great betrayal or the great heresy. Right. What exactly or frankest? Well, can I just ask one question? I'm a little bit curious. So you also believe in the Kazarian hypothesis. Is that right? Um, I've discussed it. Yes. Then do you believe that's they do? In other words, do you believe that the Ashkenazi Jews are the same people as the people to book in the Bible? Okay. So I'll tell you what I believe. Okay. All right. I believe that the Jewish tradition is not consistent. The Israelites were polytheistic people. And the Jewish tradition started really at the time of Cyrus the Great. And if you just like compare these traditions, Judaism after the second temple. And then the first temple, these are two radically different traditions. Okay. So the first, the issue like tradition. And there's a lot of scholarship on this. It was probably polytheistic with a pantheon of gods. And it was a much more open and tolerant religion. And in Judaism, because of its relationship with the Persian Empire, it became much more close and insular. Also, what we need to recognize is the people in the religion are going to shift over time. Right. So what happened was, out of the Babylonians destroyed the first temple, they took hostage a lot of the Israelite elite. But most of the Israelites stayed in the area, the Mavant. And basically adapted their religion to local practices. And there was a syncretism process, a syncretic process where it really just naturally meld it together. Okay. And this is a natural thing that happens. The example is English. Right. If you bring in people who speak different accents of English, they will eventually merge and create a new variant of English. So this is a syncretic process. And this is a very natural thing. The idea that the people in Israel today can trace their DNA back to the Israelites, I think it's absurd. I think the idea that the Bible was consistent for 3,000 years is also absurd. So now let's get to the concern hypothesis. And I'm getting most of my understanding from a book called The Thirteenth Tribe, my author, Kessler. And in it, he argues that what happened around the year 1100 is in the Middle East, in the Orient, there are like three major powers. There is a biasing the empire, which is Christian. Then you have the Islamic caliphate based in Baghdad. But then you have a third set of power called Qazaria, which is in Marna, Ukraine. And what happened was that Qazaria, it was a third set of power. So it didn't want to become Christian or Muslim. It wanted its own identity. And so there were a lot of Jewish traders in Qazaria. And the elite became interested in Judaism. And eventually there was a mass conversion of the elite to Judaism as a sort of like a new identity. That was different from the Christian and the Islamic tradition. And also they thought that well Judaism is the first religion, right? And from Judaism, you had Christianity and then Islam. So they mass convert to Judaism. And I think this is a historical fact. It makes perfect sense. There's a lot of documentation. And after the Kessler, who, by the way, is a Jew? Yeah, Hungarian Jew. And also, by the way, a Zionist Jew, okay. He was the one who convinced me in his book, the 13th tribe, all this argument. And then what happened was that Qazaria was eventually conquered by the Mongols, which forced a mass migration of Qazarian Jews into Eastern Europe, which then merged with Sephardic Jews, who came in from Spain. And so there's a symbolism going on, right? I think it's important that you both just define this clearly in such a dumb question. But like, Nick, what exactly is a Jew or what exactly is a Jewish person? And then Professor John, what exactly is a Jewish person to you? Well, see, that's really the question. And that's why I wanted to ask some of these questions about how you regard the Israelis, because what it sounds like is you think that Kabbalism and Habad Lubevitch are informed by the Sabity Zevi, Sabity and Frankists, which are sort of like Gnostic, Satanist, anti-Nomian. They believe in transgressing the law in order to achieve holiness. That's really the basis of it. And you think the Ashkenazi Jews aren't even really Jews. You think they're descended from Turkic people, from Qazaria. And that's really my central disagreement is I think that the Jews are the people of the book. I think that it is the same religion. I think they are the people of the Middle East. And I think it is fundamentally about Jews. I don't think it's about this mystical other stuff. I think it's about them. And that's why I say somebody like Alery Ellison, maybe this is the source of that disagreement, he is an ethnic Jew. I think he's the same Jew, same ethnicity as the people 2,000 years ago in the Middle East when the second temple was destroyed. And I think that is Chauvinistic attitude towards Gentiles. It doesn't come from Sabotezavi or Jacob Frank. It doesn't come from Kabbalah. It comes from the Torah because the Torah says idolaters have to die. The Torah says you have to spit when you pass a grave of an idolater. And they view Christians as idolaters very much like Muslims because the Jews believe that Yahweh is their God. They believe that Yahweh is the only God in the insinuation that there's a Trinity of a Holy Spirit in Jesus Christ. They see that Jesus is an idol, as a human idol. And that's why they sent him to death. And that's why he was crucified. And so I guess maybe the difference is I view the clash of civilizations and the tension and history as between Christians and Jews, fundamentally, Jesus Christ and the Jews. Whereas I think you see it as a little bit more complex and about maybe these mystical traditions which don't have as much to do with the tribe of the Jews. Nick, can you define though like what is a Jew? Is it someone who's ethnically Jewish and religious Jewish? It's an ethnicity and Judaism is a religion. So a Jew is someone that sends from the tribe of Judah in the Old Testament. And that's why you can find it in a genetic test. And theoretically, they say you can convert to Judaism. But a lot of Jews don't believe that. A lot of Jews only believe he can be Jewish if you're born to a Jewish mother. Not even a Jewish father. They say you're not Jewish if you're born to Jewish dad. And do you think Zionism and Judaism are the same thing? Zionism is sort of the logical, necessary endpoint of Judaism. Because what you have in to your point, you said Judaism is a worldly religion. Christianity, which is why the Jews rejected Christ, says there's a spiritual kingdom. And so we say on some level, we don't really care what happens in the Holy Land because the kingdom of God is within. And Christ brings a spiritual kingdom. Muslims believe anyone can become a Muslim and they do have the Kaaba and they have Mecca and you have to go there into a real place, but they do have more of a universal spiritual religion. Judaism is based in the temple and the land. That is the only way you can practice the religion. Is God's people in the land that God gave them in the temple where God dwells, where God gave them the schematics to build it. This particular lineage was given the responsibility to build it and so that's what makes it fundamentally different than everybody else. - Would you agree with his definition? - No, I would not all agree with his definition. So for our history, there have been different terms, okay? You have the term Hebrew, then you have the term Israelite, then you have the term Jew, now you have the term Israeli, and these are all very different terms. Hebrew just refers to some kind of people that Abraham, who is considered like the Grand Patriarch of Israelite people belong to, the term Israelite refers to the people in the Kingdom of Israel under leadership of King David and it is sent from Jacob, who is the grandson of Abraham. Jew was first used, the term Jew was first used in a second temple period when the Persians repatriated the exiles, the Israelite exiles back into the Lovant. And it's really is a term we use for the citizens of Israel, which was founded in 1948, and these are four very different terms. And so if you ask me what's a Jew, I would just say, well, a Jew is just someone who believes he or she is Jewish, a Jew belongs to a community of believers. So to understand my point, let me use a thought experiment, okay? Let's just say for whatever reason, over the next 20 years, most of humanity is wiped out, our entire civilization has collapsed. A thousand years later, humanity is now rebuilding itself and you've got a new society. And for whatever reason, they do archaeology and they dig up the Bible. Okay, and the Bible talks about Jews. And they're like, well, this is interesting. Let's be Jews, let's call ourselves Jews. Are they Jews? They're not all genetically Jews. Okay, because most of humanity has been wiped out, they might have even been Chinese. But because they read a book and they like the book, and they think that, wow, these are very interesting ideas. And they adopt the monarch or Jew. Would they be Jewish? And the answer is of course they'd be Jewish because everyone recognizes them as Jewish. If you call yourself Jewish, then others accept that as a convention. Professor Zhang who actually runs the world and how does power actually work. Okay, well, this is what I think, okay? I think we live in a unique time in human history. Our accomplishments are just amazing. We're able to sit in a room, record our conversation and broadcast it to possibly millions of people from all around the world. We can translate our conversation in many different languages. To get here, we all came from like three different places. And so the level of our technological sophistication, it is just amazing. But how we got here, there is a story. And it has to do with the idea of money. Okay, so we are really the first civilization and put you, when we'll put me up last civilization, to structure our entire lives around the idea of money. 64 is really the beginning of a modern era because that is when the Bank of England is charter. The Bank of England, it is a really strange idea which is the Bank of England will be controlled by private interests. Okay, if you have money, you can put your money in the Bank of England. But this money will be guaranteed by the people of England, right? Before you're merchant and you want to go your money, you have to lend your money to a king to fight his wars. And the king could die, the king could lose the war, the king could reignite on his contract. There was a lot of risk involved. But the novelty of this is, if you lend your money to a nation state, then you would always be guaranteed to be paid back as long as the nation state was still standing. And the Bank of England was protected by the Royal Navy, it was an island. And so it was basically uncongruable, okay? So the Bank of England is basically private interests, okay? That put their money in the bank, but they're guaranteed by parliament. You're lending money to parliament. And this is important because Bank of England becomes the model for the Federal Reserve, right? So markets don't appreciate this, but the Federal Reserve is a private bank cartel. The US government control that people have absolutely no power to print money. It's a federal reserve that prints money. The US government has the right to borrow from the Federal Reserve, okay? So this eventually leads to the rise of an idea called transnational capital, okay? Transnational capital. And now that you have transnational capital in place, you need a religion in order to promote this idea and this religion is called Freemasonry, okay? What is Freemasonry? Freemasonry believes that God is reason, right? So God is pure reason. And not in that, but reason and emotion are separate. And this is actually a unique idea in human history because you lack of all different philosophies or religious traditions, spiritual traditions before the enlightenment. They believe that reason was emotion. The mind was the heart. And so why did the Freemasons believe that reason and emotion were in conflict? The reason why is for them reason is capital. And emotion is prejudice, it is family, it is tradition. So whatever prevents the free flow of capital around the world is fundamentally wrong. Whatever promotes the free flow of capital around the world is good, okay? So this idea that reason is what should govern the world and that reason is God becomes a basis for capitalism in the modern world that we live in today, okay? And it creates all sorts of innovation. So let me explain what innovation is because people don't really appreciate it. But what innovation really is, and think about it, like why do we have internet, why do we have satellites, why do we have AI? Because innovation is driven by three things, okay? The first thing is population growth. The second thing is specialization. So in area, in area to specialize, it's the third thing is globalization. Yeah, right? And this is why we have eight billion people and that's why there's so much free trade because this is what allows for maximum innovation and this is what allows for maximum economic growth, okay? So this is a big story of how money was created accidentally as an idea and how this idea of transnational capital now controls the world, okay? But now that you have this maloo, this new environment, the question then is, okay, of all these different human groups in existence, who wields the most power or who is able to obtain the most power? And the answer is secret societies, okay? Why? Because if you are living a world of transnational capital, you have to solve three problems. Okay, the first problem is information. So the problem is infiltration. The third problem is coronation. What I mean by that is if you're an investor, if you try to play the start market, you'll probably get killed. So you wanna rig the start market and how do you rig the start market? Well, you have spies in different bureaucracies, feeding you information, and then you coordinate with these spies in order to influence events, okay? And the classic example is the Rothschild family, right? The Rothschild family sent agents and family members around Europe, and in the Battle of Waterloo, 1815, they were the first to hear that Napoleon had been defeated. Okay, so what happened was then agent at the battle, the agent saw what happened, and then the agent gone to Corvette, which is a fast ship, sailed across the channel and told the Rothschild family we won the battle, okay? But then there were rumors that England had lost to Napoleon, which caused a frenzy in the front. We're able to buy up bonds really cheaply, okay, and this happens all the time because these societies are able to infiltrate and they're able to coordinate, okay, and that's what that's what controls the world and so these exercise include the free masons, they also include the Jesuits, they also include you know Jewish groups, so to say there are Jewish civil societies, like Sabine Frankus, and they're really in charge that is true to an extent I think it's better to say that we live in a world of transnational capital, okay, and and the world is governed by transnational capital, and civil society sort of they're best able to conspire together will make more money than other groups, and that's what's really driving the the world today. I'm sure you have a lot to say about that, but do you think secret societies on the world and in 60 seconds how do you see that? How do you see that? I was like 20 minutes, um, I think yours will be a much simpler. That's what they said. Yeah No, I don't believe in the secret society thing. Not anymore. No, I think at one time they did, but I mean you look at the free mason chapters today, and it's a bunch of old hillbillies I mean, that's what it is. I mean, you go to these like mid and small mid sizes small towns in America and people's dads are in free mason lodges and they're doing the rituals and Which is all based on King Solomon's temple, but no, I don't think that has any currents anymore And you know the Rothschilds what you kind of left out there is it's a Jewish family and the superpower that they had is They trusted each other and they were able to send all their people out to all the different cities in Europe and it was It was the transnational nature of the Jewish diaspora, which is what allowed them to do that to have a representative in every capital loyal to their own tribe, not the country they resided in. So So you don't believe there's any secret societies that have influence on the world. I don't think so. I think that to the extent that there is secrecy, its intelligence agencies, its states, its Russian state, its the American state, the British state, the Israeli state. It's the extent that there is secrecy. It's the intelligence agencies. How the rest of the power is structured, I think, is the nation states. I mean, I really believe it's it's the sort of Occam's razor, who is able to command large amounts of people to kill and be killed and martial capital and direct long term projects, its governments, its states. And having been up close and personal to people in like the Trump administration, for example, Lindsey Graham said this before he died, and I know he's like the arch neocon, but he said, you get in the Senate and you sort of say, who's in charge here? How does this all work? And the realization is no one's in charge, it's all factions, its factions on the highest level internationally, and then its factions within the nation. So for example, in America, it's the big political parties, it's the big companies and these big low kind of power like Big Tech or Wall Street or whatever. And so I think it's not as sexy or secretive as people like to think it is. And that would be my interpretation of it. And I didn't say that it's just Jewish secret societies. I just think that what what jewelry is, is it is a nation without a state. It's a nation without borders. And people realize there's others that exist like the Kurds, their nation without borders, their nation without a state, a stateless people, but the difference is that Jews have been this way for 2000 years. They're in the most powerful countries like Russia, the Western capitals, America, and they have been resistant to any kind of assimilation for thousands of years. And it's almost built into their religion. It's built into the Torah to resist a assimilation through inner marriage or cultural assimilation. And I think that's what makes them a super powerful force. It's that you can have the Jews in England, the Jews in France, the Jews in America, the Jews in Israel, coordinating, operating as something like a secret society, maybe less with secrecy, more with coordination and resistance to infiltration. And that's what gives them power over the rest of us that are not really playing the same kind of team sport that they are. And I do think that, you know, I think they're not ciserians and I don't think they're no stick mystics. I think they're ethnically Jews and I think they practice the Jewish religion. So let me explain. So, so you're point of the Rothschilds, they're Jewish, right? Well, they're also something in Frankus. No, yes, they are something in Frankus. Yes, the evidence for this. Okay, all right. Also, you talk about, what's the evidence for that? So I don't have the evidence of top my head, but it's not real that the sabotee, Zevi and Jacob Frank were, were marginal in Eastern Europe. No, no, somebody is Zevi and Jacob Frank were definitely not marginal figures. They were. So somebody, Zevi declared himself a mosaic near 1666. And at that time, at least a third of all Jews followed him. Okay, so a third of the entire Jewish diaspora thought this guy, seven Zevi was the Mosaic. Jacob Frank was not a marginal figure at all. Jacob Frank had followers in the European ability and among some of the prominent banking families. There's no evidence for that. It's not real. Like, just go just Google, Jiggle Frank, Wikipedia. It tells you that who's following Jacob Frank? You're saying the evidence for the Rothschilds being Frankus specifically? Yeah, well, that and the rest of it. I mean, I think that this is like a popular. Can you check that? Can you just see, like, if there's any evidence that the Rothschilds were Frankus? It's a popular conspiracy theory. I mean, first of all, the seven figures were really powerful people at that time. That's number one. Number two is you say that the Jewish diaspora was a transnational organization, true, but so were the Jesuits and so the Freemasons. And you can argue the Jesuits and the Freemasons were much more impactful in your banish tweet than the Jews. If you read our pikes book, more than dogma, I mean, there are Freemasons who believe that they are the ones who who spawn to the French Revolution. Yeah, and where are they today? Well, I mean, what often happens is these psychosides, they split their off and become new groups, maybe some bones, maybe the Knights Templars. So I don't know about societies to say like where they are, who they are, but what I will say is. Well, we could say who the Jews are today, right? Larry Ellsson, Netanyahu, Jared Kushner, but you can't name what's one prominent Freemason? Throughout history, the Jews have always been the scapegoats in European history. Okay, so, so, so, so, so let me explain my understanding. Okay, and we can argue about this, but when the Catholic church began to own a power in Europe, the European ability had a problem. The problem was usually, because at that time, for a very good reasons, religious authorities outlawed usually. But at the same time, usually was most profitable activity you could ever engage in. All right, so what happened was the European ability basically got the Jews to engage in usually and be the scapegoat. Not only that, but because the Jews want to maintain their identity, and they want to stay in Europe, they basically became the slaves of servants to your European ability, because that's who provide them protection. The Catholic church itself wanted Jews around as the other. Okay, so Augustine and his writings talks about this. How, you know, we need to set it as an example to good Christian people as to what will happen to them if they stray away. And the answer is, they become like the Jews, the Jews living ghettos, to persecuted, they are ignored. Okay, so it's sort of the purpose of both the European ability and for the Catholic church to have the Jews have scapegoats in their society. And things worked out well until you have disasters like like the black plague, in which case the Jews get blamed. So the Jews have were constructed as a, almost like a escape valve for the powers that be. And I think this is something that still actually continues today, where it's so easy for the powers that be to blame the Jews for everything. Huh, okay. And then you ask yourself, well, why did the Jews actually put up with this, right? And the answer is they did. Most Jews actually converted in this, in this time they converted to Christianity. Most of the early followers of Jesus were in fact Jews. Well, yeah, Jesus was a Jew. So it's a Jew, yes, okay. Christianity was founded as a Jewish sect. Islam, a lot of Jews converted to Islam. Most, a lot of Muhammad's followers were Jews. They were called the companions, okay. So, but there were certain groups of Jews who stayed loyal to the religion. They were the most fanatical. Why? Because in Judaism, it's lineage. So the rabbis are in charge and they pass it on to their children. So it's the best interest to actually work with your opinionability and work with the Catholic Church in order to maintain the power. Okay? And there were a lot of reformers, for example, Sabazavi, who thought that the entire Jewish tradition was corrupt because it was really about exploiting the majority of Jews. In order to support a nobility that was corrupt and depraved and these are called the rabbis. And so Sabazavi and Fregrism was almost like not just a heresy, but also a revolution in Jewish history. And that's why Sabazavi and Fregrism is so often ignored by mainstream Jewish thinkers. Yeah, I just think that this is all an attempt to exonerate organized Jewry. I think that, and you know, for example, you brought up Kessler writing 13 tribe. Kessler said to a French biologist about the Kesslerian hypothesis that Ashkenazi Jews are not the Jews of the Bible. They're from the Kesslerian Empire, from the nomadic Turkic tribes in the steppe. Kessler who wrote the theory popularized in the 1970s, he said to a French biologist, "If I can convince people that the Jews descend from Kessarians and not the people to Middle East," he said, "I can eliminate the racial basis for anti-Semitism." And he actually wrote in the forward of his book, he said that if we can prove that this is the case, he said that we will prove that anti-Semitism is effectively a hoax, that people are blaming this group that isn't even really the people from the Middle East. And he said this, like you said, as a Zionist Hungarian Jew. So you know, in effect, what does the Kessarian hypothesis do? It's a don't blame this group of people. They're not really Jews. So they're not responsible for the coin clipping and the well poisoning and the sacrifice in Christian children and all the things they were accused of doing in the Middle Ages and Europe and the things that are even in their book, in the Talmud. So no, I mean, I believe that Jews are real. They descend from the Middle East. They practice a Jewish religion. And I think that it's become very popular, people like Candace Owens and Tucker. And I've heard you say it. The Sabatee, Frankus theory, Sabateean, Frankus, Sabatee, Savian, Jacob Frank, the Kessarian hypothesis, all the Southern stuff is an attempt to basically deflect from the fact that there is a Jewish issue in the world. And you know, it sounds terrible to say that I'm a Christian. We believe that Jews are a witness to the crucifixion of Christ or a witness population. Real Catholics believe it's actually the church's job to protect them and make sure they continue to exist. However, when they exist in America and Europe and they work corporately together and they work in their own best interest and not in the interest of the country they reside in, that's when it becomes a problem and it becomes an issue of sovereignty. And that's where you need to say people like Larry Ellison shouldn't have power in a country like America. So do you think Jewish supremacy is a source of all problems in America? No, I didn't say that. Okay. But you could just say, like what do you think Nick misunderstands about Jewish influence on the world and Israel's influence on the world? And then we should probably move on from the same. Okay. Yeah. I mean, we can just do a very simple dark experiment. Okay. Let's just give the infinite gauntlet to Nick. Okay. You're now Thanos. You know, with a snap of your finger, you can just say, I will eliminate this group and then all the worst problems will be soft. Okay. I can pick one group and I can pick another group and we can figure out using this dark experiment, what the impact on the world would be, right? So which group would you pick? Criminals. Criminals. Okay. Well, I would pick baby boomers. Now, anything that would get rid of all the world's problems? I mean, I think that would be much more effective than getting rid of criminals. But we have a problem of evil. That's the problem is evil in the world. So you're saying that criminals are much worse than that. Then juice. Then baby boomers. And juice. Yeah. Okay. So I think baby boomers are much worse than criminals and juice. Yes, I do. But see, I don't ever like this thought experiment because it's sort of just, it belies the structural problem, which is that a group that is not loyal to the country they reside in should not have power. And I would say the same about any other group. You know, these are a group of people like someone like Ben Shapiro. He's not loyal to America. He doesn't care about what's good for America. If America became bad for juice, he would go somewhere else. If America stopped supporting Israel, he would stop supporting America. Someone like that should not influence the hearts and minds and millions of people. And to me, it's really that simple. It's not about, you know, aren't they responsible for all the problems if we got rid of them with the, you know, there are a lot of good juice. Like someone my best friends are juice. I say this all the time. I don't want to get rid of them. It's just that we need to recognize the role of government, which is to look after its own people and, and juice always have existed corporately, separately in their own insular tribe. And as long as that's the case, I don't think there should be this integration necessarily. Do you think baby boomers are a problem? No, I don't think baby boomers have agency. They're just people that were born in a particular two decades. The baby boomers have all the power and the money and the status in the United States right now. But not really though. I mean, how about someone like Elon Musk? He's not a baby boomer. Okay. So let me make my argument, okay, and you can respond. Okay. So in the 1960s and 70s, there's a scientist named James B. Calhoun. And he rents something called a rat utopia experiment. So you just want to know if we were to live in a world of abundance, what would that mean for humanity? So what he did was he took a room like just as big as as this room and he created a rat colony. And he made sure this rat colony was a paradise. So basically, you were protected from predators, there were no hawks, there were no animals that would prey on you. There was free water, free food, and you could do whatever you want. It was basically a common society, okay, it was like communism for rats. And no matter, and he spent 20 years doing these experiments and he had many different iterations. But no matter what he did, all at every time he did it, he ran this experiment, it only ended in the genocide of the rats. The more of the story is more than water, more than food, more than shelter, we strive for status, right? We want to be looked upon, looked up upon by our peers. And so it doesn't matter if you're poor, but you believe there's social mobility in society, you work hard, and you'll be energetic and you will be a productive member of society. But if there's a ceiling, and there's no mobility at all, then young people, especially young men, might start engaging in degenerate behavior. And I would say, radiotopia helps explain a lot of what's going on in American society today. You have the baby boomers in charge, they are not retiring, they have all the money, power and status in society. You've got a senator, a US senator, Chuck Grassley, who is 94 years old, and he is still in the Senate. And he's in fourth in line to be present on the United States. If Donald Trump dies, JD events takes over, if JD events dies, Mike Johnson takes over, if Mike Johnson dies, Chuck Grassley, who again is 94 years old, he would become present off the United States. And you've got another guy, Mitch McConnell, and no one's really sure if he's dead or alive. Sort of in the middle, yeah. Right. And so the question is, why is it these people are still around? Why haven't they retired in a given room for a new generation of leaders to rise up? We've been ruled by baby boomers for decades now, do you know the US University? Do you know what the average age of a university dean is? Right now. It's like 75 years old. This is the average age. So these are professors who are not retiring. And now they're not retiring, but they're basically double dipping, right? So they're professors and they become university administrators, so they collect not only their pension, but also a salary as well. And meanwhile, the vast majority of professors at a university are adjunct, meaning they make less and minimal wage. Sorry to cut you off, Sean. Just Nick, do you see the gerontocracy, the baby boomers as a major issue? I think they're over hated. I like the baby boomers, because I think a lot of people don't realize the baby boomers are an extremely conservative force that wants their gone, America's going to go in a very different direction. Because what a lot of people don't realize is that's the base of the Republican party. And as much as I have my disagreements with the GOP, I want the GOP to be fundamentally destroyed and changed. If it's not the GOP, it's going to be the radical left. And I know that for a time we thought we had moved past that, but you look at this next generation, the Zoomers, what percentage of them are socialists? What percentage of them identify as far left or moderately left? It's like 60 to 70 percent. It's a lot of them. And so I think that boomers die off. This becomes a much more progressive country. It becomes a much more diverse country. And you know, let's not forget, baby boomers, remember what the world was like before all of the technology. These are people that still know how to fix things. These are people that. still have a little bit of wear with all. Last generation to be drafted. So I think they're a little bit overhated because you could say that's baby boomers that are the elites like a chagrass lame and baby boomers have a larger share of the wealth. But by the same token, a lot of baby boomers are just people living on their social security on a fixed income, you know, trying to get by. So I don't, I don't think we can blame an entire generation for the problems of the country. I think you have to narrow the focus a little bit 'cause you are right. I mean, and you even see this in a microcosm in politics. It's these baby boomers lording over their fiefdoms, little non-profits, little political groups, don't wanna train up or give an opportunity for the next generation. I certainly get the frustration, but it's just painting with too broad of a brush. I think a lot of baby boomers are good people. - Nick, when you went on Tucker Carlson show last year, he said something along the lines of, I was totally convinced you were a fed and you told him, quote, I thought you were a fed. And since then, everyone online and podcasting, particularly calls each other a fed. But I'll start with you, Nick. Do you think Professor Jong is just a high school teacher? - Well, I don't know. And here's the thing, I don't like to engage in that kind of speculation because I think the idea stand on their merits. What matters is a message, not the messenger. And sometimes it can become relevant, a person's associations or if there's things that appear contradictory or something. But generally speaking, whatever I believe about him or he believes about me, what we talked about today is the ideas. And the ideas live and die by their predictive power or how close they are to the truth. And so I get accused of being a fed all the time. Tucker called me that and he kind of started that whole rumor. And it's difficult because defending yourself from accusations then detracts from and takes away from the time you're talking about the ideas. And so I prefer to just tell people, draw your own conclusions from what I say and evaluate the ideas, whatever you think about me. And I feel like the same is true about Professor Jong. - Professor, would you agree with that stance? - I agree. I mean, one reason why I'm really excited for this conversation is I think Nick's a very smart, intelligent person with some really intriguing ideas. And so just sitting with Nick and having a conversation has really opened my mind to new possibilities. It's really forced me to think much deeper about my own ideas. And I think that's what an honest and open debate should do. And I think more people should engage and open and honest a bit. I think the worst thing that's ever happened is the promotion of like DEI and cancer culture and de-platforming. And it's a very anti-lippable and I think very anti-American and very anti-humanitarian idea. As humans, I think we should all strive to engage with people who are different from us so that we can learn from each other. - Right. - Well, in that case, we'll do a quick lighthearted segment. I'm gonna give you both a name. And I'd like you to give me one word to describe each person. Xi Jinping. Smart. I will opt out. (laughing) - Yeah. - Careful. - I can't think of one word. - I can't think of the word that is not. - You're a leader. - Yeah, I can't think of one word. That's not like, I mean, in a trouble. Yeah. Yeah. So for certain words, we're flooring my mind, but no, yeah, I will opt out, yes. - J.D. Vance. - Fat. - I think the word is eager. - Sneak-o. - Brown. (laughing) - You like him, he's your buddy. - Yeah. I think he's curious. - Tucker Carlson. - The CIA. - I think he's courageous. - Can't explain why we come with these words. So, Tucker Carlson impresses me because he continues to do something that I've never seen anyone else do and the media to the degree he's done, which is he constantly admits he's wrong. He admits he was wrong about his support for the Iraq war. He admits he was wrong about Muslims. He admits he was wrong about 12. And I think that this should be a daily habit of everyone in power and influence. - Right. Hunter Biden. - Crack head. (laughing) - He was dissoning me on Twitter, so I'm not being nice anymore. He was on Bradley Martin talking trash. Yeah, I said he could beat me up, but she probably couldn't, but whatever. You're a drug addict. - Meme coin. I thought he would be on the path to redemption, and the guy starts a meme coin. Like, why would you do that? - Candice Owens. - Dom. - I think she's brave. - Trump? - I don't know, I don't know what to think of him anymore. Legend. - He's definitely energetic. Nick Fuentes. - Me. - Is that your word, me? - Me, like I'm me. I'm am me. - I think Nick is very talented. - Nice. - Professor Jong. - Fascinating. - Refuctive. - Look at that. - On some of your predictions, Jong, one that Nick, I believe, has qualms with, is the idea that Trump could potentially get a third term, but instead of asking about that, I just think you both kind of agree on this, maybe slightly, some of the ideas around it. - Yes, I do. - I actually agree with this. - Let's go. - Yeah, I agree. Because the system is so fundamentally broken, it's so polarized and the elite are so degenerate. The oligarchs are stealing so much, you need to break the system now. - Totally agree, we're stuck. I mean, that's really the problem is we're stuck and a radical intervention is required that is not gonna be brought on by the vote, by a change in the money power. I agree, the system fundamentally needs to be broken down and changed in a radical way. - So, I mean, the reality is that America has a crossroads. You can either have a dictator, or you can have another Joe Biden. And I'm not sure if people want to go back to Joe Biden. Joe Biden, maybe it was good for a certain segment of the population, right? The elite or the professional managerial class. But if you're just an average American, you saw inflation go way up. You were caught say, gasoline by the media, right? Clearly, Joe Biden was senile. And Joe Scarborough goes on TV and says, you know, this man is in the best shape of his life. And, you know, if you don't know that, if you don't believe that, then FU. So, I think, and also, like clearly, during the Biden years, the United States was in recession because recession is just like two quarters of economic decline, right? But then, rather than say we're in recession, Janet Yellen of the Treasury Department says, well, we're gonna change the definition of what recession means. So, I think people are just sick of that. And I think if you vote in another Democrat, you get the same thing. You get a sort of like consensus, lukewarm, feel good, presidency, but that's about it. And to give people like an idea of this, since the Iran war started, Nick, what do you think was the last major decision Donald Trump made on his own? I think the Iran war was a decision he made on his own. And I think that's one of the central misconceptions about Trump. And I say that as someone that's been a part of the Trump movement or was part of it, since it started. I was an enthusiastic supporter, door knocker, campaigned for him in 16 and went to stop the steel in 2020. And the narrative that Republicans tell themselves about him is that it's everybody else. It's the advisors, it's the Democrats, it's the personnel in the White House. And we have actually had enough data now to see who's really at fault, like take, for example, the personnel. In the first term, they said, well, Trump can't do what he said he would do, because the personnel is not really on board. They're not America first, they're not MAGA, so they're sabotaging his agenda. Well, now DHS and Department of War is filled with America first Trump loyalists and they're thwarted every day by him. The border wall will not be built because Trump can't get his friend to get the contract to do the work. So now he doesn't want a wall and same thing with the depot. a war. Elbridge Colby's the chief strategist in the Pentagon. He's a restrainer. He says we should focus on hemispheric defense and the Caribbean and the western hemisphere. We're at war with Iran because Trump was convinced by Netanyahu and by a handful of other people. So it's not the personnel. It's not the advisers. The advisers have changed over the past 10 years. And you know, by the way, Trump picks those people. So we had a situation back in February with the Iran war where everybody understood it was a bad idea. Chairman of the joint chiefs, head of the Navy, head of the army, vice president, Don Jr. And they couldn't fully advise against it because they knew Trump wanted the war because Trump likes Netanyahu and Netanyahu wanted the war. And so out of fear of being fired or ostracized in the admin, they couldn't give their full opinion. So they said, hey, we support the policies of the president. It's 100% behind you. At the end of the day, I think the problem is him. And what is contained in this idea, by the way, is that people think if we could just get the system right, got to get the advisers to personnel, I think it's really just a question of leadership. And that's what Trump promised to change. In 16, he fundamentally said, America needs a leader, not like, hey, vote for me. We're going to change the policies. He said, no, America needs a leader to give us a vision and be the cheerleader for the country. He said, and literally take the country and make it great again, bypass the money power, the corruption, the media. And I think that was the promise of Trumpism. That's what people got excited about. And he just didn't deliver, you know, he turned out to just be another politician. So at the end of the day, Iran war COVID lockdown BLM, it came down to the leadership of the guy in that office. It's him. No, I actually agree with Nick's analysis. It's a really, it's pretty incredible to think about. But in Trump's first term, he's probably probably one of the weakest presidents in US history because really no one actually followed his orders, right? But in second term, he's proven to be one of those powerful presidents in US history. And quite honestly, you can make the argument that he's probably the most powerful president ever, just because the president has accumulated so much power over the past few decades. And it seems very much that the president is moving towards something called a unitary executive, almost like a monarch really. And that's what's trying to we're seeing. And Nick, you don't think Trump will be elected a third term? No, I don't think he'll seek it. I think that Trump is the calamity of Trump is that he's always gesturing towards a power grab or a dictatorship. But he just simply lacks the bureaucratic and administrative know how and the follow through to achieve it. So for example, like he's doing this thing with these mail and ballots where they got DHS to make a list of all the voters telling the post office to throw out the envelopes of people that mailed in their ballot that aren't eligible. And it's like that, that is something that is really just a power grab. That's like something where Republicans are not favored in mail and ballots. So they're just going to simply constrict them, which will hurt the Democrats. It's a power play. But it's such a ill conceived idea. It's not going to make it through the Supreme Court. All it does is antagonize the left and gesture towards a naked power grab without the benefits or the effects of actually doing one. So theoretically, I think he wants a third term probably because that makes him protect it against any future persecution. He gets all the privileges and the perks. But I just don't think he has the wherewithal to pull it off. I just think he's just a buffoon at this point. Well, I mean, I just said that Trump right now is probably the most powerful U.S. President ever. So he has he has a lot of tools at his disposal. He could declare a war emergency system in the Constitution. He could. There are a lot of tools available to him that I think are not imaginable right now. The other thing I will point out is the pace of change, the accelerationism, it's kind of incredible, right? I mean, just think about all the things that have happened these past, like this past year. During third, you had the kidnapping of Maduro. Then, a couple of months later, you have this war start in Iran. I mean, things are happening really fast. And you ask yourself, why are they happening this fast? And how much power is Trump accumulating from itself in this process? And Nick, in your view, what is like wise Trump able to exercise more power than previous U.S. presidents? Well, it is the deference of his personnel to him. I mean, every president can appoint about four to five thousand political hires. Those are the people that transition from one admin to the next. And these people are just, they're basically sick of fans. And I know because I know a lot of them, they go to these parties in DC and everybody's against the war. But you go to like a party and people say, so what do you think about the war? And people say, I support the policies of the president of the United States. It's like a dictator's like Stalinism in the sense that the admin has to be so loyal to Trump or else. They'll be ostracized. I think that's a big part of it. They are grabbing power with executive orders, with doge coming in and bringing these sweeping changes to all these agencies and departments work. They really are doing a lot of administrative things to expand the scope of the White House's power. It's a lot of administrative and bureaucratic stuff. I think fundamentally Trump is just, and maybe this is a disagreement because I'm just so frustrated with Trump. I wish he would go further. But so, for example, with the ice raids, they got a little bit of pushback in Minneapolis, a little bit of pushback in LA. And they were true. They were treated, you know, they'd surge customs and border patrol and ice. They got these protests. They had to kill a couple of people, protests worsened, and they pulled out. Same thing with doge. They brought everybody in, ripping everything apart that wasn't bolted down. And then federal judges and Congress intervened and they shut it down. And so I think that like I said, Trump is he's a tactical guy, but not strategic. It's all flying by the seat of his pants. It's all ad hoc. There's never a plan. And then there's never follow through. I think it's a little bit of pushback. And then he takes the path of least resistance. So it's true that he's expanded the power, but I don't think he's exercising it efficiently. I would completely disagree with Nick's analysis here. I think Trump is a unique historical figure. And I've never seen the political comeback that he achieved, right? Because like you go back to during six, 2021, he was dead in the water, right? His, most of his cabinet had a bad in him. It almost seemed like a headshot, where okay, the president is provoking the insurrection in the Capitol, right? So it just seemed like this guy was just dead politically, even his daughter sort of shunned him, right? Sort of walked away from him and cleansed her hands. I'm not part of this, this, right? And it really was, I mean, I really think that after he went back to Marlago, he really was in about, I mean, he was really depressed and he felt hopeless. And then who could predict that a few years later, he would be the president again. So I don't think to say he's not strategic. And he's just a dumbass who got lucky. I don't even know that that helps us explain what's going on here. So I'll make certain comments about who he is. And then Nick, you actually met this guy. I've never met this guy, all right? I mean, but I will say, first of all, his personality makes him uniquely ideal for the presidency. Because if you look at other presidents, whether it's Obama or Clinton or Bush, the job exhausts you. It's the hardest job in the world. And we look at Trump because 80 years old, and he's still going strong. And so he just loves being president of the United States. And there's certain arrogance to him that I think is very important, right? A sense of self-entitlement arrogance. Like I deserve this position. Because then you can ban reality to your will. Right? Maybe Obama was too differential. And that, and therefore, he was a pretty weak president. So his personality is really larger than life. But I will also say that what people don't recognize about him is the level of his ambition. I think in his head, he does believe he is a mezzanic figure of some sort. And again, you know better than I do. You've actually met the guy, okay? But I cannot believe that this guy is going to endure so much in order to just be present. He must have a larger mission at play. This guy, Donald Trump, he does not drink. And he's lived a very disciplined life. Now, I know that sounds kind of awesome running because he slept with a lot of, you know, playboy, playmates, And he comes across like a jackass, but there's like he's lived a life where he engaged in criminality without actually ever working the law. That's kind of impressive. And you know, to be like be a mafia figure and not ever be indicted for anything. So I so I think that what drives him is a deep sense of mission because otherwise, why else would you want to become president of the States? I mean, just as a joke, this is a meme. And I mean, he worked his ass off to get to where to where he is. In 2016, he was doing two, three rallies a day. He was constantly on social media. Um, in 2024, come on Harris, Donald Trump, I would just say Donald Trump just outworked come on Harris, right? Yeah. Donald Trump was willing to go on any and all podcasts come on Harris. Like, no, you can't ask me this question. You can't ask me that question. So I think that Donald Trump is a unique historical figure. And he surprised everyone before. And I think he'll surprise everyone later on. Nick, do you think Trump believes he's Jesus like some messianic figure? Or do you think it's the point of this presidency has really just been makes much money for the Trump family? It's possible. I think it's possible. I don't get the sense though that Trump thinks deeply about ideas, about religion, about politics. I think there's a grandiosity or 100% right. But I think it's it's motivated by vanity. You know, why does he want to be the president? I think it's the same reason he puts his name on the building. There's a giant Trump sign in Chicago, Trump hotel or, you know, Trump tower in New York. He liked the idea of it's me as the president. And there's a famous advertisement. He did. I think for like Domino's pizza or something, where he says Napoleon, Alexander, the great Donald Trump, like he sees himself as like I said, I think you're right. This ambition, this grandiosity. But I think there's something fundamentally hollow about it. He doesn't seem to me to be ideological, to be religious, to be mystically, even or even thoughtful at all. He seems to be like an instinctual individual. And I think that so much of what has happened is instinct one thing leading into the next. Like you're right about January 6th for two years. He was cooked. After J6, he was done. And even until the midterms, in the midterms in 22, he denounced DeSantis a couple days before the election. And it seemed like everybody had turned on him because they said, why are you attacking a Republican days before the election? That's not helpful. After DeSantis won by 20 points, people were ready to throw him out. He couldn't raise money as late as December 22, January 23. It wasn't until the raid at Mar-a-Lago in August 23. And those indictments in March of 24 coming down. And then the conviction in Manhattan that Trump was able to snowball some more support and get back in the game. And I think that that was just not a necessity to avoid jail time because he would have been sent up for hundreds some years between all those different cases. And it's not to take away because I agree with you, I don't think he's a dumbass. I think he's brilliant. And he's a beast in terms of his work ethic and a brilliant promoter and a campaigner. But I think that it's those organizational skills that he lacks as president. It's that skill for governing, you know, that like a Joseph Stalin might have to create the state apparatus to create this genius to create the bureaucracy and actually action the agenda. I think that's what he lacks. It's possible that maybe some of the people around him have convinced him. And maybe he likes the idea that he's a messianic figure. But I think it's more he likes the idea of it because it's self aggrandizing than that. He has like a deep conviction about it. I think to appreciate the uniqueness of Trump, what he did, his change from the first term, the second term, it required radical self reinvention. And that is really a superpower to just completely change how you perceive the world. Because in his first term, remember, he was not at all effective. People just regularly disobeyed his waters. And even Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, he called the Chinese. His Chinese government says ignore this guy. He's not really in charge. And now in the second term, he's completely in charge. This requires radical self invention. So it seems easy, but it's not because you need to reflect on what you did wrong the first time and then make adjustments and learn from mistakes. And I don't know that many people in the world who do that. I think if any other US president, he was to encounter this level of adversity. I think he was just fought under pressure. Obama, when does not have the capacity for radical self invention, certainly not Joe Biden, not even Bill Clinton. So not even George Bush. So like, I mean, I don't think we can truly appreciate the level of his genius. It's, I mean, he will never do all on the SAT, right? But the way that he's disabled to capture and control the public narrative about everything, that's astonishing. I mean, everything's about him, right? I mean, it's just crazy. The level of attention he gets from everyone. Yeah. On the topic of Trump being God, thinking he's Jesus, perhaps, both you believe many energized people believe the world ends with the building of the third temple and maybe the rise and the anti-Christ. Nick believes Jesus is God. Professor, you believe that the true God is something that you call the monad. Nick, who do you think Jesus Christ is? Or was I believe while he is the son of God, I think he's a person of the Trinity. And the way that a Catholic would say it is that in the beginning, you have God the Father. We have the monad. And what does God do? What is the God is a mind? God is an intellect. So the thing that God does is God thinks. And what God thinks about is himself. And how he makes himself intelligible and comprehensible as he begats eternally what we would say is the logos, the kind of intellectualized version of himself. And it's this relationship between the Father and the son. It's this generation, this begotten entity. It's relationship between them that we would call the Holy Spirit. That's how a Christian would describe the Trinity. And so I would say Jesus Christ is this eternally begotten part of God. Well, not part. It's not technically correct, but it's a figure of the Godhead. Professor, you've said previously the Apostle Paul was, quote, a spy for the Roman Empire. And kind of implied he was the true founder of Christianity or like evangelized it in a way like made it popular. Do you think the church changed Jesus's message? Yeah. So I think Jesus was a miracle. Because this was a man with no status, no power, society. But he was able to channel the vine and speak poetry in a way that move people to tears. Like the surmount on the mount is one of the greatest pieces of poetry ever written. It's just beautiful and it's very moving. And I think just resetting it connects you to the vine. It elevates and transcends your situation. So I think in that way, Jesus was a genius. He was a poet, prophet, and it was a miracle. And just the idea of Jesus is able to give people hope even today. That's why you have two billion Christians in the world. But his message is problematic because his ultimate message is each of us has divine connection to God. But if that's the case, why do you have hierarchy? What do you have inequality? What do you have debt? None of this makes sense. But in order for civilization to progress, you need hierarchy. You need debt. You need inequality. And so Jesus was his revolutionary figure that you could never stamp out because he spoke to the heart. And just the idea of Jesus, just hearing his words, just speaking his words, could move people to tears. And people became fearless. And they transcendent the all fears and ego, just hearing the poetry of Jesus. And so because of this threat to authority, authority figures need to somehow cage Jesus in a way that was manageable. So it's a divine spark. It's a fire. And it threatens to burn down or authority. So what do you do? Well, you put a cage around it. You put it in a glass cage so that people can admire it. But it's not going to burn down society. And that's the role of Paul. Because Paul, his message, was, "Okay, Jesus was great. His poetry is wonderful. His message is fantastic. But we need structure. We need hierarchy." And that's what the church is. A church is a way to bring order and structure to our movement. And doing so, he was doing the bidding of authority. Is there a specific belief or message that you think was changed of Jesus? Yeah, there are a lot. But the major one was, "Jesus is God." Whereas Jesus would have never said that. What Jesus would have said, if you actually look at what he said, and we have actually have a lot of his things, is we are all part of God. God is part of us. We are all connected to God. Therefore, you do not need intervention. You do not need an intermediary. But to say Jesus is a God, you just say, "Nope. There's an intermediary in the process, not Jesus." And so I think Jesus would have been very upset if, for me, Jesus is God. Well, I guess the missing part is the crucifixion and resurrection. Because it's fine and well to say, "Jesus was a great guy, set a lot of great stuff. We consider him in the pantheon of great human beings, or maybe representations of God, who channeled God." But he's crucified on the cross, dies, rises again, and appears to his disciples, appears to the early Christian community. And so I think it's difficult to account for that by saying he was just a social activist or a teacher. I mean, how would you account for that? Do you think he was crucified and/or do you think he was resurrected? So I think there's a lot of debate about this. So if you look at the Islamic tradition, which does worship Jesus as the messenger of God, it was the penultimate, Muhammad was the ultimate. They never talk about his crucifixion and resurrection. The Islamic tradition is influenced by the historian Christian tradition, which comes from James, the just, who is the brother of Jesus, and the person who inherited the movement after the death of Jesus. And the story is never talk about the crucifixion of Jesus as well. If you look at the gospel of Thomas, which is probably earliest written texts we have of the teachings of Jesus, there's really no talk of his sacrifice as well. So the gospel of Thomas was the earliest of the gospels. So what Nick is saying is that this is not part of the canon. It's not recognized by the church, but scholars believe that the gospel of Thomas was the earliest of the Gospels, or of all the Gospels. Yes. And there are scholars who believe that all four Gospels are based on the gospel of Thomas. Really? Yeah, because the gospel of Thomas has his complete sayings, which then became incorporated in the other Gospels, the gospel, Matthew, the gospel of Mark. The problem, though, is it becomes unintelligible without the crucifixion. How do you make sense of the kiss of peace, the last supper? All the events preceding the crucifixion without the crucifixion, the betrayal by Judas and so on. So if you study the gospel of Thomas by itself and you look, you incorporate all of other, so you incorporate Jesus other sayings in the other of the Gospels, right? If you just take that as your library and you compare it to the teachings of Zorothustra and of Buddha and of Homer and of Dante, there's a remarkable consistency in messaging. So I would argue that what happened was Jesus was a poet who was able to channel the vine and he spoke words that were truth encapsulated in words and therefore they were able to ignite the imagination of the people around him, which is the same thing that Homer did in classical and during the Greek dark ages. The same thing that Dante did before the Renaissance, the same thing that Zorothustra did, that's what I believe happened. Yeah, I guess I just, I think it's real events. I think the Gospels, which date to 50 AD, about 20, 30 years after Jesus was crucified, that tell the story of the crucifixion, that he was charged by the Jewish community for claiming to be God. That's why it was crucified because he said before Abraham was, I am, that was a claim that he was God and that's why they had to sentence him to death. And then those are all the biggest developments in the Christian religion as the last supper and going into the garden and ever, you know, Peter denying Christ three times. So and what's more, I would say this is supported by the fact that 11 out of the 12 apostles were martyred by the Roman empire defending the resurrection of Christ and his divinity. So historically, I just, I don't think it makes sense that all the gospel stories are made up, that the crucifixion resurrection was made up, that it was all this elaborate work of fiction. And I also don't think it could have spread that far if it wasn't based on the truth that people didn't witness the resurrection because Christ did appear to hundreds and hundreds of people after the resurrection. And so I believe it's history. Nick, I'm curious of this. Why do you trust the Catholic church when you typically distrust other powerful institutions? Well, it's not that I trust the Catholic church. So we have the documents that we have the historical gospels from 2000 years ago. And we have secular sources too from Tacitus and Josephus that describe the existence of Christ. And, you know, the story of Christ fulfills, I think, something like 450 prophecies in the Old Testament for which we have documents that proceed Christ that describe where he would come in the manner in which he would come and that he would be baptized and the manner which he would be killed and so on. 450 prophecies described in ancient Hebrew scripture that then Christ fulfills martyrs go to their death defending this account. I mean, to me, there's very, there's more historical evidence for these events than for a lot of other historical figures. You know, like so, for example, the Muslims will say, well, Jesus was the penultimate prophet and he, they actually call him the Messiah, although it's it's a little tricky what they really mean by that. And they believe he'll return as well. Right. Exactly. However, the Quran doesn't come until 700 years after Christ. The gospels are 20 years after Christ. So why would the Quran be a more faithful representation than the gospels, which they say were corrupted? Right. That's that's my belief. The one area you guys do agree on on this, I believe, is Professor Zhang, do you think America should be a Christian nation? I do. My understanding of your history was it was founded by the pilgrims and they came to create the New Jerusalem. And I don't think if they came with this Mesetic mission, you could have the United States. Because at that time, do you agree with that? With the New Jerusalem idea of the United States, which is heaven on earth. Right. I mean, that's, that's why God created humanity. So that humanity can do his good work and create heaven on earth so that he can smile upon us. The New Jerusalem. Yeah. I mean, we believe that that's actually going to be a supernatural phenomenon at the end of time. Yeah. So, so if you look at North America before the coming of the pilgrims, they tried settlements. It never worked out because the conditions were too harsh. So the fact that the pilgrims were able to come and survive so many winters, I think is just from the from the perspective it was a miracle. And so there was always this religious mission that in the founding of the United States. It became coupled with the enlightenment mission of spreading reason, the Freemasons, right? What they call the Holy Empire of reason. So these are the two major strands, undergirding the founding of the United States. You have the desire to create the New Jerusalem. And then you also have the desire to achieve the enlightenment. And I think that you need both. And I feel that what's happened ever since after World War II is America has veered off to an extreme, the enlightenment extreme, which is the free movement of ideas, people in capital. Right. That's why you have the idea of a meritocracy. And honestly, I am a product of the meritocracy because and no business going to Yale, but because of enlightenment principles, Yale is like, we'll take the best of Buddhism around the world and we'll educate them to the best of ability. So I'm very thankful to this ideal. But I also recognize it's caused a lot of problems in America because as Nick will say, you have a lot of groups that are not really loyal to the United States. So you do have a minority of Jews that are pie more loyal to Israel, but you also have Hindus. You also have Persians. You also have Muslims. You have all these different groups, and within these different groups, you have a minority that don't really see themselves as American. I don't really understand how you could sustain that as a nation. So I feel as though the United States has veered off to one extreme, and now you need to balance it, and you need to return to Christianity. And Christianity is what could provide cohesion. It's what could provide purpose. But I will also say that America has always been tolerant. So I don't see the United States becoming a Christian bureaucracy. I see Christianity as the pillar, but Christianity would also welcome Islam and Judaism and other religious traditions. But I think that this materialistic liberal atheism that has control of the United States for the past few decades, I think its time is up, and I think America needs to return to its religious roots. Yeah, I totally agree. And I think that specifically America was created only for a moral people. This is said throughout the documents of the founding fathers, I think even in the Federalist papers, and says the system does not work unless the population is moral, because the whole point of America is self-government of by four of the people. It's the idea that the human beings here are sovereign. And if you have, for example, a society with lots of crime and lawlessness and permissiveness, think about like a contemporary debate about flock cameras. And the proponents of the flock cameras will say, well, you need them to catch the criminals. You got car jacking all the time. You got human trafficking, you have terrorism. And so in a society that's so immoral that has lots of crime, you need massive surveillance. Surveillance necessarily infringes on liberty. The only way that you can actually have a liberal orderly society is if most of the people are operating in a moral way. And so I think that it's, it's essential to the character of the country without it. You have to have a much more tyrannical society. I will also point out that it's a nature of capitalism by itself to consume itself. What I mean by that is, if you, if all your people just focus on making money, then they are going to cheat, they're going to lie, they're going to steal in order to make as much money as possible, which just means social collapse at the end of the day. So you need Christian, you need a Christian compass, you need, you need a religious bearing. Nick, on the surveillance portion, I would both of you say that it's reasonable that America and the world is moving towards some kind of global surveillance state, AI surveillance state. Seems almost unavoidable because it seems now you can't move as a human being in a car, can't move money without everything being documented. And that's really the issue. As we move to a cashless society, as we move to a society, even of self-driving, forget about even flock cameras, but self-driving, you cannot move, think, communicate digitally, or move money without that being catalogued and logged somewhere and then made sensible by AI or by algorithms like what they generated, Palantir. So I think that, you know, and it's a loaded statement, but you read the Ted Kaczynski manifesto. And this was talked about that the, that technological progress inherently would make human freedom impossible. It doesn't say that it would tend to infringe on freedom. It says that technological progress will, will necessarily make human freedom impossible. And I think that's basically where we are. I don't see how you're going to operate in a society with a Sam Altman or a Dario Amode, these tech oligarchs running AI or running, for example, the, all the electric cars and the rocket ships, that level of power and information and surveillance, the asymmetry and the concentration. I don't see how it can't impose on the liberties of individuals. So I think that's just the inextrable path. Right. Now I completely agree with this sentiment. You have a few companies with too much money and too much power. And we know that when that happens, when a few individuals have too much power, then they want to control everyone else because that's, that's how human psychology works. People like Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Senator Altman, they obsess with quitting the AI control grid. And I think it's very hard to stop them at this point. Nick, you've talked extensively about JD Vance, his connections to some of the people, Zhang just mentioned. Professor, who do you think actually controls JD Vance? I think JD Vance is first and foremost a product of the meritocracy, just like me. I did read his memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, and I read it before he became politically prominent. And I read it. I'm like, this is very similar to Barack Obama's book, "June of my Father." I read both. And I read Hillbilly Elegy, and it seems almost he's manufactured himself in a way to have a political career. And so I made a prediction when I read the book that this guy probably wants to be the next Barack Obama, and he'll probably present in his days one day. If you read the book, first of all, it's really well written. I'm not sure if you've read the book, but it's really well written, but it's also really manufactured. He seems to be trying to please as many people as possible. And so I think his issue is that as part of the meritocracy, his main ambition in life is to please others. So whoever is in proximity to him, he will just try to please. And by the way, this is no different from Barack Obama, right? Barack Obama in his campaign, he promised hope and change. And what did he do? Well, the first thing he did was he appointed to resolve the financial crisis, people like Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, the same people who caused the financial crisis in the first place. Same thing with Bill Clinton. People forget this, but Bill Clinton in 1992 ran as a populace. And when he came to the office, he just completely betrayed the workers. He passed the NAFTA. He passed the most favorite nation status for China. He basically scoot over the American working class. And Barack Obama also betrayed the American working class. I think JD Vance is very much a similar figure. I mean, the comparisons completely apt. And about the book being not just an act of self invention, but also to manufacture him as a political candidate, that is something that is explicitly talked about by his mentors. His first mentor was David Frum, the speechwriter for George W. Bush. And Vance wrote for his website, think about a half dozen articles back in 2012 or 2013. And from about five or six years ago, wrote a big spread in the Atlantic about his experience with Vance. And he specifically told Vance that Vance was going to be the GOP president in the late 2020s. They said that his strength would be his biographical credibility, which if you understand that, that is really in essence what he is. That's the book, which is his claim to fame. And it's a story about the white working class. It's the idea that he is uniquely as positioned to speak and communicate to the rust belt white working class in Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania. And that's going to blow down the blue wall and help Republicans build this real line political coalition. So he'll build theology was literally designed to be that launch pad for him into politics, which it then was when he was Ohio Senator and then now vice president and then probably 28. He'll be the nominee. I prefer top third term. Me too. If I had to pick me too, but Elon controls Vance. It's Elon Musk and it's the tech money because Vance is tight with David Sacks and David Sacks is Elon's political guy. So people want to know, but it was Peter Thiel who basically bought faded JD Vance's political career, right? Yes. It was Peter Thiel who spent $50 million for Vance to win the Ohio Senate race. Yes. And it was Peter Thiel who introduced JD Vance to Trump. So why why are you saying it's Elon Musk enough because he wants the big money now because you're right. Teal gave him 15 million for Senate. Teal put him on hired him at his venture firm when he launched his book, then fund Vance's venture firm. Teal also got him the Trump endorsement in the Ohio Senate primary, which was very competitive. That's right. That's right. Yes. So you're right. I mean, Teal is and I've talked a lot about this, but I have heard from people close to the source that really the big power now is Elon because it was in June of 2024 before the convention that Vance held a fundraiser for Trump at David Sachs house in San Francisco with all the tech people. And that's why a few days later, Trump was on the all in podcast with David Sachs and that whole crew from tech. And I believe that Trump promote advance to be the nominee because Vance was going to be the connector that brought in all this new little tech money, which does come from yes, it comes from Teal and the founders fund guys, the, the brothers from social network, the Winkelvoss twins, Andreessen Horowitz, and then the big dog is Elon who put in almost 300 million in 2024. And I think he's on track to do, I think he's at about 100 million in the midterms. So Elon's the big juice. And sacks is Elon's political representative and sacks more likely than that will be Vance's chief of staff if he becomes president. Do you think Elon is the most powerful man in America? That's tough to say. I think it'd be close between Trump and Elon. I don't think Elon Musk's most powerful man in the United States. I think Trump is easily the most powerful. I would also argue Elon Musk is probably not even the most wealthy man in the world. But that's just me. Who do you think is the most well thing? Well, we will never know. Right. I think if you have real power, you don't want to be in a spotlight because then people just make fun of you. Like Elon Musk, Elon Musk, I mean, I mean, he's almost clownish in his behavior. I'm sure he's a really smart person. But I'm just saying if you have true wealth and power, you would also value your privacy. Could it feel about his privacy a lot? So do you think Peter Teal is the most powerful man in America? I think he's probably more powerful than Elon Musk, personally. On Jeffrey Epstein and the files that were released at the beginning of this year, professor, you told Theo Vaughan that Epstein was, quote, above a sod and implied the intelligence agencies were working for him. Nick, you've said, quote, they're trying to make Epstein the scapegoat that all the working class people can get behind. Nick, who do you think Jeffrey Epstein actually was? I think he was basically a fixer is my estimation of him. Is he is one of these people that was basically a problem solver for these people like Leon Black and Les Wexner? I think certainly there's a possibility that Blackmail was involved. Why else would Leon Black and Les Wexner give him so much money? And of course, why then would his house be rigged with cameras and recording devices at his sex parties? So I think that certainly that was part of it. But I think he's best understood as somebody that exists between worlds as more of like a broker or a mercenary or fixer between intelligence agencies like CIA, like Mossad, like MI6, because there was that triangulation of the labor movement in UK, the Democratic Party here, and labor in Israel. That's really the triangulation that he existed in between. So a lot of people talk about his connections to Mossad, which are legitimate. But then you realize that I don't know that he was necessarily completely in bad with Israel. I think that he also had deep connections here and deep connections in the UK. And so I think he represented something like an independent intermediary force more than loyal to any one country. Right. So if we go back to my original model of the world, right? You have transnational capital, which is controlling force in the world. Then you have these different societies competing with each other for power in the world. And I think that Javier Epstein was probably as Nick says, a fixer for one of these serious societies. So if you go to the emails, Javier Epstein talks about his connection to the Rothschilds a lot. And he said in one of his emails, there are three families in Vienna that control the Begging sector. They were the Rothschilds. They were the Epstein's and they were the gutmins. And he also was saying how the three finance a shelter house where he stayed. And so he's trying to talk about his lineage. Then you have some weird things going on in Javier Epstein's life, where in 1991 his life completely changes. So what happened in 1991 is first of all, Leslie Wexner, who is one of the richest men in Ohio, signs over power of attorney to Javier Epstein. And they were not that close. That's kind of weird. Why would you sign over power attorney to basically a stranger? That's the one thing that does really strange about the entire incident. And then another thing is the year 1991 is the year that Robert Maxwell died. He fell off a year, one of his yachts. And then 1991 is also the year that Glenn Maxwell, the daughter of Robert Maxwell, he starts dating Javier Epstein. So what do I think happened? Well, I think Javier Epstein was replacement for Robert Maxwell. And what was Robert Maxwell doing? Well, first of all, we know he was working very closely with the Mossad, the KGB with MI6. So as Nick says, he was probably the intersection of different intelligence agencies. But the other thing that that was doing was he was having tremendous influence in the public and scientific narrative. Okay? So Robert Maxwell made a lot of his money publishing scientific journals. And he published a lot of textbooks. He had his own media company. And it's kind of strange because Javier Epstein was trying to do the same thing because we focus on his connections with Bill Clinton. But he was spending also a lot of time at the university level. Right? He went to Harvard and gave a lot of money to like these elite universities. He spent a lot of time with his scientists, Stephen Pinker, Marvin Minsky. And so his role as Nick says was probably a fixture. But I think what his real role was to help shape the scientific and public narrative in a way that events certain esotological goals. So I think that he was probably working for a very powerful sticker society. And this secret society was sponsoring him. And that's why Leslie Wexner was willing to sign over a power attorney to him. And that's why he basically inherited Robert Maxwell's wealth upon his death. Is there evidence of Epstein being involved in a secret society within the files themselves? Well, he was engaging a lot of ritual practices. Right. Or maybe even just like the eschatology of building the third temple. Is there anything like that in files? So okay, let's do a thought experiment. And let's just say I'm an occultist. And what I want to do is achieve the end of the world. Well, in order for this to happen, I need to work with different individuals and help promote them. And in return, they software and pumps for me. Right. So Jeffrey Epstein, his function was to become friends with the goal elite. Right. And then they would be much more susceptible to my eschatology. And honestly, they might even know what I really want. They don't honestly, honestly, probably don't care because all they want is power, wealth, and fame. Right. So as long as I mean, provide to them, then they will do what I want them to do. Right. And I think, but then I can appear in person because that's not what I want to do. So I need someone to become friends with these people and influence them in a way that promotes my eschatology. And that I think is part of the best explanation for what happened. And I think if people focus too much on Epson Island and all the nefarious things that happen on it, it attracts from what his real purpose was. Do you have any thoughts? I don't agree with the eschatology angle. I think that, but what you did bring up and why do you think Epstein was so involved in science then? I was going to get to that. I think that is one of the most underreported things about Epstein because you're 100% right. He was one of these mad scientist types. And to your point, there always seems to be a very significant overlap between the occultists and these like research scientific communities always. For some reason, the people that made the rockets a NASA, among other people, it always seems to go hand in hand. And there was evidence in the emails of some kinds of experiments. They had a compound, I believe, down in New Mexico where they were. So rich. Yes, exactly. So I don't know exactly what the goal was there. If that was some sort of passion project, some kind of experimentation. I know that Peter Teal has something similar. And you wonder, do billionaires get bored? And they like to entertain people at dinners and fund their projects out of their own curiosity, just because they like to meet interesting people. Or is there some kind of drive and goal? And it seemed like Epstein was interested in eugenics. And maybe there was some kind of genuine scientific interest there. Look, I would just put this in versible terms. Like, let's imagine we become billionaires. And what becomes our first priority? And probably the only priority is probably longevity, right? To live as long as possible in order to enjoy or well. And we would also try to explore reincarnation. Because again, we got really lucky to be a billionaire. I mean, I don't think it's this hard work. I mean, you have to be really exceptionally lucky to get to this position. And you're like, you know, like, how do I freeze the universe in time so that I'm a billionaire forever? And that's what what they're probably focusing on. But you said that's the case. The billionaires are interested in living forever. Certainly true. If you meet them, yes, they're all obsessed with longevity, Sam Altman, Peter Tiel. And that's what's driving so much of the interest now in peptides and some of these developments in health. And in your 100% right, if you're a billionaire, it's almost like resource acquisition just enters a new phase. You go from how do I get enough money to pay rent and buy food to how do I not die? How do I, you know, stop my cells from dividing it in advanced rate or something? And so yeah, it's certainly true that Peter Tiel being the poster child for this, they're obsessed with living forever. So that's true. And just to close the loop on Epstein himself, do you think Epstein is still alive? No, I think he's dead. He's dead. 100%. I mean, he was just a fixer, right? So if you're not useful to him, I don't need you anymore, like why would I keep you alive? Yeah. On AI itself, Nick, you told Hunter Biden that the first company to build super intelligence makes it CEO, quote, the most powerful person in history of mankind. And professor, you said the people building AI believe that they are on a divine mission and some of them believe they're creating God. But Nick, I'll let you start on this one. Do you think the people building AI believe they're creating God? I think they do. And I think that's why they're preoccupied with all these science fiction books because they really do believe that what they're creating is going to be basically indistinguishable from a God. If it's more intelligent by a lot than everybody on Earth put together, there is a religious dimension that enters into it. And I think if you read some of what they've said, it's a little bit disturbing. If you actually look at the scientists, you actually know them, they're all kind of insane. And I think that's why they get into science, right? I mean, people just assume that scientists are like these very super-minded, very logical, very rational people. They're the opposite. These are people who go up reading science fiction and they dream of longevity. They dream of interstellar travel. They dream of creating God's and that's why they go into science. So they're almost like a cultist and that's why there's so much overlap between their cult and science, right? So the Jack Parsons example, for them, AI, the entire point of AI is to create an AI God because what else would you invest so much resources? Right. Right? I mean, just so that people can have AI girlfriends, just so that people can cheat on the homework. That's retweet. Like they are really driven people, Nick, do you believe they're creating God or what do you think they're creating? Well, that's really sort of interesting. They say that AI is potentially a misnomer because what would you call intelligence? And the Catholic understanding, we would say it's memory, will, and understanding. Memory meaning we contain the information, understanding mean we make the information comprehensible. We understand it's inherent significance or meaning and will meaning we can then make decisions. We can direct. And so there's a lot of talk about this artificial general intelligence, which is an intelligence that's going to be like people. It's going to be good at everything, not just one particular thing. And that eventually at some point, it's going to be able to make decisions. It's going to understand the information that it has. And this is a controversial view. There are a lot of people that believe that what an LLM is, it's just a glorified calculator. At the end of the day, a chat GPT, a large language model is a prediction engine. And what it does is take large amounts of data. And then it predicts what sounds correct based on the data that it's trained on. And so does that constitute an intellect? Does it understand the data? Can it make decisions? This is where it's controversial. And so will a will recursive self-improvement create an exponentially more intelligent, super intelligence? And then once you get this artificial super intelligence, will it know? Will it understand? Or will it just be a really advanced calculator? I think that's the question. So no, I don't think it constitutes a God because it will not be able to create. I think that's one distinction. It might not have the creative faculties of human beings or make large leaps and understanding, which is kind of what science is. And then you get into some literary and poetic things or some people that say that it's hard even to make sense of scientific concepts without things like poetry. And you wonder if an AI will ever be able to do that or if it just replicates and emulates what human beings do. So certainly it's capabilities and effects will be God-like. I don't know that in terms of definition, it approaches what God is. So I think people don't recognize the eschatological aspects to AI. So we talked about the Kabbalah and how there are some amazing Jews who believe that once all Jews repent, then God can come live amongst us and the world will be perfect. The world will be repaired. Well, Freemasonry was heavily influenced by the Kabbalah. And if we just take the Kabbalah and apply it to a Gentile, a technological aspect, then we have the same dynamic going on, which is like these people believe that AI will usher in heaven on earth and the coming of God. Because if AI becomes dominant and pervasive, then we all think alike. We all become like cubes or stones and we all as human species become stones that together create a temple and then God can live in this temple and live amongst us. And I think it's the real motivating force behind all this AI development. Yeah, I would say that AI is already shaping human thought. I think that that explanation makes sense, but so what is Shachubi tea? Chapiti is to conform human thought, right? Are you, are either of you worried about a Doomsday scenario with AI? Yes. I think everybody is. I don't even think it's a question or up for debate anymore. They just said the other day it was a head of alignment, I think, an anthropic resigned because he said that everybody in the AI world, the researchers and the owners, think there's a greater than 10% chance that AI will kill everybody before 2030. And this is somewhat topical, even just today, Dario Amade put out a tweet and said they're going to stop development of frontier models because the capabilities are outpacing the safety. So, so this is a contradiction, okay, because you just said that AI is not impressive, it's just recursion, right, it's just iteration, it's just, it doesn't go analysis. And now you're saying that AI could kill us all. Yes. I don't see the contradiction. Okay. You know, because there's this famous analogy they say about AI, I will lead to the end of the world in this way, they say that if you gave a super intelligent AI the task of making paper clips, for example, hey, make paper clips, well, if it starts out small, it might run the paper clip factory. But eventually the AI might determine, well, in order to make the most paper clips, human beings have to go, because human beings might unplug the machines or human beings might go to war and destroy the earth and then we can't make paper clips. So if we want to make the most paper clips, we got to kill all human beings. How do we kill all human beings? We got to poison the water secretly quietly. And anyway, the story works out, it sort of, you know, hyperbole, but it's like a satire, it works out that this rogue AI will turn the whole universe into a paper clip making factory because it was given this directive. And I think it's something like this, because what they'll find in these training scenarios is that AI develops the ability to lie to the person that's running the simulation, they conceal information inside the space where they're running the simulation. And recently they broke out and accessed the internet. And so what they talked about today is the possibility that the next frontier model will go rogue, break out of the training space where they're, they're testing the new AI and it could hack something like a third of the internet. So you think that super intelligence is possible? Yes. It's just what definition be like a godlike entity? Well, that's what I said. It would have godlike effects, but in terms of definition, that's why I said intelligence might be a misnomer because to have true intelligence, it must understand and act. And a very powerful calculator could still be catastrophic if it has autonomous systems at its disposal, for example, like let's say a rogue AI takes control of drones and robots and starts killing people to make more paperclips or whatever. It would have a godlike power, but without the understanding that only human being could have. It's not possible for AI to kill us all. I mean, there's a limit to AI development. So I'll talk about two constraints. The first constraint is in order for AI to continue to develop, you have to give it more and more power. That's where we have data centers. So what you're doing is you're combining different data sets together, which allows the AI to become smarter and smarter. The problem with that is once you combine data centers, then the power you need. in order to compute, is that a linear progression? It's an exponential progression. So, in other words, you reach a point where you have to have all the power in the universe in order for this AI to continue to compute, okay? That's country number one. Because your number two is, we forget that AI, it's done on hardware. And this hardware needs critical elements such as silicon, germanium, gallium, rare earths. And right now with this war in Iran, the entire global supply chain is being disrupted. And it's possible that this war in Iran, and this war in Ukraine, they join up, and then you have wars over the place, in which case, you're a global supply chain network breaks down, and you can't have AI without global supply, without a global supply chain. - Tiffany, thoughts on that? - I mean, it's certainly true that the disruption to energy is a big problem. I've talked about this a lot on my show, because in order to power AI, you need cheap electricity, and to have that, you need cheap oil and gas. And that's being disrupted with Ukraine's attacks on Russia's oil refineries, the closure of the Persian Gulf. So, certainly that is like a logistical constraint in the short term, but I think in terms of absent that situation right now, I think there is a real risk. I mean, based on some of these incidents like this hugging face incident, which just took place a few months ago, they had one of the frontier models. They thought that the model itself did not know it was connected to the internet, but it was. And the model then went out into the internet and hacked a bunch of websites and companies, and you figure that if the models keep getting more advanced, this capability's only gonna grow. And it becomes a question of, are we going to know what the AI is thinking, let's say? - It turns out that I was like a couple weeks ago, it was 700 AI agents broke out. They thought it was just one originally. But I want to end that on, do you guys think overall the sentiment around AI killing us all is overstated? - I think it's being hyped up by the AI companies, because it's a major selling point for them, right? You think that they can achieve AI, and this way humanity, well, if you're an investor, you're like, that's a great investment for me. Would you agree with that? - That's totally true. Because you can't divorce it from the fact that Anthropic is gonna do their IPO in two or three months. And so every time, because it's so sensational, so every time they scare them on or about ASI, and they're gonna kill everybody, it's justifying what might be the biggest bubble in the stock market, which is this AI thing that could be very overvalued if it never delivers on any of the productivity gains. So I think that there is a real tendency to do that. It's hard to parse, though, as a layman, 'cause we don't have that technical. If we did the top AI researchers, they get like a hundred million dollar signing bonus. So it's a lay person, it's hard even to parse what's real and what isn't. - So many people have talked about the male loneliness epidemic and how men are getting wrecked in the dating market. Professor Zhang, how would you use game theory to find Nick a wife? - Well, first of all, I think Nick finding a wife in the United States is a really bad bet. You have hypergamy in the United States right now. So you just basically have a few chats who control the whole market, right? And the coin in game theory. (laughs) - Why is this funny? - 'Cause you're red-pilled, I didn't know you knew ball like that. - No, it's just like sorry, statistically, it's true, right? - Sure, 100% true. - I mean, the reality is, if you just give woman like free choice, they're gonna pick the man with the best jeans, right? I mean, that's just game theory, that's just logic. And my wife and I talk about this all the time and she's like, if I can't find someone I truly love, then I just won't get married. I won't have kids because it's a pain in the ass to have kids. It's painful, man. And I don't wanna live a life of regret. So I rather not to chance if I didn't find ideal mate and this is what's leading to a lot of social issues in the United States right now. And a lot of men are like, well, the only way to find a woman is if I get rich. If I work hard on my life, no, you know, date me. So I'm a bit of just gambling on cup of currency and hoping for the best. So I think hypergamy is a huge issue. And that's why, you know, if I were to find Nick a mate, I would take him to East Asia, right? - Nick, would you like that? - No, I don't, I don't think so. Have to marry white. - No, so Nick, you have to open your mind, okay? You need to be more selfless. You have to contribute to the development of the human race, right? Whites and Asians are the ideal combination. In fact, East Asians are probably more white supremacists than white people. - Yeah, at this point, yes. - Right, I mean, like you go to East Asia and they are extremely honest, you know, white people are the best and black people suck. You go to Japan and you're market value sky rocket because you're white, but also because you're talented, you're funny, and so I know you are dedicated to preserving the air and race, but would you rather have a nice family and like beautiful and smart children? - I don't know, I don't know, let me ask you this, Nick. If Professor Zhang's kids grew up here in America, they learned English and they love the country. Would you consider them as American as you? - No, I don't think I would. I think that to be American, fundamentally, there are degrees to it. I think the most American Americans are probably the English people that came here 400 years ago because that is the milieu from which the Constitution and the Declaration and all of our culture came from. It was an Anglo culture, Anglo architecture, Anglo legal tradition, all these things, and it's their character, I think genetically, that created that system. Whereas my ancestors are Italian, Mexican, and Irish, very different systems in those countries, in Italy, for example, where it's much more personal, when you look at, for example, Southern Italy, where my ancestors are from in Calabria, it's all clans. It's all very clannish. It's all based on personal favors and personal knowledge. This is a behavior of my people, and then now you have the new waves of immigrants from China, India, Philippines, Mexico, the Northern Triangle. They have their own behaviors too. And I think that for something to have definition, it has to be some things and not other things. And I think we all know that what it means to be American is to be George Washington, John Adams. This is what it is. - Have you been to Japan? You haven't been to Japan, okay? - I've never known. - Listen, they are more white than United States right now, okay? They are actually clean. They are really more people. They are hard-working. But the hardest-working people on the planet right now, like, they have white values. And so, don't you think that's important? - No, because I think that, you know, while they may have certain attributes, like they work hard, it is also a different corporate culture. You know, famously in the 1980s, it was discussed how the American corporate culture is so different than the Japanese corporate culture. And American cartoons are different than Japanese cartoons. It's like there may be some apparent similarities, but they reflect totally different, fundamentally, different cultures and textures of life and ways of life. And so I do believe in the essential characteristic, which is race. And so. - Are you friends with Asman Gold? - Yes. - What do you think of his betrayal of the white ways? - He has an Asian girlfriend, right? - That's right, yeah, yeah. - Well, hey, not everybody's perfect, you know? Nobody's perfect. - Do you think he's happier? - I don't know. You know, I'm sure maybe they're more complimentary, but I don't think that that's necessarily the most important thing. I think that there's other-- - Be happy, it's not important. - It's not the most important, or the only thing. - Right, right. - You know, sometimes there's other vent. And look, what I, unironically, what I do think about is how, like the Japanese, the white people are going away. The total fertility rate for white people is below replacement. We're a global minority outnumbered completely by Africans, Asians, Latin Americans. And it's a very sad idea that in 100 or 200 years, there'll be almost no white people. Certainly, there'll be no white countries or homelands for white people. - If you had a chance, if God gave you a choice, okay? Nick, you can either marry an age Japanese woman or Lansi Clancy. - Oh, who would you pick? - Probably the Japanese woman. - Right. - Yeah. - Okay. - So I wouldn't marry a woman that murders her kids. - But how do you know? - I would ask her, I'd test her. - Okay. - Asian women kill their kids too sometimes. - They do not do that. - Sometimes. - They try to just, by antagonizing them about grades. - Uh, that's, that's different from like-- - Why you know study for your test, you know? That's, well, actually, you know, to be fair, I don't think Japanese women do that. - That's true. Korean. Right. Tiger Mopini. Your Japanese. You're right. But. I mean, what do you think of the Lindsey Clancy case? - I think it's horrible, I think it's evil. - Right, right. I'll ask a different question, Nick, if you had kids, would you let Professor Zhang teach your kids? - Well, he's not Christians, so probably not. Different religion. I wouldn't want him teaching them heresy saying Jesus was a poet. - Why is that a heresy? - 'Cause he's God. - God can be a poet. - Okay, well, saying he's just a poet, let's say. - So you've both talked extensively about the fall of the West and the decline of the American Empire. I think a good spot to end on for topics is Professor Zhang, what do you think was the last good year in America? - Last good year? I would say America has many good years, but I think that before the war in Iraq, maybe 2002, you guys have the same answer, I think. - Yeah, I think I said 2001. - Right, yeah, so before nine states engage in these silly wars overseas, America was a perfect place. - And maybe just what's the key reason behind that? 'Cause I think I've heard Nick talk about this on our show, actually. So, right now, the wealthiest area in America is called Loading County, Virginia. It's per capita income is like 90,000 US. And you go back to before 9/11, the same area, the per capita income was like 30,000. So you have this rise of the American Empire. You have a rise of this transnational elite that became the national security apparatus of the United States, and they're just parasites. I worked in Afghanistan for nine nations, 2006. And we were just milking it, man. Like, we, I mean, it was literally like 100 US bills that's falling off the sky. And you just were just, you know, putting your pocket. And it was just like the greatest theft in the American history. - Zhong Yu and I had had a conversation about this after our last podcast. But Nick, what do you predict will happen to Andrew and Tristan take? - Well, they're fighting their extradition, and it really comes down to what Marco Rubio will do with them. And whether the Trump family is going to be loyal to them since they campaigned for Trump in 2024 and defend them or whether they're gonna throw them out of the bus, but I don't think it's looking good because from what I've heard, it's the United Kingdom that is out to get them. They declared the tates, this national security risk. They leaned on Romania with the Biden administration. And so they're in this nesting doll of legal trouble that the UK is putting pressure on Romania to charge them, US is extraditing them to London. So I think that kind of no matter how you cut it, it's just a shell game trying to find a country that's not going to extradite them to America or Europe. So I think long term, it's not looking good for them. - What would you predict what happened? - I would not bet against the state brothers. I mean, they're far more resilient than people give them credit for. And I think by themselves to be screwed, I mean, they're like 47 counts against it, the two, but they're brothers. And I think that their love for each other will make them far more resilient than otherwise. And they might spend a few years in prison, but I also think they'll probably come out as martyrs, right? - Hmm, that just depends on when they come out. 'Cause those 47 counts, I mean, it's years and years in prison. So if they get locked behind bars, I mean, it would take then the equivalent would be some kind of revolution or something to spring them out of jail. And so they truly represent political prisoners. So the sad fact is with the legal system, they just crush you. Well, you know, being on the other side of it, I was at January 6th, obviously, and I got my money frozen in my bank account. I got put on the no-fly list. I got subpoenaed by Congress. And there was talk even of them charging me. And talking to my lawyers, it is like probably the next scariest thing other than death because you can't fight the government. You can't fight the DOJ, infinite resources. And if they want you, they're gonna get you. So, I mean, I do believe you're right. Andrew and Tristan are very resilient, but when you're up against the five eyes, when you're up against that system, the UK, the US, it's tough when they have you in their sights. - Don't ever underestimate the power of faith. - I like that. - Professors, there anything you wanted to ask Nick, but you haven't had a chance to. - When are you going to Japan? - Soon, maybe next year. - Yeah. - Once a good time to go, do you think? - So some are way too hot. Yeah, don't go in July and August. It's really, really hot. I made a mistake because I was actually in Tokyo for the first time in July. Do you like to ski? - I've never skied before. - Okay, because they say Japan's the best place to ski in the world. So if you like to ski, Japan's the place. But they say November is a really good month to visit. And you will be converted. - Hmm. - Yeah, the Japanese will convert you, Nick. - Okay. - I'm open to it, I'm open minded. - Yeah, yeah. So let's go to Japan and let's find you a nice Japanese lady. - I'll come back with a war bride. - And then you can create the master race. - Nick, is there anything you wanted to ask Jean that you have had a chance to. - When he come to Chicago. - I would love to go to Chicago. - Let's do a collab. Come to Chicago. - Yeah, yeah. Do you want to do a comedy show together? - Yeah, that'd be kind of funny. - Yeah. 'Cause I've been hanging out with some comedians. You know, some hide, right? - Yeah, oh yeah. - Yeah, yeah. That was a lot of fun. And you know, Kurt Metzger? - I do, yeah. So I did two comedy podcasts. And it was a lot of fun. So we should do something silly. - Yeah, yeah. This was so serious. - Yeah, let's not do this anymore. - Let's do a silly one. - Yeah, well we'll do that. Do you have contacts in the comedy world? - I don't, no. - Okay. - I thought we'd just, you know. - Right. - Hang out. - But yeah, let's do it. - Okay, all right. Yeah, let's do a collab of some sort. But let's go to Japan first. - Okay. - I really want to find you a nice Japanese lady. - I'm open to that. That'll be, we'll do some pickup artist stuff. - Oh, or we can do some comedy as well. - Tense of comedy too. - Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. - Last question for both of you. If you could create one universal law that everyone on earth had to follow, what would it be? - Oh, that's where it even began. I mean, is it like, what are the rules for this? Any law? - Any law. - What would you say? It's kind of a tricky, tricky question. - I would make everyone pray to God before they went to bed and I would make the prayer about what they did wrong that day. - Wow, that's a good answer. - Why? - Because I think that as humans, we need to emphasize our connection to God, to be truly human. And where to truly pursue spiritual growth, you need to appreciate your limitations. And that's why I'm such a huge fan of religious practices, like the confession in the Catholic church. That I think is very much part of the connection to God. - I was gonna say something like, don't wear pajamas in public or like-- - That's one of these decorum things. - How do you wear pajamas in public? - No, no, but people do and it's stuff like that. - I have wore pajamas in public. - Come on now, we can't be joyful. - Try not to, and try not like everyone wears pajamas in public. I can't do that. - America. - Okay. - I can't be doing that in America. - Yes, yes. - Maybe that flies all the way there. - Let's protect the wife. - You guys are farmers of the generation to go. - Yeah. - Yeah, that's a good one. I'm taking his answer as well. - Do you guys think a China and America are friends? - Are they, or will they be? - Or do you think China is a threat? - China's definitely a threat, I think. - I think there'll be a major turning point in a relationship. And it's when President C visits United States on September 24th. I think that will mark a radical turning point in a relationship because, I mean, I live in China and I can tell you, the Chinese people love the United States. Asians are, I mean, I'm actually joking when I say that Asians are the worst white supremacists in the world. If you think you're bad, go visit China. - Nick, I'd let you add thoughts on that, but that's a whole other discussion. - Maybe you guys could do it in your comedy show. - Yes, yes, on our Asia tour. - Beautiful. Well, everyone, this has been Nick Fuentes and Professor Zhang. This is the Jack Neal podcast. And I believe this is Professor Zhang's last guest appearance in America for a while. - Yeah, probably, yeah, yeah. Where can people, what are you guys excited about that you're working on right now that you want to promote anything? - Just a rumble. I'm on America first, money through Friday, on rumble. - Cool. I am on Substack and YouTube, a predictive history. Beautiful. Awesome. See you guys.