The Pete Quiñones Show - Episode 1310: 2025 Examined w/ Ron Dodson and Firas Modad

Episode Date: December 28, 2025

116 MinutesPG-13Ron Dodson is Principal Owner & Portfolio Manager of a Texas hedge fund.Firas Modad is a Middle East and geopolitical risk analyst and host on The Lotus Eaters.Firas and Ron joined Pete for a look back at 2025.Firas' SubstackThe Lotus EatersFiras on TwitterRon at the American ReformerRon's SubstackRon on TwitterThe Rule of the IncarnateThe Goon SquadLand's End - Christopher CaldwellPete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

...withan ...toe... If you want to get the show early and ad-free, head on over to the Piquinez Show.com. There you can choose from where you wish to support me. Now listen very carefully. I've had some people ask me about this, even though I think on the last ad, I stated it pretty clearly. If you want an RSS feed, you're going to have to subscribe your son. substack or through Patreon.

You can also subscribe on my website, which is right there, Gumroad, and what's the other one? Subscribe Star. And if you do that, you will get access to the audio file. So head on over to the Pekignonez Show.com. You'll see all the ways that you can support me there. And I just want to thank everyone. It's because of you that I can put out the amount of material that I do.

I can do what I'm doing with Dr. Johnson on 200 years together and everything else. The things that Thomas and I are doing together on continental philosophy, it's all because of you. And, yeah, I mean, I'll never be able to thank you enough. So thank you, the Pekingona Show.com. Everything's there. I want to welcome everyone back to the Pekignana Show for a year end in review, two of my favorite people.

Ron Dodson, how are you doing? you know i'm doing great thanks for having me pete pharis modad how are you i am very well thank you so much for having me great to be with you guys again awesome all right let's just jump into this i think we're all going to have different topics we want to talk about um i'm gonna let ron go first um ron what do you think is something that happened this past year that's important to talk about well i think i think it's tough to get you know if if you don't talk about the re-election of And then how that has, we can set aside execution for a minute, but the, but the, the, the, the, the policy goals, both domestically, but even possibly more importantly, geopolitically that he has put forward that are already shaping, uh, the conversation and, uh, how, you know, the, how the, the, the great powers or the, uh, or the, or the rival powers. You know, we're seeing a return of great power rivalry and kind of chess-pored geopolitics.

And I think that is absolutely driven by the re-election of Trump. And, you know, in theory, a focus on some new version of a Monroe doctrine. And we saw the strategic, you know, the new strategic, the defense strategy come out. And I thought that was very well written. I wrote a piece on that. And so I think any year in review has to start with the reemergence or the reestablishment of Donald Trump in his view of how geopolitics should work. Yeah, I fully agree with that. I think if I wanted to describe it, it's sort of the return to realism, as in it's the death of two kinds of idealism. One domestic, one domestic front, like Vivekramaswamy's idea that anybody who sort of believes in meritocracy and the American,

dream is immediately an American if they just spend whatever it is five years, six years, 10 years to get citizenship. I think that's completely dead. And you're seeing that, you know, there is no real argument against some form of ethnic identity, some form of ethonationalism. and that's that kind of transcendental idealism that says no we're we're too mature to believe that people belong to different groups that's sort of dead but so is the idea of a global hegemonic liberal order that's really what you saw in the national security document the new national security strategy that look there's got to be some kind of reconciliation with Russia

we can't take on Russia and China at the same time Europe is breaking apart and the reason Europe is breaking apart is in part because of the illusions around immigration and you know that there was the that headline from the National Geographic a few years ago which showed an old Syrian guy with his half a dozen wives and two dozen children or whatever it was, the new Europeans, like, okay, they're not European. Conversations done here. And it's the same thing

with the idea that the Americans can fight China and Russia and Iran all at the same time. There is a return to realism. The Russians are necessary for Europe's energy independence and energy security. Okay, too bad about Nord Stream. Like, you know, it would have been nice if that wasn't blown up. There's got to be a... Thank you, Vicki Newland. Say again.

Thanks, Nicky Newland. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, thanks, Vicky. Yeah, yeah. There's got to be a reassertion of the Monroe Doctrine. Well, you let it rot for 20 years, or previous administrations let it rot for 20 years while they were off pursuing the freaking Taliban and, ISIS and all with that.

Do you think, real quick, do you think that the the mishandling of the intelligence stuff that's actually all related to Robert Maxwell, but that's another topic for another day, that led to Iran-Contra

was one of the things that shifted America's focus away? Because that was definitely although illegally executed, that definitely shifted the U.S. attention away from the Americas, I think. It was almost like a, uh, uh, uh, that, that, um, you know, you had, you had the Sandinistas and all that.

And we don't have to get into all the details. But, but, but I almost think that that scandal, which could have taken some guys and put them in prison for a long. I mean, that was kind of, I mean, whether you agree with the policy goals or not. And, And I have a lot of sympathy for them. I really do. But that could have put some guys away for a long time. Do you think that played a part in it? I think it poisoned the U.S.'s ability to take the lead role in Latin America in a particular way.

Yes. Yes. I think that degree of cynicism turned interventions into Latin America quite toxic. well and then you had the the panamanian thing i guess was the last gasp of that right right can we um can we just take a moment to congratulate oliver south uh oliver north and fawn hall who um actually got married in 2025 i saw that unbelievable i mean it's absolutely incredible it is incredible it is incredible i mean how old dolly now he's got to be let me see he's got to be pushing 80 right yeah he's uh 82 yeah and he's

getting married and he got married recently no he yeah he's gone hall and let me tell you back in her day she was a smoke she was a smoke show she was a she was a beautiful woman wow all right we've gotten uh well thank you i i'm glad you agree with me a little bit on that i think there was That tends to go unnoticed, I think. There is more to be said there in that, you know, the intelligence community had all of these weird relationships with these drug dealers and stored drugs as an acceptable vice. Uh-huh.

And allowed their smuggling into the United States. And now these groups have mutated. into something like we've said before um they're closer now to hasbala than they are to a drug gang than they are to has well has been training on uh the island just off the north coast of uh venezuela no this is all in a related um and we can hit we can hit venezuela in a little bit but but but i don't these cartels are providing services they're providing health care they're providing education, they're providing security, all in exchange for protection money and things like that, but they're functioning as a state within the state. And so that, the original policy

mistake wasn't, you know, the Iran-Contra, it was tolerating drugs. And that's... Do you think that... Do you think the current... the current Venezuelan operation, whatever you want to call it, is, I think it's primarily about China, but do you think it's also about eroding the middle manager and operational wings of the CIA's power that it exerts through those activities that it has traditionally had its fingers in? you know i don't know enough to say that but that's an interesting hypothesis i mean i've seen guys and who knows how informed they are i have a friend who uh um who who suggests that's not probably the case with that there's there that there are operational fingers in that pie

but it's so it's it's so opaque that you know it's hard to it's it's it's hard to get at so yeah anyway i i don't know enough to say but the venezuela thing is a real big problem uh you're right that it's in part about china but i also think about it as a test case for china so if you can get venezuelan crude to no longer go to China, you could conceivably do something similar for other Latin American minerals. And you could then work... Well, you're seeing it in silver. Yep. And you could then work on restricting the flow of

trade between Latin America and China. And if you're China, you're probably panicked about that prospect because of the extent of dependence. on things like Brazilian soy or Chilean copper or what have you, insert your favorite natural resource here. And so the fact that the USS sees tankers that are connected to the Chinese is a big problem for China because they don't know how to respond to that. They don't have the ability to project power that far from their shores. They also can't take that line down. Yeah. That power projection is one of the thing, is one of the big changes that is coming very much into the forefront.

Yes. In 2025, that distance more than ever, well, back into the, you know, the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, distance equals risk. Yes. And so where I am curious to see, because it's not just in the minerals, what. China's doing to the, especially off the, not limited to the West Coast, but primarily the West Coast of Chile, of South America with their fishing, Armada is criminal. Yes. And that's going to have to be dealt with at some point or it'll take 30 years for those for

those to regenerate. So I don't, that's another big thing. But all these things are very, you know, connected. I agree. I agree. And that's why the Chinese, if you're China, you're seeing the US trying to reconcile with Russia and replace you as an investor in Russia, which is why Larry Fink was there with Whitkoff and Kushner to negotiate, you know, with the Russians.

That's a pretty big deal. That's American capital going to Russia. That's scary for the Chinese. Venezuela is a test case, but it's not like that the Chinese don't have options on their own. I mean, one thing in the last year that I was wrong about was that it seems to me that the Chinese got the better of the Americans in the trade war because of their ability to firstly develop independence

when it comes to microchips including some kind of ham-fisted attempt at their own machine to make the lithography machines and secondly, in their ability to restrict the export of rare earth

minerals and rare earth magnets which pretty much paralyzed all of the Western economies all Western manufacturing. yeah that's a trump card for sure yes well let me let me let me interject um this week it was announced that russian diplomats were pulling out of venezuela and the the immediate immediately you can think okay well we're getting they're getting ready to bomb venezuela that's why they're leaving

could that point toward could could that actually point toward more uh a positive have been diplomatic relations between the United States and Russia. Well, I'll tell you what the key there is, there's two keys to that. One, I see pretty intractable. The other, I'm interested to hear what Ferris says on both of them, but the two parties that have always been most in most vociferous objection to Russian normalization are the Brits and the Israelis. And the Israelis tends to be less Israeli and more just generally Jewish.

But if we normalize with, if we normalize with Russia, we don't need Israel near as much as we have historically. Israel ends up because we needed Turkey and we needed a balance to Turkey because you got to have the Dardanelles and the Bosporus. And it's a chain reaction. And Russian intelligence is 10 times better than Israeli intelligence. let's let's say i i know a fair amount about u.s intelligence i'm not an expert in the foreign intelligence services so i i'll take your word on that but but but needing but being opposed to russia is what causes that domino of that chain of dependencies that goes all the way around to egypt so so uh but but those two groups are the are are the and one is

deeply embedded. And again, I'm not much, much less than some of my dear friends on the right. I'm much less, you know, JQ coded and all that, although I think it's definitely an issue. It's just that you've got these ethnic animosities with the Brits and the, and the Jews with regards to Russia. That seems to be the biggest. Having Kushner be part of this negotiating seems to be an attempt. to, whereas that role was previously taken by Michael Anton, who's just a Catholic Claremont guy, but Kushner taking that role seems to be a means to hedge some of that, or at least stave off the reaction to that. What do you think, Ferris? I agree that there is some general Jewish animus towards Russia that gets expressed in U.S. foreign policy.

in people you see in Foggy Bottom just sort of getting a bit too obsessed with the Russia question and the threat from Russia. And I agree that Russia would make the Middle East largely, you know, a lot less relevant, shall we say. Right, right. Because Russia kind of brings with it Iran to some extent

a Russia-U.S. reconciliation can pave the way to Iran, U.S. reconciliation and make a lot of things a lot easier, especially with the regime so weakened in Iran. As for the Brits, they are, they still think that they're playing the great game. Exactly. And that's just, and mind you, they think that at a time when Russian-Indian relations have never been better. We had Putin visiting Modi in Delhi and having a wonderful reception there with all kinds of agreements on military, on civilian, on agriculture, even on Indian labor going to Russia. So the Indian-Russian relationship, the purpose of the great

gain, that no longer exists. But the Brits still think that they're playing the great game against Russia and that Russia is their main threat when in reality the main problem facing Britain is domestic but the entire establishment is sort of hardwired to think about Russia as

the great threat all the time and I don't see that changing under the current establishment. And even under a new government, you'd have to do some deep purging of the establishment to change their worldview. Or at least you'd have to sort of dismantle bits of the Russia desk or the Russia desks that exist throughout and say, look, guys, this isn't a priority anymore. the priority is x y and z so there is this hardwired mindset that's hostile to russia and that's what

trump is going up against and i get it from the jewish perspective because if you have the u.s and russia dominating europe then you have that whole part of the world sort of looking at outsiders as enemies. And in their mind, that is a prelude to white nationalism and the disasters that sort of befall the Jewish people when nationalism becomes too strong. So fair enough, it shouldn't be like that. People as groups shouldn't be a target.

So I understand their way of thinking. but this is like all of this stuff all of the relationship between the Jewish community and pretty much every Western society is really getting worse and one place where it really isn't that bad

is in Russia like if you look at the number of say I think of the top 50 billionaires in Russia I think maybe 10 are Jewish when they're like 0.01% of the population or 0.1% of the population or something minuscule like that. Yeah.

And there were some interesting mechanics that led to that, probably beyond the scope of our discussion. It was the disaster of the 1990s, right? That's right. Because it was in the same in Russia and in Ukraine. And in Ukraine, it's a sort of similar over-representation. Mm-hmm.

So, you know, war has been. business. Well, and it's about hard currency. Who has access to hard currency in, you know, and it's usually the folks who are centered around some of the more visey type of industries, right? And so if you're in a Christian, if you're in a Christian or Orthodox, you know, environment and you operate outside that vice vice industries bring in hard currency yeah and so is this isn't you know i'm not i'm not

cracking some secret code here this is throughout world history it's why ports tend to be a little just traditionally a little more racy places yes you know you've got foreign currency you got foreign people who aren't tied to your way of life and all this kind of stuff Yep. And so anyway, that that whole. And so if you had hard currency and you were able to buy up the privatization certificates, then you could you could parlay that into some magnificent wealth. Yep. And Putin was the one guy being the administrator of St. Petersburg, of Leningrad, he knew how to handle that. So I mean, this, this. This. This. this domino of world events starting, you know, from, well, you know, that Reagan era through what we're talking about. There's reason for it. Yes. It's it's not just a bunch of random. Oh, isn't that weird how the dartboard worked? No, it's it's much more like a domino. And once you see that and understand it, then you're the, you're able to have wisdom to see where are the dominoes in the future.

And I'm saying this, not for your benefit, Farah, but for the benefit of the younger guys who are listening to this, these are the reasons that you study this stuff, not so that you can just sound smart on a podcast. That's Ferris and Pete, not me. But so that you can be the guy who's wise looking for, oh, I can see where this is going because I can understand the recent. path in the past right um anyway i i just think it's really really important and the russia thing is so important to me because they seem like natural allies not maybe allies is too strong but natural friends because i love russian literature i mean if you can if you don't see yourself at some level when you read dostoevsky and and and and some of the other russian authors the more contemporary or just they're just brilliant i even am a nerd for russian cinema uh i just think tartowski and some of these other guys are just unbelievable but but but and and they're and they tend to be deeply orthodox now part of this is i have a russian aunt who is i mean

she's kind of a hard woman but but she loves my uncle and but but she's she's personal how do i describe this she's personally kind of skeptical but culturally very orthodox and and we as americans kind of say oh well that's just fake no what it does is it gives you a culture with rootedness where we're all playing we're all row in the boat the general same direction and so a culture that's like that should be friends with a christian united states it should be friendly with a not at least criminally Christian, UK. And so I, you know, I, this is a great lament of mine, the state of affairs with Russia. I don't understand the animosity.

I really don't. I completely agree with you. I think the animosity isn't rooted in sound geopolitics or in sound national interest. I think a lot of it is media-driven. A lot of it is sort of, you know, the demonization of the less threatening of the great powers. And it just isn't necessary because this isn't what the Russians themselves are after. Right. And the bit that people refuse to understand is that Putin is a bit of a liberal dad.

he really isn't that hard line he really isn't the most hardcore that the Russians have to offer and he's got a lot of more hardline factions that he has to keep in line now mind you wearing the crown does tend to moderate you because it's a lot easier to be more extreme when you're junior and we saw that kind of thing with hasbalah we saw that kind of thing with iran we saw that We see that kind of thing all the time. But the idea that Putin is this nasty imperialist monster who's opposed, you know, he's about to roll his tanks into Paris or something. Like, what planet are you people living on? Right.

They're struggling. Well, then at least, then at least Paris wouldn't be faking gay and gay race communists. Well, you know, there have been worse things that have had. happened to Paris and arguably more in the recent past that it passed that in the distant past but okay yeah you know one thing you have to remember about russia is once you start studying their history is being russian and being orthodox is basically the same thing historically and that's why when that's why when bolshevism came along they had to destroy the church they had to take over and you know then they realize we can't destroy this so we're going to have to take it over

we're going to have to have our own state church that runs this thing and you know there's a lot of ethnic animosity that went into the bolshevik uh bolshevik revolution and the subsequent what happened subsequent and you know a lot of what's happening with russia now is still those same people it's like you know Biden had like five people working and working in his administration who have direct ties to like there that you could trace their family like 10 miles within lavov I mean I mean these are these are people who are bred to hate russians and you know when you when you look at someone like Putin and i think it's hilarious that they use a lot of people and even people on the right but they these are people who are on the right who tend to be more pro-israel they use this thing where

it's the same thing that they said about it off hitler that adolf hitler was an enemy to the white race because he got so many white people killed it's like what when you have an existential enemy, when you have an existential threat like Bolshevism that's threatening the peninsula, maybe it's not as simple as that. And they say the same thing about Putin. Oh, Putin is responsible for the death of, look how many white Slavs he's killed and responsible for. It's the same playbook over and over again. I've always said about Putin is Putin has way more restraint than me, because if I was, if I was president of Russia, I would have invaded in 2014 and i would have taken kiev i would have burnt kiev to the ground i mean so

you know it's yeah that's important for russian culture to burn to the ground you know kiev is too important for the russians to actually that's right i know there's there's a respect that they give to kiev uh however you say it now i'm you know i'm old uh kev is that how we're No, I don't do that, and I don't do briefly. I never had chicken. I'm still stuck on Turkey now. And I think I'm about to go back to Bombay and not Mumbai and all of that stuff. Yeah.

Yeah. Well, so Kiev, there's this, there's this, I mean, if you look at the order of battle, how it's gone, there's a, there's a, there's this respect that they're clearly giving. to Kiev, that, uh, that again, if, uh, if Pete Curtis LeMay Canona's was in charge, what I'm kidding, Pete. Uh, that was a World War II joke. Um, but, uh, anyway, the, uh, that, that they clearly, there's just more going on than, than the average American. Yeah. Tends to appreciate. So, but the, the, the other thing is that the negotiations don't seem to be going anywhere. no all of the proposals that have been made I mean the 28 point plan and now what's his

name Zelensky coming up with his own 20 point plan version of that like they're not going anywhere and it seems to be that the Americans are stuck they the team that is managing the negotiations isn't factoring in Russia's minimum requirements for this war and No, there, don't, have you, did you see the, the, the, the policy paper that was supposed to, it was supposed to be published by Rand, but it ended up getting, I, I might have shared it with you guys, but it's been probably a month ago, uh, where it's all about can we get towards a neutral, but fully armed Ukraine. Well, it can't be both of these things. It can't, that's right. That, I was like, this doesn't, this is like some middle school girl. right no offense to the ladies not like any of you're listening to us but right it was no i'm i'm open about my views that women shouldn't be involved in politics that's totally fine it was it was terrible um and i'm like this doesn't this isn't going to work

you're going to have to have and a disarmed whatever's left of ukraine and personally you know i'd give russia all to the river let them have it because that's the group that all voted to go with Russia anyway in 10 and 12 and then most of the east of the river I mean and west of the river most of that was Poland, Romania and Hungary anyway, right? Yep. Back before the partition. It's not over until the Russians take Odessa. And the flip side of that is that if they don't take Odessa, they'd have lost the war. That's right. if they don't take odessa they have a hand in all of the politics of central europe so so for those who don't who aren't in the weeds on this what one of the things fears is talking about is when we

did the color revolution in ukraine which the called madan you know uh one of the first things we did was take a Georgian, an Ivy League trained Georgian, obviously a CIA, you know, not an agent, but under the thumb of the CIA, Sajkvili, and he became the, it's not mayor. I can't remember the, it's not prefect, but it's the title. Governor. Okay, is it governor? Okay. The governor of And so this is, and it's a huge, this is, this is much like for Russia, St. Petersburg is the big port and a lot of, that's what Odessa functions is that for Ukraine. And we put this, he didn't even speak Ukrainian. It was, and so this is a hugely important. He did speak Russian. And so this is a hugely important. And he spoke Russian. And so this is a hugely important. And he spoke English. he still does. I guess he's still alive. I think he's still swimming around. Isn't it amazing how the United States loves to back Georgians? Never mind. Whoa. A little Stalin callback there. Yeah. Edward Shevard Naze played a huge part in the in the fall, another Georgian. So nice, nice callback, Pete. But anyway, that's one of the reasons this is, this is immensely important to Putin and the Russians is having full control of Odessa. And now the Russians are the process of slowly wrecking Odessa.

Like they're breaking the infrastructure. They're cutting off its land connections because Odessa is separated from the front line by three rivers, I believe. And so they're cutting off the bridges. They're destroying the energy infrastructure. They're destroying the warehouses. they're destroying, they're attacking shipping because their shipping was attacked first. Yeah.

Which in a way brings us back to the Venezuela question. Now we are at the stage of the weaponization of shipping. I don't know if you guys saw this new Chinese ship, which looks like a container ship, but it's got a bunch of radars, AESA radars and all kinds of things, and it's got a bunch of vertical launch tubes. and it's acting as a combined missile launcher and arsenal ship to equip others.

Completely stealth. Not radar stealth, not radar stealth, but commercially stealth, because all this, these are all pop-up features out of faux containers. Exactly. It's brilliant. Which means that any container ship now is potentially a weapon. And if you look at a map of shipping, like you can't track the sheer number of container ships because there's just so that many of them. That's right.

And so if you're China, you can build military ships quite quickly, but you can build container ships much faster. And if you automate them and treat the cruise as expendable, which China tends to do to its soldiers, you know suddenly you have this whole new beast that you're dealing with where they're just sending you container ships and using them to love missiles at you and because they can build these things much faster than like okay the Navy the PLA Navy is a bit of a prestige position and if you're in there you're the son of somebody important and they don't want you to die But if you're sending one military vessel on a bunch of container ships that are just there to lop missiles at you and have a few radars, it's a different way of fighting war.

And it changes the nature of naval warfare and the U.S. has no shipbuilding capabilities. Like U.S. ship building capacity is sort of barely there. It's barely in play. How far behind schedule are we on the AKUSA? I don't know. I honestly don't know. That's the American United Kingdom. I probably did the acronym.

Oh, no. The Alps you mean. Yeah, yeah, yeah. On the British building nuclear submarines, did you see that there was an article that came out recently from somebody who was the head of, he was pretty high up in naval things in the Ministry of Defense?

He was pretty high up in nuclear capabilities in the Ministry of Defense. And he was saying that Britain no longer has the ability to field its nuclear submarines and shouldn't be involved in August and should be focused instead on just rebuilding the basic capabilities because they've become so atrophied. Yeah, I did see that. There was because they can't keep their, there's two carriers, right? I don't think and they can't keep. I think one's one was in Scotland at the big dry dock for several years and then it

went back out. Now it has had to come right back in. Yep. Interestingly enough, I think the Japanese have kind of figured out the calculus on this because they, they have, you know, they are prevented by constitution and treaty from running, uh, from, from, you know, doing heavy new. stuff on in weapons right but what they've done is they've they basically built what amounts to the Tesla of submarine fleet that they can build quickly and these things are dead silent

they're more silent than the new boats because when they go fully battery that it's only electric and something to do with the you know I'm not a summer I know enough about submarines to sound like an idiot to a Navy guy, but, uh, right. But anyway, I think, I think, you know, and then, um, and then the, uh, the, the, the, the estimate I saw, they have between 50 and 200 UAVs, so underwater autonomous vehicles in, in the, in, in, in, in, in, in near abroad that can go ping, you know, ping circus in the, in an instant. So, so, so they have completely. did not uh they can deny that area but the but but the but the but the future is i think less i i saw that trump proposed this trump uh battleship deal this massive and god bless him i i

love the guy but but that's the exact opposite direction that we should then you know smaller more mobile quicker to build uh faster these are the things that should be should be should be the goals, not, you know, these, these prestige standoff pieces that, well, I mean, a battleship's not a standoff weapon. I don't know. I'm really confused as to who, who is advising him on naval procurement. And, uh, but I did you guys see that? Yes. Let's, um, let's, uh, change direction here. Yeah. Ferris, talk a little bit about, um, you know, a story you would pick. and perfectly acceptable for it to be from Britain, from England, wherever. Look, the, it applies to England, but it applies broadly.

And it's something that I've harped on about on your show a bunch of times, Pete. It's the death of liberal delusions. I mean, just two days ago, or yesterday maybe, there were protests in Birmingham, in England, in support of Israel recognizing Somali land as an independent state, which led to, and these were Somali Muslims protesting, in support of the recognition of their country

by the Israelis. And this led to counter protests by a bunch of Muslim activists who don't want Israel recognizing anything and view everything that Israel does is bad. And the obvious conclusion is that these aren't British people. They like me, they have a British passport. And I'm grateful for citizenship in this country, but I don't think that I'm British. And obviously, these guys aren't British. And I wouldn't go protest anywhere over something to do with Lebanon. Like, that's just stupid. I've never done it. But you kind of see that this illusion is broken down. And you can see that people like Vivek Ramaswamy are

tilting against, you know, they're attacking something that they have no chance of beating. which is the rise of ethno nationalism and with the rise of ethno nationalism there are all kinds of secondary implications including for jewish people who will not be seen as part of whatever country they're in um but including well you said that hold that the muslim population yeah well bondi beach the shooting there the people doing the shooting and the people getting shot none of them were hered Australians. Australia, Australia imported a war from halfway around the world into their country. Not just that. The way that it played out, it triggered a massive issue here in Britain because in the Nick Fuentes, Pierce Morgan interview, Pierce Morgan got this guy called

Daniel Finkelstein, who is a conservative in the House of Lords, to talk about his family's experience with Hitler and Stalin. Okay, fair enough. This guy had been saying for months, countering everybody who was saying the opposite, that London is very safe, and that there are no issues because of immigration in London. After the Bondi Beach Massacre, this guy comes out and says, I no longer feel safe in London. Okay, so a shooting happens halfway across the world. It targeted a Khabad event. And Khabad is about as supremacist as it gets in their ideology.

They still shot unarmed civilians. It was still a terrorist attack. It's still cowardly. It's fucking horrible, man. accepting all of that exactly it's a crime it it should never have happened it shouldn't be tolerated but the fact that this guy changed his tune when everybody in london was saying look normal people in london no longer feel safe because of migration then we get the opposite signal from him and then to make everything worse he goes on television

And he says to the Muslims who hate Jewish people that the ethno-nationalists are going to be coming for them as well. So he's sort of signaling to the Muslim population that they should be on the same side against ethonationalism of any kind. So now mind you, go ahead, God, I'm sorry. Sorry. Now, mind you, any ideology that is sort of divorced from God that puts nationality, family, race, anything above God and his justice is by definition bad. That doesn't mean that you can't be under God and say, my people are my people and I love my people more than strangers. There is this order to things. to him that order to be neglected. Say again? Yeah. God works through families. Exactly. Exactly.

It's not complicated. And a nation of the family of families. That's Aristotle. Yes. Exactly. And so he goes against that. And then that led to a massive backlash. Because there was this refusal to acknowledge that what he said was destructive. and that it goes against the interests of British people who do deserve to awaken to their own national identity and to place it in its proper place. And this became a global issue in a way because of the fact that Pierce Morgan had used him against Fuentes. And then this guy sort of shows that, look, my priorities are always going to be my people.

In Britain, the Jewish minority is incredibly well integrated, and there aren't these issues of Israel first in the same way as there is in the United States. Like it's not to the same extent. It is an issue in that you have these various friends of Israel clubs within each political party, within the main political parties and the conservatives and in labor. enough that plays a role up to a point but it's nowhere near as visceral and vicious sometimes of a debate as it is in the united states this guy goes and upends this by taking the stupid position it could be because he's a silly liberal boomer but i just don't think that that's all

of it well he here let me let me frame this so he he's in britain he is he is somebody who says, oh, London is, is perfect for me as he is this very wealthy man who's who can insulate himself from, from the crime, from the fact that London is now a majority brown city. Something happens halfway around the world. He immediately changes his tune, but he he doesn't demonize the people who did the crime or the people who are doing the crimes in in britain and he decided that it was he was going to make it be all about british men english men and anyone who could embrace ethno nationalism yes now why don't you tell everybody what is his title he is lord baron daniel finklstein who is a conservative peer in the house of lords

So he's officially a concern Lord Daniel Finkelstein, who Lord Baron Daniel Finkelstein, who is supposed to be, who is a lord of the English people, hates the English people. He is so paranoid about any kind of national expression that he instantly views it as a threat. Lord Baron Daniel Finkelstein how much more national can you get and this is the same I know I know I accept that but it's he took an extreme position he was called out for it and then there was like in Britain the Board of Deputies is there is something called the board of deputies of jewish or board of jewish deputies or something like that but it's the umbrella organization of the jewish population in england they didn't react negatively to what he said whereas the same reaction from some of the younger jewish generation is look guys clearly people who want britain to be british aren't the problem it's the people who have recently become British who vizraeli hate Jews who are the problem and we should take a different position

but you don't hear that from the Jewish hierarchy from Jewish officialdom and the reason I bring this up is because it is part of this story of national awakening and if you look anywhere in the West this is a point that Carl Benjamin has been making repeatedly the young men have been completely dispossessed. And now across Europe, they're being asked to prepare for a war against Russia. But if you don't love your young men and give them something to love, they will not fight for you. This relationship has to be reciprocal. If they can't say this is mine,

because you'll look I'll fight for this and my my family who's down over here and my dogs and I'll fight for that why because it's mine and I don't mean materialist materialistically mine there this you know that's what men will fight for and what you've done in in this you know to go full circle with how we started this internationalism says nothing's yours well if nothing's mine why would why the hell would i fight for it exactly you know jesus to bring it to christian theology which is the bedrock of all this whether you'll you know we all like it but whether you like it or not exactly exactly jesus fought for me on the cross because i was his you know not to sound sound uber augustinian but we're

Augustinians here, me on the Protestant side, these two on the Catholic side, because I belong to him. Exactly. You know, and that's really the basis of Jewish covenantalism. They've kind of left it in, you know, in modern rabbinical Judaism, but, but that idea that this is mine, these are my people, this is my stuff. The, the final commandment on the second table is do not covet. Well, how can you not, how can you covet anything unless that thing belongs to them and your stuff belongs to you this idea and it and it included my neighbor's wife okay so these are this the whole basis for all this is being broken down and that's why these young men aren't willing well to heck with this why would i fight you're saying nothing is mine well then so at most you will get mercenary

out of people but you won't get soldiers willing to engage in heroic sacrifice for the greater good and as McIvelli tells us mercenaries are not really your best soldiers and they shouldn't be what you rely on

you should rely on people who are doing it for love of what this is yeah unless your name's Abraham Lincoln then you use was that out of bounds i'm sorry you know you they they expect english men english boys to step up and say oh yeah my patriotism tells me i i need to go fight russia all they need to do is go on twitter i shared a video of it just on my twitter timeline not too long ago of of ukrainian men who are supposed to believe that russia is the enemy being kidnapped and taken to the front lines to be killed it's heartbreaking yeah those videos are heartbreaking yeah i mean this

and the state and britain doesn't have that kind of capacity to go around snatching people from the street like the ukrainian state is better equipped to do this than the british state they can't go around and just sort of snatch people and sort of force them to fight. And they won't do very much against much better motivated Russian soldiers who know what they're fighting for. That's right. Do you think the average Russian knows what is his? I'll tell you this. The average Chinese soldier knows to a lesser degree, because in theory it's this,

It's this collectivist, blah, blah. But they are Chinese, right? The average Japanese soldier knows what is his, what he is fighting for. It's Japan. It's his people. It's his family of families. Yeah. It's his stuff.

And in the West, we are destroying that systematically. It has been destroyed because if you can't economically form a family, if their relationship between men and women has been so poisoned and so destroyed and the economics of family formation are so bad and you can't afford

a house and and and and if you want to make it you're expected to move to the capital and sort of abandon all of your roots and all of your community and live as a sort of atomized individual and your neighbor

is a foreigner like me who doesn't have the same connections to you, who doesn't feel the same affinity to your history and to your heritage. How is this motivating? How is this in any way something that is worthy of you laying down your life for it?

And you get back and they've been telling you that there's too many white men and they're all in positions of power and diversity is the priority. And how do you measure diversity? You measure it by how thoroughly you've excluded white men. Like the less white men you have, the more successful you are because you are more diverse.

Well, the one thing, the one thing they don't talk about when white men are being excluded is like, you know, my wife always talks about how her nephews and nieces, how great they're doing. I mean, and they are. I admire these kids. beyond belief they they're not going to college and racking up debt they're going into the trades they're doing buying houses at very young ages starting families are very and and it's okay

so they can do that but they're not going to have power ever and they're not that's gama swami into battle i mean who the hell would follow vivac ramaswami into battle or would they follow in britain kemi berinoch into power the leader of the opposition let alone care stormer who will these men actually follow into battle and the answer is obvious because there aren't any leaders in the west right now in europe in britain in america you know trump is an exception in australia there aren't that many leaders whom young men will look up to and say i will follow this guy i will lay down my life for this guy This guy loves me.

He sees me as his. He's ordering me to go and do something. It requires heroism and sacrifice. I will do it. Right. Putin struggles to do this for the Russians because he's a bit of a liberal dad. And so they mobilized once, but they are really very careful about mobilizing again. And if you look at the front line, it's very thinly manned all across.

And this could become a problem for the Russians if the Ukrainians play their hands. hand right. The Ukrainians have been convinced that they're fighting for something. Fair enough. And a lot of them are deserting, maybe a third have deserted, but a lot of them are still fighting quite bravely. And they're going on these assaults when they're ordered to go on assaults, and they're still in the battlefield. But if Kirstarmer said, guys, we need to, you know, we need to mobilize half a million men. And they need to go and be willing to die on the Ukrainian planes. What?

Piss off. No way. No one's going to listen to him. And in the Republican Party, if your avatar is, you know, somebody like Mitch McConnell or Ted Cruz, I'm in Congress to fight for Israel. Okay, good luck, but why?

or Vivek Ramaswamy, which American boy is going to sort of charge for Vivek? It doesn't make any sense. So there is this reassertion of national identity and the idea that this country belongs to its people, and particularly to its young men, and that a debt is owed to them, because the future has to be built on their backs, because the future is always built on their backs. The future of India is built on the backs of people like Dadeg Klamaswamy, but not the future of America. And so this issue is going to become more and more important. And here I was looking at the latest polling, reformed the main opposition party, which is expected to win the next election,

went up to the mid-30%, and we have a first-past-the-post system, so mid-30% is pretty, is pretty good. And now it's back down to 25%. Why? What's driving that? Well, because Nigel Farage wants to be a sort of milk toast liberal. He doesn't want to address this question, which is who is Britain for? Who is England for? Who is Scotland for? Who is Wales for? And the answer is obvious. The people like these countries are named. after peoples and there's no recognition of that you go to any German city and it's sort of like I know Syrians who went to Germany as refugees fake refugees mind you at the time and then decided to leave Germany because there are too many Syrians imagine that

imagine that so this and the national security strategy pointed that out but across the west the older generation including trump is still struggling with that idea vance maybe gets it maybe maybe we'll see i mean in In the America Fest or Amfest or whatever it was, he didn't exactly denounce Fuentes. He was quite careful about that. But there is this problem, which is that he hasn't properly articulated, who is America for?

And the first politician to properly articulate it and to offer men a manly option, It's going to win enormously. The irony is that the opposition in France is led by a woman. And in Germany, it's led by a lesbian woman who is partnered with a Sri Lankan woman. These are not people who are going to lead men into battles, guys. Like, you know, love Marine Le Pen or hate Marine Le Pen, she's no Joan of Arc. She can't do that.

She can't pull that off. So there is this real crisis of identity, and it's going to keep on playing out until the obvious is said. And the longer this is delayed, the more severe the backlash. Ferris, speaking of Le Pen, why didn't Zemur get more traction? I thought that guy was pretty good. he got some traction but in all of the right you got you got these egos that are clashing because you haven't seen a Franco emerge yeah and even he's he's Algerian and Jewish he's Algerian and Jewish exactly and you haven't seen a Franco emerge because things

haven't gotten that bad yeah fair enough but they are heading in that direction 2026 could easily be the year in which we see a major financial crisis that starts in some European country. Could be France, could be Britain, could be Spain, but then that has a cascading effect and pulls a lot of other dominoes down with it. Then things are going to get properly nasty because when you have to do things around cutting your debt, you're going to have to cut welfare. And if you start by cutting welfare to the natives while you're still having foreigners on benefits, like that's going to be a disaster pretty quickly, politically. It's going to be politically suicidal. Yeah, let's go to the streets kind of stuff.

Yeah. And so we're heading to, like, what happened in 2025 was that this conversation happened. And Tucker Carlson triggered it in a way, made it mainstream. Tucker Carlson definitely made it mainstream by hosting Fuentes. Pierce Morgan went and pretty much committed Sapuku on behalf of liberalism. He kind of did. It was the most moronic thing I've ever seen in my life. And the fact that he didn't know that he was being a moron was made it funnier.

Can I ask you a question for us? Mm-hmm. Do you think that the whole thing? Finkelstein debacle has, I mean, we've had it over here, what they've called the noticing since October 7th, where people are talking more about Jewish influence and Jewish power. Do you think by him bringing Finkelstein on there and the subsequent just Finkelstein's meltdown in public that that has the potential to cause that to happen there as well? it's less fertile soil for it well because you have such a problem with Islam i mean that yeah that that that's always been the problem soil for it it is happening up to a point because like you had other activists saying that oh i was very liberal on immigration up until

Muslims started protesting against Israel after 7 October. Well, you didn't see the rape gangs. You didn't see the no-go zones. You didn't see the transformation of like the cockneys are extinct in London. They don't exist anymore. They've all been displaced. That's what you go to London for. That's what people used to go to London for. That's what you associate with London, right? That's why you associate in London. They're extinct.

Give me Michael Cain. Exactly. And so the fact that this is happening now, you're seeing this national awakening. You're seeing various really incompetent people trying to push back against it. They all seem like complete frauds. They all seem like complete frauds pushing back against it. And the momentum is clearly on the right. and the state across the west is at its wit's end because it doesn't know what to do with it.

It doesn't know what to do with this energy and how to channel it and how to channel it in a way that isn't nihilistic and destructive. Because this kind of energy can turn nihilistic and it can turn destructive. And I understand why Jewish people are afraid of it, but they just need to accept that just as they express their natural identity, others will too. And that's not happening at the Jewish establishment level anywhere in the West. And there are establishments there. You know, there are real establishments there that are quite active and quite vocal and that are listened to, to different degrees in different countries, but they exist. And so I don't know how this plays out, but it's not like it's killing the liberal consensus.

the liberal consensus as well is very much dead and buried the the issue is that a lot of people express themselves as being post-liberal fine what does that actually mean in practical terms what are the animating principles are we going to keep democracy i'm you know this about me i'm not a big fan of democracy i'd much rather have a genuinely proper monarchic system. I think it's actually more representative of the people than the alternative. I think you get better representation under a monarchy than you do under democracy. Under democracy it's just a figly for oligarchy. That's all that it is. And then the procedure is used to further the interests of the oligarchy and that's all that happens. But what does

post-liberism actually mean? And how will this system that currently exists, exit the stage. Will it wait until it's destroyed everything? And then from the ashes and the ruins, something emerges? Will there be a compromise? What kind of compromise? What are the principles animating it? What is it that can be compromised on? What is it that cannot be compromised on? And my very strong sense is that national identities the one thing that can't be compromised on like no and that and that's not yeah that's not that's not open to negotiation and that national that national that reemergence of national identity is a separate idea is a set is a related but separate idea from political nationalism right it

because nationalism, well, at least at least in the last 150 years or so, has often been kind of eschatological. In other words, we have a unique, our little group of people has a unique role in bringing about the eschatological blessing of the world kind of thing, as opposed to national identity as, hey, we're our own people. The state exists for the protection and blessing of our people, our citizens, and we can kind of get along with everybody. So, so I think it's important for, because I think, I think those two ideas sometimes get wrongly conflated. Nationalism works great often as a cleanser, as a, as cancer medicine, as a, you know, as

a fast, but it, but if it gets eschatological, it can get weird. i i agree with that i i agree with that a hundred percent the like the issue of i'll put it to you this way when i see an indian guy or a pakistani guy and i ask him where are you from and he says Germany. Because I'm Lebanese, I can get straight to the point and say, no, really, where are you from? And between us as immigrants, there is a lot less room for BS. He's not going to call me racist because he knows it has no value as far as our communities are concerned. And we can cut to the chase. So as far as the entire rest of the world is concerned, when you see a Chinese guy in France,

it doesn't matter how perfect his Parisian accent is and how well he rolls his errs and pronounces his use. It really doesn't matter because he's Chinese. Right. The Indian guy sees him as Chinese, the Arab guy sees him as Chinese, the Arab guy sees him as Chinese, he sees the Indians as Indians and the Arabs is Arabs. And that's that. Westerners, Europeans, white people, whatever you want to call them, they've been forced to live in this myth and they've been forced to swallow this lie that they see this guy and he's obviously, you know, from Nigeria and not Ethiopia, you know.

But he's telling you that no, no, no, no, no, no, I'm Italian or French or whatever. When the backlash happens, because of the magnitude of the lies, their reaction is going to be more severe. If you're wise to this, you would simply admit it. and treat it as a truth and say, okay, we've ended up with a bunch of Ethiopians and Lebanese and Chinese and Indians who all carry pieces of paper that say that there's something which they are not. How are we going to nicely take away these pieces of paper without undue bloodshed? That's the same moderate position. The other position is that you keep on forcing the lie down people's throats until the very

last second when there has been some kind of massive debt crisis or military defeat or this, that or the other. And then people take the issue into their own hands. And with mob rule, these things never go well because in a mob when the child says the emperor has no clothes everybody clues on to this the issue is that we've had people saying that the emperor has no clothes for a pretty long time jared taylor's career attests to this steve sailor's career attests to this now we have nequentes who's pretty much saying the same exact thing And there's nothing wrong with it. There's nothing wrong with saying that, you know,

imagine if America had been settled by people from the subcontinent or people from China. What would be recognizable about it today? Well, absolutely nothing. Right. Like they wouldn't have gotten baseball out of cricket. They would have gotten some other thing from some Indian sport. They wouldn't have gotten.

in American football out of rugby, they would have gotten some other thing, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. None of it would be recognizable. They wouldn't have a Thanksgiving because their relationship with their God would be different. And they certainly wouldn't be celebrating Christmas. None of it would be recognizable. So what these guys are saying is pretty consistent and it's pretty true. That's the most important part about it. That it's true. But you've been forcing people to swallow a lie for so long.

And at some point, they're going to get angry about this. And if you're wise, you will correct this before they get angry. But there's absolutely, like we go back to the leadership question. question. Who's going to lead them to accept the truth in a moderate way without a visceral reaction? Do you see any candidates? We have Rupert Lowe here in Britain, who is one MP, exceptional man, very talented, very capable, very straightforward, very manly man, but he doesn't have a platform of significant size his constituency love him but that's pretty much it it's one constituency out of 650 you look around europe you get lepen zamour the afd maloney come on what a

disappointment maloney so there isn't this outlet and there isn't this outlet and there isn't anybody who's able to communicate with people and say look the liberal establishment and the liberal ideology is dead and we're going to get out of it in a mature and peaceful way we're going to escape this lie and we're going to do it in a in a christian and honest and good way and things will be better afterwards without that alternative it's got to be burnt to the ground the whole thing is to burn to the ground But that's not a good thing. Fire is sometimes a necessary corrective,

but it's not a good in and of itself. That's right. So this is where we are. And then we go back to the questions of China and Venezuela and Russia and Iran. You're challenging Russian shipping everywhere, and now they're hitting your shipping back, or at least they're hitting Turkish shipping in the Black Sea, that's going into ukraine and that's a double message to the turks be careful we can mess with

you if you if you don't play your hand properly to the europeans we don't have to limit this to the black sea we can hit you elsewhere just as you're hitting us elsewhere you have israel now taking a chunk of of somalia and with the plan of building bases there obviously to fight the houthi obviously in yaman yeah explain Real quick, explain that whole thing for folks who might not be familiar of the relationship with Somalia, Somaliland, and what Israel is trying to do. You know, Netanyahu had that big, you know, announcement. Somalia is a person piece of land on the Horn of Africa, as you all know. It hasn't had a function in government since 1989.

And it relies on remittances and fraud committed by Somalis to function, including the fraud that is being exposed in Minnesota. There's 72% of people of Somali descent in Britain are living in social housing. Like they don't provide for themselves. Isn't 33% of their GDP right now remittances? Something between 25 and 45% of GDP, depending on who you believe. Unbelievable. And the rest of it is smuggling and crime and all kinds of things. This is one of the most broken places in the world.

There is a small strip of territory in Somalia that is right on the Arabian Sea. So on the other side of the horn facing the Red Sea. facing Yemen that is somewhat functional and that's called Somaliland the Israelis have been trying to get some kind of ability to base stuff in the Red Sea for a long time because they are very vulnerable to their shipping from Asia being cut off one of the reasons that Sudan was targeted was because Iran was using Sudan as a conduit to get weapons into Gaza, they've had cooperation with countries like, I think, Ethiopia for a pretty long time, to have some basis there, but Ethiopia is landlocked.

And their partner in this has been the United Arab Emirates, the UAE, because they view themselves as pursuing a similar strategy, which is containing the bigger powers. And they think that by working together, they could contain powers like Iran, Saudi, Turkey, who would otherwise dominate the region if these two small players weren't there. And now the Israelis have recognized this piece of territory. And the reason that they want to do this is so that they can have some basing rights right across from Yemen so that they could more effectively attack.

the Houthi but the Americans have all of Saudi Arabia as a base essentially and don't forget Djibouti we've got our little drone base and Djibouti and the UAE and Qatar and that's not been enough to contain the Houthi the issue for the Israelis is that the Turks and the Egyptians have been competing over who gets to control Somalia but The Turks have been doing a good job. The Egyptians are sort of terrible at it. Like the current rulers of Egypt are the worst in a very long time in Egypt's history. And now the Turks are going to panic because they don't want Israel to have influence over the Red Sea either.

And the Iranians are going to panic because they don't want the Israelis to be able to attack their allies in Yemen. And so the Israelis have once again pushed together Turkey, Egypt, and Iran to counter them in Somalia. And already Saudi and Iran are working together in Sudan to contain the UAE against the rapid support forces, against the sort of genocidal lunatics who are being backed by the UAE and possibly Israel. And what keeps on happening is that the bigger players are getting together and saying these small players are completely insane and out of control. And we need to smash them. The problem is that this is being fought on the Red Sea, which is leading to the Suez Canal, which controls 12 to 17 percent of global shipping and if this area becomes

militarized then it's a nightmare for shipping in general and it's becoming increasingly militarized and so you're seeing the death of neutral trade essentially you're seeing the death of the system that the Americans built after the Second World War, because the Americans are no longer as capable of policing the sea lanes. Remember, the USA bombed the Houthi between April and May of 2025, and then the US signed a separate ceasefire that excluded the Israelis with the Houthi. And that was a huge blow to the Israelis, because they hadn't been informed of it and vance was on record in the leaked signal chats saying that he opposes this attack on yemen because it looks like we're just doing it for israel

and it's completely pointless and it's not an american national security priority and the israelis have never forgiven him for that yeah that's why the knives have been out for Vance hard. And that's why the knives have been out for Vance and attacking Vance for hiring Tucker Carlson's son and so on and so forth. So there is this question about Vance. Can he express the views of those who want their own country first? Because by definition, Vance president in 2028, 2029 he's not just the president of the americans if he's the president of the ethno-nationalists he is truly the leader of the free world and of the people who want to free themselves of liberal delusions so it has huge implications but is he that guy i may have some influence

information, I cannot neither confirm nor deny that Vance and his team have, uh, may have been asking certain people lately to come and talk to him about what the identity of, of an American is in recently. So I can neither confirm nor deny. This is all a rumor. Okay. But, um, it seems like, um, From what I've heard, J.D. Vance may be asking the question of what is the American identity going forward? Well, it's a real issue. It's a real issue. Because if you show up in North Carolina and you're building a temple to Vishnu or to Krishna or to whatever monkey god, elephant god, whatever it is. like that is by definition not american that's right you could sort of include jewish people black people even mexicans and say we're all monotheists at least but if you're literally worshipping

monkey gods like in what are you what are you even talking about that's right I've heard similar stuff Pete and he is from what I understand

what I understand and I've got you know I do not know J.D. I know some other folks in the administration but I do not know J.D. And but he is personally, I think, pretty inclined towards the Thomas Aquinas view of it takes three

generations in order to, in order to truly be part of a new, of a people. Three, maybe four. I can't remember the exact reference. I can probably find it. It's three. Three generations. Yeah. Yeah. And so. What a tremendous step in the right direction that would be for, for any people. Honestly, Aquinas is just speaking from wisdom of saying, why would you ever, why would you ever give political power to somebody who just got off the boat? I mean, he didn't express it exactly like that, but that's what he's saying.

And so, and that's not being, you know, that's just. that's just being wise if i moved if i moved next door to pharaohs outside of uh london uh next week i would not expect to hold any political power in england um brother to tell you how insane it is let me tell you how insane it is by law in britain anybody who's a commonwealth citizen can vote in British elections. So literally any Nigerian or Indian can just sort of vote immediately. And the party that is supposed to be opposing this reform just chose a Bangladeshi student to run for them as a candidate for local councils, for local government. So we are living in an age of madness we're living in an age of complete madness here and like the harder you pull in one direction

the more the pendulum will swing violently in the opposite direction eventually well it's liberal it's liberalism right um before before you connected ron and i were talking and we talked about how liberalism is like it's such a perversion of Christianity in that you know where anyone can become a Christian but you're expected to change you're expected to have become a part of the confession you're you're expected you're not expected to be like Ilhan Omar up in Minneapolis who is like look I'm a Somali I'm here to serve Somalis and that's it I mean that's You have to bow the knee. George Washington.

I mean, George Washington and these gentlemen were not, they were not modern day liberals in the sense that they would resort to violence upon hearing that. Well, obviously. I mean, there would be, these people wouldn't be, they'd either be on a ship going home or they'd be unaligned. Yes. Yes. I mean, imagine telling George Washington or any of the founding fathers that a guy called Vivekram Oswamy ran for president in the United States. His assumption would have to be that the United States somehow lost a war against India. Like not only did the British Empire disintegrate, India rose as superpower, and,

then invaded America and now they're installing their man that's what he would assume the vague is so he's so brain diseased in liberalism and i mean we know that it's it all has to self-interest he's an indian nationalist but he wears liberalism as a skin suit because it suits right but but the way he talks about it is is like anyone any group or any person in you know Malaysia can recite a couple words and take an oath and they're automatically American. They don't even have to come here. They're just automatically American because it's all about ideas. Because it's this conflation of America and the promised land or and Christianity.

Yes. If you get baptized, you're a Christian, but you still have to work to get to heaven. not bad issue you still have to change within properly to get to heaven you still have to do what Christianity demands of you you still have to have the faith genuinely not just recite the words you still have to believe you have to accept God's grace you have to let God's grace work within you for you to properly convert but they take all that away and it's just sort of you know it's sort of like Islam actually because in Islam you just have to recite the shahada once and that's it you're a Muslim and if you change your mind you can be killed so it's it's closer to Islam in a

in a practical sense even though it's predicated on ideas of Christian conversion and it's just not tenable there's a great passage and one of my favorite books is by guy named peter lightheart it's called against christianity that's an ironic title it's not it's it's actually pro christendom and the idea is that it makes this very point that that identities are bound in covenant so it's not just a recitation of an idea so there's this great scene where he's he's driving through canada and stops to get gas and the and the gas station attendant says oh i see your your uh plates are you're you're an american he goes well i'm an american too

and he goes oh really why did you move up to canada he goes no no no no i've always lived in canada he goes well you say you're american what do you mean and he said well i i think the declaration of independence is just amazing well okay and your constitution is fantastic that this tripartite system of checks and balances okay but you said you were america and i just love george washington and what a beautiful flag okay and i vacation there and i just oh it's it's beautiful but you said you were an american when when did you when were you naturalized when did you become well I didn't do any of that.

I didn't actually live. I, and he said, and so it is with any identity and especially with Christianity. Right. You, you don't just assent to a set of ideas. You bow your knee to a king. Now, in our situation, you pledge allegiance and you become a citizen and you have an actual ceremony that does, that, that changes reality and part of this part of this is the american rejection uh wrongly of of of of ceremony that actually does something and we have a very we have we are very in evangelicals are very

suspicious of this yes i'm not but but i always tell these folks okay i said you don't think ceremonies actually change anything and i bring up naturalization i'm married to a I'm married to a naturalized citizen. I went to her naturalization ceremony. That ceremony actually changed reality. She ceased to being a Canadian and became a U.S. citizen. When we got married, we said some words before witnesses, kissed before witnesses, and we became, and it had words pronounced over us and became husband and wife.

My two children were presented before the child. church and had water sprinkled on them and they became covenant members in the household of God. And so but but but but evangelicals and in the United States is primarily spiritually an evangelical nation struggles with this and that's why we struggle with this idea of identity and we want to export this liberalism where you can just say you can assent to a set of ideals as opposed to bowing the knee. And what we need to return to both politically and spiritually and familiarly is the bowing of the knee. This is also tied up in, and I'm not some kind of weird patriarchy guy, but you do have, but this is also tied into fathers who, who see it

as their duty to protect and bless their families. And there, and there's a certain amount of loyalty and respect that has showed to them. And that's true of the state where you bow your knee and okay. And in church, I bow my need of Christ. And that three-legged stool that the U.S. Constitution is kind of built upon, it's patterned after, but that three-legged stool of how God instituted first the church in Eden and then the family and Adam and Eve and then the state When he made the covenant with Noah, if man, if man sheds blood by man shall his blood be shed in the institution of the state, that's that all built upon allegiance and loyalty. That's what we're all calling to return to.

And without it, you get this, you get this liberalized soup again where, well, what's mine? What do I fight for? What do I am, what am I called to? Because we all know it's. much harder to climb a ladder than it is to fall off of it. And we're seeing manifest throughout the world, the liberal world, at least, people who have fallen off ladders left and right. And what we're calling, what we are calling towards is, no, we, we are, this is this, this, this, this, civilization is built upon helping men climb this ladder of, of allegiance, loyalty, virtue.

And only then can you have within these identities, these bastions of liberalism or where I can have freedom of association, freedom of contract, freedom to buy a home and all these kind of things. Those are the result of these loyalty structures, of these structures of these structures of allegiance. That's not how you get there. And we have so put the cart before the horse and we wonder why it's falling apart. And for that to function, there has got to be trust in your pledge of allegiance rather than it being the result of being an anchor baby or the result of somebody who will simply mouth the words for an administrative procedure. So like to take an oath to join the mob, you have to sort of cut your hand and bleed.

a little bit and say that we're one blood now or something like that you know and that's the intention that you're now part of a new family that you shed blood for that's the symbolic meaning of it not that i'm encouraging people to go and join them all um but no but people understand blood oaths exactly that's why people understand the blood shed by christ is is is in that we become a new that no this is a truth as old as mankind we understand that it's a perfect illustration phara's exactly exactly and so when you have cultures who will simply mouth any words you give them for the sake of convenience their pledge of allegiance means nothing it really doesn't mean it very much at all The Quran doesn't prohibit you from keeping your oaths to unbelievers.

But it doesn't consistently command you to keep your oaths to them. And you can't be a Muslim and submit genuinely to un-Islamic rule. So you have a problem. With India and cultures like that, China, a okay good luck but if they marry other chinese or indians or whatever that oath is not as serious obviously because what's meant to happen is as you join a new community if you're adopted into a tribe you're meant to marry into the tribe and melt into the tribe so fear is what you're saying is faith without orcs is dead there has to be something that

demonstrates your faith simply mouthing the words 100% doesn't mean that you have faith you have to live it and I struggle with living my faith I'm not a particularly good question but I do feel the pressure to live by the faith that I profess but that isn't a universal truth and it isn't true of me on my bad days so there's got to be this recognition that look if you've come into the United States or into Britain or into Germany and you've built this separate

enclave where you eat the food that your ancestors ate and celebrate the holidays that your ancestors celebrated and marry into your ancestral community and and and eventually obviously you're going to advocate for your ancestors politics because you haven't your faith is dead because faith is dead because you haven't kept that place you haven't that's right melted into that tribe you have it melted into that people three generations down what it should look like is that pretty much all of your descendants have the blood of the people that you've joined not just yours not just your own ancestors but we keep seeing the same exact pattern And the West is fighting wars to preserve this lunacy.

The West is literally fighting wars to preserve this lunacy. But it makes no sense. Yeah, we're more loyal to Starbucks and McDonald's than we are to... To ideas, to truths. Yeah. To Big Tea truths. Yeah, I think that's... So how do we get back?

And guys, I've got about five or ten minutes and then I'm going to have to go. Like I said, there's a peaceful way and there's a after it's all burnt to the ground way. But the peaceful way has to admit, look, you know, we are going to Little Mogadishu and everybody in that area, if they don't have to. have a pre-1965 American ancestor is no longer eligible to remain here. In Britain, I think it's the 1948 Nationality Act, or sorry, the 1948. Yeah, I believe it's the 1948 Nationality Act. Pre-win-Rush. Yeah, and speaking of Win Rush, have the, have the, what was it, half a million,

that came in is that right that's about the number no one windrush it's it was it was a couple thousand it was a few thousand people it was a was a small boat and then wave after wave came but then more followed from other parts of the world I have that but what I was asking is did that original did that original group did they assimilate pretty well or have they Did they not? Not really. Really? You have one of the most highly recognized members of that community advocating for reparations.

Really? You have a big, a bunch of black members of parliament got together and organized a series of conferences. It's become an annual event now where they explain why they're owed reparations. If you believe your owed reparations, you're saying that the white natives owe you reparations. The same white natives who ended the slave trade, but that's not digress. But you are also asserting a separate identity. That's the more important and more salient point. And so maybe we can get into a compromise and say, okay, this is X amount of money and then goodbye and good luck.

Maybe the British can't come up with this kind of compromise. Maybe the threat of that compromise will make people integrate. But it hasn't happened. It really hasn't happened. And what about the, is it similar with the Nigerian immigrants into, those are mostly in the London area. Yeah, it's like the black community in London is, is not particularly well integrated i'd say okay it's it's their own group they

let me put it to you this way a black church service in london will resemble a black church service in america more than it will resemble a high anglican service okay yeah makes total sense and that sort of tells you something i guess yeah the the the the problem for i hesitate to say this but i'm going to say it anyway part of the problem for black people i suggest i would suggest is that they don't have much outside of the west to look for As in, if you're Pakistani, you could go to Pakistan and say they humiliated India in a couple of wars recently or in a couple of small skirmishes recently and they have a strong identity and this is something to be proud of and I belong there. Right. If you're Indian, you could say that about India.

If you're Chinese, you could say that about China, et cetera, et cetera. If you're Ghanaian, if you're Nigerian, if you're Nigerian, what is it that you're sort of holding up as a model? Right. These are fundamentally broken countries. Yeah. Congolese. Congolese. These are fundamentally broken countries.

Yeah. That will remain broken for a pretty long time, I think. Yeah. Within Nigeria, it's only, you know, it's, as I understand it, I've never been, it's still very tribal. So you have successful, you know, somewhat successful tribes and then less so. I guess the Ebo are pretty kind of the curve breakers, but everybody else, it's been pretty rough. So let me, speaking on Nigerian integration, the leader of the official opposition, the conservative party, is a Nigerian leader. by the name of Cammy Baranol.

I don't remember her full African name, her full Nigerian name. She is on record saying that she no longer identifies as Nigerian. She identifies primarily as Yoruba. And she doesn't want to associate with the other tribes because these are her ethnic enemies. Okay. Could you sort of imagine a French man saying it, I don't know, some guy from Paris saying this about the Burgundians or saying it about the Normans or about the Normans or about some other? Well, especially upon you're in a third place, right? You know, it'd be like me, I don't know, you know, me going.

I get it. Me going to London and making a huge thing about Texan rivalry with New York or something. You know, it just wouldn't be appropriate. Exactly. And now you understand why things like by saying that you understand why things like Bondi Beach happen. Yes. Yes. These are important conflicts.

And I get it to somebody from Lebanon, but I just don't think this is good for the West. And, you know, like, there's no hope for them at least without a strong and functioning West. Otherwise, we're all going to be governed by Turkey. And it looks like it's heading in that direction anyway. Yes. So it's, there is this. Well, you need a strong, we're living in. You need a somewhat strong Iran to offset.

Turkey but no one in the West seems to understand that so no no I mean it's like let's go bomb Iran I go who's who's gonna balance out Turkey because it's not it's not gonna be the Saudis nope Israel's tiny it's not gonna be the Egyptians so who's gonna do it and they control access to pretty big body of water mm-hmm so yep anyway. Yep. All right, guys, I got to wrap up. All righty.

Do plugs real quick. Ferris, go first. Yeah, sure. You can find me on modadgeopolitics.com, and I'm on Twitter as well, on X as well. Ron. I write for the Claremont Institute at the American Mind, where I've touched on some of these things in the past few months.

And then I write for American Reform. more theologically based stuff. I write at my own substack, where you can find it, Ron Dodson, or the eyes of Apilles, and then I'm on X as well. Thank you, gentlemen. Always always a pleasure. Thank you. Thank you. I don't know.