← Jay'sAnalysis
Jay'sAnalysis
Ben Swann: Geopolitics & Espionage, Epstein, Blackmail, P-Gate, Proxy Cut-Outs
01:20:17
Ben Swann is here https://www.youtube.com/@TheBenSwann We will touch on a host of intense, hard core topics from middle eastern politics to classic conspiracies, Ben Swann joins me for the first time. Superchats at any time here:...
Loading summary
Transcript77 lines
- [00:00]
Ben Swan
My AMEX Blue Cash Everyday Card is my go to accessory. When I shop, I can earn 3% cash back on US online retail purchases. Try on the Blue Cash Everyday Card. Learn more@americanexpress.com Explore BCE terms and cash back Cap apply.
- [00:16]
Jay
I drive my bus in a busy city. That's why road safety is so important to me. I know that I must slow down and be extra careful when I make a wide turn. Buses need more room than cars. Everyone can help keep our roads safe. Next time you're driving, remember to give buses plenty of time and space to finish turning before driving ahead. Let's all plan to share the road safely. Learn how at www.sharetherodesafely.gov. All right, welcome everybody. I'm here with esteemed guest Ben Swan. I first heard about Ben Swan around 2010, 2011, and he was doing some pretty groundbreaking stuff back then. I remember being in Cincinnati, I want to say you were maybe a Fox reporter in Cincinnati for a time. Yeah, I remember that. And I remember, I think you were on Alex a few times back in the day and you covered a lot of information way ahead of most people. For example, my first time hearing about Epstein and that operation was, I think, from you and some of the reports you did back in the day. So maybe we could start with that because I've put a lot of time into Epstein especially and you've done some debates recently. I want to talk about the Middle east, too, and move into some of that as well. But Ben, thank you for coming on. What, how did you get on this on the topic of Epstein and make so many sort of groundbreaking journalistic, you know, discoveries there.
- [01:51]
Ben Swan
Yeah, Jay, thanks for having me on, man. I'm a big fan of what you do. So Epstein was interesting because I didn't know much about him and around, you know, 2013 really started learning more about who he was because of the plea deal that he had and, and information that was starting to come out about the sweetheart deal that he got right. And that sweetheart deal obviously included things like, you know, when he was serving his, I think 18 months is all he got for his soliciting a minor for sex, which is crazy. But anyways, when he was doing that, apparently he had a deal where he was on work release, which meant that he would only sleep in the prison and he would go home every day because he worked from home. So he spent the whole day at his house. Then he would go back to the prison and he would have a security guard, his own private security go with him and Then he would sleep there, and then he'd get out the next day and he'd go back for work to his house. And that was 18 months. And when I first heard about that, I was like, who is this guy and why does he command so much power? And why does he command the ability to game the system? Maybe lots of people do, but in this case, it was kind of shocking. And so started looking into who he was and started finding out so many very weird things as we now know much more about it. The public's much more aware of it, but things like the fact that, you know, this guy had money that came out of nowhere. No one knows how he got rich. At least at the time, we didn't know he was connected to incredibly powerful people. He had these properties all over the world. He was flying around with presidents. I remember at the time, it was. It was starting to leak because it was considered a good thing, not a bad thing, that Bill Clinton was a close personal friend. And Bill Clinton would ride on his Lolita Express plane car constantly. And so that was kind of what, what I first started learning about him and trying to figure out, like, who is this guy now? I had no idea that he was running any kind of pedophile ring that, you know, at the time. And so you started to learn more about him and what you found was that whoever this person was, he had too much access and, and too much power connected to powerful people to just be a financier. And that, for me, that's kind of where a lot of that started. And then, yeah, over the years, I was way ahead of a lot of people on Epstein and, you know, have continued to be. And now, of course, we did the Pizzagate thing, which was totally unrelated. Didn't think that had any connection at all. And now sitting here in 2026, we see how those things are actually intricately connected.
- [04:20]
Jay
Let me ask you about the notion of blackmail. This has become a very contentious topic. A lot of people think that this is probably not what he was mainly up to, that it was this other operation. I think it seems to me that he was a kind of consultant, a kind of criminal operative expert who was a networker, a fixer. And he seems to be involved in all kinds of things, from economic scams to stock trading to venture capital funding, to also high level blackmail of people, intact people in government, people in all sectors. And it looks to me like clearly he was at least working with multiple intelligence agencies, particularly also obviously the Israeli intelligence services. So do you agree, do you think that there's significant proof, or at least very clear, strong evidence, is that he was an intelligence operative and a blackmailer.
- [05:13]
Ben Swan
Absolutely. Yeah. I don't think there's. I think anyone who. Who looks at this story steps back from it and looks at it. Right. So one of the problems I think we have with Epstein right now, and I've said this for a long time about a lot of different issues. Right. Is the notion of disinformation. So one of the ways that disinformation does exist, it's. Now, it never exists in the way that we're told it exists.
- [05:33]
Jay
Right.
- [05:33]
Ben Swan
But in the way that it truly exists is you get government actors or you get intelligence agencies, and what they do is they flood the Internet or they flood chat rooms with. I say chat rooms. Like those really exist anymore, but they
- [05:45]
Jay
did for a long time, especially you're AOL instant messenger.
- [05:50]
Ben Swan
Exactly. You know, 4chan and some of those places. But what they would do is they would flood, like, bad information into there. And the purpose of that, the goal of that is if you put enough bad information in, I mean, really crazy stuff, you taint the whole pool. And so no one knows what's real, what's not real. You don't know which threads to pull. You don't know which. Which directions to go in. And so a lot of that has happened over the years with a lot of stories. We go down the whole list of them. But Epstein is one of those stories, and particularly right now. So what's interesting about Epstein that makes him somewhat unique is that wasn't happening with him for a long time. There wasn't a lot of bad information about Epstein. Now that the Epstein files have been released, a portion of them really only, you know, about 2% of the data associated with the Epstein files has been released. That's pretty significant. Half the files, but 2% of the data, which means the majority of what's not being released is video. I think that's pretty significant. But the reality is that you have to step back from it and say, so what do we know? As a journalist, one thing I tell people all the time, it is not my job to know why things happen. It is my job to figure out what is happening. And too many journalists today or influencers today, I think, spend their time talking about the why. I can't tell you the why. And it's not. It's not what I'm supposed to be doing, because why forces me to a conclusion. But instead I can tell you what. And if we follow the what, you usually find the right answer. At least that's been my experience. And so in the case of Epstein, what do we know? We know that Epstein had properties in multiple locations. We know from well over a decade of reporting that Epstein had every single property rigged with cameras, surveillance equipment, and in every property, he had rooms that were set up, that were filled with TV monitors and recording equipment recording onto VHS tapes at the time. You know, today, 20, 26, people think about recording and surveillance. Everyone's recording all the time, everyone's surveilling all the time, but it's all going into a cloud. It's all being stored 20 years ago, 30 years ago. If you're trying to record people, there's only one way to do it. You've got to record that onto a VHS or a Beta tape, right? And you have a physical hard copy of whatever this thing is. It's not digital. So Epstein had these, these rooms set up, and again, this is all pre flat screen tv. So he had monitors set up in these things and big TVs set up, right? Big tube televisions set up inside of his properties, and he's recording onto these. So we know that. We know that every single one of his properties had cameras in every single bedroom, which again, go back 30 years. That's unusual. That's not so unusual today, but 30 years ago, 20 years ago, even 10 years ago, yeah, that's pretty unusual. Unusual to have a house rigged with cameras and recording equipment. We also know that even as recently as late last year, early this year, that Epstein has multiple storage units around the country where he is hiding content. My guess would be if we were able to access those and find them, they would be full of VHS tapes, they'd be full of recordings, right? Because what, what does a billionaire financier do with lots of storage units spread out around the country if you, if you're keeping stuff that you want to access readily and easily, or that you are not trying to hide from people who might be curious as to where it is, you put it close to home. You don't go out to Colorado with Ben.
- [09:37]
Jay
Ben. He's just storing his Playboy magazines. That's. What are you talking about? He's just got a stash. That's all it is.
- [09:45]
Ben Swan
Right? And so you have this, you have these storage units. So again, what do we know? We know that this is a man who is gathering lots of video surveillance and he's keeping that surveillance somewhere because again, it's not a digital archive. It's a physical, physical tape archive. Someplace we also know, by the way, one more note. We also know that when Epstein's New York town home was raided, we know that the FBI carried out boxes of surveillance tapes and equipment that's undisputable. Right. That's all in the record. Where is why?
- [10:27]
Jay
We saw the photos of them carrying it all out and putting it into, you know, black vehicles and SUVs. And then we never. That's disappeared. We don't know about that now. So that doesn't exist.
- [10:37]
Ben Swan
Where is it? So, so I think when we talk about it that way again, Jeffrey Epstein was not simply a guy with a taste for slightly underage girls. That's just not who he is. He was a guy who was. Who, who. The reason he was so prolific is because it was his job. It was his job to entrap people and to be a honey trap, just like it was his father in law. Oh, father in law. Not really. Was never married to Glenn, but his girlfriend's father, Robert Maxwell, who did the same thing for decades.
- [11:12]
Jay
Yeah, people always forget that the prior model, the template was Robert Maxwell. And if you, if you read Whitney Webb's book, she argues that that was a template that was kind of set up and funded via the Rothschilds in Britain to give Robert Maxwell kind of a cutout. They gave him this sort of publishing empire. They made him a corporate sort of takeover, corporate vulture takeover artist. And then a lot of that I think was transferred over to what just Lane and Jeffrey were supposed to be running. That's the model. And that makes sense too with the, the ties that Maxwell had not just with British intelligence and with Western intelligence, but also with Israelis and trying to give information to the Soviets. So Maxwell famously played both sides or tried to play both sides in the Cold War, much like Arm and Hammer did and many other people, and some people even argue that Lord Rothschild himself tried to play both sides. There's significant evidence to suggest that what that means is that there's an international clique that is apparently above nation state laws that will play both sides of multiple conflicts. And before we get into the Middle east and Hamas, I thought your recent reporting on Hamas was excellent. So I want to talk a little bit about that. But because that ties into sort of funding controlled opposition and opposite sides. You know, we've heard since Biden era that there, that there are these white, white right wing extremist terrorists everywhere. Lo and behold, turns out the what many of us suspected, we have the SPLC and presumably other groups as well, still funding controlled opposition, fake cutout groups, most notably Charlottesville. Were you surprised when that came out?
- [12:53]
Ben Swan
Not at all. Oh, my gosh, not at all. Listen, the argument that I have made about it is the SPLC doing this. Not only is it not surprising, it's surprising that it took this long for anyone to recognize what they're doing. Because the truth is, Jay, and you and I both know this, the SPLC didn't create this playbook. This is an FBI playbook.
- [13:17]
Jay
Yeah, right.
- [13:17]
Ben Swan
The FBI has been doing this for. For decades. Since, just since 9 11. Just since 9 11. The majority of terrorism plots that the FBI has broken up, and it all really was exemplified under the late Robert Mueller. All those plots were plots that they would bring in informants. They pay him a hundred thousand dollars a year to go find a place where someone was plotting, you know, terrorist attack. They go to a group, they sit down and they say, hey, hey, you guys want to blow up a bridge? And I don't know. I don't know. No, come on, Come on. We don't even have a bomb. I'll get the bomb. Oh, okay, well, we don't have any money. I'll get the money. Just everybody meet here on this day at this time. Well, I don't know. I don't know. And they pester and pester, and they finally get like three guys to show up, five guys to show up, six people to show up at this bridge. I'll bring the money, I'll bring the bombs. They show up, the FBI bust them and says, look what we did, folks. We stopped another terrorist attack. You didn't stop anything. Right. What did you stop? There's no, there's no terrorist attack here except the terrorist attack that was created in the mind of the informant and in the mind of the FBI. And there is so much evidence at trials where these people have gone to trial, where judges have called out the FBI on the record saying you're the ones who created the crime, you're the ones who thought up the crime, you're the ones who plotted and financed the crime. But because somebody says, yes, under the way that the terrorism laws are written, nope, you're responsible. And so the SPLC is just following the FBI playbook of how do we find those extremists who are out there, those white nationalists and Nazis, we're going to pay people to pretend to be them, to stoke up people to prove that they exist. It's, it's craziness, but it's all government funded craziness.
- [14:58]
Jay
Yeah, this was, you know, this goes back to like, COINTELPRO in, you know, the. Back in the 60s and 70s when they wanted to frame a lot of the. The radical groups. And I'm not at all a supporter of the Black Panthers, but I remember reading about how the FBI set up an informant named Richard Aoki. And what he did was he went to the Black Panther marches and pretended to be a huge supporter. Which is funny because he's an Asian dude. But Asian dude in the Black Panthers is fun that maybe it'll be a little suspicious if you're a Black Panther of an Asian dude. But what he would do is he would wear a bunch of machine guns. And he was. He was like, hey, we need to, you know, we gotta march with machine guns. And then they started marching with guns. And that destroyed the image of the Black Panthers in the press because everybody saw them as radicals, which I think technically they kind of were. But regardless, that playbook is copied and pasted. And they did the exact same thing, by the way, in my opinion. I don't know what you think about OKC, but if you look at the history of Timothy McVeigh and his relationship to Elohim City, which was also a very closely tied to the SPLC and Fed operation there, honey trap that led to, you know, the first big pre 911 event with OKC. And you mentioned 9 11. You have same situation with Ahmad Salaam in 1993, where he had recorded one of the FBI informant. He was a. For an informant, he would be recorded his handlers trying to get them to, you know, engage in the bombing. And so if I recall, he got off because he had recorded that. Yeah. So this is a pattern, as you said. And I want to take that to, you know, Charlottesville, if you remember, this was also, you know, this is basically what Biden ran on. Right. Was he stood there in that big dystopian 1984 scene and was talking about the white supremacists. And we can't let Charlottesville happen again. Could you imagine an entire campaign running on an absolutely fraudulent event?
- [16:59]
Ben Swan
Oh, yes, I can absolutely imagine it. I think we're all witnessing it constantly. Right. It's so many fraudulent events. I want to say something, though, about the Black Panther thing. You're right to bring that up, and I'm so glad you did for your viewers, listeners who don't know the history of the Black Panthers. And I agree with you. I think it's tough to say you're supportive of the Black Panthers, but if you go back and study what the Original Black Panther movement was. It was not a radical movement at all. It was about protecting the women, specifically within their communities and the families in their communities. There were never weapons as a part of that. There was never violence as the original part of the Black Panther kind of movement. And yes, it was FBI informants who came in and they radicalized the whole thing. They changed the weapons. As you said, there was never a weapon until this guy shows up with one. And what's upsetting about that to me is that I think there are so many grassroots movements, probably far more than we even know, that have been destroyed and ruined because some government hack decides that they don't like the way this thing's moving or they want to disrupt this thing because there's this huge fear that the people are going to organize and the people are going to have power behind them, and so they have to go in there and infect and cause problems. And. And the. Yes, absolutely. The Charlottesville is a great example of it. There was an entire campaign run on it. There was also an entire campaign run on or not run, but it became a huge part of the first part of Biden's campaign or term. Excuse me, was J6. Right. Which was also just a bunch of BS. Yeah.
- [18:44]
Jay
Even better example. Yeah.
- [18:46]
Ben Swan
The vast majority of the people who committed violence that day were undercover capitol police and FBI. And over 240 FBI agents were in the crowd when originally we were told there were none. No, none at all. And it turns out. Okay, well, not none. 240 of them are in there. Right. And one of the things we were able to document a few years ago is we were able to find at least four people in that crowd who were protesters, who were armed, who actually had guns on them. Every single one of them was an undercover. We were able to prove that every single one of them. So the only people who brought guns, the only people who brought weapons were undercover agents. And then of course, you. Those are the agents. That's not counting informants. And there are stories, reports of entire buses of men who were brought in the morning of 7am in the morning, 6am in the morning that came in on these buses. They got off, somebody addressed this crowd of men as if they were informants or agents or whatever going to be dispersing to the crowd. But they address them and they go off into the crowd. We have no idea how many undercover informants there were as a part of that crowd as well. And so there's so much wrong with the story. But then it became this Whole narrative, it's still happening. There was, I just saw on X this morning, some hack from msnbc, you know, talking about how it's so important that we remember January 6th and the radical people who were there. You want to remember the radicals who were there in January 6th. Remember the FBI?
- [20:22]
Jay
Yeah, I was gonna say it's the. It's the establishment itself that's the radicals. And they were calling it, remember, a new Pearl harbor, a new 9, 11, which is just absolutely preposterous. But, yeah, that's an even better example, perhaps, than Charlottesville, because, you know, the. The media went 10 times crazier with J6 than they did even with Charlottesville. And again, this is a repeat pattern. There's so many examples, so many instances. I don't want to, you know, beat this into the ground, but, you know, many of the radical Muslims, as you said, you know, Trevor Aronson has a whole book about Terror Factory, that this has been essentially propped up. And the other thing, too, is that a lot of the groups that they typically pinpoint as the, you know, funders and the trainers of radical Muslims, for example, they tend to be also groups that the CIA has historically aided and funded and trained, such as Al Qaeda, such as isis. And now we've seen recently with Timber Sycamore, which was a 2017 New York Times top article, at least a billion dollars put into overthrowing Assad. Eventually they got that. And how did they get that? By Israel and the CIA funding the Al Qaeda, ISIS fighters like Jelani, who they put in power in Syria, who then destroyed Christian churches, started persecuting all the. All the religious minorities. And it's the groups then the radical Muslim groups are also the radical Muslim groups that were our allies for so long. Could you speak to that?
- [21:46]
Ben Swan
Oh, absolutely. And that's something I've been covering since 2010. Right. Talking about this. In fact, I confronted President Obama about it at one point and asked him why, why he was saying we were at war with Al Qaeda when he was funding Al Qaeda in Syria at the time. And obviously, we did it in every country. Right. We've done it in Libya, we've done it in Syria, we've done it in Yemen. We fund them, we fight them, and then we fund them again. And it's so crazy to. To see right now. I mean, how disgusting is it to see a. A former Al Qaeda leader? And I say former. He's not even a former. An Al Qaeda leader who is now the president of Syria because he wears a suit now. It's like we're all supposed to stand up and clap for him and say, what a. What a guy. Way to go. So glad you're there. And the only reason he's even there is because of this proxy war in Ukraine that we've been fighting. They kept the Russians too tied up because the Russians are basically the ones who kept Assad from falling. They propped him up militarily and kept him from falling for all those years when Obama was trying to get rid of him. But we, we've done this for so many years that we've, We've funded the Mujahideen. All right, if you go all the way back to Osama bin Laden, we were Osama bin Laden's primary funder, right? What do we do? We funded the Mujahideen. There was a New York Times article with Osama bin Laden standing on it that says freedom fighter. And it's a picture of this guy that we're giving all these weapons to. Why? Because the Soviets are going into Afghanistan and we've got to fund them to fight them. We funded Saddam Hussein for years. The reason Saddam Hussein had those chemical weapons was because Donald Rumsfeld sold him the chemical weapons so that we could hold off the Iranians during the Iraq Iran war in 1980, in the early 1980s. So we do this constantly. We fund them and then all of a sudden, oh, no, this is the great enemy. And now we have to stop them. And they're the main source of our problems in the world. Right? Freedom in the world. So they go out and now we're going to fight them. We're going to remove them from power. And now we're going to bring in a great leader, someone who's really courageous and strong. And we bring some, some, you know, nut job in who takes over. Usually someone who's coming out of the CIA, who's gone to Harvard or Yale or Princeton. They take over the country. They can't last because they're just a puppet. And then the country reverts back to an even worse state than it was in. And so that's exactly how it played out in Afghanistan. I mean, it took us 20 years to replace the Taliban with the Taliban. A few of these propped up fake leaders along the way, but they're all so, so corrupt. Hamid Karzai, remember that guy? You know, he was. Yeah.
- [24:26]
Jay
They would give. They would bring suitcases of cash and gold and just pay him. And that facilitated the drug trade.
- [24:33]
Ben Swan
And then when he would decide that he, he was going to leave the country, right? Get out. What does he do? He just throws all the suitcases full of money and gold onto a plane and leaves. And that's like, oh, well, we need a new leader. And then it ends up being the Taliban again. Right. So, but the good news is for the Taliban was this time when we left, we left them all the weaponry that we had brought there. So that's good. At least you have a, you know, a fairly sophisticated military now, which you didn't have before. You rode around in pickup trucks with machine guns on the back. So, yeah, it's just, it's just total craziness. American foreign policy has been crazy for so long. We all know that. Anybody who's watching, the good news is right now with the war in Iran, I think the vast majority of the public sees it in a way that they haven't before. So for guys like you and me, you know, who, who have followed people like Ron Paul for a long time and, and know kind of what he has warned about in terms of blowback and this interventionist state, we can look at that and say, oh yeah, okay, we're aware, but the vast majority of the American public doesn't know. I think now they do. I think finally we've hit the point where even though Trump has gone off the reservation with this Iran war, Trump did do a service to the country in that for the last 10 years he's been the guy who's been beating up neocons for wanting the wars. Now he went into it, so that's no good. But there is an awareness in the public and an awareness in the political world that wasn't there before him. So at least I will give him credit for that.
- [26:08]
Jay
Yeah, I mean, thinking of the Middle east and the stuff that I've read and researched about it, this is really an old, it's an older strategy that the British Empire had where you, you do a lot of, you know, controlled opposition in order to divide and conquer. And this is just goes all the way back to Caesar. Caesar had a very worked out philosophy of divide and conquer by pitting the tribes against each other. And sometimes you could leave weapons caches there and then they get access to it. And I was talking to John Kaku, the CIA whistleblower on the channel a couple days ago, and we got into this topic of excuses and intentional excuses. And I had read some researchers and some analysts who had, who had posited that back in the 1970s when there were some really important Bilderberg meetings, Kissinger kind of worked out A deal to establish the US in terms of the petrodollar intentionally to be reliant on Middle Eastern oil. And the reason for that wasn't just money or something like that. It was actually to give perhaps also an excuse for the US to then police all of these countries because of the oil problems. And we got to save the petrodollar. We got to do this for the oil. For the oil. Well, if we have enough native oil, which people like Trump, you know, ran on that we have. We don't need all.
- [27:26]
Ben Swan
We don't need foreign oil. We got enough oil here, probably get the most best oil.
- [27:31]
Jay
We don't need to go into all these other countries. But it's by design because it's an excuse. Just like, as you said, with these proxy groups. Leave a giant bunch of weapons there in Afghanistan. Oh, we'll see. We still got to police the region because they've got all the. So in other words, a lot of these failures or things that don't make sense actually make perfect sense as regional excuses to police those regions. What do you think of that?
- [27:54]
Ben Swan
Well, I think, first of all, I think you do an excellent Trump. Nice job.
- [28:00]
Jay
Thank you.
- [28:01]
Ben Swan
Yeah, no, it was good. It was very good. Yeah. I think there's some truth to that. I think it gives us an excuse, certainly. I think it's deeper than that. I think if you go back to the. The origin of the petrodollar, I don't think it's coincidental that the petrodollar was established one year after we got off the ground. Gold standard. We come off the gold standard, and I think that. That we thought we don't need that and then realize we need something. It's got to be pegged to something. And why not oil? In fact, oil was gold. Right. It might as well have been so crucial. And it still is, by the way, as is being proven right now, is still the lifeblood of world economies the world over. So I think there was a reason for that. What's fascinating is we don't need to be pegged to OPEC or allow OPEC to set our price in oil. We only allow it because of the petrodollar. So what's interesting is right now, Trump is right when he says we don't need oil from other countries. Straight up, Hormuz is their problem. Even though he's the one who started this and created the problem, he says, well, it's not our problem. Well, he's right about that. It's actually not. We're exporting lots of energy. We don't need to export anything if we just kept it here at home. The problem is because the price of oil is set in globally rather than country by country, American workers and American families pay a higher price. When France can't get its natural gas and oil, when India can't get oil, we are the ones who end up paying for it, just like they do. So the problem that we have is you can't decouple from it without relinquishing control of the region. Again, listen, I, I keep saying this on different shows and I, I don't even believe it, but I'm gonna say it anyways. I don't believe it. But I do tease about the 5D chess, right? Trump and his 5D chess. And I say, if, what if Trump is really, is playing 5D chess and what he's really doing is saying. And I let you imitate it because you do the better impersonation. But if he said, look, there's no way for us to get out of the Middle east, there's no way to end these, these forever wars. There's no way to shut down all these bases. I mean, how are you going to shut down 16 US bases across the region? $12 trillion has been spent on them. How do we disconnect ourselves from opec, right? How do we do all that? How do we get out of the Middle east without having to be the big brother in the Middle East? Here's, here's a. Crazy like a fox, one way, start a war with Iran and let Iran destroy it all. Now, again, I don't believe that's what he did. However, the end result is still the same, which is that 16 US bases, all the bases in the region surrounding Iran, obliterated, uninhabitable. It will cost trillions of dollars to rebuild them. At this point, the OPEC countries and those Middle Eastern countries like Oman and UAE and even the Saudis, a lot of them are saying, why do we even have bases here? It's just making us a target target. Iran is actually coming out of this particular war stronger than they went into the war. They are actually emerging as the fourth center of power globally in a way that I don't think anybody had on their bingo card. War with Iran will make Iran stronger and make them more powerful. And so we're watching kind of an incredible moment here. And again, I don't think it was actually intentional, but the end result is still true. The end result is this. When this war comes to an end, there is an opportunity to walk away from the Middle east and to say there will be no more forever wars there. And we're going to walk away from that region because we're not going to spend all of our treasure rebuilding bases. We're not going to go back in and try to police that part of the world. In fact, and this would be the most controversial part, Iran is obviously proving that they're the strongest in that region. Between them and Israel, those two can handle it. Everybody else has been destroyed, right? We destroyed Iraq, we destroyed Syria, we've destroyed Yemen, we've destroyed all these different countries around there. Not that Yemen was ever that powerful, but Libya's gone. Like, we've, we've just obliterated all these countries. So whoever remains standing, you guys can figure it out. We're not going to deal with it anymore, and we're going to focus on our hemisphere. We're going to focus over here. That, to me is. Is, again, I don't think it was actually intentional, but it's the end result. And so I think we're living in kind of a shocking moment for people like us who, you know, were just becoming adults around the time of 9, 11, right around the time that we're, we're kind of stepping into the world and we stepped into an entirely different world. To now see a global reset happen in a matter of weeks, I think, is. It's pretty stunning, pretty amazing.
- [32:46]
Jay
Well, the thing is, if you go back to the Oded Yanon plan, and he was Ariel Sharon's, you know, foreign policy advisor, Secretary of state, whatever that was, the original Greater Israel Project plan, and then you get clean break strategy, sort of updating it and sort of expanding it in different directions. And then throughout, you know, post Desert Storm and all that stuff, we really seem to have done the foreign policy, for the most part, that Israel wanted. There was some time period when, you know, Biden or Obama didn't do everything in regard to Iran that Israel wanted. But this seems to be essentially just the policies and the strategy that Israel wants in that region. Hence why for so long, Netanyahu has said they're two weeks away from the bomb. They're going to get it into. So 20 years of two weeks away from the bomb. And then Netanyahu also saying they'll do whatever we say, talking about America. So we have the by the balls, right? So to me, it seems like it wasn't even about petrodollar. It's primarily those interests and oil plays a role in it. But the other thing too, is that, and I brought this up with several other analysts too, a stronger Iran or even a stronger opposition in another country surrounding Israel, be it say Lebanon or something like that, that also provides an excuse. Israel is able to then say, look, we're oppressed. We have all of these crazy strong neighbors around us. At any moment we could be destroyed. So if you don't support everything that we want, you're a warmonger, etc, or excuse me, you're anti semitic, etc. So that's another element and angle of the excuse and that ties into your report about Hamas, because the funding and the establishment and aiding of Hamas, which, by the way, Victor Ostrowski, the former Mossad operative who wrote several books about this by way of deception. And then the second one, the book that actually discusses Israel funding Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and then Al Qaeda, ISIS in Syria and Hamas as well, to counterbalance the plo. They actually like that, that chaotic destabilization, because it's a huge excuse. And I thought you did a really great report on that. But people forget that, you know, this was in WikiLeaks. Nahu's openly talked about it. It's in the form of Mossad books. Could you go into some of why they do that?
- [35:03]
Ben Swan
Yeah, well, absolutely. I mean, you have to go back though, in history, right into the 1970s, 1980s. And what you find is that at the time, there is a Palestinian movement, especially in the 1970s, that's growing, but it's almost entirely secular. You know, it's also interesting that we pretend this is a big holy war kind of between the west, the Christian west and the Muslim, you know, Middle East. But the reality is before we started tampering over there, the Middle east was pretty much non religious in most countries. And so the, the Palestinian population was mostly secular. It was, it was not religious at all. In the 1970s, early 1980s, there is a group that starts to show up in, in specifically Gaza, in the West Bank. And these guys, what they do is they're, they're very radical and what they want to do is basically kill any man who is not a Muslim, who is also Palestinian. And so they were actually known for shanking people on the streets. They come up and they shank these men who were secular Arabs living in that region. And that group was known as Hamas. And the Israelis saw that at the time and they thought, hey, we could use this, right? Because there's this growing kind of international movement to create statehood for this Palestinian state. And part of the reason that there's such interest. There is, because it's mostly secular and there's a lot of momentum here. So how do we disrupt that momentum? Well, one way to disrupt that momentum is you have a domestic problem at home that distracts your population from focusing on international issues because you're just trying not to get shanked in the street by the crazy guy who's some kind of religious fanatic. And so at that point, that was the kind of the first time that Israel started funding Hamas and they began funding them, sending over money, get these guys money. Why? Because they're going to create problems. 1994, 1993 or 1994 is the first time, I believe, that a rocket is fired from Gaza into, into Israel. And that's because by that time, they had converted by force, the entire population pretty much. It took about 14, 15 years to do so. But again, Israel was, was instrumental in that. So the first thing they did is that, you know, today Israel as a nation will cry and say, oh, these Muslims hate us. And they, they despise us because of their religious beliefs. But that wasn't why this happened. It was because you forced out and forcibly converted them all to these religious beliefs. Then what we see is that Netanyahu over the last 20 years, has continued to adopt this strategy and utilize the strategy because he saw, again, an ability to now try to prevent that statehood from taking place. Because if the government of the Palestinians is run by Hamas, and that's a terror organization, the world can never accept it, and, and it'll never have legitimacy. So how do you keep them down? Well, suitcases, you know, coming through Qatar, coming through the UAE and different places, suitcases full of money being delivered, billions of dollars. And these are our. These aren't. This is not Israeli money. This is US Taxpayer dollars delivered to Hamas. And we've paid them off with billions of dollars to strengthen them, to fund them, to keep them there. Because Netanyahu knew he needed to keep, you know, Hamas in control of, of the Palestinians. Because if it becomes, again, a less radical group, it's not a terror group that takes over or runs the government in, in the Gaza or in the west bank. If that happens all of a sudden, he doesn't have the same kind of, kind of universal support. And so, you know, on October 7th, when you sit and say, Hamas must be destroyed, I just have a hard time with that. Yeah, I'm no fan of Hamas at all. But let's not pretend that Hamas is a creation in and of itself or of the Palestinian people. It's not. Hamas is a creation of Israel. It was funded by Israel. They backed it every step of the way. They've continued to do that we for decades. And the fact that they are not held responsible for creating the very group that now they insist they have the right to commit a genocide in order to stop is insanity to me.
- [39:29]
Jay
Yeah, it's funny you said that because you mentioned the 70s going back into the 40s and 50s when OSS and CIA began to get really involved in the Middle East. There's a great book by Miles Copeland, the CIA operative who discusses his time in Egypt and in Syria, and the consult, consult, the consulting that he did for the CIA. And he talks very openly about how useful it was to utilize the radical Muslim groups when they were necessary, including false flag terror. And that's relevant because there was an older plan that the CIA initially had where they thought that they could secularize the Middle east and they could create a kind of what they call pan Arabism and that that would lead to a kind of a better situation for the Middle East. But that didn't work. First of all, they said, well, a lot of these people are too tribal, so it's not going to work to have a sort of pan Arab, you know, secular state. But there were a lot of secular states, right? And that's even where you get, say people like Saddam and the Ba'. Athists, originally the CIA supported the Ba' Athist party. But then when Saddam was no longer useful, he could become this, you know, puppet, you know, bad guy that we gotta take down that we put there same situation with the usage of, say, the Muslim Brotherhood. Originally British intelligence funded them and then they gained significant power and ability and they were actually used a long time ago to over. They attempted to use them to overthrow, I want to say, maybe even Assad's father or something like that a long time ago. And that event didn't work. It's a famous declassified CIA operation back in the day. But they switched from secular Pan Arabism to using radical Muslims because Brzezinski and people like that understood that that was actually a better strategy that the British Empire employed when they would make alliances with the various Sunni, Salafi, Wahhabi groups against the Ottomans. So they copied the old British imperial model of aligning themselves with the radicals because the chaos and the destruction again is a much better excuse and a much better tool than trying to create these sort of, you know, again, secular Arab states. But all of that just to say that I think that really Backs up your point. Like, we didn't go with strategies that would actually make the region better. We went with the strategies that would, that would create the chaos. So it's really controlled chaos. And I think you could, and I don't mean to get off too off top because I got some other topics I want to ask you about, but you could say the same thing about the strategy that the CIA had during the Cold War throughout a lot of the Eastern Soviet bloc countries. Right. They want. They would again, fund all kinds of radical groups against the Soviets. And it doesn't make the Soviets good, but it means that this is a very dangerous strategy that, as you said, can produce a lot of blowback.
- [42:19]
Ben Swan
Well, and it does. And it's the exact same. It's funny because we keep talking about this in terms of history, which I think is important because people need to see and understand that historically this has been the case. Nothing that's happening now is happening in a vacuum. However, those same strategies are still being employed right this minute. Right. And even as recently as 2014 in Ukraine, the, the whole color revolution that took place there, CIA did all that. The war that's being fought right now. Right. Who are we funding? We're funding Nazis. Not, not neo Nazis. These are original, like, hard.
- [42:54]
Jay
Yeah, the old school Reinhard Galen networks.
- [42:56]
Ben Swan
Yeah, right. The Stefan Bandera loving Nazis in Ukraine. And the crazy part of that is if Ukraine had had the ability to win, which they didn't, they had no idea what they're doing. And by the way, oh my gosh, just, if I could just mention this, I don't know if you saw this, but the Anthony Blinken interview he just did where he admits that he and Biden were sending the Javelins and all kinds of missiles and weapons into Ukraine almost six or seven months before the war started.
- [43:31]
Jay
Yeah.
- [43:31]
Ben Swan
So they claim that, you know, they were claiming at the time, oh, this was totally unprovoked. Ukraine was just sitting over here praying. And then Russia decided they were going to invade and try to conquer them. Why were you, why were you sending all these weapons in there? You knew exactly what you were doing. You were starting a war. You were, you were trying to drive them into it. Now, fortunately, you know, the Russians have played it really well and, you know, there's. They have no way that they're going to lose this war. Ukraine is utterly defeated at this point. And it's really only by Putin's kindness that he didn't just roll over and flatten them. If, if Putin were an American leader, or an American leader were in Putin's place, they just would have flattened the whole of Ukraine already and then hired contractors to rebuild the whole thing. He's not doing it that way. But, but the point being had, if you could go back in time and change history and what's going to happen and Ukraine had been victorious, we would literally have a nation now run by Nazis controlling Russia and controlling nuclear weapons in that part of the world. That's what you would have if you would, if you had won. And so it's the exact same problem that we keep facing. You pick the worst people, the most dangerous people, the most radical people, the most chaotic people and you give the weapons and training and money and you say nothing back bad's gonna happen or if it does, ain't gonna be my problem because I won't be around for it anymore.
- [44:56]
Jay
Yeah, no, this is a very important recent event that absolutely ties into all this. Yet another, you know, it's still in the news, right, The Ukraine situation, like you said, that was that, that goes back to the 1980s with, it's really Soros and, and he was the, one of the key people that pioneered the funding through the NED and through all these different NGOs, the Color Revolution model. And they didn't just do it with the soft power gene sharp technologies. They also brought in, as you said, weaponry. They also arranged, at least the Ukrainian services did a sniper event to happen that kicked, helped kick off the Maidan situation. And that's, that's a, that's a very interesting pattern that you see popping up a lot in these kinds of operations to start these kinds of so called coups which are not organic, they're actually manufactured, at least to a degree. And then if we recall another thing that I always bring up because people will still call in and debate me about this subject. There's, there were multiple biolabs that had been set up in Ukraine and other places right along the border of Russia. That's obviously an intentional provocation as well as other things that were happening in that region to provoke Russia via NATO from any years. So we will do these provocations and then when, when Russia retaliates, then we say, oh, you know, we're cry bullies about it. Right? That's the cry bully strategy. Yes, go ahead.
- [46:30]
Ben Swan
No, no, you're, you're 100% right. It happens all the time and it was a provocation. And the fact is the, the biolabs were set up along, remember that when, when Zelensky was elected a Lot of Americans don't even know anything. Anything really about Zelins. Did a whole series on him, and I've learned a lot about him. Yeah, the guy's unbelievable. Unbelievable. But this was a guy who. He was a TV actor, right? He gets just put in this position as a guy who's playing a teacher who accidentally becomes president as a man of the people, right? And then all of a sudden, he has a TV show called the Servant of the People. His employer is an oligarch named Kolamoiski, who basically owns the TV network. After the show becomes a hit, they quietly register an actual party called the Servant of the People Party. And then within two years of this TV show being this big hit because they're pumping all this money into it, put it in front of everybody, Zelinsky decides, in fact, he's actually running for president under the Servant of the People party. The whole thing's almost comical, except it worked. But one of the things he ran on was ending the war that had been going on in the Donbas for 10 years. Because, remember, a lot of Americans don't know there was a war already going on there, right? That. That Donbass region, which is the easternmost part of Ukraine, is ethnically Russian. They speak Russian. I actually just learned the other day that 80% of Ukrainians speak Russian and that almost no one speaks this Ukrainian
- [48:03]
Jay
language, as they call it. The rest of them speak Yiddish.
- [48:10]
Ben Swan
Just kidding, guys. No, in reality, yeah, they do not speak this Ukrainian language as it's been created. And so the funny thing is, is that Zelensky didn't speak Ukrainian until he started running for president. He was actually a native Russian speaker. So one of the provocations is he didn't end that. They actually began shelling. 14,000 people living in eastern Ukraine were killed from 2014 until 2022 by shelling from the Ukrainian armed forces. Shelling them. So those people were in a war, and then they're like, oh, Russia came over here for no reason. No, they came for a reason, because those people are ethnically Russian and we're begging for help. 1. Russian speakers in Ukraine were oppressed because Zelensky passed a law that says you can't speak Russian. No books can be in Russian, no schools can teach Russian. Russian speakers were basically banned from speaking Russian in public in Ukraine. That's crazy. That's an oppression of the people. Churches were shut down. Like, there was a lot happening there that, of course, our media is never going to tell you was happening. All this stuff is going on and so Russia sees this as a provocation, and they're getting closer and closer. And then Kamala Harris goes over and says, we need to make Ukraine part of NATO. Now, one week later is when the war starts. That's the final red line that, that Putin's like, I can't let you cross that red line, guys, because we know what you're doing. You've been poking us for years. You're. You're killing these people who are in this region. They're begging for help. But when you come out and then say, and by the way, also, you know what else we're going to do? We're going to make Ukraine part of NATO, then you don't have a choice. You got to do something.
- [49:55]
Jay
Yeah. And there's that classic clip of George Soros talking about how this was all his. He took credit for all this. He's like, yeah, those are. The Ukraine is Min did all of that. And then you have Zelensky in the emails to bring this full circle back to Jeff Stein. McGuffrey. You have Zelensky in the. The text messages saying, get, Get Jeffrey. I need Jeffrey consultation. Right. And then the other thing I thought was really funny that Zielinski said was when he. When he was on tv, he was
- [50:24]
Ben Swan
a black rock, Please come to Ukraine. Billion dollar business, black rock.
- [50:29]
Jay
So this guy's so ridiculous that he's actually asking for Epstein to come and help him to consult on how to run these things. And by the way, people forget how to run and help run a coup against Putin that was in the Epstein
- [50:43]
Ben Swan
Falls and multiple meetings between Zelensky and Epstein. Lunch meetings. There are conversations and there are documents that indicate that Zelensky may have been trafficking kids out of Ukraine via Jeffrey Epstein. And the networks that they had. Another really interesting connection, though, that I always bring up to people. It's a little bit left field, but there's a name that's a big part of the Pizzagate conspiracy. It's a woman. Woman by the name of Marina Abramovich. Marina Abramovich is like a performance. Like spirit cooking. Yeah, that's it. Spirit cooking. So get this. I don't know if you've heard this or not, but at one point in 2023, Zelensky decides that he wants Marina Abramovich to be an ambassador for Ukraine. Not ambassador to Ukraine, an ambassador for Ukraine. Now, keep in mind, she is not Ukrainian, she is Romanian. But he wants a Romanian woman to come to Ukraine and be ambassador for Ukraine. And you know who he wants her to be an ambassador to the orphans.
- [51:48]
Jay
Yeah, man. Exactly. I brought that up on a big podcast. I don't remember which one it was. I mentioned it within the last year or so. I don't know if it's Tim Cast or what it was. And nobody believed me. They were like, no, no, they didn't make her. They have. So, yes, they did. Look it up. Sure enough, it's on the State Department website.
- [52:05]
Ben Swan
It's totally nuts to me. It was like. That was like, for. For me, the most full circle moment of all these stories. It's like, it really is. George Carlin said, you know, it's a small club and you ain't in it. It's a small club. And it's incredible when you think, you know, you have these kids whose parents. And by the way, whose parents are sent off to war and whose dads even today are being dragged off the streets out of their homes, pulled out of cars. I saw a video today of a guy running on his roof, and they're going up on the roof to get him to drag him away, and it's just totally insane. You got Zelinsky right now traveling around Europe demanding that European nations forcibly exile the Ukrainians who fled there, the men back to the country so they can fight. Meanwhile, you have. We're covering this in our shows today. You have these emails now between the former defense minister and the advisor to Zelensky. These emails back and forth between them talking about how ending the war is bad for business, talking about the Project 23, which is the fund they set up where they were taking 40 to 70% of all the money sent in is being kept there and then spent on homes and cars. It's. It's so repulsive. It's so disgusting, Jay, to think about the fact that these men. There's an entire generation, maybe multiple generations of men, completely genocided in Ukraine by their own government, killed off, sent off to a meat grinder. And then you have Zelensky, who's just making money buying homes, wants to keep the whole thing going because it's good for business, and then demanding, you know what, those guys who made it out, hey, send them back because we need more bodies to throw into this thing. It is so unbelievable to me. And any world leader who stands up and applauds for this guy, sends him money. It's like this blood is on your hands, too. It's horrible.
- [54:04]
Jay
Yeah. On that topic, relating directly to, again, to Epstein, because, you know, one of the things that you went hard on in the paint for many years was the big pizza event. Now we had this period where after that shooting and the hard drive got shot and all of that, oh, this was all debunked. Supposedly it all went away. Supposedly. Lo and behold, when the Epstein files and the emails and the text messages, all this comes out. Wow. Is looking like actually the pizza event might have been what we suspected. And of course, you recently did a debate on this topic. So for. For p. Pizza skeptics here, what do you think is the. Are the key proofs that really something substantial was going on? And are there things in the epine files and emails that actually sort of substantiate that?
- [54:57]
Ben Swan
Well, the. The first thing in the Epstein files is that you have 911 references to pizza. Right. By the way, none of those is the name of a pizza place. None of those is a receipt for an actual pizza. It's 911 times there are conversations about pizza, about we're going to find a new place and we'll pick one together. I'm really excited to have this pizza with you. This woman is pregnant and she looks so happy. She's glowing. Oh, that's the pizza inside of her. That's a pretty obvious one. And so we see this terminology is used all throughout it. Look, here's what's super important to me about this. And as you mentioned, I've done a couple of debates about it. There are people who are like, come on, man, you really believe this? It is so. It is in my mind, undeniable, unquestionable, right. That pizza, cp, Cheese pizza is code language that pedophiles have used for well over a day.
- [55:53]
Jay
That we know. The FBI admits that. The FBI admits that we know that.
- [55:56]
Ben Swan
Right. There's no question. CP. Right. We know in 2023, the FBI arrested someone for CP by using the fact that he was referring to cheese pizza. Right. So if it's good enough for the FBI to arrest someone using this language, I think it's probably good for us too. So there's no question, no doubt in my mind at all. And I think there's plenty of proof of that. The question is, was Epstein using it in that way? I don't know. But the. The point is that that is worthy of investigation. It's worthy of looking into to say, look, if this man is using the same kind of language and he is talking about pizza regularly with people and using food coded language, and we know that it's also used in these other circles, and it's used in very similar ways to the way the Podesta emails were using it. Again, it's worth investigation, but what's nonsensical to me are the people who look at that and go, ah, probably nothing. It's probably nothing. Look, I have an email box right now. I have like 14,000 unread emails in it. Right. Probably a hundred thousand emails in it. And if I search. And I did this the other day just as a test, and I searched the word pizza, and other than talking about Pizzagate, I don't have any emails about pizza. I just don't. That doesn't mean that you're guilty if you have them. What I'm saying is how many actual pizza emails do you have? How many conversations do you have over email with people about pizza or grapes
- [57:29]
Jay
or grape soda, like. Or even grape jerky?
- [57:33]
Ben Swan
Yeah, beef jerky is a big one. The other thing that's interesting to me is the Epstein story, I think, opened up a wider gate to this. Right. So the. The Podesta stuff was somewhat limited with the pizza, and then the Epstein thing opens it up more because he does talk about jerky. And it looks like there's a lot there that indicates it could be about cannibalism. I will tell you, we're working on a film about it, and I think we're going to present some really interesting stuff, including stuff that is going to actually shock. Shock some people in terms of the original Pizzagate story and stuff that was debunked. Turns out it wasn't. And we got some pretty amazing stuff that we were able to find. But we'll. We'll save that for another day, but yes.
- [58:19]
Jay
All right, so I know Ben's got to go soon. Let me hit a couple super chats really quick here and see if we can get maybe a couple over to him before he has to leave for another show. Poncho says there's a jihad, a jihad Nasheed that's called Back to the Way of the Conqueror. And this, oddly, ran at the same time as Zelensky's gay chicken dance song. That's interesting. Matt, Billy, Donkey. $3. Put us into put. Wait, let me put on my glasses. I got boomer eyes. I can't read these. Put us into Resident Evil Cosplay. And you is an umbrella corporation guard and soldier and woman is Alice. Teddy says for $5. Jay, I have a good movie for you. It's called Ken Russell's the Devils. It's been restored and it's redone. I'm familiar with it. I've seen it. Thank you. Peter says for $10, I'm guessing that the P gate actually woke Ben up. Perhaps. Is this the case?
- [59:24]
Ben Swan
The.
- [59:24]
Jay
The.
- [59:24]
Ben Swan
What did? Pizza.
- [59:26]
Jay
The pizza event.
- [59:27]
Ben Swan
Oh, no, no, no. The thing that woke me up was actually going all the way back to 2012 and Ron Paul. That was the first place where I really woke up because I was covering it at the time. Just real quick. I was covering at the time, just in Ohio elections and interviewing all the candidates. And I finally got to Ron Paul and I interviewed him, or not interviewed. I just did a story about him. And when I did, it blew up. And all these people were saying, thank God you would talk about it. No one will talk about it. And I'm like, that's not true. And then they said, no, really? What? He gets censored and everything he says. So I started paying attention to it and realized I'm working in a media company. I'm working with Fox at the time, Fox and Cincinnati. And I was like, yeah, we are doing that. And it was, like, shocking to me. And I started to realize so much of what I was in. In that broadcast world was fake. So that's kind of where it started. Yeah.
- [60:11]
Jay
Last question for you. Poncho says, do you concur with any of Simon Dixon's assessments that the crate reset is actually currently playing out?
- [60:21]
Ben Swan
I think it is, yeah. I do agree that it is.
- [60:24]
Jay
Is.
- [60:25]
Ben Swan
I think the. The great reset is. And I think there is a. There's a war happening right now for what that ultimately is going to look like. And I think we're in the early stages still, but I think we're. We may be further than a lot of people think in it.
- [60:41]
Jay
All right, guys, I do have been linked in the show description. I will also add all the other links here in a moment. You can also subscribe to him on YouTube. You can subscribe to him on Twitter Rumble as well, I assume. So go follow Ben on all those links. Anything you want to leave us with? What you got coming up? When is this documentary coming out?
- [61:00]
Ben Swan
We're hoping later this summer, maybe into the fall, but a few things that we still have to do on it. So just keep an eye out for it. And, you know, we're working on stuff every day. I will tell you, I'm really excited to see what's going to happen with the UFO stuff that's coming. I think that's a really interesting story and the narrative that surrounds it. And how is the government going to spin it because they're not going to tell us the truth. I'm convinced of that. But what are they going to tell us? And. And to what end?
- [61:30]
Jay
Awesome. Well, thank you so much, Ben. Love to have you back again. We had a little bit of technical issues. We didn't get the full interview. But I'll get you back on sometime soon, and then we can do a full deeper dive if you'd like.
- [61:40]
Ben Swan
Sounds good, Jay. I appreciate it, man.
- [61:41]
Jay
Absolutely. Thank you so much. Guys, let's hit the rest of these super chats. I know that we had several people asking, we gotta do the rest of these super chats here. I wonder, on that other. That other scene, it might not be the camera. Might not. Can you guys hear me? Okay? Yeah, you can hear me. I wasn't sure the camera was connected. Over on this scene, Poncho says, For $2, watch Imperium, starring Daniel Porter. Okay, I'm not familiar with that. Is that a movie or is that a documentary? See, I think people ask why you wear those glasses? Are you on drugs? No, not on drugs. I don't like the look of the boomer glasses, the reading spectacles. When I'm on a live stream. I think it looks dorky as hell. These look cool as heck. These look cool as heck. Also, these lights get annoying after a while. So Mountain walk says for $10. I've always enjoyed it when you're talking to other big brain people. Absolutely. Absolutely. You know, I tried to get a interview with Ben a long time ago, many, many years ago. And, you know, I had a very small channel, very small following back when I was trying to kind of make that connection. So great to have him on. It was an honor to finally get to have that discussion. This was a chat I wanted to have for a really long time. So really thankful to Ben for doing it, for coming on. And guys, again, be sure to go follow him. Dr. J says for $5. Did you know that the Mass Ball theme and Eyes Watch shot is Romanian Orthodox played backwards? Yes. In fact, I remember reading that many, many years ago. And we have discussed that at some point in our many, many Eyes Wide Shut analyses. So if you go watch my little mini documentary on Eyes Wide Shut, which is, I think, my still my biggest video. I think we mentioned that, but they thought that sounded more ominous, right. To do it that way. And I've talked to Vivian several times about this, so. Or at least a couple times. Still trying to get Vivian on. She's. She's not a huge fan of doing interviews. So you. You kind of have to keep pursuing to get her to do to do the interviews. Brian Blanco says her $30. J I'm attending my first vespers next weekend and then liturgy. Awesome. I wanted to show you gratitude and say thank you for all your live streams and the debates. These open my eyes. Please pray for me. God bless. Well, that's great to hear, dude. Very, very happy when I hear these kinds of stories and we hear this a lot now, which is great. Jacques Kumar says for $5, do the Billy Graham pizza impression. Please calm down. To the altar. We've got hot pizza down here. If you give your life to sports ball, if you let the football come into your heart, I'll give you a hot slice of pizza. How's that? J dire cliff wave. $5. Jay I loved these interviews with Kuryaku. I hope to see more in the future. Yeah, remember guys, the second episode of me on his show has come out on their platforms, so you can go check that one out. And then there's a third episode of me on his show as well that is yet to come out in depth. Says For $10, what is the best way to explain to newbies that orthodoxy is more legitimate or more foundational than Catholicism or any other? Fades Well, I mean, there's not a one size fits all. I think the easiest, simplest way is the videos where I point out major dogmatic contradictions. Because remember, Roman Catholicism is a system and in that system it says it cannot contradict on dogma. And dogma includes anything that they've officially taught in faith and morals. So anything dogmatic faith and morals that is a contradiction shows that that system, it's a system level defeater. So I would say if you look at the video where I pointed out the contradiction on the death penalty, if you look at the video where I contra where I pointed out five simple arguments against the papacy from five or six years ago, that's a good one. And then more recently, this one dogmatic contradiction ends Roman Catholicism. That's a. On the issue of temporal supremacy, those are all great examples. I also think even more simple examples like saying that Muslims, Christians and Jews now all worship the same God. That becomes the basis for the Vatican's syncretic approach to ecumenism, which it clearly has. Those are all, I think, system level defeaters. Shepherd, $10. What's up, ninja? A lot of people owe you an apology, but I ain't one. I enjoy your content. God bless you and Jamie, thank you. Appreciate that. Yeah, well, I don't think we're gonna get an apology from a lot of the people. But hey, it's great to talk to these high level investigative, prominent journalists, intelligence people, whistleblowers, analysts. And now people are coming around and admitting all the stuff that we've talked about for so many years. And, and we've been so hated and attacked and persecuted, deplatformed. And now you've got, you know, a lot of prominent voices basically admitting, hey, pretty much everything Jay was saying was correct. Boone says, For $10, give me a couple questions to ask my priest. I want to see if he's liberal or not. I want to convert to orthodoxy. You mentioned perhaps up to. Up to half of orthodoxy is also fake. Again, you make sure want to make sure that I'm not signing up for any of that. I mean, do they promote ecumenism? Do they promote skittles? Do they promote, you know, masonry? You know, that kind of stuff? Those are usually good indicators. Chronicle says for $5. He's talking about my panda shirt. This was some of the super chats I didn't get to the other day. I told you guys I would read it on the next live stream. You have a nice gay shirt. Yes. The panda shirt was intended to give the impression and to prove that I'm nice and I'm not mean. Ortho Bro. Extremist. $10. You are the pimper of wigsantium. Cheers. Thank you, dude. Appreciate that. Bird says for $10, the meanest ortho bro is actually St. John Chris system. Listen to the homily where he says they have done an insult to nature itself. Yeah, yeah. I'm not like, I'm like 30% of a lot of the church fathers. JV says. I can confirm. The only thing that you ever did was to block me for no good reason.
- [68:32]
Ben Swan
I.
- [68:32]
Jay
If I recall, it's because you kept sending really bizarre super chats and I said, you know, look, man, let's just let this issue rest. I don't remember what it was, but you just kept with it. The church needs people like you. I hope you will continue to host the fourth hour. Whatever you say. $10. Don't people realize the reason that people are converting in mass is not just because of theology but also other traditional bases that hold within orthodoxy? I think so people do not actually want to be liberals. Skittles. Exactly. We must hold the line.
- [69:10]
Ben Swan
Yep.
- [69:12]
Jay
Totally agree. Chased $5. Saint Spirit on of trust. Being a simple monk, but also being the champion of the first council is evidence that God calls the servants to rebuke evil with truth. There's tons of that in church history. I can't read that name, but it says, holy Saint Seraphim Rose, pray for us. $10. Thank you, Ken Balan. $5. What is your take on Father? Yeah, we read this one last time. Let's make sure I didn't miss this. Bong says for $10. This is for the Kumar Perm. Ruslam. Ruslam. Instead of Islam boy getting web searched and larped by the Bipoc Exanthium king. Exactly, Flavius. I missed his when he sent $50. Thank you so much, Flavius. He says the gleeful celebration of Kirk when he passed due to the libs celebrating that. That quote radicalized me. It was the Ortho rock Ortho bros who actually told me to go to the liturgy and shut the heck up. So the ortho bros were calming down his extremism. So, again, that doesn't run. That runs counter to the narrative that the Ortho bros are extremists. Drago says for $3. You and Nick Fuentes saved me from the puritanical belief that I thought I ought to have as a Christian. I finally stopped being very inhumane. I still have the recurring thought of how to reconcile this with passages in Paul's epistles and joking around. I don't think Paul's talking about joking around. I think he's talking about being a consistently profane person. I mean, Paul himself said, I wish that the Judaizers would castrate themselves. Okay, so he's not being some sort of, like, puritanical person when he says, you know, to not be a profane, vulgar person. Christian Roach became a member. Jay, I'm a big fan. I became orthodox because of you. Thank you. Appreciate that, man. It's good to hear AC Said this is a hit job for Captain Tzariac. This was a. This was a comment I missed a while back. Okay, let's see. I think I hit all the super chats there because I missed several from the last stream. And here's some more here. Poncho says, for $10 to all the tone police who are offended when Jay imitates an accent of other people. Just read First Corinthians 9, 1923. And there's. So there's biblical precedents for impressions. That's funny. How about when Paul says, cretins are liars and gluttons? That's pretty funny. This. And this saying holds true, right? Oh, Paul's being a racist and he's classifying people. He's profiling coin order $5. What do you think about all these AI data centers popping up? Is this part of the future technocracy control system? Absolutely. I mean, the. The technocracy is. Is centrally going to be, I think they've. They've decided, run by AI and that was a plan mentioned a long, long time ago. So I don't doubt that the data centers are. Are for that purpose. We know that they are. Tyler says for $10. I'm currently a catechumen. Thank you to you. And Father hears I'm currently being persecuted because I'm choosing orthodoxy. Well, that's what happens. Yeah, I understand. We all will be that persecuted. So count it as. Joy, I was thinking about asking you what are your thoughts on how to deal or not to deal? Do you mean with the persecution? I mean, it'll pass, if that's what you're talking about. Okay, Making sure. I think I got all the super chats now. No, we didn't. Maroc says for $10. Jay, I don't know why I'm blocked. Can you undo it? This is owl killer. When you guys say that you're blocked, I don't know if you mean on x or on YouTube. So I block different people for different reasons. If you tone police me and talk crap and you don't won't come to bait. That's the number one way that I block that you get blocked. If I see you, you know, talking smack on other YouTube channels about me, but you won't come say it here. That's also a reason that I vlog people. So perhaps those are the reasons that I blocked you. But I don't know if you mean on YouTube or on X, because I am a huge fan of the block button. And actually the block button I think is pretty effective because people act like, oh, you're being a wuss. Maybe I just don't want any of these people or their comments in my life. What does it have to do with being a wuss? I mean, don't you avoid toxic people in real life? Of course.
- [74:24]
Ben Swan
We all do.
- [74:24]
Jay
Oh, I guess you're a. Because you're avoiding toxic. No, you're just blocking them in real life. Barbecue says. Did you hear that anything from the Ortland Trent podcast? No, I have not yet. Because I was doing a live stream when they did it or when it came up that they had done it, so I didn't even know. By the way, I think I'll go ahead and do another stream. I hope that doesn't make Alex mad. I'll try to do another stream. Now that we've done the Ben Ben Swan stream, you guys want to do another live stream? Orland said, we take the ecumenical progress where we can. And Trent smiled and said, yes. Well, I mean, Trent has to believe in ecumenism because his church has dogmatically affirmed and accepted it for around a century. So, I mean, nobody should be surprised that Trent Horn also holds to the heresy of ecumenism. His his Vatican has dogmatized it, which, by the way, they previously said it, it's apostasy. This is another easy contradiction. In Roman Catholic dogma mortalium animos 1920, I think 28 of Pius XI, it says that if you affirm and teach and act on ecumenism, you are surrendering the gospel and the apostolic sea. It says this multiple times in the in the encyclical. The Apostolic Roman Sea has never allowed Roman Catholics to participate in ecumenism. And now it's dogma. That is a contradiction. One of the clearest. I mean that alone is like not that's just easy knock down right there. Death penalty, easy knockdown change right there. Temporal supremacy. The Roman Bishop easy knockdown right there. Tanner G. $10. My Funko Pop and myself are getting baptized Saturday. Come on, dude, you're not getting God bless you, dude. Just kidding. Thank you for being mean to the heretics and assigned post of truth. Look, people think that what meanness is is tone and aggression. That's not what meanness is, Right? Ironically, all of the people who really hate me without a cause or who are or who have dire derangement syndrome, they're actually the mean ones because in the background they do the nastiest stuff imaginable while putting on the public nice face. I would say that's actually being mean saying to your face. Look man, I disagree with your ecumenism. Once you become orthodox, what you're saying stupid, none of that is being mean. People just think that being a normal guy is being mean. And even fat jokes guys rib each other guys riff, right? Guys do this. This is what dudes do. And if you can't handle that, dudes have a natural dude code whereby they ferret out and vet people based on can the guy take a joke? Can he take a little ribbing? And if he can't, then, you know, he's soft, right? I'm not talking about the psycho weirdo people. Right? You should avoid those people. But like with Tim Gordon, we start making jokes about each other. I remember when I we hit it off because I Said he was like the Creed dude. He was Scott Stapp from Creed. And I was making fun of Tim Gordon and singing Creed songs when we were reviewing his live streams and he thought that was hilarious. And so we actually got to be buddies over that. The rest of these people are just absolutely giant vaginas. They can't even take a mild joke. They're so fragile. One mild joke and they block you and run away. I'm not talking about people that won't debate me. That's almost all the time the reason that I block people. And sometimes I block the wrong person. So that's. Sometimes I do make that mistake. Dr. Do nothing, $8, for example. I'll give you an example of how I've made the mistake sometimes. So sometimes when people call in on Twitter on Xbase and I'm looking from my glasses and then I. When I some. When people call in and they act insane like that guy make a death threats the other day when I click on the profile to block, sometimes I block or I. Or I pick the wrong person in the chat or in the Twitter space. That's happened a few times. Okay, so for example, I had. The other day I accidentally had DJ blocked, right? Who organized the whole freemason debate. And that was an accident. I mean, DJs never said anything or giving me any indication that I would. I would block him. So at some point I accidentally, accidentally blocked his profile, thinking that it was someone else. JV says, jay, you blocked me over saying that bitcoin aligns with orthodoxy, but then was accused of other saying it's the opposite. Okay, well then I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that if you like bitcoin, you can't be orthodox. And again, I don't. Are you talking about blocked on YouTube or on X? I don't know which one you're talking about. Do you see the Baptist debate? A bunch of the Baptists? Like, there's not a single Baptist IFB cult member who made an argument against anything I said. Every comment in the debate literally is like, this guy is gonna. I'm gonna be happy when this guy burns in hell. This guy denies Jesus is the word. I'll be just the stupidest. Like, I mean these people are like, next. They're dumber than Muslims, dude. Or another equal to Muslims, I should say. Isn't that like the. What we've seen is that the IFB are identical to the Muslims. Guys, remember, Head on. Head on. Over to chalk.comchoq.com the best in supplementation on the Internet. You can get access to all those great chalk products@chalk.com choq.com link is in the show description but use the promo code J60Life. That's J A Y60L I F E to get 60 off all those great products. And yeah, give me a few minutes here to eat a late lunch, early dinner and we will come right back with a live stream. Otherwise, thank you guys for the Benz for joining us for the Ben Swan interview.
- [81:02]
Ben Swan
Thank you.