Send Some Love and Buy Me A Cup Of Joe:
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jasonbermasShow more ETH - 0x90b9288AF0E40F8C90604460973743dBC91dA680
Watch My Documentaries:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4VFYRaltcc&list=PL5vtMLUWgYehCTEfSmgEzAEC9Dvt9FZmc
Subscribe on Rokfin
https://rokfin.com/JasonBermas
Subscribe on Rumble
https://rumble.com/c/TheInfoWarrior
Subscribe on YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/InfoWarrior
Follow me on X
https://x.com/JasonBermas
PayPal: [email protected]
Patriot TV - https://patriot.tv/bermas/
#BermasBrigade #TruthOverTreason #BreakingNews #InfoWarrior Show less
Hey, everybody, Jason Burmes here, and we are going to do the second hour now of this two-hour excerpt of what I keep saying is like over a dozen hours, around 13 hours.
I guess there are reports out there of up to 15 hours of Bannon interviewing Jeffrey Epstein in what at least is being reported as.
And especially watching the first hour seems to be some kind of rehabilitation piece.
I don't know that this was anything but, I suppose, that we'll see if the entire interview is released.
It's really odd to me now at this point because I would assume that the DOJ did not just take two hours of this interview because it took place just before Epstein is arrested.
Now, if the Justice Department is doing their job and they can get their hands on two hours of this, why wouldn't they go after all of it?
Why wouldn't they get all of it?
And if they got all of it, why wouldn't it be all available to us?
Now, regardless of whether or not the DOJ, for some reason, doesn't have the full catalog, why has Bannon not released the full catalog up until this point, even prior to the dump?
I've asked this question time and time and time and time again.
And so far, maybe it comes up in this next hour.
We've played it before.
We had this quote-unquote monsters documentary teaser put out by Bannon many years ago, where Epstein talks about just quickly suicide inside of solitary confinement.
And now that we know he's talked to Bannon about his first jail experience and what he says occurred there, that makes a lot more sense, although that section's not in there.
And then, of course, the island of Dr. Moreau stuff.
And the reference with the island of Dr. Moreau stuff is obviously genetic experimentation, transhumanism, cloning, the use of these types of clone materials as kind of a farm system because these people are always looking to at least prolong their life,
if not live forever.
It's the big God complex they have.
That's all real.
We've been reporting on it for years, and it is really in the emails.
It's firsthand.
It's not a, you know, so, you know, the only thing that is subjective is so far, how much insight do we have on what has been done?
What really went on on Zorro Ranch, because we don't have much of that, and that he was actively working with others to try to do this.
And we're going to have to have a deep dive just into those emails that are now available in that regard.
But this is much more financial and has been.
And quite frankly, although some people may have found it boring, I saw some people for some reason commenting and saying things like they didn't think that Epstein was coming across as intelligent.
I'm not saying, you know, he was like the mastermind, guys.
I think he's a very smart guy.
I think that he learned from those around him.
You saw his eyes perked up as soon as they're talking about a David Rockefeller and things like of that nature.
There's a reason for that.
And you get an insight into this guy being recruited into the trilateral commission.
Big deal, right?
At a very young age.
He's talking about subprime mortgages, but blaming it on Bill Clinton.
Now, there hasn't been any kind of a discussion of his relationship with Bill Clinton as of yet, but that's where we are in this video.
So I'm going to leave it there because we've got just about a little over an hour to go in this excerpt of Bannon that's been made public.
And like I said, let's get it all out there.
That's what I want to see.
Thumbs it up, subscribe, share.
Let everybody know about the documentary films as well.
Shade the Motion Picture, Invisible Empire, and New World Order Defined, Fabled Enemies, and Invisible Empire.
Did I say Invisible Empire and New World Order Defined?
I may have.
I missed Fabled Enemies.
See, it's a late night broadcast.
Consider supporting the broadcast down below with the links via the Buy Me a Coffee and the PayPal, etc.
Every little bit helps.
$5, $10, $15.
Thank you, someone.
Remember, you can remain anonymous.
Big donors.
Thank you so much.
Thank you to MarigoldResources.com for supporting the broadcast.
They broker the sales and purchases of business.
If you're in that arena, go check them out.
MarigoldResources.com.
And then, of course, the River City Reader.
I wish that Todd had, he texted me the latest cover, but they got big stories on geoengineering.
Like I said, this is real independent media in print right now.
Check them out for sure.
And then give me a follow on X without further ado.
Jeffrey Epstein and Steve Bannon.
Did you first start to get nervous?
Understanding Bill Clinton and all this.
Did you change glasses?
Yes.
Okay.
I changed shirts.
I saw that black.
Are you okay with the university?
Yeah, great.
I think we're going to have all kinds of chances.
When did you get a feeling?
Did you ever anticipate before it happened, something like 2008 could happen?
No.
Predicting Financial Crises00:10:50
How could that be?
It's the word I can beat to death is that it's very much like it.
Would I expect, anticipate I'll have a heart attack tomorrow?
Unlikely.
Was 2008 a heart attack or stroke?
Debilitating?
It's a better question.
I don't, it was both.
But why was it both?
Because in fact, as I said, the blood was getting dried up in the system and the head, which is sort of the central bank, wasn't working.
So to some extent, it was a combination.
It was a crisis.
Did you see that building up over time?
It's always been lurking in the background.
I mean, if you have an older parent, would you say it's possible?
Did you anticipate him having a heart attack today?
No, you hope things are going to go better and maybe they'll fix it up.
The system was getting too complex and it wasn't based on derivatives because what people keep forgetting, and as I was just explaining, Wall Street and many professions, including Wall Street, Wall Street makes it sound complicated.
They don't want the little guy to understand what they do because they make so much money and they don't do very much.
So they couch it in words like derivative and stock options and commodity futures and different types of contracts.
It's all fairly, everyone is capable of understanding it.
It is not complicated.
But Wall Street, because they make so much money from doing fairly simple things, needs to make it more complicated than it really is.
We had a very big recession in the early 90s based upon real estate and Japan basically imploding.
Let's again, you had a recession in the 90s.
I don't know what it's based upon.
It's always interesting to look back and say, separate from there's certain triggers, like in the 70s, there was a 10.
What do you think it was based upon, the 90s downturn?
Clearly, there was a huge downturn.
No, I just know there was a downturn.
That's what I know for sure.
That's a fact.
Everything else is sort of speculation about why did he have to understand that.
So there's some speculation that has 0% probability of being true, and there's others that have 90%.
In the range, when you look at the range of alternatives of what could have caused it in 90, and what I'm trying to do is get you all the way up to 2008.
Look, you're the smartest guy in the room, right?
You know that.
Do you think there's anybody in the world today?
Oops, this is going to be a bad question.
No, no, but do you think anybody in the world today, the Allen Greenspans, the Bernanke's, any is there any central banker you know, any partner of any Wall Street firm, any guy running a trading desk, and I would take it that would be, or anybody at a Larry Fink at BlackRock, Steve Schwartzman at Blackstone, the top 100 financial guys, and let's throw in a couple of Nobel economists and let's throw in the best professors at Wharton, at Harvard, at Stanford.
Do you think that there's anybody that understands money or understands the world's financial system as good as you?
There must be.
The way he says that right there, I just want to point this out.
Bannon is getting at it because I'll give Bannon this.
He recognizes what Epstein is.
And in that regard, he does think he's the smartest guy in the room.
I think you almost have to in these situations.
And the fact that he just named all of that and Epstein didn't have the response of somebody else currently, that in combination with these emails and exchanges that you've seen between him and Michael Wolf, with him saying things about Trump and actively trying to take Trump down.
That's a real thing.
Okay.
That no one can take Trump down but him.
That is, you know, that's the mindset that Epstein has.
But it doesn't come to the top of the head.
No.
Okay, fine.
Now, now that, okay, now that I've gotten that, no, now that I've gotten that, let's go back to 1990.
And that arc from 90, from the fall of the Berlin Wall to 2008.
Good.
We had, we started with the implosion in Tokyo of the Japanese economy, Japanese financial markets.
We had the huge run-up in internet stocks, right?
We had the implosion of that in 2000.
The bankruptcy of Drexel Burnham in 90, implosion of Japan, huge run-up in equity markets for the internet, implosion of the internet in 2000, 10 years later, roughly.
And then this run-up through the Iraq war and all that, the run-up to 2008.
Every 10 years, it seems like we're in some sort of 10 years before the 1990s was the subject.
You sound like an astrologer.
Okay.
And that offensive is a problem.
I'm not a mathematician.
It just seems to me a pattern of every 10 years.
That's misleading.
That's exactly right.
Because people like to see patterns.
People like to see patterns where there are none.
So a pattern of a financial crisis every 10 years is just in my mind.
Yes.
Long-term capital, long-term capital that had to be bailed out back in the late 90s when everybody panicked.
And that wasn't a big, that bailout today would look small.
And it was a $5 billion or was $30 billion.
Businesses fail all the time.
But they long-term capital, the Federal Reserve stepped in.
But I'm saying, people go bad.
Things go bad all the time.
Yes, the local, you're correct.
The audience that's watching this, the little guys, they go bankrupt all the time and nobody gives a shit.
You know why?
They're a little guy.
But when long-term capital management goes bankrupt or Bear Stearns goes bankrupt or Lehman Brothers goes bankrupt, people care because it is.
That's an unfair characterization.
Why do you say that?
Because again, it's the complexity of the situation.
If you think about the you have a complex system, you have your body.
Now, in fact, the little guy is my finger.
It's almost paradoxical.
You know, just less than five minutes ago, he was talking about how people on Wall Street don't do much and they have to make things sound complex, but anybody could understand these things.
But again, in the first half of this, he kept trying to, you know, keep the analogy away from some kind of a machine mechanism, but again, like a human life to give it more empathy and more complexity, et cetera.
This is Bear Stearns is your heart.
That's correct.
The banking system is my heart.
The system, I can't risk my, because remember, it's not only my heart.
You haven't been able to name it.
Hang on.
You haven't hang on.
No, hang on.
I was trying to hang.
Let's see if the hang on worked.
You haven't been able to, you're not good enough.
You're like junior wizard trying to do it.
You haven't, you haven't.
Since we can't name another guy that's as good as you, there may be a couple out there.
You're not bragging.
You're humble.
It had to be sometime.
Please tell me there was some time before you went to jail and basically got cut off from daily information in the summer of 2008 that you started to get very nervous that this complex system, that something was deeply wrong.
Okay, first, let's go back.
When I say no one understands the system better than I do, it doesn't mean I understand.
You always sound like a doctor.
You're afraid he's going to get sued for giving a thing.
You're not taking on any liability.
There's no contingent liability here for you.
Yeah, no, no, no.
But the word understand is the problem.
I don't understand the system.
So that's, I don't understand the financial system.
Please stop.
You cannot sit here and tell me.
No.
We just went through.
I'll go through again.
The hedge fund managers, the money managers, the central bankers, the commercial bankers, the heads of the investment banks, the heads of all the trading desks, the top economists, and I'll throw in the business school lectures of Stanford.
Of all the top 200, 250, you can't name at the top of your head the guys are at least at your level.
You have to understand it somewhat.
No.
Sorry.
We all don't understand it.
No one understands it.
It's a miracle.
That's part of the problem.
It's impossible to understand.
That word understand simply means if this happens here, that will happen there.
It's predictable.
Listen, the more I listen to this exchange, a lot of you out there may have watched the video I recently did on Ron Paul and talking about the Federal Reserve System.
And Ron Paul, probably 20 plus years ago, maybe even 25 years ago, has this exchange with Alan Greenspan on what money is.
And Alan Greenspan, very much in the same manner that Jeffrey Epstein, by the way, Alan Greenspan, if you don't know, ex-chair of the Federal Reserve, in regards to money, basically says that it cannot be defined.
Therefore, it really cannot be predicted or controlled.
And this very much mirrors that in the way of Epstein talking.
Understanding means it's predictable.
It's not predictable.
That's the problem.
It's very, in complex systems, that was the fascination.
Is there a way to tease out some level of predictability?
In fact, you would ask the question.
It's a great question, which was, was it a stroke or a heart attack?
Now, most people don't know that before they were going to have a stroke, they had a stroke.
They just have a stroke.
Do they understand why?
In hindsight, you go back and you can make lots of explanations that might sound good.
And if you're talking to the working man, you're using language that he'll never understand.
It's complex.
So he's just like going to his doctor, he says he has a gastrointestinal problem.
Fascination with Complex Systems00:06:37
If he has diverticulitis, as opposed to saying, you had a stomachache, you ate bad food.
People don't like to say it in normal, everyman terms.
The system had a stroke, but we don't know why.
But you just hardworking people.
And there's a great social benefit.
Would you not agree?
with having people having ownership in the system when you say ownership in the system it doesn't mean let's start over okay Flip over your phone, too, because I don't want any really short your phone.
So maybe you flip it down or something.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, who knows what the fuck comes over that phone?
That's correct.
Which one has sent your KSA?
I can't believe I've got the magic moment when you're in fucking prison or jail, wherever the fuck it is.
Exactly.
Now, there's a funny part that we missed, which is said, Go ahead, tell us.
The funny part of this is what you asked me.
Is there anything funnier than that?
Remember Black Humor.
I don't make any Black comments.
um especially you know i don't want to i don't even want to show it again But if you saw the meme that drops the N-bomb, that for some reason they're protecting who it was from and to.
I mean, everybody's such in an uproar about race.
It seems like Epstein may have been a little bit of a bigot.
Shocking.
Shocked there, I know.
But they're joking about what may or may not come up on Epstein's phone.
Like that's, I mean, it's pretty wild.
That's all I'm saying, guys.
Thumbs it up.
You asked me what I was wearing.
That's right.
You're too wrapped up in the Me Too movement.
Yes.
So I was wearing a brown jumper and a brown pair of pants given to me by the jail with the word trustee on the back.
Because you had qualified to be a trustee.
Well, the funny part was it was spelled T-R-U-S-T-Y.
So I wasn't really sure.
I've been a trustee in many different operations, but it was the first time it was actually printed on my back and spelled incorrectly.
Probably had a higher level of being a trustee at that than you had at all the boards that you were trustees, right?
Yes, because the trustee meant you get two devices to clean your toilet as opposed to one.
Yeah, but it also meant that you had some sort of personal fiduciary own responsibility for oneself, right?
In the jail?
That's what being a trustee is.
That's where they give you two.
Yes, you get two cleaners.
I was a trustee in the jail because I was able to teach some of the kids to help them get their GED.
So that's how they gave me a trustee job.
There's no time.
I got to go back to this because I'm like a dog with a bone in this thing.
Yes.
You can't.
There's something deeply fucked up with you.
At least something.
We know there are things deeply fucked up with this.
You will get through in this film.
But you cannot possibly have to sit there knowing that you came from nowhere, knowing that you went to the very top of what is considered outside of science and maybe physics, the thing people most admire because it's like alchemy, understanding high finance, to sit there in what will be the defining financial crisis of our time,
like Black Friday and Black Monday, whatever it was, and the Great Depression, and be there at that exact moment, triggered in part by a firm that you used to be a partner in and knew intimately well and created much of your initial net worth because of, and know that you couldn't, someone who lives on a phone, right?
Yes.
Because you do live on a phone, right?
Correct.
You had to make collect just to collect calls.
You cannot tell me sometime during that day, you did not have that conversation with yourself of how the fuck did I do this to myself to put myself in West Palm Beach in a six by nine cell with a metal fucking bed with a brown shirt that said trustee spelled wrong.
So did I find it amazing that I was there?
Let me just stop it here.
You know, Bannon keeps going to the wizardry of financial markets.
You know, one of the other things we brought up in the last video, or I'm sorry, two videos ago, not this one, but was this exchange that's caught between Epstein and Ahud Barak, who I guarantee you, you know, again, has done weapons deals with, it was who he knew, not what he knew.
And to get on a board and get paid.
Okay.
Epstein knows the networking aspects.
And if Bannon isn't going to ask him about the arms dealing and the financials with, you know, Douglas Lease, Adnon Khashoggi, the relationship with Pottinger that's been revealed.
I mean, can this be anything but a puff piece all the way through?
Because He keeps acting like, you know, Evstein made his fortune via these, you know, knowing these markets, but he's not mentioning, you know, the deals that are going to cut him the biggest chunks of change, and that's the international arms trade.
You know, and again, he's in the art world.
And who knows?
I mean, there's 15 hours.
So there could be a lot more.
But we haven't even gotten into the relationship with Leslie Wexner.
You know, the use of women, modeling agencies, obviously his crimes with not women, but teenage girls.
Several of which we know were 14.
There are plenty of allegations that go beyond that.
But let's get back into it.
Not amazing.
Incredible Project00:11:00
I don't want to say it was not funny.
I thought it wasn't funny.
Right.
Not amazing.
It was incredible.
Incredible in what way?
This incredible.
Like, how do I do this to myself?
No.
It's as incredible as me sitting here in this house.
They're both just two sides of the coin.
That's how I think about it.
That my life today is incredible.
Do you consider yourself a stoic?
No.
I consider myself a hermit.
Stoics are not very happy.
Being a hermit then, being in that six by nine cell, being in the cell qua the cell was not the problem, right?
Correct.
What was the problem?
The eating the almond joy bars because you couldn't eat the food.
No, right.
But remember, my life is, did that ever strike you that I can't eat the food because somebody might have done something to it?
I got to live off an almond joy bar one a day or two a day or whatever.
How many ever sneak in?
A day?
No sneaking in.
Your one almond joy bar, did that not, it did not hit you at some time.
How the fuck did I do this?
No.
Let's go back to the spring of 2008.
Were you so wrapped up in your personal issue at the time you were not spending enough time on the financial markets or were you deeply involved in the financial markets like you normally were?
No, I'm normally.
I was involved.
And so we're saying that the smartest guy in the room didn't see it coming.
No, of course.
The bankruptcy of Bear Stearns, you just thought it was a Bear Stearns problem.
You didn't see it as systemic.
I know you keep hopping on it, but it's not.
Because you're a mathematician and understands systems.
It seems that anybody understands that they had a systemic problem.
You at least be the first on the early search radar.
If you're not going to see it, then I'm really afraid because that means that I always assume there's at least a set of guys out there that have some sort of sense that something's not right.
Imagine the guy who has a stroke or had the heart attack.
When you ask him, did you feel funny the day before?
He's going to tell you, yeah, I didn't feel right.
Something was off.
I didn't feel right.
My stomach was right.
I felt a little dizzy.
I felt a little weak.
But if you asked him the day before, do you think you're going to have a heart attack tomorrow?
He'd say, no, I just feel a little weak.
I'm a little dizzy.
My stomach hurts.
So these systems, and that's the issue of complexity.
What complexity says is that, in fact, everything seems to go along.
And people have seen it.
One of the great examples of complex systems is sand dunes.
In fact, the sand keeps building up.
People have seen some.
And all of a sudden, one more send drop, and all the sand starts running down the hills.
One of the things I want to point out is Epstein talks with his hands a lot, if you haven't noticed.
And anybody that knows what neuro-linguistics programming is, NLP, what they teach you via being a politician in nature is you can be more persuasive if you're gesturing as you're talking, right?
There are these certain cues in the mind, and you absolutely have quote-unquote hypnotists that use this to their advantage.
It's also taught in the intelligence arenas.
Just want to put that out there.
That's the way I see the financial moment.
You funded Santa Fe in the early 90s or late 80s.
I believe it was early 90s.
I can get back.
But early 90s, Santa Fe was funded for the study of complexity theory.
So let's back up.
So why did I buy a ranch in New Mexico in 1993?
So that gives you some sense.
So I would have funded it in 1990.
Los Alamos, which was the high-energy lab up in New Mexico, was losing all its scientists.
And it was where Oppenheimer were a lot of the nuclear weapons program, the bomb.
That's when the Manhattan Project.
Manhattan Project was.
Yes, that's Los Alamos.
And you bought your property out in New Mexico to be near that?
Yes, because the scientists were going to be, they cut the funding for high-energy physics.
But the people who worked in Los Alamos would still be in the Santa Fe area.
They cut that because the end of the, this was the Cold War dividend, right?
I don't remember exactly why.
It was because, again, people thought that physics and high-energy physics really wasn't that important because that was about nuclear weapons.
No, it was because they were trying, they decided, which may not write.
This was the same time that Murray Gelman came up with the term quark, Q-U-A-R-K.
He picked it out of an old poem, the word quark.
But it was something, it was mysterious.
So they were starting to understand in the 90s that in our world of the physics world, there were things that were just unexplainable.
They called it strange things.
You gave it a name.
You gave it some characteristics.
You called it charm, was one of the terms.
It had a charm.
It had a flavor.
It had a color.
But nobody really, no one, Mr. Bennon, understood what it was.
Just like the financial system.
And you wanted to investigate that.
I wanted to see if we could build tools so others smarter than me could help investigate it.
And that was the beginning of your concept of the Santa Fe Institute.
Yes.
And Santa Fe Institute was founded to do study in this type of can you can these areas Of strange things be described by some form of mathematics.
So that's what I'm trying to get at.
The foundational thought, the organizing principle of Santa Fe in the high physics lab at Los Alamos, which had created the headquarters of Manhattan and the Trinity Project, right?
The bomb.
Yes.
So you're talking about the elite, the high priest.
Of physics.
Of physics.
Yes, sir.
Which high priest of physics, some subset of that is also mathematics.
Yes, they're both similar.
Project out.
One of the tools you want to do is to make sure that in this complex system, the finance system, I'm doing a lot of this for philanthropy and a lot for the good of mankind, but also to be able to understand this complex system, the most complex outside of maybe our body of the financial world.
Yes.
Did they create tools or were you smarter than the mid-aughts 15 years later than you had been then because of work that was done at Santa Fe?
No.
It was great.
But in fact, most of the money, most of my philanthropy in the area of can you describe things that appear to be unexplainable by mathematics?
And can you fund people who have new ideas?
And unfortunately, when someone thinks they've been able to, there's a man, Stuart Kaufman, when they think that, okay, I figured out how to be able to predict the unpredictable, what appears to other people to be unpredictable.
But my system, in those days, was called genetic algorithms, can predict what things will happen, and they all want to make money.
So they use their systems to try to figure out, they know they have figured out the way to make money because they figured out the unexplainable.
They try, they go bankrupt, and we start again.
So with a cold view, what I've come to realize is that the attempt to mathematize, formularize, or what in your prior world to understand what really is, in today's world, still unexplainable, is impossible.
They're miracles.
You know, he kind of just glossed over the entire Zorro Ranch thing, which literally looks like it's built above an underground bunker, has been connected to the type of genetic experimentation where he's right there talking about genetic algorithms.
Obviously, transhumanism.
He mentioned Q-U-A-R-K quark.
And for those that don't know what a quark is, when he's talking about, you know, these unexplainable things, he's getting into the quantum arena.
And of course, what?
You know, quantum mechanics is a big part of artificial intelligence at the highest levels of our military industrial complex.
You know, so Epstein seems to really, you know, at every turn, want to be a part of that arena in some field, perhaps in the same way he was in the weapons arena, you know, knowing, first of all, seeking that immortality we talked about earlier, but also a timeline to make money.
Your first head of Santa Fe was Christopher Langdon, Langdon, from Australia.
Murray Gelman was the funder.
He was the rock.
Yes, he was the rock.
He was a Nobel Prize winner.
Yes, yes.
And a wonderful guy.
He came out and helped us with the Vias for II project.
He came with Chris Landon.
Chris Lanyard was the operating that day-to-day.
Chris was doing artificial life.
Murray tried to lead his own artificial life.
Yes.
When Chris came to Biosphere 2 for the first big conference we had in 1994, he was one of the most impressive guys there among all the world's elite, Hugh Gardens, the Lawrence Livermore lab, the labs at Sandia, all the major universities, Lamont Daugherty, all the big Earth observatories, Woods Hole.
What set Langdon apart, I thought, and the reason I invited Santa Fe to be part of it, was Langdon actually made a presentation that everything, and he was making this to scientists, a lot of marine biologists, a lot of people that are just beginning, Wally Broecker and people who were just beginning the study of climate change, at that time called global warming, that he made this compelling presentation that everything's really mathematics.
Mathematics Of Motion00:14:08
It's all just back to math.
And you have to, all these experiments you do, you're not, one of the reasons they're not considered by the high priest in physics as being real experiments is that they don't have a mathematical basis to it, and everything has a mathematical basis to it.
Langdon seemed like a radical visionary.
What happened to that concept?
You go back 350 years.
So you have Isaac Newton, you have Leibniz.
From Move Forward, you have people like Heisenberg and Goodell, Gödel Eck.
And what every one of those mathematicians and philosophers came to understand is that there's something with this numbers can describe certain things, approximate certain things.
But in fact, trying to put measurements and numbers on other things that are really unexplainable is folly.
So 300 years ago, they said that unexplainable realm was God.
And people who attempted, in fact, to explain the unexplainable, who said, yes, I understand the unexplainable, were charlatans.
They were the occults.
They were the astrologers.
They were the conmen.
Alchemists.
Yes.
Well, no, alchemists was in fact, they believed that there was a way to transmute one metal into another.
In fact, they always wanted to see if they can create gold.
There's no reason, if you think about it, they recognize that one metal is different than another metal because it has some additional pieces to it, has additional neutrons or protons or electrons.
So because they thought it was a machine, they believed it was a machine, if I can take five protons and add five, that gives me 10, I should be able to get gold, move everything around inside these systems, the molecules, transmute one molecule into another.
And if this molecule I've transmuted it into is gold, I'm a rich man.
It's back to money.
But this something strange happens.
Isaac Newton says, this is really weird.
If I want to push a ball on the table, I have to touch it.
Maybe I have to blow on it.
But I actually have to push one side of the ball or the book to move that side.
I'm pushing here.
And obviously, this thing is what appears to us humans to be solid.
So it moves as one thing.
But the only way to get something to move was to touch it or put a force against it.
Okay, seems to make sense.
Everybody has that experience.
I want to lift a glass, I lift it.
If I want to push a ball, I push it.
If I want to pull a ball, I pull it.
But he recognized when the ball fell off the table, fell off the table, it went in a different direction.
How is that possible?
Nobody pushed the ball down.
And he said, this is crazy.
Why did the ball go down?
I didn't push it.
I just let it go.
So someone's pushing the ball because I know that I am confident that the only thing that gets something to move is with a force that pushes.
So there's a force that's pushing the ball down.
In fact, he never called it gravity.
He measured how fast it was pulled, but never was able to explain why it happened.
How is it?
What is gravity?
It's this, everybody says, well, why did the ball fall to the ground?
Because gravity took it.
But what's gravity?
That's, as Feynman would say, that's the name of the thing.
We have no idea what it is.
I bet you the flat earthers are going to go wild for the Jeffrey Epstein gravity explanation.
I'm going to continue here.
This goes to Santa Fe.
They were trying to explain the unexplainable.
Can we measure, can we figure out a way to predict the stock markets using these types of chaos complexity?
Before we get there, let's walk back.
Let's go back to Newton.
Pre-Newton and then Newton.
What did Newton solve that for millennia up to Newton had not been solved?
And then I want to go forward all the way to Santa Fe, what they were trying to solve.
Let's start with just two or three of the basic guys, but let's go with Newton.
Pre-Newton, it was what?
And then why is Newton such a genius?
I think mathematically, they told me one time I've seen there's been 115 billion people roughly that have lived on the earth.
And of that 115 billion, Newton.
Are you sure that's a number?
That sounds a lot very high.
We only have seven now.
I think in the history of the earth, I think I'll pull up the stat for you, but I think it's 115 billion people, they figured.
That probably is inflation.
That's why you shouldn't.
Have lived through the have lived on Earth.
But he's one of the handfuls.
I'd hate to agree with Epstein, but I don't know how that could be anywhere near 115 billion people, no matter how old you went back to humanity hundreds of thousands, even millions of years.
That seems high.
I'm with Epstein on that one.
Well, the most important.
What did he solve for?
Why is he so important for how we live today?
And then we want to go through Leibniz and the other, two or three other major ones that get us to Santa Fe.
Well, that's a long, it's a long journey.
This is the heart of what we're trying to do.
Let me take a bit of a detour just a second.
If you went to high school and the last year in your high school, you took calculus.
So Isaac Newton sort of invents calculus.
Well, that sounds immense, you know, mathematics.
Torture, to torture seniors in high school before they graduate.
Yes, but obviously, no, yes, the answer is yes.
Certain people can't never do calculus.
Why is that?
Why is calculus so why is that the dividing line between, you know, to me, people who can handle that and can go on to do certain things and people just hit the wall, even if they know math?
It seems to me that there's that calculus is the thing that changes.
It bridges.
That's because it's about the theory of change and the theory of how things change.
It's a great question.
But in fact, what calculus does is it's somewhat philosophical.
That's why mathematics is, you know, they used to be, Newton wasn't a mathematician.
He was called a geometer.
That's what they used to call themselves.
They understood geometry and numbers.
But there's an old conundrum where it says, if during Pythagoras' days, Zeno's paradox, it's called, where they said, well, if I take, if the wall is two feet away from me, and I take one step that's halfway to the wall, that'll be one foot away.
And if I take another step that's half again, that'll be a half a foot away, and then a quarter of a foot, I could walk forever, but never touch the wall.
Doesn't sound realistic, doesn't make any sense in our real lives of the physical.
But what Newton understood is many problems were like that.
Many things approached the wall, or in his calculus, approached the limit, but never really reached it.
So he said, it's okay, you don't have to reach it.
We can do lots of the mathematics as if it was so close it was almost there.
And we could do lots of mathematics almost being at the limit.
And this is really important, Steve, for today.
Because most of the science up until today was things that are starting to approach the limit.
You were taught in high school that if you had one divided by zero, if you remember your high school algebra, you were told, what's the answer to that?
Is there an answer to one divided by zero?
If you were in high school, I'd say, stay away from it.
It's the boogeyman.
You could write it down as it's undefined.
It's not able to be determined.
There's a bunch of things.
But in fact, one divided by zero is a strange thing happen.
It's a world of the strange.
And what I'll explain to you after is that when you get one divided by zero, you get into a world we don't know what happens.
The answer is it's not explainable.
We can call it things like undetermined.
We can have a convention to say it's X, Y, or Z.
But in real life, we don't know what happens when you are actually at the limit.
So that's an Newton thought the same concept is that the limits were Philip God.
You got close to God, but you can never be God.
The limits, God.
We got a super chat here from what is it?
Let's get it out of here.
How Satonic Live 2.
Thank you so much.
Bannon claimed 10 to 20 hours of recording.
Made early July 2019, but announced in 2021.
Bannon then visited Candace on the Mexican border four days before the Jeffrey Epstein death.
Thank you so much for the support.
Let's continue with the Bannon Epstein interview.
He had this sort of religious interpretation.
Okay, I want to go back to Newton.
Why is Newton such a big dividing line in mankind's history?
What is it about Newton?
What is it about him?
What are you trying to solve?
What did they not know beforehand?
Because we live to a degree in a Newtonian universe, although I realized later, sub-particle atomic physics, but at least for a while, it was Newtonian.
So what's the dividing line?
Why is he so important?
Why is he an inflection point in mankind's movement from the swamp to the stars?
It's a great question.
Stars were by Kepler.
What Newton starts to allow us to do is to make prediction, accurate predictions.
Remember that we've talked about that with money, about the things in our physical world, how cars, but he didn't have cars, how horse carriages moved, how things, how bowling balls moved, how pool cues and pool, excuse me, pool table balls moved.
And people tried to solve that before Newton?
Many people.
Heraclitus or Plotinus, Pythagoras had these greats that we hear about.
Had they tried to solve the same problem?
Not the same problem.
They try to, again, what Pythagoras does, he starts to figure out this relationships in triangles, for example.
Everyone knows the A squared plus B squared is equal to C squared, that Pythagorean theorem, which basically says these shapes in a triangle, each side of the triangle, has a fixed relationship with the other two sides.
That's strange.
He knew, again, but it was all numbers.
This was a system of things in the physical world.
And Pythagoras says we can start putting numbers on things that help you predict how they will behave.
You can add two triangles and make a square, some different shapes.
They were looking at geometric forms.
Newton says, well, I want to know how planets move.
I want to know how things around me move.
Can we find formulas?
Can I find formulas that explain what I see in the physical world, how physical things interact and how they describe one another?
Again, the fact that two things, two solid masses, for some very strange, unknown reason, unknown today, attract one another, no matter what they are.
People have seen the experiment.
You hang something, two little metal balls from a string.
They move towards each other.
In fact, they move towards each other with a very, very specific.
So when you drop the ball to the floor of this room, Newton says, in fact, the room came up a bit to meet the ball.
The room moved.
It's imperceptible.
You can't really perceive that motion, but they attracted each other with certain ratios.
So he started to be able to measure things in the physical world.
And that was great advances.
It also, you know, you wanted to move very quickly.
Unfortunately, most people, especially in the 20th century, 19th century, said, well, like Newton, let's measure everything.
Let's measure people's behavior.
Let's measure their psychology.
Let's measure their health.
You go to the, we could have my blood test.
Let's measure everything.
Can measure Wall Street.
Their voting habits.
Measure, measure, measure.
Can we put a number on how much I care for my wife?
Can I put a number on how I feel?
And we tried, unfortunately, we try to mathematize the finer things in life and then recognize that there's things that unfortunately just fall outside.
Everyone, Schrödinger wrote a very famous book about what is life.
Measuring the Unquantifiable00:14:55
He was trying to figure out a way, can he describe the difference formulaically between things that are alive and things that are dead?
The answer is no.
The things that are alive in my world are miracles, not magic.
Magic has a bad connotation to the problem.
You don't believe in the spirit or the soul?
That's what animates people, is your spirit or your soul.
But have you ever seen someone die when they die?
Their spirit leaves.
Their soul leaves, no question.
There's no question of you.
No question.
There's no question of you that there is some animating life force within us that leaves when you're dead.
Yes, in fact, I refer to the soul.
Obviously, there's certain questions in the past, even though people would normally think you were soulless.
So thank you.
No, but have you talk about you actually believe in it and have done some thinking about it is pretty shocking in its own right, isn't it?
I mean, I bet you a lot of people would have had him pegged as some kind of an atheist, or when he talks about the occult briefly, or alchemy in particular.
You know, he had that giant sundial.
And then, of course, on the island, you had that one little house-type room thing that obviously was set up like a temple.
Well, again, mathematics, Leibniz, and Leibniz thought, so no, Newton was at Cambridge, and he was the head of the math department, right?
He's a professor.
But Leibniz, with Leibniz a German professor?
Yes.
But what Leibniz said is the soul is so strange because God took chemicals, which is simply the material, like tables, and he somehow made this material able to have a thought.
How strange is that?
Not only does it have a soul, but this some way it was put together that this material substance is able to think.
So when you say to me, it's obvious to everyone that there's such a thing as a soul.
Now, if you're part of the Charlotteville, you'll try to explain it to people.
The soul I describe as the dark matter of the brain.
Why is it dark matter?
Because in high-energy physics nowadays, you hear terms of dark matter, dark energy.
Again, terminology, complicated terminology.
Why is it dark matter?
Because we can't see it.
That's all.
What do you mean you can't see it?
Well, somehow we see something moving towards this area of darkness.
Something, I can see this thing.
This appears to me to be empty.
It's just black.
But I see it being drawn this way.
So I say, well, I know if this were matter, that would follow that equation.
If this was solid, it would explain the way this particle moves.
But I can't see anything here.
So I'll just call it dark matter.
And I'll say, I don't know what it is, but it behaves as if there was something there.
The soul is obvious to everyone that there's something different between things that are alive and things that are not alive.
But we have no idea what it is.
It's currently unexplainable.
I believe we need an entirely different system of analysis to try to figure out with Newton, you know, with all his alchemic study, chemical studies and things he worked on, the spiritual side.
Leibniz has just talked about the soul, Schroeder talked about what is life.
If a modern scientist or someone that you funded at MIT or Harvard or one of these things talked in those types of terms, they would be considered to be a wing nut today, wouldn't they?
They would not be on the path for tenure, right?
Unless they were in the philosophy department.
This is exactly my point.
We're talking about three of the greatest mathematicians in mankind's history that have really changed mankind.
Talking like this, what happened?
How do we get to a situation where they could not be in the high physics, you know, they could not be in the mathematics, in the mathematics department or working in high-energy physics.
It's an easy answer.
Newton was a combination of mathematician or geometer then and philosopher.
And as time went on, those disciplines seemed to move apart.
We had philosophy, some of the philosophers can't do math, and some of the mathematicians.
And again, mathematicians often break into two categories: people that solve problems.
Those are more like geometers in the old days, there's problem solvers.
And then there's thinkers, theoreticians.
They're more like the old movement towards philosophy.
But neither one of those two groups have been able to figure out why something is alive as opposed to something that's not alive.
No one's been able to describe what the soul is, but we all know it exists.
And I think what we need is a new science, it is a bad word.
I think science only describes the things we already know about the physical world.
In fact, there's an argument that the physical world that we see has been created out of our systems of mathematics.
Mathematics, everyone knows mathematics describes the physical world much greater than it should, unless you, my view, the physical world really comes out of conscious beings that have mathematics.
So they create it.
This table appears to you and I to be solid.
To a bat, or if because we have light that's bouncing off the table into my our eyes, it appears solid.
If instead of eyes that responded to wavelengths of visual light, our eyes responded to radio waves, the radio frequencies, it's not different.
It's the same type of frequency as light with different speeds.
The table's invisible.
We know that our phone works in this room.
So the waves are coming through the windows.
The waves are coming through the walls.
So the walls are invisible to that type of radiation, that type of energy.
The walls aren't.
I can see them because my.
I just got to stop here.
I don't know that many people, number one, pre-pandemic, had Jeffrey Epstein talking about the state of science and what science really is, and then getting into an explanation of reality that Ike was talking about.
Me and Ike discussed actually via his latest book, The Roadmap.
And I've talked about these invisible frequencies and nothing actually being solid.
Didn't see that one coming.
Okay.
So we got about 24 minutes left in this exchange.
We're going to continue on.
Let's thumbs it up, subscribe, share if you're new.
Check out the documentary films.
Consider supporting the broadcast.
Here we go.
By eyes, a physical system determines that the walls are there.
You with Murray Gilgamesh, you founded or the original donor and had the idea of Santa Fe Institute.
10 or 15 years later, that effort to study the complexity of systems mathematically.
Yes.
That's total failure.
Yeah, total failure.
Total failure.
Why is that?
It's the failure of science because, in fact, to some extent, science doesn't describe romance.
I don't know why I'm attracted to somebody.
I don't know.
People are attracted to each other, and everyone has the same feeling.
They've seen someone walk in the room and they say, oh, that person gives me a creepy feeling.
Science has tried to describe it.
Science doesn't describe what creepy feelings means.
They just know it's a creepy feeling.
I think women, as I said the last time, have an intuitive sense.
What is intuitive?
They have intuition, they have feelings, and they're able to deal in the realm of things that men, especially men like myself, find unexplainable.
They have great, women have intuition.
Men see things a bit differently.
Men want to measure everything.
Women are not really that interested in measuring.
And what you're saying in macro terms, you actually think science, mathematics, maybe ultimately technology is moving to that more intuitive.
I think science and math are old-fashioned.
And unfortunately, people are still taught that they have to learn algebra in school and certain things in school, as opposed to learning to give an emotional.
Is this what Larry Summers was trying to get at?
Maybe he didn't say it perfectly enough, but what he was trying to get to in that system, the systems we study today, the way mathematics is either taught or understood, that women just haven't gotten up to the highest realms of engineering or physics or mathematics because of that.
And you're actually implying that there's a either new branch of science where we've hit an inflection point like a Newton that's going to go in a Newton took mankind in a different direction because he was able to measure.
Then you had subatomic, you know, non-Newtonian physics later.
Are you saying that you think there's another developing field that's coming up that may take us, I don't know how many decades to get our hands around, but that that's what's evolving out of this?
Yes.
Yeah.
In fact, I think that mathematics, it's not the end of science.
Every year someone says it's the end of, we can't discover everything.
There's lots to discover with relationship to the physical world, but we know a lot already.
In respect to the unexplainable world, we almost know nothing.
Women, again, sense it.
And instead of Larry Summers, I won't digress too much, but Howard Gardner early on said there's not one form of intelligence.
It's not mathematical intelligence.
There's emotional intelligence, this kinesthetic intelligence.
You know, there's this argument that I reject that black people are less intelligent than white people.
It's not true.
We know, for example, that if I was in the forest and I had to run from the lion or figure out a way not to be eaten, and my competition is a local African, I'm the one who's getting eaten because they have the intelligence to deal with their local environment.
So it's just different.
It's not better, it's not worse, but there's many differences amongst different types of people.
And so people have different intelligences and they excel in some intelligences, usually and less so in others.
When did it come to because the world of high finance is a world of pure reason, or is it a lot of emotion and gut checks and on trading desk and central banks?
You know, before we get too far away from it, once again, we've got an extremely racist email in the Epstein files that they've covered up who sent to who.
Just want to point that out again.
When these decisions get made, is it that high church like the high church of science of high energy physics?
Or is it as much emotion that comes in as much as the mathematics and the reason?
It's a great question.
I think if you talk to really experienced and successful traders and you ask them how they know what's going on, they can't give you an answer.
They don't know.
They feel it.
They can feel the way the market's moving.
They can feel the way this stock's moving.
And these are not very well-defined terms.
It's difficult to put in mathematics terms.
How did I feel it?
You could look back and make guesses what I was seeing.
But great traders feel it and then act on their feelings.
That's the difference.
Many people feel it but are afraid because they want a mathematical justification before they take that next.
When you first got on the trading desk at Bear Stearns in the late 70s or mid-70s, were you shocked by how little actual understanding of mathematics that the traders comprehended?
Yeah, well, again, we had a Texas instrument calculator.
Most stockbrokers, especially before 1975, if they were good stockbrokers, could add.
That's about it.
They could multiply.
If you could multiply, you were already in the top 15% of stockbrokers.
Stockbrokers simply meant I, there's a great, there's a story.
When I went to the first person, I had no money.
And I said, how much money do you make a year?
And he said, $400,000.
Impossible.
I'm making $10,000.
That's probably more than your family had made in his entire existence.
Yes.
And he makes it in a year.
I said, what do you do?
And he said, it's too complicated for you to understand, which is what the main thrust of Wall Street people, they want to tell you it's too complicated.
Because if you understood that that person was simply, he had a brother-in-law, in fact, in this case, who ran the pension fund of General Motors.
His brother-in-law would call him and say, buy a thousand IBM.
He'd hang up the phone, he'd write it out on a ticket and walk it to a window.
That was his entire skill set.
Hello, write what my brother-in-law says, walk it to a ticket window.
Give me an example when you're on the trading.
So again, the conundrum is that Epstein keeps telling us that, you know, the entire financial system is too complex, like money is too complex, and keep giving you that analogy as a person, because that's too complex.
And he's always trying to get into, I guess, the mysteries of reality.
Maybe as an analogy to those financial markets.
Butterfly Effect in Finance00:02:03
Yes, in the early days of Bear Stearns, of a time that you felt either complete uncertainty or you saw total panic, where people, something was happening that people couldn't foretell and that they were like in an airplane cockpit where it's going wrong.
Walk us through that.
In 1978, I think it was, across the news wires, there had been a collapse of the currency in Thailand on the other side of the world, had no relationship to me.
I wasn't sure where Thailand was.
But the fact that a currency, a country's money, had all of a sudden dropped dreamously in value affected the rest of the world's markets.
And people panicked because they'd never seen that before.
A very small part of a very complex system had a shock throughout the whole system.
So prices on Park Avenue apartments, the bond markets, the stock markets, everything started to gyrate.
You know, there's an old mathematical expression that if a butterfly wings in Mexico make the wrong turn, it spins out and eventually by the time it gets to Canada, it turns into a tornado.
So these are part of complex systems.
So, yeah, Wall Street in certain parts.
Santa Fe Institute was supposed to actually come up with a formula for that, for the butterfly ones.
Why in 15 years did you reach the end of at least that experiment?
Every attempt to, that's why it's so exciting now.
Because I think certain people are starting to realize that there's so many things that are unexplainable that we have to think about them differently.
Music is a great example.
It's a common man's example.
You know, when you hear a certain song, it makes you feel a certain way.
Unmeasurable Moments00:09:47
How does it do that?
We don't know.
We can't mathematize it.
And even that music, Steve, nowadays we compress music.
When you have a violin, it's compressed onto your iPhone.
So what does compression mean?
I'm taking lots of information and I'm cutting it into lots of pieces and squishing it together.
And when I squish it or compress it, I have to take out lots of pieces.
But I say that they're not very important pieces.
It's those pieces that we take out when we compress data, to me, are the most interesting parts of life.
You just said a while ago, some part of this new search for science may go back to when people were actually talking about a soul, and you said there's no doubt in your mind that there is a soul.
Describe for me what you mean by that.
What do you mean by soul?
What do you mean soul different than the physical analog body that we're seeing on film right now?
It's difficult to describe in words.
I mean, I'm not a poet.
Poems get a little closer to what that really means.
But we can, even the concept of what is life becomes complicated when you deal with plants and seeds.
Is a seed alive?
I don't know.
Certain people would say, no, it's dead.
When you're a banana, one of my favorite examples is the banana that's sitting on the countertop in your kitchen today.
Is it alive or dead?
What do you think about human life?
Tell me about human life.
But your banana is alive.
That banana's breathing.
It's on your...
You say, that's impossible, Jeffrey.
No?
Is the banana conscious?
All these words, these are words.
So everyone's trying to fit very complicated concepts into a very small box called conscious or alive.
These don't fit in that way.
So if you put your banana in a bag and put another fruit in with it, the fruit ripens faster because the banana breathes with it.
We don't understand most of those things.
So you asked the question.
You talk about the life.
What about human life?
What about it?
Tell me.
What do you think human life is?
It's a miracle.
It's a miracle.
When I say miracle, I can't explain it and I make no attempt to explain it at the moment.
We don't know how to think about it.
And anyone, again, another one of the Feynman quotes when he was talking about quantum physics.
He said, anyone, Jeffrey, who says they understand quantum physics and quantum mechanics and quantum behavior, you know they're lying.
Let's talk about it.
That's post-Newtonian.
Talk about what's the difference.
Who founded quantum mechanics?
Why is quantum mechanics taking Newtonian physics and taking it to the next level?
Let me just stop here.
You know, this is the first time I'm watching this all the way through.
And in a lot of ways, You know, it's becoming apparent there's a lot of overlap in what Epstein's talking about in this particular uh hour, especially, and some in the first hour of the topics I've covered.
Uh, even prior to the Epstein arrest, you know, remember, I got in the game via loose change back in 2005, and Epstein obviously not really on my radar until the arrest in 2008, 9, 10, or in that arena.
Okay.
Um, this is a guy that's very connected, but think about the things he's talking about.
You know, it's really eerie that this guy is also, you know, if you didn't know, would you know, just based on this interview, you know, a vicious member of the predator class and a sexual predator of children.
Let's continue it forms a much broader category.
Let's go back to this desk.
You used the thing of Newton using this desk.
What is why can't Newton's theory explain everything?
Why did subatomic quantum mechanics or quantum physics have to come in to explain to explain this?
Well, quant, so let's go right back to square one.
Why is it called quantum physics?
So, quanta is a word that simply means packet, small amount, so it's quantized.
So, we recognized when we recognized that this table appears, appears, another very complicated word, solid to us.
It has it's really made up of molecules or atoms.
And atoms, we've given lots of names to what some of the behaviors you went.
If you were in school, when you and I were in school in the 50s, the model was a little center thing in the middle, an electron went around and around it.
It was seen as a ball that went around and around it.
And as we started to look at, say, well, let's see what this ball looks like.
I want to be able to examine that little thing called an electron.
We found out there was nothing there, there wasn't the thing, it was simply a cloud of energy that we can call an electron.
So, we already started to see mysterious things as we go into very super small quantities.
Quantum physics.
So, quantum physics started to go into the very small and at very small distances.
We see things that we can't explain, just cannot explain.
How am I going to time?
Uh, four minutes, fine.
Um, and to summarize, no, sorry, um, let's go back to human life.
When do you think human life starts?
It's not these, so you see, this is the question: you're asking me to measure something again.
It's it can't be measured.
You're just you just hate making commitments.
Say, measure not married.
I'm peeling this onion back a layer at a time.
All your bullshit and happy target can't be measured, can't be measured like that.
Is that to say measure makes it's a commitment, you don't even like a commitment when you answer a question.
I know they say in golf, commit to the shot.
I don't know what it means to be measured.
You do know what it means to be measured.
You're one of the leading currency traders, hedge fund guys, or stock market financial wizards.
You're in the high priesthood of high finance.
You certainly know how to measure.
That's why you're a billionaire.
Any other answer besides that is total and complete bullshit, and you know it.
I know very few things.
You know, things can be measured.
You measure every day.
You weigh and measure every day.
You weigh and measure people.
You weigh and measure leaders.
You weigh and measure economies.
You weigh and measure politics.
Very great way and measure, you weigh your hang on, your hang on your whole life, in fact is measuring it's that's so.
What you've now done is a great thing is you've used the word measure and a mathematic term in the common vernacular and abused it.
So I don't even recognize what it means.
It's so abusive to my field, why and let's go in see how he like just smiled there the, the guy seems trained in evasive behaviors and Bannon's not wrong to call him out on the non-committal stuff.
Uh, but once again, whether or not you can say he made his money on on measurements, that that's a different thing.
In mathematics, measure means, and measure means what specifically that's?
There's no specific.
Is it's a, an approximation, or give it, giving something, a number?
If I Einstein's, we're not asking you to go to the ninth decimal point, oh that you didn't say that before.
No, you're not going to the ninth.
I don't even know what.
If I say, measure how, how tall are you?
You'd say okay, six foot, six feet.
But is it six foot one inch give or take six?
Is it's five, between five, eleven and six feet?
But what's that?
But I want.
But so the question is, I want an accurate Zeno's.
I got Zeno's paradox.
I don't even know what it means to measure.
You is that, am I measuring the top of your hair, the top of your skull which, and the the finer, the more you're getting that's you're being rabbinical.
This is like I shaved my beard off.
My point is, isn't that, what isn't that?
Going through the tor, where you're, where you're you're, you're.
You're parsing every every uh, every definition.
No, you do you.
However, we broadly define measure your life literally is about measurement, is it not?
It's about get putting numbers on things so that I can try my best.
I that you can call it whatever you like, if that, if that makes you feel better.
I want to relate back to your scientific inquiry.
No, it even a number.
It people don't.
A number is a complicated.
When did you come?
When did you come to this inflight?
When did you come to this aha moment was when it was in, when it was in your solitary confinement, when the biggest financial crisis in world history was going on.
You're in your seven by nine jail cell with your metal bed and your and your two brushes, because you were a trustee, with the brown uniform on, trustee spelled wrong.
Is that the moment of clarity that you had about science and and and Newtonian physics and everything that we can measure, is really not going to be the way we go forward.
It's going to be some more much more esoteric uh, emotional intelligence thing.
Derek Bach's Cash Solution00:10:52
Is it?
Was that your?
Was that your moment of clarity?
I wish it was, because it would make such a great story for this interview, but it's not.
It's the fact that I lead such a privileged life to come across.
So when did you happen then?
When did it happen?
Or did it happen before I was going to hopefully get to the okay I, I i'm in a privileged position to have some of the world's smartest people come to my house and tell me what they think about different subjects, and I finally realized that the The thing that they had most in common was there was this area,
no matter how smart they were, that when I asked them the questions, they said they'd have to resort to a 500 or 1,000-year-old response to that question, which was, I don't know.
You know who else found that out?
Socrates.
That's what Socrates kept doing, right?
Socrates kept asking all the experts.
He would go through question after question after question and realize at the end, they didn't really know.
They really didn't basically understand what they were talking about.
And one of the things that people won't enjoy, it turns out that potentially one of the bad things to teach children is how to write.
Writing, reading, and arithmetic was supposed to be, everyone's supposed to be taught.
But writing forces you into a very narrow channel of thinking.
You have to write in a certain form, in a certain way, in a certain linear pattern.
So your thinking becomes somewhat narrow.
The reason I brought up writing is one of the recent discoveries of mine with respect to Socrates, Plato's, and Aristotle is they never wrote anything.
They spoke, and people around who could write wrote.
Socrates could think.
So Jesus of Nazareth was the same way, right?
Never wrote anything.
I thought he was a carpenter.
He was a carpenter.
Didn't he need like a little carpenter?
I don't get this.
At least his written record.
One last thing.
Thank you for having me to your house.
Vegetable job.
Let's go back.
Let's go with vegetables.
When did that, the beginning of that, was there any one aha moment in all these great thinkers?
Did it happen before 2008?
Was it after that came up over, I know, many years, but when did you actually realize, hey, something new has got to be developed?
Yeah, that's great.
Is that because, again, I'm privileged enough to have people around me who've given lots of philanthropic gifts to institutions of higher learning.
And when I said, the impact, how do you judge the impact of your giving?
And we sat down and said, no really new ideas have come out.
And I realized that, of course, it hasn't come out because we've been looking at using science and mathematics and it's the wrong tool.
It's obvious.
Institutions that are set up and try to put forward knowledge and understanding and truth, should they take your money?
Derek Bach at Harvard said taking money for good causes is a good thing.
So if Hitler, if Hitler took all the gold out of the teeth of the Jews and said, I want to give this to Heidelberg University to fund the Leibniz chairs so that I can study high energy physics, Derek Bach would say that was fine.
Again, these questions are questions where good people on both sides, like your Charlottesville, could differ.
I don't know the answer.
So tell us the two, give us the two answers.
The one answer, why it shouldn't be, and then the one answer, Derek Bach says, I'll take, essentially take cash from anybody because I got so many projects, so many good guys, and this is the way I'll do it.
So I'm indifferent to where the cash comes from.
Money's money.
Let me just stop.
You know, when Epstein was initially called that or asked that question, should good causes take your money?
And he even paused and looks on his face.
I mean, it gives an indication that Epstein is pretty self-aware that he's an evil bastard.
Am I wrong about that?
Should we rewind that part?
We haven't rewound anything, but I think we'd need to rewind that part.
Should they take your money?
They spoke, and people around vegetable jobs.
Let's go back.
Let's go with vegetables.
When did that sound out?
And I realized that high-energy physics, Derek Bach would say that was fine.
Again, it's these questions.
How do you judge the impact of your giving?
And we sat down and said, no really new ideas have come out.
And I realized that, of course, it hasn't come out because we've been looking at using science and mathematics, and it's the wrong tool.
Here it is right here.
Here it is right here: 153.3301.
It's obvious.
Institutions that are set up and try to put forward knowledge and understanding and truth, should they take your money?
Did you see that?
Knowledge, understanding, and truth, all positive things.
Should they take your money?
Even a pause here is crazy.
I mean, that's pretty much a self-acknowledgement of this guy being evil.
And I mean, can you read that any other way?
Derek Bach at Harvard said taking money for good causes is a good thing.
So if Hitler, if Hitler took all the gold out of the teeth of the Jews and said, I want to give this to Heidelberg University to fund the Leibniz chairs so that I can study high energy physics, Derek Bach would say that was fine.
Again, these questions are questions where good people on both sides, like your Charlottesville, could differ.
I don't know the answer.
So tell us the two, give us the two answers.
The one answer, why it shouldn't be, and then the one answer, Derek Bach says, I'll take, essentially take cash from anybody because I got so many projects, so many good guys, and this is the way I'll do it.
So I'm indifferent to where the cash comes from.
Money's money.
And if I got good guys, I'm the fiduciary says, these are good people, this is good research.
Okay, I'll take the cash from however, from any source, including you.
What's the other argument?
Let me give you that.
I know in my case, is your money dirty money?
Just ask a question.
Is your money dirty money?
No, it's not.
So, in fact, why is it not dirty money?
Because I earned it hotly.
But you earned it.
We went back to this before.
You earned it advising the worst people in the world, right?
That do enormous bad things just to make more money.
So instead of asking me the question, should you take the money?
Because I think it's a legitimate question.
Do you think it's a legitimate question?
Yes, in the question.
Because I think about it, I think ethics is always a complicated subject.
But I can tell you that with the money I gave to help try to eradicate polio in Pakistan and India, instead of asking me whether that money should be given to these children for vaccines, I think you might want to ask their mothers who received the vaccine, who know their child now won't get polio, and ask them if Epstein should have helped these people.
If we wanted, is that a fair question?
You're a mathematician.
If we walked into that clinic where they're giving that money out to these people that are in the most dire straits of poverty and sickness and told them that the money was coming from a, what are you, class three sexual predator?
Tier one.
What's tier one is the highest and worst?
No, the lowest?
I'm the lowest.
You're the lowest.
Okay, tier one, you're the lowest.
But a criminal.
I just want to pause it right there.
Just want to pause it right there.
Think about the good he just said he did.
2019.
Huh.
I just wonder if maybe that was part of it.
Huh.
I mean.
Hmm.
I mean, we're going to wrap it up.
This is the very end.
Is he the devil?
Oh, yes.
That the money came from.
What percentage of people do you estimate?
I understand you don't like probabilities.
Do you estimate would say, I don't care.
I want the money for my children.
I would say everyone said, I want the money for my children.
Did they know where the money came from?
I think if you told them the devil himself.
The devil himself said, I'm going to exchange some dollars.
Do you think you're the devil himself?
No, but I do have a good mirror.
No.
But I'm not the devil himself, but I do have a good mirror.
Little jokes he's got.
It's a serious question.
Do you think you're the devil himself?
I know.
Why would you say that?
Because you have all the attributes.
You're incredibly smart.
You remember the devil is what?
The devil's brilliant.
You read Milton's Paradise Lost.
No, the devil scares me.
Satan is the, is the, he is the, he is at the number one or two archangel.
And the reason he goes to hell and leads the rebellion is because he can't be the top guy.
And his thing is, I'd rather, I'd rather reign in hell than serve in heaven.
I saw that in a movie once called American Dharma.
I don't remember who said it.
Okay?
We have to go.
Okay, good, okay.
We have to go.
You're the beeping.
I'm just going to let it speak for itself, guys.
Links Giving Means World00:00:50
You want to support the broadcast?
The links are down below.
I really do appreciate those, especially the big donors, but the small donors alike.
$5, $10, $15 really means the world to me.
The buy-me-a-coffee, the PayPal, the other links.
We're giving you the baseline.
I want to get the first two dumps from this last one.
The ones I don't have, I believe 9 and 10.
But we're going to have to dive into 11 shortly.
Check out all the documentary films for free.
If you're new to the channel, if you're just checking this out because of the Epsom stuff, first of all, subscribe, ring the bell.
But watch my documentary films.
They're in the playlist section.
Loose Change, Final Cut, and Fabled Enemies on 9-11.
Invisible Empire, a new world-ordered finance shade of the motion picture.