JD Vance PUSHES New World Order

JD Vance, you see people. People are funny. JD Vance goes and he runs his ass over to Megan Kelly's podcast, right? Since that last botch just dropped of the Epstein Files, JD Vance went completely silent on Twitter for days. JD didn't, JD didn't say nothing. Nothing. Megan Kelly went very, all of a sudden Megan Kelly had nothing to say. Very quiet. So JD Vance goes and it's almost like he ran over to Megan Kelly as a shield. Let's get into this part of the discussion here, the foreign policy part here. The new world order. Ladies and gentlemen, listen to this.

"Like, you, you, you think it's bad when we have a domestic terror attack where a couple of people die, and you're right. What happens when the same people who are shooting up a mall or driving airplanes into buildings have a nuclear weapon? That is unacceptable. And it's not just them, because if the Iranians get a nuclear weapon, you know who gets a nuclear weapon like the next day? The Saudi Arabians. And then somebody else in the Gulf Arab state. And so you have nuclear proliferation on a global scale. The biggest threat to security in the world is a lot of people having nuclear weapons. So, to your own point there, Mr. JD Vance, no one should have nuclear weapons. This is the rule of thumb, okay? Either every country gets the opportunity to have them, or no one has them. I feel as though no one should have nuclear weapons. Just is what it is. But you really can't sit there and tell other countries in the Middle East that they can't have a nuclear weapon when Israel has a nuclear weapon."

This is the crazy part. Notice these terms they continue to use. "Well, we got to do this because of national security." "Well, we have to protect our democracy." These are the buzzwords that they throw around. It's not about national security. It's not about protecting democracy. It's about basically trying to make Israel as powerful as they can so that we can have one place of concentrated power. And if that means that the concentrated power will be in the Middle East, that's more beneficial, at least for the West, the way that they see it, because there's a lot of oil and gas in that area, etc. Now, I'll get to when we get to the second part. I'm going to tell you what's, what's probably going to happen in order for that to take place. That's the part people don't want to admit. But there's a lot of hypocrisy here. You're saying that, well, other countries can't get nuclear weapons. Then nobody should have them. So, what the president has said is, Iran's not going to get a nuclear weapon. We're going to work with China and Russia and any country, whether they're a friend or whether we're a little more competitive, to try to draw down the amount of nuclear weapons that exist in the world. I think that's the most important thing you could do for peace and stability. And, and the question is, what do you do to enforce that red line? Okay, Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. That is the stated policy goal of the president of the United States.

It's so funny. Sometimes you have people who are saying, "Well, the president's too belligerent." And then sometimes you have people who say, "Well, the president, he, he's talking about diplomacy and he's talking about negotiating with the Iranians. We shouldn't negotiate. We should just bomb them." What the president's going to do is, is he's going to keep his options open. He's going to talk to everybody. He's going to try to accomplish what he can through non-military means. And if he feels like the military is the only option, then he's ultimately going to choose that option. I, I, I, I can't. I'm not, obviously, even if I knew what I, I can't, obviously, if I knew, if I knew, if I knew, I, I can't, I can't, I can't tell you. I, I, we were going to do, I would not tell you, uh, and your, and your many millions of listeners. But I, I feel like people have to remember that this is not about, like, look, I grew up in the Iraq generation. I literally, I enlisted, I enlisted in, in the Marine Corps as an idealistic young kid right after 9/11.

"I went to Iraq in 2000, or I enlisted in 2003. I went to Iraq in 2005. I am very cognizant that the Middle East leads to quagmires. Trust me. So is the president of the United States, and we're, we're hearing that. We, we know that's out there. But more importantly, we know the history, and the president does not, he has no interest in repeating the history of Iraq. What he does want to make sure is that there's a totally separate issue, which is, you don't let crazy people get nuclear weapons and then lead to a nuclear arms race all over the world."

"This is the..."

"Well, then the United States shouldn't have nuclear weapons because I think we all know we're crazy as hell. I mean, when you're talking about who's really a threat to peace, it's us. It's not Iran. It's not Russia. It's not China. It's the United States. We're the ones that start wars all over the world. We're the ones that overthrow leaders in other countries. We're the one, we had a war with Afghanistan for 20 years. We're the threat. If we would have just left these countries alone, like these people would be chilling. A lot of these countries will be thriving at this point in time. But no, like we had to go and [ __ ] it up. Us and the UK, by the way. So, it's just, it's, it's laughable to me."

"I mean, you're tell, you tell me whether this is about nuclear weapons right now or not. But what we're seeing in Iran is these protests on the street. Not as much anymore because they've been killing a lot of the protesters. But it's, should we go in there and help the protesters get rid of this regime? Like, get rid of the Ayatollah, which, let's face it, it's much different in Iran. The regime goes well beyond the Ayatollah. It's not like Venezuela where you take off Maduro."

"It's a lot more complex. Even if we got rid of the Ayatollah, there'd be a whole bunch of others just like him, part of the regime. And so..."

"The last thing most Americans want to hear is what we heard in Venezuela, which is now we're running Iran."

"Yeah. The president is very aware of all this stuff, Megan. But I'll tell you, you know, protests, you know, counter regime. I mean, look, in a perfect world, would I love it if a bunch of freedom-loving Iranians, who, by the way, are amazing. They're brave people. If you know anything about the Persian people, they're like an incredible group of human beings. If they took over their own country and had a government that was much more friendly to the United States of America, would that be a good thing? Absolutely, that would be a good thing. But..."

"Let me explain to you what he really means when he makes this statement. Because they phrase it in such a way to make you think like, oh, you know, if you don't know much about foreign policy and the US involvement, it's easy to sit back and listen to this and say, oh, okay, I don't see what's wrong with what he said. When he says that, what they really mean is that they would have a leader in Iran or any other country that the US has issue with that the West installs. It's not like, you know, they, they basically put a person in front of you and they say, this is the person. The US government has done this in Haiti. They've done it in Libya. They did it in Iraq. Uh, name some other ones. They just did it recently in Syria. I mean, they tried to do this pretty much in Venezuela, but the vice president ended up, you know, taking that spot who was already under Maduro anyway. Like, I don't, that's really what they mean. So, like, even to that point, it's not like, yeah, the Iranian people choosing a different leader, but it's the leader that they put in front of them. And even if that means that the results aren't looking the way that they wanted, well, then they'll just say, 'Well, this person that all the people really voted for, they actually just stole the election and, uh, we need to get rid of them.' The US government has been doing this for years. Fundamentally, what the president has always been focused on, even with this most recent round of protests, you saw, I think his most recent truth, or at least one of the more recent communications he made about Iran, it's nuclear weapons based. We are still focused on this question of ensuring they don't get a nuclear weapon. And here's the good thing. Because of what happened last summer, I feel 100% confident that even if the Iranians were rushing towards a nuclear weapon, they couldn't get one during the Trump administration."

"But we're not worried about the next three years. We're worried about the next 30 years. We have to make sure that you don't look what I really worry about, and I think this is, you know, obviously I disagree a lot with Bill Clinton, but Bill Clinton fundamentally decided, you know what, we're just going to let North Korea have a nuclear weapon. We're not going to do anything to stop it. What happens if 30 years from now, the number of nuclear countries, it's less than 10, maybe about 10. What if it goes to 100? What if every military in the world has a nuclear weapon? What if a crazy person gets elected in some random outpost of the world that you and I couldn't even find on a map. And now all of a sudden, a crazy guy has access to nuclear weapons. We are the crazy guy. We're the crazy guy with the access to the nuclear weapons. The hell is he talking about?"

"So again, the way that you solve this issue is that no one has nuclear weapons. No one is allowed to have them. No one. No one at all. But you can't now just be like, you're going to try to undo something that you've been doing for years. And honestly, if we would want to go there, if this is what they were serious about, then Israel would never have been allowed to build, acquire a nuclear weapon. So, they're just full of it. Let's go to part two. Let's go to the new world order. Cuz this is the part that I think, uh, a lot of people on social media was like, 'Oh my god, he's insane.' No, he's saying it out loud. They want a new world order. Listen to this."

"Are we at the beginning of a new world order where we move away from Europe and toward anything else? Maybe even potentially Russia if we can get past what's happened here. I mean, there's a real question about that given some of the speeches you've made to the European Union, some of the speeches that President Trump has made."

"What's happening culturally in Europe, what their crackdowns are on on free speech, and they, they just look less and less like we do. Yeah."

"And there's a real question about whether there's a massive shift happening now in terms of world alliances long term."

"Well, there's definitely, I think, a new world order. I think the president has sought to it. There's a new world order in trade. There's a new world order in globalization and the way that we invest in our economy versus, you know, foreign supply chains."

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. Did everybody hear what JD Vance just said? So, they're saying it out in the open. You don't have to speculate anymore. You don't have to say, "Well, this is what I feel, what I think they're going to do." He's saying it out in the open. There is a new world order. So, here we go, ladies and gentlemen. It just, I mean, hey, I'll say this. I appreciate that he's just putting it all out there on the table. Now, all the people who were called some conspiracy theorists about new world order, now they can get people off their back because he's saying it out in the open. Now let me tell you what that really means. That means that they have concentrated power in one particular location. And as I told you strategically, it would be Israel because Israel has a lot of the tech. They're already like leading, leading the ranks in tech. There's Palantir. There's the surveillance. There's all of that. There's the oil. There's all the resources that are there in the Middle East. Remember we talked about the resources that were along the Gaza coast when it came to gas and stuff like that. So strategically, it would be Israel. Professor Jing was talking about this as he was teaching his class, and he was explaining that like the US really wants to have that foothold in the Middle East. So it would make sense. Now, here's the question. If that stronghold centers itself in Israel in the Middle East and Israel becomes the big dominant power, what happens to the United States of America? Because it could be possible that even if it means that we will fall, they'll let it fall so that Israel can grow and thrive. Let me explain what I mean by that. The US empire is on a decline. We know through history that empires rise and then they eventually fall. No one stays at the top forever. We are on that, that sliding board, right? We're sliding down. If you have paid attention to what they've been doing economically, I would say it goes back to trickle-down economics. But an economist may be able to give you a more exact date. If you think about how wealth has been concentrated in this country in particular, and you think about the way the government has been using those funds, like I said, over the years, they put more and more money into defense and less money for the people. They put less money into infrastructure. That's why your bridges are falling apart. That's why your roads suck. They put less money into healthcare. And this is something, you know, even when when Biden was president, one of the things he said he was going to do was expand Obamacare. Biden became president, didn't expand Obamacare. So, I'm pointing these things out to prove a point. They are giving us less and less, and they are giving Israel more and more. They are setting Israel up to fail, to succeed. Excuse me. They are setting us up to fail. They have been putting so many money, so much money into Israel and not the United States. And then they get upset with other countries like Russia or China where they're actually taking care of the people. But it's not even just about Russia and China being a threat to the United States. It's really about Russia and China being a threat to that new world order, which that power would be centered in Israel. You get what I'm saying? So follow me here. They are willing to let the United States fall so that Israel can succeed. That's what people have to get prepared for. Let's go on more here.

"Uh, there's a new world order and, and that the president is willing to shake up some old alliance structures. I mean, NATO, I think is much different because of the president's leadership than it was 10 years ago, sort of coasting. It was effectively a protectorate of the United States of America. Obviously, you saw what happened in Venezuela. So, yeah, the president is putting a stamp on world history, but fundamentally in an America First way. Like, that is the orienting focus. And so when people say, well, you can't work with with Putin on anything because you disagree with the Ukraine invasion. Well, the president said very clearly, Putin should not have invaded Ukraine. We're going to try to work and bring that to an end. But there might be some areas of cooperation too. His attitude is not, you're our friend, you're our enemy. We're going to go to war with our enemies and we're going to be, you know, we're going to give our friends everything without asking questions. His attitude is, we're about alliances. And you could have a country where we have a 90% aligned interest, but we're going to disagree on 10% of issues. Meanwhile, we may disagree with Russia on a lot, but we may agree on some things. And I, and I do think that is a fundamental reorientation. The other thing that's much different, Megan, about the president's foreign policy and just the way that he does business, and it's, look, there, there's a lot that I've learned from him, but this is nearly at the top of the list of the things I admire about the president of the United States, is he will talk to anybody. Like, you know, when he was thinking about who to make as vice president, he was talking to the gardener at Mar-a-Lago. He told me that, and I said, 'Well, sir, what did the gardener at Mar-a-Lago say? This really matters to my life.' But, but, you know, when people say you shouldn't talk to this person, right? You shouldn't talk to Kim Jong-un of North Korea because that's, that gives him something for nothing. It's, no, I'm going to have a conversation. We're going to actually conduct diplomacy if we have to use the military. He's obviously not afraid to do it when he feels like he needs to. But the willingness to just communicate and break down barriers is very important. This is, by the way, Megan, one thing I would say about the Iranians that is just really weird to me and I don't understand their system and I frankly think that it makes diplomacy with them extraordinarily difficult is the person who..."

"There's that word again. So, here we go with diplomacy, national security, democracy. Remember JD Vance is very well trained in this. He's just a puppet of, he's Peter Thiel's puppet. And I, I see some people, they've been saying, they said, 'Well, JD Vance will be better than Trump. Maybe Trump should just retire and get him in there.' Do not let JD Vance fool you. He's been trained on how to do this and how to convince you. So he may not speak as harsh as Donald Trump, but sometimes those, the people you really got to watch out for. You know, it's kind of sometimes it's the ones that smile in your face that are really even can be even more dangerous. So what I thought is interesting about this part of the conversation is that he said, 'Well, there are things we can work with Russia on, but we don't agree with them on certain things, but we can work with them.' I want you to understand that's because they don't have a choice. They have to find a way to work with Russia. Russia does have powerful weapons. Russia also has a friend called China that's right next door. You see what I'm saying? They have to. They don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons because they don't want to have to work with Iran. Ultimately, that's where a lot of this comes down to. Let me let him finish here."

"...makes the decisions in Iran is the supreme leader. Okay. The president, our senses, doesn't have a lot of juice. Doesn't really matter. The foreign minister seems to talk to the supreme leader, and that's mainly the person that we've communicated with. But it's a very weird country to conduct diplomacy with when you can't even talk to the person who's in charge of the country. That makes all of this much more complicated. And, uh, it, it makes the whole situation much more absurd. Like he can pick up the phone and call Putin. He can pick up the phone, call Xi. Even countries that we have very hostile relations with, he can pick up the phone. You know, North Korea, he met the guy at the 38th parallel. It is bizarre that we do, we can't just talk to the actual leadership of a country. It's really, it makes diplomacy very, very difficult."

"No, I, I, I don't think it's bizarre. Maybe they're not picking up the phone because there might be a bomb on that phone. We got to think about the fact that you had pagers like explode in in Lebanon. Are we forgetting about this? Maybe they're not picking up that phone because they know you tap that phone. I don't know. Maybe they're not picking up that phone because they know you're spying. Don't know. But this is another thing with this mentality that the US has to be on top and nobody else. Nobody owes you anything. Nobody owes the US anything. They don't have to talk to you. This is what I, again, when I said the US just goes to police the entire world, this is what I was talking about. These people don't have to talk to you. These people don't have to work with you if they don't want to. What is with this mentality that like, you must answer me, you must talk to me. You know, if we would have left these countries alone, a lot of the things that people complain about, a lot of the issues that these countries have today is because of Western intervention. Not just us, also, sometime, let's be real, Britain, you was all up in there. You was all up in there. You stole riches from the Caribbean. You stole from India. Britain, you was all up in there. But what is scary about this conversation is that JD Vance just blatantly says it out in the open, we want a new world order. And I just wanted you to know what they mean when they say that. Crazy times."

Hey guys, this was a savvy clip. If you like what you saw, hit that like button and subscribe.