The Official Tori Amos Tarot: Final Master DeckπΉ ✨
The Tori Amos Tarot
The Finalized "Symphony of Insights" Master Deck
This application houses the complete, finalized 78-card master index. Designed specifically for the "Sonic Spread" method, this interactive deck maps the archetypal journey of the tarot to the lyrical and sonic landscapes of Tori's discography. Explore the architecture of the deck below, or simulate a draw. Click any card to listen to the track on YouTube.
The Sonic Draw Simulation
Simulate a "Playlist Shuffle". Drawing a spread reveals the archetypal narrative and visualizes the elemental balance of your reading—whether it's dominated by the watery depths of Cups or the striking intellect of Swords. Click the button to draw three cards.
Card 1 awaits...
Card 2 awaits...
Card 3 awaits...
Energetic Signature
Complete Deck Explorer
Browse the finalized 78-card master index. Use the filters below to isolate specific archetypes and read their overarching themes.
The Last Analog Mind: A Psychological Autopsy of Generation X - YouTube
Transcripts:
There is a specific frequency of silence that has vanished from the human experience. If you were born between the years of 1965 and 1980, you know this silence intimately. It was the sound of a Tuesday afternoon in summer when the television stations had signed off. The telephone was anchored to the wall in the kitchen and you were entirely completely alone.
To the modern observer, looking back through the lens of current safety standards, the childhood of generation X appears terrifying. It looks like a catalog of negligence. But to understand the psychology of this generation, we must look past the surface level of danger and examine the profound psychological experiment that was taking place in the suburbs of America and the council estates of Britain.
We are looking at the formation of the last analog mind. Let us begin with the concept of benign neglect. In the current era, a child is treated as a fragile ecosystem that requires constant monitoring. Their location is tracked by satellites. Their diet is curated. Their media consumption is filtered. Safety is an external product that is provided to them by adults and algorithms.
However, for the child of the 1970s, safety was not a guaranteed status. It was a personal responsibility. Consider the experience of the automobile. Today, a child is strapped into a five-point harness encased in a safety cell, often watching a screen. They are passive cargo. Now, remember the front bench seat of a 1975 station wagon.
There were no booster seats. There were barely functioning seat belts that often went unused. When a six-year-old sat in the front seat, unrestrained, feeling the vinyl against their legs, they were not just passengers. They were co-pilots. They felt the physics of the road. They watched the driver navigate traffic. They understood that the car was a heavy, dangerous machine and that survival depended on competence, not just a protective shell.
This lack of physical restraint fostered a psychological state known as an internal locus of control. This is a critical psychological distinction. The modern child learns that they are safe because the system protects them. Generation X learned they were safe only when they were paying attention. This created a hyper vigilance, a low-level background radiation of alertness that persists in the adult mind of this generation today.
It is the quiet understanding that the cavalry is not coming and that the only person who can stop the car is you. This autonomy extended far beyond the vehicle. It permeated the very geography of childhood. We must discuss the extinction of the neighborhood as a sovereign territory. In the analog era, once a child stepped out of the front door, they vanished from the radar of parental authority.
There were no mobile phones. There were no GPS trackers. A mother would simply say, "Come home when the street lights turn on." That instruction granted a child roughly 8 to 10 hours of unmonitored existence. In psychology, we refer to this as the development of wayfinding. A child had to build a mental map of their territory.
They had to know which neighbors were friendly, which dogs were aggressive, and which fences could be climbed. When a child gets lost today, they look at a blue dot on a screen. When a child of the 70s got lost, they had to suppress their panic, look at the sun, look at the landmarks, and triangulate their position. This forced the brain to engage with the physical world in a way that is becoming neurologically extinct.
They were learning that the world is a physical place that must be negotiated with, not a digital interface that can be swiped away. This brings us to the concept of the internal compass. Because there was no digital tether to the parent, the child had to internalize the parents voice.
When you were 2 mi from home and considering doing something dangerous like jumping a bicycle over a drainage ditch, you could not text your father to ask for permission. You had to run a risk assessment simulation in your own mind. You had to ask yourself, if I break my arm, how will I get home? Is the thrill worth the consequence? By making these thousands of micro decisions every day without adult intervention, Generation X built a robust executive function in their frontal cortex.
They learned to trust their gut instinct because for a decade of their lives, it was the only guidance system they had. But this relationship with reality was not just about navigation. It was about mechanics. We must analyze the relationship between Generation X and the objects they owned. We lived in a world of mechanical transparency.
If you looked at a bicycle, you could see the chain, the gears, and the brakes. If you looked at a cassette player, you could see the head spinning. The function of the machine was visible to the naked eye. Compare this to the technological environment of the 21st century. We now live in the era of the black box. A smartphone is a sealed slab of glass and metal.
Its workings are invisible, microscopic and inaccible. If it breaks, you cannot fix it. You must replace it. This shift from repable mechanical objects to sealed digital objects has caused a massive shift in human psychology. For generation X, the world was malleable. If the chain fell off your bicycle, you did not call a support line. You flipped the bike upside down.
You got grease on your hands. You manipulated the metal until it worked again. If the television reception was poor, you physically adjusted the antenna or struck the side of the cabinet. This instilled a deep-seated belief known as agency. Agency is the conviction that your actions have a direct tangible impact on your environment.
You're not a passive consumer of reality. You're an active participant in it. This mechanical intuition created a generation of problem solvers who are not intimidated by broken systems. They view a malfunction not as a catastrophe but as a puzzle to be solved with their own hands. This hands-on existence also meant that failure was physical and immediate.
In the modern digital world, failure is often abstract. You lose a life in a video game and you respawn. You make a mistake in a document and you press undo. But in the analog world of the 1980s, gravity did not have an undo button. The play of Generation X was defined by raw physics. Building tree houses out of stolen scrap wood taught structural engineering through trial and error.
If you did not nail the board correctly, you fell. Pain was the primary teacher. It is important to understand that this was not abuse. It was feedback. The scraped knees, the bruised shins, and the splintered fingers were data points. They taught the child the limits of their body and the hardness of the world. By shielding modern children from all physical discomfort, we have inadvertently denied them the opportunity to calibrate their risk tolerance.
Generation X learned early on that pain is temporary, that blood dries, and that the ability to stand up after falling down is the most valuable skill a human being can possess. This exposure to the raw elements of life created a psychological immune system. Just as the immune system requires exposure to bacteria to develop antibodies, the human psyche requires exposure to small doses of danger and chaos to develop resilience.
This is a concept that the statistician Nasim Taleb calls anti-fragility. It is not just about withstanding stress. It is about getting stronger because of it. Generation X was the last generation to be raised in a freerange laboratory of anti-fragility. They were injected with small doses of risk every single day.
They rode bicycles without helmets. They drank from garden hoses. They played on playgrounds made of steel and concrete that would be illegal today. And through this constant friction with the physical world, they calcified a sense of self-reliance that is difficult to articulate to those who have grown up in the safety of the digital walled garden.
We're observing a group of people who were trained to survive in the wild who were then asked to inhabit a digital civilization. They are the immigrants to the internet, not the natives. And because they remember the time before the screen, they retain a skepticism of the digital world that their children do not possess.
They know that if the power goes out and the servers crash and the GPS satellites fail, they can still navigate by the sun and fix the generator. But this independence came at a cost. The silence of that empty house, the weight of that key around their neck, and the hours spent waiting for parents to return from work left a mark. It created a solitude that was both a superpower and a scar.
As we move deeper into this analysis, we must examine the social structures of this lost world. We must look at how a generation learned to negotiate, fight, and love in a world without moderators, without screenshots, and without an audience. If the physical world of Generation X was defined by benign neglect, their social world was defined by the complete absence of moderation.
We must now turn our attention to the playground dynamics of the 1970s and 80s. To the modern eye, these environments resemble a sociological experiment that would be deemed unethical by today's standards. In the contemporary era, children socialize in environments that are heavily curated. In the classroom, on the sports field, and especially in digital spaces, there is almost always an arbiter present.
Teachers, coaches, parents, or algorithmic content moderators are watching. If a conflict arises, an adult intervenes to adjudicate. If bullying occurs online, there is a report button. If a relationship becomes uncomfortable, there is a block button. Generation X, however, was raised in a zero moderation environment.
When the school bell rang for recess, or when the pack of bicycles congregated at the vacant lot, the adults effectively vanished. The social hierarchy that formed in these spaces was primal, raw, and entirely self-regulated. It was in many ways a literal enactment of William Golding's Lord of the Flies played out in suburban culde-sacs every single afternoon.
In this unregulated space, children had to learn the brutal but essential art of social calibration. Without a parent to settle arguments, you had to learn to negotiate. If you were playing a game of street hockey and a dispute arose over a goal, the game would stop. There was no video replay. There was no referee.
The group had to reach a consensus through shouting, bargaining, and intimidation or the game was over. This forced a development of conflict resolution skills that are atrophying in the modern population. You learned that you could not simply cancel a person you disagreed with because that person lived three houses down and you needed them to make up the numbers for the baseball team.
You were forced to find a way to coexist with people you did not necessarily like. This created a tolerance for discomfort and a capacity for nuance that is lacking in the binary black and white world of social media. We must also address the nature of bullying in the analog era. It was physical, it was verbal, and it was undeniably harsh.
However, it had a geographical limit. When a child of Generation X went home at the end of the day and closed their front door, the bullying stopped. The home was a fortress. The tormentors could not follow you into your living room. Contrast this with the modern experience of cyber bullying. Today, the bullying is not physical, but it is pervasive.
It follows the child into their bed via the smartphone. It is recorded, screenshotted, and preserved forever. Generation X had the luxury of ephemeral mistakes. If you did something embarrassing in 1985, it was a rumor for a week and then it faded into memory. It was not uploaded to a cloud server to haunt your employability 30 years later.
This privacy allowed Generation X to experiment with their identities. They could try on different personas, make catastrophic social errors, and then reinvent themselves without a permanent digital record holding them hostage. They developed a thick skin, not because they were insensitive, but because they understood that words were just noise and that public opinion was local and temporary.
As we move from the social exterior to the cognitive interior, we encounter perhaps the most profound difference between the analog and digital mind, we must speak about the gift of boredom. If you were to hook the brain of a modern teenager up to an MRI scanner, you would likely see a brain that's in a constant state of dopamine hyperarousal.
They are bombarded by notifications, short form videos, and infinite scrolls. They have never known a moment of true empty silence. Generation X, by contrast, spent a significant portion of their childhood in a state of profound, crushing boredom. It was raining on a Saturday afternoon.
There was nothing on television except golf or static. You had read all your comic books. You were staring at the ceiling. In neuroscience, there is a concept called the default mode network. This is a network of interacting brain regions that is active when a person is not focused on the outside world.
It activates when you're daydreaming, when you're bored, and when your mind is wandering. This network is the birthplace of creativity, self-reflection, and future planning. Because Generation X was forced to endure long periods of under stimulation, their default mode networks were highly active. Boredom was not a problem to be solved with a device.
It was a blank canvas that required imagination to fill. They had to invent games. They had to write stories in their heads. They had to sit with their own thoughts for hours at a time. This forced dopamine fasting created a brain structure capable of deep work and sustained attention. Today we speak of the attention economy and the shrinking attention span.
But the analog mind was built for the long haul. Consider the relationship with media consumption. In the era of streaming, gratification is instant. If you want to watch a cartoon, you summon it. If you're bored in the first 10 seconds, you skip it. Content is disposable, infinite, and worthless. For Generation X, entertainment was defined by scarcity and appointment.
If your favorite show aired at 8:00 on Friday night, you had to be physically present in front of the television at 8:00. If you were 5 minutes late, you missed the beginning, and you would not see it again until reruns aired 6 months later. This instilled a sense of temporal discipline and an appreciation for the moment.
You could not pause reality. You had to organize your life around these fixed points in time. It taught patience. It taught the value of waiting. This patience extended to music. The ritual of the mixtape is a perfect example of analog devotion. To share music with someone today, you send a link.
It takes zero effort and carries zero weight. To make a mixtape in 1990 required physical labor. You had to sit by the radio waiting for the song to play, hovering your finger over the record button. You had to calculate the remaining tape length on side A so the song would not cut off. You were investing hours of your life into a physical object.
This friction, this difficulty gave the object value. When you received a mixtape, you listened to every song in order because you knew the effort that went into it. You did not skip tracks. You possessed the attention span to appreciate the album as a cohesive work of art rather than a fragmented playlist of hooks. This neurological training, the ability to wait, the ability to focus, and the ability to endure silence, created a generation that is uniquely positioned to understand the value of deep engagement. They are not easily
distracted because they remember a time when there were no distractions. However, we must not romanticize this too heavily without acknowledging the shadow side. This abundance of time and lack of supervision also created a profound sense of isolation. This brings us to the phenomenon of the latch key kid.
The term itself is cold and mechanical. It refers to the house key often worn on a shoelace around the neck that symbolized the entry into an empty home. From the hours of 3:00 to 6:00 in the afternoon, millions of children were the sole masters of their domain. They walked into silent houses. They made their own snacks.
They started their own homework. There was no adult to debrief them on their day. There was no one to ask, "How are you feeling?" This silence was deafening. While this solitude fostered independence, it also planted the seeds of a specific type of emotional suppression. When a 10-year-old is alone in a house as the sun goes down and they hear a strange noise, they learn to swallow their fear.
They do not call for help because there is no one to answer. They investigate the noise themselves or they turn up the volume on the television to drown it out. This creates a psychological pattern known as hyperindependence. It is a defense mechanism where the individual learns that vulnerability is dangerous and that relying on others is a recipe for disappointment.
Generation X learned to self soothe and self-regulate not out of choice but out of necessity. They became the managers of their own emotions. This is why in the modern workplace and in modern relationships, Generation X can often appear stoic, cynical, or emotionally detached. They are not unfeilling. They are simply operating on an operating system that was written in an empty house where the only person they could truly count on was themselves.
They learned that if they were hungry, they had to cook. If they were scared, they had to hide. And if they were hurt, they had to heal. This forged a generation of reluctant leaders. People who are excellent in a crisis because they have been managing their own survival since they were tall enough to reach the door lock.
But as these latchy kids grew up and entered the workforce, they found themselves in a world that was rapidly changing. The analog skills they had mastered, memory, mechanics, patience, and face-to-face negotiation, were about to collide with a digital tsunami. They were about to become the bridge generation, straddling two incompatible realities.
We have explored the physical resilience and the social autonomy of the analog child. Now, we must examine the adult who emerged from that crucible. We are looking at a demographic that occupies a unique position in human history. Generation X is the Rosetta Stone of the modern age. They are the only living generation that is fully fluent in both the language of the analog past and the code of the digital future.
This status as the bridge generation is not merely a chronological fact. It is a psychological burden. They stand with one foot in a world of soil, gears, and paper, and the other foot in a world of cloud servers, artificial intelligence, and virtual reality. Consider the arrival of the internet. For the baby boomers, the internet was a foreign invasion, a confusing disruption to their established way of life.
For millennials and generation Z, the internet is oxygen. It is the invisible fluid in which they have suspended their entire existence. But for Generation X, the internet was a tool they watched arrive. They remember the sound of the dialup modem. They remember when being online was a distinct activity, something you did for 30 minutes before logging off to return to the real world.
This distinction is critical to the analog mind. The digital world is a utility like electricity or plumbing. It is something you use to accomplish a task and then you walk away from it. This creates a fundamental psychological difference in how they interact with technology. While the modern mind seeks validation from the screen, the analog mind treats the screen with a healthy dose of suspicion.
This skepticism is the defining character trait of generation X. It is often mistaken for cynicism or encapsulated in the dismissive phrase whatever. However, from a psychological perspective, this cynicism is actually a form of intellectual immune defense. This generation came of age watching institutions fail.
They watched the Challenger space shuttle explode on live television. They watched the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Cold War binaries. They saw the promise of eternal economic growth shatter in multiple recessions. They learned early on that the official narrative is often a lie and that the only thing you can truly rely on is your own competence and your own small circle of allies.
In an era of deep fakes, algorithmic manipulation, and fake news, this ingrained skepticism is no longer a personality flaw. It is a survival mechanism. The ability to look at a shiny, polished presentation and ask, is this real? Is a skill that is becoming critically endangered. This brings us to the workplace.
The work ethic of generation X is a direct product of that latch key independence. They are the get it done generation. They do not require constant feedback. They do not need a gold star for participation. They view employment as a transactional contract. I will do the work, you will pay me, and then I will go home to my actual life.
This detachment is often confusing to younger generations who view their career as a source of identity and meaning. But for the generation that learn to find meaning in an empty backyard with nothing but a stick and a ball, work is simply the fuel for the engine, not the destination. They possess a compartmentalization ability that protects them from burnout in a way that the always on generation struggles to replicate.
But as we look toward the future, the question arises, what is the legacy of this analog mindset? Is it destined to fade away, a relic of a primitive time like the rotary phone or the manual typewriter? To answer this, we must look at the current crisis of mental health. We are living in a time of unprecedented anxiety, depression, and fragility.
We have removed all the friction from our lives. We have infinite entertainment, instant food delivery, and effortless communication. Yet, we have never been more miserable. The philosophy of the analog era offers a counternarrative to this frictionless existence. It suggests that friction is actually essential for human flourishing.
The struggle to fix the bicycle chain, the patience required to wait for the cartoon, the courage needed to knock on a neighbor's door. These were not inconveniences. They were the essential nutrients that grew a resilient human soul. By eliminating these struggles, we have created a world that is comfortable but hollow. We have traded competence for convenience.
We have traded deep connection for broad connectivity. And we have traded the quiet dignity of privacy for the noisy performance of social media. The lesson of generation X is not that we should destroy our smartphones and return to the stone age. It is that we must reclaim our agency. We must relearn the art of being offline.
We must rediscover the satisfaction of doing things with our hands. We must teach the next generation that it is okay to be bored, that it is okay to be alone and that safety does not mean the absence of danger, but the ability to handle it. There is a concept in Stoic philosophy called amorati, a love of one's fate. Generation X embodies a gritty, secular version of this.
They do not demand that the world be fair. They do not expect the world to accommodate their feelings. They simply look at the broken car or the crashed market or the chaotic family dinner and they say, "Okay, this is the situation. How do we fix it?" This pragmatic acceptance of reality is the antidote to the neuroticism of the digital age.
As the world hurdles toward a future dominated by artificial intelligence, where the line between reality and simulation becomes increasingly blurred, the grounded perspective of the last analog generation will become more valuable, not less. They are the keepers of the archives. They remember what human beings were like before we merged with the machine.
They remember that you can navigate without a satellite. They remember that you can have a friendship that is not documented in photographs. They remember that your value is determined by your actions, not your engagement metrics. So when you see a member of this generation, do not look at them as a relic of the past. Look at them as a survival guide for the future.
They carry a set of dormant capabilities that we're going to need. They possess the internal compass that works when the GPS goes down. In the end, the psychology of Generation X teaches us one undeniable truth. The world is not happening on a screen. The world is happening out there on the asphalt, in the dirt, in the silence, and in the messy, unccurated, beautiful chaos of real life.
And if you are brave enough to put the device down, unlock the door, and step outside, you might just find that you are still capable of navigating it on your own terms. You do not need a notification to tell you that you are alive. You just need to feel the wind on your face, the gravel under your feet, and the quiet confidence that no matter what breaks, you have the tools to fix it.
This is the legacy of the last analog mind and it is a legacy worth preserving.
Plan 2027: How the U.S.A is Quietly Building Its 4th Empire... - YouTube
Transcripts:
The United States right now is in the midst of something called plan 2027, also known as the birth of the fourth American empire. You see, right now we look around, we see the $ 38 trillion worth of debt that the United States has. We see the polarizing headlines, and we see the ddollarization around the world.
To some, it looks like we're seeing the final credits roll on the American Empire. But what if we aren't watching a funeral? What if we're watching the birth or the rebirth of a new America? In biology, there's something called ecisis. It's that moment when a creature outgrows its old rigid shell and sheds it to reveal a larger, more capable version underneath.
But in geopolitics, we call it kind of like a phase shift. Take France for example. Most people remember Napoleon's first empire. It was grand. It was landhungry and ultimately crushed in 1815. It died. But then just a few decades later, the second French Empire emerged, spreading across Africa and Asia, lasting well into the 20th century.
It wasn't the same as The Empire before, but it was more like a like a sequel or maybe a reboot, a good reboot, not like a lot of the reboots we see today in Hollywood, cuz oh lordy, I've seen a few of those. Now, to understand where the USA is going in 2027, we have to look at the three versions of America that came before this.
You see, America's first empire, which was from the 1800s to about the 1890s, it was a continental sprawl. This was the era of manifest destiny. It was about dirt. If you could walk on it, plow it, and build a fence around it, it was yours. From the Louisiana purchase to the forced displacement of indigenous nations, this empire was a land devouring machine.
By the 1890s, the frontier was closed. America had reached the Pacific, and the math was simple. Land equaled power. However, there was a second reincarnation of the American Empire and that was from 1898 to 1945. So, after the SpanishAmerican War, the strategy for America changed. America didn't need to turn the Philippines or Puerto Rico into the 51st state. It needed ports.
This was the empire of the open door and the bluewater navy. It was about controlling the trade routes. The math shifted. Access now equaled power, not land. And then their third version of their empire was 1945 up until just recently. This was one that occurred after World War II. America didn't want to occupy your land anymore.
It wanted to run your software. This was the empire of the liberal international order. It was built on the Breton Woods system, NATO, and most importantly the US dollar. It was a uniolar world where American rules were the global operating system. And this time the math was a little bit more abstract and that was American standards that equaled power.
But standards are being rewritten today. The rules are being ignored. The third empire, the one that was built on globalization and spreading democracy or democracy is currently undergoing a massive structural failure. But is it a fall? Or is it the ghost of American power just finding a new, more efficient body to inhabit? You see, as we sit here in early 2026, the blueprints for plan 2027 are already being executed.
And they're making headlines all around the world, and they have been for at least the past year, but actually more than the past year. And so, yes, even though America is trying to gain some more land, it's not just about the land. It's not even just about trade, which they're going after as well.
It's about owning the very foundation of the next century. You see, most people see a declining empire, but if you look at the data, you start to see the outline of a fourth American empire. So, now let's get into it here. So, why is this change happening now? Why is the fourth empire being born right now? I mean, the third empire seems to be very successful, and it has been.
The American empire was globalized. The dollar was dominant. It was rules-based. And America had influence all around the world. So why are we currently watching it being disassembled like a like a bad Lego set? So it comes down to a fundamental law of economics. Diminishing returns. Imagine you're at a buffet and the first plate is incredible.
The second plate is great and then you know by the third, fourth, and then the fifth plate you just aren't enjoying the food anymore. You're just in pain. And if you're old enough like me, you probably remember the Pizza Hut buffets from when you were a kid. It is just so delicious. But after five plates, you are just you never want to see Pizza Hut again.
For 80 years, the US sat at the global buffet. But in the early 2020s, the cost of being the world's hegeimon started to outweigh the benefits. And especially after 2020, this is when the real bad stomach ache started for the United States. So let's talk about the dollar. For decades, the greenback was the universal language of money.
If you wanted to buy oil in Riad or electronics in Seoul, you spoke the dollar. But something shifted. In 2000, the dollar made up about 71% of the global foreign exchange reserves. By early 2025, that number had slid to 58.4%. By the start of 2026, where we are now, we've seen a dip below 47% in some categories of official reserves.
So, why is this happening? Why is the dollar losing power? Well, because of weaponization. When the US used the dollar-based financial system, which is also known as Swift, which hasn't been brought up in the news in about 3 years, but when that was used as a weapon in 2022 against Russia, the rest of the world looked at their bank accounts and had a collective epiphany.
It's called counterparty risk. They realized that if the US owns the software your money runs on, you don't actually own your money. By 2026, the BRICS nations, now including heavy hitters like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, they moved from talking about an alternative to building a new one. The BRICS bridge, a blockchainbased payment system, is currently undergoing pilot testing aiming to facilitate 85% of crossber trade in local currencies.
And it's not just about the money, it's also about the math of growth. Look at the projection for 2026. So the G7 countries which are now becoming the old guard of the economic world, they are expected to grow at just 1.1% per year. Meanwhile, the BRICS plus nations are now projected to grow at 3.7%. In 1990, the G7 accounted for nearly 50% of global GDP.
Today, in 2026, the BRICS nations have overtaken them in purchasing power parody, also known as PPP. They are accounting for 41% of the world's economic activity compared to the G7's 28.4%. The United States power is currently being diluted all around the world, but it also has some political friction at home.
So in economics, we call it a political risk. When a country is unified, it can project power. When it's polarized, it spends its energy fighting itself. As of 2026, 43% of US CEOs rank uncertainty as their number one economic worry, higher than any of their global peers. I mean, when you can't agree on your own budget or your own borders, you can't effectively police the rest of the world as well, no matter how hard you try.
Although, it's not like the US has always been the best policeman to say the very least. But the United States was looking at the board. The dollar is eroding and getting bypassed. The competitors are growing faster. The home front is fractured. So, it had to change strategies. A 19th century empire would have started a world war to fix this.
But the fourth American empire is smarter than that. Hopefully, it's performing a strategic retreat. It's called the sunk cost fallacy. Most most of you may know this. Instead of spending trillions more to save a third empire that is structurally destined to fade, the US is taking its ball and going home and it's trying something else.
You see, if the third empire was about being everywhere around the world and having a say in everything, the fourth empire is more about being essential to the world. If the world wants to move away from the dollar, fine. But the US is building something where if you do something like that, you may have to pay a, let's call it a fortress tax.
So to a medieval knight, a fortress was stone walls and boiling oil. To a 20th century general, it was bunkers and radar. But to architects of the fourth American Empire, a fortress isn't made of stone. It's made of tariffs and contracts and atoms. For 80 years, the US played a game called globalism. And the goal was just to make the world one big happy interconnected circuit board.
But in 2026, the US is pulling the plug on that experiment. We are moving towards economic securitization. It's the idea that a supply chain isn't just a way to get a cheap toaster, it can also be a weapon. And if you don't own the weapon, you're a target. So let's take a look at the universal baseline tariff. So throughout 2025 and early 2026, the US has shifted to a 10 to 20% baseline tax on nearly all imports.
Why? Well, there's some basic math here. If a factory in Ohio costs $100 to run, and a factory in an adversarial nation costs $85, the math says go overseas. It'll save you some money. But at a 20% tariff, suddenly the overseas product costs $102. So, one of the goals of this is to force reshoring for people to move their factories back to the United States, but it's also to make money.
I mean, by the end of 2025, these tariffs were projected to generate about $264 billion in annual revenue for the federal government. And I'm sure the government will spend that very responsibly. And just some perspective, like how much money that is, that that's an entire war chest. That's the GDP of tons of other midsized countries around the world.
And that is just from the tariff revenue that was put in last year. So all that money is going into the war chest and the fortress. But you can't build a high-tech fortress without stuff. So cobalt, lithium, neodyenium, the vitamins of the modern world is what they're called. On January 15th of 2026, the president signed a landmark executive order adjusting imports of processed critical minerals.
Now, it said a ticking clock, a 180day deadline ending in July of 2026. The ultimatum, align or be excluded. The US is effectively building a minerals version of NATO. If you are a trusted ally, like Australia or Canada, depending on the day, or Japan, you get a golden ticket to the American market. If you aren't, you're on the outside looking in.
And the US is getting aggressive about where it finds these vitamins. So, Greenland, you may have heard of from uh some people that made some fantastic videos on Greenland just a little while ago. Please check out my video. But over the last few weeks and months, the rhetoric about purchasing Greenland returned, but with a sharper edge this time.
The US isn't just interested in the ice around Greenland or just using it as a military base. It's also about its minerals. It's the Tan Breeze Mine, home to arguably the world's largest deposit of rare earth elements. Now, there's also Venezuela. I mean, on January 3rd of 2026, the world woke up to news that uh Maduro was snatched pretty much out of his bed.
Now, with the removal of Maduro and the previous regime, there was a goal that was clear. Stabilize the nation to unlock the world's largest oil reserves and massive deposits of colan and gold. And there's also news about potential US intervention in Iran. With their instability right now with their protests going on around the country, the US could theoretically intervene and force a reorientation of the government, which would have a lot of benefits for the United States, but also one of the big plays is that it would ensure that for the next century, a lot of their
minerals and resources would be traded with the United States first and not China or Russia. But now we're going to move on to another powerful tool from the American fortress and that is secondary sanctions. So as America is building this fourth empire, it's realizing that it can't force everyone to use the dollar.
However, it can force them to use what is called the American stack. So, if you want the newest chips from Intel, which the US now owns 9.9% of, or if you want access to the newest and best AI models that run your hospitals and your power grids and maybe even your military, well, you have a choice.
Trade in dollars or lose access to all of these things. By using its fortress status, the US is making it nearly impossible for nations to deollize without also demodernizing. It's like a giant highstakes game of stay with us or you're going to be stuck with 2010's technology forever. But as the walls go up around this physical world, the Fourth Empire is busy building something that's even more invisible, something almost ghostlike.
And I mean, what is a ghost? In folklore, it's a spirit that haunts a house. But in the 21st century, the ghost is code. It's the intelligence that lives inside the machine. And the fourth American Empire has realized something profound. You don't need to occupy a country if you occupy its mind. It's kind of like one of my favorite movies, My Big Fat Greek Wedding.
There was this quote about, "Yes, sure, the man can be the head of the household, but the woman is the neck, and the neck can turn the head any way she wants." So, the United States is trying to be the neck of many other countries. For centuries, empires were built on hard power. You know, soldiers, ships, and silk and other things that are manly.
The British Empire wasn't, you know, only selling tea. They were also building railroads and telegraph lines that made the modern world possible. They owned the standards. And if you wanted to communicate in 1890, you spoke British telegraph. And right now in 2026 and planned for 2027, the exact same thing is happening with the United States and artificial intelligence.
On July 23rd, 2025, the White House released a document that effectively declared the dawn of the cyber empire. Winning the AI race, America's AI action plan. Now, it sounds like a policy paper, but it's actually a blueprint for dependency. Accompanying this plan were three executive orders, including EO14179, designed to do one thing, export the American AI stack.
So, I've mentioned this a few times, but what is the AI stack? Well, here it is. You got the hardware, which is the specialized chips. You have the infrastructure, which is the massive data centers in fiber optics. You have the model, which is the brain, aka OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, whatever. And then you have the application.
That's the software you actually use to run your hospital, your bank, or your phones. So the strategy is fairly simple if you think about it. The US is no longer selling just software. They're kind of selling sovereign AI packages. So they're asking other countries, "Want to modernize your economy? Here is a pre-built American stack. It's fast. It's efficient.
It's brilliant." But here's the catch. The 2025 executive orders also fundamentally changed how we view data centers. Under the accelerating federal permitting of data center infrastructure order, I know that that's a giant mouthful, but under that, the US began treating these facilities as qualifying projects of national security.
The US has accelerated the buildout of these mega data centers, essentially facilities requiring more than 100 megawatts of power, taking up giant chunks of the electricity grid. By early 2026, many of these are being built on federally controlled land, making them essentially digital fortresses for the government and for the companies.
If your country's government, tax records, and power grid run on American controlled cloud things from Amazon, Google, Microsoft, do you still have full sovereignty or does the US have a kill switch for your country? Now, if you're a business person, this may sound like something familiar. This is called vendor lockin.
Meaning if you build your entire business off of the back of some other business's infrastructure, you pretty much cannot change without it being a giant pain to your business. And so for America, I mean, if a nation tries to leave this fourth American empire, it both loses a giant trade partner, but it also loses the operating system for their country.
Now, there's also another problem with this, and that is AI is well, it's thirsty. Not exactly for water, despite what you may hear, but for power. A single chat GPT query uses roughly 10 times the electricity of a Google search. By January 2026, the US faced a crisis. The grid couldn't handle the AI boom, so the empire pivoted.
The Department of Energy recently awarded $800 million in grants to first mover companies to deploy small modular reactors, SMRs. Now, these aren't your grandfather's massive nuclear plants. They are factorybuilt plugandplay nuclear batteries. Companies like Alphabet and Meta or you know Google and Facebook are already signing deals to buy this nuclear power directly.
So, the goal is to create AI fortresses which are you know data centers that are powered by their own dedicated nuclear reactors completely immune to global energy fluctuations or local grid failures. Now, as the US secures the ghost in the machine, it's also looking at the ultimate high ground. You see, one other part of this empire that people are not really talking about at all, it's not high ground of a hill or a mountain.
It's the high ground of the moon. When Romans looked at the Mediterranean Sea, they didn't just see like a body of water. They saw a highway. They called it Mari Nostrm, our sea. To own the Mediterranean was to own the heart of the world. Today, the fourth American Empire is looking up at the sky and saying the exact same thing. But they aren't looking at the deep dark void of interstellar space.
They're looking at the sis lunar region, the space between the Earth and the Moon, and they're treating it like the new Mediterranean. So, how do you build an empire in the stars? You don't do it with a few giant leaps. You do it with volume. In 2019, SpaceX launched 26 rockets. In 2024, that number was 134. By the end of 2025, that number was around 165 launches.
Roughly one space launch every 2 days. To put that in perspective, that's about 85% of all American launches and more than the rest of the planet combined. And the math goes like this. I mean, if you can launch a 100 times cheaper and 50 times more often than your adversary, then guess what? You're probably going to win this new space race.
Now, also quietly in the last little while, Space Force has also been doing some things. Yes, that's Space Force, both the TV show and the thing that got made fun of when it was announced like a decade ago. So, they have something now called the Commercial Augmentation Space Reserve or CSR. They're essentially creating a civil reserve airfleet for the vacuum of space, ensuring that if a conflict breaks out, every Starling satellite becomes a military asset.
So what are the potential plans? Why is the United States doing this? So yes, it's about moving satellites and new tech into space, but it's also about denial. So on January 27th of 2025, a landmark executive order was signed to build the Iron Dome for America, later renamed the Golden Dome. in May of 2025. This isn't some groundbased system like you see in Israel. It's a spacebased overlayer.
So the goal here, well, it's to deploy a constellation of hundreds, potentially 600 specialized satellites rumored to be a $2 billion contract for SpaceX. And these will be equipped with sensors and proliferated interceptors. For the last 70 years, the world lived under the shadow of mutually assured destruction, also known as MAD.
If you hit me, I hit you and everyone dies. The Golden Dome aims to move the US into an era of assured survival by placing interceptors into orbit. The US aims to kill missiles in the boost phase before they even leave the atmosphere. Now imagine that if the fourth American Empire can neutralize its nuclear threat, it changes the fundamental math of the entire geopolitics of the world.
power is no longer who has the biggest bomb or the most bombs. It's about who has the best shield. Now, there's also the moon stuff. So, as we speak, in early 2026, NASA is rolling out the SLS rocket for Aremis 2, which is a scheduled moon mission for February 6th, 2026. And this will be the first time humans have looped around the moon in over half a century.
However, this is not as much of a science fair project as it used to be. It's becoming a property claim for the United States. So, the US is racing to establish norms of behavior on the lunar surface. By building the first permanent outpost near the lunar south pole, where the water ice is, the US is effectively setting the zoning laws for the 21st century.
The CIS lunar transportation market is projected to be worth $19 billion between now and 2030. So, if you want to mine the moon for helium 3 or set up a propellant depot in the 2030s, you'll be doing it on an American regulated highway. And in a sense, this version of the fourth American Empire, the one that is planning to expand into space and expand on the moon, that's actually mimicking what the United States did with its first empire, the manifest destiny one, the one that spread out so far and so quick and built up so much that no other
powers could come and claim land around them. Now, the next thing here about the fourth American Empire is actually one of the more controversial ones. You see, for decades, the United States told the world a story. It was a story about the invisible hand. The United States told everyone that the government should stay out of the way and that the free market was a wild horse that ran best if it wasn't fenced in.
But as of the last few years, the fourth American Empire stopped telling this story. Instead, it started building a national champion model. In the 20th century, we called this industrial policy, and it was a dirty word in Washington. So now we can take a look at Intel again, which is something I mentioned earlier. In the old world, if a company struggled, it went bankrupt or got bought out by a competitor.
But as of recently, the US government was doing something radical through the chips act in the subsequent national security grants. The government effectively took a 9.9% equity stake in Intel's foundry business. And this was a large signal that the US is okay with potentially not being a completely free market anymore.
It might be becoming something like state capitalism. The US government is now a shareholder in the world's most important hardware. This creates what economists call a dualuse corporate structure. The company remains private and competitive, but its north star is no longer the quarterly earnings report.
It's the Department of Defense's road map. And we've seen this before in history. I mean, think of the Dutch East India Company, the VOCC. It had its own ships, its own army and its own currency. But it existed to serve the interests of the Dutch state or the British East India Company which effectively governed India on behalf of London.
The fourth American Empire is reviving the model for the Silicon. And yes, the US is buying equity and companies, but they're also handing out great deals to its favorite tech giants. And these deals come with strings. So, if you want a $5 billion grant to build a data center in Virginia, you must grant the government priority access to your compute during a national emergency.
If you want to launch a new satellite constellation, you must ensure it is milspec compatible from day one. The line between Silicon Valley and the government or the Pentagon, it's becoming more blurred as of the last few years. And this is a pretty big shift. I mean from the third empire, third empire wanted efficiency.
It wanted the cheapest chips from Taiwan and the cheapest batteries from China. The fourth empire wants resiliency. It is willing to pay 30% more for a product if that product is made within the fortress. Essentially, this is state capitalism with American characteristics. And so these are the bones of what the fourth American Empire is going to be if the American Empire doesn't fall.
And that brings up the question, will the empire fall or will we actually see the fourth empire? So when we talk about the fall of Rome, we usually imagine a single fiery night in 476 AD when the barbarians broke down the gates. But that's a myth. Rome didn't fall so much as it liquefied. It shifted. It moved its capital to Constantinople and lasted another thousand years as the Byzantine Empire.
They didn't even call themselves Byzantines, by the way, in the Byzantine Empire. They still called themselves Romans. So, the question for 2027 isn't whether America will survive. It's whether the third empire must die so that the fourth can live. Now, here's the case for the fall. And if you're a pessimist, the data from 2026 so far is pretty loud.
So, as of right now, the United States national debt, as I'm checking, is $ 38.45 trillion. Interest payments alone are now the fastest growing federal expense, consuming roughly 19% of the federal spending. The United States is currently paying more to rent, the past debt, than they are building the future infrastructure of the country.
Even though the US is going to be projected to grow at about two and a half percent to maybe three and a half percent very optimistically in 2026, the BRICS nations are expanding their share of the global pie faster and most of those countries are at minimum hitting 3 and a half% GDP growth. There's also just a lot of other question marks currently going on in the United States and one of which is the current administration seems to be doing very random yet very powerful decisions on a whim.
It seems like sometimes who knows if they'll have any alliances in the next year or two or if they'll get tariffed or even embargoed by some of their big trading partners. There's potential that a war could theoretically start soon even though many think that is an unlikely scenario. There's just a lot of question marks going on right now which could lead to the fall of the United States before the rebirth.
Just something to leave you with here is empires don't usually end because they get conquered. They end because they become irrelevant. They stop being the place where the future happens. Is America becoming irrelevant or is it just rebranding? You know, in the future, we might look back and realize that the decline we all worried about was actually just the noise of a machine changing gears.
You know, there were many times throughout, for example, the Roman Empire where some of the writers, politicians, historians, they were saying in the moment that Rome was going to collapse at any second, and yet it hadn't even hit its peak yet. And so, theoretically, that could be something happening with the United States right now.
But what do you guys think? Let me know in the comments below. And make sure to click on my documentaries playlist if you want to see more videos like this. Also, please subscribe. Most of you that watch my videos are not subscribed. So, click on that, subscribe, hit the notification bell, do all that stuff that the people say. And thanks for watching.
I'll see you guys in my next video when you click on it in just a few
Everything That's Been Hidden About Andrew, The Former Prince (Epstein, Lies & Cover Ups) - YouTube
Transcripts:
25 years ago, a young girl visiting London asked to have her photograph taken with a prince. At the time, no one could have foreseen that this one simple picture would go on to throw the thousand-year-old, $30 billion British royal family into their biggest controversy since the abdication of Edward VII in 1936.
Today, most people know the horrendous details behind this infamous picture, but as you'll learn throughout this video, there's a lot more to the story of the former prince. Because the rot at the palace penetrated deep, and it wasn't just Andrew Mountbatten Windsor that was rewriting history. It even stretched as far as the award-winning interview that exposed Andrew on a global scale.
And most people will be surprised to hear a very different story than the one that's been portrayed in awards speeches and on Netflix and Amazon Prime. Andrew Manbatton Windsor has lived a life of unimaginable privilege. And yet behind closed doors, he was using his power, wealth, connections, and royal fame to allegedly commit unspeakable crimes and to enable the vile actions of monsters Jeffrey Epstein and Galain Maxwell.
Andrew wants people to believe that his friendship with these monsters was just an unfortunate blemish on a distinguished royal career. But nothing could be further from the truth. Because Andrew's relationships with Epstein and Maxwell are just two points on a very long list of horrendous and crooked behaviors reported to have happened over the last several decades.
And so that's what we'll be discussing today. everything most people don't know about Andrew Mountbatten Windsor along with the scores of people who helped, enabled, and covered up for the Queen's favorite son. And some of these stories might even reshape how you look at Andrew, the royal family, and even the interview that brought down a prince.
On February 19th, 1960, the Queen gave birth to her third child, her second son, the first child she'd had as queen, and the first child to be born to a reigning monarch in over a hundred years. Andrew would later go on in 1986, to be bestowed the Queen's cherished title of Duke of York until this title was stripped from him this year, 2025.
Andrew has always been widely reported to be the queen's favorite child, and he and his younger brother, Prince Edward, were raised quite differently to their older siblings, Charles and Anne. With the queen being the queen, she didn't have the usual relationship with her children that a mother does, or even a lot of the modern royal mothers do.
Someone like Princess Diana has had many, many stories over the years written about her and her affection for her children and how involved she was with her sons, William and Harry. Whereas the queen followed the normal role protocols raising her children. It wasn't unusual for her to return from a long trip and shake the hand of a 2, three, or fouryear-old at the time, young Prince Charles.
The queen became the monarch at only 25 when her father suddenly passed away. She had Charles and Anne before she became queen, but having Andrew and Edward a little bit into her reign meant that she was much more settled as the monarch. And it's always been reported that she treated her two younger sons much differently than Charles and Anne.
Andrew was sent to Gordensen boarding school in Scotland where his father and his older brother Charles had gone. He was reportedly a poor student which was not unusual for a lot of the royal family. I will talk about this a little bit later, but one of my cousins actually went to school and was in Prince Harry's class at Eaton.
Throughout childhood and school, Andrew was always looking for ways to be the center of attention. And given that he was the son of the queen, most of the time he did get this attention, if not always. After school, Andrew did serve in the Royal Navy and the Forklands War. Over the years, he's had many nicknames by the public and the press.
One of which was Air Miles Andy for his constant travel and spending which we will get into later as his spending was one of the major reasons he got so close to the wealthy Jeffrey Epstein. And another nickname of Andrews that was probably the most wellknown by the public and the media was Randy Andy which that will majorly come back to bite him later in the story whenever all of his ties to Epstein came out.
His lesser used nickname was Action Andy, and this was probably the nickname that the royal family would have preferred used by the press, but it never really stuck. Andrew's time in the Navy and as a helicopter pilot, along with his love of shooting and golf and riding and outdoors stuff in general meant that his interests were very in line with the taste of the queen.
So, this was something else they bonded over. Many, many people have reported over the years that to the queen, Andrew could do no wrong and he was allowed to do whatever he wanted. What he wanted, he got. And it's also reportedly these factors thatweighed heavily into the disastrous 2019 interview between Andrew and BBC journalist Emily Mateless and it going ahead in the first place.
Andrew wanted to do the interview and despite many many people and royal advisers advising against the interview. It was reported that Andrew wanted to do it and the queen trusted her son. Although it has been said later that the queen did not know the full extent of the interview and it was her who intervened when the full transcripts came out of the interview.
I think it's very important to understand Andrew's place in the royal family as I think it's very much factored into the person that he is even in comparison to other members of the royal family or the firm which is what the royals themselves refer to this kind of combination of family business and the crown when they're speaking of the kind of entity of the royal family they call it the firm was born one of the most privileged people on earth.
But being a royal isn't just being rich and living in a palace. There's so much more that goes into it because from the day they are born, they are told you are better than everyone else just because of the family you were born into. When Andrew was born, he was second in line to the throne because prior to Prince William's children, the line of succession favored the male line.
There are some bits of succession and titles that I will explain, but I'll try and keep it as straightforward as possible because it can honestly go on forever. The Queen's children in age order are Charles, Anne, Andrew, and Edward. And once Andrew, a male, was born, Andrew was favored over Anne. So even though that's the age order, the succession order is Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne.
But this was all changed in 2013 for Prince William's children onwards. And that's why Prince William's children, who are George, Charlotte, and Louie, if they had been born 50 years ago, Charlotte would have been passed over for Louis. Louisie would have been the spare. But now the succession line just runs age.
It doesn't matter about gender. So, it's Prince George, Princess Charlotte is the spare, and then Prince Louie afterwards. This was all changed in 2011 by the Queen. There was a ton of other stuff that was changed as well and it came into law in 2013, but anything prior to that isn't affected. So still Andrew is after Charles Edward and it's only affected from William onwards basically.
For that reason, Andrew had a lot more privileges. All of this birth order stuff matters so much. You have many more privileges and rights as the second son of the monarch rather than the third son and so on. And what order you are in line of succession is a huge deal too. Andrew still to this day in December 2025 still retains his line in the order of succession which is eighth behind William and his three children, Harry and his two children Archie and Liet.
and the order then it runs through the heir through the heir's children then onto the normally the sibling of the heir and so onward. So you have someone like Andrew who really was second in line after Charles but when both of Charles's kids come along and their sets of children it pushes him down to eighth. It's also quite fascinating looking at the spares throughout even just recent history as they're told, "Oh, you are this amazing person who can do no wrong.
You are so important. You get every privilege in the world possible, but there's one person who is much more important than you." That all seems to have big time factored into Andrew becoming who he became. There are scores of people over the years, from household staff to ex-friend, reporters, and all manners of people who have said Andrew by far was the most difficult royal to deal with.
and he was obsessed with his own importance and he would blow up at people and scream that he was the second son of the queen and he was a prince, the Duke of York and whatever it was that he was wanting someone to do or however he was treating someone only that mattered was that he was a prince and the queen's son and he could do whatever he wanted.
I will also explain how the changes that just happened in November and December 2025 will have caused Andrew major major humiliation even behind closed doors. To give some brief background on Andrew's friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and Galain Maxwell, there has always been talk in the royal households about how it was kind of inappropriate that Andrew was friends with Galain Maxwell and how the queen might find it inappropriate long before Jeffrey Epstein ever came on the scene because Andrew and Galain have been friends for decades. Delane Maxwell was
the daughter of Robert Maxwell who was the head of the mirror group which included a bunch of British newspapers including the Mirror and he was an absolute crook. He died in mysterious circumstances which were later revealed to be him falling off the side of his yacht when he was peeing naked into thesea.
His death triggered the revelations that he had been pilfering his company's pension funds. He was a true conman. And when Robert Maxwell died, Delane was working for her father. And so his passing cut off her funds and threw her kind of into financial turmoil. And that's when she started her relationship with Epstein, someone else who was exceedingly wealthy and a very sketchy con man.
In the 90s, Galain Maxwell would come and have picnics at the palace, and many in the royal staff thought that this would upset the queen if she knew the daughter of Robert Maxwell was picnicking at the palace. Andrew and Galain Maxwell were very close friends. So close that she didn't even stop at the security checkpoints going into the royal residences and was just waved through.
This was breaking the protocol, security protocol, royal protocol, but a lot of the police and royal protection officers would allow Andrew to do this with many, many of his frequent female guests, as if they didn't, Andrew would call the officers at the gate and scream at them and throw an absolute fit. Andrew reports that Gain Maxwell introduced him to Jeffrey Epstein in 1999.
Although it is worth noting that there are flight logs that have Andrew's wife, Sarah Ferguson, on Jeffrey Epstein's jet in 1998, the year prior. Sarah Ferguson married Andrew in 1986 and they divorced about 10 years later, but they have remained very very close over the years and still even live together to this day.
They have two daughters, princesses Beatatrice and Eugenei and why Andrew's daughters are princes and HR's his or her royal highness and Anne and Edward's kids aren't that all factors into the line of succession. Anne and Edward were offered to make their kids prince and princesses and HR's his or her royal highness, but they did decline.
Of course, Andrew did not. There have been many reported blowups by Andrew over the years when Charles has tried to slim down the monarchy by cutting funding and roundthe-clock security for Andrew's daughters, the princesses, which costs the taxpayers millions of pounds a year, especially when Andrew's daughters sometimes live outside the UK.
I have always found it funny hearing about him blowing up about his daughters not being treated the same as William and Harry when his entire existence is based on the very system he's arguing against. He's arguing they need to be treated the same as William who's the heir to the throne.
And if you believe like he does this system, then no, they shouldn't be treated the same because William is heir to the throne by the logic of the royals and succession. So it just goes to show you one of the many, many reasons that Andrew is only about himself. He's only ever lived his life thinking about himself.
And you can say that about a lot of people like, oh, they're selfish and they they don't know or think about other people, but there is no one who exemplifies this more than the royals, especially Prince Andrew, because they don't know what it is like to be a normal person or even to have to think about other people, normal people. They've never been late for something.
They've never even packed their own bag because the plane, the boat, the train, the car, whatever it is, waits for them. It's only ever about them. And that is also something very important to understand Prince Andrew and why he does think he is so untouchable. After meeting in 1999, there were many reports over the years of Andrew and Epstein socializing.
And these have been supported by things like flight logs, pictures, and former friends of Epstein and Andrew speaking about dinner parties they both attended or Andrew coming and staying at many of Epstein's houses on a number of different occasions. It was during one of these many social events that the picture I mentioned in the very beginning of the video was taken.
The picture of Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein's at the time 17-year-old victim Virginia Guay. Virginia said that she was trafficked by Epstein and Galain Maxwell to London specifically for Andrew in 2001. And this picture was taken at Maxwell's London Belgravia home. Virginia had asked to have her picture taken with Andrew to send to her family and friends as she was meeting a real prince.
Jeffrey Epstein took the picture, which is now infamous, and Andrew and Virginia are standing with Maxwell off to the side. One thing I don't see discussed much about this image is how insanely bizarre it is that Andrew has his arm around this 17-year-old's waist. Yes, it is obviously creepy this situation being described without names like two middle-aged men, a middle-aged woman having a party with a 17year-old and one of the men has their arm around her waist. Like that is creepy.
But it being a member of the royal family, this is how you know this picture was supposed to be completely private and they thought no one would ever see it outside of maybe Virginia showing it to her brother or something because royals donot touch other people and you won't even see like William and Kate touching and and I don't mean like something even kind of intimate like that like they won't even hold hands.
And it is exceedingly exceedingly rare to see them touch in any way. And you would really really really have to dig to see like I can't even think of the queen or prince Phillip like in any way outside of maybe like their wedding day or something or you know when they do the balcony scene on one of the royal wedding days and they kiss and everything like that.
Outside of that like it very very rarely happens in any way. And that's why like Megan and Harry were seen as like very kind of breaking royal protocol because they do hold hands or like put their hands on one another's shoulder and stuff like that. And obviously like now it doesn't matter cuz they're not senior working royals.
But everything with the royals is completely rules and protocols and things that you wouldn't even think matter. There will be a book of rules about like when William and Kate pull up to an event, there's a whole protocol about who gets out of the car first, who walks first, who greets the person first, everything like that.
And this also all factors into everything with Andrew and Epstein because nothing with the royals happens in isolation. There's always people around. There's always protocols. There's always documentation and proof. And that's why it's interesting that Andrew hasn't been able to in any way show I wasn't here. I didn't do this because yes, it was a long time ago, but they're constantly surrounded by people.
There is security always and logs of people coming in and out and all of this other stuff. and everything else with timelines and things seems to support what Epstein's victims have said rather than Andrew who has really produced nothing except for his own word. >> The policeman who was on the north gate at Bucking Palace knows that Andrew came back that night.
uh he wasn't down and working at a Pizza Express and he asked to have under data protection rules the log books for that night uh uh which he was entitled to have and the uh palace said uh I'm afraid you can't have these under grounds of national security. Uh and then when he said well actually there's no national security here the data protection rules and you must release them.
They then said that they had actually destroyed the material. >> Virginia has detailed in her book and many interviews that after this picture was taken she had been assaulted by Andrew. She has also detailed going to [ __ ] nightclub with him in London. And on the evening that she was there, he was dancing with her and was profusely sweating.
And she also said that he was a terrible dancer. And she said that she had also been assaulted by him two other times. Once at Epstein's home in Florida and a third time on Epstein's private island, Little St. James, in the Virgin Islands. There have also been several individuals over the years that have said they've seen Andrew at a number of Epstein's residences.
And one individual said that he walked in on Andrew having a woman massaging and licking his feet. There's also been numerous stories over the years with Sarah Ferguson, Andrew's ex-wife, involving her feet. And there was even pictures associated with her that were released in numerous newspapers.
And this involved one of her many partners over the years. And this story being so public and shared so widely with pictures was one of the inciting incidents that had Sarah Ferguson start to be removed from the royal family life. Even though her two daughters were obviously members of the royal family. The royal family of course are very familiar with affairs and Andrew and Sarah Ferguson's escapades being made so public was one of the things that really prompted the queen and the royal family to behoove them to get a divorce. They had allegedly
numerous affairs while both married, while they were getting divorced, and they have had so many different stories come out over the years about all of their various relationships and when they were married, their mistresses and things. And within the royal family, there's even this kind of weird mistresses through the generations.
It's quite well known that Camila, who's the now queen, was of course Charles's mistress at one stage. And her greatg grandmother, was the mistress of Edward IIIth, Charles's greatgrandfather. And something that's been reported a lot outside the mainstream media, not so much inside the mainstream media, was that Prince Phillip had an affair with Sarah Ferguson's mother, Susan, long before Andrew and Fergie were married and just decades before even they were on the scene.
This was when Sarah Ferguson was a child and her mother, like Diana's, lost custody of her when she was a child. And this was something that Diana and Fergie bonded over as they were friends long before Fergie was married to Andrew. And it was actuallyDiana, the Princess of Wales, who introduced Fergie to Andrew. I will of course leave all of my sources for anything I'm mentioning down in the description box and the pin comment in the Google link.
And I've also started putting the last couple of videos a playlist with all of the interviews and news reports and things that I watch or like show clips of. So those will be down there as well along with several books that I read for this video. The main two being Virginia Guru's recently released memoir, Nobody's Girl.
And the month before Virginia's book came out, there was a book released by Dr. Andrew Lowey who ended up doing a book about the rise and the fall of the Yorks and it's titled entitled and he has put a ton of work into this book. There's been so many stories that have come out of this book.
I will mention quite a few in the rest of the video and he's also done a number of interviews where he's talked about things that he had to take out of the book for legal reasons. And a lot of the things that he spoke about in his book have actually ended up coming out in it hasn't even been out that long. It's been out like 2 months.
So, it is very interesting to read. And this isn't someone that has done a couple of months worth of research and things. I will go into a bit more detail about him and where he sourced a lot of this information from because it really is kind of a crazy book to read. As I mentioned earlier, Andrew reports that he met Epstein in 1999 and Sarah Ferguson met him in 98.
But there are extensive numbers of people who have tied their friendship to the early '9s. She really doesn't like the royal family, but the late 90s and all through the 2000s, the Yorks began appearing in flight logs and spending significant time with Epstein and Glain Maxwell. The reason this time with Epstein ramped up so significantly in 2001 was because that was also the year that Andrew retired from the Navy.
He was given a cushy position in the Navy and then a cushy position after the Navy. He was made trade envoy for the United Kingdom in 2001. And this was a position he held until 2011 when he was first really massively exposed for his ties to Epstein. And when the picture of him and Virginia was first published in the Mail on Sunday through the Navy, Andrew was reported to be lazy, arrogant, and frequently would be on leave to perform royal duties, but really he went to go and play golf.
After he retired from the Navy in 2001, he had entered his 40s and many people described this next decade as his midlife crisis. This is when he started spending so much time with Epstein and Maxwell and going and staying with Epstein at his various homes in Florida and New York and his previously aforementioned private island.
Andrew and Sarah Ferguson spent so much time with Jeffrey Epstein that they even had a suite of rooms in Epstein's New York mansion called the Bratannia Suite that only they stayed in. Over the next 10 years through 2011, it wasn't just the claims with Epstein that came out about Andrew, but there was also an avalanche of other claims about his behavior elsewhere, including his behavior through his role as trade envoy.
There are many claims about Andrew spending time in Thailand and a lot of these stories involve his treatment of women and there have also been a number of claims from royal protection officers who worked at the palace during this period where they discussed how Andrew would have a constant flow of women brought through the gates of Buckingham Palace on a constant basis.
The financial details of Andrew have also been severely scrutinized over the years, and he and Fergie have also had financial ties with Epstein. There are an astonishing plethora of details about Andrew's financial ties to the Middle East. And a lot of these details are in the book that I just mentioned entitled The Rise and Fall of the House of York.
As I said, the author of Entitled, Dr. Andrew Lowry is a historian and he's written a number of other books and two other royal books. Before he started writing about the royal family, he had written mostly books about British intelligence. And he moved into the topic of the royals with Lord Mountbatton who was the great uncle of Andrew and Charles and the uncle of Prince Phillip.
He was very involved in Prince Philip's life and in Prince Philip and the Queen meeting in the first place. In the book on Mount Batton, there are very serious claims levied against Lord Mountbatton about him attacking young boys. And when the book was originally released, many people kind of scoffed at the claims about the two victims that were interviewed for this book.
But since the publishing of the book several years ago, there have been several more victims come forward. And currently, there is a case ongoing in Belfast. Mount Batton was killed by the RA in 1979 and he was a huge figure in the royal family's life. And when Prince Phillip was marrying the queen andrenouncing his own royal titles from Greece, he then took the Mount Batten name from his uncle.
And it's why Andrew is now known as Mount Batton Windsor because the royals don't really have a last name. They end up just going by their titles. And so if there ever are members of the family without titles, like the kids of Princess Anne and the kids of Prince Edward, they said that they didn't want their kids to have titles so that they could lead some sort of normal life and they came up with this kind of okay, you're going to use Mount Batton Windsor.
Originally, Prince Philip and Mount Batton just wanted Mount Batton, but a lot of the royal advisers kind of squashed this idea. Traditionally, even though they do have this Mountbatton Windsor surname, it isn't normally used by the likes of like Prince William and Prince Harry and even Andrew's kids because when they do have to use some sort of surname, last name like in school or in the armed forces, they will generally take the title of their parent and use it.
So when William and Harry were at school, they would go by William Wales and Harry Wales because their dad was obviously the Prince of Wales. Dr. Andrew Lowry's second book was on the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, the couple whose relationship is kind of the reason that we're dealing with Andrew in the line of succession today.
And also just another little bit of information on Andrew Lowry, who wrote the book that I'm mentioning. He isn't just someone who like did research for a month or something or has just collated a lot of stories from newspapers over the years. He is a historian and has spent years on this book about the Yorks.
His previous books had actually been gifted to the Buckingham Palace staff as part of like their Christmas kind of hamper thing they put together. He has done hundreds of interviews and spoken to all sorts of people involved with the royal family and people who knew the Yorks from when they were at school all the way up to present day. People who worked in their house, friends, like all types of people that you can imagine.
And there are a lot of things also that the lawyers, his book was published through Collins and they actually ended up having to take some things out including a claim about Donald Trump and his wife Melania which I'll play you the clip of so you can hear it through him. But I will leave also as I said a lot of the interviews down below but specifically with Andrew so that not Andrew Mountbatten so that you can watch some of the interviews if you want to because they are very interesting.
>> I had various references in my book to Melania Trump. Epstein had actually been her lover before um Trump but Trump didn't like that in the book so he uh ordered it to be withdraw to be taken out of the book after about 60,000 copies have been printed. So, seemed to be a pretty pointless gesture, but anyway, my publishers did it, but I keep spreading the word.
>> Trump pressured for a number of items and stories to be taken out of the book, but another figure who had significant details removed from the book under pressure and legal reasons, was Hunter Biden. And Andrew Lowry has also said that since publishing the book, which was only like two months ago, he has had a ton of other people bring him stories and he's going to be like putting some in like an updated paperback version, but he is working on another book, which it'll probably be a few years away, but it's going to be called Untitled.
Apparently, there was only one royal family that's issued a denial since Andrew published his book, and that was Prince Harry over a story about him and Andrew getting into a physical altercation when Harry had announced that he was going to marry Meghan Markle. Andrew apparently said to Harry to get his life together and that his marriage would only last a month because Meghan Markle was too old for him.
I mean, the goal of Andrew to say any of that to him, but apparently Prince Harry has said this isn't true. I will talk a little bit more about Harry in a little bit because, as I mentioned, my cousin did go to school with Harry. Although my cousin wasn't like close to him or anything like that, but an immediate member of my family, I have to be very careful with what I'm saying here, but an immediate member of my family is friends with one of Harry's closest like lifelong friends.
And they have certainly told me a lot of illuminating things about even just being friends with someone who is a senior member of the royal family and the kind of protocols that they have to go through and what happens if something's going on and there's trouble or there's issues. And I I will go into that towards the very end of the video because it is very fascinating.
But the person that I said was friends with Harry since like childhood. He actually did say to me that he hasn't been as close to him since he got married and of course since he moved to the US and they have beenfriends since they were kids and Harry's like a few years older than me. So I will talk about that and a story or two at the end.
But at the heart of this Andrew Lowry book, it is quite honestly, yes, like very illuminating about a lot of the Jeffrey Epstein friendship and there's a lot of other disgusting vile allegations being committed by Andrew and the allegations against Virginia Guay and all the other situations over the years about these girls and women that have come forward. word.
They are abhorent, but there are also huge, huge financial ties to Jeffrey Epstein and especially Sarah Ferguson has been bailed out by Jeffrey Epstein with money many, many times. There aren't exact figures for how much Sarah and Andrew received from Jeffrey Epstein over the years, but many people have reported this number to be into the millions.
And it's also allegedly these money problems that kept Andrew and Sarah being friends with Epstein even after his arrests. And that's the mid2000s arrest and the 2010 arrest. Even though Andrew emphatically denied that he did not speak to Epstein after those infamous pictures in New York at the end of 2010.
There was recently released emails that showed Andrew sending emails to Epstein in 2011. And there's also emails between Epstein and Sarah Ferguson after this 2010 day as well. Jeffrey Epste and Gla Maxwell were even invited to the 18th birthday of Princess Beatatrice, Andrew, and Sarah's oldest daughter.
And can you imagine knowing who Jeffrey Epstein is and inviting him to your own daughter's 18th birthday that your other 16-year-old daughter is at and all of their friends are at. And this wasn't just Jeffrey Epstein that was there. Harvey Weinstein was also there as well. And there's a very famous picture of Epstein, Weinstein, and Maxwell at this party.
Bringing their daughters to meet these type of people is nothing new for Andrew and Sarah though because they brought their daughters on numerous vacations with Epstein. Sarah Ferguson brought the daughters to meet Epstein after he was released from prison the first time and I say prison in air quotes. They also, as I said, had Harvey Weinstein at the daughter's birthday party.
And Sarah Ferguson also brought the daughters to meet Sha Combmes. Diddy. Andrew and Sarah have also brought their daughters in on a number of their very questionable financial situations as well. I cannot overstate how being a royal isn't like being an influencer or a celebrity. They should not be enriching themselves through all of these incredibly allegedly sketchy ways.
There's also the fact that when they bring their daughters to meet Epstein or Diddy, there is obscene amounts of money being spent on the daughter's security that they did receive up until 2011, which is when Prince Charles or King Charles kind of nixed it then. But they were receiving this insane millions of pounds being spent on security despite the fact they weren't working royals.
And it was all because Andrew insisted on them having it and all these other insane things. When Andrew invited Epstein and Weinstein to his daughter's 18th birthday in 2006, it was only several weeks before that that Epstein had been investigated for what he was arrested for in 2006, which was rape of children. And they ended up going so so far to basically just let him get off scot-free even though he did plead guilty to the charges and even the charges which were prostitution which is insane because his victim was literally a child. They ended
up giving him 13 months in prison, which I'm using air quotes because it wasn't any sort of punishment because he was allowed to be on work release, which meant he was sleeping in prison at the weekends, which it's like a country club. It's not like a prison. And the rest of the time he went to his office. He was allowed to do as he pleased.
He continued on with his life. And even if he was in prison for that time, 13 months for that unforgivable crime is insane. And all of this was just swept under the rug. Nothing to see here. And nobody cared or gave it any attention. And he was being investigated when he was at this princess's 18th birthday party.
The thought that they didn't know that he was being investigated is insane to me, especially hearing everything that I've heard about how even like friends are looked into. And only 8 days after the birthday party was when Epstein was arrested in 2006. And Andrew still claims he knew nothing about it before the birthday party and nothing about it afterwards.
It was only when the newspapers published about it years later that he learned about it, despite the fact that very recent information has come out that showed not only was Andrew staying with Epstein all the time, but he was speaking to him at least once a week, every week. In 2011, the photo of Andrew and Virginia Grey is published for the first time in the mail on Sunday.
And as I've said in videos before, the Daily Mail is gross andinvasive and it sensationalizes everything. But there are certain situations where they do come through and they usually are a lot of the time the only people that will publish certain things like this or be the first to kind of do it and then everybody else will follow suit.
And I have to say that if Virginia had not been uh tracked down by Sharon Church from the Melon Sunday uh and given her story, we wouldn't know anything about any of this. >> The photo of Andrew and Virginia was printed in February 2011. And another famous picture or infamous picture was printed that month in another newspaper tabloid called The News of the World, which is now defunct.
But that picture was also one that just went on to haunt Andrew. And this is apart from the Virginia Duprey one. This is the other infamous picture. And it is Andrew and Epstein walking in Central Park. Andrew was actually staying with Epstein at his New York mansion for 5 days. And Andrew claims that he went to New York to break up the friendship with Epstein over his arrest and everything else being made public.
And there were several parties thrown in Andrew's honor. As I said, he was there for 5 days. He stayed with Epstein. And after the visit, Epstein gave money to Andrew and Sarah Ferguson. They claim it was 15K, but most other sources put it closer to 200K. In his disastrous disastrous interview that we're going to get into that happened in 2019, Andrew claims that he was too honorable to end the friendship over the phone and that's why he went and spent almost a week with a convicted pile that he knew was a convicted pile and threw parties with this absolute creep all
because he was too honorable and wanted to break the friendship up in As of a few weeks ago, we know this isn't true. We know that what he said in the 2019 interview about that was the end of the friendship and we never spoke again, we know it isn't true because there was emails just released like two weeks ago that show Andrew emailing Jeffrey Epstein and talking about how concerned he was about the photos of him and Virginia coming out and a back and forth with him and Epstein discussing how worried they were about one another.
And Andrew even signs off the email to the convicted people will play again soon with four exclamation points. So both of these infamous pictures of Andrew that paint the clearest picture of what's going on come out in February 2011. And the other significant Andrew news that month was after these pictures were published, he is given a very very high honor by his mother, the queen.
He was made a knight of the order. And this is a pattern that you will see where there's a significant development with the Jeffrey Epstein situation or there's a huge amount of public pressure between 2011 and 2019. And time and time again, Andrew was protected by the palace and the late queen.
I'm probably going to be beheaded for for saying this or or be like they're going to call for treason or something, but he was given accolades. He was if there wasn't accolades to give him, he was put in some prominent placement or he was with the queen going into church or in the car with her driving somewhere. So that it was this unspoken message of I support my son.
We as the royal family support Andrew. Even though that's not allegedly how other members of the royal family felt, especially King Charles, I always want to say Prince Charles and and I have trouble saying this too. The Prince and Princess of Wales, William and Kate. What I find especially wild about this whole story and all of it coming out is there's well there's actually two insane parts to this story about two unsung heroes in all of this absolute [ __ ] with Andrew and Epstein.
Two women who I don't think hardly anyone watching this will have heard of, especially one of them. And one of the stories concerns the News Night interview that I've referenced a little bit, the 2019 interview that everyone who knows anything about this will know about where Andrew just looked like the biggest idiot and most guilty idiot in the world.
So, the news site interview and the thing that I think is insane that there's a massive unsung hero in that situation. Put a pin in that, but there's another unsung hero in this whole situation with Virginia Eupray and Andrew and Epstein because this story should have come out 3 years before it came out.
There was an American reporter at ABC named Amy Robach who three years before everything kicked off with Andrew, before things even came out about Epstein, when hardly anyone knew who he was, she had done an investigation, Amy Roach, into everything with Epstein. She had found Virginia Eupray, who at this point was pretty much in hiding in Australia.
And the only reason that this is known that Amy Roback did this whole investigation, spoke to Virginia, had all the research and did months of investigating. This is only known because Amy Robach made like an off- camerara remark to her crew oneday in the studio when she'd finished reporting on a Jeffrey Epstein story and when they cut to commercial or cut away, she basically said to the crew and the people around her how pissed she was that she had done this story three years before. She'd done all the leg work, all
the research, spoken to Virginia. Virginia said that she'd speak and everything was in place. But when they put the information to the palace, which is very common, especially in British journalism and especially when dealing with the royals, it's very easy also to sue people in the UK for defamation and liel.
So they will always and journalism in general will give them a right of reply. You know, it's always at the end of like documentaries when they say, "Oh, we reached out to Prince Andrew, but he had no comment or they give you like a line or something, you always supposed to present what you found so that they can counter it or give more context or whatever.
" So, when ABC, who Amy Roach was working for, went to the palace, the palace said, "If you put this story out, we will crush you. We will cut you off from all royal correspondents. we will cut you off from all access. You will lose anything to do with the royals forever. And at this stage when this was happening, this was when William and Kate, their wedding and ABC didn't want to lose that royal access, which is a huge bringin for them of people.
So, they ended up bowing to the pressure of the palace and they killed the story. >> I've had the story for three years. I've had this interview with Virginia Roberts. We would not put it on the air. The palace found out that we had her whole allegations about Prince Andrew and threatened us a million different ways. She told me everything.
She had pictures. She had everything. She was in hiding for 12 years. We convinced her to come out. I'm so pissed right now. Like three years ago saying like on like we there will come a day when we will realize Jeffrey Epste was the most prolific country has ever known. I had it all three years ago.
The only thing really done in 2011 when all of these pictures came out and the story started to emerge about Andrew and Epstein was Andrew was removed from his role as trade ambassador and there had been complaints about him from the beginning. So so many complaints about his behavior, how he treated people, how he spoke to people, how embarrassing he was for the UK.
But any complaints just fell on deaf ears because he was the queen's favorite son. Jeffrey Epstein wasn't arrested until July 2019. And as most people, if not everyone watching this will know, the following month in August 2019 was when he was found in his Manhattan cell and he had allegedly taken his own life. There were a lot of questions raised and there's still a lot of questions about his passing and there's a lot of circumstances that look incredibly questionable and sketchy.
I do really want to do a video or probably a series of videos on everything with Epstein because my psychic powers are now five for five. Every topic I pick to do a video on, there's some massive significant development either while I'm working on the video or just after I release it.
And I'm filming this on the 18th of December. So, there is supposed to be more Epstein files released in the next day or two. And I do think there'll be more about Andrew in it. I think that it is a difficult topic to cover on YouTube, especially because I don't do sponsorships. So, I will look at doing it in 2026.
And I am really interested in doing other videos about the royal family and and even just another about Andrew and Fergie because there's so so much more to go into outside of the Epstein stuff. But I I do think there will be further correspondence between Epstein and Andrew and other information that will come out in these files.
So, if that happens and there's enough to warrant another video, then I I definitely would want to do that. But over the 2010s, there were more and more headlines and stories coming out about Andrew and people were being really, really fed up with him just kind of swanning around being paid for by the UK taxpayers who fund the monarchy and nothing happening.
it just kind of falling on deaf ears. But when everything happened with Epstein in 2019, the pressure and spotlight on this situation was becoming untenable and the palace and Andrew really couldn't ignore it any longer. and his advisers, especially his private secretary, Amanda Thirst, decided that Andrew should do an interview and address the whole situation, which is so surprising for the royals because as most people will know, their famous motto is never complain, never explain.
In 2019, when all of this pressure was mounting, Andrew's main job was to be the head of this thing called Pitch at the Palace, which was kind of like a young entrepreneur, royal version of Dragon's Den, where young entrepreneurs would come in, pitch their business, and hopeto get funding. There were a number of extremely questionable people involved with this pitch at the palace, and also questionable people who received money from this.
And of course, there's also like legitimate people who got help from it. But it was later also found, and Andrew Lowry talks about this in his book, that Andrew himself was taking 2% of the money for himself privately and going into this separate company called Pitch at the Palace Global, which was where he was putting this 2% for himself.
As I mentioned earlier, there are extensive stories about Andrew's questionable financial dealing. So, it's not really that surprising that he was finding a way to profit because that's allegedly what he normally does. Even if you don't look into like all of these specific financial stories about all these ties in the Middle East and in Asia and things, there's even evidence like in the open the fact that yes, he was gifted like this insane house by the queen that had like a helellipad and a pool and a cinema, but he also was able to buy an 18 million pound ski chalet.
Like that's insane for someone that's supposed to be on 275k a year, £18 million ski shalet. And there's also always been reports about this room inside his house called Aladdin's Cave, which just contained gifts piled to the ceiling from people that Andrew and Sarah Ferguson had these relationships with.
And a lot of the time they would send them very expensive jewelry. And there's even things that brought the daughters in and mysterious amounts of money being deposited into theirs or their daughter's private bank accounts and they'd be labeled things like birthday gift when their birthday was like 7 months away. Of course, Sarah Ferguson has also sold everything possible, which I cannot stress enough.
The royal should not profit from being a royal and especially Sarah Ferguson isn't even a royal anymore. And everything possible that she could do she did. And she would always attach her duchess title even though she doesn't have it anymore. And she would be like the ambassador for Weight Watchers. She published memoirs.
And every time that she would be kind of exposed for doing something vile or sketchy, she would reinvent herself, go on Oprah or some other show in the US and talk about how she changed and she learned her lesson and she was back. While of course people have always claimed Andrew was greedy and always wanted to enrich himself financially, a lot of his motivation also came from his wife's want for money and the finer things that he couldn't supply any other way than doing these sketchy things.
and his wife also got herself into considerable debt and that would motivate her to do these ludicrous things that would embarrass the royal family. And she was so disliked by the royal family that she was pretty much banished by them and not allowed to come to any sort of events and even private things too.
Prince Phillip was said to detest her so much that he was one of the people instrumental in saying she wasn't stepping foot at any sort of royal thing. And she wasn't even invited to William and Kate's wedding or Megan and Harry's wedding. She was completely removed from everything basically royal from 2010 onwards. But this wasn't because of Epstein.
Like it absolutely wasn't because of Epstein. It mainly started because she was exposed for selling her royal access. The paper that I mentioned earlier, the News of the World, they actually set her up in a sting to expose how she was selling her access to the royals. There was an undercover reporter who posed as a businessman and offered her half a million, which is at the time like $720,000.
and he gave her $40,000 cash as a down payment. And with this acceptance of cash, she promised to open doors into the royal family and introduce this businessman to Andrew. And they got this all on tape. >> 100,000 pounds when you can to me. Open doors. >> New print. >> Yeah. >> Is that deal? >> Yeah. So, this 2019 interview, it was a massive, massive interview.
It went viral in every sense of the word. It has won so many awards. It won interview of the year when it came out in 2019, and it absolutely was what prompted some sort of action to be taken in regards to Andrew and his royal life. It's also had numerous media pieces created from it. There was a TV series called A Very Royal Scandal that stars Michael Sheen as Andrew and Ruth Wilson as Emily Mateless.
And Ruth Wilson is fantastic in it. She gets Emily's voice like dead on and she has like quite a unique voice. So, it's re really great performance. Do you regret any of your behavior or your friendship with Epstein? >> No. Still not. >> There also was Scoop, which was a film on Netflix starring Jillian Anderson as Emily and Billy Piper as Sam Mallister, who was the booker for BBC News Night.
>> You're chasing a story that we're never going to get. >> This is the work. >> Sam Mallister was the person involvedwith Scoop. They actually ended up basing it on her book. And in Scoop, Jillian Anderson plays the part of Emily Mateless. She does a great job at the voice as well, but obviously she's also a fantastic actress.
>> Wouldn't have seen that in a BBC studio when I started. >> And Emily Mateless, who was the interviewer, the BBC interviewer, she ended up being an executive producer and consultant on the TV series A Very Royal Scandal. So Emily Maitless and Sam Mallister, yes, they had very successful careers before, but they've almost been able to have a career out of this interview because it was so successful.
But what I'm going to tell you now wasn't in the movie. It wasn't in the TV show. It wasn't in any of the awarded acceptance speeches. It wasn't submitted to the BAFTAs. And it really isn't anywhere. It's not in the mainstream media. is a very hard to find and very hard to even learn about. But it's also not in any way to diminish the interview.
It was an exceptional interview that resulted in an unprecedented situation with the royals and a blood prince of the queen being reprimanded, which was not something anyone thought would happen. But there is more to this story and a very very unsung hero that in no way has got the accolades that they deserve for their involvement in this piece.
The interview took place in November 2019, and there was ongoing work to get this interview for News Night with Andrew, but previously it was supposed to be about Pitch at the Palace, which we just talked about. In the TV show and the movies, they show this whole story of months of work and going back and forth and pushing and researching, and that allegedly is not true.
That is the public story and several journalists enhanced their careers as a result of that version with books and dramas. The reality is rather different. >> The News Night team only knew about this Epstein interview 72 hours before the interview would take place. Three months earlier in August 2019, a team at Panorama in Northern Ireland had approached the palace for a right of reply, which we also mentioned earlier.
As they had done an extensive investigation into Andrew, the Panorama team, the main person of which was producer Laura Burns, had spent an exhaustive amount of time and energy investigating all of the allegations against Andrew. The BBC had long been investigating Prince Andrew's relationship with Jeffrey Epste, not in London, but Northern Ireland.
And the key figure was not Emily Matless or Sam Mallister, but a BBC producer called Laura Burns. >> She had gone to America to speak to Virginia Grey and many other victims. She had gone literally doortodoor asking about Epstein and Gain Maxwell, about Andrew, and she spoke to people that had never been spoke to before.
They had an astonishing amount of information. At the time, Amanda Thirst, Andrew's private secretary, was pushing for an in-person interview for Andrew to address all of the allegations. And it was decided by thirst and the palace that it would be much better to have an hourlong sitdown with news night on the BBC where Andrew would have an hour to put across his case and be the queen of the sun sitting there talking about this.
They thought that would win people over. They didn't want the Panorama team to have an hour-ong piece going over all of the sorted details and allegations. >> How the interview moved from Panorama to Newsight is debatable, but the suspicion remains that the palace preferred a straight interview to a right of reply after a hard-hitting investigation.
Contrary to the narrative that has been presented, Newsight, which had only previously discussed an interview to promote Pitch at Palace, had just 72 hours notice of what would prove a seminal television event. And so Laura and her team were told the BBC would be doing the interview and they were to turn over everything, all of their research to the BBC.
>> 4 days later, Burns learned that Andrew was not doing an interview with them, but with Newsight, and that her months of research had to be passed to the Newsight team. >> Laura Burns, her assistant producer Olivia Davis, and their team wanted to see Andrew held to account. Laura Burns has said that she knew because of who Andrew was and this delusional world he lived in, she knew that an interview would be TV gold and would blow up in his face.
And so because the Panorama team cared about the story and the victims, even though it wouldn't be them who would be holding Andrew to account, nor them who would get the praise or accolades or income generated from these interviews, they not only allegedly turned over all of their research, but they went on to collaborate and massively help the News Night team and allegedly a large amount of the pressure points in the interview and the stories and the questions were with the assistance of Laura Burns.
Allegedly, Laura Burns also helped them fact check their questions, provided them withtimelines, shared her and her team's script, shared legal documents, and every shred of months and months of research. Working for the Northern Ireland Panorama Office, Burns and assistant producer Olivia Davis had traveled widely in the United States, checking police reports, interviewing Epstein staff, tracing victims of both him and Prince Andrew, and persuading Virginia Grey and her legal team to be interviewed on camera. In Burns's words,
the team also found personal email discussions between Galileain and Andrew discussing Virginia. The emails between Galileain and Andrew didn't exclaim, "It's a fake, I've never met her," or any other questions. Instead, they worked together to build a dossier about Virginia to leak to the media. The investigations were not without problems.
The women were followed by private investigators and had the police called on them. >> Laura Burns also provided all of the information and research she'd done looking into the infamous photo to be confirmed as real as this was when Andrew had started saying this photo was a fake. >> It was Burns who was required to prepare them.
She fact checked their video insert, shared Panorama's script, research contacts, legal documents, and detailed timelines, fact checked their questions, and wrote some of the most significant questions of her own. >> Despite all of this, Laura Burns's name was removed as a producer, and her name was also omitted from the BAFTA submissions.
>> Burns also checked the veracity of the photograph of him with Virginia Gay and shared all of that information freely with the News Night team. It was a positive story of collaboration with historically rival departments. Panorama and News Night working together to hold power to account and to get the prince's answers on record.
Unfortunately, that was where the collaboration ended. Burns' credit was removed from the interview broadcast. There was no mention of her crucial role in the BAFTA submission in the press or in any of the subsequent books or films. The single mother, who had made the interview coups possible, had been written out of the script.
I think there are bits and pieces in the TV show where when you know this story, you can kind of piece together where they've skirted around it in the TV show. And Emily Mateless has a podcast now called News Agents. And when the author of entitled Andrew Lowry was on News Agents, Emily Maitless wasn't there.
it was her co-host and he was very aggressive with the questions because Andrew Larry has been really the only person in the mainstream media any sort of mainstream publishing that has told this story and it is again when you know this story and you watch the interview it is very interesting. Could Emily Maitless have been on vacation or been ill? Absolutely.
But it does just seem kind of suspicious. I'm going to show you this clip, but just to note, this is the first question. This is the opening seconds of this interview. >> I've read the book and I'm struck by the efforts you went to and the detail you got on the finances, where some of the money was coming from, some of the dodgy dealing that you uncovered, but also how much you failed to uncover.
Why couldn't you get to the truth of it? >> Well, I agree. This is the tip of the iceberg and I've only uncovered things that were perhaps reported in the press or were uh legal cases where things emerged or legal depositions. I mean, if we hadn't had Virginia Gifrey, quite a lot of the stuff wouldn't have happened. >> Again, I'm not saying they didn't do amazing work with this interview.
I just think it's very sad that someone who did so much work, Laura Burns and her team, didn't get even a mention. As I said, the only place I found this story is in Andrew Larry's book entitled and also outside of the British media, mainly the Irish media. The main kind of BBC equivalent or like the Irish main news source is RG, which is Radio Televisarin, which is in Irish basically translated to Radio Television Ireland.
And there's stories about it on RTE, but if you look it up, it's it's very sparse the information. After the interview was conducted, Andrew thought it had gone extremely well. So much so, he gave the BBC a tour of the palace and even invited them to stay and watch Titanic for this movie night that they do for the palace staff.
The interview was filmed on a Thursday and they ended up airing it on a Saturday night. But before the airing on the Saturday night, the BBC released the transcripts to select journalists who started discussing it on social media and saying what an absolute disaster this was going to be. Of course, they were all embargoed, so it was just general things like that.
They couldn't go into specifics, but this did drum up even more hype because even just the fact that he was sitting down to discuss the Epstein allegations as the son of the queen, I mean, it was unprecedented. One other person read the transcriptsbefore the interview aired and that was the queen. And when the queen read the transcripts, that's when she couldn't ignore this any longer.
And Andrew, who was so confident that this was going to go fine, had actually gone on a shooting weekend on the Friday and was supposed to be gone to the Sunday. It's been said by people who attended the shooting weekend that on the Saturday lunchtime, Andrew received a tap on the shoulder and was summoned by the queen and he didn't return to the rest of the shooting weekend.
This is portrayed a little bit differently in the TV show and movies, but he ends up then being told you cannot basically be a part of public royal life any longer. >> Plane crashing into an oil tanker causing a tsunami kind of bad. The interview then aired around the world and people saw Andrew for an hour give the most nonsensical answers and justifications for his behavior and friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, which he said he did not regret.
>> Widely being described now as Prince Andrew's disastrous BBC interview. It's almost like he was placed in a self-destruct button. He claimed he'd never met Virginia Guay, that he'd never been upstairs in Golain Maxwell's house, despite the fact that there was a picture of him upstairs in Glay Maxwell's house with Virginia Du Fray.
Of course, this is back, you know, this picture was taken like back before iPhones and all of that. And it was taken on a disposable camera that Virginia had on March 10th, 2001. And there have been many different avenues that this has been looked into over the years and people who saw it long before it was published.
And they were even able to trace that this picture was published at a Walgreens 2 miles away from Epstein's house in Florida. And it was printed on March 13th, 2001. Virginia had shown it to other people like the reporter that I mentioned earlier before the stories came out, but sometime between that and the interview basically in 2019, the original had been not misplaced, but she just wasn't sure where it was cuz she'd moved from Australia and had moved other various times.
So, she wasn't able to produce the original that they kept asking for, although she had lent the original and other pictures to the FBI in 2011. And the FBI had made all these copies of the pictures. And when the FBI went back to look at the originals, to look at the front and back, the one picture of the FBI's copy that was missing was the one of Andrew, but obviously Virginia had tons of other copies.
In the interview, Andrew also goes on to make ludicrous claims about Virginia's account of this night that Andrew didn't meet her. He said that Virginia talked about him profusely sweating. And he said that he couldn't sweat because of an overdose of adrenaline in the Forklands war, which all my experience in the medical industry, I've never heard of that.
And I over the years since this interview have brought this subject up or it's come up with dozens of doctors and I've asked so many of them specifically about this claim and if it was something that I didn't know or was a gap in my knowledge and many of them specialists. One of them has been a specialist for 50 years and none of them have ever heard of this peculiar medical condition either.
Andrew also said that due to all the opportunities with Epstein and all of the people he was able to meet, no, he didn't regret his friendship with Epstein. If you haven't watched his interview, I've linked it below and I really implore you to watch it. It's insane, but also the result of someone just so deluded by their own self-importance.
He never has been told no or questioned about anything. He's had no consequences of his actions. He just thought he was so brilliant that he could sit down for an hour and people would just swallow whatever he said. Of course, the interview blew up in his face and instead of squashing the allegations, he had poured gasoline onto the allegations and it just went nuts online, in the media, everywhere.
After the interview, it kicked up so much anger with the public that the palace did start to panic. Andrew stepped back from royal life and he wasn't going to be publicly using his titles like HR or prince or Duke of York, which he did retain them privately for a while, but that has recently changed. The public were still very angry and Virginia then filed a lawsuit with her lawyer David Boyce who is the true definition of gray because he has represented people like Virginia but then also represented people like Harvey Weinstein and
original OG of the channel Elizabeth Holmes and her company Theronos. Boyce was actually very involved with Theronos and was on their board and I am the original Elizabeth Holmes hater because I have been following that lunatic for 20 years and I have a a massive deep dive on her and and some other videos when she was going through her her trial and I really want to do an update on her because she is like on Twitter beingabsolutely unhinged from prison And just to tie it all in, because as I always say, all these people always [ __ ]
know each other, even when they're in prison. Elizabeth Holmes, while she's been in prison, has been besties with Galain [ __ ] Maxwell. By 2022, there was still so much attention surrounding this Andrew situation, and it was going to be the Queen's 70th year on the throne. It was going to be a massive celebration for her platinum jubilee.
So Andrew ended up being forced to settle the case with Virginia with the stipulation that the amount wouldn't be disclosed, although it is reported to be 10 million. Some places report it as 12, but most places that I've read that I trust the sources more, it seems to be 10 million. And the other sort of key stipulations were that Virginia wasn't allowed to discuss anything.
She was kind of gagged for the year of the Platinum Jubilee 2022. It's also reported that various members of the royal family assisted Andrew with this settlement. Some places report the Queen, some report King Charles, and a lot of the money apparently some came from this ski chalet. They ended up selling this $18 million ski chalet.
Of course, also in 2022, the queen passed away as the longest reigning monarch in British history. Andrew was allowed to attend the funeral because of course it's his mother and he was actually heckled at the funeral. You're sexual. >> Powerful men should be allowed to commit sexual crimes and get away with that. >> He wasn't allowed to wear his uniform though and instead wore just like a plain morning suit.
pressure continued even after the queen's passing and more and more information came out about Andrew and Epstein and also at the same time Virginia was working on her memoir which the palace knew and obviously knew all of this wasn't going away. Very sadly this year Virginia was in a very serious car accident and in April this year she ended up taking her own life.
Her book has been published as of last month. Uh she worked on that with like a ghost rider and as I mentioned, Andrew Lowry, his book was just published about a month before Virginia. So, this kind of backtoback publishing of all of this information and the public still being so angry about the situation, King Charles actually did something against his brother that was very unprecedented and a lot of people didn't think this would happen.
But most people have heard that King Charles has wanted to do this for a long time. And this action has also kind of prompted some questions. In early October 2025, Andrew did give up his remaining royal titles, including the Duke of York. But on October 30th, a very shocking statement came from Buckingham Palace.
Statement read, "As of today, the king has initiated a formal process to remove the styles, titles, and honors of Prince Andrew. Formal notice has been served to surrender the lease on Royal Lodge, which is where he lived, and he did have a 75-year lease. So, a lot of people thought that he wouldn't be able to do that.
He will be moved to a private accommodation in Sandringham estate, which is understood to be privately funded by King Charles. The statement then went on to say, "These censors are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him." And the statement ended with a note that apparently Camila, the queen consort, added that said that the palace and the king and queen stood with any victims of any form of abuse.
Around this time too is when the further emails came out showing that Andrew was still in contact with Epstein after he said he was. And there was also emails from Sarah Ferguson to Epstein apologizing for when she had gone on Oprah and distanced herself from Epstein. And in the email, she goes on to again apologize and call him a Supreme friend.
There were other emails released that showed Andrew sending Virginia Grey's date of birth and social security number to royal protection officers in hopes of digging up an arrest record on Virginia, which she didn't have an arrest record. And Andrew also wanted other materials dug up, which most people believe this email was to try and orchestrate some sort of smear campaign against Virginia.
And there's also suggestion that he was implementing the services of companies for troll and bot accounts to go against Virginia. Andrew has one year to leave Royal Lodge. And I'm honestly not convinced that he will go to Sandringham. We'll we'll have to see. But he is still technically a prince and a prince by blood and he'll still be funded and they they can't really cut them completely loose because the palace and the royals live in fear of being exposed and the media and the last thing they want is another spare by Prince
Harry. So, I think that they also live in fear of Sarah Ferguson just telling it all. So, we'll have to see how they try and kick them out, but still keep them towing the line. Hi guys, editingAsh here. Just before we get into our Prince Harry stories, I just wanted to jump in cuz I forgot to kind of go into a little bit more detail about the HR because it will very much sting Andrew that this has been removed now because if you aren't an HR, there's a lot of little things that you have to do that he is going to have to do now that he
isn't anymore. So I am recording this for like the fourth time because I I I went too too deep because the royals and like history and stuff is a hyperfixation. I've read so much about this stuff that I could talk about George V's 1917 letter patterns that all of this stuff comes from. But I will save that for another day for you.
But basically HR is it's not actually a title like prince or princess. It's a style and so it is in the most basic of terms the style for the most senior members of the royal family and the people who usually have it are the monarch obviously and usually they they give it to the spouses of the HRH's on their wedding day because otherwise the spouse would have to do the whole faf thing that I'm going to explain here.
So then they it's the the kids of the monarch have it as well and the male line grandchildren of the monarch which is why when Charles became king Harry and Megan's kids automatically became prince and princess and became HRH's. So, usually there's you you can if you're not a working member of the royal family, I don't know why why you would have it.
And I know there was I think Harry and Megan talked about it in an inter maybe it was the Oprah interview. It it was one of them. Maybe it was a Netflix or maybe both actually, but they talked about how the kids weren't and it's all to do with this letter patent by George V, who was the queen's grandfather. And there's there's a whole saga like the queen was never supposed to be an heir.
She was never supposed to be queen. The last two Duke of Yorks became king. Just one through death and one through the abdication. So imagine if it was three for three with Andrew. And I did actually cut this out, but Sarah Ferguson is well has spent an obscene amount of money on psychics and is like super into them. And psychics have told her many things over the years, but one of them like in I think like the the early '9s told her that Charles was going to die in an avalanche and Andrew was going to be made regent while William was still under 18, which
is kind of like your helping rule while the heir is a a child. And there was actually an avalanche that Charles and Diana were involved in and people in their party died. So after that happened, Sarah Ferguson got like even deeper with the psychics. But as I always say, and it's night when I'm doing these, my ADHD have worn off.
So back back to the HRH's. So the HR, like I said, those are the people that have it. And when you do not have it or when you're just not an HRH, if I went into a room and there are HRH's there, I have to go in and say your royal highness. If it's a man, after you say it once, I mean, you can continue to say it, but you would say sir.
And then when you're leaving, you'll usually say it again. With a woman, you'll usually say, "Ma'am, as in ham." Same thing. Say it the first time, last time. Like when you see uh royals being interviewed, the interviewer usually do that. And then when you come in, I'm a woman, so I would curtsy men bow. And the fact that Andrew isn't an HR anymore.
So if you are an HRH, when you go in, like when Harry goes in to William, he doesn't have to do all this faf. If they go into Charles, like they do because he's king. And I mean, they they do all this [ __ ] even when it's just them. William and Harry are are a lot more like re relaxed about it and stuff.
Like I said, I have friends that have been like friends with Harry in particular and he's not making his his friends come in and like bow to him. Andrew does though when he will be like on I don't know like a shooting weekend with people and he comes down in the morning if they don't stand up and your royal highness and bow and curtsy and stuff he will leave the room and be like let's try this again.
So some of them they care about all this stuff, but the fact that Andrew isn't one anymore, he has to do it all. So when he goes into a room and William is there or Kate's there or his own daughters are there, he has to do all of that. He has to go in and bow to his own daughters and all this.
And even like all of them will have always done that to the queen. They will if they go into a room and they're I don't know they're seeing the queen, they haven't seen her that day and it's just them, they will do that. He wasn't using the HR up until now. But he I'm sure he was using it in private because it wasn't taken away until, you know, that happened on the 30th of October.
So, I'm sure that really really stings him that he has to go in and do that whole FAF to his daughters and nieces and nephews and everything likethat. This is like unprecedented that they are taking this stuff away and even the house and stuff like before they'd be like, "Oh, no, it's an ironclad lease and stuff.
" So, it is a really big deal and either there's something coming down the line and they're getting ahead of it or Charles is a lot sicker than we're being led to believe. And William, he doesn't want to leave William with this mess of Andrew because the word has always been that William does not have any time for Andrew.
We'll have to see what happens there. That's that's kind of what I'm what I'm thinking. It could also be to the point where they're just so sick of dealing with it. Think that there will be a lot more shakeups in in the monarchy to come. And like I said, I do have a super big interest in all this stuff.
So, I'd love any excuse to talk about it again, but I will try and wrap it up now and send it back to past me. I will tell you a very harmless, I think, story about Prince Harry. This is something he's telling me like at dinner. So, it wasn't exactly like tell me the exact date and everything that this happened. And it does kind of show you that like the royals are always looming at what is going on.
And they they are fully apprised as all of the people that are around the royals. And you know they have MI5 and MI6 telling them information like it it's just it's so difficult to believe that Andrew knew nothing about even if you you do believe that he never saw anything with Epstein which also but him saying he didn't know about these arrests and all of that it's just very difficult to believe but obviously people can make their own decision with Prince Harry and this friend and there's like a big group of friends. They were in Australia and
they'd been at some sort of event or something that they were all in like suit jackets and they're driving in Australia in like some sort of jeep and they end up at night and they end up hitting a kangaroo and for some reason thinking the kangaroo was dead, they dressed the kangaroo up in one of their like suit jackets and the kangaroo had just been kind of like hit and knocked unconscious.
This sounds ludicrous, I know. And the kangaroo then pops up, not dead, and hops away with the full suit on. And whenever they see the kangaroo going away, they realize that the kangaroo, the jacket that was on it had the car keys in it. And they had to call in like the Royal Protection Squad basically to save them.
And there's also been stories over the years about Princess Beatatric and Eugenie using a lot of their royal protection squad because when they were younger and going out and getting drunk and things, this is before Uber as basically designated drivers to drive them home from going out and being pissed. And you know that that's what taxpayers are paying for apparently.
And as I said, there are a plethora of other stories with the royals, but just speaking to people that have had close relationships with the royals, as I said, the things that they've gone through over the years about having pictures deleted and being sat down after certain situations and being told, "You do not tell anyone about this.
" like it's it's very very orchestrated and that's why Prince Andrew it just does seem like he was allowed to do whatever he wanted and there were absolutely no repercussions because it's it's astonishing all of this story but also how long he was able to get away with this and how close Epstein was at like the daughter's birthday.
And there's also pictures of Gain Maxwell and Kevin Spacy on the thrones at the palace. And apparently Gain Maxwell like showing other people around and I went to an immediate family member's wedding at Hillsbor Castle, which is the queen's resident in Northern Ireland. I don't want to get into this wedding, but the thrones are there.
Obviously, I'll I'll put pictures in. You can't just go up and sit on the thrones. Like, it is absolutely not allowed. Even at 3:00 in the morning when I don't drink, but everybody else was pissed and and walking around. It's just not allowed. And they have people around and stuff. And we were upstairs in the castle and everything.
Delane Maxwell and Kevin Spacy like either they felt so confident and so brazen that they were with Andrew that they could do that or he will have been like, "Yeah, go sit on them. Take a picture. I'll show you." There's there's pictures of people in my family like standing in front of them, pointing at them. You don't sit in them.
So the fact that Glaine Maxwell was close enough to Andrew or whatever the arrangement was that that happened that is pretty significant. There is so so much more I want to say about Andrew and Fergie and the royals in general. The royals are kind of a little hyper fixation subject that I'm always fascinated by.
So I would love love to do more videos on them other videos. So, please let me know down below if you would like to see any of that. If not,I'll probably make it some options on my Patreon monthly topic poll. As I said, there is more information being released on Epstein and that should be coming in the next few days.
Hopefully, we'll see what this gleans and the situation with what Maxwell's released, too. So, that has literally just happened as I was filming that she's released something that it seems like it's either trying to distract or trying to halt something or put a pause. So, we'll have to see either way if it comes out when it does come out what's in there.
But hopefully, we'll be able to cover it in some way. My prediction is there will be a lot more in whatever is released with Epstein and Sarah Ferguson and Andrew. And I'm not 100% Andrew will go to Sandringham. I think the other option is he could go to the Middle East or somewhere if he really does get concerned because they have said they are going to look into him trying to orchestrate this smear campaign.
But we'll have to see. All of that sounds pretty insane and unprecedented, but look what's happened already. 20 years ago, people would not have believed this would be the situation. My new merch, Patreon, social media, Go Media, and the sources with everything I mentioned, interviews, books, all of that in the description box and pin comment.
If you made it to the end, leave MVP in the comments so I can thank you. It is so appreciated. Thank you so much for watching and as always make sure to stay safe, take care of yourselves and G and I hope to see you in the next one.
Exploring the Vast World of Esotericism
Esotericism, often shrouded in mystery and intrigue, encompasses a wide array of spiritual and philosophical traditions that seek to delve into the hidden knowledge and deeper meanings of existence. It's a journey of self-discovery, spiritual growth, and the exploration of the interconnectedness of all things.
This mind map offers a glimpse into the vast landscape of esotericism, highlighting some of its major branches and key concepts. From Western traditions like Hermeticism and Kabbalah to Eastern philosophies like Hinduism and Taoism, each path offers unique insights and practices for those seeking a deeper understanding of themselves and the universe.
Whether you're drawn to the symbolism of alchemy, the mystical teachings of Gnosticism, or the transformative practices of yoga and meditation, esotericism invites you to embark on a journey of exploration and self-discovery. It's a path that encourages questioning, critical thinking, and direct personal experience, ultimately leading to a greater sense of meaning, purpose, and connection to the world around us.
Welcome to "The Chronically Online Algorithm"
1. Introduction: Your Guide to a Digital Wonderland
Welcome to "π¨π»πThe Chronically Online Algorithmπ½". From its header—a chaotic tapestry of emoticons and symbols—to its relentless posting schedule, the blog is a direct reflection of a mind processing a constant, high-volume stream of digital information. At first glance, it might seem like an indecipherable storm of links, videos, and cultural artifacts. Think of it as a living archive or a public digital scrapbook, charting a journey through a universe of interconnected ideas that span from ancient mysticism to cutting-edge technology and political commentary.
The purpose of this primer is to act as your guide. We will map out the main recurring themes that form the intellectual backbone of the blog, helping you navigate its vast and eclectic collection of content and find the topics that spark your own curiosity.
2. The Core Themes: A Map of the Territory
While the blog's content is incredibly diverse, it consistently revolves around a few central pillars of interest. These pillars are drawn from the author's "INTERESTORNADO," a list that reveals a deep fascination with hidden systems, alternative knowledge, and the future of humanity.
This guide will introduce you to the three major themes that anchor the blog's explorations:
* Esotericism & Spirituality
* Conspiracy & Alternative Theories
* Technology & Futurism
Let's begin our journey by exploring the first and most prominent theme: the search for hidden spiritual knowledge.
3. Theme 1: Esotericism & The Search for Hidden Knowledge
A significant portion of the blog is dedicated to Esotericism, which refers to spiritual traditions that explore hidden knowledge and the deeper, unseen meanings of existence. It is a path of self-discovery that encourages questioning and direct personal experience.
The blog itself offers a concise definition in its "map of the esoteric" section:
Esotericism, often shrouded in mystery and intrigue, encompasses a wide array of spiritual and philosophical traditions that seek to delve into the hidden knowledge and deeper meanings of existence. It's a journey of self-discovery, spiritual growth, and the exploration of the interconnectedness of all things.
The blog explores this theme through a variety of specific traditions. Among the many mentioned in the author's interests, a few key examples stand out:
* Gnosticism
* Hermeticism
* Tarot
Gnosticism, in particular, is a recurring topic. It represents an ancient spiritual movement focused on achieving salvation through direct, personal knowledge (gnosis) of the divine. A tangible example of the content you can expect is the post linking to the YouTube video, "Gnostic Immortality: You’ll NEVER Experience Death & Why They Buried It (full guide)". This focus on questioning established spiritual history provides a natural bridge to the blog's tendency to question the official narratives of our modern world.
4. Theme 2: Conspiracy & Alternative Theories - Questioning the Narrative
Flowing from its interest in hidden spiritual knowledge, the blog also encourages a deep skepticism of official stories in the material world. This is captured by the "Conspiracy Theory/Truth Movement" interest, which drives an exploration of alternative viewpoints on politics, hidden history, and unconventional science.
The content in this area is broad, serving as a repository for information that challenges mainstream perspectives. The following table highlights the breadth of this theme with specific examples found on the blog:
Topic Area Example Blog Post/Interest
Political & Economic Power "Who Owns America? Bernie Sanders Says the Quiet Part Out Loud"
Geopolitical Analysis ""Something UGLY Is About To Hit America..." | Whitney Webb"
Unconventional World Models "Flat Earth" from the interest list
This commitment to unearthing alternative information is further reflected in the site's organization, with content frequently categorized under labels like TRUTH and nwo. Just as the blog questions the past and present, it also speculates intensely about the future, particularly the role technology will play in shaping it.
5. Theme 3: Technology & Futurism - The Dawn of a New Era
The blog is deeply fascinated with the future, especially the transformative power of technology and artificial intelligence, as outlined in the "Technology & Futurism" interest category. It tracks the development of concepts that are poised to reshape human existence.
Here are three of the most significant futuristic concepts explored:
* Artificial Intelligence: The development of smart machines that can think and learn, a topic explored through interests like "AI Art".
* The Singularity: A hypothetical future point where technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unforeseeable changes to human civilization.
* Simulation Theory: The philosophical idea that our perceived reality might be an artificial simulation, much like a highly advanced computer program.
Even within this high-tech focus, the blog maintains a sense of humor. In one chat snippet, an LLM (Large Language Model) is asked about the weather, to which it humorously replies, "I do not have access to the governments weapons, including weather modification." This blend of serious inquiry and playful commentary is central to how the blog connects its wide-ranging interests.
6. Putting It All Together: The "Chronically Online" Worldview
So, what is the connecting thread between ancient Gnosticism, modern geopolitical analysis, and future AI? The blog is built on a foundational curiosity about hidden systems. It investigates the unseen forces that shape our world, whether they are:
* Spiritual and metaphysical (Esotericism)
* Societal and political (Conspiracies)
* Technological and computational (AI & Futurism)
This is a space where a deep-dive analysis by geopolitical journalist Whitney Webb can appear on the same day as a video titled "15 Minutes of Celebrities Meeting Old Friends From Their Past." The underlying philosophy is that both are data points in the vast, interconnected information stream. It is a truly "chronically online" worldview, where everything is a potential clue to understanding the larger systems at play.
7. How to Start Your Exploration
For a new reader, the sheer volume of content can be overwhelming. Be prepared for the scale: the blog archives show thousands of posts per year (with over 2,600 in the first ten months of 2025 alone), making the navigation tools essential. Here are a few recommended starting points to begin your own journey of discovery:
1. Browse the Labels: The sidebar features a "Labels" section, the perfect way to find posts on specific topics. Look for tags like TRUTH and matrix for thematic content, but also explore more personal and humorous labels like fuckinghilarious!!!, labelwhore, or holyshitspirit to get a feel for the blog's unfiltered personality.
2. Check the Popular Posts: This section gives you a snapshot of what content is currently resonating most with other readers. It’s an excellent way to discover some of the blog's most compelling or timely finds.
3. Explore the Pages: The list of "Pages" at the top of the blog contains more permanent, curated collections of information. Look for descriptive pages like "libraries system esoterica" for curated resources, or more mysterious pages like OPERATIONNOITAREPO and COCTEAUTWINS=NAME that reflect the blog's scrapbook-like nature.
Now it's your turn. Dive in, follow the threads that intrigue you, and embrace the journey of discovery that "The Chronically Online Algorithm" has to offer.
.webp)
