May 15, 2025 • 50 mins
Could growing regional conflicts be driven by the race to control certain mineral resources? Could the United States slide into martial law -- if so, what would that mean? Join Ben and Matt for all this and more in this week's listener mail segment.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Welcome back to the show. My name is Matt. Our
colleague Noel is on an adventure but will be returning shortly.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
They called me Ben. We're joined as always with our
super producer Dylan, the Tennessee Pal and original Jugglo Faked.
Most importantly, you argue you are here. That makes this
the stuff they don't want you to know. If you
are tuning in to our listener mail program the evening
it publishes, Welcome and congratulations to all of us for
(00:52):
making it to May fifteenth, twenty twenty five. Spoiler Matt,
Dylan and I are recording this on May ninth, so
we hope that things don't get too crazy in the
next few days before this publishes. But we've got we
got a lot to get to of course, you know, Matt.
(01:12):
It's our listener mail program, which means it's time for
one of our favorite parts of the show.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
You specifically Brock, who says, can we get an update
on the humble Farmers are they still humble farmers.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
I haven't wrote written back to Broc yat and thank
you for be the account of Bill of Buddy there. Yes,
it's a question on everyone's mind, right step aside, new Pope, right,
good job you had your time in the headlines.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
We need more about the farmers humble or no.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Well we got good news, Brock thankfully. Oh man, it's
it's so nice that Bethesda has gifted us a whole
slew of humble farmers to check back in with. Yes,
because they just re released Oblivion. Yeah, and there's so
many humble farmers in that game. I don't know if
you guys noticed. And they're great.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
They are, they are, you know, they're just keeping their
heads down, they're farming, humble. You know what more? What
more could you say other than we don't yet have
We don't yet have Oblivion's opinion on Ruda Bega's, but
we do have some inspiration for you. But that's the
(02:28):
courtesy of none other than the legendary Tennessee Pal never
gets old, never gets old ed ed folks, you know
you are our You are our friends, our neighbors, are
fellow conspiracy realist and we always aim to be transparent,
(02:51):
so you do need to know the most important thing
you will hear this evening. We are not stopping the
rude bega references. We are not stopping rudebega jokes. If
you want to write to us or call us with
ideas about new Ruta bega stuff for Dylan to write,
we welcome you. If you are writing to complain about
(03:12):
this bit, we'll do that thing Corporate America does where
we'll say we hear you, and then we'll keep doing
this bit exactly.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
Ruda begas, by the way, have a two point two
out of five rating according to Google, what basically not
really our favorite this fresh Ruta begas, by the way,
and a single fresh Ruta bega at Walmart right now
costs approximately two dollars and ninety eight cents US. So
(03:46):
hopefully you're joining us in our pursuit to increase the
price of Ruta begas because we are trying to help
all these humble farmers out there, or just making Ruta
begas man.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Also other name. You may know rudabagas by another name,
the humble turnip or the neap as they say in Scotland.
And I love that you're pointing this outmat because we
want this to be exactly the same kind of misstep
that we made earlier when we kept shouting out one
(04:20):
of my favorite books, The Atlas of Remote Islands, which
now is out of publication and relatively unaffordable.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
Wait, so we kill things when we talk about them
a lot.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
No, we accelerate, we platform and accelerate knowledge thereof Okay, Okay,
So hopefully this is going to be great. As you
said for the humble Farmers, We're also going to hear
from our pal Buford, We're going to hear from Lord
V and Fozzy. We're gonna hear from none other than
(04:52):
the Shucks, bringing us one of our favorite slash most
terrifying hobby horses of conversation. Before we do any of that,
Matt Tennessee, fellow conspiracy realist, I suggest we take a
pause for a moment and appreciate the concept of democracy,
(05:15):
as imperfect as it is in practice. It's a pretty
pretty banger theory, and we've reluctantly perhaps acknowledged this on
the show in various times in the past. It is
historically abnormal to live in a country where you can
(05:35):
complain about the country without getting black bagged. That's an
a political point. It is a good thing if you
live in a country with that superpower assigned to its citizens.
But how long shall that be the case?
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Well, let's jump into that, which sounds it's like so
much fun, super happy.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
You know, we're we're basically like one of those softball
morning news shows, you know what I mean, only the
light issues, only the fun ones.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Softball light issues. Coming right up, and we've returned. Just
a quick note here as we begin, everybody on the
show looks at the correspondence that comes through from everyone,
all of us. We all look at it together, and
every once in a while we find things that make
(06:30):
us go, oh, that sounds interesting, or that's a rumor,
we should look into that kind of thing. A while back,
we got this message from Lord V. And to be honest,
I didn't think much of it initially, So let's jump
to that. And there's nothing against you, Lord V. It's
just I wasn't concerned at this moment. So here's the message.
Speaker 4 (06:51):
Good morning, gentlemen. This is Lord V from Pennsylvania. Wanted
to run this past you guys to see information you
have on it. I keep getting these interesting posts about
our government's going to be institutionalizing a form of I
guess you would call it domestic protection a martial law
(07:13):
in our country, and I wanted to see if you
were aware of this. Whatever information you can find, you
greatly appreciate, jentleen, because this makes me very nervous. All right,
all right, gentlemen, have a great day and take care.
I just want to know these things.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
So, first of all, thank you so much for sending
that to us, Lord Van, for having those thoughts. I
would just say, we hear that kind of thing a lot.
That concept of maybe United States wide martial law has
been or the threat of it, has been around for
(07:51):
decades and decades and decades, depending on what the political
situation is, what the geopolitical situation is. The threat or
concept of of countrywide martial law has just kind of
been sitting there, right, So when fears about it arise,
generally it's one of those things that we think about,
we take it seriously. Right, Maybe I'm speaking for everybody here.
(08:15):
We take it seriously. But also we're not that I
was going to say, we're not that worried about it. Well,
we got another message from Fozzi, this time with some specifics,
which has kind of led us down a rabbit hole.
So let's follow Fozzy's message to the rabbit hole.
Speaker 5 (08:33):
Hello there, gentlemen, this is fast still a long time
government has recently put on its website something regarding possible
marcial law and empowering police officers and law enforcements in
that regards. It's even using the auspice of national security, which,
(09:00):
as we all know, gives them quite a lot of
power and money as well. So let me just share
this really quickly, drinks the name and unleashing America's law
enforcement to pursue criminals on White House dot gov. Check
(09:20):
it out. Please tell you guys what you got to say,
because really this kind of paints a picture that Ben
has been describing a little bit about how to get
possible on a little bit of terms promoting martial law
or something I seem to recall. Anyway, Please check this out.
(09:40):
All right, I'll talk to you guys later.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Thank you, and there we go. That's Fozzy with some specifics.
Thank you for calling in, Fozzy. What is being talked
about there in that message is an executive order that
was put out signed on April twenty eighth, twenty twenty five,
and it is indeed titled Strengthening and Unleashing America's law
(10:03):
enforcement to pursue criminals and protect innocent citizens. Anything we
want to talk about before we dive into that executive order?
Speaker 1 (10:13):
Sure, yeah, this is coming at a highly divisive time
for the US public. The leveraging of executive orders, or
the issuance thereof, is always an inherently controversial thing in
American discourse, because it doesn't really matter what the executive
(10:34):
order is, political opponents will find will take issue with it,
will find a reason to take issue with it. That
being said, the idea here is worrisome to people who
feel it is a precedent or it's an attempt to
for into martial law, and Lord v. Fossierte love for
(10:59):
us to spend just little bit of time talking about
the concept of martial law in the United States. But
before we get to that, let's talk a little bit
about what this executive order means, especially in step with
the recent deputization of so many law enforcement agencies into ICE.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Well, yeah, into ICE and specifically these things called hstfs, right,
or Homeland Security task Forces. Okay, yeah, again, this one
executive order exists alone. And to that point, Ben just
the concept of an executive order, people taking issue with it.
It is a an elected president and that administration basically
(11:46):
saying here's a new rule, here's what we're going to
be doing, rather than going through that lawmaking process that
generally would go through the other branches of government, right
or at least through Congress and the Senate and everything.
So it is a different situation for a lot of people,
especially those who oppose sitting administration.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
And it's one of two concurrent executive orders, the other
being protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
So the is a current step, yes, that one. Or
is that the protecting the American People against invasion that
was signed on January twentieth.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
That's a different one. There's another one, Yeah, there are
a lot. Again, there are a lot of eos here.
The one we're talking about protecting American Communities from criminal
Aliens is signed on the same day as the Unleashing
law Enforcement one, both signed on April twenty eighth, so
a little more than a week after the one we
(12:45):
just mentioned, the protecting from Criminal Aliens EO. It's asking
or it's ordering federal agencies in the United States to
list state and local jurisdictions that are seen as limiting
cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, so called sanctuary cities. Right,
(13:09):
they're punishing sanctuary cities through the stick method of terminating
federal funds wherever you can for those cities, and so
on the same day, this act that Fozzy you're talking
about in particular says, look, if you're a federal agency,
(13:29):
you need to expand support aka funding for state and
local law You need to increase training opportunities similar to
like a cop city kind of thing, and you need
to provide surplus military equipment while at the same time
providing more legal protection for officers on the ground.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
So yeah, to dive deeper into the strengthening and unleashing
America's law enforcement April twenty eighth Executive Order, just going
down there under section four and section six, those are
the two ones, the two sections that seem to be
troublesome here. Under section four A, it says they're going
(14:13):
to increase the provision of excess military national security assets
in local jurisdictions to assist state and local law enforcement,
which is the thing we talked about in the past
where when the military has too many tanks, ATVs whatever.
They can be sold to sheriff's departments and local police departments,
and that kind of thing that's been happening for decades.
They're saying within this provision, they're saying that's going to
(14:34):
happen more. And they're also determining how military national security assets, training,
non lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be utilized
to prevent crime.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
And they have ninety days to do so.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
They do they do. The third thing, which is the
thing that gets that genuinely gets me a little worried,
is utilizing the Homeland Security task Forces that were formed
under that other executive order protecting the American people against invasion,
to coordinate and advance the objectives in this order, which
is to maintain law and order, and to do it
(15:10):
in a way that is intense. It would be the
way I would describe it. What it says in the
original order is quote, safe communities rely on the backbone
and heroism of a tough and well equipped police force.
My administration is steadfastly committed to empowering state and local
law enforcement to firmly police dangerous criminal behavior and protect
(15:32):
innocent citizens. The problem, I think with all of this
stuff is because it is language, is legal language that
can be interpreted, right, And who is innocent? Who is
an innocent citizen? Who is a dangerous criminal doing dangerous
criminal behaviors? What does that mean? How are those things defined?
Who gets caught up when certain other things are outlawed?
Speaker 1 (15:55):
Right?
Speaker 2 (15:56):
Right now, all of the focus of these executive orders
are on individuals who are, at least according to the administration,
not American citizens. Right. What happens when that just shifts
a little bit and the language changes to someone who
opposes certain things, someone who does certain things? Right, it
(16:18):
feels as though, and I think to our callers, Lord
V and Fozzy and everybody else he's writing about this,
it feels as though, and maybe it is a bit
of a slippery slope argument, but it feels as though
that stuff could shift pretty quickly and in another executive
order could come out that alters what this stuff actually means.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Yeah, I think that's an interesting and salient argument or perspective.
It's one that we've talked about in the past, and
it's one that I am on record agreeing with apolitically
because we know that all historically all three branches of
the US government seek to empower themselves, right, and in
(17:02):
doing so, they often seek to erode the checks and
balances of the other two branches, whatever those branches may be.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, uh inherently,
but what we what we need to understand about the
concept of martial law. And it's always a worry, right
(17:24):
whenever a new presidential administration takes hold, even if they're
from the same party, there is always going to be
some contingent of the American populace worried that democracy will
fall descend into martial law. And it is mission critical,
Fozzy lord V. It's mission critical to remember that the
(17:45):
marshal like martial law, the removal of constitutional rights or
suspension thereof, has occurred at multiple points in US history,
even though it is still very much a young experiment
in the long term. Sure, we're talking about stuff like
the Battle of New Orleans, the time that leaders of
(18:07):
the LDS Church themselves declared martial law just in areas
they governed. So at times, not even not even the
executive branch declaring martial law, just a group of people
with enough influence over a specific geographic region. So we
know President Lincoln suspended the constitution specifically a habeas corpus.
(18:33):
During the Civil War. We know that striking like Union
fights resulted in limited martial law. Of course, the heroine
story of the state of Hawaii. Look at how all
to say before monologue there all to say, it happens quickly.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Yeah, it happens quickly. And this concept of the Homelandsecurity
Task Forces that the protecting the American people against invasion
executive order put in place are going to be in
all states nationwide. So it actually makes me less worried
about some countrywide crackdown, you know, a militarized rule type thing.
(19:18):
It makes me think about the nineteen seventy Kent State shooting.
It makes me think about those things, those times when
the National Guard was brought in when there's let's say,
what is described as a riot, right or in fact,
from another perspective, a peaceful protest, and then you have
these new things that can come in and act as
(19:39):
the police forces to crack down on what I would
say is opposing viewpoints, right dissent people who are gathering
together to protest what's happening in Gaza. Right people who
are gathering together to protest what's happening in the courts
or something like that, but it's happening on a citywide
(20:00):
or statewide level. That's what maybe is what I'm worried about,
that there would be this lever that could be pulled
from high up above that could act in every state
individually rather than one large sweeping Now every state is
controlled by this one thing, and there is no more democracy,
there's no more rule of law.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
That's not yeah, yeah, I agree, that's not usually how
it would work currently. Right. The way it would work
currently would be to carry out what is seen as
retribution against so called sanctuary cities. Again, sanctuary cities are
communities that have said, hey, ICE is ICE and related
(20:44):
agencies are going overboard and not respecting things like due process.
Right when we talked about people who may not be
citizens but are legal residents of the US being deprived
of their rights, being exported or deported excuse me, in
some cases to places that are not their country of origin.
(21:05):
And we've actually we've been doing some work with this
on a wrong pul conviction, which do please check out
the show if you have a chance, If this interest you,
it is no secret that the US justice system is
are trudishly imperfect. And it's also I think, in the
(21:27):
age of social media, it is so devilishly dangerously tempting
for everybody to feel like you're in the pivotal third
act of a movie where everything goes terrible. When things
go wrong, they do go wrong quickly, but they often
don't occur with that cinematic snap that we love as screenwriters. Instead,
(21:51):
what we see are acts of retribution carried out against
people who are not marching to the correct tune that
the administration, whatever it may be, will want. You could
make now, this is dangerous and not everybody's gonna love it,
and I don't want to I don't want to talk
too much here, but the you could argue that under
(22:15):
various democratic administration, more conservative communities got punished with some
form of retribution or some form of, you know, an
ugly side of a quid pro quo, a tit for tat.
However this is and look, I appreciate everybody who wrote
(22:36):
in responding to my earlier question about whether or not
it is alarmist to see this as a slide into authoritarianism,
slide into you know, the dirty F word, fascism, things
like that. These are concerning not because necessarily of the
immediate language, but to that earlier point, they are concerning
(23:00):
because they provide opportunity and runway should things go in
a a specific direction.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
Yeah, I could see that. I think we did have
that movie moment already or starting to happen already with
the acquittal of three of the officers involved in the
murder of Tyree Nichols, because that just happened. This got
put out on April twenty eighth. Three of the officers
involved in his murder were acquitted like ten or twelve days.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
Later, and we're recorded on May ninth.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
We are recording on May ninth, yesterday, May eighth is
when I've read the news at least that they were acquitted.
And just if you read the language within that executive
order says, when local leaders demonize law enforcement and impose
legal and political handcuffs that make aggressively enforcing the law impossible,
crime thrives, and innocent citizens and small business owners suffer.
(23:54):
And they're talking about establishing best practices at the state
and local level to on leash high impact local police
forces and to protect and defend law enforcement officers wrongly
accused and abused by state or local officials. So again
it's just it's different viewpoints and then putting the language
in there they would protect police officers if they did anything.
(24:17):
I don't know, like in the case of Tyree Nichols
who was killed on camera. By the way, he's beaten
to near death on camera and then died later. Anyway,
all this stuff just worries me. And just the concept
of more military vehicles rolling up for you know, protests
and things like that makes me really uneasy. So we'll see.
Thank you so much Lord V and Fozzy for sending
(24:40):
us those messages. We'll be right back after a message
from our sponsors.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
And we have returned. We're also not returning alone. We're
bringing a guest of sorts back on the show, none
other then Big Shucks. And by way of Big Shucks,
we're also going to hear from our old pal, Jordan Harbinger. Now, Matt,
you may recall low several years ago you and I
(25:14):
had the opportunity to go hang out with Jordan on air.
I'm still mad that I had the wrong setting on
my MIC. Just heads up to everyone, but it's still
a fascinating conversation.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Oh yeah, I remember that conversation.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
Well, so our pal Shucks says, hey, guys, this is insane.
I don't remember the figure thrown out, but allegedly ninety
five percent of cobalt is unethically extracted cobalt from the DRC,
the Democratic Republic of Congo and then smuggled through Rwanda.
And this is something conspiracy of which all big tech
(25:51):
companies are aware. Shucks, You then introduce us and therefore
all our fellow conspiracy realists. To transcript of this episode.
This is part of a fantastic series that Jordan has
created called Out of the Loop, and in Out of
(26:13):
the Loop episodes, Jordan and his guest dig into something
kind of like strange news, current events that aren't really
well reported in the West, either due to lack of
interest or in my opinion, sometimes due to dedicated enthusiasm
(26:35):
for not informing the public. And in this conversation, the
Shucks so wonderfully points us to Jordan. Harbinger speaks with
two investigative journalists, Nathan Paul Southern and Lenzy Kennedy, and
they talk about the DRC and Rwanda. They specifically talk
about something called the M twenty three militia. Delia has
(27:01):
been around for a little bit, right, they've been they've
been around the block a few times, and they've been
taking over parts of the country that have access to
let's call them valuable mineral resources, so not quite rare
earth metals in the case of cobalt, but still resources
(27:23):
that are mission critical for all the modern electronics you
could imagine, computer chips, electric vehicles. The way that you're
able to listen to this podcast, which statistically speaking for
most of us, is going to be on a mobile device.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
Yeah, we're talking about gold, coal, tan, and not cobalt,
but other minerals as well.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
Yes, yeah, and we know that this is this has
always been a calculation, especially in recent decades, for geopolitical
instability and freedom fighters or terrorist groups, especially when you
get into their murky funding, right like, how like it's
(28:10):
the old question that happens in Latin America so often.
How did these students become so highly trained in tradecraft
and you know, their political leanings purported or actual aside?
How did they get those guns? How did they get
that equipment?
Speaker 2 (28:28):
You know, what are those conflict free guns?
Speaker 1 (28:31):
Right? Right? Right? Those are those ethically raised, gluten free,
free range Ak's and Kalishnikov's time will tell. This is
what these journalists find when they're speaking with Jordan, and
please do listen to the episode. The guy does great
work and we're not blowing smoke. We're just fans of
(28:52):
the show. The journalists we mentioned earlier, that being Kennedy
and Southern, they find that there is some connection between
the United Kingdom's Rwanda refugee resettlement program and the new
resurgence of M twenty three. M twenty three had previously
(29:18):
gone kind of dark. We're not saying everybody got arrested
or went to the International Criminal Quart or anything. We're
say they laid low.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
Interesting, So then this new thing comes through, this new
program sponsored where the UK comes through, and then they're back.
Speaker 1 (29:36):
Yeah, all right, exactly. Yeah. The timing suggests that funding
from this United Kingdom resettlement program may have, in one
way or another provided funding to the M twenty three movement.
And let's talk a little bit about those folks too,
(29:57):
because they are M twenty three aviation for the March
twenty third Movement or March twenty three Movement. They're also
known as the Congolese Revolutionary Army. They are a rebel
paramilitary group. They are backed by forces in Rwanda, as
far as we know, relatively young in that they were
(30:21):
formed in twenty twelve, and they're largely constituted of former
Congolese soldiers who came from Rwandan and Congolese communities in
the northern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo. And
they originally, at least according to their statements, they wanted
(30:43):
better representation within this area of the country. Rwanda is
allegedly leveraging. Like here's the focus or the speculation, the
conspiracy is that Rwanda is allegedly stealing these precious resources
from the Democratic Republic of Congo, taking them across the
(31:06):
border illicitly, and then saying, yeah, we mind all of
this in Rwanda, which means it's conflict free, which means hey, Tesla,
hey Apple, you can use these and you won't have
any dirty MacBooks.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
Dang if they're doing okay. So I'm imagining a scenario
where it's known locally that this is what's happening, and
somebody is getting paid enough to make the minerals crossing
borders like that make sense to them, Like where it's
initially coming from. And then those are now conflict free,
(31:46):
which means then they can get sold at a premium.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
And then we also see yeah, I would agree with
that chain of custody. There we also see the emergence
of pmc's private military contractors from a bevy of places.
Of course, even with the continuing conflict in Ukraine, Russia
is by hook Er by Crook, invested in parts of
(32:13):
the African continent. Of course, various US billionaires leading tech
companies need to keep making their products. So in this conversation,
which again please do tune in, folks, in this conversation,
we witness an exploration of how understanding things that could
(32:34):
be called conspiracies can help you or challenge you to
make more ethical consumer choices. But that's a very easy
thing to say. It's a very difficult thing to do.
I mean, we're not just talking Coldtan, We're also talking
you know, like you said, cobalt gold, a bevy of
(32:55):
other things. We know that these are stories the best
honestly seems like they don't want to hear pretty often, right,
we like our conflicts easily explained in the first sixty
seconds and easily theoretically solved in the next three minutes.
Speaker 2 (33:14):
We like new iPhones, and that's.
Speaker 1 (33:17):
Kind of a hazard of the low attention economy, right,
in which so many ephemeral conversations thrive. We know that
the United Nations, in their opinion, has Rwanda dead to
rights on the March twenty third movement. They believe Rwanda
(33:37):
as the state actor created and commanded this rebel group
to get up to Shenanigan's. However, the next question, the
unavoidable question there is who helped to Rwanda do that?
Did they do it on their own? Were they pushed?
Were they encouraged? Was there someone holding an elbow and
(34:00):
whispering into the ear of the leaders? Unfortunately, in this
kind of milieu, that is an unavoidable question that has
to be asked, even though a lot of people would
prefer it not be brought up in conversation.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Yeah, agreed. In the end, who benefits?
Speaker 1 (34:20):
Right, que bono?
Speaker 2 (34:22):
Where do those materials actually go?
Speaker 1 (34:25):
Right? They go, They go to you, They go to you,
the consumer, in a way that can be very difficult
to parse. You know that you're not ever, you will
not currently see a sticker on a smartphone or in
the window of a car to a dealership that says, hey,
(34:45):
just you know, fair notice, we got all the stuff
to make this without you know, destroying innocent communities. You're
never going to see the opposite of that, like I
if that would happen a conflict mining warning, like a
tobacco advisory that says, hey warning, by the way, more
(35:09):
people than you know died for this cell phone.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
Well yeah, twenty off, twelve dozen villages were attacked in
getting these. Yeah, that's that's messed up.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
But I think this also occurred. This is the reason
why it doesn't feel wing nut to ask some of
these questions, because we know, especially Western or US based
tech companies are scrambling to find alternative resource supply chains
(35:42):
right as as currently look China, you'll often hear that
the nation of China controls the rare earth game, and
that is true. But there's an important piece of the
puzzle that also doesn't really get shared out as often
as it should, which is the following. The US also
(36:03):
has access to stores of these resources as to China.
The issue is that environmental regulation. I know I sound
crazy when I say this. The issue is that environmental
regulations and policies in the US prevent the same kind
of manufacturing and harvesting and processing of these raw resources,
(36:28):
so the US could if those regulations were repealed, the
US could spin up some of this stuff, but it
would have hard and measurable environmental consequences. The nation of
China exists under a different regime of policies, so that's
why they were able to become the world supplier.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
Yeah, but you know, the US could just sign a
big deal with oh, I don't know, Ukraine and then
gain access to the moneies and materials being mined out
of that country if they provide lots and lots of
money for weapons.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
As we discussed earlier, called it a quid pro quo there,
and it's similar to like a len lease agreement of old.
It's also a what's the best way to say it,
it's a it's a promise for action in the future
or or words in the future, and it's always in
(37:24):
human civilization, it's always easy to promise people the moon
and stars in the future because you don't actually have
to provide the moon and stars when you sign the thing.
Speaker 4 (37:37):
You know.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
Oh yeah, it's making me think about all the companies
that we don't know the names of that actually process
these materials, you know, because it's when an Apple or
a Tesla or a Google gets those materials are there. Well,
I don't know. Maybe I'm fully wrong in my mind.
(37:58):
Those companies don't do that, the actual processing and building
of the things they buy, the microprocessors they buy. We
talked about that with the chips episode a little bit
redne deep into who's actually making the chips. They go
into all the things that all the big companies buy,
you know, then they buy.
Speaker 1 (38:19):
And how does it get from how so China controls
ninety percent of rare earth processing. I was digging into
some mining trade publications and some of their research. I'd
recommend reading an article that came out today. Actually wow,
I guess started early in the morning today on May night,
(38:40):
as we record this mining technology by Caroline Peachey, exploring
US efforts to find a secure supply of rare earth elements.
As we're pointing out, it's not that other countries can't
have this stuff in the ground, it's that China is
better at processing it right now, sort of like how
(39:01):
you can have tons of bubbling crude, to quote the
Beverly hillbillies on the land, but you need it to
be refined, and extracting the crude and refining the crude
are two different skill sets, right, and they both have
their own knock on consequences. This also leads us to
(39:24):
another story. This was from earlier March seventeenth, twenty twenty five.
Interesting engineering. Big shout out to the journalist Amir Colom
who reported this is one of the first times I
had heard of this reported that the US has found
eight point four billion dollars worth of rare earths in
coal ash landfills here in the goal US of a.
(39:49):
We've been sitting on it for a while and now
all we have to do is figure out how to
navigate the faustian bargain right of processing that stuff, knowing
that it's it's bad for the people living there.
Speaker 2 (40:05):
I want to look into coal ash dump sites now.
Speaker 1 (40:09):
M yeah, it sounds like perfect insult too you coal.
Speaker 2 (40:13):
Ash dump dump side.
Speaker 1 (40:16):
But this is uh, this coal ash stuff, which yeah,
maybe we should research further. We know it has a
million tons of rare earth elements, which is already nearly
eight times the US is known domestic reserve. And again,
rare earth elements or minerals. This is a group term
that we've discussed in the past, so it means more
(40:39):
than one thing. It means a lot of stuff you
might really you wouldn't call them, like the main characters
of the periodic table dysprosium, gadolinium, luteum, samarium, scandium, turbium,
and of course yetrium. I saved yettrium for the end,
Like when you hear the cast of an ensemble film,
(41:00):
it's like and Tommy Lee Jones and gytrium and then
someone yeah, yeah, yeah, not to be confused with uterbium,
which is somehow also a real thing.
Speaker 2 (41:11):
Oh, congratulations, we did it.
Speaker 1 (41:14):
Congratulations we did it, And shout out to Oh gosh,
lest we cast aspersion. Shout out to Tennessee pal who
got so excited and said, my boy, yetrium. So you've
got a big fan here. We would love to hear
from you regarding this, folks. I know we ran a
little bit long on this part, but it's an important
(41:36):
conversation that needs to continue, because there is literally stuff
they don't want you to know at play here and
the world hinges upon it. So write to us, contact us,
tell us your thoughts, especially if you have PMC experience
or mining experience. We want to hear how all these
red strings vibrate and connect. While you're doing that, take
(42:00):
a pause for a word from our sponsors, and we'll
be back with a little bit more listener mail. All right,
we've returned. We spent some time on some very serious things.
We can't wait to hear your thoughts. While we're doing that,
We're going to round out tonight's program with a lovely
(42:24):
little letter from home. It turns out very good news, guys.
We have a new expert joining us. We love to
collect experts. We've got some physicists, We've got some meteorologists,
We've got truckers, We've got people from all sorts of professions.
Shout out to our aviators as well, Matt Dylan. We
(42:48):
got some clown love recently from Youuford. Who I will?
I'll share this letter and then I'll nominate them to
be our go to expert for one of the most
phenomenal musical movements in recent US history? Are we ready?
Can we guess what it is?
Speaker 2 (43:07):
I tave Matthews band, I don't.
Speaker 1 (43:09):
Know DMB, DMB. We do need a DMB director is
to or corresponded. At least here we go. Let her
from home. Beauford says, Hello, Ben Nolan, Matt, it's Beauford again.
As always, feel free to use my name and message
on air. Nice. I am writing to offer a correction
to what Ben said on the recent listener mail segment.
(43:31):
The Insane Clown Posse did not come out as a
Christian band per se. Thank you for that correction, Buford.
We prize that sort of stuff, Beewford. You continue in
the song Thy Unveiling, they do say that their message
is about God. However, Violent Jay has since gone on
record saying that he regrets using specifically Christian terminology. And
(43:54):
that's what I was referring to right when he was
saying the big reveal of the Malinko and the Carnival.
So they did originally say that, but now they regret it. Okay,
but they don't throw the whole thing out. As Beauford continues,
the point was more about believing in some higher being. However,
they the Insane Clown Posse, take issue with the hierarchy
(44:15):
of the church and do not advocate for any specific
religion or denomination, similar to a more Buddhist outlook. And
I love that point, Buford, because I can't remember if
I mentioned it on air. I recently accidentally got baptized
into Buddhism. Anyway, Buford says, it's about finding your own
path to God and not promoting their own ICP's personal views.
(44:38):
With how often the subject of juggalos seems to come
up for you, guys, I do volunteer my services to
be your resident Juggalo fact checker. I have been down
with the clown as they say, since I was a
young lad, since the Jekyl brother era. And yes I
do have the hatchet man tattoo. Love what you fellas do.
(45:00):
Keep up the good work much clown love, Buford. I
don't know, Matt. I'm persuaded. What do you think?
Speaker 2 (45:07):
Well, yeah, I have two questions. What is the Jeckyl
brother era? Is that an album or a song? Is
that a I don't know that. The Amazing Jekyl Brothers
is the fifth studio album by the Insane Cloud Posse. Okay,
so that was nineteen ninety nine. Thank you Eilands for
that second question. Have you, Buford, ever taken a helicopter
(45:31):
ride at one of the gatherings? Because we need to
know about that. How good was the helicopter ride?
Speaker 1 (45:39):
Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah, And I remember also Buford, you'll
enjoy this. Guys and I went through a phase where
we would watch the very long infomercials for ICP gatherings
every year. Every year. It was the closest we had
to an established religion. I also, you know, I'll always
(46:00):
have a special part in my heart for Vanilla Ice
dressed up as an alien, remember that one.
Speaker 2 (46:07):
Yeah, I remember all the hits. Oh, they swim through
my consciousness like some sort of clowns that swim.
Speaker 1 (46:16):
Yes, yes, Mr clowns. I think they're called. Oh. I
love that idea too. That's my new favorite cryptid. Imagine
you're lost at sea in the eighteen hundreds and then
you say, hey, that mermaid looks kind of goofy, and
then the old first made is like a maybe you
see that not to be a merriment. It is a
mirror clown is you can hear you can hear the
(46:40):
honkin in the night?
Speaker 3 (46:42):
Oh man, why is that so much scarier than a mermaid?
Speaker 2 (46:48):
It really is. It's such a beautiful movement that brings
together like you in all the positive things of the
Rainbow family with like Ringling brothers. Somehow, I don't know.
It just makes me so happy. It's very it's a
very positive.
Speaker 1 (47:04):
Movement, unfairly characterized as domestic terrorism by the FBI. We
have to say that, yes, and and you know, the
the energy is, as he said, quite inclusive. And even
if you know what's funny is we have these conversations
and even if you're not a fan of this very
(47:25):
specific genre of horror core inspired music, yeah, have to.
And even if you know how madness work, you have
to acknowledge that they make a concerted effort to welcome
everyone that they can with that. An example of that,
we got a surprise from Tennessee pal. He just sent
(47:47):
us his let's see what'd you call this? Oh? His
favorite tweet assumingly favorite tweet of all time from the
official Insane Clown Posse account quote, I don't care what
we've said in our raps, women come number one. We
all owe our lives to wemon.
Speaker 2 (48:09):
That can't be real. There's no way that's real, Dylan,
he says, it's real with.
Speaker 1 (48:18):
So many exclamation marks. That's why it's your favorite. That's
wemond spelled w E M o n by the way.
Speaker 2 (48:25):
Wemon, maybe they just mean like climax first. Is that
what they mean.
Speaker 1 (48:31):
I think they mean, despite you know, the shock nature
of some of the lyrical content, that in real life
they are not misogynists.
Speaker 2 (48:41):
Okay, well that's.
Speaker 1 (48:43):
Nice unless wemon are different from women, which is unclear.
We want to rhyme with peymon by the way, the
way it's spelled us, that's what we've got. I don't know.
Let's let's vote right now and you can vote with us, folks. Uh,
the Court, I nominate Beauford to be our ongoing ICP
(49:05):
subject matter expert. Do we have any eyes? Nay's a's eyes.
Speaker 2 (49:12):
I have two eyes for you.
Speaker 1 (49:15):
There we go, okay, and Dylan does the thumbs up. Judges,
can we accept that? Okay, Yeah, it looks like we're good.
Congratulations Beauford. Thank you to Big Shucks, thank you to
Lord V, thank you to Fozzy, Thank you to everybody
who took the time to join our continuing and increasingly
strange endeavor here. We want to hear from you as well.
(49:38):
You can find us online via Instagram, YouTube, all the
social med should thou sip we are conspiracy stuff, conspiracy
stuff show or some derivation thereof anywhere on the wide
old Internet until we get black bagged. You can also
give us a call on the telephone or hit us
at our email address.
Speaker 2 (49:58):
Our phone number is one eight three three STDWYTK. It's
a voicemail system. You've got three minutes when you call in.
Give yourself a cool nickname and let us know in
the message if we can use your name and message
on the air. If you've got more to say, they
could fit. Sorry, I was trying to do a micromachine style.
If you got more to say, they can fit in
a three minute message one. Instead, send us a good
old fashioned email.
Speaker 1 (50:18):
We are the entities that read each piece of correspondence
we receive. Be well aware, yet unafraid. Sometimes the void
writes back conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (50:46):
Stuff they don't want you to know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Welcome back to the show. My name is Matt. Our
colleague Noel is on an adventure but will be returning shortly.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
They called me Ben. We're joined as always with our
super producer Dylan, the Tennessee Pal and original Jugglo Faked.
Most importantly, you argue you are here. That makes this
the stuff they don't want you to know. If you
are tuning in to our listener mail program the evening
it publishes, Welcome and congratulations to all of us for
(00:52):
making it to May fifteenth, twenty twenty five. Spoiler Matt,
Dylan and I are recording this on May ninth, so
we hope that things don't get too crazy in the
next few days before this publishes. But we've got we
got a lot to get to of course, you know, Matt.
(01:12):
It's our listener mail program, which means it's time for
one of our favorite parts of the show.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
You specifically Brock, who says, can we get an update
on the humble Farmers are they still humble farmers.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
I haven't wrote written back to Broc yat and thank
you for be the account of Bill of Buddy there. Yes,
it's a question on everyone's mind, right step aside, new Pope, right,
good job you had your time in the headlines.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
We need more about the farmers humble or no.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Well we got good news, Brock thankfully. Oh man, it's
it's so nice that Bethesda has gifted us a whole
slew of humble farmers to check back in with. Yes,
because they just re released Oblivion. Yeah, and there's so
many humble farmers in that game. I don't know if
you guys noticed. And they're great.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
They are, they are, you know, they're just keeping their
heads down, they're farming, humble. You know what more? What
more could you say other than we don't yet have
We don't yet have Oblivion's opinion on Ruda Bega's, but
we do have some inspiration for you. But that's the
(02:28):
courtesy of none other than the legendary Tennessee Pal never
gets old, never gets old ed ed folks, you know
you are our You are our friends, our neighbors, are
fellow conspiracy realist and we always aim to be transparent,
(02:51):
so you do need to know the most important thing
you will hear this evening. We are not stopping the
rude bega references. We are not stopping rudebega jokes. If
you want to write to us or call us with
ideas about new Ruta bega stuff for Dylan to write,
we welcome you. If you are writing to complain about
(03:12):
this bit, we'll do that thing Corporate America does where
we'll say we hear you, and then we'll keep doing
this bit exactly.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
Ruda begas, by the way, have a two point two
out of five rating according to Google, what basically not
really our favorite this fresh Ruta begas, by the way,
and a single fresh Ruta bega at Walmart right now
costs approximately two dollars and ninety eight cents US. So
(03:46):
hopefully you're joining us in our pursuit to increase the
price of Ruta begas because we are trying to help
all these humble farmers out there, or just making Ruta
begas man.
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Also other name. You may know rudabagas by another name,
the humble turnip or the neap as they say in Scotland.
And I love that you're pointing this outmat because we
want this to be exactly the same kind of misstep
that we made earlier when we kept shouting out one
(04:20):
of my favorite books, The Atlas of Remote Islands, which
now is out of publication and relatively unaffordable.
Speaker 2 (04:29):
Wait, so we kill things when we talk about them
a lot.
Speaker 1 (04:32):
No, we accelerate, we platform and accelerate knowledge thereof Okay, Okay,
So hopefully this is going to be great. As you
said for the humble Farmers, We're also going to hear
from our pal Buford, We're going to hear from Lord
V and Fozzy. We're gonna hear from none other than
(04:52):
the Shucks, bringing us one of our favorite slash most
terrifying hobby horses of conversation. Before we do any of that,
Matt Tennessee, fellow conspiracy realist, I suggest we take a
pause for a moment and appreciate the concept of democracy,
(05:15):
as imperfect as it is in practice. It's a pretty
pretty banger theory, and we've reluctantly perhaps acknowledged this on
the show in various times in the past. It is
historically abnormal to live in a country where you can
(05:35):
complain about the country without getting black bagged. That's an
a political point. It is a good thing if you
live in a country with that superpower assigned to its citizens.
But how long shall that be the case?
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Well, let's jump into that, which sounds it's like so
much fun, super happy.
Speaker 1 (05:58):
You know, we're we're basically like one of those softball
morning news shows, you know what I mean, only the
light issues, only the fun ones.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Softball light issues. Coming right up, and we've returned. Just
a quick note here as we begin, everybody on the
show looks at the correspondence that comes through from everyone,
all of us. We all look at it together, and
every once in a while we find things that make
(06:30):
us go, oh, that sounds interesting, or that's a rumor,
we should look into that kind of thing. A while back,
we got this message from Lord V. And to be honest,
I didn't think much of it initially, So let's jump
to that. And there's nothing against you, Lord V. It's
just I wasn't concerned at this moment. So here's the message.
Speaker 4 (06:51):
Good morning, gentlemen. This is Lord V from Pennsylvania. Wanted
to run this past you guys to see information you
have on it. I keep getting these interesting posts about
our government's going to be institutionalizing a form of I
guess you would call it domestic protection a martial law
(07:13):
in our country, and I wanted to see if you
were aware of this. Whatever information you can find, you
greatly appreciate, jentleen, because this makes me very nervous. All right,
all right, gentlemen, have a great day and take care.
I just want to know these things.
Speaker 2 (07:30):
So, first of all, thank you so much for sending
that to us, Lord Van, for having those thoughts. I
would just say, we hear that kind of thing a lot.
That concept of maybe United States wide martial law has
been or the threat of it, has been around for
(07:51):
decades and decades and decades, depending on what the political
situation is, what the geopolitical situation is. The threat or
concept of of countrywide martial law has just kind of
been sitting there, right, So when fears about it arise,
generally it's one of those things that we think about,
we take it seriously. Right, Maybe I'm speaking for everybody here.
(08:15):
We take it seriously. But also we're not that I
was going to say, we're not that worried about it. Well,
we got another message from Fozzi, this time with some specifics,
which has kind of led us down a rabbit hole.
So let's follow Fozzy's message to the rabbit hole.
Speaker 5 (08:33):
Hello there, gentlemen, this is fast still a long time
government has recently put on its website something regarding possible
marcial law and empowering police officers and law enforcements in
that regards. It's even using the auspice of national security, which,
(09:00):
as we all know, gives them quite a lot of
power and money as well. So let me just share
this really quickly, drinks the name and unleashing America's law
enforcement to pursue criminals on White House dot gov. Check
(09:20):
it out. Please tell you guys what you got to say,
because really this kind of paints a picture that Ben
has been describing a little bit about how to get
possible on a little bit of terms promoting martial law
or something I seem to recall. Anyway, Please check this out.
(09:40):
All right, I'll talk to you guys later.
Speaker 2 (09:42):
Thank you, and there we go. That's Fozzy with some specifics.
Thank you for calling in, Fozzy. What is being talked
about there in that message is an executive order that
was put out signed on April twenty eighth, twenty twenty five,
and it is indeed titled Strengthening and Unleashing America's law
(10:03):
enforcement to pursue criminals and protect innocent citizens. Anything we
want to talk about before we dive into that executive order?
Speaker 1 (10:13):
Sure, yeah, this is coming at a highly divisive time
for the US public. The leveraging of executive orders, or
the issuance thereof, is always an inherently controversial thing in
American discourse, because it doesn't really matter what the executive
(10:34):
order is, political opponents will find will take issue with it,
will find a reason to take issue with it. That
being said, the idea here is worrisome to people who
feel it is a precedent or it's an attempt to
for into martial law, and Lord v. Fossierte love for
(10:59):
us to spend just little bit of time talking about
the concept of martial law in the United States. But
before we get to that, let's talk a little bit
about what this executive order means, especially in step with
the recent deputization of so many law enforcement agencies into ICE.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Well, yeah, into ICE and specifically these things called hstfs, right,
or Homeland Security task Forces. Okay, yeah, again, this one
executive order exists alone. And to that point, Ben just
the concept of an executive order, people taking issue with it.
It is a an elected president and that administration basically
(11:46):
saying here's a new rule, here's what we're going to
be doing, rather than going through that lawmaking process that
generally would go through the other branches of government, right
or at least through Congress and the Senate and everything.
So it is a different situation for a lot of people,
especially those who oppose sitting administration.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
And it's one of two concurrent executive orders, the other
being protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens.
Speaker 2 (12:13):
So the is a current step, yes, that one. Or
is that the protecting the American People against invasion that
was signed on January twentieth.
Speaker 1 (12:23):
That's a different one. There's another one, Yeah, there are
a lot. Again, there are a lot of eos here.
The one we're talking about protecting American Communities from criminal
Aliens is signed on the same day as the Unleashing
law Enforcement one, both signed on April twenty eighth, so
a little more than a week after the one we
(12:45):
just mentioned, the protecting from Criminal Aliens EO. It's asking
or it's ordering federal agencies in the United States to
list state and local jurisdictions that are seen as limiting
cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, so called sanctuary cities. Right,
(13:09):
they're punishing sanctuary cities through the stick method of terminating
federal funds wherever you can for those cities, and so
on the same day, this act that Fozzy you're talking
about in particular says, look, if you're a federal agency,
(13:29):
you need to expand support aka funding for state and
local law You need to increase training opportunities similar to
like a cop city kind of thing, and you need
to provide surplus military equipment while at the same time
providing more legal protection for officers on the ground.
Speaker 2 (13:53):
So yeah, to dive deeper into the strengthening and unleashing
America's law enforcement April twenty eighth Executive Order, just going
down there under section four and section six, those are
the two ones, the two sections that seem to be
troublesome here. Under section four A, it says they're going
(14:13):
to increase the provision of excess military national security assets
in local jurisdictions to assist state and local law enforcement,
which is the thing we talked about in the past
where when the military has too many tanks, ATVs whatever.
They can be sold to sheriff's departments and local police departments,
and that kind of thing that's been happening for decades.
They're saying within this provision, they're saying that's going to
(14:34):
happen more. And they're also determining how military national security assets, training,
non lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be utilized
to prevent crime.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
And they have ninety days to do so.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
They do they do. The third thing, which is the
thing that gets that genuinely gets me a little worried,
is utilizing the Homeland Security task Forces that were formed
under that other executive order protecting the American people against invasion,
to coordinate and advance the objectives in this order, which
is to maintain law and order, and to do it
(15:10):
in a way that is intense. It would be the
way I would describe it. What it says in the
original order is quote, safe communities rely on the backbone
and heroism of a tough and well equipped police force.
My administration is steadfastly committed to empowering state and local
law enforcement to firmly police dangerous criminal behavior and protect
(15:32):
innocent citizens. The problem, I think with all of this
stuff is because it is language, is legal language that
can be interpreted, right, And who is innocent? Who is
an innocent citizen? Who is a dangerous criminal doing dangerous
criminal behaviors? What does that mean? How are those things defined?
Who gets caught up when certain other things are outlawed?
Speaker 1 (15:55):
Right?
Speaker 2 (15:56):
Right now, all of the focus of these executive orders
are on individuals who are, at least according to the administration,
not American citizens. Right. What happens when that just shifts
a little bit and the language changes to someone who
opposes certain things, someone who does certain things? Right, it
(16:18):
feels as though, and I think to our callers, Lord
V and Fozzy and everybody else he's writing about this,
it feels as though, and maybe it is a bit
of a slippery slope argument, but it feels as though
that stuff could shift pretty quickly and in another executive
order could come out that alters what this stuff actually means.
Speaker 1 (16:38):
Yeah, I think that's an interesting and salient argument or perspective.
It's one that we've talked about in the past, and
it's one that I am on record agreeing with apolitically
because we know that all historically all three branches of
the US government seek to empower themselves, right, and in
(17:02):
doing so, they often seek to erode the checks and
balances of the other two branches, whatever those branches may be.
I'm not saying one is better than the other, uh inherently,
but what we what we need to understand about the
concept of martial law. And it's always a worry, right
(17:24):
whenever a new presidential administration takes hold, even if they're
from the same party, there is always going to be
some contingent of the American populace worried that democracy will
fall descend into martial law. And it is mission critical,
Fozzy lord V. It's mission critical to remember that the
(17:45):
marshal like martial law, the removal of constitutional rights or
suspension thereof, has occurred at multiple points in US history,
even though it is still very much a young experiment
in the long term. Sure, we're talking about stuff like
the Battle of New Orleans, the time that leaders of
(18:07):
the LDS Church themselves declared martial law just in areas
they governed. So at times, not even not even the
executive branch declaring martial law, just a group of people
with enough influence over a specific geographic region. So we
know President Lincoln suspended the constitution specifically a habeas corpus.
(18:33):
During the Civil War. We know that striking like Union
fights resulted in limited martial law. Of course, the heroine
story of the state of Hawaii. Look at how all
to say before monologue there all to say, it happens quickly.
Speaker 2 (18:55):
Yeah, it happens quickly. And this concept of the Homelandsecurity
Task Forces that the protecting the American people against invasion
executive order put in place are going to be in
all states nationwide. So it actually makes me less worried
about some countrywide crackdown, you know, a militarized rule type thing.
(19:18):
It makes me think about the nineteen seventy Kent State shooting.
It makes me think about those things, those times when
the National Guard was brought in when there's let's say,
what is described as a riot, right or in fact,
from another perspective, a peaceful protest, and then you have
these new things that can come in and act as
(19:39):
the police forces to crack down on what I would
say is opposing viewpoints, right dissent people who are gathering
together to protest what's happening in Gaza. Right people who
are gathering together to protest what's happening in the courts
or something like that, but it's happening on a citywide
(20:00):
or statewide level. That's what maybe is what I'm worried about,
that there would be this lever that could be pulled
from high up above that could act in every state
individually rather than one large sweeping Now every state is
controlled by this one thing, and there is no more democracy,
there's no more rule of law.
Speaker 1 (20:20):
That's not yeah, yeah, I agree, that's not usually how
it would work currently. Right. The way it would work
currently would be to carry out what is seen as
retribution against so called sanctuary cities. Again, sanctuary cities are
communities that have said, hey, ICE is ICE and related
(20:44):
agencies are going overboard and not respecting things like due process.
Right when we talked about people who may not be
citizens but are legal residents of the US being deprived
of their rights, being exported or deported excuse me, in
some cases to places that are not their country of origin.
(21:05):
And we've actually we've been doing some work with this
on a wrong pul conviction, which do please check out
the show if you have a chance, If this interest you,
it is no secret that the US justice system is
are trudishly imperfect. And it's also I think, in the
(21:27):
age of social media, it is so devilishly dangerously tempting
for everybody to feel like you're in the pivotal third
act of a movie where everything goes terrible. When things
go wrong, they do go wrong quickly, but they often
don't occur with that cinematic snap that we love as screenwriters. Instead,
(21:51):
what we see are acts of retribution carried out against
people who are not marching to the correct tune that
the administration, whatever it may be, will want. You could
make now, this is dangerous and not everybody's gonna love it,
and I don't want to I don't want to talk
too much here, but the you could argue that under
(22:15):
various democratic administration, more conservative communities got punished with some
form of retribution or some form of, you know, an
ugly side of a quid pro quo, a tit for tat.
However this is and look, I appreciate everybody who wrote
(22:36):
in responding to my earlier question about whether or not
it is alarmist to see this as a slide into authoritarianism,
slide into you know, the dirty F word, fascism, things
like that. These are concerning not because necessarily of the
immediate language, but to that earlier point, they are concerning
(23:00):
because they provide opportunity and runway should things go in
a a specific direction.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
Yeah, I could see that. I think we did have
that movie moment already or starting to happen already with
the acquittal of three of the officers involved in the
murder of Tyree Nichols, because that just happened. This got
put out on April twenty eighth. Three of the officers
involved in his murder were acquitted like ten or twelve days.
Speaker 1 (23:29):
Later, and we're recorded on May ninth.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
We are recording on May ninth, yesterday, May eighth is
when I've read the news at least that they were acquitted.
And just if you read the language within that executive
order says, when local leaders demonize law enforcement and impose
legal and political handcuffs that make aggressively enforcing the law impossible,
crime thrives, and innocent citizens and small business owners suffer.
(23:54):
And they're talking about establishing best practices at the state
and local level to on leash high impact local police
forces and to protect and defend law enforcement officers wrongly
accused and abused by state or local officials. So again
it's just it's different viewpoints and then putting the language
in there they would protect police officers if they did anything.
(24:17):
I don't know, like in the case of Tyree Nichols
who was killed on camera. By the way, he's beaten
to near death on camera and then died later. Anyway,
all this stuff just worries me. And just the concept
of more military vehicles rolling up for you know, protests
and things like that makes me really uneasy. So we'll see.
Thank you so much Lord V and Fozzy for sending
(24:40):
us those messages. We'll be right back after a message
from our sponsors.
Speaker 1 (24:50):
And we have returned. We're also not returning alone. We're
bringing a guest of sorts back on the show, none
other then Big Shucks. And by way of Big Shucks,
we're also going to hear from our old pal, Jordan Harbinger. Now, Matt,
you may recall low several years ago you and I
(25:14):
had the opportunity to go hang out with Jordan on air.
I'm still mad that I had the wrong setting on
my MIC. Just heads up to everyone, but it's still
a fascinating conversation.
Speaker 2 (25:26):
Oh yeah, I remember that conversation.
Speaker 1 (25:28):
Well, so our pal Shucks says, hey, guys, this is insane.
I don't remember the figure thrown out, but allegedly ninety
five percent of cobalt is unethically extracted cobalt from the DRC,
the Democratic Republic of Congo and then smuggled through Rwanda.
And this is something conspiracy of which all big tech
(25:51):
companies are aware. Shucks, You then introduce us and therefore
all our fellow conspiracy realists. To transcript of this episode.
This is part of a fantastic series that Jordan has
created called Out of the Loop, and in Out of
(26:13):
the Loop episodes, Jordan and his guest dig into something
kind of like strange news, current events that aren't really
well reported in the West, either due to lack of
interest or in my opinion, sometimes due to dedicated enthusiasm
(26:35):
for not informing the public. And in this conversation, the
Shucks so wonderfully points us to Jordan. Harbinger speaks with
two investigative journalists, Nathan Paul Southern and Lenzy Kennedy, and
they talk about the DRC and Rwanda. They specifically talk
about something called the M twenty three militia. Delia has
(27:01):
been around for a little bit, right, they've been they've
been around the block a few times, and they've been
taking over parts of the country that have access to
let's call them valuable mineral resources, so not quite rare
earth metals in the case of cobalt, but still resources
(27:23):
that are mission critical for all the modern electronics you
could imagine, computer chips, electric vehicles. The way that you're
able to listen to this podcast, which statistically speaking for
most of us, is going to be on a mobile device.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
Yeah, we're talking about gold, coal, tan, and not cobalt,
but other minerals as well.
Speaker 1 (27:49):
Yes, yeah, and we know that this is this has
always been a calculation, especially in recent decades, for geopolitical
instability and freedom fighters or terrorist groups, especially when you
get into their murky funding, right like, how like it's
(28:10):
the old question that happens in Latin America so often.
How did these students become so highly trained in tradecraft
and you know, their political leanings purported or actual aside?
How did they get those guns? How did they get
that equipment?
Speaker 2 (28:28):
You know, what are those conflict free guns?
Speaker 1 (28:31):
Right? Right? Right? Those are those ethically raised, gluten free,
free range Ak's and Kalishnikov's time will tell. This is
what these journalists find when they're speaking with Jordan, and
please do listen to the episode. The guy does great
work and we're not blowing smoke. We're just fans of
(28:52):
the show. The journalists we mentioned earlier, that being Kennedy
and Southern, they find that there is some connection between
the United Kingdom's Rwanda refugee resettlement program and the new
resurgence of M twenty three. M twenty three had previously
(29:18):
gone kind of dark. We're not saying everybody got arrested
or went to the International Criminal Quart or anything. We're
say they laid low.
Speaker 2 (29:28):
Interesting, So then this new thing comes through, this new
program sponsored where the UK comes through, and then they're back.
Speaker 1 (29:36):
Yeah, all right, exactly. Yeah. The timing suggests that funding
from this United Kingdom resettlement program may have, in one
way or another provided funding to the M twenty three movement.
And let's talk a little bit about those folks too,
(29:57):
because they are M twenty three aviation for the March
twenty third Movement or March twenty three Movement. They're also
known as the Congolese Revolutionary Army. They are a rebel
paramilitary group. They are backed by forces in Rwanda, as
far as we know, relatively young in that they were
(30:21):
formed in twenty twelve, and they're largely constituted of former
Congolese soldiers who came from Rwandan and Congolese communities in
the northern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo. And
they originally, at least according to their statements, they wanted
(30:43):
better representation within this area of the country. Rwanda is
allegedly leveraging. Like here's the focus or the speculation, the
conspiracy is that Rwanda is allegedly stealing these precious resources
from the Democratic Republic of Congo, taking them across the
(31:06):
border illicitly, and then saying, yeah, we mind all of
this in Rwanda, which means it's conflict free, which means hey, Tesla,
hey Apple, you can use these and you won't have
any dirty MacBooks.
Speaker 2 (31:24):
Dang if they're doing okay. So I'm imagining a scenario
where it's known locally that this is what's happening, and
somebody is getting paid enough to make the minerals crossing
borders like that make sense to them, Like where it's
initially coming from. And then those are now conflict free,
(31:46):
which means then they can get sold at a premium.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
And then we also see yeah, I would agree with
that chain of custody. There we also see the emergence
of pmc's private military contractors from a bevy of places.
Of course, even with the continuing conflict in Ukraine, Russia
is by hook Er by Crook, invested in parts of
(32:13):
the African continent. Of course, various US billionaires leading tech
companies need to keep making their products. So in this conversation,
which again please do tune in, folks, in this conversation,
we witness an exploration of how understanding things that could
(32:34):
be called conspiracies can help you or challenge you to
make more ethical consumer choices. But that's a very easy
thing to say. It's a very difficult thing to do.
I mean, we're not just talking Coldtan, We're also talking
you know, like you said, cobalt gold, a bevy of
(32:55):
other things. We know that these are stories the best
honestly seems like they don't want to hear pretty often, right,
we like our conflicts easily explained in the first sixty
seconds and easily theoretically solved in the next three minutes.
Speaker 2 (33:14):
We like new iPhones, and that's.
Speaker 1 (33:17):
Kind of a hazard of the low attention economy, right,
in which so many ephemeral conversations thrive. We know that
the United Nations, in their opinion, has Rwanda dead to
rights on the March twenty third movement. They believe Rwanda
(33:37):
as the state actor created and commanded this rebel group
to get up to Shenanigan's. However, the next question, the
unavoidable question there is who helped to Rwanda do that?
Did they do it on their own? Were they pushed?
Were they encouraged? Was there someone holding an elbow and
(34:00):
whispering into the ear of the leaders? Unfortunately, in this
kind of milieu, that is an unavoidable question that has
to be asked, even though a lot of people would
prefer it not be brought up in conversation.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
Yeah, agreed. In the end, who benefits?
Speaker 1 (34:20):
Right, que bono?
Speaker 2 (34:22):
Where do those materials actually go?
Speaker 1 (34:25):
Right? They go, They go to you, They go to you,
the consumer, in a way that can be very difficult
to parse. You know that you're not ever, you will
not currently see a sticker on a smartphone or in
the window of a car to a dealership that says, hey,
(34:45):
just you know, fair notice, we got all the stuff
to make this without you know, destroying innocent communities. You're
never going to see the opposite of that, like I
if that would happen a conflict mining warning, like a
tobacco advisory that says, hey warning, by the way, more
(35:09):
people than you know died for this cell phone.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
Well yeah, twenty off, twelve dozen villages were attacked in
getting these. Yeah, that's that's messed up.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
But I think this also occurred. This is the reason
why it doesn't feel wing nut to ask some of
these questions, because we know, especially Western or US based
tech companies are scrambling to find alternative resource supply chains
(35:42):
right as as currently look China, you'll often hear that
the nation of China controls the rare earth game, and
that is true. But there's an important piece of the
puzzle that also doesn't really get shared out as often
as it should, which is the following. The US also
(36:03):
has access to stores of these resources as to China.
The issue is that environmental regulation. I know I sound
crazy when I say this. The issue is that environmental
regulations and policies in the US prevent the same kind
of manufacturing and harvesting and processing of these raw resources,
(36:28):
so the US could if those regulations were repealed, the
US could spin up some of this stuff, but it
would have hard and measurable environmental consequences. The nation of
China exists under a different regime of policies, so that's
why they were able to become the world supplier.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
Yeah, but you know, the US could just sign a
big deal with oh, I don't know, Ukraine and then
gain access to the moneies and materials being mined out
of that country if they provide lots and lots of
money for weapons.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
As we discussed earlier, called it a quid pro quo there,
and it's similar to like a len lease agreement of old.
It's also a what's the best way to say it,
it's a it's a promise for action in the future
or or words in the future, and it's always in
(37:24):
human civilization, it's always easy to promise people the moon
and stars in the future because you don't actually have
to provide the moon and stars when you sign the thing.
Speaker 4 (37:37):
You know.
Speaker 2 (37:37):
Oh yeah, it's making me think about all the companies
that we don't know the names of that actually process
these materials, you know, because it's when an Apple or
a Tesla or a Google gets those materials are there. Well,
I don't know. Maybe I'm fully wrong in my mind.
(37:58):
Those companies don't do that, the actual processing and building
of the things they buy, the microprocessors they buy. We
talked about that with the chips episode a little bit
redne deep into who's actually making the chips. They go
into all the things that all the big companies buy,
you know, then they buy.
Speaker 1 (38:19):
And how does it get from how so China controls
ninety percent of rare earth processing. I was digging into
some mining trade publications and some of their research. I'd
recommend reading an article that came out today. Actually wow,
I guess started early in the morning today on May night,
(38:40):
as we record this mining technology by Caroline Peachey, exploring
US efforts to find a secure supply of rare earth elements.
As we're pointing out, it's not that other countries can't
have this stuff in the ground, it's that China is
better at processing it right now, sort of like how
(39:01):
you can have tons of bubbling crude, to quote the
Beverly hillbillies on the land, but you need it to
be refined, and extracting the crude and refining the crude
are two different skill sets, right, and they both have
their own knock on consequences. This also leads us to
(39:24):
another story. This was from earlier March seventeenth, twenty twenty five.
Interesting engineering. Big shout out to the journalist Amir Colom
who reported this is one of the first times I
had heard of this reported that the US has found
eight point four billion dollars worth of rare earths in
coal ash landfills here in the goal US of a.
(39:49):
We've been sitting on it for a while and now
all we have to do is figure out how to
navigate the faustian bargain right of processing that stuff, knowing
that it's it's bad for the people living there.
Speaker 2 (40:05):
I want to look into coal ash dump sites now.
Speaker 1 (40:09):
M yeah, it sounds like perfect insult too you coal.
Speaker 2 (40:13):
Ash dump dump side.
Speaker 1 (40:16):
But this is uh, this coal ash stuff, which yeah,
maybe we should research further. We know it has a
million tons of rare earth elements, which is already nearly
eight times the US is known domestic reserve. And again,
rare earth elements or minerals. This is a group term
that we've discussed in the past, so it means more
(40:39):
than one thing. It means a lot of stuff you
might really you wouldn't call them, like the main characters
of the periodic table dysprosium, gadolinium, luteum, samarium, scandium, turbium,
and of course yetrium. I saved yettrium for the end,
Like when you hear the cast of an ensemble film,
(41:00):
it's like and Tommy Lee Jones and gytrium and then
someone yeah, yeah, yeah, not to be confused with uterbium,
which is somehow also a real thing.
Speaker 2 (41:11):
Oh, congratulations, we did it.
Speaker 1 (41:14):
Congratulations we did it, And shout out to Oh gosh,
lest we cast aspersion. Shout out to Tennessee pal who
got so excited and said, my boy, yetrium. So you've
got a big fan here. We would love to hear
from you regarding this, folks. I know we ran a
little bit long on this part, but it's an important
(41:36):
conversation that needs to continue, because there is literally stuff
they don't want you to know at play here and
the world hinges upon it. So write to us, contact us,
tell us your thoughts, especially if you have PMC experience
or mining experience. We want to hear how all these
red strings vibrate and connect. While you're doing that, take
(42:00):
a pause for a word from our sponsors, and we'll
be back with a little bit more listener mail. All right,
we've returned. We spent some time on some very serious things.
We can't wait to hear your thoughts. While we're doing that,
We're going to round out tonight's program with a lovely
(42:24):
little letter from home. It turns out very good news, guys.
We have a new expert joining us. We love to
collect experts. We've got some physicists, We've got some meteorologists,
We've got truckers, We've got people from all sorts of professions.
Shout out to our aviators as well, Matt Dylan. We
(42:48):
got some clown love recently from Youuford. Who I will?
I'll share this letter and then I'll nominate them to
be our go to expert for one of the most
phenomenal musical movements in recent US history? Are we ready?
Can we guess what it is?
Speaker 2 (43:07):
I tave Matthews band, I don't.
Speaker 1 (43:09):
Know DMB, DMB. We do need a DMB director is
to or corresponded. At least here we go. Let her
from home. Beauford says, Hello, Ben Nolan, Matt, it's Beauford again.
As always, feel free to use my name and message
on air. Nice. I am writing to offer a correction
to what Ben said on the recent listener mail segment.
(43:31):
The Insane Clown Posse did not come out as a
Christian band per se. Thank you for that correction, Buford.
We prize that sort of stuff, Beewford. You continue in
the song Thy Unveiling, they do say that their message
is about God. However, Violent Jay has since gone on
record saying that he regrets using specifically Christian terminology. And
(43:54):
that's what I was referring to right when he was
saying the big reveal of the Malinko and the Carnival.
So they did originally say that, but now they regret it. Okay,
but they don't throw the whole thing out. As Beauford continues,
the point was more about believing in some higher being. However,
they the Insane Clown Posse, take issue with the hierarchy
(44:15):
of the church and do not advocate for any specific
religion or denomination, similar to a more Buddhist outlook. And
I love that point, Buford, because I can't remember if
I mentioned it on air. I recently accidentally got baptized
into Buddhism. Anyway, Buford says, it's about finding your own
path to God and not promoting their own ICP's personal views.
(44:38):
With how often the subject of juggalos seems to come
up for you, guys, I do volunteer my services to
be your resident Juggalo fact checker. I have been down
with the clown as they say, since I was a
young lad, since the Jekyl brother era. And yes I
do have the hatchet man tattoo. Love what you fellas do.
(45:00):
Keep up the good work much clown love, Buford. I
don't know, Matt. I'm persuaded. What do you think?
Speaker 2 (45:07):
Well, yeah, I have two questions. What is the Jeckyl
brother era? Is that an album or a song? Is
that a I don't know that. The Amazing Jekyl Brothers
is the fifth studio album by the Insane Cloud Posse. Okay,
so that was nineteen ninety nine. Thank you Eilands for
that second question. Have you, Buford, ever taken a helicopter
(45:31):
ride at one of the gatherings? Because we need to
know about that. How good was the helicopter ride?
Speaker 1 (45:39):
Yes, yeah, yeah, yeah, And I remember also Buford, you'll
enjoy this. Guys and I went through a phase where
we would watch the very long infomercials for ICP gatherings
every year. Every year. It was the closest we had
to an established religion. I also, you know, I'll always
(46:00):
have a special part in my heart for Vanilla Ice
dressed up as an alien, remember that one.
Speaker 2 (46:07):
Yeah, I remember all the hits. Oh, they swim through
my consciousness like some sort of clowns that swim.
Speaker 1 (46:16):
Yes, yes, Mr clowns. I think they're called. Oh. I
love that idea too. That's my new favorite cryptid. Imagine
you're lost at sea in the eighteen hundreds and then
you say, hey, that mermaid looks kind of goofy, and
then the old first made is like a maybe you
see that not to be a merriment. It is a
mirror clown is you can hear you can hear the
(46:40):
honkin in the night?
Speaker 3 (46:42):
Oh man, why is that so much scarier than a mermaid?
Speaker 2 (46:48):
It really is. It's such a beautiful movement that brings
together like you in all the positive things of the
Rainbow family with like Ringling brothers. Somehow, I don't know.
It just makes me so happy. It's very it's a
very positive.
Speaker 1 (47:04):
Movement, unfairly characterized as domestic terrorism by the FBI. We
have to say that, yes, and and you know, the
the energy is, as he said, quite inclusive. And even
if you know what's funny is we have these conversations
and even if you're not a fan of this very
(47:25):
specific genre of horror core inspired music, yeah, have to.
And even if you know how madness work, you have
to acknowledge that they make a concerted effort to welcome
everyone that they can with that. An example of that,
we got a surprise from Tennessee pal. He just sent
(47:47):
us his let's see what'd you call this? Oh? His
favorite tweet assumingly favorite tweet of all time from the
official Insane Clown Posse account quote, I don't care what
we've said in our raps, women come number one. We
all owe our lives to wemon.
Speaker 2 (48:09):
That can't be real. There's no way that's real, Dylan,
he says, it's real with.
Speaker 1 (48:18):
So many exclamation marks. That's why it's your favorite. That's
wemond spelled w E M o n by the way.
Speaker 2 (48:25):
Wemon, maybe they just mean like climax first. Is that
what they mean.
Speaker 1 (48:31):
I think they mean, despite you know, the shock nature
of some of the lyrical content, that in real life
they are not misogynists.
Speaker 2 (48:41):
Okay, well that's.
Speaker 1 (48:43):
Nice unless wemon are different from women, which is unclear.
We want to rhyme with peymon by the way, the
way it's spelled us, that's what we've got. I don't know.
Let's let's vote right now and you can vote with us, folks. Uh,
the Court, I nominate Beauford to be our ongoing ICP
(49:05):
subject matter expert. Do we have any eyes? Nay's a's eyes.
Speaker 2 (49:12):
I have two eyes for you.
Speaker 1 (49:15):
There we go, okay, and Dylan does the thumbs up. Judges,
can we accept that? Okay, Yeah, it looks like we're good.
Congratulations Beauford. Thank you to Big Shucks, thank you to
Lord V, thank you to Fozzy, Thank you to everybody
who took the time to join our continuing and increasingly
strange endeavor here. We want to hear from you as well.
(49:38):
You can find us online via Instagram, YouTube, all the
social med should thou sip we are conspiracy stuff, conspiracy
stuff show or some derivation thereof anywhere on the wide
old Internet until we get black bagged. You can also
give us a call on the telephone or hit us
at our email address.
Speaker 2 (49:58):
Our phone number is one eight three three STDWYTK. It's
a voicemail system. You've got three minutes when you call in.
Give yourself a cool nickname and let us know in
the message if we can use your name and message
on the air. If you've got more to say, they
could fit. Sorry, I was trying to do a micromachine style.
If you got more to say, they can fit in
a three minute message one. Instead, send us a good
old fashioned email.
Speaker 1 (50:18):
We are the entities that read each piece of correspondence
we receive. Be well aware, yet unafraid. Sometimes the void
writes back conspiracy at iHeartRadio dot com.
Speaker 2 (50:46):
Stuff they don't want you to know is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News
Hosts And Creators
Matt Frederick
Ben Bowlin
Noel Brown
Show Links
RSSStoreAboutLive ShowsPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.