Everything you're not supposed to talk about w/ Bret Weinstein

In this explosive episode of Liberty Lockdown, Dr. Bret Weinstein unveils shocking truths about the Deep State, Jeffrey Epstein’s hidden power, and the chilling origins of COVID-19 as a potential bioweapon. From Trump’s puzzling priorities to a global cabal pulling the strings, Weinstein connects the dots on Ukraine, Israel, and the fight for freedom. Don’t miss this raw, unfiltered dive into the forces shaping our world.
Follow Bret here: https://x.com/BretWeinstein
Sponsor link: go to https://www.joincrowdhealth.com/ and use promo code LOCKDOWN at sign-up to get your first 3 months at just $99/per month
Check out my show over on Fountain: https://www.fountain.fm/show/nUTYcMtl4yMuoKHljZWu
Become a supporting member of Liberty Lockdown here!: https://libertylockdown.locals.com/ This is where I do monthly AMA's for supporting members only Super valuable stuff!
Twitter: https://twitter.com/LibertyLockPod
Pickup LL shirts over at https://www.toplobsta.com/products/ll-lakers?_pos=5&_sid=e7319ba4a&_ss=r&variant=40668064186434 NEW DESIGNS JUST DROPPED
All links: https://www.libertylockdownpodcast.com/
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/libertylockdown
As always, if you leave a five star review on Apple Podcasts with your social media handle I'll read it on next weeks show (audio version only)! Love you long time
Liberty Lockdown presents a variety of opinions, sometimes opposing and controversial. They are not representative of the host of the podcast. Guests are encouraged to express their opinions in a safe and equitable environment.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
I you know, I'm Jewish, but I'm an American. I
believe in America in my core, and there are no
chosen people in America. That's the thing. If America is
actually going to function, the point is what we get
is a level playing field. Is it ever going to
be perfectly leveled?

Speaker 2 (00:19):
No?

Speaker 1 (00:20):
But what we should want, what we should all collaborate
on as Americans, is a level playing field in which
nobody has special access, nobody has special protections, and we
don't need them. That's that's the objective of the exercise.
And you can say, well, Brett, you're being naive, but
I don't think so. And you know, if that's the argument,

(00:40):
if that's the argument, is that America is naive, then
let's have it out. Let's have that conversation. I'm fully
ready for it. But let us not pretend that America
works and then quietly undermine it by saying, well, but
there are certain groups that need special protections, blah blah blah,
that's not how it works.

Speaker 3 (00:57):
Welcome to Liberty Lockdown. This is Clint Russell. Today. I'm
joined by doctor at Weinstein.

Speaker 2 (01:00):
He is.

Speaker 3 (01:02):
Just an incredibly brilliant guy. I have been fortunate enough
to do a couple panels with him, and I am
thoroughly impressed. I think that he's one of the great
minds of today, and not to say that he's the
most brilliant man on the planet, but I think he
is very brilliant, and he's also most importantly courageous. I
think that's what we lack most of all, is intelligent

(01:24):
people that actually have the balls to say something truthful
when it matters most. Brett has demonstrated that courage in
a way that very very few people have, and for
that reason, I am thrilled that he was willing to
have this conversation. We go about as deep as I
can take him on every topic that you're not supposed

(01:46):
to talk about. Everything that you're not supposed to say,
we do so for that reason, I am asking you
to hit the like button, subscribe and share this around
because I have a feeling based off of the context
of this conversation. The algorithm will not treat us kindly
and it will be left to you if you'd like
the world to hear it, So please do. We just

(02:08):
hit twenty seven thousand subscribers, and as you know, the
more subscribers, the more viewers. The more listeners, the higher
profile guests I'm able to have on, which is why
I was able to get Dr Weinstein on, which otherwise
I would not have been able to because I've been
doing good views thanks to you guys, and he was
willing to give me about seventy five minutes of his
time and it is well worth your time. So I

(02:30):
hope you guys enjoyed this one. Enjoy I am thrilled
the day to have on doctor Brett Weinstein. He and
I have done a couple panels together over Freedom Fest
and I have always been impressed with his analysis of
the past five years. I have gone from a passive
observer of his too, I would say friend, and I
think that he is an absolutely brilliant human being. So

(02:51):
thank you so much, Dr Weinstein for joining Liberty Lockdown today.

Speaker 1 (02:55):
Awesome to see you, and I'm looking forward to.

Speaker 3 (02:58):
This absolutely man. All right, so let's start here. I
think you and I are both I would say pragmatic,
cautiously optimistic Trump first time, I would imagine Trump voters,
I don't know if you voted for him many other times.
This was my first time, and I got to say
even though I don't think my expectations were extremely lofty.

(03:21):
As of now, I feel relatively disappointed with the outcome.
I'm curious what your grades are for him. I know
that you were kind of more in alignment with him
because of probably RFK Junior and maybe Tulsi or something
like that. What are your thoughts.

Speaker 1 (03:39):
I am confused by what I see. Me too, I
am completely comfortable with having voted for Trump. It was
my first time because of the apocalypse that was represented
by the Blue ticket, true, and so I I just

(04:00):
don't think there was any rational choice. We had an
absolute emergency on our hands, and this simple ability to
vote for something that was in some way authentic made
it the only game in town now. As for what
is transpiring under the Trump administration, I am aware that

(04:24):
there is a labyrinth of power and a hidden priority list.
The administration presumably has things it wants to accomplish. The
labyrinth of power sets the ground rules as to what
can be accomplished at what rate and in exchange for

(04:44):
what I know. I'm not privy to that, and so
the real question is how does this stack up compared
to what was possible given the cards that President Trump
held on inauguration. I don't think any of us are
in a position to answer that. So, you know, is

(05:05):
the disappointment the result of the fact that the constraints
on the president are greater than we hoped and maybe imagined.
Are they the result of the priorities not being the
represented priorities. Undoubtedly that plays some role. But you know, again,
in light of what was you know, we had President

(05:28):
Biden was not the president in the meaningful sense of
that term. For them to have attempted to run him
again and then at the point that that became implausible
to swap in an empty shirt is such a dire

(05:49):
commentary on the state of the Republic that I think
every conversation about how the Trumpet administration is doing has
to begin with the fact that there was no alternative.

Speaker 3 (06:00):
Yeah, there's no disagreement there. And I know I've told
people this and my audience gets mad at me for it,
but I still don't regret voting for him. I think
that Kamala Harris is if you thought that, you know,
Joe Biden was a puppet, she was no better than that,
for sure. And I do think that there has been
at least efforts by Donald Trump to de escalate with Russia,

(06:23):
which was my biggest concern with the Biden administration in
terms of existential crisis. I thought that we were really
on the precipice of World War three. And well, lately
it seems as if the relations between Trump and Putin
have been chilling. At least it seems as if he's trying.
Russia today hit Kiev with missiles and drones.

Speaker 2 (06:42):
More than one hundred people kids Russia. I think it's
disgusting what they're doing. I think it's disgusting. This is
Biden's war, it's not my war. But I said, if
I get in, I'll try and get the thing stopped.
But I think what Russia's doing is very said, a
lot of Russians are dying. You have a lot of Russians.
More Russians are dying, but Russians are dying, Ukrainians are dying.

(07:05):
You know, the United States isn't really involved in that war.

Speaker 3 (07:07):
It shouldn't be.

Speaker 2 (07:08):
And by the way, I made a deal with NATO
where NATO pays US for everything that we send. We
send them ammunition, missiles, etc. And we're not paying anything
for that war. But I will tell you this, it
should be stopped. It's a disgrace. And the ones that
are dying or so, they're losing seven thousand now was
five thousand, they're losing now seven thousand soldiers a week,

(07:30):
Ukrainian soldiers and Russian soldiers. And they're also losing people
now in the towns and cities because Putin's hitting them
with rockets.

Speaker 3 (07:37):
So I guess that's what I was asking for, is
someone to actually push for peace and to try. I
am deeply concerned though with much of the So there
was all these campaign promises. We expected, to some extent
there to be COVID justice or to be at least
reforms in the vaccine world. I think RFK has delivered

(07:58):
on some of that, maybe not as much as I
would like. I would like to see real investigations, indictments, prosecutions,
and we'll probably talk about that in a little bit.
But then obviously just the vast corruption that I think
has come to the light or at least become much
more obvious to the general public. And I don't just

(08:19):
mean Russian collusion, but certainly the lockdown paradigm, the yeah,
I mean obviously the spying on Donald Trump was crazy,
the vaccine mandates. How dangerous that was. There was just
so so many opportunities for a real attack strategy against
the corruption that exists within the government, within the deep state.

(08:39):
And what I see the Trump administration, particularly Bondie RFK Junior,
Donald Trump himself, their focus seems to be on like
hate speech laws for Israel. When I see them talk
about issues, they get really like the teeth come out
when it comes to defa Israel, And I'm just it

(09:02):
seems like a strange priority for a guy who campaigned
on America. First. What do you make of that? I mean,
do you notice it at all? And what are your thoughts?

Speaker 1 (09:12):
I mean, I can't help but notice it. And it's
terrifying because it can only be the result of either
leverage or delusion, and I tend to think it must
be leverage. But either way, it is bizarre that we

(09:40):
are placing the interests of another nation ahead of the
interests of this country, especially under Trump's banner. So I'm
never endingly troubled by indications in this direction. I don't
think it's good for Israel. I don't think it's good
for the world. I do think something has a set

(10:03):
of priorities that it has not shared, and it has
the leverage to make those priorities manifest under an administration
that campaigned under the inverse. It's very troubling and I
don't know what to make of it. I think it
is telling us that we have to find out why

(10:28):
we can't escape this paradigm. But I did want to
go back to one thing you said earlier, though. I
think the de escalation with Russia has two components, and
you nailed one of them. We do have somebody who
does seem to be interested in de escalation. It's not

(10:48):
a smooth road, but I think, maybe even more importantly,
we have a person who, old as he is, is
in possession of his mental health faculties, who can respond
to an emergency phone call about things spiraling out of
control with Russia and can de escalate in an emergency.

(11:11):
One of the things that I hold the Democratic Party
responsible for, and that I would argue means the Democratic
Party cannot be resurrected, It cannot go clean. Now I
will not accept the Democratic Party. One of the reasons
is that they put a non COMPASSMENTUS figurehead in a

(11:34):
position where he was the failsafe against a nuclear escalation
and then even more insanely, they escalated with that figurehead
in that office. And so that seems to me so reckless,
not only with the well being of the Republic, but
with the well being of the entire planet that even

(11:57):
if I had seen no insect stinked towards de escalation
under Trump, which is not true, But even if that's
what I had seen, at least having a human being
who presumably does not want to see a nuclear war
in a position to take the phone call, to take
the various options put in front of him by his deputies,

(12:19):
and to evaluate what the best way forward is in
a crisis, even that is just a night and day
difference from what the Democrats handed us.

Speaker 3 (12:30):
Oh, no disagreement, And I think, I mean, despite the
fact that I'm a very harsh critic of Donald Trump,
particularly in his second term. Oh, I was a much
harsher critic in his first term with the lockdowns. But yeah,
I mean, the freezing and shutting down of major aspects
of USAID was a godsend. I was very you know,
that was a shocker to me. I think RFK Junior

(12:51):
in tolls, you have delivered on many levels. So I'm
not it's not as if like it's all doom and
gloom here. And I completely agree with your assessment that
it's very important that when you're playing footsy with nuclear war,
you have a someone wielding the feet that actually is

(13:11):
able to, you know, pick up the phone in the
middle of the night and not being asleep at six pm.
So and Donald Trump may never sleep. I'm not even
sure if he's a human being at this point, but
I am very so. I think the reason that, at
least I'll just speak for myself, the reason that I
ended up supporting Trump is because after so much abuse,

(13:34):
after facing seven hundred years in prison, after having a
bullet grazed his head, after having the FBI spy on him,
after having multiple, you know, trumped up charges that were
placed against him, there was just so and then then
the media twenty four to seven just hit pieces against
him for eight years straight. And then also understanding the

(13:55):
nature of the COVID era and how much of that
was done under the cover of darkness and without his understanding,
and kind of concluding that that was probably utilized to
Austin from power the first go around. So take all
of that in its totality and I think it's rational
to come to the conclusion that Donald Trump is a
real outsider, Like this guy is not what the establishment wants.

(14:19):
You had, I mean, we just had all of these
disclosures over the past forty eight hours, which you and
I probably already knew about in detail. But Obama, Hillary Clinton,
Steele dossier, the whole Brennan Clapper, the whole lineup. It's like, yeah,
this was all true. Like they worked from day zero
to get this guy out or at least to undermine him.
So anyways, I say all that to say this, I

(14:41):
come to the conclusion that this guy is a real outsider.
And then he's making trade policy based off of whether
or not Canada will acknowledge the statehood of Palestine, And
I'm like, I'm like, this is so strange to me,
Like where is the you just the juxtaposition of like,

(15:02):
this guy's got to be an outsider renegade, and then
that making trade policy based off of foreign relations of
nations that are not our own, that are six thousand
miles away. I cannot I cannot get these in alignment.
And I just wanted to circle back to your point
earlier about it appears to be leverage. What is the leverage?

Speaker 1 (15:25):
I don't know, and I guess I'm less certain than
I once was that Trump is definitely an outsider, And
in fact, I'm not even sure we've got the framework right,
because I think he has to have been a true outsider,

(15:46):
that the insiders truly feared for them to have unleashed
some of the amazing law fair against him, for example,
that they clearly did. But that does not mean that
there isn't a contingency plan in which so you would

(16:08):
imagine think of this the way the deep state must
think of it. And I don't even think the deep
state is the right description. The deep state is clearly
some super national cabal. You know, it contains elements of,
or maybe the entirety of the five eyes. Maybe five
eyes isn't enough eyes to really describe how many parties
are in play. But imagine how they must think of it.

(16:32):
They must think, assuming this wasn't theater from the beginning
that fooled you and me, assuming that Trump truly was
an outsider that frightened a certain extra constitutional elite, they
must have thought, we can stop him. Here's how we're

(16:54):
going to do it. And if we fail to stop him.
Here's what we're going to do to arouse him, and
what I'm concerned. The most parsimonious explanation for what I
have seen so far is that he was an outsider
who has now surrendered on a couple of different fronts,

(17:24):
possibly in order. You know, you could imagine a conversation
in which somebody sat down with him and said, mister President,
here's what we've got, and here's what unfolds if you
go out this like the new sheriff in town. On
the other hand, you beat us fair and square. We're

(17:45):
ready to accept that you have the legitimate right to
change a certain number of things in your direction, and
we won't stand in your way so long as you
recognize that these things aren't to be touched. And if
they were touched, the following would unfold. Right, you could
imagine a speech like that, and then you could imagine

(18:06):
that it would cause the temper tentrum that we saw
President Trump throw over Epstein. President Trump was tweeting at
us about letting Epstein go. His point was, look how
much other great stuff I'm doing for you, This is nothing.
Let it go.

Speaker 3 (18:23):
Now.

Speaker 1 (18:24):
That doesn't make sense to me, because it appears that
Epstein is the label on an architecture for extra constitutional
control of the United States power structure. So my feeling
is there's no higher issue, and it has nothing to

(18:44):
do with Jeffrey Epstein. It has to do with what
Jeffrey Epstein was doing and what role that is currently
playing in terms of what we are and are not
able to do in the US, all of which is
offensive to the idea of the consent of the government.
We are supposed to govern ourselves, and we are not
governing ourselves for reasons we don't understand until we get

(19:06):
to the bottom of what Epstein was, who he was
interacting with, what he has on them, what they've been
doing for however many years that leverage existed, and pretending
that this is about the individual and that his death,
assuming he died, is therefore the final story in that

(19:27):
tale is nonsense. So I'm agnostic about what's really going on.
I think there's a range of possibilities. There's a very
remote possibility that Trump was, you know, an alternative narrative,

(19:48):
you know, where we've been given the ability to choose
between tide and cheer, and that it's not a real distinction.
I don't. I really don't think that's what happened, But
I think we have to leave it alive as a
a formal possibility. Sure, but then I think what I'm
reading looks like leverage was brought to bear and it

(20:10):
is now shaping what the Trump administration will and will
not accomplish from the priorities that I assume it had
coming into office.

Speaker 3 (20:20):
Yeah, I agree with all of that. I think it's
a very fair analysis. I have to wonder if the
Butler Pennsylvania attack wasn't some sort of an inflection point
where you know, they got that close to taking him
out and he's just like and maybe it requires a
phone call, maybe it doesn't, but you just ultimately there

(20:43):
is a shift in. But also the shift happens once
he gets into power. So it's just very hard to say.
I can't really establish a divination point or whatever the
word is. It's it's just very frustrating, and I think,
you know, just to kind of lay my cards in
the table. The reason I'm so I don't know, exhausted,

(21:04):
is that I just recognize what I think you probably
recognized too, is that this is just such an existential
moment for this country. And not just for this country,
but for the planet. When it's like America represents such
a important pivot point for human freedom and prosperity and
capitalism and all of these things that I really hold
dear self defense, free speech, and just the lockdown COVID era,

(21:30):
which Trump did preside over, at least in large part,
was such a huge diversion from that path of this
country that I love so much. And it's just like,
and then you have these proxy wars all over the world,
but particularly in Ukraine, which really disturbs me. And it

(21:50):
just feels as if in the censorship apparatus that was
rolled out during the COVID era, and it's like, just
all of this right, and then you have thirty seven
trillion dollars in debt. As a libertarian Austrian guy, I
can't help but pay attention to that. And it's just like,
the dollar is on the precipice of collapse. If that happens,
dollar reserve status ends, then the chickens really come home
to roost. Inflation can like basically I'm just laying all

(22:12):
the cards on the table to say, this is a
really important point for real leadership, not a puppet not
a guy who's seventy percent a real boy and thirty
percent not. Like we need a real hero. We need
someone to risk something, and I mean major And it's

(22:32):
not to say that Trump hasn't something, but we just
we kind of need a hero right now. And he's
not acting in that heroic level of courageousness that I
would I would like to see, particularly from someone who's
only got ten or twenty years left on the planet.

Speaker 1 (22:48):
Yeah, I exactly agree with that he is not doing
what I would hope a patriot would do in his shoes,
with the acknowledgment that I don't exactly know what he's
facing and what he's been what's been revealed to him.
But I also have the sense that the various threads

(23:11):
are not individual, they are not independent of each other,
That somehow Ukraine is very important for some reason, like
it's a money laundering operation that is not entirely distinct
from what's taking place in the Middle East. There seems

(23:32):
to be a kind of necessity to keep the Ukraine
conflict going, and I don't think it's entirely independent of
any of these other structures. I don't know if it's
connected to trafficking that you need. You need a location
with sufficient chaos to shield human trafficking. That you need

(23:55):
a place that you can get the US Congress to
send American tax dollars where they will become untraceable and
will circle back into elections and conflicts, and you know,
they become a black budget for whatever entities are wielding power.

(24:16):
I know that Benjamin Netanyahu is a diabolical figure, both
in the context of COVID and the context of the
war in the Middle East. He is also connected in

(24:37):
a way that I think is completely unforgivable to October
seventh itself. That his funding of Hamas means that Israel's
number one priority after October seventh should have been removing
bet Yahu from power, and having done priority one, its

(24:59):
second priority should have been getting to the bottom of
how exactly that failure could possibly have happened. You know,
whether that was that you know Hamas or Iran had
moles inside of the Israeli security apparatus, or there was
collusion or whatever it was. They needed to get rid
of Benjamin att Yahu and they needed to get to

(25:20):
the bottom of that, and having done neither, it creates
a stench surrounding the events in Gaza that I can't
look past. But again, my point is, I don't like
the sense that the calamity of COVID and the calamity
of Gaza and the calamity of Ukraine are all part

(25:41):
of some story that no one's ever told me. I
think they're not independent. And given such a thing, we
need to know there is no higher priority. And Trump
can't tell us hey, get over this or that and
I'll do some other cool stuff for you. This is
really about whether or not there is a United States

(26:03):
of America that functions under a constitution that we can
all go read.

Speaker 3 (26:07):
Right, It's like, hey, you just have to let us
continue to let the intelligence agencies traffic children to the
rich and powerful to blackmail them, but you get no
tax on tips. It's like, that's not fucking good enough. Okay,
excuse my language, but it's just not it's just not acceptable.
I mean, it's it's absolutely insane to me. I did

(26:30):
want to ask you your Your brother Eric actually said
something very interesting about Epstein. He gave this lengthy, kind
of cryptic answer where he hinted at Epstein being more
than just about compromising you know politicians in corporate America,
figures even, but rather big tech, and he didn't. He

(26:53):
didn't clarify much, and he kept it kind of vague.

Speaker 4 (26:55):
Jeffrey Epstein conducted a conference called Confronting Gravity. I don't
know who Jeffrey Epstein was, but I would certainly bet
money that he was a product of at least one
or more elements of the intelligence community. I desperately want
to know why Jeffrey Epstein knew so much about my work,

(27:16):
and I want to know why he was connected to
my graduate program. I was in the Harvard Mathematics department.
Jeffrey Epstein was absolutely connected to the Harvard math department.
I want to know why. I don't know who he was.
I don't know who ran him. He certainly was not
a financier in any standard sense. Really that was a
cover story. Yes, he wasn't a financier. Of the day

(27:37):
I met him, he was a weird guy. Didn't seem
to know a lot about currency trading.

Speaker 3 (27:41):
What the fuck was he doing talking about buddy Gravity.

Speaker 4 (27:43):
It's very important to get Nobel laureates and some of
the smartest people on earth to come to the Virgin
Islands and talk about gravity. Stephen Hawkins was there, David
Gross was there, Lawrence Krauss was there, Lisa Randall was
there right before his conviction.

Speaker 3 (27:55):
So I'm not asking you to read his mind, but
I'm just curious what your thoughts are, if you've seen that,
and if you have any thoughts as to like. And
I'm not asking for a firm answer, because I realized
neither of us know. But what do you think Epstein
was really a doing? I mean, because I do. I
think it was much bigger than just trafficking.

Speaker 1 (28:15):
Yes, I think you know, trafficking, if you understand it
correctly in the context of Epstein, is a means to
an end, and the fact that Epstein and whoever he
was partnered with were willing to do this in pursuit
of some other objective is ghastly. But don't lose sight

(28:37):
of the fact that it had a purpose. The purpose
was not perversion. The purpose was power. And I think what,
of course he was seeking to create leverage in every
realm that's meaningful. Why wouldn't you? Of course you would.

(28:58):
And so I think the thing is we have been
left with the job. You and I are doing the
job that the FBI is supposed to do right. We're
supposed to be trying to figure out a theory of
the case, and that's not our job. This is why
we elected this administration. This was one of the things
that was a high priority. And it isn't like we

(29:21):
assumed that when they got into power they would do this.
They told us they would, and having now told us
they won't, we got a problem on our hands. What
we now know is that the leverage generated is greater
than we assumed. The leverage, whatever its nature, is sufficient

(29:41):
to deviate this administration from that priority, and it means
that we should elevate that priority, and in fact, we should,
in my opinion, hold Trump to it. We should tell
them we're not gonna jump. We're not going to assume
that what we're seeing is true. In the age of AI,

(30:03):
we have to assume. As you know, the longer we
wait to get that evidence, the less useful it is,
because the less we know what part of it is real.
So this is this is a five alarm fire right now,
and I don't see a higher priority even though there
are lots of you know, it will not materially change
our life in the immediate but the ability to get

(30:26):
the dirty people away from the levers of power couldn't
possibly be a higher priority if you understand how power works.

Speaker 3 (30:34):
No disagreement. I think that's that's exactly right. And I
also think that's why the COVID justice is so important,
because if I'm right, and I don't know for sure
that I am, again, like you said, you know, this
is better left to the FBI if we had a
legitimate functioning FBI, but we don't, so podcasters are now

(30:54):
trying to figure out former mortgage brokers and biologists are
trying to figure out, like what the fuck happened here?
But I think that it was a bioweapon. I think
that COVID was, and I mean there's a question as
to the v and the solution as to whether or
not that was also a web, but whatever, I just
think that it's obvious to me that that also, as

(31:16):
you were saying earlier, like all of these stories seemed
to be intertwined, or at least certain fabrics of them
are intertwined. I mean, Tulci Gabbard has acknowledged this. You
had Victoria Nuland acknowledges under direct inquiry from Marco Rubio
of all people Secretary of State, who I think was
asking this question expecting her not to acknowledge it, but

(31:37):
she did, which was that there was bioweapons labs in Ukraine.

Speaker 5 (31:41):
Brain has biological research facilities which in fact, we are
now quite concerned Russian troops Russian forces may be seeking
to gain control of. So we are working with the
Ukrainians how they can prevent any of those research materials

(32:05):
from falling into the hands of Russian forces, should they approve?

Speaker 3 (32:10):
And it makes me wonder if that's not a big
part of the reason that Ukraine is so important, that
these labs might actually uncover the genuine origin story of COVID,
as opposed to the Wuhan, which I think may have
been the finalization phase of the creation of it. Again,

(32:30):
I don't expect you to have a firm answer on this,
but I'm curious what your thoughts are as to that.
Do you think that that's accurate at all? Am I
a lunatic? Please tell me I'm crazy?

Speaker 1 (32:43):
I wish I could. I would say we are beyond
a reasonable doubt that sars Kov two was generated in
the course of bioweapons research. Was it a bioweapon? I
don't know. It's possible that it is an escape and

(33:05):
that they didn't get to what they were looking for,
and so it is not a weapon in that sense.
But it was bio weapons research that added the fern
cleavage site. I believe I know what they were thinking
at a general level. They were looking for weaponizable pathogens

(33:26):
in viral clades that are not capable of infecting and
certainly not spreading between humans. They were trying to create
a bug that did that. For what purpose unclear. Were
they trying to create something deadly enough to be used
as a weapon in the battlefield sense. Maybe were they
trying to justify a shot that they had created for

(33:49):
other reasons. Maybe. I find the fact that the mRNA
shots trigger the production of IgG four extremely troubling. This
suggests that they may have inverted the normal expectation for
a weaponized pathogen. In other words, in general, if you

(34:14):
were a weapons a bioweapons person, you would want to
create a deadly pathogen and an immunity generating vaccine. You
could deploy your vaccine to the population you wanted to protect,
release the pathogen, and thereby do selective damage. But in
this case, the vaccine creates vulnerability. Not only does it

(34:38):
not work to prevent contraction and transmission of the disease,
but it tells the immune system to stand down in
response to the spike protein. So instead of a vaccine
that creates immunity, which is the definition of vaccine, it
creates a vulnerability. So if you just simply imagine that,

(34:58):
you don't know who's flag doctor Fauci actually flies. Well,
what he did was he created an emergency that caused
people to take an immunosuppressive shot. So, okay, here you've
got a bioweapons maker, highest paid member of the federal government,

(35:21):
who just gave every American who would listen to him
a shot that suppresses their immunity to a pathogen that
is now circulating. That sounds to me like a very
successful bioweapons planet, just targeted against the population. I didn't
expect to be targeted by doctor Fauci. Now, maybe he
accidentally did that. I just don't I don't know what's

(35:43):
going on, and I think I will say I think COVID,
much like Epstein, is the story we have to get
to the bottom of in order to understand what world
we live in.

Speaker 3 (35:54):
Man that was heavy and I agree with all of it,
and I've asked myself that, you know, in my my
scarier hours of introspection, that is which was the weapon?
You know, because when you really look at it, like
COVID was relatively benign, especially for the young and healthy,

(36:15):
it was like almost entirely benign. I got it. It
was not much more than a flu. Whereas you know,
my stepdad, who was very healthy after his second you know, shot,
he had a heart attack and nearly died. And it
was very very close after a few weeks after, which

(36:35):
apparently is like the window when a lot of people
have negative consequences. And I hope that I'm safe to
talk about it at this point. I think it's just
beyond the pale reprehensible that we weren't allowed to talk
about these things when it mattered most, when we had,
you know, when everybody I knew knew somebody who was
either hurt or dropping dead from this stuff. But it really,

(36:58):
I mean, the origin story it comes out of it
looks as if it comes out of unc Chapel Hill,
and then you have these murmurings about biolabs in Ukraine,
and then the official story now is that it came
out of Wuhan, but the official story prior was that
it came out of the wet market near Wuhan, which

(37:18):
John Stewart did a great joke on that. But setting
that aside anyways, point being, this thing is like global
in scope. It seems to migrate. So there's also been
reports that Canada Canadian labs were involved in the creation potentially.
I can't make heads or tails of it, other than
to say it's obvious to me that this was very

(37:39):
important to the government on some level. It looks like
DARPA actually rejected it because it was too dangerous. Fauci
offshores it to circumvent the laws that were put in
place under Obama to prevent this type of shit, and
then it still happens. But everybody is given immunity as

(37:59):
the corpse, as the cadaver of Joe Biden is wheeled
out of the White House, everybody's given immunity, including Fauci.
And it's just so obvious to me that like this
was whatever ran that operation really runs the world. Is
that fair?

Speaker 1 (38:15):
Yeah, certainly the implication, And I would point out there's
something very odd about the fact that Israel was explicitly
Pfiser's laboratory colony that surprises the hell out of me. Yeah,
zev Zelenko, before he died, told me that Netanyahu had

(38:39):
burned an entire warehouse of hydroxychloroquin, which is highly effective
against stars Kobe two. So there's something very strange going on,
and it circulates, you know, Yeah, bioweapons labs in Ukraine,
Israel is Pfiser's laboratory. What the hell is really going on?
I did want to add a possibility to your to

(39:00):
your speculation earlier about what the weapon is. Third possibility
is that the weapon isn't the virus, and it isn't
the shot. That it's a virus that oh is engineered
to have the spike protein that will trigger those who
were vaccinated to suppress their own immunity. Because you can

(39:24):
now take that spike protein put it on. Any virus
doesn't even have to be a coronavirus. It just has
to fly that flag in order to get the immune
system to fire off this response that has now been
encoded into the immune systems of a great majority of Americans.
So the whole thing requires people who are beyond reproach,

(39:51):
delving and going as deep as they need to go
to find out what this was and telling us we
need transparent across all of COVID. The story doesn't make sense.
We've made great headway on figuring out elements of it,
but we have to get to the bottom of it.
I don't care that people are sick of talking about COVID.
This isn't about COVID. This is about next time.

Speaker 3 (40:14):
Yes, oh no, I could not agree more. And it's
I mean, it's just bizarre to me that, like, people
aren't sick about talking about JFK, you know, sixty plus
years later. But like the large just even if you
take away all of the human suffering and loss of
life and loss of freedom, it's also the largest transfer
of wealth in human history. We're talking about trillions and

(40:34):
trillions of dollars that were transferred from largely the poor
and middle class to the uber wealthy. Then you have
the audacity to hear democrats lament income inequality, and it's like,
you guys were the biggest proponents of the lockdowns. You
didn't give a shit about the small business devastation that
was the consequence of these behaviors. I mean, it's just

(40:56):
that's just a small fraction of the inhumanity that we
dealt with during that era. As you can tell maybe
my show being Liberty Lockdown. I still take this very
seriously and I think it's I think it's the biggest,
most egregious infringement on so many levels I've ever seen
in my life. And I just can't believe that people
are like, let's move on. It's like, I honestly think

(41:18):
it's so severe, it was so serious, it was so
brutal that people don't want to think about it anymore.
What do you think about that? Is that like the
primary driving force between or by people that want to
move past this or are they just really they don't care.

Speaker 1 (41:35):
No, it's not that they don't care. I think there
is a lot of shame and fear. People are ashamed
of what they participated in, and they fear what they
did to themselves, and both of those things have them
wanting to not talk about it. And again my point is,
this isn't about history. This is about next time, whatever

(41:56):
it's going to be. So my sense is you either
have made eye contact with the fact that COVID was
two things. It was as successful as the tyrants have
yet gotten in controlling the global population. And it is

(42:18):
also the best window we are ever going to have
to understanding what power is really up to. Because we
made surprising progress, mostly in podcast land, fighting back and
unearthing the truth about viral origins, about repurposed drugs, about
vaccine safety and effectiveness, we have a leg up on

(42:41):
this story, so we have to pursue it. If you
understand what COVID was, you understand why we have to
pursue it, whether or not you ever want to hear
the word COVID again. And the only thing that competes
with it in terms of importance is Epstein. Right, these
are the two places where Goliath showed his hand, and
having showed his hand, those are the things that we

(43:02):
have to pursue wherever they lead in order to get
back to consent of the governed. Right. If you surrender
on either of those issues, you're effectively saying, I'm okay
with election theater, but I'm not I'm not going to
die on the hill labeled consent of the government. And
my feeling is if you're not going to die on
that hill, it's done.

Speaker 3 (43:22):
Today's episode is once again brought to you by our
friends over at Crowd health. Health insurance is confusing, it's expensive,
it's frustrating, and claim denials are becoming more and more common. Fact,
one in five Obamacare claims were denied last year, and
that is simply unacceptable. You need a better option, and
that better option exists. It's called crowd health. Stop sending

(43:44):
your money to big insurance companies who profit off of
not paying your bills and check out crowd health. For
one hundred and seventy five dollars for an individual or
five hundred and seventy five dollars for a family of
four or more, you could access to a community of
people who are willing to help out in the event
of emergency. You got access to telemedicine, visits and so
much more without doctor's networks getting in the way. And
of course, you'll join the crowd group of members just

(44:05):
like you will want to help pay for each other's
unexpected medical events. Let crowd health help with your healthcare needs.
Get started today for just ninety nine dollars per month
for your first three months by using the code lockdown
at join crowdhealth dot com. Crowdhealth is not insurance. Learn
more at joincrowdhealth dot com. That's join crowdhealth dot com,
code lockdown, let's get back into the show. Yeah. Well,

(44:26):
and I think it's it's funny because there's such a
huge percentage of Trump's base, who are, you know, thoroughly
convinced that he was robbed of the election in twenty
twenty And maybe it was, I don't know, but they
there are also some of the same people that are like,
let's move on from COVID. And it's like, bro, if
you if you think that the election was stolen from
Trump just at the ballot box, but you think that

(44:47):
COVID wasn't part of that, Like what are we even
talking about here? Just seems like a kind of a
myopia or myopia, like they're just not they're not seeing
the full scope. If you think that, you know, a
lot of the same people will be like totally convinced
that the deep state tried to shoot Trump Butler Pennsylvania,
but they can't imagine this COVID thing being rolled out. Anyways,

(45:10):
I did want to just kind of swing back to
a broader picture question, and I'll grant I know you're
already going to say, you don't know what percentage of
this was just about Donald Trump? The COVID era because
to me, I struggle to imagine, no matter how depraved

(45:31):
and sick the people that actually run this country or
this world are, that they would do that just to
get rid of Donald Trump. It has to be a
bigger plot. I do think it's very interesting, very confusing.
I'm sorry, I'm gonna throw multiple questions at just simultaneously.
But the fact that the creation of it seems to

(45:51):
as we already detailed, you know, American labs kind of
the origin, Canada, Ukraine, China. China is kind of the
talked about enemy of America, at least from the GOP
side of the aisle. They talk about that all the time,
and yet we we still talk about them being involved
in the creation of this virus that killed millions of people,

(46:14):
but we're not at war with them, so that that
automatically there's a conflict there. I'm just curious, what do
you like if you had to guess, and it seems
like there's multiple factors, but if you had to guess,
what was the purpose of it? And do you think
China was in on it with America.

Speaker 1 (46:37):
I've I've gotten better at thinking about this issue as
i've abandoned the idea that you can look at a
map and you can see a place labeled China. That's
a good point to it as one thing. And I
don't think you can do it with the US either.

Speaker 6 (46:54):
You know.

Speaker 1 (46:55):
I know because I'm an American and I pay attention
that if you had looked at the b behavior of
the Biden administration and you had said, well, the Americans
are trying to do X, you're not speaking for me,
right The Biden administration was my enemy. And so my
sense is China is multiple things. One of them appears

(47:17):
to be partnered with something over in the American deep state,
the Democratic National Committee. I don't know why, but there's
something odd about the fact that we're doing bioweapons research
in partnership with the Chinese. Explain that one to me

(47:38):
right now. It would make sense if you had a
cabal that had a Chinese element that wants a bioweapon
for reasons that are not in the interest of some
nation but are in the interest of the cabal, that
would make sense. But I think China, I think the
Chinese Communist Party is a hazard to us. I think

(48:04):
the Chinese Communist Party has some kind of a factional
war going on within it as you might expect it would,
and that if you don't understand it, and I don't,
I'm not an expert on this topic at all, it
makes the entire situation perplexing. But I would also point
out the following observation about domestic policy. I know that

(48:32):
I voted for an aggressive removal of aliens who came
in through the border that the Democratic Party opened up,
that the Democratic Party had some purpose in inviting a

(48:52):
huge influx of immigrants. And I'm not anti immigrant, I
am I'm very troubled by anybody who crossed while we
weren't taking names, had no process, and were inviting them
using international organizations to facilitate their transit. I mean, as

(49:15):
you probably know, I went to the Dairien Gap and
I watched the invasion taking place, and my sense was
that not only needed to stop, but that so many
people came in so quickly without us assessing whether they
were here to join us or to burn the place down,

(49:36):
that we needed an aggressive reversal. And I've seen aggressive
immigration policy, but it has targeted lots of people that
I don't think are a security priority. But what I
have not seen is did we go looking for the

(49:57):
large number of military age Chinese males that we know
flowed into the country. I haven't seen any of that.
Did I miss it?

Speaker 3 (50:07):
And I haven't seen a single report.

Speaker 1 (50:09):
You would imagine that not only would that be a
focus of the Trump administration because it would be because
it's alarming for good reason, but you would also imagine
that it would be a pr victory for them if
they were to find out where those people went and
send them home. And so the absence of that story,

(50:30):
it's a it's a clear dog that didn't bark. Why
is the Trump administration not pursuing the vast number of
people who came from the Middle East or Asia over
our open border after having campaigned on the horror of
that very thing?

Speaker 3 (50:48):
Yeah? No, I agree. I Actually I had Chris Martinson
on my show of like right after I think, did
he go with you too? The day gap?

Speaker 2 (50:57):
Will?

Speaker 1 (50:58):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (50:58):
Yeah, yeah, And that was one of the scariest conversations
I had ever had because I that was totally off
my radar at the time. I was doing the research
on the NGO networks that were behind some of the
mass legal immigration that had largely destroyed Europe if I'm
being honest and was being utilized to I think undermine
and destroy the electoral process in America. I wanted to

(51:20):
I wanted to circle back to your broader point about
how not looking at these as nation states has helped
in your analysis, and I actually agree with you on that,
But it then begs the question of, like, if if
this is not a nation state US versus them type
of analysis that were participating in, how how do we

(51:45):
distinguish friend from foe? Like how do we know who's
on our side who's not? I mean, I think this
is like the biggest challenge of the past year for
me is that, you know, like I've got my close circle.
I got like and Dave Smith and Tom Woods and
Scott Horton, and you know it, I'll includes you and
Angela mccartil. It's like, I know these people are for real,

(52:09):
and then everybody else I'm like, I have no fucking clue.
Like these people could absolutely be plants. They could be
FBI informansts that are trying to take me down. Like
you start to get paranoid because it's just there's so
many examples of people talking to talk like cash Battel.
I did the panel with Cashptell and you and and
then he gets in there and he just like is
not delivering. So I'm sorry, the real random tangent die try.

(52:34):
But how do you distinguish friend from foe? Especially if
Nation States can't even assist us in that process?

Speaker 1 (52:43):
There is no perfect answer to that. Nor if this,
I believe you could almost prove there's no perfect answer,
because let's imagine for a second that there was a
perfect answer, there was some set of characteristics that nailed
it well, and in a sufficiently significant situation, somebody could

(53:04):
arrange for those characteristics all to show up in some
entity who would then five years later, you know, pull
a fast one. So there cannot be a hard and
fast rule. However, there are things that increase one's confidence
and things that should decrease it. And I would say

(53:30):
a long track record is hard to fake. In other words,
let's just take me as an example. You can go
back and you can find you know, the Evergreen story
is twenty seventeen. Okay, so that was very public and
I've been a public person ever since. Not only that,

(53:52):
but you've got me and Heather talking, you know, once
a week at length on many different topics, and you
can see that the marriage is real, Like you can
see that we get annoyed with each other and you
know it. So the point is, what would happen to be.

Speaker 3 (54:12):
Like a very happy and healthy marriage. To be honest,
I'm you guys, give me hope.

Speaker 1 (54:17):
It's it's the best. But I guess my point is
how long ago would you have to have been planning
in order if you wanted to fake such a thing?
Like you know, you ever watched the show The Americans,
which the Russians create a phony family of spies, right, Well,
the point is that's not inconceivable, but you have to

(54:41):
have played a It requires a very large budget, it
requires extensive training, and it's not perfect. You know. The
whole premise of the show The Americans was that they
were always sort of in danger of being exposed. You know,
the FBI guy moves in across the street from them,
and their story isn't perfect and all of that. So anyway,

(55:02):
a long track record, an unlikely track record, those things
increase confidence. The most important one is have you paid
a price for integrity? In other words, in a case
where you had an opportunity to profit more, have you

(55:26):
forgone profit in order to do what was right in
a context in which we can check what actually took
place that kind of thing.

Speaker 3 (55:35):
Is there an obvious sacrifice at some point in the
origin story?

Speaker 1 (55:39):
Yeah, obvious sacrifice. I would say. One thing I've learned
personally from having been canceled now multiple times on multiple
different topics.

Speaker 7 (55:51):
Is.

Speaker 1 (55:53):
I lost friends each time this happened. And what that
tells you is that those weren't really friends in any
deep sense to begin with. Right, if a friend is
going to walk away from you because a bunch of
people who don't know you are accusing you of racism,
then that may have been somebody who was pleasant to

(56:14):
be around. They may have been a good cook, but
they weren't a friend. Because a friend knows you well
enough to know that what's being said about you is
bullshit and to stand up and say, well, you know,
I don't care who you are, you're wrong. So I
think everybody would in some sense be sadder, but I

(56:36):
don't want to I take back sadder, but wiser. I
am not sadder. I am much wiser having been through
this multiple times, and my friend group is much better.
Why because all the people who weren't up to being
friends have been purged over multiple different topics, and so
what I'm left with are people who don't frighten easily
and who do the right thing, even when it's painful

(56:58):
and expensive. So soldiers, Yeah, people, Well, I mean my
joke is, you know, I'd share a foxhole with you anytime. Look,
a foxhole is not a pleasant place to be spending
your time, but the quality of people that you're in
the foxhole with is everything.

Speaker 6 (57:18):
Right.

Speaker 1 (57:19):
You can endure the horror of you know, the mud
and the cold if the people who are in the
foxhole with you are you know, ready to back you up.
So anyway, I guess what I would say is most
people do not have the benefit of having been under
fire and watched a bunch of friends flee and a

(57:40):
bunch of other people show up and do the right thing.
If I could, if I could give a gift to
the average person, it would be that experience. Right, You
don't really want to be investing in the people who
are going to flee if somebody hurls a dumb act
usation at you, It's not worth it. I don't care

(58:02):
how much fun it is. Yeah, that is not somebody
you want to invest your time in. So anyway, I
would just say, pay attention somebody who showed up late
to your world, somebody who hasn't demonstrated a willingness to
sacrifice for integrity. Those are, you know, not necessarily fatal.
A good person could show up anytime and you might

(58:25):
not have seen them have to sacrifice. But it means
what you know about them is a lot less than
you'd like to. Now.

Speaker 3 (58:31):
Look, I may get you in trouble here, but I
don't think I will. I gotta say everything that you
just described in terms of a checklist of people to
be questionable of jd. Vance. Jady Vance is the guy
who immediately springs to mind. Seems to have been kind
of just launched out of relative obscurity thanks to in

(58:53):
part Toker Carlson having him on a lot, but also
Peter Teel and his five million dollars that got him
into the Senate.

Speaker 7 (58:59):
Yeah, my political advice to the Democrats is continue to
tell everybody who thinks Sidney Sweeney is attractive is a Nazi.
That appears to be their actual strategy, and I mean
it actually reveals something pretty interesting about the Dems, though,
which is that you have like a normal, all American
beautiful girl during doing like a normal genes ad. Right,
they're trying to sell, you know, sell jeans to kids

(59:22):
in America, and they have managed to so unhinge themselves
over this thing. And it's like, you, guys, did you
learn nothing from the November twenty twenty four election. Like
I actually thought that one of the lessons they might
take is we're going to be less crazy. The lesson
they have apparently taken is we're going to attack people
as Nazis for thinking Sidney Sweeney is beautiful.

Speaker 3 (59:44):
Great strategy, guys, that's.

Speaker 7 (59:45):
How you're going to win the mid terms, especially young
American men.

Speaker 3 (59:48):
What are your thoughts about jad Vance? Is he is
he a something to be keeping an eye on for
good or bad reasons?

Speaker 1 (59:59):
Well, I say, I don't want to convict somebody who
hasn't done anything wrong that I can see.

Speaker 3 (01:00:08):
On him.

Speaker 1 (01:00:09):
Now. No, Yeah, I think you're you're you're asking exactly
the right question. And in a case like JD. Vance,
I am absolutely ready to discover that he's a great
guy with integrity. But I am aware that in terms
of what I actually know about him, I have no

(01:00:32):
security that he's a good guy. So again, that's not
his fault. The fact that he comes to my awareness
late is just a fact of history. But it means
in terms of how much weight I'm willing to put
on that ice, I'm not willing to put any weight
on that ice. I would love for him to turn
out to be a high integrity, courageous guy because frankly,

(01:00:57):
we don't have very many of them in positions of power,
and it would be wonderful if he was one, because
he's now in a place where he could take over
the range of power exactly real. So let's put it
this way. I'm rooting for him, but I'm not a believer.

Speaker 3 (01:01:11):
Yeah, yeah, no, same boat, And I don't I don't
want to give up all hope all electoral outcomes, especially
with the description that you gave about, you know, not
being able to identify nation states anymore as to like
friend and foe. Yeah, it's you know, if you really
pay attention, you can probably establish or suss out on

(01:01:31):
an individual level, which of these political figures you can
put some trust in versus those that you should be
very suspect of. But I was more just thinking about,
like how how hard it is, Like, I mean, just
talk about it Israel, you know, Gaza. It's like, if
you can't distinguish if if the if Hamas soldiers are
not wearing uniforms, it makes the battlefield just pure chaos.

(01:01:56):
It's it's I mean, this is why it's illegal an
international law to you know, have ununiformed participants in battle,
because it makes it so that civilians are then jeopardized.
And it feels as if, even though we're not in
a hot or kinetic war, it does feel on many
levels as if we've been in a war for the
past five years, with our own government kind of punishing

(01:02:20):
us uh, and then how to distinguish who's friend and
foe in that environment, or who's even a domestic participant
versus an international one. It's just it's all It's like that,
you know, I thought I was playing chess, but I
was playing checkers is kind of how I feel with
my analysis, and and now I'm like, oh, maybe I'm

(01:02:41):
playing chess now, but I'm like, I am not equipped
to play who I'm up against, And I guess that's
how I feel about it. It's just such it's so
hard to analyze all these things, and particularly when you
don't even have a team, because the people with the
power to force disclosures, to force testimony, they don't seem

(01:03:02):
to have the courage to go after it like the
rabid dogs that we need, you know, we need like
Tucker Carlson to be the ag you know, we need
someone who's actually willing to risk something. Anyway, Sorry, that
was a totally random tangent. I do have another question
for you, but if you have any thoughts on that,
if what do you think?

Speaker 1 (01:03:22):
Well, I think we need to start recognizing the pattern,
which is we beat the odds, We get a certain
number of our people advanced to the positions from which
they should be able to do our bidding, and then
it fails to happen. And that pattern could be that

(01:03:46):
we are naive and so the people that we keep
elevating are somehow being fed to us and they were
going to disappoint from the get go. Or it could
be that something happens upon arrival that causes them to
lose their appetite for doing the right thing. And it's

(01:04:06):
probably a mixture. Yeah, but but there's no higher priority.

Speaker 3 (01:04:12):
No, No, I agree, And I mean that's that's what's
so frustrating. And I mean if if the threats or
bribery or whatever that people that get into these positions
of power, because they can't all be scumbags, like some
of them have to be for real, sincere, decent people
that get in there, and they ultimately fail to deliver,

(01:04:33):
And it's just like it must be it must be overwhelming,
because there's just there's just no one that actually or
other than Thomas Massey is like the only guy I
really think of that pops to mind. That's like I
have a full faith that this guy is un compromisable,
Like he's just he's going to go after it doggedly
no matter what, whether you're threatening them or whatever. Like

(01:04:56):
he just doesn't give a shit. And we need we
need two hundred and fifty people like that in DC,
And I think I feel like we could really take
this this country back. I did. I did want to.
I know we're running out of time, so I did
want to ask you a kind of a deep philosophical
question almost about the the Jewish mindset when it comes

(01:05:17):
to the Holocaust. And you know, as you know, I'm
good friends with Dave Smith, and he's talked a lot
about this. There's kind of a like the kids of
Jewish family are like raised into thinking about this probably
more than is healthy, even you know, in the I
don't know if that's true, but that's just what he said,

(01:05:39):
and it makes me wonder if Israeli behavior in Gaza
is a product of kind of a broadly traumatized people
like that they have been so convinced that the world
is out to get them that when they had their
own kind of mini nine to eleven, that they have

(01:06:01):
now essentially gone mad. And I'm not saying Jewish people broadly,
but like Israeli's specifically. What do you think of that?

Speaker 6 (01:06:09):
Is that?

Speaker 3 (01:06:11):
I mean, is that crazy or is that play a
part at all?

Speaker 1 (01:06:18):
It's a difficult question for a number of different reasons,
and I will ultimately come back to the view from
thirty thousand feet, which I think is the important thing
for us to pay attention to. There's no question, and
I think this is probably less true as time goes on,
or at least it was. There's no question that Jewish

(01:06:41):
homes have focused development around the Holocaust. I don't think
it's incorrect to do that, because in some sense, the
message when I got loud and clear, was something happens

(01:07:02):
that causes the world around you to melt down into
a very dangerous place and you don't anticipate it. If
you grow up under circumstances where anti Semitism isn't an
important factor in your life, knowing that there is a
phase transition that happens that causes it to become the

(01:07:22):
dominant factor in your life without you having trained for it,
that's an important thing to know. And I believe it
is true that said. Part of the reason I think
there's one aspect of anti Semitism being an important recurrent
feature of history that has to do simply with Jews

(01:07:46):
being a diaspora, and that diaspora means that Jews are
typically living amongst some other majority population. And it is frankly,
I think written into the genes that when austerity hits,
if you go from good times to bad times, there

(01:08:09):
is a question about who has resources that they can't protect. Right, So,
if you imagine that suddenly food stops showing up in
your town and somebody had stored a bunch of food,
you could imagine people going and storming their garage and
taking their food. Right.

Speaker 3 (01:08:28):
That's why bullets are more important than seeds in the apocalypse.

Speaker 1 (01:08:33):
They both play a role. But so anyway, the point
is a diaspora population is in trouble when the music
stops and there aren't enough chairs. Sure, so that has
nothing to do with who Jews are. It just has
to do with how they've existed. Yeah, so you need
to know if you're Jewish, that can happen wherever you are,

(01:08:59):
and you to think about what that will look like,
because frankly, the Jews in Europe who died were the
ones who told themselves it was bad, but it would
eventually pass and get better, and that was a deadly misapprehension.
On the other hand, once you have this feature of
your culture that says those people that you are living

(01:09:23):
amongst will seem like your friends in good times, and
then in bad times, something happens that causes a distance
to be created in the mind that then sets up
the very pattern in question exactly right. So anyway, what

(01:09:46):
I see is a I can find no word other
than tragic, self fulfilling prophecy.

Speaker 3 (01:09:56):
Well, that's exactly the premise of the question, is like,
that's the that's what it feels like to me, is
that this is self fulfilling.

Speaker 1 (01:10:03):
It is self fulfilling. And now I want to go
back to the view from thirty thousand feet because I
really think this is the important piece. There are two
bases on which a civilization can function. One of them
is shared genes. The civilization in which people are closely

(01:10:25):
related to each other has a reason for people to collaborate,
that is rock solid. The other reason for people to
collaborate is reciprocity, right, the fact that I'm wealthier and
you're wealthier if you and I pool our efforts than

(01:10:46):
we are if we go it alone. That is also
a perfectly reasonable basis for a society to function. What
I call the West, which I really think, you know,
it certainly has antecedents in ancient Greece and elsewhere, but
the West really begins with the American founders. The modern

(01:11:08):
West begins with the American founders solving enough of the
conflicts in the colonies to get them to confederate, and
in doing that, they created a blueprint for a reciprocity
based civilization that was so much more productive, so much fairer,
so much more rewarding to be a participant in that.

(01:11:32):
It spread like wildfire, as long as economic times were
sufficiently good. Right, once you saw what a reciprocity based
civilization did, you wanted to be part of it. The
problem is, the reciprocity based civilization is better in every
important regard than the gene based civilization. The gene based

(01:11:57):
civilization is bloody at every level. It sees only this
one kind of payoff in the long term. But the
gene based society, the lineage, the genetic lineage, is more

(01:12:20):
stable than the reciprocity based civilization. And so the point is.

Speaker 3 (01:12:25):
And can the reciprocity based civilization survive if importing the
gene based.

Speaker 1 (01:12:34):
And I think the horror that took place at our
southern border and the horror that has taken place in
Europe is the same one. You had some massive influx
of people and you didn't even ask them whether they
liked you and wanted to be part of your society. This,
to me is insane. I don't care where you come from,

(01:12:57):
if you earnestly want to be American or British or whatever.
I think we should be open to the possibility that
it's a good idea. I don't think it's automatic just
because you want to be American, doesn't mean that it's
good for us to let you in. But if you
want to be an American, maybe it is good for us.
And every time you do want to be an American

(01:13:18):
and it is good for us for you to join,
we should allow it. But if you let people in
who hate you, of course you're going to get Mayhem.
Of course it's obvious. How did we possibly miss it?
So anyway, the punchline to the lineage story is reciprocity
based civilizations. The West are better at doing all of

(01:13:40):
the good things, but they're fragile. And when the music stops,
when economic austerity kicks in, when the corruption gets bad
enough that there isn't enough to go around because it's
being hoarded by somebody, they break down into lineage against
lineage violence. And so what I really think is going
on in the Middle East, and what I have said
from October eighth was we are in danger of being

(01:14:06):
dragged back in. And when I say we, I mean
the entire world is in danger of being dragged back
into lineage against lineage violence by what is taking place
in the Middle East. And if you love Israel, what
you should want is to make sure that the faction
in Israel that earnestly wants to be part of the

(01:14:27):
West and to put lineage aside is dominant, and that
the part of Israel that wants to drag us back
into the Old Testament is not right. That's the question.
Are we going to be dragged back into lineage against
lineage violence of the sort that the Old Testament is
written about, of this sort that is riddled throughout the Quran,

(01:14:48):
or not. And my feeling is, once you've seen what
the West can do, the answer is, Look, this is
us in them. It's the West versus lineage against lineage violence.
Everybody should want to be part of the West. I
don't want the category of them to contain anybody, right.
It's not that I have people I want to fight,
but this is really the us in them that matters.

(01:15:09):
Do you want to be part of the West. Do
you want to put aside people's genetic background and collaborate
with them because they're good people to collaborate with. That's
what the West is about, and that's what we should
be fighting for. And anything that threatens to take us
back into the Old Testament, no, thank you.

Speaker 3 (01:15:26):
Great Ranton. I just got to add one point is
that my deep concern is that, you know, when I
see the Randy Fines of the world, RFK Junior talking about,
you know, anti semitism on college campuses, Donald Trump doing
the same, Bondie doing the same, Patel but like all
of them doing the same. Is that if you, if

(01:15:49):
you come into America, and if you're a politician in
America and you and you start to create laws that
differentiate between the people, and you make a category that's protected,
it's ironic. I even need to make this point. I
certainly don't need to make it to you, but that
after the woke experience or the woke era, and James

(01:16:09):
Lindsay being such a great advocate on this topic, that like,
I think we all recognize that if you create special
categories of people, it will breed resentment, it actually leads
to racism. Like that is the path that we're taking
when it comes to Jewish people now. And this is
why I think that the woke right label being placed
on people like me is totally misguided, and that it

(01:16:32):
ought to be being placed on my friend James Lindsay
because it seems as if he is more interested in
protected classes, and that protected class is Jewish people well
as everybody else's, you know, equal. I just think this
is a really dangerous paradigm, and I think it's going
to give rise to like if if James is fearful
of Nick Flentes, Nick Flentes will be your president in

(01:16:54):
twenty years if you don't listen to what I'm saying
right now.

Speaker 6 (01:16:57):
And now he says, if you're not on board with
the Epstein cover, oh I don't want your support.

Speaker 3 (01:17:01):
You're a weakling.

Speaker 6 (01:17:04):
Fuck you, fuck you, you suck, You are fat, you
are a joke, you are stupid, you are not funny,
you are not as smart as you think you are.
You are and honestly, I'm and if you watched my show,
you know I've been very critical. I've never been this far.

(01:17:25):
This just goes to show this entire thing has been
a scam. When we look back on the history of
populism in America, we are going to look back on
the MAGA movement as the biggest scam in American history.
And the liberals were right, The MAGA supporters were had.

Speaker 3 (01:17:42):
They were like, that's how I feel about it. Sorry
for the crazy ending to this, but I genuinely think
that this is a very dangerous paradise, especially when it
comes to censorship and all this other stuff. And then
and then you think you're going to you think you're
going to crush descent of people that think that Jewish
people control America by creating special laws that make it
seem as if you can't say anything about Jewish people

(01:18:03):
in America. It's like this is doomed to fail. I
feel like I'm taking crazy pills any less thoughts.

Speaker 1 (01:18:11):
Yeah, let me just say it this way. I you know,
I'm Jewish, but I'm an American. I believe in America
in my core. And there are no chosen people in America.
That's the thing. If America is actually going to function.
The point is what we get is a level playing field.

(01:18:34):
Is it ever going to be perfectly level? No, But
what we should want, what we should all collaborate on
as Americans, is a level playing field in which nobody
has special access, nobody has special protections, and we don't
need them. That's that's the objective of the exercise. And
you can say, well, Brett, you're being naive, but I
don't think so. And you know, if that's the argument,

(01:18:56):
If that's the argument, is that America is naive, then
let's have it out. Let's have that conversation. I'm fully
ready for it. But let us not pretend that America
works and then quietly undermine it by saying, well, but
there are certain groups that need special protections, blah blah blah.
That's not how it works. We should level the playing
field as well as we can and then play the
cards you're dealt. That's the game that is superior to

(01:19:19):
all of the alternatives that came before it. And you
know that it is simply the objective of the exercise
once you understand it.

Speaker 3 (01:19:30):
Well, I've kept you longer than I planned. It was
an absolute honor having you on, and I think that
you know in the friend faux distinction conversation. I am
confident that you are in the friend category. So thank
you very much. If anybody wants to check out your work,
obviously the Dark Horse Podcast, in any other links or
tips that you should give.

Speaker 1 (01:19:49):
Them, Yeah, you can check out A Hunter Gatherer's Guide
to the twenty first Century book that Heather and I
wrote about hyper novelty and what it's doing to us.
You can find me on Twitter at Brett Weinstein. You
can find Heather and me on locals. All those are
good places.

Speaker 3 (01:20:10):
Dr Wannstein, you are the best. Anytime you'd like to
come back on and go deep down the rabbit hole,
you were welcome. If you guys enjoyed this episode, please
do it the like button, subscribe, share it around, and
if there's any great rants that either of us went on,
feel free to clip them and share them too. We're
out here peace, all right, Thanks?

Speaker 1 (01:20:27):
Brother?

Speaker 3 (01:20:28):
Was I lying? I wasn't lying. This was a damn
good episode. Sorry, I'm backlit. So you saw the water
for a second and then you saw my ugly mug.
If you enjoyed that one, please do it the like button, subscribe,
and as I said, share it around. But most importantly,
let people know, you know, like if you want people

(01:20:49):
to know the truth about this stuff. We didn't come
to hard conclusions on a lot of this because it's
I mean, we're talking about like deep deep deep state
multinational not even state organizations, and who the hell knows
actually at the end of the day, who's who's pulling
the strings, who's calling the shots on this some of
this stuff. But I think that we're close, we're close.

(01:21:12):
We're getting closer. And if you enjoy conversations like that,
the easiest way is to spread it around that Yeah,
more people know, more people know what's up, so you
don't sound like a lunatic. Give this to your most
blue billed friend and and blow their mind. Thanks again, guys.
See so