The Slipping Facade Of Technocracy’s Dream Team & The Zionist Lies Surrounding The Amsterdam Attacks

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:21):
Welcome to the daily wrap up, a concise
show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant
independent
news as we see it from the last
24 hours.
Friday, November 8, 2024.
Thank you for joining me today.
Definitely have a lot to follow-up on regarding
kind of the post election fervor, the ongoing

(00:44):
assessment on where it seems the promises are
headed, who's been added. It's I mean,
I think you know from my perspective, these
things are
relevant in so far that they show
maybe they can reach people about the perceptions
of what they're really trying to accomplish. It
maybe it proves that they're who they you
thought who you thought they always were and
convinces others. I mean, I think right now,

(01:06):
we're all in we all should be in
a position where we are trying to honestly,
with the best of intentions, gauge where we
think this goes. Nobody truly knows for sure.
So I what I think is the reason
I start with that is that I think
it's it's it becomes very difficult to
come at this in in an objective way
or rather
without without emotion,

(01:28):
when it's constantly combative at every angle, when
there are a lot of us out there,
I know plenty of them, that are genuinely
trying to to feel this out. And what's
interesting is there's a lot of people right
now, myself included, who the
despite the
accusations, let's say, of it being something secretly
for another agenda, the point is that I
hope without with everything in me that what

(01:48):
people believe is going to take place in
a positive way through RFK and Trump,
with everything in me that that's the case.
Why wouldn't we? I've said this about Trump
in the last administration. It seems like a
like a shockingly small and petty thing to
hope bad things happen because you just don't
want that guy to have a win. It's
it's it's crazy, but there are people like
that that exist on both sides of the

(02:09):
paradigm.
So I think it's really important that we
wait to jump to conclusions both for positives
or for negatives. And I think at this
point in time,
what I can see gives me
with, of course, my opinion around and and
the facts around these people's actions in the
past. I don't feel hopeful with a couple
of things that I've already begun to see.
And, really, the discussion of the title today

(02:30):
is around not so much about Trump and
his promises, but around the
alarming
awareness of whether or not Trump is who
you think he is, technocracy,
the great reset agenda that just kind of
right on the coattails of what his administration
is.
And and maybe if you believe he is
the person you think he is, maybe he'll
notice that, and maybe he'll stop it. But
I'm very concerned about how these things go

(02:50):
forward. But I want it's important that we
consider that in regard the balance of it
all. That right now, we see things that
may indicate that it's a positive direction, like
with RFK, but these things are yet to
happen. Or the negatives in regard to people
that might be on his administration or actions
and and promises that have moved forward that
people do see as negative, myself included, but
they also have yet to happen.
But they're statements that people jump to. Right?

(03:13):
Somebody announces this person's likely to be on
the team, and, of course, the argument is,
well, we have very every right to point
out how that's an alarming step if it
comes to pass, then you get attacked for
the argument that, well, you're just trusting mainstream
media. That hasn't happened yet. Well, the point
is that it's important to stay in the
middle until we see action.
And I think that's the same point going
back as far as you can look in
these administrations. The reality being that

(03:34):
the only thing you have are actions. We
have precedent in regard to what they've done,
and then you've got a lot of political
arguments and statements and you know? And even
if it turns out that it was something
that they genuinely were gonna do, but they
couldn't because of x, y, and z, the
bottom line is it didn't happen versus it
happening. And I think that's where we have
to kinda rest on all of this
if you're genuinely honest about what you want
to see happen, and it's not about

(03:56):
team sport politics. And I think I'd I'd
like to believe that's more people than we
realize, possibly the majority of the conversation.
Why largely, I think, a lot of this
stuff is happening, the negative things that we
see.
So it does appear that the the channel
is working on YouTube today, so that's good
to see. Hopefully, you're all gonna find somewhere
else to go in general. But today, we're
gonna talk about

(04:17):
kind of the the interesting evolution around opinions,
around the voting process, around the, you know,
so many days past this. The conversations we're
seeing of people
attacking those that chose to stand by their
principles in regard to, let's say, voting for
their party. Which even myself, you know, my
argument in regard to what whether I think
your vote translates, not that it shouldn't, that
we shouldn't want that, in the sense that

(04:38):
I don't believe that's the case, whatever our
opinion is about voting. And it's interesting that
people will go out and vote 3rd party
in a situation where others are calling, you
know,
I mean, the the the bulk of the
conversation, the lesser of evils, that they're both
bad, but their one is less than the
other. And somebody comes in and says, well,
I think that's crazy. I think this person's
better than all of them. I'm gonna vote.
And then get attacked for it after the

(04:59):
fact as if your choice to stand by
what you believe was the reason this didn't
go the way we want it to. But
that undermines the core point of the argument
of your vote mattering and your personal opinion.
And, again, this is not even getting into
whether
we should want to do participate in this
process
even if it is exactly what you want
it to be. And that's in that's in

(05:19):
regard to the conversation of choosing a ruler
over our lives and whether we should truly
want that. But that's, you know, a a
difficult and a much more deep conversation. I
was speaking with,
I I have a few interviews about this,
actually, in regard to
that deeper
illusion of authority conversation. It was on HireSite
chats this morning. I believe that'll be coming
out pretty soon. I always love talking to
Greg. He's a great guy. And and just

(05:41):
that it's you know, as we talk about
it, and I'm still evolving my opinion around
this as well, it becomes difficult to try
to kind of jump from a conversation about
the election and voting and promises to into,
like, why should it even exist? Because it's
even for myself, it's very disjointed to try
to jump into that. And It becomes a
very abstract conversation. But just to point it
out to start, I really I'm I'm genuinely
hoping that whether you agree with that or

(06:03):
not or not, or your opinions around government
or statism in general, that you will consider
the possibility. Maybe it's time we start opening
our minds to things that are outside
the box that we currently exist in. I
mean, why wouldn't we? Of all times, I
think people are really beginning to question and
and look for different answers. And even if
you fall back into these kind of things,

(06:23):
voting and and the processes we're in, hopefully,
you're at least considering these other ideas because
I find them to be profound
and and
hopeful.
But we're gonna talk about this. Oops. I
just closed something on accident. We're gonna talk
about that whole dynamic and and the difference
of opinions around it. We want I wanna
talk about the promises around how

(06:43):
this would be different.
Right? We now, of course, which we'll talk
about the
both houses and the executive branch and, you
know, sort of like last time. Now with
all the excuses out of the way, I
really hope if you guys are correct, the
ones that believe in Donald Trump and the
administration, that we will see massive change. There's
arguably no reason
that we shouldn't see those promises. This is

(07:03):
the most obvious you know, let's see that
people are all talking about this today on
both CNN and Fox News as if we
you know, this is he has a mandate.
This is going to happen.
Rather from a point of if we don't
see it, then we should note that. I
agree with that. Regardless of your side, we
need to have the courage and the integrity
to stand up and demand the things that
were promised and then hold them accountable if

(07:24):
they don't, no matter party you're on. I
think that's obviously very important.
So
on top of that, discuss some of the
different support 2 party illusion that I think
stand out after this. I think things that
are really obvious around it.
Point of of election fraud, I wanna talk
about a bit and how that played a
factor in the conversation,
the evolving differences around that. The technocracy part

(07:45):
of this, I think, is really important to
highlight, which we've been talking about for a
very long time.
Now with Donald Trump's administration,
and especially now that they're no longer the
outsider or however you wanna frame this. They
are Donald Trump well, at least, you know,
save for the transition period, which is a
weird time. I have to probably play some
points about that as we get into it,
this weird kind of limbo we're in right

(08:05):
now. But once this
happens, this is the he's the president of
the United States. He their administration has the
power. They are no longer the outsider poke
in the eye of the person in power.
They are now currently there. So this framing
that we've dealt with for a while, which
is always how this goes,
suddenly removes itself. But ultimately, the party, the
the
supporters of that administration or the agenda around

(08:26):
it, the Republican side, if you will, will
continue, as we saw last time, to kind
of frame it as we are the outsider
fighting the deep state. But you're currently holding
the power structure, and this is what I
think is so interesting.
We should see something quite a bit different
if we believe that this is somebody who
has essentially taken control
from the deep state, or however you wanna

(08:48):
frame this. As I'm of the mind, this
is the state. And there is no the
left and right, whether people identify with these
things or not, is ultimately a facade to
keep you choosing this power.
And whether you're I'm wrong and you disagree,
I think it's interesting to see how these
things continue to flow in that direction. And
the technocracy is a huge and obvious part
of this.
I mean, even if Trump isn't aware of

(09:09):
that, I would hope that we can notice
the things that continue to go in those
directions. And I think it's kinda hard to
miss the obvious overlaps, and we'll talk about
Elon Musk and the team that that's in
there and, of course, the as I wrote
the slipping facade around it. And this has
to do with certain appointments. It has to
has to do with all the different overlapping
points that point highlight how this is, like,
the ideal transition team into the technocratic rulership

(09:31):
that I see coming.
And we'll also talk about some of the
points around RFK Jr that I think are
relevant. And of all the points I think
we should be hopeful about is that is
that those any one of those things might
actually happen. Now, before we got to this
point, the last thing I would have told
you was to choose to lean into this
in hope of one of those things or
some of them because, ultimately, I don't like

(09:51):
the trade off, giving you know, leaning into
something I see as an authoritarian structure just
to hope that they they might give you
a bone and take one of these bad
things out of your life, which is something
that they put in your life to begin
with. But now that we happen to be
here and that has already happened,
of course, we should hope for any positives
we can see. But that does not mean
that one thing happening, let's say, fluoride out
of the water, which was already kind of
in the motion,

(10:12):
would not ultimately mean that all of the
other things are okay. And I think that's
kind of this balance we see with the
lesser of evils mindset in politics.
That if we get kinda what we want
in one place, the rest of it's okay.
And we that's just how politics works. It's
never perfect. Well, that's that's ridiculous. And I
think we are being driven into this by
people who have an interest in maintaining the
broken system.
But we'll also talk about Amsterdam.

(10:34):
In that overlap between them and the conversation
of Israel, and we'll finish talking about some
of the foreign policy because this is an
interesting story. And overlapping that with Iran to
a degree and the Trump dynamic around it,
I'm very worried about where that goes. We
talked about that this morning as well. But
this Amsterdam story,
it's just I I'm my personal opinion is
we'll get into it is it seems very
stoked. And it's obviously

(10:55):
being misrepresented. I mean, from the police conversation,
from eyewitnesses,
as usual, and you on Twitter being a
central part of it,
rapidly, aggressively misrepresenting what's happening and just coming
out with falsified stories from the usual, from
the Emily, I forget her last name, Elon
Levys just out there screaming about pogroms. And,
of course, all of your politicians who are
being paid through APAC are absolutely jumping up

(11:16):
to say the same thing despite, again, the
evidence being the opposite, despite the police telling
us the opposite. And Robert's writing an article
right now to break this down for you
and many other things we'll get into. But
let's start today with a point that I
wanted to highlight for you guys that I
just think is interesting
and just about,
one of the platforms and donations
on DLive.
I've stopped using it a long time ago.

(11:37):
I haven't stopped using it. We still broadcast
there, but I ultimately stopped leaning into it
because I was it was very clear that
I was there T Lab and some others'
specific news channels were being boxed out of
even the news tab. And now, again, this
is a smaller platform in the larger field
of things, but I just I it's not
in my mind, I'm not going to endorse
something or lean in or promote a platform
that I think is, even in a small

(11:59):
way, suppressing content for political reasons. Now not
to get into it all, but the point
was the news
tab was not showing our work. No matter
what we were checked at, x or whatever
else. So I stopped leaning into it. But
it now appears, as somebody pointed out to
me, that I just moved some of those
donations away that donations have started again. Because
before, they weren't allowing people to donate was
the point. So but now, they have been
coming through. And I've been seeing a lot

(12:19):
I've seen a lot of you that continue
to use the chat in dlive, so I
thank you for your ongoing support. But I
wanted to point this out, since it is
just another platform and now it's seeing how
donations are coming through, that if you guys
wanted to subscribe to this platform, that would
be something that would ultimately help us get
over a hump to become a verified partner,
which would allow more reach, I guess, and
more whatever else. But we have 3 of

(12:40):
20 subscribers on this platform. It has to
be between a certain time frame. So if
you're out there and you use DLive or
you want to, subscribe for me, and we
can maybe get that going as well. Just
one more small benefit there. But, honestly, I
prefer you use the other, you know, more
of the odyssey type,
you know,
sit platforms that lean into what we want
to believe the world should be like, obviously.

(13:01):
Right? So but, nonetheless, I want to point
that out. Now I wanna include this to
start just the show we just did, November
5th. Now I'm back and settled and everything
else, and I'm my my gung ho in
my mind to get
work as much as I can right now.
So I just wanted to point that out.
I can't we're not gonna throw any promises
at the moment because I just don't wanna
not be able to deliver but my game,
my plan is to work a lot in

(13:21):
the next coming month as, you know, and
ongoing for that matter. But this was the
last one I did on 5th that I
hope you check out where I do I
I make a big focus in the beginning
on this article that I recently put out,
why your vote no longer counts to the
true power of abstention. Now, I I've talked
about it a lot recently but I just
hope you'll take a listen to it, read
it because you this really does give a
good overview of my my full opinion around,

(13:42):
you you know, like I've said many times.
I have my opinions around voting and and
the illusion of authority, but nonetheless, I do
respect your choice in that if I believe
you know, if you are doing what you
truly believe in and not compromising because of
some other opinion.
And I go into why local voting would
as as if any will make the most
difference. I'm gonna go into the different possible
app,
solutions and directions and, you know, all the

(14:04):
things which most people who see a 240
character tweet on Twitter pretend that that's we
never talk about, even though it's almost every
time this conversation comes up. But, you know,
there's a lot of aggressive misrepresentation in the
partisan field. I frankly had a thing about
that today I was talking about that I
think is
alarming.
How there's a lot of people out there
who I would even see as allies who,
I guess, misunderstand

(14:24):
where we're coming from. Arguing that somehow we
would think it was a like, exactly what
I was discussing to start today. That I
that somehow that we I would argue or
think that it's a good thing,
or rather a bad thing, if some of
the positive things happened through the Trump administration.
And I'm it kinda shocked me. How in
the world are people listening and truly listening

(14:44):
to what we say, tweet about, talk about,
would ever think that I would feel it's
a bad thing for these positive changes to
happen because it's happening through Trump? How do
you even get that opinion from what we're
saying? I argue it's because there are other
people deliberately misinforming about what we say to
others. And it's actually easy for me because
I've got a 5 hour show.
So most people aren't gonna go to try

(15:05):
to find out, which they should, if you're
gonna make a statement or opinion about what
we think. But that's kinda there's so much
of that happening. There's such an obvious, well
financed, well directed effort to misinform and misdirect
people from content that is not partisan, that
is objective. And whether you think I'm right
or wrong, the point is that I see
this constantly in regard to people in this
field. And so it comes out to where

(15:27):
there's people in the chat going, I heard
Ryan say this about you, or I heard
the and 90 and a lot of that
stuff is false. Right? And I think that's
a problem. So, hopefully, people will be on
guard to that. My point in saying all
that is that, of course, I want the
positive things to happen no matter what. No
matter what. That's a positive. But I will
still be concerned about how they may use
those positives against you, but we should all
be happy

(15:48):
if fluoride comes out of the water, if
health you know, if they remove seed oils,
if they genuinely inform us about what really
went down between 2019 and 2020. Right? All
of it. Not just post, you know, because
I I see a lot of ways this
could be misrepresented. But anyway, the point is
I think that's important. But on this point,
I just wanna include this again for you
guys to check out. I think it's an

(16:08):
important conversation.
Now let's start with this this kind of
interesting overlap.
And this this right now comes from the
left side of the conversation, which is just,
you know, again, from my opinion, I see
people in the partisanship
just as lost on both sides of it,
in certain cases, not necessarily just because you
vote, but I mean, like, the TeamSport politics
side of it, which I see as the
minority quite frankly today.

(16:29):
But the the from either side of it,
this very petty mindset.
In this case, we're looking at a left
a left leaning person who's outraged
that people chose to vote 3rd party. And
it says f everybody that voted 3rd party.
I hate all of you parasocial activists so
much.
I mean, think about this the the the
ridiculous
nature of that sentiment.

(16:49):
So one,
obviously, they made their choices based on what
they believe, and you hate that because you
didn't get what you wanted. And you were
expecting them to fall in line for what
you thought was a great or good. And
by the way, that sentiment exists on both
sides of this, despite that being a little
bit too alarmingly like the, you take this
because you won't if you don't, you kill
grandma, all kind of a COVID mindset, but

(17:11):
it exists. It's the same kind of woke
left, woke right mindset. We see the same
things happening on both sides. The point is
that this should be worthy of ridicule, which
it is if you look at the chat.
And the idea that, you know, parasocial activists,
which I'm not even sure exactly what he
means by that, but, you know, whether it's
even not voting. The idea is that this
is something that is supposed to be as
we are always told up until that final

(17:32):
moment.
You
have to make your choice based on what
you believe. And, of course, your vote always
matters up until it suddenly is not what
the the establishment wants of you at the
final moments.
But my point is this has bled into
average people. I don't know who this person
is, average or not, but I think it's
it's it's alarming that we
not only see this, but that this becomes

(17:52):
kind of the leaned into mindset from both
sides of the driving paradigm con the Paris
partisan conversation.
And I think that's a problem, obviously. It
shows you something that's broken within this, that
you're supposed to more so lean into or
fall into, fall in line with the direction,
whether party or not. And if you don't,
that you're part of the you you're why

(18:13):
this bad person came into power. But if
that's the case and this is how it
works, which if a lot of people seem
to think that, then that doesn't that show
you how broken this is? That if it's
that it's this,
vulnerable,
fragile system that if you if not if
one person stands out of Lyle, you know,
it's not exactly the case. But I just
think it's embarrassing that we lean into this
and a lot of people seem to think

(18:34):
that makes sense.
This one,
Christopher Hale says, a Latino prison guard who
voted for Clinton and Biden told MSNBC's
Chris Jansing he voted for Trump yesterday because,
quote, democrats make me feel bad about who
I am.
It's a very valid point.
Right? Now,
there's clear
problematic issue. I mean, both sides of them

(18:56):
of just really your government, this in the
partisan conversation,
I feel, as always, kind of use different
dynamics to lead us all into a a
middle kind choice. You know, like I've talked
about a lot of different times, the the
different actions sort of are meant to kind
of connect to drive us in a very
clear position. But if you're gonna split them
down the the specifics of it, well, a
100%. The idea of what democrats and the
the media are driving forward from their from

(19:18):
the left perspective of the
perspective, excuse me, of the 2 party dying,
paradigm.
It's all about your identity and the idea
that you're supposed to act a certain way
or that if you don't do this, then
you're not woke enough or we know whatever
it is. But realize, just because we use
different words, you see the same things on
the right. You could call it a purity
test if you will. Funny enough, it's how
they're lobbing at us. But in this case,

(19:39):
from somebody who
feels like and I this makes sense to
me. Somebody who identifies as a democrat
and yet is not passing the bar for
what they would argue you're supposed to be
like. Obviously, we see that everywhere. I have
many examples of, like, a Kyle Rittenhouse situation.
But in this case, he chose to vote
for Trump because he felt attacked by his
own party. We all saw that everywhere.

(20:00):
And so I find it to be a
very valid criticism. Of course, I argue that
you that's the wrong direction to lean into
from my perspective. I don't think the vote
translates, and I think you're being played. But
either way, that's my opinion. I could be
wrong. From his perspective, this, of course, makes
sense. And it says, I'm not sure what
he means, but it reminds me of this.
It says, the cliche
is voters judge politicians based on their likability.
The deeper question is isn't how much voters

(20:22):
like a politician, but whether they believe a
politician likes them. And that's exactly what Steve
was talking about. They've turned this into some
some
talk, like, a a a a TV show
or a movie series where you have identified
with the lead character
even though it's an actor. You don't even
know who that person is in real life.
But you, in your mind, feel like you
know them, but you know the character that

(20:43):
they're paid to play.
No wonder that's the same exact dynamic. The
point is that they have these teams that
choose their clothes and what they say. We
all know this. I know a lot of
people love to think Trump's different than that,
but we know that's not true. You read
his books. If you fully wanna look at
the big picture or look at what he
there's examples everywhere. They all do it. They
put out little clips that show the team
is picking this or choosing what they put

(21:03):
out. The point is that we don't really
know them. We don't know who these people
are. We know what they want us to
think they are. And that should be a
problem for us. But, anyway, the point is
that this guy is simply saying that I
felt bad. They made me feel bad. So,
obviously, he's gonna gravitate towards them. Personally, as
well, on top of that, as I know
I've made clear, I think that's by design,
which I'll point out in a second. Personally,

(21:24):
I feel that it was shockingly obvious that
the Democrat side basically imploded by design to
drive people into Trump to order to usher
in this, what's gonna happen next? I really,
really hope I'm wrong. Now he goes on
for a minute, but here, the main point
was what this person said. Omar E. Hardy
says, everyone's saying this is the problem.
To right there alone, think about how crazy
that is. So this person makes a personal

(21:45):
choice about how he feels and chooses to
go with the party that feel doesn't make
him feel bad, and that's the problem?
That you instead should've chosen to lean into
the side that you don't feel good about
because
you because you, what, you forever chose that
party? I mean, it just there's no logic
to it. It is team sport politics. But
guess what, guys? This is most of it.
This is Quentin Tarantino on the talk show

(22:06):
saying he doesn't care what she has to
say. He's already gonna vote for us. I
don't even go out and do any more.
That's lunacy.
And it ultimately shows you that this is
a diminishing, failing,
broken system of ideologues and people who have
chosen to pick a side. And that's why
this got so crazy this time. It became
lesser of evils and most of most important
election of the universe. It got ridiculous.

(22:29):
I'm of the mind that I don't I
I actually don't I wonder what how many
people truly actually took part in this. I
mean, we have the whole point about the
different 20,000,000 overlap with the last election, which
could be any number of things. It could
just mean that they cheated, which I think
is pretty obvious, which I think both sides
do. But I think it's obvious there was
a a clear manipulation there. But again, that
doesn't mean, in my mind, cheating in the
outcome, you know, to win versus the other

(22:50):
side. I think it's a much bigger picture.
But my point is that I think it's
about perception.
And I think what that ultimately could lean
into, if you wanna stand back from my
perspective, is just simply creating the narrative of
what we're talking about.
Right? He's the good guy. They cheated. He
won it back, which by the way, how
does that even make sense? They did nothing
different. The same machines were used. The same
you know, I'm not sure there's a narrative.

(23:10):
We just didn't let him this time. Yay.
It just sounds crazy, childish for me. But
either way,
the problem is not that this person, regardless
of the legitimacy of the of the election,
chose to do what he liked. The problem
is that you guys have created this failing
dynamic where you have to, like, bow to
the structure and, you know, to the ideologues
of your party. And if you don't walk
lockstep do what they think you should, you're

(23:32):
the problem. It's like, again, I think this
is so obviously not the pinnacle of electoral
processes in the world that
it's fail that people are seeing through it.
The same way people are seeing through the
cove the health facade of this country because
of their failing COVID 19 illusion, the same
ways reason people are seeing through the foreign
policy lies because of the implosion of Zionism.

(23:52):
These things are falling apart in front of
us.
And I think that's why a lot of
this stuff is being ushered through. Just like
we all felt the COVID 19 agenda felt
rushed. It felt out of place. It felt
like they were on a timeline that they
didn't meet.
I think we need to sense that. I'm
speaking to republicans primarily who clearly saw that
in COVID 19.
Ask yourself whether this is just about that

(24:12):
outcome. Now back to this point. It says,
no one's asking whether the reason Dems make
him feel bad is that he is in
fact a bad person.
Wow.
Wow. Basically, half the country thought that we're
better than this. Misogyny, racism, homophobia, xenophobia,
only learn again that we are not. My
god. So the see, this is my you
know how when when I talk about this

(24:32):
for myself?
Where I come on I come out and
I make I have a conversation about,
you know, where I I see it a
certain way. I see these people as, you
know, the gesture government versus 2 party systems
or, you know, I think let's say, I
think Trump is more alarming this time versus
but they're both part of the same problem.
A lot of times people will go, well,
he's just secretly fighting for the democrats because
it's the only way their mind can rationalize

(24:55):
that point. Because if I'm not, then then
they must be missing something. And so I
think the same thing here. Think about how
gross it is for this person to rationalize.
The only way that's makes sense is if
he's actually just a gross
republican at heart. He's just a racist, disgusting
person, and that's why he felt better on
that side. I mean, these people have lost
the plot. Of course, he could be saying
this to drive in a larger agenda, but
I think this is what happens to people

(25:16):
who actually in a digest or a
not digest, but internalize
all of what this part the system is.
And, you know, usually, they are the pettier
the petty the people that are more interested
in winning.
The kind of people that would want the
country to fail so Trump didn't have a
success.
That's I'm I'm it's my opinion. But that's

(25:37):
the kind of person I would sense that
that would even say something like that about
somebody you've never even met before
just because if he did that, he must
be this.
Guys, that's a problem, and that is the
problem.
And it it's it's just it's actually just
in and of itself a wild thing to
see.
But here's Piers Morgan to make this point
about how I want you to know if
there's
if there's no better insider than somebody like

(25:59):
Piers Morgan, which I'm not to say that
he knows what's going on. Frankly, I think
most of these talking heads are made to
feel like they're on the inside in the
sense of in the know,
but usually are not. That's it's playing on
their hubris. My point though is that he
is in the inner he's an elitist.
Right? He is, you know, the the kind
of journalist that no longer is speaking truth
to power, he's pandering to power more often

(26:21):
than not. That's a lot of them. And
in fact, I just saw him put something
out about how he's, you know, basically kind
of leaning into the Trump administration which is
I'm just like, you're such a feckless
feckless,
what I say, opportunist.
You know, just like, 30 seconds ago, Trump's
a bad this or that and all of
a sudden, he can change all this for
good and just, you know, man, maybe it's
his opinion. I just think it may it's
it's wildly

(26:42):
schizophrenic politically in my opinion. But
he comes out and says, Trump should pardon
Hunter Biden.
That would go a long way to setting
the right tone for bringing a very divided
America back together again.
You know how many other things you could
do do that? The idea that you pick
this out of all the things and you
make it about somehow, like, this is about

(27:02):
healing the country.
Guys, this is what you're staring at and
there's plenty points to make it in my
opinion and plenty points to make this today.
This is the establishment,
the deep state, the government, not left to
right, but just the whole thing controlling your
lives that just are trying to put itself
back together again. And I and this to
make it somehow seem like,

(27:22):
for example, if this was in any other
context, it would be seen as a bad
thing. And, arguably, it is because I don't
think Hunter Biden deserved to be pardoned, and
I think this would ultimately cover up a
huge issue. It's not just by Hunter Biden.
It's not even just Ukraine, as you all
well know. This is a huge viper pit
of complete corruption that goes in a lot
of different directions that just happens to have
been exposed through the I don't know.

(27:45):
So best word to describe a Hunter Biden.
The the just the disheveled nature of Hunter
Hunter Biden.
But at the end of the day, to
me, this looks like a elitist, an insider
trying to kind of make it seem as
if this is how we put it all
back together, which then would allow people to
go, yes. Hunt Trump's playing the bigger role.
And, you know, it's like pretending that him
not locking up Clinton was all for the
better because blah blah blah.

(28:06):
Well, I don't believe that.
Accountability should matter.
And I just think it's interesting that someone
like Pierce Morgan is showing his hand by
going, let's,
you know, heal the country by not putting
a criminal in prison. You know, it's all
it's the game where well, this really should
make you wonder whether or not, and a
couple points I'll show you next, the whole
game against Trump was even really what it
appeared to be. Because I think it's obvious

(28:26):
that we can see the show that's out
front and maybe they were going after him,
but that's one of the biggest reasons people
think Trump is on their side because they
tried to kill him. Because they all called
him a Nazi. Well, these were all like,
a lot of this is just narrative.
Now the one clear, at least if that's
what it was, potential assassination,
not all the weird things that have happened
since that they call assassination attempts,
Very well could have been. Very well putting

(28:48):
exactly what you think it is. But I
think we should very much consider with all
the weird anomalies that there was something else
going on there. And I think it's easy
to build a game build a narrative about
how he's somehow the outsider when he's literally
anything but or anybody in his team. I
mean, he they're the definition of technocratic insiders.
Every single person on his on his team.
So this just kinda stood out to me
as an example of

(29:11):
putting it back together again in the sense
of not just the, you know, unity of
the party, but, you know, getting people on
the on the Republican side of this to
accept
what will be coming next in an interesting
way. Now here's a point about Simon Godox
saying, there's so much polarization. The US is
divided, which obviously it is. By design, but
it obviously is. These are quotes he's putting

(29:32):
out from other people. The female vote will
decide it. Trump's in trouble. Texas and Florida
will flip. All these different statements. And then
he shows this image of the
law the the the the counties rather
of Donald Trump versus Charles Harris, and it's
predominantly red across the whole country. And somebody
made this point. They said, well, this isn't
there's no red states or rather no blue
states. There's only blue counties.

(29:54):
Now but he that may be the case.
But what's interesting to point out is that
look. This is my whole point about being
driven into 2 locations
as if that's all that exists.
There's a lot of multifaceted opinions out there,
but the reality is most Americans,
even if they see this, ultimately end up
falling in line and choosing 1 of the
choosing Coke or Pepsi.

(30:14):
So to pretend that that means that ever
it's obvious that on paper,
Trump was being presented as the far better
option than Kamal, even to Democrats. That's my
whole point. So to turn around and frame
it like this because they all got forced
into choosing blue or red and act like
that proves it's all red, that's that's quite
the illusion.
There's a lot of people out there who
would choose something else should they have had

(30:34):
the option. And I think it's obvious to
see that even Democrats are being driven to
vote Trump. Now that's not to say that
this still was an act. Maybe it's still
predominantly red. I don't know. But that's the
point, is we don't know. And it's very
easy to fall into what you want to
see, especially when it makes you feel like
you just, chain we're gonna change the country.
I hope you're right. But let's not be
blinded by what we want when we can
see a lot in front of us that

(30:56):
suggest that it might not be the case.
Now I haven't talked about Laura Loomer for
I mean, I just don't wanna waste my
time with such a horrible and ins this
Laura Loomer is one of the worst people
in this conversation, and it just kills me.
And I think it's interesting that even her
own party, people like
I mean, a lot of them. I saw
this back and forth with Viva
Fray where they're calling her out, saying what

(31:16):
you're doing is gross. What you're doing is
is low bar. It's low most common denominator.
And, of course, lying about a lot of
stuff. And as Viva Fray was going back
and forth with her about the things that
she claimed that never came to pass and
saying just because you get one right does
not mean the other 5 things you said
that were false makes it you're lying, and
nobody should trust this person. How long have
I been saying this? It's not about left
or right. It's about people who you can

(31:37):
prove. And a lot
of these people around us, the Matt Wallace's,
the there's so many of them that are
just so aggressively,
constantly making things up, and they are getting
promoted by Twitter and Elon Musk constantly. Or
Laura Loomer was literally brought on the stage
multiple times with Donald Trump, and she is
an objectively bad person.
I just think that's crazy to point out.
It's they got it's not unique to Trump

(31:57):
first or left versus right. I just think
it's interesting. My point in showing you all
this was just because it came up in
this tweet that David Icke showed. But I
do find it interesting to see how quickly
and and it honestly gives me a little
bit of hope for some of the people
in the paradigm that they're they can identify
that even at a kind of the peak
fervor of or rather the the hype, rather
I'm not saying that correct word. The, you
know, just the the the peak of where

(32:19):
we are post the election where, you know,
people are winning and we won and we
you know, Trump's in power. We're gonna change
the world. And even then or even right
before,
being able to call this person out who
is clearly millions of followers on Twitter and
promoted by a lot of these Republicans that
choose to promote influential
people whether or not they're objectively disgusting people
that are lying all the time. It just
gives me hope that there are people with

(32:40):
principles that are willing to call people out
that are doing things like that. But this
is the kind of thing we see, and
this is what we should be obviously calling
out. People out there that just don't want
us to fall into the trap of this
kind of the kind of mindset that I
saw growing dangerously during this whole rise. That,
you know, people that are, you know, might
as right idea that they're you know, you

(33:00):
take what you the the lowest common denominator.
We should obviously want to be
good. We should want to be moral. We
should want to have integrity. We should you
know, these things obviously matter. And, obviously, we
all think that because that's why the government
tries to pretend that's what it is. But
She comes out and says enjoy this picture
of Kamala Harris' family crying as she conceded.
I mean, come on. We all know that's
just disgusting.

(33:21):
I don't care whether you I mean, look,
we have all plenty of things to point
out. My personal opinion is this about the
government.
We'd love to split it down the middle
and pretend it's one side or the other.
But either way, did her family do all
the things you're pointing out about what the
government didn't know? These are individual people. And
I'm sure they're rife with all sorts of
disgusting things like anybody wrapped up in politics
tends to be, but I don't know that.
The point is that either way, to dwell

(33:44):
and and relish in other people's pain and
make fun that is the that is what
the partisan mindset does to people in a
lot of ways. It is petty. It is
small, and it turns you into something that
is vitriolic and about winning versus facts.
People like her
lap it up. David Icke says, why would
you enjoy the tears, disappointment, and distress of

(34:04):
others, however much you may disagree with them?
Is this what we've come to? Sadly, a
lot in some people's minds. But I just
wanna point that out because all of us
should be trying to steer away from people
like this, who want to dwell in the
pain and make fun of people who are
suffering, whatever,
however justified.
Again, really think about that. Even if you
think they deserve it, And and to this

(34:25):
kind of point, it shows you who you
are.
Now lastly on this, I wanted to point
this out around the,
earlier point about the the consent point or
just really the whether we should even want
to be participating in an election whether valid
or not In the context of choosing somebody
to ultimately rule over your life,
which is how we should all be honest

(34:46):
with ourselves and know this works today, knowing
that as a that clip we played, that
lobbyists ultimately control the outcome if they really
want to. It's just not we don't live
in the dynamic we think we do. And
as Massey recently pointed out before this, he
said our country was founded on the consent
of the governed to be governed.
At what point will citizens
rescind their consent?
That's interesting. I mean, I you know, it's

(35:06):
this is one of the reasons why, of
all people, he gives me more hope than
any politician while still I'm very jaded and
I pull it'll it would take a lot,
multiple
it will take more than just one positive
thing or even one election for me to
believe that politicians are our side. Maybe never.
But the point is ultimately
for saying things like this. You wait, I
don't hear anybody else talking about stuff like
this. Makes me hopeful for him. And the

(35:28):
idea is that, obviously, we should be able
we are we our right is
to alter or abolish it. Should we feel
like it is not going in the direction
we think? But, obviously, today, that's not possible.
Showing you that they don't respect the constitution
or your inherent rights. Because if you did
argue I don't even I don't care if
a 100% of the country stood up and
said, we don't think you should exist exist
anymore. They will say, well, too bad. Just
like they've done when Iraq voted them out

(35:50):
and said, we don't want you anymore, and
we they said, well, too bad, but we
respect your sovereignty. Well, you clearly don't. My
point is that we should consider what this
means. And if we do find ourselves in
a position where the vast majority of the
country, which I think we're already there but
we don't recognize it yet, see that, Instead
of going through the same old lesser of
evil's ploy, we should start asking whether there
is another choice. But he says productive,

(36:11):
moral people will not forever consent to serve
a kleptocracy,
regardless of whether it has the trappings of
a democracy or republic.
What politician have you heard say that? I
love it.
But I simply said exactly what many of
us are trying to draw attention to regarding
the upcoming selection.
Lesser of evils is the manipulation.
We are we are doing all we are

(36:31):
doing is consenting to 4 more years of
the same. I know you all sense this,
time to stop going through the motions and
stand on principle.
Now this person says, why not vote third
party? Which I comment I think I did
comment below saying that's one of the things
I've discussed. Right? But there's point is, no,
don't I mean, obviously, my opinion is that
that's still it it kind of if you
believe the vote, which I do, is no
longer translating, it's it falls in the same

(36:52):
path. But at least it's better than consenting
to the 2 same the 2 same parties,
but, ultimately,
I'm of the mind that we need
to no longer consent.
But, nonetheless, if you believe that, whether it's
those 2 or not, again, my point has
always been I stand by. I I would
respect your choice if you truly believe what
you're doing. And I think in most cases,
out of everyone you talk to, well, what
he's a little bit better than she is.

(37:13):
Well, okay. Then you could ask yourself whether
one of the other options might better than
the both of them. And a lot of
people feel that way. But then they go,
well, but I'm told that that won't make
a difference. And if I do, it'll go
to her.
Everybody. I mean, everybody you talk to. And
so he says, simultaneously disengage from the duopoly
while engaging with Americans who are trying to
organize outside the duopoly, give voters choices, raise
important issues, not not discussed, and need your

(37:35):
support. I agree with that. 100%.
If that would ultimately would change the perception
of others, it's a it's a net positive.
And it's just he says precisely, and a
whole new system can be developed in the
background if needed without abandoning the existing system.
So, again, I I I almost feel like
they're arguing this as if that is the
opposite of what I'm saying. I agree. As
long as we're leaning into both dynamics and

(37:55):
re recognizing and trying to change. But my
the problem with all of it is that
this is exactly what RFK could have done.
Right? And that was very possible, more than
I've ever seen a third party have. He
I almost guarantee he could have reached 5%.
But, of course, because the argument is we
won't have another election because Elon Musk was
every day for the last 3 months getting

(38:16):
45,000,000
views of post arguing that we'll never have
another election if we don't do this now.
Swing states and immigration, which I'll get into
in a minute.
Interestingly, showing that the immigrant vote went predominantly
to the Republicans. But, of course, because he
was saying that they're gonna bring in illegals
and that will only vote Democrat, we won't
have an election. Hey. We got played, in
my opinion. People fell for that.

(38:37):
The argument being that, clearly,
it's not what we're being sold.
And that the idea that we won't have
another one if we don't do it now
forced people who might have take taken a
principled stance to fall in line.
And, again, I think that shows a lot
about RFK Junior. And maybe he thought that
was the best choice. What he did say
when he did it was a very logical
statement.
I still argue that it was

(38:58):
it it
threw away what people want believe what they
gave him. They believed in what he was
trying to accomplish. Not to fall into Trump,
but for the fact that he wasn't. It
was different. And then he would ultimately
start a new ball rolling for a new
party. And, yes, the next election, which would
have been there either way, would have continued
to change. But now,
that's not possible this time anyway.
So I think that's important to consider. Now

(39:21):
doctor Ahmed Malik, who we interviewed a while
back, made the point that I think a
lot are right now.
He says, folks, there's no excuse.
If Trump doesn't get this done, he is
one of them. It's that simple. Now I
wouldn't I wouldn't say it's that simple, but
I would agree that this is the obvious
thing we should be looking for right now.
They have everything they need.
At least, that exists within this dynamic, which,
again, as I've shown every single election as

(39:43):
far back as you can look, there's always
things they can do to stick their finger
in the or their stick in the spokes.
And, of course, that gives them the reason
to say, well, the Dems wouldn't let us
do it. Same with Obama. Same with Trump's
first administration. It's every time. It's the same
thing.
But if there is any if in this
dynamic, they have everything they could need to
ultimately be Bolthouse's executive branch, it's very clear.

(40:06):
He says if he doesn't and you still
believe in him, well, then you're truly lost,
a proper cult follower. Now this this little
cap capture, he says, with the presidency,
the house, and the senate, they have an
almost unprecedented
opportunity to save the world.
I hope so.
730 days to immediately dismantle the deep state,
which, again,
I I I I'm not trying to down

(40:29):
I think it's a bit naive to even
frame it that way.
Dismantle the deep state? I mean, cry it
out loud. I don't think anybody even agrees
on what exactly that means when we have
a conversation, inside the independent media.
So this idea that we can this is
like saying end, you know, the I don't
know. Like, a war on terror. It's the
same kind of game. What this ultimately I
see hope I mean, again, to be always
clear in the beginning,

(40:49):
because this is how it gets misrepresented,
obviously, if that happens, whatever that looks like
in a that ultimately amounts to, as it
says, slash c I a n s a
f b yes. If these things get removed,
which I find in a while if I
mean, my god. I I find that almost
embarrassingly
impossible.
I would hope so, though, and I would
be praising it. My point though is that

(41:09):
I sadly do think that they won't go
that way.
I hope I'm wrong. And I'll tell you
the first thing I see, and I'll be
happily, ecstatically telling you that I was wrong,
is that what it means to actually do
that. Is that mean that we're gonna dismantle
all of these different three letter agencies? I
mean, hope so.
Does that mean that they're gonna stop the
overseas wars and the different establishments they've created

(41:31):
all around the world? I hope so.
Does that mean we're gonna acknowledge the interwoven
aspects of that within both administrations? I mean,
I've you see how, obviously, this gets difficult
to prove, but I hope so.
Abolish the Federal Reserve. Now
this is interesting, and I I'll point this
out in a second. I think coming up
we're I'll I'll I think right in this
segment.

(41:51):
This whole thing with Powell and the way
this I mean, I I
see where this gets pointed to. I have
a different opinion, of course. And, again, I
people I'm sure come to expect. I I
don't hide the fact that I'm pessimistic about
where government goes. Guys, we have a reason
to be. You've got
decades decades decades of them proving that we're
right about not trusting them. And so it's
it's interesting that suddenly by continuing to point

(42:12):
to what is most logical and hoping for
a positive thing is somehow the worst possible
stance for people that are statists and believe
in Trump. And that's usually where this goes.
But, obviously,
that happening seems very unlikely. But I hope
it does.
But, ultimately, it seems as if it's a
transition point to feel like positive change
that ultimately drives us into the new financial

(42:34):
system.
We know that's coming. They're telling you that's
coming.
And I it's perfectly in line to happen
during Trump's administration.
I hope we have the integrity from all
sides to call it out when it does.
My point is that this might very well
be a ploy
to make it you know, to as we
trans transition into whatever comes next to make
it appear as if one positive thing is

(42:55):
happening. But either way, this conversation happened last
time. Remember? This conversation between Powell and Trump
and the idea about I it's this is
not new. But it's being presented as if
it is. But there it says, thereby put
Wall Street, BlackRock, Vanguard, etcetera into existential crisis.
Hardly.
That's that's quite I mean, that's not even
remote. I mean, I don't care if you
pull BlackRock out of everything US centric in
the United States. They're worldwide,

(43:16):
wildly influential. So it will not be an
ex I but I do think it would
be huge for the United States.
But realize that BlackRock and Vanguard are immersely
tied with everything going on. Elon Musk, Peter
Thiel,
Rumble.
It's pretty ridiculous to but either way, I
I get the hopeful side of it, but
I don't this to me shows a lack
of understanding of how deep that actually goes.

(43:38):
Or the willful ignorance about how it goes,
oh, in people that you don't like.
Or excuse me, that you do like and
don't wanna see how that influences them. But
it says exit and in effect, obliterate the
United Nations,
which again, I mean, I I the idea
of the body itself, I would ultimately agree
with. But I think the problem is that
there is there
the way that that would take place right
now is gonna be driven from a very

(43:59):
dangerous place. I'd and I argue driven through
Israel and Zionism.
And so I the if if we cannot
deal with that first, which I highly doubt
will happen
before this goes this
move would take place, which, again, that would
be a really, really unlikely difficult move with
the state of the world or even just
in any context, there's other countries involved. I

(44:19):
just again, these are things that we in
some cases, when I have positive outcomes, I'm
willing to bet you will never come to
pass.
But
if this does not be dealt is the
Zionist genocide is not dealt with,
there's a very dangerous and and
dark future with things like this. When it
says v s 23 destroy BIS, Bank of

(44:40):
International Settlements, which again are obviously
of interwoven with a lot of the people
that are currently saying these things. So it's
hard to see that happening as Catherine Osterhausen
Fitts has pointed out.
Therefore, destabilized, bankrupted all the shareholder res reserve
banks. You know, just a few of the
things. Now these are just statements written out
by people. None of these are I mean,
a lot of these are kind of abstractly
pointed to as if something Trump said in

(45:00):
one interview means that when there's no there's
never been any explicit statement of ending the
fed from Donald Trump and things like that.
Now, Sal Diagris to point out some of
the kind of humorous points as well.
And, yes, the the things we ought to
expect. Or at least the the the very
prominent promises.
He says, looks like Trump will win. This
was on 5th. He'll take office on January
20th, and said he'd free Ross day 1,

(45:22):
which he did many times. So Ross should
be home by 121.
Right?
I mean, that's that's not a joke, not
a trick. I mean, this is what he
said. Now, of course, my point, and usually
what happens is there'll be something that makes
that not the case.
And we'll point it out and we'll get
attacked for saying, well, he what can he
do? He's not in control of everything or,
you know, this to the typical
thing you get when it's that's okay. Whatever.

(45:43):
I never told you what the out the
rationale would be. The point was I just
feel that it was never gonna happen. But
at the same time, this could be a
very easy bone to throw to people.
You know? So I I I I kind
of leaning towards I think this will, like,
more likely happen than others. But my point
is all is just to simply say I
hope it happens.
If it doesn't, we should have the integrity

(46:03):
to call it out and not give them
a pass just because you're on their side.
There's a lot of these things though. For
example,
the Ukraine war.
All these big flashy statements about it'll be
over before I even get into power. Like,
we've heard these things.
So if it doesn't happen,
it's not challenging your party. It's just having
integrity. Call them out. Same way that I
and others did either side, whichever party's in

(46:25):
power. And this is what all this is
what's funny is I'm willing to bet you
as we go into this administration over the
year or so, suddenly, I'll be perceived as
something different where, you know, every time these
things switch and oscillate,
our arguments are the same. My 2 party
illusion perspective that are all just the government,
both parties, Biden, Trump, they're all acting in
the same direction,
but because of the different hype and the
points of the day, suddenly we get looked

(46:46):
at differently. Now, it's not to say that
I'm always exactly consistent. My opinions evolve. But
I think it's very clear if you look
at my work, it's never it's not pro
one or the other. It's simply what we
think is most concerning in the moment.
Simple.
Now Rachel Blevins says, alright. Trump won.
Now when does the end Ukraine war in
24 hours clock start? Well, I would argue

(47:07):
that ultimately, once he is in power,
he said he repeatedly said in the campaign
trail that he would end the war before
he was even inaugurated. Now, of course, even
though he said that, obviously, that seems unlikely,
and the point would be he's being hyperbolic
because that's how he speaks. But he did
say that. So the point is always to
make is when he's being hyperbolic or not,
and that's the easy way to play the
game where, ah, he was just speaking off
the cuff. Well, okay. Half the time you

(47:28):
guys lean into that.
Either way, I hope it ends.
I hope he actually does this
and actually stops the funding of the Ukraine
war and actually stop and, you know, but
I find it impossible to believe,
but actually acknowledge the truth of it too.
The reality of the US involvement in manufacturing
this for other reasons than any and it's
not even remotely

(47:48):
connected to freedom or liberty or democracy or
fighting against bad guys or the reality of
what they're doing everywhere else. But you see
how hard this becomes? Because Trump was part
of that in his last administration.
A lot of the different ongoing warfare.
Either way, I hope it stops. Because Ukrainians
are suffering, Russians are suffering, people all over
the world are suffering because of the US
agenda in this location.

(48:10):
Now CJ Hopkins points out, so now, finally,
the facts about COVID and the rollout of
the new normal during 2020 to 2022 will
be extensively and conclusively documented for all the
world to see, and those responsible in the
USA will be held account. Right, RFK?
I hope so.
Hope so. His point's the same.
Despite him calling me a white supremacist in
the past for calling up Israel. His point

(48:32):
is his point is accurate. The point is
well, this rather the suggestion is that, well,
we should expect that. Will it happen though?
And you can even say that's not even
up to RFK. Right? Clearly, it's about who
will promise to put him in certain places.
But wait. Let's realize this is not just
Biden's administration.
Right? 2019 into 2020 and then up till
2021,

(48:53):
a lot.
The beginning of Operation Warp Speed, the state
of emergency, the Defunds Production Act, the Cares
Act, all these things that destroyed this country
and that Biden only made worse,
will if they were truly gonna be releasing
the information, will it be pretty damning for
Donald Trump? So I doubt that will actually
happen. At the very least, it'll be selectively

(49:13):
shown from a post Biden beginning. You know,
how how much do you even bet that
they will release the information and the date
will start on Biden's day 1?
And nobody will challenge that because, well, we
all know Biden made it work. It's usually
how these things work. But we cannot box
out his responsibility
for all of these things.
But, again, when that happens, if and when,
we should be happy it does, and if

(49:34):
not, have the integrity to call it out.
Now Derek points out what, Alex Zach said.
Now he says republicans, the same kind of
point about having control.
Now control the house of representatives
and the senate. The supreme court has a
so that's really funny. Control the house of
representatives and the senate. The Supreme Court has
a conservative leaning, and that's true, and Donald

(49:55):
Trump is president.
The party essentially has carte blanche to dismantle
corruption and bureaucracy over the next 4 years.
That's it. Or that is if the government
truly operates as claimed and the Republican party
is as freedom oriented as claimed.
I really hope that's the case.
And he says there are no more excuses.

(50:15):
Should we should see significant moves to abolish
the Federal Reserve?
Now they tell me if I'm wrong, by
the way. I have not seen an explicit
statement of Trump claiming to end the fed.
If I'm wrong, please tell me because I
I that's important for the conversation, but I
have not seen that. So it's interesting that
that seems to kinda be this constant point
when all I've seen is some kind of
reference things that might suggest that would be

(50:35):
the case or talk about bitcoin as, you
know, it's it's an odd point.
But it says eliminate the IRS,
disband or significantly reform the CIA, FBI, CDC,
FDA, and other corrupt three letter agencies,
and support for the genocide in Palestine, remove
corrupt banking,
Israeli and corporate influences from the government, and
more. Over the next 4 years, we'll see

(50:56):
how committed the Republican party is to freedom.
Now, of course, one of the problems is
they're openly supporting this despite what many of
his followers would say.
The statements are on the record everywhere.
Over the top support, just like Kamala, by
the way. So I that that will not,
in my opinion, happen. They will continue to
support it. And the Israeli corporate influence has

(51:17):
been I mean, they've been rewarded
for doing so. That's the point. They poured
more money into this election than I've ever
seen in any I mean, they're they're praising
that. And it's not just the executive branch,
guys. So they were rewarded for what they've
done. And so I doubt that will
change. But he goes, in either case, I
hope people
oops. There it is. I hope people continue

(51:38):
dissolving the illusion of authority.
See, we're he's very very much in the
same mindset here. And he says rediscovering
their own god given power, standing on their
god given rights,
and exiting from and building outside of these
systems. Don't sit by and idly idly don't
sit idly by waiting for governments to save
you. Well said.

(51:58):
Even if you think they might,
should you should take responsibility for your own
safety.
Derek says, as Alex says, the right wing
of the duopoly is now in control. If
they really care about liberty, we should see
it in in advance.
If not, we will see them use their
power to force every right wing wet dream
they have regardless of whether it conflicts with
liberty or the constitution, which we're already seeing.

(52:19):
A lot of them cheering on things that
are, like, putting people in jail for burning
a flag regardless of your opinion. These are
these are without question
constitutionally protected.
Supreme court ruled many times. I mean or
just basically understanding what it mean the what
your rights mean. And yet, they're still pushing
it forward to the cheers of people saying
that you shouldn't do it because you're a
terrorist or whatever it is.

(52:39):
So it's it's alarming to me that people
that wanna pretend they're fighting for freedom and
liberty and the rights would be willing to
so brazenly ignore those very things.
And it's not that they don't understand it.
Like, I mean, people like myself getting these
confrontations on Twitter. Well, look at look at
the and they just well, he they should
be doing it anyway. Move out of the
country if you don't want that. So those
people don't believe in those things. They believe

(52:59):
in winning,
and they love to frame themselves as to
believe in those things because that's the hip
thing right now. So that's a scary thing
for me that that's a leading part of
this.
High impact flick says they control the executive
branch, the legislative branch. They control the judicial
branch. And if they don't eliminate income tax,
property tax, IRS, FBI, CIA, all these things,

(53:20):
Just for starters,
they hate your guts, period.
I have the same point. I just really
want you to think about what that means
because we've been here before, guys.
Now Elon Musk says, when there are egregiously
wrong legal judgments in a single state
that substantially harm American citizens and all other
49 states,
the federal government should take immediate course of

(53:41):
action. Now this is so alarming to me.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
Okay.
Now there's a point where, like so these
kind of broad statements, now you could fill
in the blanks and make a case for
why that would make sense. In a sum
in a case, for example, where the government,
first of all,
passes a law, let's say, that is completely
unconstitutional
and that puts people in danger.

(54:03):
Well, that in our or that is one
of the one of the few reasons that
the federal government, which I don't think should
be existing at all, let alone any of
it, but in the context of even the
constitution,
point is that the one the few reasons
that they would exist,
to uphold the constitution.
And so the point is that if you're
talking about something that does, in fact, put
you know, ignore your rights and and put

(54:25):
people in danger, well, then that yes. Then
you would then you could argue that that
would be in a case where that would
make sense. But, of course, just saying something
is legal or wrong a a religiously wrong
legal judgment implying that it's against the law
does not mean that it's actually
illegal.
Right? And we've talked about this. There's plenty
of things that the the governments have created.
It let I would what I would argue

(54:47):
repugnant to the constitution legislation that which means
it should be null and void based on
Murray versus Madison Supreme Court ruling.
But just because they pass it does not
mean that it's actually legal. It should be
something that we recognize is, you know, and
there's we plenty of examples.
Or it's the same kind of thing we've
talked about. Like, for example, with the idea
of abortion. Right? Where I agree with the

(55:08):
move that Trump made. The idea of putting
it back to the states where the states
can make their own decisions despite all the
hype about and even some of the tear
the alarming actions within that that some of
the with either side have made in their
state. But the point is that it should
be coming down to the the opinions
and choices of the people in those states.
That is what states' rights is all about.
The federal government should not be superseding these
things. That's the whole interestingly enough, the cannabis

(55:30):
conversation of this legalization with the states, but
even the federal is still illegal. Look at
where we are. That's that the point is
that's how that should be the case. It
should be irrelevant. They should not be able
to dictate what you can decide in your
state. So in this case, this is beginning
to show you the authoritarian tilt. Like, they're
saying, look. We as the federal government are
going to decide.
We think it's egregiously wrong. Well, may if

(55:51):
whether it is or not, do they think
that? And do they just find it politically,
they disagree with it? For example, forcing idea
that I you know, abortion being illegal or
any number of things that you could fit
into this box. And they would argue that
it's a wrong judgment because you've clearly heard
them make statements, and maybe you would agree
with it, that they feel these are wrong
things. And I maybe even I would agree
with that. But the point is that they're
saying if they see something that they think

(56:13):
is wrong or
substantially might harm American citizens, which saying it
like that, you might feel that makes sense,
but we you know how politics can be,
manipulate anything. They could say it substantially harms
American citizens for them to be able to
do something that would be within their rights,
but they just disagree with it. We've all
seen this.
And if they're gonna say the federal government

(56:34):
should take immediate action. I mean, we just
need to see how these things are through
what appears to be logical statements,
edging towards more and more restriction or lacking
of respecting of your constitutional rights.
I mean, I think it's important to consider.
But the problem is that most of the
people who would be the first to call
something like this out, had it been said
by Hillary Clinton, will ignore it because they're

(56:55):
of the mind that these people are on
their side. And, guys, that's how this always
works.
And 1 by 1, step by step, we
continue to go in the direction where these
things are being removed.
I just think that's quite alarming to me.
Now, but that doesn't mean that maybe it'll
be carried out in a way in the
first way I framed it. My point is
not to say that I know for sure,
but just that this is is
based on their previous actions and statements they've

(57:17):
already made, I do not have hope that
this is gonna go in a positive direction.
And that's not that's that's to say at
the end, the federal government in it in
its in its in and of itself,
I find to be unconstitutional.
And the idea that we're talking about a
fed a centralized federal power structure coming in
to immediately correct the actions of states, that
sounds concerning to me either way you spin
it. Or even how about one step further?

(57:38):
How about they do it in all the
best legal ways and then suddenly a democrat
leader gets into power and then they use
it their way? Because that's always the best
way to reach the people that don't wanna
see it now. Just see how it might
be used by the people who you think
are worse, because that's how this will go.
That worries me.
Now Michael Tracey said the Trump won the

(57:59):
star county
in in South Texas, which is 96%
Latino
by 16 points.
In 2016,
Trump lost the county by 60 points. He
says if anyone knows of a precedent for
a 76 point electoral swing over the span
of 8 years, I'd like to hear about
it. It it I mean, it seems unprecedented.
But my point is the same whether it's

(58:19):
one small example or or all over the
we can't let's stop pretending
like we know what people will do based
on their ethnicity
or their immigration status. Because by every account
that I can see, it's in fact not
even remotely what they keep claiming. And what
was the primary claim for why we all
had to vote one way or the other
and only between 2 people in this because
every pot on Joe Rogan, on his every

(58:42):
day,
Elon and the rest of them were arguing
that they're gonna bring in so many illegals
in the swing states and they'll never be
election again, which I still don't even understand
why that fully makes sense. I understand what
he's saying and I know why he's saying
it. I don't think that flushes out the
way people pretend it does.
But realizing that you can see all over
the place. Now, again, I'm not necessarily talking
about illegal immigrants here, but realize that we're
simply talking about the argument that because they

(59:03):
were immigrants
right? So but but point so somebody comes
from Mexico and gets citizenship and becomes a
citizen, the point is 30 seconds before that
or the time frame it took to become
that citizen, which is obviously months or whatever
it takes,
Before that, they would be what you would
call an illegal alien
just because they hadn't gotten yet. So it's
interesting that just it's just a it's a
time frame difference or a paperwork difference. They're

(59:23):
still the same person from the same so
the idea being that just because you claim
that they're from Mexico or from Venezuela, you
know they're gonna vote democrat and that's why
we had to do
it's provably not the case. And I think
we've known that for a long time. So
I just wanna continue to point out these
these hard these tried and true lies they
continue to use over and over and over,
like the lesser evils, like the very selection

(59:45):
of our lifetime. This is one of them.
And so I wanted I mean, the the
I idea that they were weaponizing immigration to
bring them in to vote a certain way.
Now weaponized immigration
was clear. I think Israel plays a huge
part in that. But it was simply, in
my opinion, used to drive you into thinking
that that was the case when I think
it's much more complicated than that.
Here's another example of it. Just showing you
what I think is the illusion of all

(01:00:06):
of this.
Jeff Stein says, staggering class realignment shift in
working class. He says, Harris lost despite major
shift of affluent voters her way.
And it goes over the information from 2020.
Trump win vote wins voters over a 100,000
a year, 52 54 and 52. Harris in
2024
wins them 5445.
And just going through different years, and just

(01:00:27):
as points out, Arnaud Petron, he says, this
is an an interesting prism through which to
look at Trump's win. Harris won the wealthy
by a large margin,
which which would make sense to me. But
Trump won income brackets under 100,000,
which is the point is that it's almost
an inversion of traditional republican democrat electorates. In
the past, it was usually the more wealthy,

(01:00:47):
you know,
not not to get into. Again, I don't
even know if I'd really trust or believe
some of these framings in the past. But
either way, the point is that it used
to be the framing that that when you
got the more wealthy
white collar you know, they would go republican.
And where the more working class you know,
but clearly, that has seemed to completely invert.
Which is what I've always said, these things
don't even make sense anymore. That everything has
been flip flopped more than once over the

(01:01:08):
years.
He says the democrats with Harris were the
party of the wealthy and probably out of
touch elite, the Republicans under Trump,
that of the working class. Again, at least
as this illusion of numbers shows us. I
I should say illusion is I don't know
if I trust any of this, and I
don't think we should.
But based on what's being presented, what I
find interesting
is that this shows you the illusion of

(01:01:28):
this whole game. You know, whether it's, you
know, just how these simply put, this or
any number of the rest of them, these
classically held ideas we have about how people
vote and what republicans are and what democrats
are and how the the immigrants voting for
democrat all of these different points. It just
shows you that it's all just people being
shuffled around to different categories. And I think
at the it's because they're losing control of

(01:01:49):
the way we view all of this. That's
my opinion. But, of course, you could look
at both of these as Trump reached the
people that were, you know, that he awoke
and all the working class people that find
you know, and that may be right.
Maybe they were ultimately
tapped and they recognized this or I would
argue tricked into believing he was gonna do
the things they wanted. But either way, it
could be looked as a positive that this
is the sign of the real organic movement.

(01:02:10):
But I just, with everything that we know,
with all the obvious I mean, again, the
idea that they apparently stole the election last
time, but this time, just let it happen
organically. I mean, there's so many different points
that there maybe is an explanation for.
But we should absolutely be demanding that and
recognize that these things just don't line up
right now. So
to me, it very clearly highlights the possibility,

(01:02:31):
a strong possibility that we are all being
played.
I hope I'm wrong.
Now, this is what we saw throughout this
whole process. Right? And this is what I
find so interesting on that point I just
made. The Guardian wrote this. Now this is
on 5th essentially at the yeah. Where it's
basically in the midst of all this, you
know, the during like, as we saw, it
was everywhere.
Alarm grows over Trump and Musk's blizzard of

(01:02:52):
baseless voter fraud claims. Now I highly doubt
it's baseless.
Again, this happens every single time. And maybe
that's not even all. I I in fact,
I will point out point blank say it's
not always
the politicians and the higher level. Sometimes it's
just these random poll workers who think they're
cheating to win because Trump's gonna kill the
world. Right? We know that. But it happens
every time on all sides.

(01:03:14):
Guys, it's a provable fact.
Whether it's voting machines, whether I mean, so
it's every time. And so what's interesting is
that they were flooding with this conversation.
We saw both sides for that matter beforehand
argue that if, you know, they're gonna cheat
and this why we have to cheat to
steal and to win for democracy
was ridiculous.
Weirdly enough though, it kind of ended up
with a kind of a oh, I mean,
yeah. Well, arguably, we have yet to see

(01:03:35):
the next couple of months and the transition.
But it was kind of a a
what's it called? You know, it didn't really
amount to much.
What's the word there? I forget the phrase
of what you say. What what it was,
it didn't really, you know, have the all
the claims of fraud and and the allegations
of stealing and, you know, you could argue,
I would almost be willing to bet you
if this had been Kamala win that you

(01:03:55):
would have seen because they already said this.
Like, very huge portion of Republican influencers were
saying if they win, it's cheating no matter
what,
which is pretty crazy.
Even though I I would argue they always
cheat. But this time around, what I've seen
so far at least, was a lot of
claims to fraud, and it seems like a
landslide for Trump. And now they seem to
be conceding.
Biden, everyone, Kamala coming out and saying, you

(01:04:17):
know, let's make this good. Well, you know,
let's fix the country, like, which is which
is interesting. To me,
I think that simply shows that this is
the direction
of the establishment. Like, why would they be
switching, like I mean, you saw the way
that republicans would respond in the past and
many did even when they thought this was
in the midst of it when they thought
it might go one way or the other.
Now, I'm seeing mostly the people in power
on the democrat side sort of go, okay.

(01:04:38):
Good luck. Let's make this let's work together
and
which in no way is meant to be,
like, good guy democrat. Not at all. I
think this is about the obvious nature of
this was the plan.
Right? Because, I mean, that's my opinion, obviously,
but I find that very strange. And didn't
they just spend the last however long screaming
about how this they would never let this
happen? I mean, even art even a lot
of us predicted that it would be chaos

(01:04:59):
either way. But yet, weirdly kind of again,
what's the thing I was looking for?
Lacking lackluster would be a good one.
Here's another. Here's Alex Jones. This one on
5th. Breaking. President Trump warns election fraud taking
place in Philadelphia. They've law enforcement on the
way. And just, you know, just all these
all these statements all just kind of fell
away and nothing. Well, how about even if

(01:05:20):
there was election fraud, shouldn't they still be
charged for it? It's still crime. Right? But,
you know, only important in the midst of
winning. Usually the point.
Here's here's what I was saying before.
Denny Johnson posted this. Goes, wow. Biden comments
on Trump victory. He says, quote, you can't
love your country only when you win.
Something I hope we can do is see
each other as fellow Americans bring down the
temperature.

(01:05:40):
Right? So it interesting it just seems like
the opposite of what you might expect in
either I mean, I would I would have
expected something quite different in the way that
this would go. But I think it's about
the idea this is they're drawing everybody in.
This is the direction it's supposed to go.
Right? I frankly don't think either side is
this measured
unless they have an interest in doing so.
But, I mean, we're seeing a lot of

(01:06:00):
this right now, which I find it quite
interesting. And even even the Democrats are now
point pointing to it and going good. See?
Because, you know, good. Let's just let's not
let's if they're gonna say we good. You
know, let's make this positive. Well, guess. We'll
take that. You know? It's
interesting to say the least.
Now we have Iran
speaking up and at least at least as
the the, French press agencies reporting, so it

(01:06:22):
could be completely false, especially around the Iran
topic. But Iran calls Trump when a chance
for the US to, quote, review
previous wrong policies.
I I always have to point out how
how obvious it is that, again, whether they're
playing a role, which could be the case
to counterbalance the belligerence of the current western
stance, Iran is pretty consistently showing themselves to
be the the adult in the room when

(01:06:43):
it comes to these conversations,
to be measured and balanced and not and
that's not good guy, bad guy. There's a
lot wrong with that country like there is
with our country.
But what's interesting is that they're coming out
and saying, let's, like, let's find some common
ground here, which I doubt will happen. I'm
gonna get into a second where I think
it's overwhelmingly
obvious that Donald Trump is rushing forward to
do Israel's bidding in Iran. But it just

(01:07:04):
shows you that it seems a lot of
people seem to be going, like, let's find
a positive path forward. I just think that's
interesting. However you wanna read that.
Now here's a great clip that David Icke
shared. This is on CNN. Now I've I'm
not sure who the guy is. I think
it might be sort of like a Fox
News, like, Republican leaning. I could be wrong.
That that's kinda how I got the feel
of the room. It seems like he's in
there giving the other side of the opinion,
and the rest of the forum are sitting

(01:07:24):
there being told how they've made mistakes, which
I think is funny.
But what it's a it's a great clip
to listen to. And frankly, I agree with
David Icke says, this is why Trump won
again.
The the argument being if you think the
vote translates, this would be why he would
win that context. Again, you know my opinion
on that. He says whether he will truly
do anything about it is that other question.
But this is why he won. Excellent analysis

(01:07:45):
here. So let's listen to what he had
to say.
This is a mandate.
He's won the national popular vote, for the
first time since for a Republican for the
first time since 2004.
This is a big deal. This isn't backing
into the office.
This is a mandate
to do what you said you were gonna

(01:08:05):
do.
Get the economy working again for regular working
class Americans,
fix immigration,
try to get crime under control, try to
reduce the chaos in the world. This this
is a mandate from the American people to
do that. I think I'm interpreting the results
tonight
as the revenge of just
the regular old working class American, the anonymous

(01:08:27):
American who
has been crushed,
insulted, condescended to. They're not garbage.
It just really seems like they want you
to think you won, and maybe you did.
Right? I'm not trying to say I know
for sure. But it feels a little bit
too easy for me. With all that was
going on, like someone said in the chat,
they spend all this time calling you a
fascist Nazi, you're gonna end the world, and

(01:08:47):
then it's like, okay. Well, you won, then
we'll back down. Well, what about last time?
Last time was the same, but you literally
had a secret cabal that saved democracy. But
this time, you just kinda passively let it
I don't I don't think that lines up
for me. But maybe there's something that connects
those dots. I don't know. But I think
it's interesting that this is just to so
they they're not, you know I think, obviously,
what he's saying makes sense.
The clearly, the political establishment

(01:09:10):
were talking down to everybody, and the republican
side of this were clearly trying to lean
into that. And you could argue that's why
it happened. It does make sense.
But it feels too
easy. Now maybe I know plenty of you
would argue that's because I just don't wanna
accept a positive thing and I you know,
I that's not true. I I would I
want to see I just am jaded when
it comes to this, which I think I
have a right to be.

(01:09:30):
So, yes, I'm gonna be the first one
to go, well, I don't trust it because
usually they're not well, they're lying to us.
But I'm not going to dismiss it if
it if and when it comes to pass
as a a genuinely positive outcome. I want
it to be heard because that's very clear.
And I think we have all the reason
in the world to be skeptical about if
this comes to pass.
They're not Nazis.

(01:09:51):
They're just regular people who get up and
go to work every day and are trying
to make a better life for their kids,
and they feel like
they have been told to just shut up
when they have complained about the things that
are hurting them in their own lives. I
mean, even this whole setup right here, doesn't
this feel very vindicating?
You know? Like, you got Van Jones, and
they're just sitting there being talked to. You

(01:10:11):
like, they're being talked at, like, about how
you they because he he's talking to them,
essentially, or just the democrat establishment that you
guys you you you missed the you missed
the the plot. You lost the plot. You
don't know who you're talking to. You don't
and I think that's it's a it's a,
an enjoyable moment.
But, again, it just doesn't feel like it
lines up. Why?
I mean, we've seen these processes before. What's

(01:10:32):
different about this election? In the past, it's
usually about trying to go to rally the
side for the next election, and here's what
we went wrong. Here we you know? And
that's kinda what they're doing. But this is
like them chastising themselves about how they are
elitist, and they don't see it, and it
just feels off. It doesn't but, hey, you
know, to maybe look at it for a
positive side, maybe they're finally seeing that they're
wrong. I just don't know why that makes

(01:10:53):
sense,
but I'm certainly hopeful.
I also feel like this election
as we sit here and pour over this
tonight, is something of an indictment of the
political information complex.
I mean, we've been sitting around here for
the last couple of weeks,
and the story that was portrayed was not
true.
I mean, we were told Puerto Rico was

(01:11:14):
gonna change the election. Liz Cheney, Nikki Haley
voters, women lying to their husbands. Before that,
it was Tim Walz and the camo hats.
Night after night after night, we were told
all these things. Maybe not. Maybe he's a
democrat. I can't tell. By the way, I
just said that off the top of my
head because of the way the scene felt.
But either way, if somebody, you know, outlining
how they went wrong and says I stopped

(01:11:34):
it, it's same as the Clinton point with
Trump last time. 99%.
It's a shoo in, like, and then not
even close. You know, it just it's it's
to me, it's I get the sense that
these people are just being led
as, I mean, as always. I don't think
most of these people in the corporate media,
if any, are actually in the know. They
are just placated, used, manipulated. I think that's
obvious when but get made to think that

(01:11:56):
they're in the know. They're in the list
because then they pander to power instead of
speaking truth to power because they let them
feel like they're inside. But either way, I
mean, what he's outlining is absolutely true. And
what is it? What the last part you
just said was, After night, we were told
all these Yeah. And and the point about
Clinton in the past, you know, it just
seems
a very interesting shift for them to be
told one thing

(01:12:16):
and then have it flip on them in
the end. You know? And I think that
a lot of them were genuinely taken aback
by that. And yet again, here we are.
I mean, how many times do we have
to go up against this where they're telling
you what they you know, this is what
will happen and then a nut doesn't even
come close. And we just kinda cycle through
this every time. I'm speaking of people who
may lean into corporate media during these processes
just acting like they're gonna inform you accurately.
Their job is to aggressively misinform you for

(01:12:39):
the agenda. I mean, we all seem to
know that today.
Things and gimmicks were gonna
somehow push Harris over the line, and we
were just ignoring the fundamentals.
Inflation,
people feeling like that they were barely able
to tread water at best.
That was the fundamentals of the election.
And so I think that both parties should

(01:13:00):
always look at the results of an election
and figure out what went right and what
went wrong. But I think for all of
us who cover elections
and talk about elections and do this on
a day to day basis,
we have to figure out how to understand,
talk to, and listen to the half of
the country that rose up tonight and said,
we've had enough.
See see, even there, the half of the

(01:13:20):
country
so, I mean, okay. So if you're gonna
argue that that that would imply that only
Republicans won, like, so just more Republicans decided
to vote this time, no, man. People change
sides in this because you drove them to,
and that's by design in my mind.
And, of course, somebody points out he's wearing
the the, you know, the Israeli pin, which,
you know, is it just the I mean,
we need to see how immersed it is.

(01:13:41):
Actually, we're gonna get that in a second.
The obviously
overwhelming influence that played that played a role
here.
But I think that's a good point and
what he said. The analysis they're reading, what
ultimately we can see,
it's e it's it's a very easy reason
to see. But on honestly, I think the
similar examples exist within the Republican party, but
I think the way that they are presented
this time, even by the corporate media, was

(01:14:02):
it was about trying to tap into what
people
are tired of and what people want to
see coming.
And so what's interesting
is with right now,
with Donald Trump, let's just say post, you
know, January 1st or whatever the day is,
7th or when when he's put in power.
There's an opportunity here for him, for somebody

(01:14:22):
to reach somebody like me. Right? If if
you if if if Donald Trump were to
be to step in and ultimately
wanna prove that that he is real and
not some you know, ultimately, buck a lot
of these different systems, all he would have
to do to convince me right now would
be to literally, instantaneously
stop funding the Israeli genocide.
End the war,

(01:14:44):
Create a a legitimate path, not just a
path. See it to to a fruition
of an actual two state solution, not the
lie you put out last time, not the
ploy of presenting the occupied Gaza dynamic as
somehow a two state solution, not an island
off the deck a legitimate dynamic of, like,
67 border reality, which Israel will never agree

(01:15:04):
to. They never have despite the narrative. They've
always fought to manipulate it into not happening,
and now they've admitted it today. They will
never allow that.
Regardless of what they would want, my point
is that he has an opportunity to genuinely
show that,
especially for those out there that believe he's
not completely bought off and influenced by the
Adelson dine
Israeli oligarch dynamic. I think it's quite obvious,

(01:15:24):
Or he is that much of a Zionist.
Either way, he's made it clear that it's
so an obvious
pro Zionist, which is immediately
contradicted to contradicting
American interests.
If he wanted to prove it to somebody
like me, that would be a very easy
way to do so because it's a very
central point. And it's obviously morally sound internationally

(01:15:47):
international law is completely aligned. I mean, everything
about it other than somehow not challenging our
best ally, whatever that's supposed to mean even
though they've never been the best to help
the United States. Other than that statement in
platitude,
everything else, everything
makes sense.
Now,
it's so easy.
Legally speaking, the US government should not continue

(01:16:07):
funding them because they're violating international law. It's
it's it's it's US law to do that,
and they have still ignored it. But Blinken
got called out for it. They got caught
even in the state department. 2 different bodies
called them out for deliberately ignoring that, and
still happening.
So if you argue that when when we
know these things, that the moment he's in
power, he could instantaneously
say we're no longer funding that, that we're

(01:16:27):
gonna force this into place because the the
resolutions are there, guys, it would change my
mind.
I mean, I of course, I'm always gonna
have the point that maybe that's being used
to trick me, but my point is that
that's always there, even even with with everything.
That's just being that's called questioning everything. But
I will be the very first person to
say that this is profoundly
in a good direction and that that opens

(01:16:48):
my mind to the reality that Donald Trump
may in fact be somebody that would buck
the system. It's one of the reasons why
I pointed to doctor Shiva and said, if
he were to win the election, it would
make me it would change my entire opinion
about whether these things are legitimate because I
just don't think somebody who puts forward the
ideas he does would ever be allowed into
that situation. So that's my point. I I
it's an opportunity. And I think Donald Trump

(01:17:08):
has the opportunity to genuinely make something to
reach people like me. I hope it happens.
Now here's what some of the different points
about the way, you know, I I that
I do view the process as kind of
to be funny, but not meant to necessarily
look down on anybody. Again, I could definitely
be wrong.
Points this out and says, whatever. Maybe it'll
work this time. It just shows people walking

(01:17:30):
up an empty flight of stairs, falling off,
getting back up, walking up the stairs, falling
off. The
American voter is what it says. I think
that's perfect because
even if you think you are even if
the vote is making a the point is
that we just keep cycling through the same
things,
the same directions, the same agreements, the same
it just never stops.
I know we can see that if we're
being objective.

(01:17:51):
And then Mark Goodwin says something really funny
that made me laugh. He said, spend us
on the 6th, spending the day arguing with
friends who think the stripper actually loves them.
That's just so perfect.
If you don't know the point, it's ultimately
that the idea that, you know, no, the
stripper doesn't really love you. They're just trying
to get a good tip. Right? And that's
that's how that's how it tends to you
know, I think that that's part of this
is that we want to believe it. We

(01:18:11):
really have everything in us, everything that they're
putting in front of us, every we are
being driven to desperately want to believe
that the stripper actually wants to marry, but
it's just not the really it's it's rarely
the way it actually works.
Saudi Agra says the people claiming the economy
is going to get better now that Trump
won are the same people naive of the
fact that he printed all the money in
the first place

(01:18:32):
during the the the beginning of the COVID
19 agenda and the CARES Act and everything
else. I mean, guys, that was, during his
administration, one of the most damaging financial
points in this country's history.
It's that it's very easy to see. And
the point, of course, the argument is that
it was somebody else or somebody, you know,
or the the wrong person he got tricked
into putting into place. It's
Trump's administration.

(01:18:53):
And even if you're right, we should still
acknowledge that. And then move into this one
with the same idea that, well, that's what
happened, so we should keep that in mind
and not blindly assume it'd be something different.
Hope for the best, but acknowledge what has
happened.
And I I swear, I do not let
me forget this. For those in the chat
or rather in the podcast, it's a it's
an image of a sticker with a black

(01:19:13):
flag that says, I did not consent.
Guys, I am going to print these next
time.
Make sure I don't forget that. Midterms, whatever
else. That, I I love this.
I'm sure people hate it who think that
we're somehow doing wrong by pointing out, you
know, even though the whole point is we
have freedom to make our own choices and
that could be a choice to not participate
in a broken system. But it's just funny

(01:19:34):
how angers the the status who believe it's
some kind of seek sacred ritual that we're
ignoring.
The point is that I really would like
these, and I'm willing to bet you that
you would see far more of these than
you think. So let's make that a movement
for next time. I'm gonna let's make these
happen for the next time we have one
of these sit one of these sacred rituals
that we're dealing with.
So here's what Whitney Webb wrote. This was
on 7th.

(01:19:55):
She says, I will happily give you clear
arguments for why I'm skeptical. Now, this comes
off of somebody basically saying, well, I guess
I should read the first one.
Oh, and that's funny. So hold on. I
have this one up here. I wanna read
some of the points that she put out.
So she says, I've had and this is
the same sentiment that I put out, and
I think a lot of us are in
this position. She says, I've had the same

(01:20:16):
opinions about politics and politicians my entire career.
Every 4 years, the team that wins says,
I must be playing for the other side.
This is tiresome.
Says news flash, I think both parties are
organized crime and masterfully manipulate the American public's
honest desire for change, And I'm not changing
my long standing views, which are based on
ex ex extensive

(01:20:37):
research because it hurts your feelings.
I mean, it's it's a great way to
say that. I'm sure that might that's my
point from earlier is that people, like, say,
it has to be that we're secretly fighting
for the other side. Otherwise, it it opens
a door to something you don't wanna acknowledge.
That's how I would view it. Because, obviously,
you can't think both. Otherwise, I'm missing something.
Right? The reality is

(01:20:58):
that it's you our track record is clear.
Look at our conversations going back a very
long way. This is the same opinion that
I share.
And you can disagree with that. Sure. Of
course. And we can have a conversation about
it. But to then just just
claim that it means we're actually a democrat
or that we're fighting for some we're paid
by somebody else. I mean, it's a lazy
sidestep.
While always possible,

(01:21:19):
of course, we should be proving the things
we're alleging, especially something like that. And the
reality is this is how we feel, which
is roundly shown over the years. Oh, wait.
Hold on.
Oh, now it's not gonna let me go
back. Dang it.
I hate this platform so much. There we
go. Oh, thank you.
It's very personal. These things happen to me.

(01:21:40):
I swear to god. I can't believe it's
actually working. I'll it doesn't even matter. I
don't waste time on it. I deal with
these weird little things like this, this platform
constantly, they just seem to functionally not work
for me. Whatever. Any case, here's what she
said in response to that. This person says,
many making arguments for skepticism of late seem
to be expressing a higher amount of opinion
versus fact and reporting than usual.

(01:22:00):
Help me, with clear arguments and evidence, signal
over the noise of Twitter. Okay. I'm the
author.
Okay. If the author has an opinion, but
give me more of what I need to
make my own.
And so she goes, I'm I I will
happily, which by the way, she's done endless
amount of times, maybe nudge not, in the
last 30 minutes on Twitter, which is the
only part that exists when you know, this
I think she even dresses here. You make

(01:22:21):
a point on something and it's like people
demand that you answer for everything. It's just
like, well, come on, guys. Like, this is
an an a I I'll wait to her.
She'll read it. The point or she'll write
it. The point is that
the
immediate demand to explain certain things are that
there or answer every problem that you might
be that might come of what you pointed
out. If you don't, then therefore, the other
it's it's just a quick and easy way

(01:22:42):
to ignore different perspectives
because you think that they're not meeting by
the way, that'd be called a purity test,
wouldn't it? But she goes, I will happily
give you clear arguments for why I'm skeptical.
Trump's transition team led
lead says RFK will not actually have a
role at HHS.
Which he did, but yet the point we're
all saying is that has yet to actually
flush out, so maybe it will happen. Nobody's

(01:23:03):
arguing otherwise. But that was said, so it's
valid to point out. And we'll only have
access to vaccine data contrary to what was
promoted publicly.
Last time Trump was in office, he extensively
deregulated
GMO crops and plants. Easily proven fact. JD
Vance, Vivek, and Musk are deeply invested in
biotech, including biotech health products like mRNA vaccines,

(01:23:26):
which Trump supported last time via op warp
speed and has yet to issue a public
apology for his COVID air policies. And by
the way, still promotes the injection as a
positive thing, that you don't get sick and
it saves your life. All verifiably false, and
every Republican listening knows that.
Why that's not a completely alarming fact or
the technocracy overlaps or, I mean, everything. All

(01:23:47):
the different dynamics. The everything about it represents
all of the alarming points that if any
other person even I mean, weirdly enough, most
of them are actually former Democrats. They're just
I don't know why the alarm is not
there. But it says, speaking of these policies,
Trump let Larry Fink design COVID era fiscal
policy, which saw the US print more money
than at any point in history and which

(01:24:08):
began
even before a pandemic was declared. And it
resulted in a massive transfer from Main Street
to Wall Street.
Trump campaigned in 2016 on regulating Wall Street
and bringing back Glass Siegel Stegall, excuse me.
But he further deregulated Wall Street instead. I
don't know how we don't how we don't
acknowledge that. I mean, though, many of us
do. The reality of the opposite.

(01:24:30):
But it's such an obvious point. Now there's
always a narrative about why, but that's my
point, is that the these are the things
that we last time argued wouldn't come and
here we are.
Helping to create the 20 23 banking crisis
that began with SVB.
Trump campaigned as loving WikiLeaks, but then let
Mike Pompeo plot to imprison, which we'll talk
about in a minute, and murder Julian Assange

(01:24:51):
and refused to pardon Assange, but pardoned financial
criminal Michael Milken instead.
The guy responsible for going after Assange, Pompeo,
is still in Trump's good graces, and one
of his top aids is now in charge
of picking staff for Trump's new state department.
And that's it very well may end up
where Pompeo has a place in this administration.
I really hope not. Trump didn't start any

(01:25:12):
new wars, but he didn't now again, I
don't that is technically
true. But my point is always the same.
With Venezuela,
the action they were taking easily could've spun
out into a war should Venezuela
had responded to such, or assassinating Soleimani. If
Iran chose to respond in kind, which according
to everybody else right now, that would've been

(01:25:33):
the fells down the fence,
that would have been at war, and we
all know it. Israel would have made sure
of it. But just because they were
level headed enough to not drive themselves into
it, that suddenly means he didn't start new
wars? Hardly. Or the ongoing and continuation of
things like the bombing campaign in Sudan or
Sudan or any other of the continuation of
them as she points out. He goes, but

(01:25:53):
he didn't need to because 5 were already
happening. Some of which he greatly expanded and
he dropped more bombs than Obama. He had
a bunch of neocons in his cabinet, tried
to coup Venezuela, which would have exacerbated
the current migrant crisis, and killed an Iranian
general on a diplomatic mission under the guise
of diplomacy, guys. That's what's so crazy. In

(01:26:14):
an obvious attempt to go to run-in the
war,
this cycle with war with Iran
was
has been signaled by Vance. They've all stated
this publicly. Trump and Pompeo.
I have plenty of reason to be skeptical
because of the above track record. Everything I
say comes with their seats. And this is
my point. Of course, they could go in
a positive direction, and Whitney and I and

(01:26:34):
the rest will be the first people to
say, yes. Thank god it didn't go what
we were worried about because that's who we
are.
But the point of saying that it's wrong
to be skeptical
even though everything
historically, the precedents that she listed off are
valid reasons valid reasons
to to at least go, well, I'm gonna
wait and see.
I I mean, that's that's just crazy that
it has to be explained as logic, but

(01:26:55):
that's where we are.
Now she also says amazing how a fact
based explanation, like she just put out, of
why you are skeptical of a politician leads
people to demand, that's what I was saying
a moment ago, that you then must solve
all of the problems of the world
or or your reasons for skepticism are somehow
invalid.
Too many of you would drown waiting for
the right person to bring you a houseboat,

(01:27:16):
even though you can swim to your neighbor
who has a life raft.
I'm a journalist, and unlike a politician, I
don't churn out empty promises just to make
you feel better. Change will come from the
bottom up and not the top down. We
are the leaders we have been waiting for,
and the desperation for a political savior is
tiresome.
Wholeheartedly
agree.

(01:27:38):
Now Derek,
captioned what Whitney said here. He said, the
people who have been deluded into thinking that
the deep state is not a bipartisan evil,
but a purely partisan one are in for
a big surprise once again. I hope she's
wrong, but sadly, I think the evidence is
undeniable.
And she says manufactured complacency and blindly trusting
the plan, whether qanon or blue and on,
will enable tyranny.

(01:27:59):
If you don't want tyranny,
shake off the complacency and pay attention to
policy action over rhetoric now that the election
is over.
Derek simply says, as I've said before, one
of the biggest psyops in recent memory is
convincing the people that the deep state is
simply the democrats or bureaucracy.
Nope. It's much bigger than you can imagine,

(01:28:21):
which I'm pretty sure we all know to
some degree. Right? I mean, we all have
been paying attention about this. Right? It's it's
reminds me of a clip.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled
was convincing the world he didn't exist.
And like that,
he's gone.

(01:28:42):
Just love that movie actually, but that's that's
exactly the point. Right? You've been convinced somehow
that there's it's only one side or that
only I mean, it's it's it is pull
the veil over people's eyes.
I think that's really important to consider. And
she's right. You have a a big
surprise coming if you think that. And it
really wouldn't be a surprise seeing as how
we've all been pointing to it and you've

(01:29:02):
been ignoring it. I hope we're wrong. Right?
I mean, I even that state, I I
don't want that to become some kind of
a that is genuinely how I feel. I
genuinely hope that this is not the case.
Now, here's an interesting back and forth.
Whitney says, one thing I've learned this election
cycle was that a lot of people who
have claimed to be anarchists or anti state
were really just waiting for the right king

(01:29:24):
to come along. Great way to put that.
Weirdly enough, which I'm not even exactly sure
what he means, Brett Weinstein says, you're not
even close.
It's it's kind of a cryptic statement, isn't
it? Like, what I guess just not right
about your opinion on that? It's just an
opinion. Right? So I don't know how I
think anybody knows for sure. But I think
it's interesting.
Yeah. Exactly. And it's it's I didn't even

(01:29:44):
see this. And Jason Baster says, that's supposed
to be an argument. It's it's a weird
response. Either way, he has his own reasons
for whatever you're applied to. And so she
takes this image of him and his mask
and goggles and, you know, completely buying in
or selling the narrative around COVID 19 before
he became a hero of the narrative. Says,
well, Brett, unlike you, I didn't wait until
Trump was out of office to criticize the

(01:30:05):
government's nefarious and terrible COVID policies. Unlike you,
I didn't ignore the fact that Trump's VP
pick, major donor Musk, and major ally Vivek
are all deeply invested in GMO biotech and
genetically modified vaccines and that Trump's first term
saw a massive regulation of GMOs under the
guise of strengthening biotech innovation.
I also didn't give Trump a pass for

(01:30:25):
to for still to this day refusing to
reject his mRNA
military design COVID 19 injections.
She said, unlike you, I think it is
a troubling sign
that the Trump campaign has said that RFK
Junior, she says in parenthesis, who I have
my own gripes with, will have no leadership
role at HHS
at all, but merely access to vaccine data,

(01:30:46):
but no real authority to do anything with
that data despite the public campaign that the
opposite would happen. Now, again,
that may change.
At the moment, that does seem to be
the current standing of what this what the
discussion is.
But on top on top of that, even
if that is what happens,
the vaccine data, I can guarantee you, will
not be what needs to be done. Trump

(01:31:06):
is complicit with what happened.
And on top of that, he still, to
this day, says that it did not cause
the death instruction that it did. So that
data, if given in in earnest, would show
you that, and he would be proving himself
wrong. I find it hard to believe that'll
happen.
But she says, unlike you, I think it
is troubling that people tied to the CIA
contractor, Palantir,
which distributed the dramatically understated

(01:31:27):
under tested, excuse me, COVID vaccines to minorities
first and hoarded hoarded
Americans' health data under COVID are very involved
in the incoming Trump administration.
They also basically run a CDC office that
will declare the next pandemic before it happens.
By the way, on a side note, reports
coming out of 46 rhesus monkeys that break
out of a a thing today.

(01:31:47):
You know? All these writings I I that's
a true story, by the way. I laughed
about it with the hired site chat this
morning.
How in the world do that many monkeys
break out? I mean, what that just seems
crazy to me. But either way, the point
is that there's all sorts of things on
the horizon that seem to indicate that that
may be happening.
That that that that not necessarily that story.
That's just what brought it to my mind.

(01:32:08):
But a lot of different worries worrisome aspects
about the next pandemic and how that would
play. Or even the bigger one about whether
if you wanna believe Trump is on your
side, that it's all designed to bring it
all down around Trump, which is what I
worried about during the first administration.
That they simply collapse everything at his feet,
blame it on Trump, which is what kinda
would make sense to a lot of people.
Either way,

(01:32:28):
I think the interesting point is that we
can see all these the concerning writing on
the wall that a lot of people like
him are ignoring, in my opinion, and hers
apparently. Or not
hers explicitly as she's writing it. Palantir also
profiles Americans to be put on domestic terror
watch lists based on their online activity and
powers
the war on domestic terror, no matter what

(01:32:49):
party's in the White House. JD Vance's career
long benefactor of and Palantir cofounder Peter Thiel,
Many of his allies like Musk, Lonsdale, and
Sachs back Trump heavily and are involved with
his transition team, funded the facial recognition firm
that brags about sending January 6 protesters to
prison.
Thiel is not a libertarian

(01:33:10):
as and I'll actually show you Corbett's article
about that as he claims and openly says
he hates free market competition.
So I'm afraid you're blinded by your strong
emotional feelings about this election cycle, which I
think a lot of them have been driven
into. We're all susceptible to it. Just like
you were blinded by fear during early COVID
when you showed everyone how you wear your
mask. I'd appreciate a response but I suspect

(01:33:31):
you'll block me just like your brother who
spent many years working for teal.
Now that seems to be happening a lot,
by the way. I'll show you in a
minute somebody who blocked me who I've never
even engaged with on this platform, which shows
you a, you know, an unwillingness to engage
with other people's ideas. I think that's a
a very that's small. Now I'm not who
knows if that happened here? I'm talking about
somebody else, but that's what she pointed out.

(01:33:53):
But these are all very valid points.
Carrie Wedler says watching the Trump fervor reminds
me of when I was obsessed with Barack
Obama and believed he was going to change
America. Now very quickly,
now that we're past the selection
ritual,
we're no longer die we're we're no longer
in the whole Trump, Clinton game where it's
like, well, if you say that, then you

(01:34:13):
must believe in her, which we all saw
in that time frame. Same thing happened this
time. Right? Where now that we're there, now
they've been the the point is
everybody
should be critical of the establishment. That's how
it's supposed to be. Right? Especially journalists. But
that's not how it works today, and we
all know that. Corporate media and mainstream alternative
media and a lot of people out there
who just have chosen their side and they

(01:34:33):
you they almost kind of work to defend
it. We're seeing that already with a lot
of these supposed independent media platforms.
The point now is that we have an
obligation
as journalists, investigators, citizens,
to true to to hold them to account.
Right? And so my point is that as
we get into this, we should be calling
out anything we see that goes against what
we should want as Americans.

(01:34:54):
Or what they promised. And that should not
be taken as you're fighting for the other
side. It should just be and it's certainly
possible.
But we're a well way we're ways away
from that now. Even though we all know
that starts the day 1. We're already in
the election process for 20 28. That's how
this works. But it says it didn't matter
what evidence people showed during the Obama time
frame, showed her, that proved he was in

(01:35:14):
bed with powerful interest or supported war and
corporate oligarchy. And this is a true story,
by the way. She told me this at
this time, she was all about Obama. She
says, I was so hopped up on the
high hope of believing I had power through
him that my brain literally couldn't process that
information.
She says, I'll be pleased if Trump follows
through on any of the grandiose promises he's
made about peace, which we all should, where

(01:35:34):
that's I know Kerry to be that kind
of honest person. She says, which he didn't
achieve as he kept bombing at record levels
through much of his administration and the swamp,
which he didn't drain, but rather filled to
the brim. But I'm expecting a lot of
people to be vomiting out excuses for him
while if and when reality contradicts
delusion.
Trump is the Obama of the right. It's

(01:35:54):
a good way to put it.
Now rabble rouser simply says only, and this
is the joke I just kinda made, only
one more month until the impeachment and presidential
election 20 28 campaign starts.
Which is, I guess I mean, I really
hope not, but if if the last few
time frames are in any indication, this is
how it goes now.
It says, whoop whoop, can't wait. And I
bet it'll all be the most important election

(01:36:15):
of our lifetimes. The country's at stake, democracy's
at stake, vote like your life depends on
it. We've heard all those. I mean, Elon
was really pushing that up. He he literally
would say, vote like your life depends on
it and look at the camera and say,
because it does.
I mean, it's it's it's out of some
kind of a show. He's playing a character.
That's my opinion, but it just seems
so transparent.
But this says, as long as we keep

(01:36:35):
thinking the state will solve our problems or
keep us safe, we will keep
going around in circles this this piss pool
of corrupt bankers and celebrities, grifters and pedos,
etcetera. Anarchy exit a bill, build your own,
you know, all the different things to talk
about. There are there are other potential paths.
I want hope people will consider it.
And here's what I put forward that caused

(01:36:56):
a lot of people to kind of freak
out.
And what's this is what's so interesting to
me is that from for for me, this
is not we know for sure in any
case because I rarely do that because I
think it's obviously possible in any context that
we could be missing something.
Which is why I tend to call it
irritatingly objective, but I think, obviously, we need
to be there right now. That's where it's
not an insult. I think that's where we
should all be airing because we're in such

(01:37:17):
a a muddle it's it's it's the same
thing that they're always using to try to
rationalize
censorship
by and large being created by them. And,
you know, the whatever we're talking about in
that context, whether it's Twitter or the establishment.
But the point is that we should not
that's free speech. There will be misinformation. No
matter how much the government tries to flood
the field in order to rationalize our point

(01:37:38):
or the the direction,
we should be okay. People can dis can
be wrong. They can misinform.
My point is that we're we're at a
point now where we have to acknowledge that
we there's maybe more going on. There there
may the point is I come out and
simply say that we should simply consider that
we might be that this might have been
a plan or whatever else. And the fact
that people got so outraged

(01:38:00):
outraged about it, it just it tends just
like the point about the 2 party illusion
before the election, it shows me something. It
shows me vulnerability.
The the outward like, it's just read what
I said simply. I mean, Ron Yacolik simply
says 8 years after Clinton lost to Trump.
The point simply being they they made these
mistakes again. Right? They fell right back into
the same point. And, you know, I simply
and, you know, how how could they be

(01:38:21):
this stupid was kind of her point. And
I simply asked or simply put forward, everyone
really needs to consider that this was not
stupidity at all for Kamala or the Democrats,
but an engineered plan to drive another Trump
presidency for the interests of the long term
government agenda.
That just why wouldn't we consider that? I
mean, don't you think about how weird it

(01:38:41):
is that people get so aggressively
angry
for simply a proposed possibility?
Couldn't it also be possible that, you know,
I mean, I you could you could propose
anything. Of course, that it could be the
case. I just want people to think about
whether that could be the case. That's it.
And yet the responses I mean, I just
it goes wild. People kind of lost their

(01:39:02):
minds about this a lot. And it got
a lot of these back and forth conversations.
Now, Whitney, respond commented saying the people with
guns are likely to be more complacent under
a Trump
than a Democrat.
Now, people misunderstood that, it seems. It's not
it's not a knock on people. It's simply
the idea that my point about the last
administration. Trump's being in place

(01:39:23):
pacifies
some of what I would argue are the
people that we most resistant to a lot
of what we're seeing, just like with COVID
19. The gun owning, constitutionalist, militia, you know,
whatever it is, that that conversation
are people that are much more, you know,
usually in line with the strict principled stance
of our rights. Right? Which even though that
is being undermined because of a lot of
the wedge issues being created around Trump and

(01:39:44):
all the discussion around like, you know, the
idea of rationalizing, let's say, that a trans
person can't have a gun because of x,
y, and z. Even if you wanna make
a rational argument, we can have a conversation.
But if you're gonna pretend it shall not
be infringed, well, that means something.
And yet, you saw people fall into that
trap. It happens every time. Or censoring people
that are pro Palestine. Like, you fell into
that trap. They created it for you, and
they used your your desire to hate a

(01:40:06):
certain kind of person to drive you into
undermining what you actually believe in. And then
you get trapped in there and a lot
of people then don't have the courage to
go, damn it. Damn it. I got tricked.
I don't know. I never mind. Because then
it means you're wrong.
We all have these. We all, in some
ways, can end up feeling this petty or
small. It's not unique to any it's we
all end up we've all had those moments
of weakness. Let's put it that way. All

(01:40:27):
of us.
In this case,
it's only about considering whether or not it
could be something larger. And maybe even Trump's
on your side if he doesn't realize it.
So I think the point here as we
go forward, and I'm not gonna get into
some of the back and forths. I just
think there's some good stuff in here. There's
some bad stuff.
But I and like like like really quickly
just as this one says, guess we're all

(01:40:48):
doomed then. You know, that kind of response.
It's like, why is that the response of
people? Shouldn't it just be like, well, I
don't think that's the case, but I'll certainly
consider it. That would be apolitical. Right? That
would be lacking of emotion, which it would
be like any other conversation considering a possibility.
It seems very simple.
But as we step into this technocratic side
of it, which is what I think this
is really about,
I believe this is all created in order

(01:41:09):
to rationalize this to rather blind the most
resistant to what is coming next, which is
this next segment we're gonna get into.
So I just want us to ask whether
that could be part of this. Even with
positives that come to play, which is what
I'm worried about, that there will be positive
steps. I'll point some of these out that
will ultimately be designed to hide it. Now,
look, that's not to me that you should

(01:41:31):
hate the positive steps. That's how that gets
misinterpreted.
Yes. That's a good thing no matter what
it's used for.
But I know we can all rationalize, consider
the possibility that somebody like Ross could be
released in order to make
us pass to pacify us for the larger
thing that may happen.
Hopefully, I'm wrong. And either way, Ross being
released would be an amazingly positive thing.

(01:41:51):
Seems pretty simple to me, but it's weird
how people can't they don't want to put
themselves in the position because I think they
feel like they're challenging what their party is
saying.
That's Team Square Politics.
Decentral News put this out. Technocratic pied piper.
A few skeptical takes on Trump's big win.
Not everyone is enthused as Elon Musk and
Alex Jones. Now, it's a great it's a
good article. You can read it. They cite
what I have to say and a few

(01:42:12):
others, Whitney,
you know, a lot of it's a it's
a great article. So read it for yourself.
But I think the point is that there's
a lot of people out there that definitely
are concerned about this. And they still want
to believe that Trump could see positive change,
but at the same time, are willing to
acknowledge that there is a risk here.
Now Jason Basler put this out. I'll use
this for the image today. He says, I'm
not saying this is a really great way
to think about this.

(01:42:33):
I'm not saying these figures are being positioned
as saviors to usher in a technocratic police
state. But,
hypothetically,
if they were,
what would they be doing differently?
It's a really great way to think about
this. Now, sadly, again, a lot of the
people are always, you know, of the minds.
Somehow, we're trying to trick them into thinking
as you always seeing it as if we're

(01:42:53):
trying to fight for the other side. The
reality is we wanna see the truth.
We wanna find out what's really going on.
We're worried, obviously, as you could tell, that
that is what's happening.
Really, just if you if you're unwilling to
consider the possibility, I think that that's in
and itself a problem. It deserves reflection. But
it's a good question. What would they be
doing differently? Hypothetically, if the plan of was

(01:43:14):
that these people to trick you into a
technocratic police state,
wouldn't they be doing exactly what's happening?
I mean, they would. I mean, that's an
easy way to think about it. They would
be convincing you that that's not the case
while actively rolling out like Elon's been doing
all of the different things that are absolutely
building that exact technocratic Panopticon.
So just please consider it. And Peter Thiel

(01:43:34):
and Vivek and all the bio overlaps and
the tech I mean, everything. Artificial intelligence. Every
angle of what that would need is being
built out through these people.
So just consider
that may be part of what's happening even
if some of them may not be aware
how they're being used.
Now Richard Willett points this out. Joe Rogan
says, the big hitters late in the ball
game and just shows the, you know, Trump,

(01:43:55):
Vance,
Musk,
and him interviewing them. And Richard Willett says,
all funded by technocrat Peter Thiel, who is
Palantir, which is In Q Tel, which is
the venture capital arm of the CIA. So
all the things we talked about already and
all the alarming overlaps to biotech and COVID
19, which and it should be enough. The
mRNA
I mean, it seems crazy that's not concerning
for the republican average viewer voter.

(01:44:18):
But then you overlap it with stuff like
this too.
I mean, the CIA, like, direct connections to
surveillance,
apparatus, defense depart the CIA?
Really? I just think that's wild. And, again,
maybe I'm wrong and they're all the good
guys from within, but it seems strange that
the party who would jump at a shadow
even tangentially connected to democrats would not care

(01:44:38):
about all of these different problems. To me,
it just shows the blindness when it comes
to your own party.
Now just a thought, point something out we've
talked about before, which is important to remember,
that
Elon Musk's father was the founder of of
Technocracy Inc,
the origin point of what this ideology comes
from.
And she points out Elon Musk grand oh,

(01:44:59):
excuse me. Grandfather. Grandfather, Joshua
how Haldeman
was the leader of Technocracy Incorporated or Technocracy
Inc in Canada from 1936 to 1941.
Technocracy Incorporated was not a political movement. It
says, quote, in fact, politicians or members of
political parties were not allowed to join. It
was founded in New York City in 1933
as an educational and research organization promoting a

(01:45:22):
radical restructuring of political, social, and economic life
in Canada and the United States, with science
as its central operating principle. Now what's interesting
is, you could argue there's a lot of
logic to this the idea. Like, for those
of us, like myself, that are very jaded
about politics, and I think we all should
be. I mean, think about the idea. We're
talking about a bunch of bureaucrats that ultimately
get to hijack and dictate

(01:45:45):
the ideas of other people that are the
ones that are truly educated on them. That's
why we always laugh about some of these
people in congress that seem really stupid, really
out of the know, and just, you know,
are reciting what they've written for them. They're
just good at presenting or rather sometimes not,
but playing that role. But in reality, the
scientists, the doctors, and the the technocrat the
tech, the engineers are the ones that are
in the aware

(01:46:07):
of the
inner workings of these things and maybe should
be the ones that said, you know, you
get why that would make sense.
The idea at the time about this these
are the people that should be leading us,
the ones that actually know. I mean, it
it does. But the problem is
whether or not it was, from its origin
point, meant to be the new form of
governance and just simply control our lives, it
is that now. I think it's on its
face. It's obvious to see what's happening. This

(01:46:29):
transition into
really just the same structure, but just the
different new guys. Because right now, I still
I don't think the people who are presented
in front of us are in fact the
ones that are ultimately dictating what happens to
us. I think that's a very popular opinion,
sadly enough. And so I think it's about
shifting
in a new direction under the guise that
this is gonna help. But I think this
is gonna be the argument when in bat

(01:46:49):
that is fully run out. I think it's
gonna happen in the next 4 years.
Ultimately, this will be the framing that will
why would and and and people like me
would be will it I guess, you could
see how easy it would be to fall
into that trap.
That yes. Why would we want politicians? They're
failures. They don't you know, and but ultimately
is the use to usher in this new
form of governance. I pointed out the Prospera

(01:47:11):
overlap and how these are kind of trial
balloons for what it looks like to run
it when, you know, you just have not
the the government's there, but they're not truly
the one ultimately in power. That's being shown
in Honduras other places, in my in my
opinion.
So I'm very worried about that. I just
wanna make that clear in the context of
why you could see some, you know and
even on the side of maybe I'm wrong.
Maybe that is the direction we should want.
But I've just with all we have, which

(01:47:32):
is precedent, they're acting in the past, these
are not the people we should allow this
transition to happen
under. But it says and again, even then
under a transition of politicians. Right? Why would
they be the ones to transition away from
because the idea is they're the outsiders, but
they're not. They are the definition of the
insiders, if not the deep state themselves.
This says there would be no countries called
Canada or the United States if this had

(01:47:52):
happened. Just one giant continental landmass called the
technet or technate.
A techno utopia, as they would frame it,
run by engineers and other experts in their
fields. Isn't fields. Isn't that exactly the way
they're framing what's going on in Honduras? It
is. And it's not the case.
Ask the people there. It's not the reality,
and it's a very alarming overlap. But it
says in the Technate, everyone would be well
housed and fed.

(01:48:13):
All materials needs would be taken care of
whether you had a job or not. Sorta
sounds like communism, socialism, doesn't it?
Why why
why when Elon Musk talks about a new
now this is past the quote, by the
way. Why when Elon Musk talks about a
new order of the ages, which is what
he just posted,
merging AI with human will, implanting brain chips

(01:48:33):
and human brains, and creating the everything app
while calling himself the techno king, people cheer.
Can you imagine if that was Hillary Clinton
or Elon or,
Klaus Schwab? I mean, people would they rightly
so. Freak out.
But on the other side of their mouth,
they say they're against the WEF policies. How
do they reconcile the fact that they actually
accept a new world order so long as

(01:48:54):
Elon Musk spearheads it? Anyone answer this?
It's a very good point.
Now that is we'll come to that in
a second. I think it's right here. Right
there. He just tweeted this out on November
6th. Novus ordo seclorum,
which means
new order of the ages.
You know? Of course, people are gonna say,

(01:49:15):
age just means that they're gonna change what's
going on. Yeah. Sure. Maybe. But it's funny
how the same people that we're talking about,
when Obama or anybody else says new world
order, they would
and rightly so. Go, that's interesting. What is
that? We should be worried about that. But
when they point at it, why not?
That is a blind spot. Even if you're
right, by the way. That was this is
still a blind spot.

(01:49:37):
So on this point, really quickly,
the affinity chamber says brain chips, which is
right. You've heard me make this point so
many times. Brain chips existed before Elon became
famous. What he's doing is a smokescreen.
The tech is far in advance of that
and has gone nano. The Internet of bodies,
Internet of nano things, we talked about all
of this. The Internet of bio nano things,
initiates have already been deployed, initiatives.

(01:49:59):
Most aren't aware though. And so the point
is that I mean, Kathar Lots of Fits
has made this point. It's it's a it's
a it's a,
red herring.
Holding up these big chips and saying here
is where we're at. Guys, they are so
far beyond that, and it's easily proven.
And that's what Eric Blair says. Exactly. Smart
Dust, Nanotech of the future, t lab has
covered this extensively.
I will include these. That that's my point

(01:50:21):
about how in you can directly overlap these
things with the work that they're involved in.
Scares me. This conversation is one of the
things, as you know, overwhelmingly.
This is one of the shows we did
from January 22nd 22nd this year. Is smart
dust already in use in the population? I
think that's an obvious yes. And was COVID
19, in quotes, an attempted experimental next step?

(01:50:42):
You can decide for yourself.
But realizing that this is
it's it is truly terrifying to me that
we can't have this conversation, that nobody talks
about this for how long it's been going
on. When we're literally injecting people with experimental
genetically modified nanotechnology.
That's crazy.
That's not in the hyperbolic statement. That's what
it was. Or and we're just talking about
particulates, not necessarily

(01:51:03):
machines,
at least as we know. In fact, arguably,
there's evidence to suggest that's not the case.
But either way,
it's terrifying.
So I'll include this show. I'll include one
that I met we talked about briefly on
the, the Hireside chat this morning about the
financial,
Smart Dust Financial Tracking.
It's a patent that literally Wells Fargo has.

(01:51:24):
Right here. And it's a patent for Smart
Dust
being used being, like, being pushed out. It's
a thank you to,
docu see what goes
do you see what god sees account? Thank
you for for posting this.
The patent, we've talked about this on the
show,
which is from 2016, and it They've adjusted

(01:51:45):
the patent all the way through 2037,
which is about smart dust, and why they're
in They call them MEMS, which are,
macro electro Micro Electro Mechanical Systems.
But you can see it's smart dust usage.
And it's about, like, going to an ATM
and having them pump out smart dust to
be able to regulate,

(01:52:05):
to biometrically scan. It's crazy.
This is something that is going this is
where we are. And nobody can even have
these conversations. That's what terrifies me.
And this is what these people, the people
on the the image today, are all actively
rolling out, are involved in one way or
another. And there's just one part of it.
So I'll include this show. It's the full

(01:52:25):
title is Israel Assassinates Has Believer Expanding Genocide
to Lebanon
and Smart Dust Final to Tracking. That's what
that's how difficult it is to try to
talk about these other large topics while there's
a genocide going on. Right? There's just so
much to talk about, but important conversation.
I'll also include this breakdown of that exact
piece of the show that Brock made for
for, Rumble
called smart dust conspiracy

(01:52:47):
technocratic nightmare becoming reality.
Let me share that real quick.
A great clip. Brock's always doing excellent work.
Same with Jason on the clips on Twitter
and and elsewhere. So David Icke put this
out saying Peter Thiel and the Trump and
Musk associate and political funder and business buddy
of van of vice president JD Vance.

(01:53:09):
Guess what? Just teamed up with CIA funded
Palantir surveillance tech or teamed Palantir surveillance,
CIA funded surveillance company with Amazon
and another elite funded AI company to sell
AI to US intelligence and defense agencies, which
I can guarantee will include Israel.
The Trump regime owned as it is by
Israel and AI AI billionaires, is going to

(01:53:30):
install an AI control system right in line
with the COTL WEF agenda as I warned
throughout the election campaign, myself included. They got
him in and says themselves in. Now it's
payback time.
Here's the article.
Anthropic teams up with Palantir and AWS to
sell AI defense to AI to defense customers.

(01:53:51):
So in real time, we're watching these things
shift. I mean, the the concern about the
obvious Thiel influence on all of this, the
funding of all of it,
and the overlap to what is coming,
it pacifies people to see the problem there.
When Palantir is one of the most obvious
examples, it overlapped with the COVID 19 surveillance.
They're literally overlapping with the AI and the
surveillance in the ongoing genocide in Gaza.

(01:54:13):
We've talked about all of this stuff. And
now partnering with yet another CIA AI overlapping
intelligence apparatus entity.
And here's the quick point.
Peter Thiel and anthrop Anthropic is the name
of the place. It's saying it's an AI
safety research company that focuses on building reliable
AI. So, you know, AI is going to
be rolled out or at least driven forward

(01:54:35):
during this because of Trump's administration,
which there were plenty of people concerned about
that when it was Biden in place. And
it says Peter Thiel, a well known entrepreneur
investor, has significant connection to Anthropic, and that's
because of this. In November 2024, this what
just happened, it was reported that Anthropic partnered
with Palantir
and Amazon Cloud Services,
AWS, to sell AI solutions to defense consume

(01:54:57):
customers.
Gosh. It's just everything about this is so
terrifying. The partnership likely involved an investment from
Peter Thiel who was chairman of Palantir and
has history in investing and it that was
the case. That what that is what's happening,
as the article outlines. Now, Corbett put out
an article about this called the strange story
of Peter Thiel.
And one of the main points as it
starts out with is simply the illusion of

(01:55:17):
what he is. And he goes, what do
you call a person who identifies as vegetarian
but who eats meat all the time? Well,
not a vegetarian. And what do you call
a person
as libertarian, but who has spent his entire
career actively collaborating with governments, militaries, intelligence agencies,
in an effort to enrich himself and grow
his power of the state? Again, you don't
call that person libertarian.
They're playing on what you want.

(01:55:39):
And some of you choose not to see
it. And that's not just left, it's
your government.
That's the point.
Everywhere you look.
Now, I'll include the article I put out
of the show about the Prospera aspect, which
we'll be doing more on coming up soon.
In fact, I might even have a line
on interviewing one of these people if they'll
actually wanna interview with me. Be very critical.

(01:56:00):
I mean, there's I mean, frankly, I've seen
some of the interviews they've done where I
can prove they're lying about things they say
about it. So it I I kinda get
the sense it won't happen. But either way,
it's an important conversation because
this is not a libertarian city. Prospera in
Honduras, it was and it was put in
place because of an illegal coup the US
government carried out in 2009. They removed judges
to in order to get the special zones

(01:56:22):
put in place, which by the way are
right on sustainable development goals.
All all of this they're talking about. But
she the point they've made, do you overlap
this with, like, the idea of, like, a
socialist mindset? But either way, the point
is that what this is is not even
close to what they're framing it as. Even
this point, crawfish rock location is arguing they're
being told they're gonna be absorbed. Now it's
now it's creeping and taking more territory. I

(01:56:42):
mean, everything about this goes against what they're
claiming. And on top of that, the new
government has removed the law and they don't
want them there anymore and they don't care.
So it just it shows you there's something
much darker happening here. And I think this
is about the trial balloon for the technocratic
kind of structure that's coming forward.
Now, here's a clip from Mike Bend that
Elon Musk shared,
or rather of him,
and what David Icahn has to say about

(01:57:03):
it. Let's watch the clip first.
You are the man on the deep state.
Elon was the game changer for free speech,
wasn't he? A guy with the assets to
finally take on this big state deep state
monolith.
Absolutely, he was. The difference between Elon and
Zuckerberg is really interesting. It's not just the
difference between a double digit billionaire in Zuckerberg

(01:57:24):
and a triple digit billionaire in Musk. Zuckerberg
had those misgivings about censorship while he was
running Facebook. He said in 2019 that he
thought censorship had gone too far on Facebook,
But then an operation called change the terms
was run. Facebook lost $60,000,000,000
in market cap in just 6 weeks. And
so Zuckerberg caved and gave the advertisers everything

(01:57:44):
they wanted. When Elon Musk, that same fastball
came at him, he gave double barrel middle
fingers and said, g f y. So I
think Zuckerberg feels those those sort of libertarian
free speech principles, but is not willing to
sacrifice the financial and business enterprise that he's
developed. Whereas Elon Musk, when he when he
was asked during that pivotal interview with the
with the advertisers, well, what will you do

(01:58:06):
if if x goes bankrupt? What if they
actually killed the company? And he says, let
them kill the company. The world will watch.
He basically set himself up practically on the
cross allegorically
to say, listen. You can you can come
at me. I may go to jail for
this. I may lose God. I mean, I
just it's so I can't I don't it's
it's almost cartoonish to me the way he's
framing that. It's even even in past examples

(01:58:27):
where he's pointed out how that was the
Garm thing was not even seem it seemed
to be a ploy.
But this on the cross I mean, guys,
that is a little over the top. Especially
since he's still censoring people as a child
could prove.
Especially around Israel, but not even just that.
Right? It's kinda crazy to me. And the
point is that in their own lawsuit with

(01:58:48):
GARM, they admitted that I would think it
was a 9 over 90%
had complied with government requests for censorship.
Nobody talks about that. And in that, it
was clear that they said that they have
complied with or exceeded every aspect of Garm.
And even Ben's pointed out that just because
that went away didn't stop the structure from
doing what it was doing. We all got
played where Ek Yaccarino made it clear that

(01:59:09):
they had partnered with them in July before
this ever even happened. It's all right there
in front of you. So I find it
shocking that you can't even make that argument
that ultimately this there were some difference about
it was it's all narrative.
They're still completely in in line. They're partnered
with the ADL. They're working with the government
request for censorship.
Everything else is narrative. And as David Ick
points out,

(01:59:29):
what nonsense. He's talking about a man who
was given fantastic contracts from the deep state
pentagon and NASA and other major government subsidies.
Again, the first point, how is this guy
somehow finding the deep state when he is
working with every element of what that will
be? That that just seems crazy.
Maybe there's something that explains it, but it

(01:59:50):
seems a little bit hollow to go along
with that when that doesn't line up at
all. But this is a man who has
access to classified information via SpaceX,
which is facilitating the human hive mind with
low orbit satellites. I just showed you that
clip that scared the the satellites from 2019
to today, mostly Starlink.
And it says that also served the Pentagon
and government with their own communication systems. A

(02:00:10):
man that the deep state could bring down
at any time it wanted to. He is
planting brain chips and is the chief sales
pitcher for electric and autonomous vehicles, which weirdly
Trump seems to keep pushing back on despite
how everyone else everything seem they're just trying
to sell narratives, I think, to get people
on their side. That'd be my opinion. But
it says, which are straight off the wish
list of the Colt and W, World Economic

(02:00:31):
Forum. Don't forget. I mean, the the electric
vehicle thing is huge for RFK and a
plot of others. But it says he says,
we must fuse with AI or humanity will
die out, thus selling the biggest cult agenda
of all.
Musk is a psyop who was allowed to
buy Twitter
by b I b y, by the deep
state,
as the perfect cover to give him a

(02:00:52):
free pass by the hijacked, quote, alternative media
while his companies
go on doing the bidding of the cold.
Mike Benz is utterly clueless about what is
happening for whatever reason that might be, and
no wonder the fake alternative gives him so
much promotion.
I mean, it's hard to ignore.
I mean, how you we I mean, the
very least, you try to explain how that

(02:01:13):
all makes sense. The guy is literally immersed.
He is folded in with everything in any
other context we would align with the power
structure.
And then we're just supposed to pretend like
he's gonna because he he's allowed to buy
Twitter from the deep state, which is what
the argument was that they ran it before.
Like, how do these things make sense? We
can't be this naive about this.
And then Corey Lynn of Corey's digs, which

(02:01:35):
you should follow, points out the what we
shared the other day.
It simply says, well, no one is paying
attention, and we just talked about BIS. Right?
We're gonna shut down BIS. Right? Well, BIS
has officially established a nexus scheme organization to
work with central banks and countries for cross
border digital payments via a single connection. Now
she covered the nexus project in her 2023
report, and she says, read this entire report

(02:01:57):
to understand what's really happening. Musk's involvement,
military, central banks, digital currency, and IDs. All
the stuff we're worried about. And moving it
to LEO where there is no oversight or
jurisdiction.
The new frontier for the central control grid.
Outer space.
How I mean, it's I hate being right
about this sometimes because I'm not I'm not
I I don't know this happening. These are

(02:02:18):
just kind of things that pump into my
mind and I go, god, that worries me.
I hope that's not what's happening. And then
very, amazing researchers like Corey Lindt, break this
my worry is that this,
I guess, the space dynamic in one part
of it, but also just that we can
obviously see the technocratic rise. But the fact
that these things seem so obvious,
not that I can prove I knew it

(02:02:39):
then, but there's simply that, like, it's logical
to go that seems like that might be
part of what happens. And here we are.
And I guess it's it's just people that
are will willing to it's like that meme
of sitting at a burning house going, this
is fine. Right? That's where a lot of
people are it's we just can't see beyond
the partisanship in a lot of ways. But
we already went over this, and the point
simply is that they're immersed in this new

(02:02:59):
process. And that happens to the financial that
it's everything.
And not just Elon Musk, by the way,
but we I went over this last time.
The point is simple that this is what
a lot of us are arguing that and,
well, I'll come to Catherine Austin fits his
clip in a minute that this is possibly,
I think, what is the case, gonna be
rolled out during Trump's administration.
All this stuff. Because it is the

(02:03:20):
the best moment for them to do so
when they've at least pacified a lot of
what would be the most resistant to all
of this.
Now, Derek tweeted this out. Elon Musk tweeted
again nor,
Novus Ordo Seclorum,
which it is. It's even though it's a
screenshot, it is it's very everyone been pointing
to it. It's it's a Latin motto

(02:03:40):
on the reverse side of the great seal
of the United States, meaning new order of
the ages.
And, of course, it shows Donald Trump and
him and, you know, they're celebrating.
And oh oh, I get it grabbed anyways
right here. Normus, ordum, sequorum.
And Donnie discerned, I'm not familiar with, simply
says the NWO of the globalist, Babylon,
was the obviously evil bait.

(02:04:00):
The NWO of the false light alliance, beast,
is the real deception. So basically arguing that
it's the same kinda thing. Like, almost like
a 2 party illusion of the thing where,
you know, this is the one side. Here's
Biden and the Democrats and they're the Babylon.
Whereas, here's the false light alliance, the beast.
That's the real deception. He's saying a false
golden age of peace and safety, which will
be the Trump winning and we're gonna save
the country as Satan masquerades as an angel

(02:04:22):
of light. Now it this is a kind
of biblical perspective.
But and I'm not coming at this from
a Christian perspective about how why I think
this would lie. I'm simply pointing out from
an analogy perspective
that this makes the argument being from people
that would believe that maybe there's some religious
aspect guiding what happens in front of you.
That the idea would be,
historically, right, the ultimately,

(02:04:43):
that the
at the end times, Satan would be presenting
himself as a, you know, on the ground
versus in on the sky, essentially, as the
as god. He'd be presenting himself as
a glowing light of of positivity, but ultimately
be a manipulation on the ground. And that'd
be at least as I was taught as
a kid, that'd be one of the main
ways to tell the difference.
But then, ultimately, you can argue

(02:05:04):
that this is how it will be presented.
And this is why a lot of people
come through the idea that Trump is the
antichrist and all these things. I'm gonna obviously,
I've never I don't overlap the religious side
with politics because I think that's wrong. I
feel like it's easy to lose sight of
the facts doing so. But my point is
that within that conversation, people are making these
arguments. And you can see why they might
connect those dots. But either way, as you

(02:05:26):
go through and read what he's saying down
here, he's simply saying the Democrats pay lip
service to God as they did the,
the was it Pharisees?
Even the demons called Jesus son of the
most high God, strong discernment is necessary for
spiritual deception. As he goes through and explains
these ideas that he believes that this is
so essentially the idea. It's interesting.
But my point is that you can see

(02:05:49):
the with the statements, the types of words,
the different actions, the, Halloween costume. There's a
lot of things that are being put out
there that seem like an odd choice
for specifically a Republican politician.
Right? Because of the people that might be
the quickest to point those kind of things
out. So you ask why.
Now, this is from Catherine Austin Fitts.

(02:06:10):
I think, most of it's her quote, so
I'm just gonna play it for you.
But it says, if Trump is here on
behalf of the central bankers to sell us
on an all digital financial and monetary system
and on the digital ID, they need to
snap the control into place, then we're in
real trouble. And she references the quote, the
tweet that Whitney put out and how she
agrees that this is not a partisan game.

(02:06:30):
That it's ultimately a room for a big
surprise if we think that. Now, it's an
investment banker, former HUD official, who we've interviewed
more than once. We recently had her in
studio.
Founder of the Slur Report, Kathryn Austin Fitz,
describes the the, what is that?
Black bricks news. I think it's a platform.
How the incoming Trump White House can essentially
go one of 2 ways. It can either

(02:06:51):
function as a shield for the central bankers
or as a way to increase freedom in
the United States.
And this is referencing a tweet posted by
Whitney. She states the people who have been
I read it for you, been diluted. They
think it's a partisan thing. They're in for
a big surprise.
Now it's and, yeah. The rest of it
is mostly quotes, so I'll just play it
for you.

(02:07:12):
Or this is to have the senate and
the house in this case?
Very important.
Very important.
And that's good news if Trump wants to
get us out of the who, get us
out of the Paris agreement. But if Trump
is here to sell on behalf of the
central bankers, sell us on a,

(02:07:33):
a
a all digital financial and monetary system
and on a digital ID and all these
other sort of mechanics that they need to
finally snap the control grid into place,
then, you know, then we're in real trouble.
And that's why I say the campaign begins
today.
David, would you like to reflect on that?
Well, I, was wondering,

(02:07:55):
Whitney Webb posted today on ex people who
have been deluded into thinking that the deep
state is purely partisan
are in for a big surprise again. She
wrote, pay attention to policy action
over rhetoric now that the election is over.
Whitney Webb warned us for the CBC and
the digital ID.

(02:08:16):
Do we have any idea,
of Trump's position on
cases like the central bank digital? I could
not agree with Whitney Webmore. She's been giving
great coverage on all of this.
And, if you look at what Trump has
said on the digital idea, I think it's
very and deeply concerning, and Whitney understands that

(02:08:36):
and has covered that extensively. And so
we need to be watching what Trump is
saying. If you look at the different pieces
of what I call the digital concentration camp
that's snapping into place, you know, Trump has
been on the wrong side of many of
these specific points.
We do not want an all financial monetary
system.
We do not want

(02:08:58):
a digital ID. And the last thing we
want is somebody,
you know, auditing or running the Federal Reserve
who is on record as wanting to put
a mesh network in the back of your
head and hook you up to satellites.
Right. Exactly. So I think, you know, again,
what you see around the president is a
multiple personality disorder
of people who wanna build the control grid

(02:09:18):
and are deep in the defense industry like
Musk and Peter Thiel,
but also people like Kennedy who would like
to see freedom and are sincere about that.
And the question is,
who will win those 1,000 seats,
and who will win in the policy set
in the 1st 90 days? And if the
freedom fighters can win, can they get enough
people in the senate to go along with

(02:09:40):
them? Interesting. See? I mean, that's that's a
very principled stance.
Right? I mean, this is where this when
he deserves like, it's obviously within the realm
of, like, the it's unacceptable. If any opinion,
it should be acceptable. That's your opinion. But
that we should be able to argue, like,
yes. Obviously,
what he has circled himself with is a
as I wrote in the title, it's a
technocratic dream team. This is exactly

(02:10:02):
it it should be the most alarming
grouping in in that direction, but you can
also still go, but, hopefully, may maybe he
won't let it happen. Maybe he you know,
maybe their analogy of the people from the
inside to fight him. Maybe that's the case.
We should hope that's the case. But to
blind yourself to either. Right? To pretend that
you know for sure that he's gonna usher
in the end of the world is is

(02:10:24):
how do you don't know that for sure.
We should always be hoping that the positive
outcome will I mean, now my point is
I respect Katherine immensely. Now I disagree on
the idea that ultimately that he would want
that or that that's the case, but I
hope it is. And, of course, I would
consider that as a possibility. Now on the
other side of it, we shouldn't blindly expect
that he's gonna that he's gonna save the
world. Or I think whichever one I started

(02:10:44):
with. But either way, that he's gonna save
the world or that he's gonna roll out
the technocratic Panopticon. We don't know for sure.
So we take it one step at a
time and we engage with the positive steps
and we say that we can agree with.
We we that's how it always should be.
But we all know that's not what's happening
today. People have decided these things before we
ever got here because they're taking a side,
and you're being driven to do that. You're
being incentivized to do that. You're being told

(02:11:05):
that's the way to do it by people
that are invested in this system.
Just pay attention to that. It's everywhere you
look. Now here here's an example of the
financial point. Of course, Elon with his 100%.
Elon bought sharing what he wants to be
present
getting 15,000,000 views because he simply put the
emoji next to it. Mike Lee says the
executive branch should be under the direction of

(02:11:25):
the president.
That's how the constitution was designed. Now what's
interesting, by the way, is that the executive
orders and the way that they rule today,
obviously, kinda manipulates a lot of this stuff,
way things were designed or supposed to go.
We've been far long since been in that
realm. Whether we're talking about I mean, I
can go off forever. A 1,000 different things
that are unconstitutional, that are repugnant to the

(02:11:46):
constitution. But nonetheless,
the executive branch should be under the the
the direction of the president. That's how the
constitution was designed. The Federal Reserve is one
of the many examples of how we deviated
from the constitution in that regard. Yet another
reason we should end the Fed. Ah, okay.
Wait a minute, senator for Utah. Are you
actually pretending that the Fed is part of
the government? Are are are you trying to

(02:12:06):
deceive people, or do you actually not know
that?
Federal Reserve is not
a part of the government. That is an
independent entity.
So it's kind of alarming
to see a member of the government who
is, you know, a a clearly tapped into
the Trump train
saying something like that.
The Federal Reserve is one of the many

(02:12:27):
examples of how we deviated.
So you could argue that he's trying to
say see, this is how this works. I
I I get the my sense is this
is deliberately deceptive.
He didn't explicitly say it, but if you
read that as the way it's presented, it
sounds as if he's saying the executive branch,
constitution design be under that. And therefore but
here's one of the examples of how we
deviated, meaning that that would be one that

(02:12:48):
would be under the executive branch if we're
it's not part of the government. It's a
private entity.
It's amazing that we can here's what's crazy.
We're not even taught that in schools. We
don't even hear about the Federal Reserve. Now
why is that?
Because it's a problem. It is one of
the central problems to many of the things
we've discussed, and I've go I've done entire
shows on the Federal Reserve a long time
ago.

(02:13:09):
But first, I wanna point that out. How
crazy that is. That he either doesn't know
that or he's deliberately lying to you about
it for obvious reasons.
But this gets into the point which and
this is one of the reasons that I
think this seems to be a setup or
a play to get you to think, you
know, call me a pessimist. I'm very jaded
when it comes to government.
But it says, Fed Chair Powell won't resign

(02:13:29):
if Trump asks.
And the point is he's simply arguing he
doesn't have the authority to do so. Now
we've already been through this. This was floated
back and forth last time.
So I just and yet it's being presented
as some new dilemma.
I think there's a reason for that. So
cut to the chase. My point is that
I love the mind that I think this
is about
playing this out publicly to make it look

(02:13:51):
like somehow this was something Trump did in
a positive way. And that ultimately, that will
be the point of change to usher in
the next phase,
which would be the CBDC digital currency dynamic,
Or possibly even a private JP Morgan type
thing, which is exactly the same, if not
worse dynamic.
It'll be a private coin, a private CBDC.

(02:14:12):
That that's the whole or rather a private,
you know, central current or currency,
digital wise.
Either way,
that's my prediction. I hope I'm wrong.
I it it one of 2 ways I
would predict. Either nothing will happen and it
will maintain this structure because they deem it
not to be ready or whatever else. Or
it'll be some kind of controlled demolition to
usher in the next part.

(02:14:32):
I hope I'm wrong.
But I really want you not to miss
that first point. Don't you find that kind
of alarming? I really, really, really should.
Actually, I'm gonna keep that open for later.
Oops. Wrong one.
So he also put this out. I just
wanna point this out in the context of

(02:14:52):
Musk and the rest of what we're discussing.
He says, the reality of this election was
plain to see on x Twitter,
which is crazy to say because there's a
lot of different opinions.
Right? There was a whole lot of different
people that said different things, that had different
states, of different projections.
Even the news platforms, they had all sorts

(02:15:13):
of different projections on numbers. He goes, well,
most legacy media lie relentlessly to the public,
which is an easy thing to say. I
agree. They're always lying to us, but there's
plenty of things they said that didn't turn
out to be false.
My point in saying all of this, he
goes, you are the media now. Which, fine.
I'm okay with that. You're all the media.
Everyone should note their report. That's exactly what
I think it should be. But the problem
is what they're presenting this as through the
lens of Twitter being the media, the point

(02:15:35):
I made the other day.
This Dogecoin account that keeps going, look at
how the media's failing. They have less engagement
than ever, and here's x that has more
than ever. X is the news. And I'm
like, well, time out. X is a platform.
It is not a media platform. It is
a social media platform where people also do
news through.
It's like comparing Netflix to MSNBC, which I
should bad example. I think they're ridiculous. But

(02:15:56):
just it's like comparing a Netflix to a
media platform
and saying,
look how much more views Netflix has so
it's better news. It's like, well, that doesn't
even make sense.
There's a lot of nonsense on Twitter, like
on any social media platform, and there's also
a lot of people like us that do
produce media news through it.
But it says, please post your thoughts and
observations on Twitter. Correct others when they're wrong,

(02:16:17):
and we'll have at least one place in
the world where you can come to find
the truth.
But that's a such a ridiculous there's also
gonna be a lot of misinformation.
My my point saying all this is about
trying to frame this as Twitter being
the the information.
It's the Twitter files dynamic, which I'm pretty
sure I posted down here. You got Twitter
filed. So I think that's what it's about.
It's trying to train you to look to

(02:16:38):
the people you like. And if it's on
Twitter, then you that's that's the information. If
it's on CNN and Fox News, it's all
gotta be fake when it's not always the
case.
I made this point before. I'm just really
alarmed about how many people are following for
this whole dynamic when in reality, most of
the people that are the genuine
media independent otherwise are the ones that aren't
are not included in their little cut out

(02:16:59):
circle of people that are actively misinforming you
constantly.
Like that list by Terrible, which includes Laura
Loomer and the rest of them who are
absolutely, without question, constantly misinforming you, usually by
design.
But they're, you know, on here telling the
truth. I mean, it's it's alarming. And like
I've said before, they have a right to
misinform. But as I've said before,

(02:17:19):
you look at the information objectively on Twitter,
most of it's false. But that's how this
works. You have a lot of nonsense and
people lying and people trying to share their
opinions, which may just be inaccurate because they
don't know, maybe deliberately misinformed, maybe, you know,
manufactured for an agenda. The truth is most
of it is usually something wrong, but you
have to have discernment.
But my point is you can find real
time information on this platform more than most.

(02:17:40):
Which is why what its benefit is until
they take that away.
Very concerning how that's being put forward. Now,
he also writes, Worth noting that far more
billionaires, in quotes, not sure why it's in
quotes, backed Harris than Trump and she raised
almost 50% more money,
which I don't this I don't believe these
numbers are accurate. I'll show you what I
mean in a second. But, nonetheless, America showed
that elections aren't just a a function of

(02:18:02):
money and gave Trump a resounding victory.
Another example of how this is interesting because
90 something percent of the time,
the most money wins.
So I there's so many different anomalies to
this, which again, maybe that means the change
you want it to be. I hope you're
right.
I just don't see it. Not yet, anyway,
the materializing. It seems to me to be
a a a deviation from the norm, which

(02:18:24):
almost worries me with where I see this
going.
But the point is that
as it says in this tweet, 83 billionaires
backed by years. Well, the reality is we
cover the numbers even. It says even in
this, which I I'm pretty sure is inaccurate
based on a lot of different factors. It
just doesn't include
a lot of stuff that that might be
a different dynamics of how this funding works.
But it says, Harris raised 1,600,000,000,

(02:18:45):
which is crazy.
Trump raised 1,100,000,000.
Well, that's not almost half, to be clear.
We're talking about 1.6, 1.4. So the bottom
line is it's a lot of money.
But at the end of the day, we're
talking about a lot of billionaires.
Elitists, oligarchs, technocrats who are funding both of
them.
Israeli lobbyists or oligarchs,
technocrats,

(02:19:07):
Silicon Valley entities,
Palantir employ I mean, it's we we wrote
Derek put the great article on it. I'll
I'll grab it real quick,
Which is called the election 2024,
Zionist technocrats versus Zionist technocrats. And you can
clearly see that if you go through the
list, it's not even all of them. Harris,
we have Eric Schmidt, Bilderberg entity,

(02:19:30):
Alex Soros, Alex Karp. Donald Trump is Peter
Thiel, which there you got Alex Karp and
Peter Thiel working with Israel for Palantir.
Elon Musk, Miriam Adelson,
Silicon Valley in a lot of different ways,
Timothy Mellon, Nicole Shanahan. The point is that
this is
with with the difference of money, assuming that
numbers have been accurate, we're really just talking

(02:19:50):
about they both have backing up the establishment
of of a lot of influential billionaire technocrats
and oligarchs.
And so but but your your argument is,
she got more money from the billionaires. It's
like, what? From an objective perspective, that doesn't
really mean all that much. It just means
they spent more. But you still have the
backing of the billionaire technocrats. It just seems
like we're so this seems like a lesser
of evils point that just never stops.

(02:20:13):
We should not be wanting the one that
gets lesser billionaire funding. We should want the
people that are real and genuine, but we
don't get that. We get the person that
gets less of the bad stuff.
It's just just crazy to me how we
can't acknowledge that.
But I don't think those numbers are even
accurate in general. I think based on my
previous in in in, overview, it seemed like
she, that ultimately

(02:20:34):
well, I guess the way I would look
at it, as I believe she did get
more in the money aspect, but it's simply
that you I think what the point was
that she got more money, but he had
more billionaire backers.
But either way, I it's it's also hard
to gauge all these things with a different,
you know point is,
I think it's irrelevant. Your government is what
we're talking about, and that both of these
people that were representing your government were backed

(02:20:55):
by billionaires, nolograt, technocrat, all all the gracs.
I keep doing that. Zio crats.
I'll include this for you to check out.
Next,
the indication that things are starting to slip.
Now
nothing seems to be definitive yet. Make sure
you hear that. No way am I arguing

(02:21:16):
that this proves r f k x, y,
and z, or that he's not gonna be
part of this or it's gonna change. But
like Whitney said, these things already have been
stated.
But to be clear, we are 3 months
away or whatever the exact amount is for
till these things are actually done. Let's even
say Trump comes out tomorrow and says, RFK
will have this position. That could very well
change by the time January comes around. Or

(02:21:37):
if he comes out and says he's no
longer in this, that may change.
So until we have action, it's important that
we hold you know, obviously, we can report
on what they say. But by point, it
would be reported with, here's what they said,
but it hasn't happened yet.
So I wrote based on the article that
came out,
and this is from the Telegraph. Trump campaign

(02:21:58):
quietly distances itself from RFK Junior after new
vaccine safety comments.
Now, of course, this is is is not
definitive and but this is coming from people
on the inside. And, ultimately,
as many have pointed out, I obviously, we
shouldn't trust corporate media blindly, which is not
what's happening here. I'll read what I said.
But at the same time, as Derek pointed
out, somebody else, during the COVID 19 dynamic,
the Telegraph had a lot of good reporting

(02:22:19):
on a lot of things that were true.
But that's the same way you can look.
I mean, I've seen things through CNN today
reporting things that are true about what's going
on in Israel. My up my opinion is
it's because they're desperately trying to regain some
kind of clout, not because they care about
the truth. But nonetheless,
it's never all or nothing. Or very rarely
is it they if they say it, the
other is true. That's how they want you
to think today because it's very easy to

(02:22:41):
play you that way. But
I wrote this could very well be hype
or deliberate political misinformation from either side for
that matter. Right? It could be the other
side floating this to make you think they're
not gonna do it, or it could be
them putting it out to trick the left
into thinking what happened. I mean, these are
all very real things that could happen. But
it says, but this is indeed what I'm
worried about. I truly hope this is not
the case, if only for the possibility that

(02:23:03):
the many RFK Maja promises might come to
pass.
I really believe that. Now this person says,
this is BS. Don't give their lies any
attention. How many times are we going to
be burned by these mainstream media losers before
we learn our lesson? Now, he could've just
said that kind of as a general point
to anybody, but in case it was aimed
at me, I wanted to point that. I
said, well, only ones that are getting burned
by this are those blindly accepting

(02:23:25):
or blindly ignoring whatever aligns with their worldview,
what most partisans do on a regular basis.
Considering all that said while not blindly accepting
it is what any honest journalist investigator should
do. Now, plenty of the other comments, by
the way, underneath my post
are the idea that we should be ignoring
this. Don't even give don't even look at
it because we know they lied. Now that
is just as willfully ignorant as blindly accepting

(02:23:48):
it or blindly ignoring it. It's the same
difference, guys.
Consider all possibilities, question them all.
Again, it's just wild how we have to
we we should know these things by now,
and I know most of you do. But
I think a lot of partisans
continue to fall into this trap where if
Tucker says it, it's true for sure if
the mainstream media says it were false or
whatever the dynamic is. We all see that.

(02:24:09):
Now as RFK tweeted on the 6th, congratulations,
Trump, on your victory. Let's bring the country
together and make America healthy again. And I
said, I sure hope this is what happens.
We all should.
And I also hope that if and when
it does not,
that those, you know, not for sure when,
but if and when, hypothetically, we get to
the point, it doesn't actually pass the way
that we thought it would for whatever reason,

(02:24:32):
that those selling this idea, those discussing this
as the pot you know, whatever the point
you wanna frame it as, we'll have the
intellectual honesty to point to both point out
and fight those resisting it.
I hope we can always see that because
this like, I think it was Gareth Ike
that made this point that now that he
won, the point is that that we have
the opportunity

(02:24:52):
heightened, which I think his point was, I
think we sensed that that that we won't
see the things happen like last time other
than promises that maybe that will reach those
people to see that this is not some
ones that they they're being played. That if
the republican supporting this gets screwed again this
time and it doesn't happen, that maybe we'll
see some real change. I'd like to think
that. And honestly,
the one I what I would hope for

(02:25:13):
more than anything is that they're right and
I'm wrong. That they actually do these things
and we truly change it. Everyone should want
that. But in the hope that we were
rather in the
world in which that we're right about what
they are, that maybe that will reach the
people that need to see it most.
Now came has put this out, and I
I won't read it all for you at
the interview. The bottom line point is that

(02:25:33):
RFK Junior in I believe, this was
not too long ago. We're basically discussing the
reality of fluoride.
And it's it's dangerous, man. I mean, and
the the one thing I would argue against
is the the idea like, I think it's
very obvious, peer reviewed science and otherwise, that
fluoride does not help your teeth.
Maybe in very small short dose, but in
a general sense, fluoride is not a useful

(02:25:54):
it is something that hurts you, even causes
dental fluorosis
and many other things in regard to your
bones. I mean, it's it's wild that we
still do this. And even if it was
helping your teeth, the idea that your government
would go to such lengths just to keep
your teeth a little bit wider,
I mean, it's just so naive. So the
point is we are now finding this out.
Even though it's been transparently obvious for a

(02:26:14):
very long time that this is in your
water and it shouldn't be and it's in
fact, we're paying to put it in your
water when we should be they should be
paying people to dispose of it because it
is a neurotoxin.
Which is what Derek has been highlighting for
a year plus now, breaking this stuff down.
But my point is that this is one
of the many points that RFK Jr was
being praised for. And I of of all

(02:26:35):
of many of them, I hope this is
one that we actually see coming to pass.
But, sadly, here's what was ultimately put forward.
Now it's not a yes or an it's
I mean, or the the point is it's
not
hasn't happened yet. So it's just a statement
interview. And and on top of that, as
Derek points out, that right now, there's not
a mandate that has to be given or
put it is a recommendation

(02:26:55):
that ends up sort of like the vaccine
schedule, which but we all know how that
works. It's a recommendation
that they that that the states and individuals
ultimately make these choices to put in the
water supply.
So my my what he says in this
clip, he says, I think fluoride is on
the way out because of the decision. He
goes, I think the faster out the better.
But he's not going to compel anybody to
take it out.
Which, again, it's it's not, y y y'know,

(02:27:16):
bad or, you know, it's it's something that
I just I think is different than what
we first heard.
The argument being that if it was something
that we know is hurting children, like they
would do with any other thing that's hurting,
it would ultimately be that this has to
be removed.
But he's saying simply that he's gonna put
it forward that we shouldn't be, not compel
them to. And as Derek's point is, well,

(02:27:36):
there's not a mandate, so they are arguably,
don't even have a legal avenue to do
that. But it's interesting though. I just wanna
point out the full picture. So when if
and when this comes to pass,
you know, he gets put in the position
that we hope he is,
that it I think it would be arguable
that, like any other context, if it was
something we found out there that it would
be an immediate, like, this has to stop.
These are hurting your kids. This is something

(02:27:56):
we don't it's not helping you. There's no
so I find it odd, though. Right? Like,
the argument being that we should
we know it's bad, so it needs to
be removed. And that's one of the things
that was floated. And then if they go
into power, the argument they're see stating here
is that we'll simply go, yeah. This is
why it's bad. You make your choice.
But, I mean, frame it like something else.
Frame it like something that is a poison.
And then we find out, oh my god.

(02:28:17):
This which is what it is. This poison
has been put in your water. Would you
go, well, we know it's poison, but we're
gonna let your people make that decision and
allow their potential political motives to overshadow what
we know is dangerous? Interesting. Right? But then
you can you can get into the conversation
of states' rights and federal dynamic, which is
a fair point to make. Right? But as
I said in the beginning,
what point did I say made sense? If
it turns out that it is something that

(02:28:38):
is unconstitutional, which I would argue in many
senses, or that is hurting your children, Well,
that would be one example where the federal
government would be yes. That you see my
point? Like, there is examples there.
But,
hopefully, this goes in a way where this
gets removed because I think it's obvious this
is a dangerous manipulation that's been put on
us for a very long time.
But if this happens the way he's talking

(02:28:59):
about it, it seems it's gonna end up
lingering this forward, which you could even argue
is not his fault. As Derek points out,
it's not a mandate, but it's just interesting.
So I want you to have the full
picture of where this goes. This is one
of the ease this is one of the
examples where you could even argue that no
matter where it goes, it wouldn't even really
be his fault.
My point would be that this is what
was put forward by the Trump machine to
claim that when he gets elected, this is

(02:29:20):
what will happen. And you see how these
things, even when it's not their fault, don't
really materialize the way that the mania puts
forward, you know, the little checklist of what
will happen when they win for all the
people on Twitter.
It's it's the problem of being emotionally wrapped
up in something as opposed to dealing with
the facts.
Either way oops.
I really hope

(02:29:41):
that that that he steps up, gets that,
or had one of the many things takes
action there.
Now, I'm gonna go past this really quickly,
but this was simply a point about
vent to a one covid 19 illusion, and
RFK Junior speaking with James Corbett
in,
2019.

(02:30:01):
Or rather speaking about that, but it was
it was about that time frame before the
current situation. So my point is simply that
if you read through this, what he is
talking about is the the simulating the COVID
19 pandemic in October 2019. That's that's Trump's
administration. Event 2 zero one's Trump's administration, the
beginning of the COVID nineteen agenda, Operation Warp
Speed. All of these things were Trump's administration.
But we have this kind of amnesia about

(02:30:22):
that. Or blaming somebody else for it.
I think what's interesting is RFK Junior was
very, very critical about Trump and his involvement.
And then even after that, was clear about
how the especially when he was running for
president, about how Trump would ruin the country.
So I just think it's an odd choice
and step to see that as coronavirus plushie
plushie says the pandemic simulations, which, again, I

(02:30:43):
see indications we might see more of that.
I hope I'm wrong.
One last point on the, you know, new
different aspects of it. I get I have
yet to see this actually be proven
or hit the statement, but I I think
it's being floated right now that Massie is
gonna take is taking a position with Trump's
administration. But as far as I could tell,
unless you saw something else, I haven't seen

(02:31:03):
that. I even have Fox News here as
of yesterday saying that he's willing to help,
but hasn't actually received commitment. So it just
shows you like, it's actually an interesting thought
right here.
This very well could be a positive spin
on on
you know, you got this momentum around the
Trump community who
a lot of them, like, with Ian Carroll's
interview with day with with Derrick Rose or
the debate, where he's completely willing to point

(02:31:25):
out the worries. You know, here's what I
I get it. We're worried about that. I
see these problems. I'll even come to a
point in a minute where Ian points out
the worry of the appointment of of Susan
or I think it's Susie.
But what's interesting is, in a positive way,
that it could very well be that you
have this kind of momentum of people that
are are are genuinely aware of some of
these risks and have made the calculation, which
I disagree with, but they argue that voting

(02:31:47):
for him might give you some positives, you
know, verse verse the other side? And it
was a calculated move, which is one of
those arguments. My point in getting at is
that you could argue that they are now
almost in a way like, almost like in
a manipulative way, but in a for a
positive outcome,
trying to drive action from the administration.
Right? So, hypothetically, floating the idea that Massey
has accepted a position and

(02:32:07):
it filters and
it reverberates through the community. And all of
a sudden you get all of these conversations
about, Yes, Massey's on the team and Massey,
see. Except it hasn't happened. And this is
all completely on my mind. I have no
idea what's actually happening. I just thought about
how interesting it would be, and maybe you
guys can do this. If, you know,
drive it out. I'm not I actually even
I don't recommend I don't like any action
that stems from dishonesty. But my point being

(02:32:28):
that maybe that's the mindset.
Because you see them go, well, hold on.
I haven't gotten asked. Nobody's asked offered me
this. But if you look on Twitter, you
know, like, with you see, like, fake statements
and fake picture. It's it's it's interesting
how we see this kind of go through
the community. It could just be dishonesty. It
could be trying to manipulate. Or it could
be them
wanting that and thinking if they can get
it to be such a moo a a

(02:32:49):
moo
such a big movement through it. Like, you
can see all these posts and articles that
maybe it'll drive them to feel like they
should do it or have to do it.
Interesting thought.
Either way, at the moment, it seems that
Massie is he's saying, at least as of
yesterday, let me know if you've seen something
newer today, saying that he hasn't, but he
would, you know, and so on. But, you
know, is it I would say 2 things
here. I was very much against the idea

(02:33:11):
of them leaning into one of the Trump's
administration or any of them for that matter
before the election because it gave them credence,
especially from people like Ron Paul or Massie.
And I still argue now. I don't I
don't like that the I think, like, for
example, I would much rather have Massie in
congress voting in ways that I think are
positive. But I think the point being
that you can see why now especially they

(02:33:33):
might try to make a difference with the
administration. On my point saying that is even
though I might disagree with supporting it, you
can still you see the big difference between
doing it before and now re now that
it's happened to your way it may be
leaning into it. You can actually see some
positive change through it without, you know, you
get my point. But I'm still of the
mind that I don't wanna support any of
them.
But if this should happen, I do think
Massey would be a good addition to something,

(02:33:54):
you know, if he is what he shows
putting forward, which he does appear to be
in many cases. Either way, hasn't happened yet.
Let's wait and see.
Now, this is important to see the NeoCon
kind of aspect of this and the one
of the the few the 3 different things
I've seen so far that really do alarm
me.
Now Ron Paul put this out. And even
you know, remember, Ron Paul hasn't taken a
position or even he didn't even technically endorse

(02:34:15):
Trump's administration beforehand, but he did say that
he'd be willing to work with them to
try to reduce the government, which I get
why he would. Because I mean, it's it's
clear that that Ron Paul from the the
kind of a status mindset believed that they
can fix this through the system. Maybe they're
right. Same thing Catherine Austin fits. He thinks,
and maybe they're right. I just am very
jaded about it, and I feel that the
system is the problem, leaning into it more.

(02:34:36):
But from that mindset, this is why I
argue that you might see them leaning into
this and maybe they can make a difference.
Ron Paul points out, as it appears slightly
more likely that Donald Trump will secure the
win, this is, remember, on 5th before it
happened,
the danger of neocons yet again infesting his
cabinet
And administration is steadily increasing.
Now my mind is that's because that's part
of he's aware of that.

(02:34:57):
I don't like the framing of always making
it as if he's
being taken advantage of. Like, Trump is just
in this with a whirlwind. There's always missing
something. It's just like, why would you want
that if that's what's happening? But my point
is that either way, we already see that
happening with Pompeo, with a few we'll point
out. But he told Trump told Rogan that
a what a mistake John Bolton was, but
he's in danger of the same thing with

(02:35:17):
Pompeo, which I think we see already.
Dave DeCamp highlights Ian Carroll saying, just voted
for Trump because I don't want to go
to jail for posting information the CIA doesn't
like.
Had to drive about 4 hours through the
night and and camp out in my car
to do it. That's wild, by the way.
So just from a a completely separate point.
The idea that anybody has to drive 4
hours.

(02:35:38):
And unless and maybe he lives out in
the middle of nowhere. I'm not sure exactly.
But it seems like you're kinda crazy, you
know, that that would be the case. But
he goes, now breakfast and 4 hour drive
back. So he went out and voted for
Trump, one of the guys that or the
argument that CIA would be the problem if
he didn't.
Dave simply points out, Trump closed out his
campaign with his former CIA director who plotted
to kill Julian Assange for posting information the

(02:35:58):
CIA didn't like. Just one point that I
think that's a good point to make.
Now Michael Tracey highlights what Julian Assange was
saying about Mike Pompeo because Trump chose to
parade around in Pennsylvania
on the final day of the campaign with
Mike Pompeo.
Makes you think, he says. Here's what Assange
had to say about Mike Pompeo.

(02:36:19):
It is now a matter of public record
that under Pompeo's explicit direction,
the CIA
drew up plans to kidnap and to assassinate
me within the Ecuadorian embassy in London
and authorized going after my European colleagues. And
that's just the case that's unclear. That's Trump's
administration,

(02:36:39):
which weirdly we see Biden and his administration
pardon Assange. You know, it's it's a it
doesn't make sense with the narratives that we're
being presented with. Subjecting us to theft, hacking
attacks, and the planting of false information.
My wife and my infant son were also
targeted.
A CIA asset

(02:37:01):
was permanently assigned to track my wife, and
instructions were given to obtain DNA from my
6 month old son's nappy.
See, think about this.
If you're worried about liberty and freedom, guys,
you need to listen to what he's saying.
This is during Trump's administration
with people that Trump personally picked.
We need to real and you think this

(02:37:21):
is not this is a pub this is
well they know of this.
And, clearly, you can argue that Donald Trump
was well aware of this taking place. This
has been openly discussed.
The idea that they would go as far
as to do this. Now this is not
an American citizen,
but we're still talking about the idea of
the the very people that want to present
this as what they're fighting for for everybody,
everywhere, and are willing to violate

(02:37:41):
any number of US laws and international law
because this person was making them look bad.
That needs to be considered about what these
people truly are. All of them.
This is the testimony
of more than 30
current and former
US intelligence
officials speaking to the US press,

(02:38:03):
which has been additionally corroborated by record seized
in the prosecution brought against some of the
CIA agents involved.
The CIA's targeting of myself, my family,
and my associates through aggressive, extrajudicial
and extraterritorial
means
provides a rare insight

(02:38:23):
into how powerful intelligence organizations
engage in transnational
repression.
It's crazy. I mean, just the extent to,
you know I mean, it shouldn't surprise us
with Pompeo
and Bolton at different times threatening the families
of ICJ, you know, the International Criminal Court

(02:38:45):
Court Justice or or the idea of
threatening,
Iranians if you you'll starve to death if
you don't do what we say. I mean,
these are open statements, guys, during Trump's last
administration.
Here's what Glenn Greenwald did to say.
Mike Mike Cernovich said, manipulated the security clearance
process to block Trump loyalists from working in
the administration, and he also cleared out of

(02:39:07):
the National Security Council of Trump backers.
This allowed for the sham Ukraine impeachment. Even
seeing his name floating around is utter insanity.
I mean, this has been stated. I I'll
show you again from Mike Flynn. I mean,
it's a very I mean, I even went
over the past article showing you the time
when Trump and Pompeo were at each other's
throats.
He's a bad guy. He's the now suddenly,
they're back. I how how does this not

(02:39:28):
alarm Republicans?
There's no logical justification other than he is
a powerful entity that they need to have
in place. Mike the Glenn says, Mike Pompeo
was easily Trump's worst close confidant as CIA
director and state of and secretary of state.
If he's back in the inner circle, which
that whether he's got a position or not,
it's already clear that he is.
That's a really bad sign that the worst

(02:39:49):
problem of the first term, empowering neocons who
flatter Trump, will simply repeat itself.
Here's general Flynn
talking about Mike Pompeo. He says and this
is Mike Pompeo saying that if former president
Trump reelected, he would be willing to join
the administration.
And he said, and general Flynn post this
on 9th March and says, so you can
undermine him again?

(02:40:10):
You did zip you did zip as director
of the CIA to expose the BS Russiagate,
and you had every chance and ability to
do it, and you did even less fixing
anything at the state department. And have you
stated even once anything about the rigged election
of 2020? We're waiting.
We need to keep the RHINOs out of
the next Trump administration.
Daniel McAdams

(02:40:30):
says unpopular but true. The whole stop Mike
Pompeo move on Twitter and elsewhere,
embraced by many members of the Conservative Inc
Movement is a red herring for the actual
minor or less known neocons who are going
to fill the administration on the top.
We took down we took Pompeo down, squid
quotes. They will do victory laps, But watch

(02:40:51):
what the other hand is doing. This is
not an anti Trump post. But he seems
he see he simply has no idea how
devious his neocons are. Again, I hate the
idea of trying to argue, which is certainly
possible, but I don't see it, that he
just doesn't see what's going on.
These are all public discussions. I mean, I
find it hard to believe that he couldn't
find the wind of this.

(02:41:11):
That Trump is just so out of the
know that he they're playing him yet again.
I just I'm the first that will tell
you it's hubris would be the easiest play,
but I don't know. I don't like that.
It's like giving a pass almost. Whitney says,
isn't one of the pa isn't one of
Pompeo's top aid at the state department last
last Trump term now managing this term state
department transition team? Yes. Or at least seems

(02:41:32):
to be the case.
This is where and this is the the
same picture with this little Israel US
face mask.
That concerns me.
Arnab batron, right, foot posting this drop site
news article.
It's
a sign that those hoping for a change
of US foreign policy under Trump are in
for a major disappointment. He appointed Brian Hook,

(02:41:55):
a major hawk and anti isolationist who formally
served under Bush and Pompeo
to stat to staff the new state department.
Here's drop site news.
Here
is Trump's chief of staff pick. I'm just
showing you there's a lot of indication that
this is already going in a wrong direction.

(02:42:17):
And really, in the direction that people like
us already predicted would be the case.
Not that we knew
and I not that we didn't hope for
the better, but we did we on based
on previous action,
thought it would repeat because that's what you
do. You based it on previous action, objectively
looking is not what they say. People that
base their hopes and dreams on the the

(02:42:37):
promises of politicians, well, you know what they
say about promises, don't they? I mean, to
be crude, you probably know what I'm saying.
The point is that, ultimately,
we should not be believing that the promises
of oligarchs, technocrats, and Zionists are somehow gonna
drive us in the right direction.
Now, Chip Trump's chief of staff pick, Susie
Wiles,
as Common Dreams rights worked as a tobacco

(02:42:58):
lobbyist while running 2024 campaign.
It says the president-elect previously vowed to drain
the swamp, but his chief of staff pick,
sue Susie Wiles, cochairs a firm that has
lobbied for tobacco giants, Swisher International, Tesla, Uber,
AT and T, and other corporate giants. So
I guess the whole argument about no lobbyists
on the team, I guess that's already failed.
Right?
Too late.

(02:43:18):
Now here is Susie Wiles and big pharma
overlap.
Prominent political operative. Has been linked to big
pharma through her lobbying work. Here are the
key points. She's been a lobbyist for Big
Pharma in general. She's a lobbyist for the
pharmaceutical industry representing clients like Mercury Public Affairs,
which by the way, we'll point out in
a second again, which has worked with manufacturers
of COVID 19 tests.

(02:43:38):
Client list. Her firm's client list includes companies
involved with the production of COVID 19 tests,
indicating a potential conflict of interest in her
role as a key adviser to Donald Trump.
Big pharma funded campaigns.
Wiles firms have worked on campaigns funded by
Big Pharma, including a testing campaign during the
pandemic, which benefits our clients in the industry.
Influence on policy. Lastly, it says, as a

(02:43:59):
lobbyist and adviser to Trump,
Wiles' influence on policy decisions affected big pharma
is significant. Her Wiles MO has been described
as aggressively
pro big pharma with potential implications for the
industry's interests.
Obviously,
could go any direction. Maybe she's changed. Maybe

(02:44:20):
she sees the problem.
But why we would assume that?
Action
is what we need to be guiding, especially
with politics.
Everything about her signals the wrong thing. And
if we haven't learned,
last time they did the same thing. And
what was the statement? Well, you gotta have
insiders. Okay. That's that mean there's logic to
that statement. But

(02:44:41):
what happened?
1 by 1, they all became the enemies
of Trump. Every I mean, it's the same
thing. And then we said, we'll see. That's
what we thought. You know? And the point
is that we're not bla psychic,
but we keep people who are honest about
this base it off the actions of what
they've done before. And she is not a
positive step. And then to be clear, from
2017,
by by the way, which most of you

(02:45:02):
already know, the same things. Trump taps long
time pharma lobbyist to help run the FDA
during transition. Oh, thanks. Guess that added to
what happened during COVID 19. Right? The point
is, this is not new. We need to
recognize a pattern.
Here's from the New Republic.
Trump's new chief of staff had a starring
role in Trump's indictment.
It's weird how this keeps happening where Vance

(02:45:24):
said he was a terrible person. RFK said
he was terrible.
Everyone, even Gabor, the rest of them have
all on the record statements about how they
hate him or he's bad. Now they're all
on his side.
Maybe there's an answer for it.
In this case,
maybe there's a reason that she wanted him
indicted or work to do so and now
he's working on his side. I don't know.
Me? My answer?

(02:45:44):
It's all a show. They're all part of
the government and this is what the government
wants right now.
Maybe that's oversimplified
but I hope you can consider that.
Next,
here's the New York Post. You know, one
of these platforms that show itself to just
be, you know,
egregiously blind when it comes to partisan aspects

(02:46:04):
or pro Israel aspects.
They write for the article, Trump makes history
by naming first female. Wait. Is this the
democrats we're talking about? Wait. I thought we
were past the whole woke ideology
driven point. But now because they're now it's
gonna be the same thing. See? We picked
a woman. You're not we're not what you
said we were. Well, you're doing the same
things for the same reasons. Who cares? Shouldn't
it be the best person for the job?

(02:46:25):
The point is, she's not. She's a swamp
creature, and they're praising it as the good
thing and ignoring all of that from the
New York Post anyway because she's the first
woman.
First woman chief White House chief of staff
or Susie Wiles set to assume powerful role.
And you you go and read through this
and you show me where they're talking about
the potential
conflicts of interest. They're not. This this serves

(02:46:46):
as a yay yay yay. We're about that's
that's what you get from partisan media.
Now news Newsweek and, again, the same point
in verse, you got
democrat platforms who are suddenly willing to point
out why they may not be the best
person. Isn't that funny?
You know, it's just interesting how it's always
the same way. And it if you didn't
know any better, you'd look at it and
you they're different. My point is that you

(02:47:06):
have partisan entities that act in their interest,
but they're all ultimately hiding the truth in
the same way from different sides.
Donald Trump's name, Susie Will Wiles, excuse me,
known as the ice maiden as his chief
of staff. This is hilarious to me.
Now here, Ian Carroll says, I'm so confused
by the appointment of Wiles.
People whose opinions I trust

(02:47:27):
and have inside knowledge
from the campaign say it's good.
All the evidence says it's horrendous.
One thing I know for sure, the next
12 months, we're about to find out who
was actually a journalist and who was just
Trump team ride or die. Now I I
like the way if you read the full
sentence, I do like what he says there.
The point is that, ultimately, if he holds

(02:47:48):
true to that, and and when he does,
I won't give mad praise.
I mean, assuming that it happens that way,
I hope it doesn't, that ultimately it flushes
out like I'm worried it does.
If he stands up and goes, okay, so
these were Trump team or team Trump people,
I'm willing to call it the problem because
I'm just trying to point out the truth.
I'm I'll be happy to see that. So,
again, I really do praise the the discussion
they had. They both came at it from

(02:48:09):
a good perspective. But Derek responds by saying,
seriously, confused?
No one mentioned to you before that Trump
isn't what he claims. I mean, obvious point
is that we talked about this. Right? And
he goes, did you see the talk of
appointing hooks as well? He's one of the
Pompeo's buddies. So my point is simply that,
you know, you can see he he it
does appear as he's saying I'm confused about,
you know, what people are saying about it.
Not that you know? But, nonetheless,

(02:48:30):
it seems like in my opinion right now,
the point would be okay. Well, that right
there already is an indication of a of
a a side step, a deviation from what
was promised.
But it's it's, you know, that's on him
to decide where he sees those and get
but my point would be we're already seeing
that. Right? And so I would understand the
confusion, I think of a better word, of
why people around Trump would try to tell

(02:48:51):
you it's a good thing even though, as
he says, all the evidence says it's bad.
I think he knows what he I just
might I get it. Saying that
in a way is sort of like I'm
con the point is that already what you're
presenting is the evidence does contradicts what people
on Trump's side are trying to tell you
it looks like.
That speaks for itself in my opinion. But
I I'm glad he's at least pointing it

(02:49:12):
out like that. But I think the point
is ultimately that we can see where this
is going.
And 1 by 1, if it continues to
go this way, I hope it doesn't, that
we need to be honest about that. My
point is that I hope that he follows
through with that statement that he will continue
to call them out. And so far, it
does seem that way. Shannon Joy says, meet
Trump's new chief of staff. And this is
just from an article written about her, but
the point is you know most of this.

(02:49:33):
Wiles is a seasoned lobbyist.
Her LinkedIn profile out highlights this. Wiles became,
and this is the important stuff, cochair of
a lobbying firm, Mercury Public Affairs, in February
2022. As highlighted by holistic news, Mercury's clientele
includes Pfizer,
Gavi, the vaccine alliance,
which spearheads vaccine funding and distribution efforts during

(02:49:53):
COVID 19, a role played also played by
the United Nations Foundation,
another Mercury client, and Gilead Sciences, developer of
the equally rushed COVID 19 therapeutic remdesivir.
My god. Think about how think of the
very people that called all of these things
out. Trump picks as the White House chief
of staff and lobbyist for Pfizer, for Gavi,

(02:50:16):
the Bill Gates aspect,
for the United Nations Foundation,
for Gilead Sciences, for the COVID, for remdesivir.
Come on, guys.
Now, yes,
I I I can agree with you that
just because that's the case,
we should acknowledge that maybe she will turn
a new leaf.
Obviously possible. But if we're being objective already,

(02:50:37):
you should be going, woah. That's not what
we were promised.
That would be integrity. But then, you know,
counterbalancing it with, but maybe he knows something
we don't. That's fair. But you cannot pretend
it's not happening. That's where we go wrong
with this. Where we ignore what we don't
like because it doesn't align with it, we
call it out. This is the opposite. Even
Lutnick said, no obvious. Well, I guess that

(02:50:58):
was the transition team. But either way, this
is exactly what we've worried about from the
past. Says Mercury senior team is further peppered
with pharmaceutical lobbyists executives.
Adena Minscher, director of the governmental compliance, worked
in sales and marketing for GlaxoSmithKline.
I mean, these are this is the problem.
And it says Tom Moffett, a Mercury partner,
was the top government affairs executive at the

(02:51:19):
Monsanto company. Guys, you can't make this up.
This is like the top ten of the
worst possible associations.
Managing director Tommy Gordon was director of digital
experience for Novavax,
promoting its COVID 19 vaccine product in 40
countries before running digital communications for Biden's 2020
campaign.
In there, it then there's Kunal

(02:51:41):
Klutch Kelch, excuse me, Mercury's vice president of
media relations. He's a national president of MOCA
MOMS, a nonprofit organization through which he advocates
for global vaccines.
Short Life is run by a 4 months
United Nations Foundation, which played a leading role
in all of this. The point is most
of them after this have been people that
are adjacent to her through the company,
but the first point is the same.

(02:52:02):
These are people that have worked in everything
we've talked about that is the problem. This
whole point right here. That's her specifically
advocating, lobbying for Pfizer, Gavi, United Nations Foundation,
Remdesivir,
group company, Gilead Science. That's pretty wild to
me.
That's Shannon Joy, by the way. Thank you
for sharing that.

(02:52:22):
Now, Cali means pointing to what,
Ian was saying, is doing the same thing.
Saying fantastic start to the Trump presidency with
Susan Wiles as the chief of staff. Nobody
better.
Really? Nobody better than exactly the opposite of
what we were told would be the I
mean, there's a endless amount of people better.
You know, maybe not a lobbyist for big
pharma. Maybe not you know, think about how

(02:52:43):
crazy that is. Nobody better? Because this is
what you get. You get people that they're
that that whether they maybe they're maybe he's
not even doing it intentionally. But you get
the people that gaslight for the team's sport
politics.
Your job in many people's minds is to
promote this as positive because that will benefit
us the most. And maybe you believe that,
but it's not honest.
That's not how we should be doing this.

(02:53:03):
It's not about be you know, even if
you truly believe that every supporting them in
every way will give you the best benefit,
it still misinforms people. And then if you're
wrong, even more so.
Daniels did Donald says, yeah. Nice. Yeah. Former
tobacco lobbyist and partner at the lobbying firm
for Kellogg's and Nestle.
And Jay Scott says her most recent clients
are Pfizer and big pharma companies, actually. Thank

(02:53:25):
you, Jay, for pointing that out. Donald says,
you sure? Are you confusing her with Angela
Wiles? And he goes, no. Here's her LinkedIn.
You can check for yourself, which we just
read. It's very clear.
Thank you, Jay, for pointing that out.
Dan Cohen, as we lead into some Israel
discussion, makes another alarming point, which shouldn't surprise
anybody. He says Trump transition team cochair Howard
Lutnick and his wife, Allison, donated to Kamala

(02:53:46):
Harris' senate campaign in 2016.
They switched to supporting Trump after he personally
sat with Allison
and swore fealty to Israel.
And Jewish insider has a whole article about
it, simply pointing out that he's he sat
down and he she said she moved over
to Trump
from what she would usually vote for from
a democratic position, which was unusual for her

(02:54:06):
because she says Israel is her number one
policy.
Said Trump literally sat down with the wife
and said, I will be the best president
for Israel. I will protect Israel and take
care of them.
So even in my house, we have, you,
you,
you, you, you, you can't even say that,
around Donald Trump. So unanimously supported Trump.

(02:54:28):
Because
blindly supporting Israel.
I I I'm sure plenty of people are
okay with that because they've made that choice,
but
Israel is objectively committing genocide.
That's a wild thing to state at a
time, even publicly by the way, which they're
doing while the world sees that. Which shows
you something we just can't ignore.

(02:54:49):
That they're
all in line with Israel's genocide, all of
them,
which is pretty terrifying. Now the election process,
APAC is not even trying to hide this
right now. And we've shown you this all
I did my last show. I played the
same clips. I showed you it's undeniable. Even
the corporate media is pointing out the
the unnerving reality of what APAC is doing.
This is an Israeli entity

(02:55:10):
from the core. It's on Wikipedia. You can
look it up. I've showed it to you
many times.
That became something else because as stated, they
did not want it to be seen as
an Israeli entity. So even today, they put
themselves forward as an American entity fighting for
American interests that happened to align with Israel.
It's not the case. This is an entity
fighting for Israeli interests of the Israeli government

(02:55:30):
at the expense of Americans almost entirely.
That's that that it's a this is I
mean, even JFK was trying to get them
to register as a foreign under the FAR
Act.
Many argue that's one of the reasons he
was killed. You can decide for yourself.
But here's Mark Owens Jones saying, LOL. When
everyone's focused on a secret Russian electoral interference,
which by the way, how that what happened?

(02:55:51):
I thought Putin was gonna steal it again.
Or maybe he did. And what we're not
even seeing we're not even hearing those claims
anymore. Don't you think they would at least
float that? I mean, you get the point.
Everyone's aligning in this direction right now, which
is concerning.
But he goes in plain sight. Here's APAC
on the 5th. So far,
a 190 APAC backed candidates have won their
elections tonight. Now realize, it's left and right.

(02:56:12):
We're proud to stand with pro Israel Democrats
and Republicans.
What? How are they gonna make the point
is that doesn't even line up with what
we in any other context. This is unique
for APAC alone
in in the general sense.
Being pro Israel is good policy. That's what
they keep doing.
But guess what? It gets worse.

(02:56:33):
Imran says when a foreign lobby gloats about
controlling your legislative branch.
And this is, as of the 5th, later
of the day. AIPAC proudly supported
3 162
pro Israel members of congress.
362.
Now it tends to vary,
but at any given moment, at least the
last time we saw, over 70% of the

(02:56:54):
candidates they funded were winning in this discussion.
How do we not consider that that is
influencing
again, like, whether or not it's they think
it's an American interest. And it's a single
entity that has so
more influence over policy than anybody worth any
American, any conversation we're having.
How is that not concerning for people? I
know it is, by the way, for the
vast majority of this country. Most of your

(02:57:16):
politicians though, maybe weirdly enough, 70% of them,
what do you think?
Are not concerned.
Thomas Massie calls this out, openly says everyone's
got an APAC guy, except him.
As well as the fact that we can
clearly prove that this is something that is
dictating policy as we watch the politicians ignore
their constituents
because they're anti Israel or against any government

(02:57:39):
having influence over our policy other than our
or rather people than the people of the
United States.
That's just absolutely wild to me. Max Blumenthal
pointing out another clip where it says APAC
endorsed same saying the same thing, but playing
a video of it. Saying APAC boasts about
the most expensive
and aggressive act of foreign election interference in
American history. Flaunting apartheid Israel's control over US

(02:58:01):
politics.
The unregistered foreign lobby just shelled out over
a $100,000,000
on its campaign to elect genocidal war lackeys.
Don't forget that a 100,000,000 by itself went
to Donald Trump through Marian Adelson
for the promise of continuing the illegal West
Bank annexation.
On the record. Right on the surface.
Absolutely crazy to me. As David Icke said,

(02:58:22):
the new US president congratulates the official one.
Donald Trump
and Meliana Trump, congratulations on historic win. This
is Netanyahu.
Right? So the the new president congratulates the
official president. Well, quickly, I think I'll play
a part of this clip that I think
is important enough to lobbying discussion that I
really think is important for us for everyone
to consider, even though most of you have

(02:58:42):
seen it more than once.
And this point is about the, you know,
so we're talking about APAC, right? We're talking
about the influence APAC has over policy.
Now, of course, in my opinion not my
not my opinion, but my main issue is
that that's an it that's a government.
Not not in the US lobbying group. That's
a government

(02:59:02):
under a very thin veneer
pretending to be a US entity, influencing directly
on the surface US policy and and bribing
politicians, which is what lobbying is in any
context.
So I think it's important to play that
clip, just the beginning part of it, to
show you how lobbyist works, whether or not
we're talking about Zionism in Israel. And realize
how alarming it is that through this mechanism,

(02:59:23):
Israel,
on the surface, technically legal if you will,
is openly influencing, funding, controlling US policy.
And realize it's not just IPAC. Any lobbyist
can do this. The point is that you
have whether it's about Zionism or not, you
have been stolen from.
Moneyed interests, powerful entities, and other poll political,
you know, manipulations

(02:59:45):
are able to influence
to a point to where you have no
influence,
policy,
actions, government choice.
And if we can't see that that means
that you do not live in the place
you do, that democracy doesn't you the if
we can't see that, we're lying to ourselves.
For the last few years, I've had this
sense that everything I learned as a kid

(03:00:05):
about how America's government works is completely wrong.
But I had no idea how bad things
actually were until I saw this one graph.
Researchers at Princeton University looked at more than
20 years worth of data to answer a
pretty simple question. Does the government represent the
people? Now, this is what they found.
This axis here represents public support for any

(03:00:26):
given idea. On the left at 0% are
ideas that not a single American wants. On
the right at 100% are ideas that everyone
supports.
This axis represents the likelihood of congress passing
a law that reflects any of these ideas,
from a 0 to a 100%
chance.
On this graph, an ideal republic would look
like this.

(03:00:47):
If 50% of the public supports an idea,
there's a 50% chance of it becoming law.
If 80% of us support something, there's an
80% chance. You get the idea.
Now, most Americans would probably agree that, with
a few exceptions, we should be as close
to this ideal as possible. Unfortunately, the way
America actually works doesn't even come close.

(03:01:08):
Take an idea that nobody supports,
literally nobody, and it has about a 30%
chance of becoming federal law.
So right off the right of the gate.
So the I 0. Not hypothetically,
on and this is, you know, not whether
you it's not about trusting Princeton or anything
else. Like, these are all data facts and
data. You can look all this stuff up
yourself. The idea that simply point put that
you could have a thing that nobody, not

(03:01:30):
a single person in the country was. Everybody
goes to the voting box and says, no.
We don't want it, and it will still
have a 30% chance of passing if
lobbyists wanted to.
That's crazy. But it gets worse on the
other side of it as you I'm sure
you've seen before.
Now take an incredibly popular idea. The most
popular idea this country has ever seen, and

(03:01:50):
there's
also about a 30% chance of it becoming
law.
This means that the number of American voters
for or against any idea has no impact
on the likelihood that congress will make it
law.
Really try to hear this, guys. I mean,
this is the most obvious and easily proven
part of all of this.

(03:02:10):
And I I I don't even know why
this I mean, I do know why, but
it's because it destroys the image. But this
is public information.
0. And and the statement they always say
with directly quoting from the study, a 0
statistically insignificant,
near 0 I'll let him say it. And
after the one time, I usually say it
pretty clearly that you don't have an influence
on the outcome, guys. Now, this is about

(03:02:32):
general things, but it applies to this presidential
outcome as well.
Put another way, and I'm just gonna quote
the Princeton study directly here. The preferences of
the average American appear to have only a
minuscule,
near zero,
statistically non significant impact upon public policy. You
know, it's sort of like wearing a mask
in COVID 19, statistically insignificant.

(03:02:53):
It means you do not affect the outcome.
So if you've ever felt like your opinion
doesn't matter, and that the government doesn't really
care what you think, well,
you're right,
but there's a catch.
This flat line only accounts for the bottom
90% of income earners in America.
Economic elites, business interests, people who can afford

(03:03:13):
lobbyists,
they get their own line. So this is
not just this APAC is the one doing
the the lobbying. They're talking about the people
that fund APAC or in this case, the
Israeli government. Right? So the Israeli government
has their own line or really, again, any
lobbying entity, but realize APAC is represents the
most powerful entity we're talking about in this
context. So the Israeli government has this line.

(03:03:36):
Look at how much closer their line is
to the ideal. When they want something, the
government is much more likely to do it.
And when they don't, they have the power
to completely block it from happening. 0.
So whatever you want, if they decide they
don't, it won't happen. You realize the kind
of control that has on what we're dealing
with, guys? That's why you end up with
the Brian Mass of the world.

(03:03:58):
I mean, this is the dynamic. We just
don't know it, or we won't admit it
to ourselves.
That is terrifying, and I really hope this
reaches people because we need to acknowledge these
things in order to actually change them. See,
we can't exist in a world where that's
the case and then pretend that we're voting
somebody in power that's gonna change our life.
Because if they didn't want that, they wouldn't
let it happen.
This this is why it's so hard to

(03:04:18):
reach people with this stuff because I know
it is challenging. I know it makes you
uncomfortable, but the evidence is undeniable. It is
everywhere.
Now here is what the Guardian put out.
Trump will give Israel blank check, and that's
a quote, which may mean all out war
with Iran, says an ex CIA chief. Now
in no way should that mean we should
blindly accept that even if we think that's

(03:04:39):
the case. An ex CIA chief, quoted by
the Guardian, is not usually, in my opinion,
a good source to believe it's gonna but
I do believe that is the reality. Now
it it would simply show me either that
they're lying to you or that they're having
interest in making sure you see that.
Either way, I think it's pretty damn obvious
that Trump has openly said that is the
case. They've supported Israel in every way, and

(03:05:00):
Vance and Trump and all of them have
floated all sorts of crazy statements about going
after Iran. Even though there is literally zero
evidence that Iran is
involved in anything, going after Trump or assassination
attempts, 0. Statements from intelligence is the best
we get, and we all know who that
tends to work out if we're honest with
ourselves.
But this person says, baja, the the peace

(03:05:20):
talks. Come in. Shut up, legacy liars. The
world demands peace, and Trump delivers.
It says, sit down with your propaganda. We
aren't taking your gaslighting any longer. This administration
sent 1,000,000,000 to war start World War 3
and almost exceeded. All that based off just
this title of the article. This is funny.
But the point
is that no one's arguing that we know
for sure is the case. But the idea
that you're gonna blindly in reverse while accusing

(03:05:42):
me of blindly taking face value assume that
Trump demands this and wants that. Are you
his best friend? Are you inside of his
brain? Are you Elon Musk's brain chip? You
don't have any clue what he actually wants
and feels. Why we pretend
that people know that because they voted so
it's just crazy.
And it's the same thing people in higher
positions of influence do. That we know that

(03:06:02):
Trump wants to no. You don't. He may
have said that, and maybe even not. The
point is they always float these things.
I said, meanwhile, in reality, you're still supporting
the US government, who still supports these early
government entirely, as Trump has repeatedly said. And
when it inevitably gets worse, you will no
doubt switch into defending what you smugly swore
was never possible because Trump.

(03:06:23):
The point is that we all see this
going forward, but the idea has been floated
by this by the republican machine that he's
the peace president. He's gonna fight to stop
it all, but that's not true. He's already
supported this. He's already put forward that he
would continue to support the ongoing genocide, but
just they don't wanna hear it.
And the this administration sent 1,000,000,000 to start
World War 3. Well, so did everybody else

(03:06:44):
involved, including all the Republican people. But Trump,
yes, you're right, wasn't in power yet. So
you could argue that one side is clearly,
rightly so, more responsible for that, but the
point is he said he would support it.
So as we go forward, we have to
recognize that that past action statement so far
indicate that it will continue.
So I think it's obvious that this seems
to line up, but I hope I'm wrong
because I don't want this to come to

(03:07:05):
pass. Now Robert put out this article recently,
with over overthrowing Iran on the agenda,
Western media ignore facts to spread propaganda.
Now quickly to go through this, this is
from the 7th Robert wrote this, the point
is to simply highlight
misinformation
everywhere. And if the corporate media does what
it always does and usually,
just reports what Israel says about something or

(03:07:26):
takes an intelligence asset, which is working for
the CIA or whatever else, an interest in
continuing the propaganda around Iran.
Point being, nothing actual provable no provable evidence.
And this case this was about specifically the
German the German government
and it was, what was the point was
I don't remember the specifics. One was the
per the woman this one where she was

(03:07:48):
marching through the street in her underwear, and
everyone tried to make it about some protest.
It turns out she had a mental issue,
and only and the point is that it's
as I think, he worked on the and
wake up show, this is his tweet actually,
geopolitics
and empire, highlights this was weirdly promoted by
all the propagandist elements. The bottom line, agreed
the article. It's undeniably clear that what they're
doing is taking something that you can prove

(03:08:10):
is either unverified or in fact the opposite
of what they're saying. Prove.
And yet they roll with the narrative that
they that was aligned with what Israel wanted
to argue. Now this this one was specifically
the German passport does not provide a p
what was this one? Hold on.
I'm sorry. Off the top of my head,
remember what these vowels read through real quick.

(03:08:30):
Oh, that's right. That's right. So it's interesting
that we're talking about this guy named jazz
Jamshid
Shemad.
And it says in the latest saga of
media
coverage that intends to paint the Iranian government
as uniquely violent and oppressive, the corporate media
is failing to do its job of looking
at even the most basic facts surrounding the
case
before demonizing Tehran, which there's an agenda for.

(03:08:50):
It says although there are certainly issues with
the side Iran, socially and otherwise, these reports
have left out key information.
In late October, the German government decided to
shut down all of its Iranian consulates located
in Frankfurt
in Hamburg and Munich. Berlin's foreign minister
announced that she would seek EU wide sanctions
against Iran, specifically targeting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.
This came in reaction to Iran's execution of

(03:09:13):
a prisoner named Jashid Charmand, who they accused
of leading a terrorist group and of ordering
the 2008 bombing of a mosque. It says
the exotic,
Republic of Iran officially put a red notice
out for him. And the point was he
was, traveling. I'm just trying to cut to
the chase. I'm already I didn't wanna go
over 3 hours today. Too late. I know
you guys always hate when I do that.
I'm always trying to roll it back for

(03:09:34):
how long it goes.
The point was so ultimately the person ended
up being in a different location. The bottom
line, if you I want you to read
this. I just didn't wanna attempt to read
through it right now as you guys all
waited. The point was simply that it misrepresented
what he was doing, what he was responsible
for, and ultimately you can prove that what
they were saying was in fact not true.
All the links are included as usual. It's
not coming from what Iran says. The bottom
line is that they have a track record

(03:09:55):
of aggressively,
consistently
misrepresenting things against their adversaries, which is what
they're known for. Now here's a point from
Decentered News.
CEO Linda Yaccarino says
in response to somebody posting, Hamas has blood,
all terrorists globally.
You're effed. And she says, damn right.
Gerald Celente says, what about the IDF terrorist?

(03:10:17):
Which, of course, no reply. Here's the actual
tweet itself.
It's just kinda crazy. You know, the point
being that first of all, Hamas is funded
up until 2024
by or rather October 7th, 2023
by Israel, provably, without question.
So So that's interesting. But also on top
of that, they're not a terrorist organization in
the context they're being framed as. It's just
not. There's a lot of more nuance, especially

(03:10:39):
with Hezbollah and every and Houthis and the
rest. They're not bad.
Simple.
IRCG, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, they're not terrorists,
guys. That's not the idea of what we
know these to be are not what they're
framing them as. Now are they guilty of
things? I guarantee it, just like the US
military.
But for them to say that they're suddenly
their persona non this is about framing this

(03:11:00):
as Iran. That's what Hamas, Hezbollah, they all
pretend that just means Iran. So we can
see this building.
Damn right. I hear that she says. And
then he goes, how about the IDF terrorists?
Right? Where we can prove these are people
that are committing genocide. There is no better
example of what we would deem terrorists, which
is committing violence to to progress a political
agenda. That's what the actual definition is. Okay?

(03:11:21):
That is what they're doing every single day.
And yet, we won't hear that called out.
Why? Because they're working with the WEF and
ID ADL and all the same problem that
we've discussed
openly,
both Musk and Yaccarino.
So that seems to be coming for sure.
Now, I'm going to ultimately go to the
point about Amsterdam that I wanted to highlight.

(03:11:43):
But I wanted just to simply point out
this idea of free speech.
But we see attacks
by the current administration,
rather specifically the the Trump's administration.
Now, Red puts this out saying Germany has
passed a new law seeking to punish the
criticism of Israel with withdrawal of citizenship.
It's just it's absolutely incredible.
Everything about this. So my point is I

(03:12:05):
see this Trump's pointed out or floated similar
ideas.
Elon Musk has said if you post a
certain flag, you should be deported. I mean,
they but whether they come to pass is
up is hasn't happened yet. But I get
the worry that we're gonna see something like
this come forward.
And this is absolutely
unconstitutional.
Now this point is about

(03:12:26):
corporate media. It's on
basically floating what we always talk about. Moderation
of content. And nobody should be okay with
that. But then, Elon continues to play this
game. Where he goes, the legacy media wants
to destroy your free speech. They're saying it
out loud.
Right.
They're saying we want to moderate your content,
which is I don't agree with that. But
as always, the point should be so too

(03:12:47):
is Yaccarino.
And they're currently doing that. So if we
can acknowledge that, and you're pointing out the
fact that they say they wanna moderate the
speech, that that is, which I agree with,
an undermining of your freedom of speech rights,
well, then how are you not gonna point
out? We obviously know why it's not gonna
happen. The point is they're the same thing.
Both of them are saying moderate your content.
One's currently happening through Elon Musk and Yacarino,

(03:13:10):
which we shouldn't be okay with. And they're
simply saying we need to do that.
So is it that you don't you you
only want your moderation of content and that
they will moderate different content? Well, okay. If
that's the case, then you're okay with some
censorship as long as you agree with it,
which is, guys, we all know that's the
case.
I was shocked by the evidence uncovered by
the house judiciary committee that a group of

(03:13:31):
companies organized a systematic illegal boycott against x.
We're on an open feedback loop
for the advertising
experts in this room
to help
develop Twitter into a place where they will
be excited
about investing more money. Product development,

(03:13:51):
ad safety,
content moderation.
Content
moderation.
That's what the influence is.
That puts your global town square, the one
place that you can express yourself freely and
openly.
We have
built content moderation tools.
Now it goes on. You've seen it before.
And and it's showing you the contradiction between

(03:14:11):
what she says publicly, what she you know,
it or rather what she says currently versus
what they've already done and what they're doing.
It's right on the surface. It's happening right
in front of us, and we all know
it if if we're honest with ourselves. Now,
the tweet that we were showing, Elon Musk
is captioning Dave Rubin, and he's the one
that point he tweeted this out, that they're
coming for your free speech, right, as they're
all actively calling for the censorship of people
that are pro Palestine, which we've already pointed

(03:14:33):
this out. Which on that note, by the
way, this is what I was saying earlier.
Dave Rubin has me blocked.
Which this is the new way it looks,
I guess, because you're still able to see
their content. You can't comment. But guys, I
find this to be actually pretty shocking. Because
first of all, this is a per I
mean, yeah, you can block whoever you want.
That's whatever. And so that's not the point.
But as somebody that the point is simply
that I'm not commenting under his posts. I'm

(03:14:55):
not engaging with his content.
I'm saying whatever I'm saying over here. And
then many times, I have criticized him for
that exact contradiction, which obviously is valid.
Somebody who went around on tours discussing cancel
culture and now is leaning in to the
suppression of people that are absolutely speaking, whether
it's something you hate or not, that absolutely
is protected under free speech. But that's so

(03:15:16):
that's hypocrisy to me. But I've never done
it, and, my point is I just think
that's wrong. But that's it. I'm not I'm
not attacking him. But so what to me
that shows is a lack of being of
of willing to be
did that just disappear? Oh, no. It's right
there. A lack it's it's a it's a
an unwillingness to engage with other, with ideas.

(03:15:38):
I find that wild, especially someone that runs
a local like, a platform that's like locals.
I just think that's pretty crazy. But, you
know, you can do do whatever you want.
But I think it's a strange thing to
do. That means, like, you you you see
what I'm saying and block me because you
don't wanna engage with my ideas? That seems
crazy. That seems like the opposite of what
you'd expect from a journalist or somebody talking
about, you know, any of this stuff. I

(03:15:58):
just I was just surprised to see that.
I think that's crazy.
Now on top of that, guys, let's remember
that Trump has posted many, many, many, many
times just since the re the elections type
dynamic of how he would be willing to
suppress and censor speech for Israel.
Or that Israel should have control over congress,
rightly so, because they have in the past.
All these clips are right here.

(03:16:18):
You guys have all heard these. Or the
idea that he will remove the Jew haters
from the country. Or that the all of
these things are on the record. Now, yes,
we could point out that these things are
something that are argue that anybody who hates
another person because of their religion, because of
their sexual preference, because of anything is a
disgusting person in my mind. But they have
a right to feel how they wanna feel.
They have a right to say what they
wanna say. That's what we actually pretend we

(03:16:39):
believe in this country.
And that the
point of free speech is to fight for
the worst of speech because that's what it
entails,
the right to do so. Because the moment
you start playing games with that is what
we already see happening, where the government sticks
its finger in and says, okay. Fine. So
that's the line. That's hate speech. We'll move
that line as we see fit. And right
now, both sides are advocating the censorship of
hate speech. Both sides.

(03:17:00):
And, really, they're both pointing anti semitism despite
the fact that Trump supporters were called anti
semitic, like, 30 seconds ago. And some of
them still are. Red Hat, you're racist. Right?
It's amazing that we can't see this.
So these bottom ones are important because these
are the clips about how you're stupid
if you
argue free speech. I've made I played both
of these, and I think they're very important
to understand that one back in 2015

(03:17:24):
and one recently,
they're discussing
something that we should care about.
Right? One is about the idea of the
Internet and how if you worry that what
he's saying, which it does, would be an
issue of free speech that you're stupid people.
Because we're losing a lot of people because
of the Internet. And we have to do
something. We have to go see Bill Gates
and a lot of different people

(03:17:45):
that really understand what's happening. We have to
talk to them maybe in certain areas closing
that Internet up in some way. Somebody will
say, oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.
These are foolish people. We have a lot
of foolish people. We have a lot of
foolish people. We've gotta maybe do something with
the Internet.
So the point is, in recently around the

(03:18:06):
flag conversation, he made the same point.
And both of which are very easy to
prove, guys, which is that they are constitutionally
you have it's con what he's saying is
that you don't care about the constitution
in that context,
that this is okay. And the one that
was about burning the flag, which I I
can't seem to grab off right now. I
can't find it for some reason, but you
guys all heard it. He's on the thing

(03:18:28):
right here and he says that if the
we should charge him for a year, go
to jail for a year for wearing the
flag, despite the supreme court ruling roundly that
that's protected under your constitutional rights, and saying
that if you argue that, that you're I
think he said, foolish in one and stupid
in the other.
So he argues you're foolish or stupid if
you acknowledge those are against those are unconstitutional.
I think that is absolutely shocking. And it's

(03:18:49):
not new,
or rather it's not it's it's old and
it's new from then and now. So it's
a consistent opinion that if he doesn't like
it, the constitution doesn't matter. I there there's
no way to misunderstand that.
That scares me.
Now here is a point of the Israel
ambassador for United States. It says the new
Israeli ambassador to the US is an ex

(03:19:09):
member of the organization classified as a right
wing terrorist group by the FBI and also
designated as a hate group by the Southern
Poverty Law Center. Now this should not be
taken from a US context. This is a
larger discussion about and this is Netanyahu's pick.
This is Mar Mariam from 972 Magazine.
His pick for the Israeli ambassador to US
is a former member of the of the
Kayon's Jewish Defense League, West Bank annexation supporter,

(03:19:31):
senior fellow at the Collette Policy Forum, and
first time diplomat. He will represent the radical
settler agenda well to Trump administration.
The point is that this is the ongoing
this is what it looks like to continue
to allow them to think that what they're
doing is okay.
More people in power getting rid of people
that might even be slightly agree like, getting
rid of Gallant because he says that maybe
you should be making a deal. Even though

(03:19:53):
they're all wildly in in in agreeing with
the ultimate agenda. Like, they're
even their own society is calling out the
radical element that is leading their country right
now. And both Trump and Kamala
are leaning were leaning into it and are.
Now, I wanna I'll I'm gonna point out
this really quickly and then we'll go out
the Amish discussion, and we'll and we'll finish

(03:20:14):
there. But this is important thing to consider
before we end with that,
which is that Joe Rogan just put this
out.
He says, well, would you look at that?
Newsweek article says Hamas calls for immediate end
to war after Trump election win.
Now if that if you'd never heard about
this before, you might go, look. See. He's
making a difference already, which is exactly what
Joe is trying to put forward there. Maybe

(03:20:36):
through ignorance. Maybe for some other reason.
What kills me is how ridiculous this is.
As I wrote, Hamas has been calling for
that since the 1st week.
This has been proven by by Herets
and even by I think I forget what
platform. Even by corporate media in the United
States.
On 9th
and the 10th and 10th, I believe,

(03:20:56):
or some of the first two times, they
put forward offers for a complete exchange and
ceasefire.
Net and Yahoo didn't care. Openly ignored it.
Didn't even tell people because they wanted you
to think that they were they didn't want
to be perceived as them not being the
one to stop it. But it's all it's
all come out. And I was like, as
you can see right on the screen, as
Harrettes has covered many times, now Netanyahu

(03:21:17):
has systematically
foiled their talks for releases of hostages
over and over and over. And I'll play
a clip for you next or even BBC
pointing this out. So I simply said, yes.
Hamas has been doing this for the 1st
week,
and Netanyahu has been ensuring
it never happened.
It scares me how people like Joe who
influence huge amounts of opinions

(03:21:38):
either never knew this
and still
don't or lie about it for politics.
Either way, that's terrifying to me because the
the frame is look at that.
Trump's having an effect. No. That's the same
thing that's been going on now being framed
even by supposedly countermedia from the Democrat side
that somehow Trump's having a positive effect. Why?
I'd be thinking because, obviously,

(03:22:00):
the entire establishment's driving us in that direction.
That's what I think. Either way,
this is ridiculous because already it's being framed
as them somehow challenging the new discussions. But
here we have in a Newsweek article in
the midst of it all, updated on 8th,
by the way, trying to frame it as
them wanting this even though the other media
is framing that Hamas refused it.
How do we not see the agenda here?

(03:22:21):
Again, the main point is, Joe Rogan, whether
or not you wanna say frame yourself as
a journalist,
you are influencing more people than any other
conversation.
And and if you're gonna start making point,
you then you have a responsibility to make
sure you understand what you're talking about when
it comes to stuff like this. Trump didn't
have any effect on this. In fact, what
they are doing
in many ways is is continuing the same

(03:22:42):
problem. I really hope that he steps up
and like I said in the beginning,
realizes that he can effectively change my opinion
if he truly does put a stop to
this. Sadly, I don't think that's happening.
So, again, like I just said, here's what's
being posted on 4th. Breaking. Hamas rejected an
Egyptian proposal for 12 day ceasefire blah blah
blah. It's the same thing over and over.

(03:23:02):
Realize that anybody paying attention already knows the
the ad nauseam cycle of this.
Hamas made a point or like, months ago
saying, look. We're done playing this stupid game
where we accept the with the which happened
at least 3 times. We accept the agreement,
and then Israel pretends like they don't want
anymore and blames it on us. It happens
over and over. Israel's made Israeli communities have

(03:23:24):
made that clear. Israeli media have made that
clear. Plenty of US media have made that
clear. Pete it's it's the most obvious part
of the whole conversation. I just showed you
the Heretz article. Systematically
foiled the talks.
So when this happens, the point is simple
that they are saying, we're not playing this
part game where we accept a small four
days for this, for 3 people for that.

(03:23:44):
The whole point is that we want to
end this, and we've given you options more
than once that take the agreement through the
UN and even through the conversation we put
forward. We've already met on the table. We've
already come to an agreement.
This is about playing it to make it
go on forever. That's the point. Israel has
an agenda there. But at the same time,
getting a political win to make it look
like they are getting what they want. Even

(03:24:04):
though they've had the opportunity
many times to bring back every single person
that's there.
They just don't like the consequences of that
which would stop their aggression against Palestinians.
Even that's even what pal what most Israelis
are calling for. Not for Palestinians, but because
they recognize Israel is hurting their own family
members by starving the location. Shocking, I know.

(03:24:24):
Food doesn't go in, nobody gets eaten. Nobody
gets to eat. Right? That includes their hostages.
They all know that. So here's an example
on 4th where they say, well, no. We
want a full exchange, which by the way
was already agreed to. And a ceasefire. Israel
says no. So they refuse
all of their people back. That's the story.
They refuse to take their hostage back, which
they've been offered, for simply stopping a war

(03:24:45):
that's a genocide that everybody acknowledges is a
genocide, including their own people.
That's the truth.
Francesca Albanese points out, as Philip Lazzarini from
the UNRWA is saying, 30 a day. 30
trucks a day is what's going through.
The lies about how they're the ones stopping
food. Have they go, Hamas just doesn't wanna
feed their it's it's absurd.

(03:25:06):
Israel has been systematically
starving them, systematically
sabotaging talks, maintaining the the same old things,
and
starving children we see every single day in
Gaza.
As well as the fact and this is
said what the one from, even before that,
on the first, where this guy goes breaking.

(03:25:26):
Hamas rejected a ceasefire deal, which includes 30
days. You see this? 3 days later, they
support rejected another one.
My point is that I don't even think
Hamas in many cases are even this is
just the US and Israel batting around new
ideas, putting it out in the air, and
then with no and Hamas continues to say
no. We've already made our statement. They go,
they didn't deny it.
No. You continue to deny the only deal

(03:25:47):
that anybody wants. All of them back for
the end of the war. That's it. And
they keep saying no. And every time it
gets framed even by Western media that they're
the ones stopping it, even though even Israeli
media continues to tell us that it's Netanyahu's
fault.
Here's a clip from BBC. As Khaleesi says,
astonishing. It's now being reported that Netanyahu's office
leaked and fabricated documents to undermine a ceasefire.

(03:26:08):
How much evidence do we truly need to
see?
These were documents that were given to 2
European newspapers. 1, the Jewish Chronicle in London
and build
in Germany, and these came out around September.
Now
they were seen as being very helpful to
the the narrative, the political position of Israeli
prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Now to explain the

(03:26:29):
context in which this all happened, on the
1st September, it was announced that 6 of
the hostages held by Hamas in Gaza had
been killed, had been murdered. And there was
outrage and outcry of despair in this country
about not just the death, but the failure
of the government to get a hostage deal.
Now shortly after that,
the prime minister started to say that there
were fears, there were there was intelligence that

(03:26:51):
the hostages could be smuggled out of Gaza,
the remaining hostages smuggled out, and into Egypt.
Now on 5th
of September, a report was published in the
Jewish Chronicle newspaper by a writer called Elon
Perry, which said secret intelligence documents,
and said that this was part of the
plan. On the next day, on 8th or
2 days later,

(03:27:12):
in build, a similar report came. That was
on the 6th, I should say. And they
started to build a narrative around the idea
that it wasn't gonna be possible to do
a hostage deal. And it's seen at the
time that those were very useful to the
prime minister. He amplified those reports, and what
it's emerged is that shortly after that, an
investigation was begun into how these documents had
got out. That led then led to the

(03:27:34):
arrest of a man called Eli Feldstein. This
was only announced yesterday.
And that man, Eli Feldstein, was a spokesperson
for the prime minister's office. There were 3
other people who've been arrested as well. We
haven't had their names released. But what it's
emerged has happened or it's being alleged has
happened is that somebody within the prime minister's
office was involved in allegedly leaking secret documents,

(03:27:55):
some of which were indeed fabricated
to international newspapers in order to to build
a a case that was useful to the
prime minister. The the families have been outraged.
They said that if true, this shows that
they've been used as political pawns. They've been
criticized,
in order to scupper a deal, and to,
put forward the agenda of mister Netanyahu. Now

(03:28:17):
it's been alleged by many people. I was
just speaking just a moment ago to a
leading commentator here who says it's widely considered
that mister Netanyahu doesn't want to do a
deal because him, as soon as peace happens,
he might be forced from office, which is
something he's clearly keen to avoid. And this
is a public conversation. It's open. It's everywhere.
Most of their society says this, and yet
we can't reconcile this in this country. We

(03:28:39):
can't look past the propaganda. I guess not.
Not not in the mainstream discussion, not in
the team sport politics discussion. I argue most
of you outside of that are aware of
this.
Why and why that's not enough to mobilize
change? I mean, I get we see how
this is controlled.
It's right. It's everywhere.
Here is s all rod pointing out that
member Biden officials have been telling you for
6 months that the obstacle to ceasefire was

(03:29:01):
Hamas.
Well, clearly not. After his firing, Glantz tells
hostage families Netanyahu needlessly keeps keeping IDF in
Gaza.
It's all right in front of us, guys.
And if you think Trump is going to
not is going to do something different,
everything on the table shows otherwise. I hope
so. Like I said, that would change my
mind. But everything he's already put forward, the

(03:29:22):
money he's taken for support, I find it
really hard to believe anything will change. Mohammed
Safa points out this this he he says
this needs to be on every front page.
The journalists and doctors in Gaza right now
are telling them that they haven't eaten in
days.
That's what it looks like to manufacture an
ongoing famine by not bringing in any enough
food to feed the people that were already
food insecure when this started because then of

(03:29:43):
policies from yours from before. All of this
is easily proven.
Elizabeth
Hackdorn points out something interesting. Apparently, this is
a state department correspondent
saying they're hearing Turkey and Iran
or the she's, I'm hearing Turkey and Iran
seen as most likely dead destinations for exiled
Hamas officials, where it says scoop Cutter has
conveyed to Hamas representatives on their soil, you're

(03:30:05):
no longer welcome here. Isn't this interesting?
As here's even the, Jerusalem Post saying after
Hamas rejection of hostage deal, which again, it's
not actually what happened. US asked Cutter to
expel the group. How interesting is that? And
also, how interesting that the state department recorder
leaves that first part out?
Interesting.
The state department asked them. The US government

(03:30:25):
asked them to expel them. Why is that?
Maybe because it's a huge sticking point to
how obvious the agenda is. The reality that
they've allowed the
evil terrorist organization to literally work out of
Qatar that's part of the the the conversate
the one of the mediators for the the
hostage deal.
And then, well, the fact that we can
prove that Israel has been funding them for
decades.

(03:30:45):
How stupid is all this?
And and now and now they're asking them
to move them, and okay. We'll move them?
I mean, come on, guys. This is so
obvious. To me, this is about trying to
engineer some kind of shift for Donald Trump's
administration. That's what it feels like to me.
Suddenly, everything's changing. I lost out of the
way, bro. I mean, I that's my opinion.
I can't prove I don't know for sure
what their thought process is, but this is

(03:31:07):
an illusion. It's a very blatant manipulation. They've
allowed this to be the case for a
very long time.
And it as this one I'll bring up
specifically since it says states the aspect of
it. We've showed you this along with the
clips of former Israeli Shin Bet and,
members of, and and prime ministers
openly stating that they gave $1,500,000,000

(03:31:27):
in cash and suitcases to Hamas. It's all
on the record.
Not for aid, because you can't buy aid
with cash in Gaza. It's the obvious point.
It's why it gets shipped in. Here is
the Masaad chief visiting Qatar, urging them to
continue aiding Hamas. That's from 2020.
It's all public stuff. It's crazy. People ignore
this.
So I genuinely think that this is

(03:31:49):
engineering something to look different to maintain the
same agenda.
Lastly, I'll include this, but I'm gonna go
quickly.
A UN report came out,
continuing to show everything we know. On the
and it came out today. 6 month update.
And if you quickly cut to the chase,
you can go through it. It's all damning.
Starting with just killing of civilians. It simply
says, the verification with the the they ultimately

(03:32:11):
it's very difficult to see to find it
because of all the rubble and everything else,
but nevertheless, verification continued with the number of
killings verified by the UN by September 2nd,
standing at 8,119
civilians killed in Palestine. That's what they're saying.
And that's that's just what they can prove
right now. I guarantee you it's more than
that. 8,000.

(03:32:31):
These are not people that were tied to
the legs of Hamas. These were individuals killed
in buildings, shot in the head, crazy,
including
2,000 over 2,000 women and almost 30 over
35100
children.
Of these verified figures, 7,607
were killed in residential buildings or similar housings,
out of which 44%
were children.

(03:32:52):
This is just the very first bullet point,
guys. You can go through all these. We
look at the top.
We're talking about killing civilians,
key trends from, fatalities verified, use of human
shields. This is about Israel, guys. That's what
we're talking about. Use of white phosphorus.
I don't know how this continues to be
ignored.
Abby Martin just simply sums it up with

(03:33:14):
the point from BBC, which is what that
comes from.
Nearly 70%
of people dead in Gaza are women and
children.
Nearly 70%.
Quote, the ages most were represented
among the dead were 5 to 9 year
olds.
Because it makes me sick that we're all

(03:33:34):
that so many pretend this is not exactly
what it looks like.
Now to end in general,
the point about Amsterdam,
which is a title today, Zionist lies. Right?
That's what this is it's it's overwhelmingly
obvious. Now war monitor points this clip, which
seems to lean in one very clear direction,
showing a what appears to be an Israeli

(03:33:55):
based on the context, saying, I'll give you
my money, and there's people shouting Palestine, but
ultimately saying, you're killing children. Now the point
is without any context, it appears like somebody
muscling and threatening for Palestine. Right? But when
you find out the truth of the story,
which come from the police that were there
and ever why these people were
chanting racist things, threatening to kill children, beating

(03:34:15):
people up because of Palestinian flags, and then
guess what? Somebody responded.
Somebody fought back. Somebody decided to punch them
because they were doing I mean, the it's
and the framing is they're going after the
Jews. In fact, there is a pogrom. Well,
it it is so shockingly dishonest
that it simply has to show you, 1,
how dishonest they are. But 2, that if
you have to make these things up, there's

(03:34:36):
a reason. It shows you the reality.
And this person broke this down. It's just
one person's opinion, by the way, and then
from the location, but this is pretty much
the obvious opinion based on all the evidence.
He says, I live in Amsterdam. The Zionist
of Maccabi, where this is the team or
the the grouping we're discussing, this is one
of the that it was at a a
soccer match. It's saying that they were terrorizing

(03:34:57):
our streets yesterday before the match. They attacked
Muslim homes, Muslim taxi drivers. The videos were
viral. You could see all this. I have
many of them lined up here in Amsterdam.
And one day later, young Muslim people took
revenge against these hooligans, and now they're playing
victim.
And more than that, by the way, the
day it happened, you can show examples of
this going on, but it says Dutch media
already confirmed 3 days ago that Mossad agents

(03:35:19):
were traveling
to this location.
It's right here. This is The Jerusalem Post.
Mossad agents to join the Maccabi Tel Aviv
FC trip to Amsterdam. Oh, gee. Is it
not certainly possible to consider whether the Mossad
agents who
through through deception, thou thou shalt quit war
or whatever their their tagline actually is? That
maybe they decided to engineer one of these

(03:35:40):
events which give them more influence and control.
Look at how it's reverberating through the conversation.
High missing it's it's covering up everything.
At if you're not at least willing to
consider this based on what you already know
they've done and can prove,
you're lying to yourself. Or you're rather deceiving
yourself based on
I mean, these people
in every possible way. I mean, it's like

(03:36:00):
seeing the CIA in different context. We know
this is what they're capable of.
As a second source, again, this is the
one I just highlighted. The article says 3
days ago that they and they say they're
this one this person's arguing was staged by
Mossad to provoke them
for you to consider.
Now here's what I find most important. You
can verify all of this. This is from
a Hebrew source. You can link it right
there. The Amsterdam police commissioner opens the press

(03:36:22):
conference and explains the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans
were attacked
or rather, they they attacked a a taxi
driver and set the Palestine flag on fire.
It says Zionists are furious and that he's
telling the truth. This is her comment. The
the the it says, man, the the bottom
line is they're ultimately angry that the police
are admitting or telling you that that's not
how it went down.

(03:36:43):
Now here's an interesting clip of or rather
video. Her it says brawl in front of
Amsterdam Central Station. So this woman posted this,
not not saying
people rushing after Jews. Right? Simply saying that
the people are fighting. And you can prove
that a lot of this is not even
in the context they're framing it as today.
And guess what? Here's an example of this
guy who we've already highlighted for you many

(03:37:04):
times, Yael Yakobie,
lying to you.
Blatantly taking something that she posted
and just naming it something else.
And it's right here for you. It says,
breaking Middle East migrants continue to hunt down
Jews in the streets of Amsterdam.
Where are the police? Well, the police are
the ones telling you that you're lying about
that, by the way.

(03:37:25):
And she goes, I'm the creator of this
video.
1, you're spreading fake news. This is a
group of Maccabi supporters
starting a fight and beating 1 Dutch man.
2, delete the content I didn't give you
permission, which he doesn't care about.
Think about how wild that is, and it's
very easy to prove.
So here and now that's the same one.

(03:37:46):
So here is
cuts to news network saying what happened. Israeli
media is calling it a new holocaust against
Zionism. Think about what think think about make
the the nerve to state this while you're
committing a genocide,
committing a holocaust as we speak,
that everyone in the world can see, and
you stand up to say, look at this,
what happened over here, as you can prove
that your own supporters were the ones trying

(03:38:08):
to goad this into reality.
It says the match well, just for instant
time, you can read through all this. Here
here is in a clip. And this we
just talked about the Spanish flood, the the
people that died, as Tiberias was highlighting, or
they're making fun of them. Well, here's another
example. We were just talking about this. There
was a moment of silence for the people
from Spain that died.
Guess what? The Zionist grouping, and they were

(03:38:30):
screaming, shooting off fireworks. You can hear it.
And this is everyone who documented this.
Think about the nerve.
Why? Because Spain put pulled away from Israel.
So now you're gonna cheer for their people
that die? That shows you the kind of
lack of humanity we're discussing here. Not of
Jews or Israelis in particular, but people that
support Zionism in this case, or just anybody

(03:38:52):
that feels that way. But during the match,
the Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were chanting anti
Arab slogans. You can listen to them right
here. Under police protection, by the way, and
attack Palestinian flags.
There's so much evidence. It's incredible. Everyone people
documenting this. It says the provocations escalated when
Israeli fans took down a Palestinian flag from
a local resident's house in Amsterdam.

(03:39:15):
It says local residents responded,
leading to physical altercations.
Also, I'll play some clips of opinions about
this. The point being that, look, when if
you if the game is that you're gonna
constantly scream racist comments, attack people, and the
moment somebody has the nerve to fight back
that you start claiming they're racist and this
is a holocaust and you're the victim.
I mean, think about how insulting that is
to start.

(03:39:36):
And the reality being that this is how
you manufacture an illusion, but there it's desperate.
If it's so obvious that you know people
are filming this, you know that you can
see, but you just lie about it anyway.
Why? Because people like Tom Cotton and other
US government entities being funded by APAC come
out and lie about it.
And sometimes it works.
But here's what's interesting. Several Israeli rioters were

(03:39:57):
beaten, 10 were injured, and it says some
reportedly missing.
So in no way am I endorsing violence
or the fact that somebody might have been
kidnapped. But what I am pointing out is
that when you like, you know how they
love to say f around and find out?
Well, there you go.
Nobody should be going, yay. They got hurt.
I don't think that that just again, that
just shows that you're,

(03:40:18):
in a way, the same.
Even if they deserve it, I'd like to
believe we can on our humanity and argue
that we don't want to fall to that
law that low. But I know we all
have our weak moments. My point is that
this is what happens when you poke you
poke the bear in the eye. When you're
around screaming people's faces, you know, someone's gonna
fight back.
Now it says the Israeli government has announced
plans to evacuate the affected individuals. Now they're

(03:40:40):
even they're, like I'll show you next. They're
even getting, like, the situation room, and I
they're gonna roll this into some major thing.
I can already see it happening. Now it
says one of the Israeli rioters involved in
the incident while identified as a soldier in
the Israeli army. Oops.
So here we are at a point where
you can prove Mossad was there. You have
an Israeli army entity that was part of
it. How are we not piecing this together?
Again, the point is we are. Many people

(03:41:01):
don't want to see it.
Local residents now as well, realize, like, with
the Lebanon point, this is what it looks
like to be outside of your control, but
it like like with Lebanon, it's not Gaza.
People are filming. People can prove there are
no tunnels. So you're getting caught in real
time. This is the same point.
People are around. They're filming what you're doing.
This is so desperate that they don't care.

(03:41:23):
But in real time, immediately, you're being shown
that you're lying.
And the politicians out there don't care.
Local residents in Amsterdam reacted angrily to the
provocations, and you can watch the videos where
they're fighting, beaten up, people that are staying
whatever the 2 of them. The Macabre Tel
Aviv fans were pursued by local populations. Now
this is where they cut in and go,
look, they're chasing Jews around the area. No.

(03:41:43):
No. No. They're not chasing Jews. They're chasing
aggressive people that were goading them into reaction.
Whether they're Jews or Israelis or not, they
happen to be Israeli.
The point is it goes on to say
British media outlets Daily Mail criticize the Israeli
fans for their provocative behavior, holding them responsible
for their unrest. Israeli football hooligans tear down
Palestine flags. Oops.

(03:42:03):
I guess they didn't get this the marching
orders before they put that article out.
Bottom line, you get what's going on.
Daniel Lemodas points out that regarding the Amsterdam
incident, additionally, the Israeli antisemitism
task force has published a document where they
seem to have known about the clashes or
at least the possibility of it. You know
why? Because this is how they usually run.

(03:42:25):
They come out and say, we we had
to deploy Assad because of how much they
hit the Jews. Well, no. You did that
because you like to point to that as
the justification or, I guess, the proof that
they're in risk. But all that it's like
the woman that they at the in the
concert or the, the contest,
who they had people walking around with their
bodyguards. Well, just because you put bodyguards with

(03:42:45):
her is not proof that she was at
risk.
The the truth is you could prove that
she was not. But they point to the
bodyguards to be like, see? That's we could
tell. She was in danger. No. This is
it's it's a self fulfilling prophecy. So they
sent them there either to manufacture the event
or to give the guys that it was
necessary. In either case, you could see that
they were already aware of this. It says
that means they knew such an incident was

(03:43:05):
going to take place, which gave them enough
time to prepare for the media propaganda attack.
Either way, you could look at it how
you want.
Farock points out that some BBC accurate reporting.
It says some Maccabi fans looking for a
fight, witnesses tell BBC.
It's saying, I spoke to a fan who
reports seeing Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters on Amsterdam
Metro going up and down the carriages 3

(03:43:25):
or 4 times looking for a fight.
Coron Dalton tells me, I felt worried. Everyone
was going to the city, so everyone knew
what was going to happen. He adds that
it is shocking by the portrayal of the
incident, the media, adding the attacks were completely
provoked, and Palestinian flags were torn down right
before it they were down torn down the
night before.
See how lazy and clumsy it all is?

(03:43:46):
It's all right there if you just care.
Even more crazy, it turns out that they've
done this before.
In March, Maccabi Tel Aviv,
football hooligans jumped and beat an Arab in
Athens.
The here's the video circulated widely. Now this
is posted on 7th, but he and this
person goes liar. Well, here's the video from
March 7th. So you're a liar. There this

(03:44:08):
is from March 7th, and, yes, it's in
Athens, Greece. And, yes, this is what happened.
It's all documented. This is from a Hebrew
Hebrew account.
Now here's a a larger post about the
whole thing saying pro Israeli hooligans attack man
carrying Palestinian flag in Greek capital. This is
from that point from before.
Richard Sanders, Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were filmed,
as you can prove in a 1000 ways,

(03:44:29):
chanting racist,
genocidal slogans. Things that'll make you sick.
Things that I'll play the clips for you.
Things like there's no schools left in god.
There's no schools left in Gaza because all
the children are dead. Things like that. Like
gleefully chanting these things. Think about what kind
of person take to do that.
It says they were also reportedly attacking local
Muslims. For the BBC to fail to mention

(03:44:49):
this in their reporting is disgraceful. Now they
actually added it. You can go the way
back machine proved that they didn't have it
first, but they did ant they did add
the chanting. They did. Anti Arab slogans.
So at least they opportunism.
Recognizing that it's more in their interest now
to go along with the truth than to
a gaslight for Israel. That's a shift, guys.

(03:45:10):
At least that's how I see it. But
you can go through, see all this. You
can see how Twitter is misrepresenting the information.
You know, it's this is how it works.
It's constant, and you can see how Twitter
plays a role.
Megatron says the Jerusalem Post has already reported
that Mossad is going to be in Israel,
which we just showed you before.
Now here's an interesting point. Israel genocide tracker

(03:45:31):
reveals that Israeli reservist, Ilav Klein, served in
the Galani battalion, which is one of the
worst
in the Gaza genocide and the invasion of
Southern Lebanon. He was involved
in the riots in Macau e Tel Aviv.
So now we have two examples of you
of Israeli military
being present.
You cannot pretend this is not clear.

(03:45:52):
This is you're the world
is being gamed by the Zionist aggression. And
your government, left and right,
absolutely a part of it.
And then we had this one I showed
you before, one of the troop the Israeli
military. So here's some clips I wanna play
for you. This is just a couple of
reactions I thought were interesting. Here's one of
the guys Orwell shows with me. This is
one kid reacting and another guy kinda making

(03:46:13):
a point about street justice.
The incident with the Maccabee Tel Aviv fans
in Amsterdam is only getting more insane because
last night, they were targeted
after their horrendous behavior.
And instead of maybe considering why UEFA let
a country which is currently committing genocide and
ethnic cleansing against Palestinians

(03:46:36):
and whose football league is filled with racist
teams who pride themselves on not employing Arabs.
Well, instead of dealing with that, of course,
Zionists and Western media are pretending that this
is somehow similar to the extermination
of Jewish people in Europe in the 19
thirties and forties. And I am sorry. This

(03:46:57):
is ridiculous and it diminishes the legacy of
these horrors because these people were not targeted
on the basis of their Jewishness.
They were targeted because Maccabee Tel Aviv fans
are violent hooligans
who were rampaging
through the streets of Amsterdam,
attacking people, tearing down flags, chanting about there
being no children and schools left in Gaza,

(03:47:20):
saying let the IOF win so they can
fuck the Arabs and other just horrors. These
people need to be banned from international football.
The blame is squarely
Now I'm not calling for that. Right? I
mean, as much as it's disgusting, they have
a right to say what they want. My
point is simply that we need to recognize
the origin point. Right? The actual catalyst, the

(03:47:41):
ones that were the aggressor.
It's pretty common, right, that we recognize this,
and then it gets the play the victim,
you're a racist card, which does exist. But
clearly, we can see how Zionists use that
to manipulate the conversation.
With UEFA, this isn't some anti Semitic outburst
against Jewish people that came from nowhere.

(03:48:02):
This comes from the racism which permeates Israeli
society
and the way in which this spills over
whenever Israelis travel to other countries. And as
I say, UEFA is to blame because this
isn't even the first incident with Maccabee Tel
Aviv fans. In March this year, they beat
a Palestinian
man unconscious

(03:48:22):
in Athens before their game with Olympiacos.
And yet, instead of dealing with them, UEFA
lets this group of people who celebrate
genocide and violently attack those who oppose it,
continue going around Europe to do more celebration
and then expect people not to react. This
is farcical and ridiculous. And the way in

(03:48:44):
which it is being framed, as I say,
is just disgusting.
Here's another one. This guy, as as Orwell
points out, the streets have quicker judicial process.
Here's what he had to say about this.
I don't know who needs to hear this,
but
nobody cares that you're Jewish.
Like, nobody cares. In fact, all of the

(03:49:04):
super Jews on Bluetick Twitter that it's speaking
about pogroms in Amsterdam right now. Bro, if
you didn't tell me you was Jewish,
I wouldn't have known you was Jewish. I
would have just thought you was any Becky
or Tom or Glenda.
Now that I do know that you're Jewish,
I still don't give a fuck.
Bro, this is not Russia in the 1800.
Like, fucking relax.

(03:49:25):
There's 15,000 Jews that live in Amsterdam. They
seemed fine until some Israeli hooligans showed up,
started ripping down Palestine flags, chanting death to
Arabs, abusing cab drivers, refusing to observe a
moment of silence for the Valencia flood victims,
saying shit like there are no schools left
in Gaza because there are no children left
in Gaza. Turns out, when you spend a
year making your national anthem, may your village

(03:49:46):
burn, somebody's gonna knock your teeth out. Because
unlike the ICC and the ICJ,
the streets have a quicker judicial process.
Naftali Bennett isn't his feelings because some Israelis
got hurt. The same guy who said about
Gaza, he who does not mow the grass,
the grass mows him.
Ain't got shit to do with being Jewish.
It's because you're supporting

(03:50:06):
a state that is currently in court for
genocide.
Israel has killed a 120,000 Palestinians, and these
Zionists on Twitter are upset
that some avocados are damaged.
How antisemitic.
Fucking get over yourself.
You guys wanna be oppressed so bad, Ben
Shapiro was over here wriggling out of identifying

(03:50:27):
as a white man. Do you do you
not agree that you were a white man?
I mean, I think that it depends on
on the context in which you're discussing it.
So what are you, Ben? Are you not
a white guy? I mean, I'm I'm a
man of Jewish ethnicity, which
I frankly don't care what Ben Shapiro has
to say. I think what's important
is the idea
again, you know, if I I apologize to
cursing. I forgot about that if I run
back over here. The point is that ultimately,

(03:50:51):
in a context where people are acting out,
in some cases, whether it's justified or not,
people will respond. Especially today where people are
tired.
Tired of being lied to and played and
forced and coerced. You know what? Sometimes, if
you're so if especially when you're even maybe
even personally involved, like Robert and Lukesh, and
you walk around and start chanting about dead
children, you know what? Somebody's gonna knock you

(03:51:11):
out. That is how this is gonna work.
And the point is at the end of
the day, whether you believe in violence or
not, you understand that that's the way the
world can work. And and to suddenly reel
back and act like you're the victim, well,
you well, everybody in the area, everyone in
the stadium could see what you were doing.
I mean, think about the hubris. Think about
the the the
lack of under I mean, what's the right

(03:51:33):
word to put on that? Like, the look,
you're you're
somehow of the mind that you think that
you can get away with that. The the
the the fault the impunity you think you
have that you don't anymore.
I just think that's important to recognize. Like
that's so clear.
Things have changed. And nonetheless, this is what
you're seeing. And this is what I think
is one of the most alarming. Whoops, dang

(03:51:53):
it, just closed that. One of the most
alarming parts of this
is you got the typical
Israeli side of it first, the Emily Schrader's
horrifying scenes in Amsterdam of attempted lynching of
Jews by terrorist supporters. Are you kidding me?
Like, you you know that she's aware of
all the information. She is such a despicable
liar. Like, just flat out willfully disdisseating people

(03:52:16):
knowing that what she's sharing is false.
I mean, that. You think you wanna know
what makes Jews unsafe? Fat.
It's incredible.
And as propaganda co says, Israelis are in
Amsterdam singing racist songs of extermination that include
lyrics like, let the IDF win to f
the Arabs and there's no school. Same thing
we keep hearing. Because it's all on record.

(03:52:37):
You can watch the videos. In response, they're
getting beat
up. Now now they're crying about it. Cry
more.
Right? I'm not trying to downplay acts of
violence or the idea that there's a crime
either. The bottom line is it's action and
reaction. The effort on to find out is
a perfect example to see.
And yet you get people like her that
will come out or maybe by design, high
high fiving the masson operation. But the point

(03:52:59):
is that it's working in some context.
Right? Same thing. She posts this. Duchy says,
not Jews, Israelis.
They quite literally attacked a bunch of Israeli
app a holes burning a Palestinian flag and
talking s h I t. Stop hiding
your bad behavior behind anti semitism. That's all
they're doing, and the world sees it.
She actually followed up by saying more footage

(03:53:21):
of the pogrom in Amsterdam, of 100 of
Arab terror support terror supporters? I mean, how
ridiculous, how ludicrous.
Most of these people were simply at the
game or at the location and were reacting
to them.
Not that, how do you even know they
all support Palestine or through that are terror
supporters? I think it's just so lazy.

(03:53:42):
But we're seeing, I mean, what else are
you gonna do? They're desperate.
They're
I guarantee
you, they see what's changing and that scares
them. I hope it does. Here's Elon Levy,
mister irrelevant coming back into play. And he
says the Israeli National Security Council is urging
Israelis in Amsterdam, don't go outside, Shut yourself
in your hotel rooms. Cover up signs that

(03:54:03):
you're Jewish. Get outside. They are manufacturing
this.
And my point is this actually does cause
a thing. People are gonna think it's real.
They're gonna lock themselves in their homes. They
may even respond in violence thinking that that
might be what's happening. It's not.
They are desperately trying to cause this. And
I guarantee you're gonna hear comments. You've already

(03:54:24):
seen some. I'll show you a couple of
them from Republicans
and Democrats who are desperately supporting Israel for
no reason. In fact, at at the not
just the expense of Americans, at the expense
of everybody.
Here he is in the situation room.
Foreign we're talking about a soccer batch where
people were got where they got in a
fight. People got beat up because they were

(03:54:45):
respond I mean, you pull out the context.
It's this happens all the time at at
football matches, soccer matches.
But here we are in a situation room
briefed on what's being done on locating those
that have been caught. So you're they I
could almost sense right now, and I hope
I'm wrong, this is gonna be ramped into
something alarming.
Some like, okay. Here's an interesting point. So
we're talking about and I don't know if
this is even what really happened in the

(03:55:07):
context of people being taken or missing. Right?
They may have just run away and never
been contacted. But let's just say somebody did
get taken, or at least that's what they
put forward. Are we now gonna talk about
bombing inside Amsterdam because they've got hostages? Uh-oh.
Isn't that the same point? Okay. What's the
logical difference here? You're talking and you're even
calling them terror supporters. Right? Okay. So now
you've got random Amsterdam football people who have

(03:55:29):
taken somebody, if that's the case, or the
narrative is.
And you simply say, well, okay. We know
he's in that building full of innocent people.
Well, how is it different from Gaza? You've
already shown us that the logic is you
can murder everybody in the building because he's
a human shield. They've taken him. They've got
him in a tunnel down
there. Can you imagine what would happen if
they literally bombed an entire building full of
people in Amsterdam under the guise that they

(03:55:49):
have in Israeli that they probably killed when
they did that? That's Gaza for you.
I I mean, shockingly, I would that would
not even surprise me today. But what's crazy
about it is that it would people would
deal with it differently. The western world would
react differently. Now, why? What's different about innocent
Palestinian children and women and innocent pal people
people in Amsterdam?

(03:56:11):
Nothing other than the narrative.
All I wanna highlight for you is the
alarming nature of how that could become this,
and the fact that it should be seen
as the same thing even though it wouldn't
be.
Now here is Bari Weiss as you can
expect, calling it a pogrom because she's lazy
because they're pro they're wild Zionist pro Israel

(03:56:31):
blind reporters pretending to be journalists.
Viole Klompas doing the same thing she always
does. Once again, Jews can't walk safely through
streets of Europe. Well, whether Jews are not,
it's because of what they were doing.
And this person says, a pogrom, go f
yourself. She says, I'm Jewish and live in
the Netherlands, and I am proud to see
the complete and total rejection of fascist Nazi
Zionism in our streets. There is an actual

(03:56:54):
Zionist holocaust against Palestine right now. And per
usual, Zionists are committed to the playing playing
the victim.
Here's Israeli war room. Actually, I wonder where
they're getting the talking points from. What do
you think? Going, hey, New York Times. We
fixed your headline. They love to play the
game back even though they do it terribly.
And the point is the actual headline was
violent violence tied to soccer game prompts dozens

(03:57:15):
of arrest in Amsterdam.
For actually, a somewhat accurate title, and they
change it to violent, which answers so they're
so bad at this. There's so many different
ways you could have made this written out.
This is this is funny to actually to
point that out. Just, you know, it's like
the left camp meme or the Israel can't
propagandize.
It says violent violent
anti semitic pogrom prompts Israeli rescue mission to

(03:57:36):
Amsterdam.
Rescue mission? Guys, they're already floating this as
if they need to go into Amsterdam and
take out their hostages like another Gaza.
This is absolutely terrifying.
After terrorists lynched Jews who were dead to
them, they're
just making this up from whole cloth.
Here's Natalia Bennett. It seems like a planned
organized pogrom. Are you kidding me?

(03:57:57):
So not only can you lie about the
app, the basic facts, you're gonna roll this
into some kind of a plan. Where would
you even maybe because you planned it. Because
Mossad was coming and you knew you talked
about the possibility through
but the reactive nature of this is right
on display. It's filmed.
But they're desperate to turn this into something
they can use. They probably realize we can

(03:58:17):
use this if it wasn't organized from the
start.
But here's Tom Cotton.
My point is it's obvious where they're getting
their talking points from. He goes, I strongly
condemn the pogrom that took place.
I mean, guys, this is so insulting in
every way. Even to actual pogroms. Even to
actual people that were suffering through them, whether
Jew or otherwise.

(03:58:38):
An organized massacre of a particular
ethnic group. A massacre?
Has anybody even died?
Do You realize how irresponsible it is for
people like Condu? But they know it. They
don't care. They are not on your side.
They are not America first, guys. Not even
remotely.
And he says, that took place in Amsterdam
last night, and I urge the Dutch authorities
to take swift action against pro Hamas

(03:59:00):
perpetrators.
K. This is the new war on terror
dynamic. They're using this as somehow this ubiquitous
idea even though we're literally talking about an
Israeli funded group that exists only in Gaza.
But yet, it's worldwide. And all they're pointing
to now are Palestinian
supporters.
And they're making it out to be terrorists.
And by their logic, they can bomb anywhere

(03:59:20):
they are, apparently.
It says the Biden administration should send a
clear message to Jews around the world that
America has their back.
Terrifying.
Not because that shouldn't be the case for
any group of Americans or otherwise, but because
that's not what's happening. Here's congressman Mike Lauer
using this guy who has already been caught
lying about this exact dynamic. Middle Eastern migrants

(03:59:42):
now breaking into hotels searching for Israelis.
Oh, is that what's happening? Seeing as how
we have zero context and it's a 9
second film, what it actually is is a
bunch of soccer hooligans breaking into a building.
That's it. I've already backed this up with
somebody. This is ridiculous.
But you have to make it about middle
eastern migrants breaking into hotels searching for Jews.
He says, horrified by the news out of

(04:00:02):
Amsterdam. We must ensure that our Jewish brothers
and sisters here in the United States are
protected. What is what do you mean the
United States? Like it's gonna roll into some
worldwide effect?
You don't see the desperation on everything they're
doing?
George Galloway says, I have a large extended
family in Amsterdam.
The Maccabi the I think it's Maccab. Well,
I forgot how they say it a second
ago. I forget. Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, 1,000

(04:00:24):
of them came for a rampage.
Tearing down flags, singing genocidal songs, chanting death
to Arabs during the the minute of silence
for the the Valencia and and random harassing
local Muslims. There are verifiable facts.
These are facts. Zombie media are lying even
about this, even though ample video evidence

(04:00:46):
is available.
It's incredible to me. Melissa Lotzeman says the
scenes from the streets of Amsterdam tonight are
absolutely horrific. This is what globalizing tifada looks
like. Nope. Not even remotely.
Resist.
The idea that you could argue that somehow
their reaction to their violence is the I
mean, it's desperate,

(04:01:07):
clumsy overlapping of the narrative of Israel for
the interest of Israel's Zionist agenda, and that's
it. And they're willing to sacrifice
everything.
This is a member of parliament,
Canada.
It says, don't look the other way. Watch
the footage. Stand yeah. Watch the footage. Apparently,
she has not because it's obvious what's actually
happening. She's watching 9 second clips that are
taken out of context.

(04:01:28):
As Scott Ritter points out, excuse me. The
scenes from Gaza and Beirut are horrible.
Genocide is a crime. Holding Nazis accountable is
not. Well, you could argue that even acting
against violence when somebody deserves it would still
technically, in some context, be a crime, but
I would still argue they deserve it. And
he says stop committing genocide. Absolutely.
Robert Enlakash, who's, by the way, writing an
article. I I imagine he'll be writing by

(04:01:49):
tomorrow for this exact topic. He says it's
telling that the media is giving more coverage
to Israelis beaten up in Amsterdam
than Palestinian and Lebanese civilians being slaughtered by
Israel, being burned alive and starved to death,
I'll add.
What an absolute joke.
He says not only the lies about what
led to the violence in Amsterdam, but the
racist double standards

(04:02:12):
everywhere.
Lastly,
because of it, happened yesterday. Guess what? Eunice
Rausch is already documenting
posts they're
doing. Here is what we're doing because of
Amsterdam.
So they go
arguably by an agenda with Mossad present and
literally coax people into violent action.
And then when they get beaten up for

(04:02:32):
it, they feel embarrassed, and so they go
and they murder people in Gaza.
And they literally state that. They post what
they're doing, and we still pretend like we
can't see what's happening.
We dedicate this explosion to all the fans
of Akkabi Tel Aviv. We'll get all of
you
sons of sons of BICH.
I just can't get past how obvious this

(04:02:53):
is.
They're posting it.
Saying we're murdering people. We're bombing homes for
you.
Even though we know they start I mean,
it's just it's it's overwhelming, guys.
Now, I'm gonna end with this clip.
As we already posted this out or we
pointed this out recently, he was arrested. Right?
This is a Jewish academic in the in
the UK under charges of terrorism

(04:03:14):
for supporting
Gaza in a speech.
I'm gonna play that speech for you right
now.
You'll be you'll understand why. Nothing about this
is illegal.
He's simply pointing out that this is bigger
than Gaza, that the Israeli government is influencing
other governments.
And he gets arrested as a terrorist. I
think it needs to be a chilling moment
to understand what's really going on and ask

(04:03:36):
yourself whether from a US perspective that we're
gonna see something similar with Trump.
At least ask the question, guys.
Now I'm gonna leave it there for today.
Thank you for tuning in. Weirdly enough, we
have very little reach on Twitter right now.
I usually have, like, 3, 400 people tuned
in, and it says 67, which is interesting.
Even though we do have just more on

(04:03:56):
on Rumble, it seems, but interesting. I'm gonna
keep an eye on the I think it's
obvious what Twitter is doing. I think there's
obvious reasons why. Regardless, it's about you guys
getting the content out, clipping this out, sharing
with your friends, having conversations.
If you'd like to continue to support TLab,
guys, we are very much at a point
where we need your support. I I'm gonna
have more updates coming with the lawsuits. I

(04:04:16):
believe we have our first actual, like, court
media. There's a couple things in different parts.
There's 4 lawsuits now. I have my first
actual date coming up soon where we're gonna
have to possibly actually go in. I'm just
I'm still trying to suss out with what
we're gonna think is best, but old bottom
line, we're continuing to have to pay for
this. And this is a a direct effort
to suppress what we're doing on this platform.

(04:04:36):
Even my lawyer who is not of the
mind usually to, you know, he sees it.
And he's he's blown away by how obvious
it is.
Not only that, guys, we we're gonna continue
to with even with the sort of 2
steps back, one step forward, and everything else
we keep going through, we're gonna keep trying
to go forward. We're gonna keep trying to
grow. We're not gonna slow down the work.
And if you wanna continue to support what
we're doing, there's plenty of ways below to

(04:04:56):
do it. Plenty of links to support us
on subscribe star,
cash app, or just directly through the website
donation portal.
I mean, we it's it's important because without
you guys, we don't exist.
And I think it's important more than ever
today to support, whether it's us or anybody
else, independent, objective, non partisan media.
Now on that note in general, we'll have
more updates coming pretty soon, hopefully, with the

(04:05:18):
IMA. As Derek recently pointed out, we're sort
of in a holding pattern while the website
gets built out where you get to see
all of it. But I'm really looking forward
to that. So I think this is an
important shift right now as especially with this
new administration with people once again kind of,
you know, newly blinded by the hype that
we'll be able to continue to
reach people
with objective nonpartisan information. So thank you for

(04:05:39):
your support, guys. I just
I'm always I'm just blessed to have the
the the community that we have. Amazing people
who genuinely care about each other, who care
about the truth, who care about, you know,
questioning ideas, considering other people's perspectives. Like, I
we've cultivated something special here. So just thank
you for being you guys, for being who
you are, and supporting what we're doing and
helping inform people.

(04:06:01):
So thank you. I love you all. As
always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
There to know
how to stop your enemy, you have to
understand how it works.
Israel
is not just colonizing
Palestine.
If it was just colonizing Palestine, it would

(04:06:23):
be much easier
to stop them.
They have colonized
every government in the west.
They have colonized
the minds
of western governments,
politicians,
governments
everywhere who support them. We have that support.

(04:06:43):
We have the
US arming and paying for this genocide,
it would stop overnight. So
we have to
fight colonialism
everywhere
because Israel
has colonized the American mind, the British mind,
the European mind.

(04:07:03):
More importantly,
they've colonized
the Jewish people everywhere.
They have colonized Judaism,
the tradition,
the beliefs, the religion,
the the experience of Jews for 2000 years
was colonized
by Zionism.

(04:07:24):
And these Jews
are supporting in great numbers,
not just here, but everywhere in the west.
They are supporting the genocide.
Shame
them.

(04:07:57):
Anti Semitism everywhere.
Yeah. They are helping anti Semitism
every day
with their genocide and with their Hasbara
and with their crimes. Yes.
So I want to say to end,
there are 3 other types of colonialism that
we have to fight. They have colonized

(04:08:18):
the Western governments,
and we need to
bring an end to that. We, the people
in the West,
must stand up against our own governments.
Yeah.
No one which supported genocide
should sit in government anyway. They should sit
in jail.

(04:08:40):
Now the other area,
which I'm very worried about because I'm an
academic,
they have colonized
all the universities
in the West,
and we are not able to speak there.
Even academics are not allowed to speak in
universities
if you are speaking against Zionism.
We must decolonize

(04:09:02):
the higher education
system
and the whole education system.
And last but not least,
I think we must
we must decolonize
the,
whole system
of the media,

(04:09:22):
which is supporting,
which is aiding,
which is abetting
aiding and abetting
Israel
and its genocide
everywhere.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Slipping Facade Of Technocracy’s Dream Team & The Zionist Lies Surrounding The Amsterdam Attacks

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

All Episodes

The Slipping Facade Of Technocracy’s Dream Team & The Zionist Lies Surrounding The Amsterdam Attacks

Stuff You Should Know