The Unelected Whisperer: How Laura Loomer Became Trump’s Most Dangerous Voice

People-powered, AI-Generated

Season 4, Episode 9

In our 9th episode for Season 4 we deep dive into the influence that a right wing fascist and neonazi has on President Trump transitioning his administration from Leadership by Twitter/X to what we call Leadership by Loomer. We also introduce and outro the discussion with the song "Lonely Loomer".

To read the article discussed in this episode:

Episode Transcript

(00:22):
The. Two shifts she took the project
called the Retribution, the seatat the table.
So she could've did. She can't pass the gate then
storm it. If she's not inside, she'll
torch it. No chain of command, just a

(00:47):
blacklist built with the shakinghand.
She don't need to cause her to click.
Just like and you're on a black list.
She's a cock in the purge, Trumpat the mic.
She's a knife in the search target, but she clipped it.

(01:21):
Can't pass the gate, then storm it.
If she's not inside, she'll punch it.
Blow me, Luma. But down in the room.
Yeah. Now she's fainting with hunts on
a Twitter room. No badge, no chain of command.
Just the blacklist filled with the shaking hand.

(01:41):
Career that paternal. So she flipped it.
You'll paint a target, but she clipped it.

(02:44):
No seat at the table, so she flipped it.
You can't fire the truth. Can't kill.
The mission. Tried to purge the facts, but we
gripped it. We did.
Then be on with Coalition. Lonely lumber.
Your Fury's a mirror power builton spicejets thinner and
thinner. OK, let's unpack this.

(03:15):
Imagine a world where a former president, I mean a figure with
immense political power, is being influenced daily, and it's
by someone you've never voted for, someone with absolutely no
public mandate, no official role, no public accountability.
It it sounds like, I don't know,the premise of a political
thriller, doesn't it? Like some shadowy figure pulling
strings from behind the scenes. But as our source material

(03:36):
reveals, this is not fiction. This is a dynamic that, well,
for many people, feels confusing, maybe frightening and
just undeniably surreal. So our deep dive today explores
what our source describes as this really concerning shift in
political influence, moving from, you know, governance by
tweet to potentially an even more maybe insidious and opaque
phase. The article calls it governance

(03:57):
by extremism. You know what's?
Truly fascinating here, and honestly quite unsettling is how
this article from Educate Resistance, it's specifically
titled The Unelected Whisperer, How Laura Loomer became Trump's
Most Dangerous voice. How it manages to distill such a
complex and deeply concerning development makes it something
comprehensible and importantly, actionable.

(04:18):
So our mission today is to really go deep into who this
unelected Whisperer is and precisely how her unique and,
you know, seemingly uncredentialed influence
operates. And crucially, what concrete,
proven efforts are already in a way to push back against it.
We're drawing directly from the sharp inside the practical
solutions offered right there inthis compelling article.
It's really about illuminating The stark reality of influence

(04:40):
being wielded without any accountability and understanding
gets, well, it's profound implications.
Exactly. Our aim is to meticulously
extract the most important Nuggets of knowledge from this
deep dive. We want to offer you not just
information, but really a richerunderstanding, help you become
exceptionally well informed quickly.
We're looking for their surprising facts, those
practical takeaways, the things that allow you to navigate or

(05:03):
maybe just better comprehend thecurrent political landscape with
greater clarity. It's an unflinching look at this
perceived danger seen through the precise lens of our source,
highlighting this new phase of influence that operates, as the
article vividly puts it, throughbehind the scenes whispering,
which is, you know, a much less visible and arguably more potent
form of leverage. So let's jump right into the

(05:25):
core of our discussion. The central question that
powerfully frames this deep dive, and really much of the
concerns swirling around this topic, is this.
Who exactly is this individual Laura Loomer, and why does her
influence matter so profoundly, especially given that she holds
absolutely no official position,no elected office, no government
job whatsoever? We're talking about someone who,
well, on paper, wields no formalpower at all.

(05:47):
Yet our source suggests her impact isn't just significant,
it's arguably unprecedented in its reach, especially within
such a high stakes political orbit.
Well, the article from Educate Resistance, it provides A
comprehensive and quite stark profile.
Laura Loomer is identifies unequivocally as a far right
activist. Now, for an audience like ours,
already familiar with the political spectrum, it's

(06:08):
important to understand that thearticle's emphasis isn't just.
On a label. It highlights that she's widely
known for promoting conspiracy theories, often those with a
clear bent towards, you know, unfounded narratives.
Deeply divisive anti Muslim rhetoric too, which has been
condemned by many civil rights groups and even white
nationalist talking points. Those are inherently
exclusionary and often linked toextremist ideologies.

(06:28):
This isn't just about strong opinions, as the article
underscores. It's about a very specific and
often inflammatory ideological stunts.
The source also highlights a controversial platform history,
noting she's been banned from several major social media
platforms, even payment processes, precisely because of
consistent violations against their hate speech policies.
And this brings us to a really crucial point.

(06:49):
The article strongly emphasizes despite these.
Widespread bans, which, you knowyou'd expect, might
significantly diminish her public presence or access.
The truly surprising and franklyalarming revelation from the
source is that she now reportedly has direct daily
access to Donald Trump. This detail isn't just
anecdotal. The article stresses that this

(07:11):
level of influence, particularlyfor someone outside any formal
structure, is confirmed by reputable journalistic work.
It's according to reporting frommajor outlets like the New York
Times, Rolling Stone, and NBC News.
What really makes her influence stand out, and why the article
dedicates so much analysis to it, is her profound, complete
lack of traditional credentials.The source explicitly delineates

(07:33):
this. She is not an elected official,
meaning no mandate from the public.
She's not appointed to any government position, so there's
no official vetting process. She holds no government jobs, so
she isn't subject to federal employment rules or oversight.
She possesses no national security clearance.
We could, you know, standard foranyone advising on sensitive
matters. And critically, she has no
public accountability whatsoever.
This stands in stark, almost unbelievable contrast to anyone

(07:55):
typically advising a former president, or really any public
official, this unique, seeminglyunconstrained proximity to power
without any of the conventional Democratic safeguards.
That's what makes her, as the article titles her, the
Unelected Whisperer. That's a powerful statement,
deeply unsettling actually. And the fact that this isn't
just speculation, right, but it's being corroborated by

(08:16):
significant mainstream journalistic outlets.
You mentioned The New York Times, Rolling Stone, NBC News.
That really shifts this from just rumor to a serious concern.
We need to understand. It immediately raises the
question of how this alleged influence actually, you know,
manifests itself. Does the article give us
concrete examples of her scope? I guess this raises an important
question for us to attack. In what specific ways has her

(08:38):
influence reportedly shown up, according to this source?
Indeed, in the articles quite specific on this, it moves
beyond just general statements. It provides tangible examples of
her alleged scope of influence. It details that Loomer has been
advising Trump on everything from campaign strategy to which
guests should be banned from ourLago.
Just pause on that for a moment.Campaign strategy may That's a

(09:00):
broad and critical domain, right?
Influencing messaging focus, thedirection of a major political
figures public outreach, The idea that someone with her
background and that lack of accountability is shaping such
fundamental strategic choices, well, it's deeply significant.
It speaks to a direct pipeline for her ideology right into the
very fabric of a political campaign.

(09:22):
But then the article adds that seemingly smaller, but I think
equally revealing detail. Which guests should be banned
from Mar a Lago? Now, this might seem trivial on
the surface, maybe petty even. But it signifies an astonishing
level of intimate influence overTrump's personal and social
environment. Mar a Lago, as the article
implicitly points out, isn't just a residence.
It often serves as a kind of de facto political headquarters.

(09:43):
So controlling the access, the social circle around a figure
like Trump, that means controlling information flow,
limiting exposure to potentiallydissenting views, maybe
isolating him further within an echo chamber.
The breadth of these examples, you know, from high level
strategy right down to the minutiae of social access, it
truly underscores the profound and deeply personalized nature

(10:03):
of her reported influence. It highlights how someone with
absolutely no official role, no public mandate, can reportedly
impact daily operations, strategic directions, even the
social boundaries of such a powerful political figure.
So what does this all mean for you, the listener, and for the
broader public discourse? The source suggests this feels
confusing, maybe frightening or surreal.

(10:25):
And it powerfully validates thatfeeling.
It says, yeah, it is weird. It's such a stark contrast,
isn't it? We saw that period of what the
article calls governance by tweet.
Public pronouncements, however chaotic, were at least, well,
visible. But now we're discussing this
new phase, arguably more dangerous behind the scenes,
whispering what, according to the article, makes this
particular shift so concerning, especially for those of us who

(10:48):
believe in, you know, transparent governance.
While the article frames this evolution as significant and
troubling, the Mangy movement, and by extension, the sphere of
influence around this political figure has, according to the
source, evolved from governance by tweet to governance by
extremism. It argues that while Trump's
past reliance on platforms like Twitter X might have seemed
chaotic, public, maybe even performative, sometimes, this

(11:11):
new phase of behind the scenes whispering is in fact even more
dangerous. And the primary reason, the most
critical reason for this heightened danger, as
meticiously outlined by the source?
It's the profound lack of oversight and the lack of public
visibility. Think about it.
When influence operates entirelyin private, away from the glare
of public scrutiny, it inherently bypasses.

(11:32):
It lacks the traditional checks and balances, checks that are
normally applied to public discourse, to official
government roles or policy formation.
There's no formal mechanism for review, say, by congressional
committees, no public record of conversations that could be
subject to Freedom of Information Act requests, no
direct accountability back to the electorate, and no
requirement for those formal vetting processes.

(11:54):
This opaqueness, it allows ideologies to potentially shape
decisions without any kind of democratic filter.
Furthermore, the article really stresses that her advice comes
without any of the standard measures of public service or
policy expertise, or even a demonstrated commitment to the
public good. Unlike appointed officials who
go through rigorous vetting, or elected officials directly

(12:16):
accountable to voters and bound by ethics rules, Loomer
reportedly operates without these conventional safeguards.
And this directly underpins thatunelected whisperer concept, the
title of the article itself. It powerfully emphasizes the
profound irony and the inherent danger of significant power
being wielded without a public mandate, without any of the

(12:37):
structural guardrails designed to protect the public interest.
The implication, as the source makes clear, is that decisions
or directions could be influenced by someone whose
views aren't representative of abroader public and who possesses
none of the qualifications typically associated with
advising a leader of this magnitude.
It's about the very real potential for extreme, unchecked
ideology to directly influence apowerful figure, completely

(13:00):
bypassing democratic scrutiny and established norms.
OK, here's where it gets really interesting, and maybe a bit
perplexing for many of us. The article provides some
genuinely grounded hypothesis reasons as to why Donald Trump
would listen to someone like Laura Loomer.
It's not immediately intuitive for many, right, given her
public record, her lack of formal position.

(13:20):
So what are these key reasons, the source suggests, for this
unusual, seemingly counterintuitive influence?
What's the, I don't know, the psychological or political
calculus at play here, accordingto the article.
The article outlines 3 primary and I think quite insightful
hypotheses for why Trump reportedly listens to Laura
Loomer and they really speak volumes about the dynamics of
his inner circle and maybe his unique leadership style.

(13:41):
The 1st is what the source powerfully terms echo chamber
loyalty. Loomer, it suggests, validates
Trump's personal worldview, aggrieved, conspiratorial, and
grievance driven. This is absolutely crucial.
It indicates her influence isn'tabout challenging his
perspectives or offering diverseviewpoints or introducing new
information. Instead, she functions as a
powerful mirror, constantly reinforcing his existing

(14:04):
beliefs, his sense of being wronged, his conspiratorial
leanings. This creates an echo chamber
where his own grievances aren't just affirmed, they're amplified
rather than being critically examined or debated.
Imagine the profound danger in that kind of dynamic for a
leader, right? A worldview constantly
reaffirmed, leading to a narrowed, potentially distorted
view of reality. The article implicitly suggests

(14:25):
this dynamic suppresses dissenting thoughts, alternative
strategies potentially leading to decisions based on limited,
skewed information or purely on personal grievance rather than
comprehensive analysis. And this kind of affirmation?
Well, it can be deeply appealingto someone in power who actively
seeks validation, not constructive criticism or
intellectual confrontation. The second hypothesis the

(14:47):
article presents is the unfiltered feedback loop.
The source explains that unlike official advisors who might
offer more cautious, maybe nuanced or diplomatically
phrased perspectives, Loomer says the quiet part out loud.
She reportedly provides with thearticle terms brutal
reinforcement. And Trump, according to the
source, apparently rewards this kind of unfiltered, blunt

(15:08):
honesty, even if it's extreme orunpalatable to others.
This suggests a strong preference for direct,
unvarnished validation over the more measured or strategically
couched council. The traditional advisors might
offer this preference for an unfiltered feedback loop.
It bypasses the usual filters, filters of political
correctness, strategic advisement, maybe even basic
decorum. It implies that Trump values

(15:30):
raw, unmediated expressions of loyalty in agreement, creating a
dynamic where extreme viewpointsmight gain traction precisely
because they aren't deluded or challenged, which is a
significant deviation from traditional advisory roles where
nuance and a broad perspective are usually prized.
And finally, the third reason cited is what the article calls
the media martyr myth. The article points out Loomer

(15:54):
has been extensively banned, cancelled from various online
platforms by many mainstream institutions.
Paradoxically, as the article keenly observes, this very
status makes for a perfect symbol for Trump's war on the
so-called liberal elite and the perceived establishment, for his
base, and seemingly for Trump himself.
Her status as a figure targeted by mainstream media or Big Tech,

(16:17):
it reinforces his pervasive narrative, the narrative of
being persecuted under attack bypowerful, biased forces.
This martyrdom turns her into a powerful symbol of defiance
against perceived liberal establishments, appealing
directly to his core supporters and further solidifying his own
US versus them narrative. Her canceled status, rather than
being a liability, becomes a significant asset in this

(16:37):
political ecosystem, validating his own grievances and
resonating deeply with a segmentof the population that feels
similarly marginalized or canceled.
This allows her to embody a shared sense of grievance,
creating a potent political symbiosis.
So if I'm synthesizing these points correctly, it's clearly
not about traditional qualifications or policy
expertise at all. Instead, it's about this very

(16:59):
specific blend, validation, unwavering loyalty, and a shared
narrative. A narrative that powerfully
aligns with his grievances and appeals directly to his base.
It paints a very clear if yeah concerning picture of a unique
kind of relationship, one that prioritizes affirmation over
advice. Maybe.
So what are the broader, the more systemic consequences of

(17:20):
this dynamic, as highlighted by the article?
What does it mean beyond just the personal interactions within
this inner circle? What does it mean for governance
itself? Well, a critical take away the
point unequivocally emphasized by the source is that none of
these reasons make her advice legitimate or safe.
This is a fundamental, almost ethical point the article makes
what meticulously explains why Trump might listen to her.

(17:41):
It simultaneously states withoutequivocation that these
motivations don't lend any credibility, safety, or public
benefit to her council, especially given her documented
background and promoting conspiracy theories and
extremist rhetoric. Her growing and unvetted power
is described as both a warning sign and a wake up call, a wake
up call for the democratic process itself.

(18:02):
It's a warning because it signals A deeply concerning
potential potential for extreme,non representative, potentially
dangerous ideologies to directlyinfluence the highest levels of
power, all without any public orinstitutional safeguards.
It highlights a critical vulnerability where the vetting,
the accountability, the expertise typically expected in
such roles are completely bypassed.

(18:23):
And it's a wake up call because it demands immediate attention
from anyone concerned about the integrity of our democratic
processes and the quality of information shaping public
policy. It underscores the fragility of
our system when such unaccountable influences can
gain such profound leverage. So if we connect this to the
bigger picture, what this tells us is that the current state of
information flow and decision making at the highest levels, it

(18:46):
can be profoundly, even dangerously distorted.
Distorted when personal validation and shared grievances
supersede established norms of expertise, public accountability
or diverse council. This dynamic effectively
undermines the traditional functions of an advisory system,
creating a vulnerability where extremist voices, precisely

(19:06):
because they are unfiltered and seen as anti establishment, can
gain undue leverage. This bypasses traditional
vetting, relies on a closed loopof affirmation, and carries
significant implications for hownational and international
policy, as well as public discourse are shaped.
It challenges the very idea of what constitutes qualified or
responsible advice in such a critical context, pushing

(19:29):
decision making further away from evidence based reasoning
and broad public interest into arealm driven by narrow, even
radical, ideological alignment. OK, despite this rather
concerning picture, the article doesn't just leave us there in
despair, which I think is incredibly important for
maintaining agency and hope, right?
Instead, it shifts gears to offer concrete solutions, what

(19:49):
we can do, and what's already working.
Oh, this is where the deep dive transitions from diagnosis to
proactive, actionable steps, showcasing pathways to
resilience that are already in motion.
Let's really unpack these, understanding not just what they
are, but how they contribute to a healthier public sphere.
Indeed, and the article providesa really robust and deeply
encouraging set of strategies already in motion, effectively

(20:11):
offering a powerful counter narrative to any sense of
powerlessness. The first solution highlighted
is the absolutely vital ongoing role of truth based journalism.
Fighting back, The source pointsout that fact based,
meticulously investigated, oftenpeer reviewed journalism is
crucial crucial for exposing these inner workings of
influence. It specifically names highly
respected investigative journalists and nonprofit

(20:33):
organizations like Pro Publica, known for its deep dive exposes,
the Southern Poverty Law Center,which tracks hate groups, and
Right Wing Watch, which monitorsextremist rhetoric.
These organizations, the articleexplains, actively track
extremist influence and make those findings public.
The impact of their work, according to the article, is
profound. It helps democracies stay aware

(20:55):
and resilient. This isn't just about reporting
news. It's about providing the
foundational information. Information necessary for
citizens and institutions to understand threats, anticipate
challenges, and respond effectively.
Their rigorous methodology, you know, sifting through documents,
interviewing sources, cross referencing information,
confirming facts, That's precisely what's needed to

(21:16):
counteract disinformation and hidden influence.
And the call to action for you, the listener here, as directly
stated in the source, is clear and empowering.
Support them, share their work. Subscribe to at least one
investigative nonprofit. This emphasizes that actively
supporting the infrastructure oftruthful, independent reporting
is a direct, impactful act of civic resilience.

(21:39):
It's an investment in the very mechanisms that bring
transparency to opaque power. Secondly, the article points to
the critical and forward-lookingstrategy of local civic
education growing another key solution.
It's spotlights initiatives likeMedia Literacy Now and
Checkology. These are actively teaching
students how to identify propaganda and disinformation.
This is so much more than just teaching kids to read right.

(22:00):
It's about equipping them with critical thinking tools.
They learn to question sources, understand biases, recognize
logical fallacies, discern factual information from
persuasive rhetoric or outright falsehoods.
The goal here is deeply foundational, long term,
building an entire generation that doesn't fall for hate
speech dressed as news. It's about empowering future
citizens with the cognitive, theanalytical skills needed to

(22:23):
navigate and increasingly complex, often weaponized
information landscape. For listeners like you, the
source suggests a direct and impactful action.
Ask your local school board if media literacy is being taught.
If not, suggest a curriculum. This highlights the power of
local engagement and strengthening our collective
understanding, building a generational defense against
misinformation and the insidiouscreep of extremist ideologies.

(22:46):
It's about building a citizenry that can think critically and
resist manipulation right from the ground up.
That's truly fascinating, empowering the next generation
directly like that, giving them the tools they need to be
discerning citizens in this digital age.
It feels very proactive rather than just reactive.
What else does the article suggest is already working
effectively working to counter this kind of unchecked influence

(23:07):
we've been discussing? Right 1/3 Crucial pathway,
according to the source, involves the brave, often
difficult work of whistleblowersand former insiders speaking
out. The article assigns powerful
examples. Cassidy Hutchinson, the former
White House aide who provided such compelling testimony.
General John Kelly, former WhiteHouse chief of staff, through
their public accounts, their writings, they have, as the

(23:30):
article says, confirmed Trump's susceptibility to unvetted
voices. These individuals, having been
in positions of close proximity to power, offer invaluable first
hand accounts, accounts that lend undeniable credibility to
the concerns raised about influence without
accountability. The significance of this, as the
source powerfully underscores, is that this brave truth

(23:52):
telling, especially from former mega insiders, reminds us that
conscience can still matter in politics.
These aren't external critics, right?
These are individuals who were once part of the very system
they're now speaking out against.
Their willingness to step forward, often a great personal
and professional cost, provides crucial insights.
Insights into internal dynamics,the unchecked influence of

(24:12):
certain voices within the highest echelons.
It offers a counter narrative tosilence and complicity.
And the listener action proposedhere is to amplify the voices of
principal defectors. They're a critical part of the
solution. This suggests that validating,
sharing, respecting their stories helps reinforce the
importance of integrity, accountability, moral courage
within the political sphere. It maybe empowers others to

(24:36):
speak truth to power by showing their words can make a
difference. And finally, the article
emphasizes the solution that speaks directly to the power of
collective action. You're not alone.
Democracy networks are expanding.
It highlights the vital role of grassroots efforts and
established organizations. Groups like Indivisible, known
for its local organizing Common cause focused on Government

(24:58):
Accountability. The Protect Democracy Project,
dedicated to defending democratic norms.
These groups are described as working everyday to fight
authoritarian drift. And this isn't just about
abstract ideals. These groups provide tangible
support. They offer toolkits, petitions,
and local action hubs to empowerindividuals like you to organize
safely and effectively. This point is critical because

(25:18):
it acknowledges that individual actions, while important, are
significantly amplified when they're part of a coordinated,
collective effort. These networks provide
structure, resources, a sense ofcommunity.
For those who feel concerned about these developments, the
source directly encourages listeners join one.
Even just one hour a week matters.
This isn't about grand gestures.It emphasizes that consistent,

(25:41):
even seemingly small, contributions to organized
efforts can collectively create significant impact.
These networks build a stronger,more resilient bulwark against
unaccountable influence. By empowering individuals to
participate meaningfully in their democratic process, they
transform individual concern into collective action,
fostering a shared sense of purpose and efficacy.

(26:02):
It's genuinely inspiring to see these solutions, not just, you
know, conceptualize, but alreadyactively in motion, moving us
from simply identifying a problem to actively building
resilience, building countermeasures.
The article even brings in that beautiful, profound quote for
Mr. Rogers. Look for the helpers.
And it reminds us that these helpers are diverse.

(26:22):
They include dedicated journalists, courageous
whistleblowers, innovative teachers, and yes, people like
you, the listener. So what's the core, the
overarching message the article wants us to take from all of
this, especially in the face of what can often feel like an
overwhelming, maybe even suffocating, challenge?
The core message, the foundational take away, is
beautifully encapsulated in thatsection, titled Moral Hope is a

(26:44):
Muscle. It directly counters any sense
of despair or fatalism by asserting that resilience, and
indeed hope itself, isn't a passive emotion.
It's an active, ongoing strengthening process.
The article states that if we build communities that value
truth, inclusion and transparency, we will outlast
this moment. This isn't some vague,

(27:05):
aspirational hope. It's hope profoundly rooted in
collective action, shared values, tangible community
building. It suggests that the enduring
strength of a society lies in its foundational principles and
the unwavering commitment of itscitizens to uphold them,
particularly in times of stress.The article then provides A
broader historical perspective, a vital context to anchor our

(27:25):
understanding. History is on the side of
progress, even when the present feels bleak.
This offers a long term view, reminding us the current
challenges. While undeniably significant and
urgent, they're part of a largerhistorical arc where positive
change, driven by human agency and shared values ultimately
tends to prevail. It encourages us to see beyond
the immediate horizon, to draw strength from the long lineage

(27:46):
of those who have pushed for truth and justice.
Finally, the piece then powerfully rephrases the core
question that began our deep dive, shifting the focus from
the problem to the profound agency of the individual
listener. It states the question isn't
whether Laura Loomer has influence.
She does acknowledges the reality.
The question is, who do we choose to listen to?

(28:08):
Next this. Serves as an incredibly powerful
and succinct summary because it doesn't deny the very real
concerning reality of the influence we've discussed.
Instead, it masterfully redirects your attention as the
listener to your own undeniable power, power, discernment,
choice, and action. It implies that while we may not
directly control who whispers inthe ears of powerful figures, we

(28:30):
absolutely control which voices we ourselves amplify, trust,
believe, and allowed to shape our understanding of the world.
It's a compelling call to conscious information
consumption, critical thinking and active engagement, and
shaping public discourse, recognizing that our individual
choices have collective impact. That's a powerful pivot.
Yeah, a call to active citizenship.
The article isn't just about understanding.

(28:50):
It's clearly about empowerment, offering some immediate,
tangible steps you can take today, moving from just
intellectual comprehension to practical, meaningful action.
It provides a direct pathway forchannelling concern into
constructive engagement. That's absolutely right.
The source provides a clear something you can do today,
which is incredibly straightforward and accessible.

(29:12):
Visit protectdemocracy.org or rightwingwatch.org and sign up
for alerts or donate $5 to help their work continue.
This offers a direct, low barrier way to support the
organization's actively working on the very issues we've
discussed, Combating disinformation, tracking
extremism, bolstering democraticnorms.
It's a tangible link between understanding the problem and

(29:33):
contributing directly to the solutions, making your concern
actionable immediately. And for those looking to
effectively share this understanding, you know, spark
conversations spread awareness among their own networks, the
article provides A concise and impactful something You Can
Share message. It's a quotable line designed
for easy dissemination, whether in conversation or on social
media. Trump no longer governs by

(29:54):
tweet. He's governed by the whisper of
an unelected extremist. Let's make sure our voices are
louder and rooted in truth. That's a powerful, memorable
statement, captures the essence of the articles concerns and
it's call to action for a truth based counter narrative.
It's a way to spread awareness and encourage thoughtful
discussion beyond just this deepdive, putting the core message
into the hands of many. OK, so to bring it all together,

(30:16):
reinforce the key takeaways fromthis extensive deep dive.
The article itself provides a very concise 3 minute summary
which we can use to recap the most important points for you,
our listener, just to ensure clarity and retention.
First, what's happening? Laura Loomer, identified as an
extremist far right influencer, has become a key daily advisor

(30:36):
to Donald Trump. Critically, she operates without
any public mandate, formal credentials, or governmental
oversight, representing an unprecedented level of private
influence at the highest political levels.
Second, why it matters. Loomer reportedly holds more
sway over Trump than many official, vetted figures.
This dynamic carries the profound risk of potentially
shaping national, even international, policy decisions

(30:59):
based on hate driven ideology operating entirely outside the
traditional checks and balances designed for public
accountability. Third, why Trump listens to her.
Our source outlined several compelling reasons.
She vigorously reinforces his personal worldview, often
described as aggrieved and conspiratorial.
She offers unfiltered, often brutal praise and validation
that he reportedly rewards. And her status as someone banned

(31:21):
or cancelled makes her a powerful symbol of anti
establishment martyrdom that strongly resonates with and
energizes his base. It's fundamentally about loyalty
and a shared narrative, not traditional policy expertise.
4th and maybe the most hopeful and empowering aspect.
What's being done? The article highlights that
active, effective pushback is already underway.

(31:43):
This includes the crucial work of investigative journalists
exposing hidden influence, medialiteracy educators empowering
future generations with criticalthinking skills, courageous
whistleblowers and former insiders bravely speaking out
providing crucial insights, and a network of various grassroots
organizers building collective resilience.
These, as the article reminds us, are the helpers we're
encouraged to seek out and support.

(32:05):
And finally, what you can do. The guidance from the article is
clear, actionable. Stay thoroughly informed by
seeking out reliable sources. Actively support those dedicated
truth tellers through their work.
Consider joining local democracygroups to amplify your impact
and, crucially, consciously uplift solutions and
constructive action over simply succumbing to fear or despair.
It's a powerful call to informed, engaged and resilient

(32:27):
participation in our democratic society.
This deep dive into the unelected whisperer truly
underscores the critical nature of ongoing vigilance and
informed engagement. It's not simply about
understanding the problem or identifying vulnerabilities in
our democratic fabric, but aboutrecognizing the profound
transformative power of collective informed action.

(32:49):
As the source to Wisely points out with its including question,
the real enduring question before us isn't whether figures
like Laura Loomer can gain influence because, well, the
article says she clearly does. Instead, it challenges us
directly. Who do we choose to listen to
next? And by direct extension, what
kind of information do we actively choose to amplify,
embody, and allow to shape our understanding of the world?

(33:12):
This shifts the focus from passive observation to active
participation, participation in shaping our information
environment and ultimately our future.
It's about recognizing that our choices, where we get our
information, what we choose to believe, have a ripple effect,
contributing to the larger narrative of our society and.
That brings us back squarely to you, our engaged listener.
You are indeed part of the helpers.

(33:33):
The article mentions A vital component in the ongoing effort
to strengthen our democratic foundations.
The strength of our communities,our collective ability to value
truth, promote inclusion, champion transparency.
These are the essential muscles we continue to build, just as
the article frames it so perfectly with Hope is a Muscle.
We strongly encourage you to take these insights beyond this

(33:55):
deep dive. Consider discussing them with
others, maybe in person with friends and family, or
thoughtfully online in your communities.
Explore how you personally can contribute to the solutions we
discussed today, whether that's supporting truth based
investigative journalism may be advocating for robust media
literacy in your local CommunitySchools, amplifying the voices
of principal defectors who speakout at great personal cost, or

(34:18):
engaging with the vital work of democracy networks like
Indivisible, Common Cause or theProtect Democracy Project, all
of which were highlighted right there in our source material.
Every option, no matter how seemingly small, contributes to
building a stronger, more resilient society. 1 rooted
firmly in truth and accountability.
We truly hope this deep dive hasgiven you a clearer, more

(34:38):
nuanced picture of this complex issue and armed you with some
actionable insights. Continue to seek out those
sources rooted in truth. Continue to engage critically
with the information around you,and let's keep unpacking the
most interesting and important topics together right here on
the Deep Dive. People said no 2923 by the

(35:09):
dollar box blow band on the net.Bring the fringe in the press
for projection to sharpen the edge.
But yes no more in the green. No field command.
Just a keyboard board with the ventures plan.
I wasn't invited to power of truth so now I torch the depth
before in the booth. He stole your tweets. close your
lights. Digging for size of two ain't
like a right. You took a note to the
constitution. She took a project called the
retribution to see if the table so she could have did can't pass
the gate then storm it. If she's not inside, she'll

(35:32):
torch it. And if you feel for a reason you

(36:07):
ain't got the girls trying to reveal, they told you you're up
in this trail, Be at the table. So she flips it through, being a
target, but she clips it. Can't pass the gate.
Then storm it. If she's not inside, she'll
touch it. Blow me.
Luma got down on the room. Yeah.
Now she's fainted with hots on aTwitter room.

(36:29):
No bad, no chain of command. What's the blacklist built with
the shaking hand? Career that maternal.
So she flipped a target, but sheclipped it.
Can't pass the gate that's stormed if she's not inside your
front. Shit.
The Lumi Luma walked out of the room.

(36:50):
Yeah, now she's standing with Hans on a Twitter group.
No back, no chain of command, just the blacklist built with
the shaking hand now not for crime, not the least.
She's the crown she don't need acourt just to cause it.
A click just for post she'll like and you're on a black list.
She ain't lo. She's a cock in the purge Trump
with the Mike she's the knife inthe search as a patriotism which

(37:11):
always prevents the system. She beg to join 1 bitch now not
for crime not the least. She's the frown, she don't need
the cause and a click trust withthe Mike.
She's the knife in the first, she don't need the.

(37:38):
No seat at the table, so she flipped it.
Can't fire the troops, Can't kill the mission.
Try to purge the facts. But we gripped it.
We defend beyond with coalition and lonely lumber.
Your fury's a mirror. The power built on spice gets
thinner and thinner.