August 6, 2025 • 47 mins
It came up recently in an interview that Tucker Carlson realized his father a CIA agent. Leaves us to question his affiliation. He claims he didn't know, but he himself applied for a job at the Intel agency, but was not hired... that we know.
What is Controlled Opposition, and what is the difference between one who is controlled and one who practices control or reservation?
We examine a few of the top leaders in the truth movement.
What is Controlled Opposition, and what is the difference between one who is controlled and one who practices control or reservation?
We examine a few of the top leaders in the truth movement.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Wake Up Radio Network. A rational voice in a world
of conspiracy. Jim Duke perspective.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
All right, Darren, I got you, I think right you there.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
I'm here finally. Wow, we have technical difficulty.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Yeah, how you doing? How you bet?
Speaker 1 (00:22):
It was so much better, very good, excellent, just keeping
busy and.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
So I know we're on a different device and we
had to try to configure things. And not only that,
I haven't been in my studio and I'm still on
an archaic system. I can't find my microphone arm adjust
adjustment arm. I can't find the microphone holder. I don't
know where it went in the move. So I've got
(00:45):
a hybrid mic. I'm using my SM fifty seven right now,
just because it's lighter on the on the on the microphone.
But they're very good mics. They're very durable. Anyway, nobody
needs to know the technical details, Darren. And there's a
lot of stuff that we needed to catch up on
and uh over the over the past months, a couple
of months that we've been on together. Boy lot going on,
(01:09):
a lot going on. I had a studio build and
I finally got it built. I put it on social
media to show people the version of it that I have,
and Uh, I had to get back into into the
into the you know, into the thing of seeing. Uh,
getting back into groove of things. That's what I'm trying
(01:31):
to say. All right, I see, I'm so flustered, I
can't even speak. But there's a lot of things going on,
and since our last meeting, I'm thinking about a new studio,
new direction. Maybe we'll maybe I'll start to entertain some
of these other off topic fringe topics that you know,
(01:53):
our taboo because I don't have to first of all
agree with them all just to present them right, Darren,
I don't have to agree exactly right. But I also
I may not be correct on everything. This is the
thing I used to want to come on and be
your expert, you know, be your person to go to
(02:14):
for the inside information. And there's so many people doing
it now it's so saturated. And you know what I'm
finding Darren. You know what I'm finding out about all
these experts, What's that they're only experts in their one
sphere of realm, of their angles that they take. So
(02:34):
in other words, if you got an expert and he
knows all about this area, he only knows about that
area that he's read or that he's looked into, or
that he's privy to. He might not know what you
and I might know because he might not have read
the same collection of books that we read. So their
(02:54):
expertise is only based on the information at hand for them.
Some people do go into more widely spread research papers
and such, but still they take it sometimes from an
angle from their bias. And I think we all do that.
So are we really equipped as experts on our own
(03:19):
or just maybe in the one sphere that we have
that we're biased towards, And maybe we need the collection
of others that are that have the information on their
biases to really make a whole, you know, connection to everything.
In other words, you can't know everything is is you know.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
Yeah, that makes total sense. Absolutely can't be a you know,
the jack of all trades.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
No, And everybody that says they're an expert, you'll notice
that they fail in considering other information that they're not
privy to. So maybe we better be a little more
careful when we say, oh, my information, I'm more of
an expert than you are. Maybe we need each other
to fill in the blanks. So I'm going to be
(04:08):
one voice that has an opinion that may have his
own opinion. It may be Jim's perspective, and it may
be what I see right now. But you know, you
may bring information that I haven't had, that I hadn't considered,
and so you know, maybe I'm not the only voice
that needs to be heard, and maybe I will entertain
(04:31):
some other voices out there, you know, But then you
run into trouble people saying, oh, you brought them on,
how do you know they're credible? You know, you're entertaining
these people that they're fakes or they're false, or they're
false prophets, or they're this or they're that. Well, yeah,
(04:54):
maybe they are, maybe some are, but maybe we're just
being harsh and critical of people that we don't really
see their point of view at the moment. So let's
all humble ourselves and maybe just present the information and
if you don't agree, we don't agree. We don't have
to prove ourselves all the time. We could try to
(05:14):
prove ourselves for our point to make our case, but
if somebody doesn't get it or doesn't see it, or
are we to make them see it or get it,
because maybe we don't have it all right. I don't know.
Sometimes we try to be our own experts. But anyway,
I'm going to try to.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
You know, make sense what you're saying.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Absolutely, yeah, okay, So saying that I want to look
into some things that came up recently speaking of people
that don't always have it together, or people that are
short sighted or whatever. Did you see the latest the
news of an interview with Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
I've heard some things about him, you know, like very questionable.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
You know, all right, well what have you heard?
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Well, once when he was asked about nine to eleven, Uh,
he didn't want to comment on it, like he was
denying that he was corroborating the mainstream narrative that it was,
you know, the nineteen terrorists.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Oh so he wasn't following the narrative of the truth.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Or alternative right, like of yeah, the truth is that
it was you know, an inside job. So that I'm
like right away when I heard that, I'm like, this
is strange.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
So you may you may have I don't know him
that well, I haven't followed him, but you may be
more privy to that than I am. So, I mean,
he seemed to kind of not change but come to
grip with things and start to like seem like he's
acting like the truth or movement a little bit.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
Right, Yes, since then? Yeah, so he does things that
are you know, says things that are you know that
makes sense, and other things. It's hard to say. I
don't know about him. I'm not sure.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
It's hard to judge these people. Before we go on
with that, let me since we haven't talked in a while,
since we're on you know, the control of things and
the release of information. I'm sure you have different angles
that you have taken over this Epstein file thing. We
haven't talked about this because we haven't been together since this.
(07:20):
I kind of mentioned it on some podcasts. But what
do you think happened with this Glainne Maxwell testimonies? What
do you think will come of it? And is this
a set up for future arrests or are they just
inquiring how much she knows?
Speaker 1 (07:41):
You know?
Speaker 2 (07:41):
It's a very good question. Yeah, actually I do.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
If I knew, i'd want to say, i'd say it,
you know, Okay, I actually don't.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
I'd like to think that they can use there for,
you know, to get better in other names.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Are they doing that I don't know. Or are they
getting to know where what she knows so that they
can backtrack and protect those all right?
Speaker 1 (08:02):
That could be a too Yeah mm hmm.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
So is the epstein Is that still trending? I mean,
I don't want to make a whole show of it.
I just wanted to touch base of it. I mean,
people sick of this already.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
And the whole world was talking about it.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
Yeah they were one, even the even the conservatives, even
the Trump supporters. And but she was questioned by what
the d o J is that? And and she didn't
hold back, and she didn't hold back any information I
know it. So they said she didn't hold She spewed like,
do you think there's going to be an event of
(08:36):
a suicide someplace along the way? Well, she all of
a sudden, uh, decided to commit suicide? Or and is
Trump still deflecting the importance of this because he was.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
Or she die of natural clauses the next day? Yeah? Yeah,
yeah right.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
But Trump, it was still deflecting the importance, wasn't.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
He Yeah he was.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
And he was claiming, he was claiming it was all
a democratic plot. Remember that, did you hear that?
Speaker 1 (09:10):
He said?
Speaker 2 (09:11):
He said Oh, it's the Democrats calling for this. They
are the only ones interested in this. I don't know, Darren.
I don't know about you, but I'm not a Democrat
and I'm interested in this. I was interested in hearing
what they had to say. And you know, if the
argument is that if Trump was in it, the Democrats
(09:32):
would have used it to expose him, So the fact
that they couldn't expose him from it proves that he's
not in it. You think that's.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
True, Well, it's possible.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
But if they're also in it, they don't want to
expose him because they'll expose them. So maybe that's why
they're not. Yeah, maybe that's why everybody's hush hush about it. Uh,
the Democrats. You know, if he was in it, if
he had something to hide, the Democrats would have been
all over this. No. Not. If they have something to
hide too, they're probably all over it too. Remember Clinton,
(10:11):
They said Clinton's name is all over it.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
Mh wouldn't would be funny, not funny, terrible if they're
all in honest, they're all they're guilty.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Yeah, but so do you think we're gonna get anything
out of this? Probably not?
Speaker 1 (10:26):
Huh, it would be nice. You know, I think there
will be a big release of names coming up. I
honestly think so.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
I think. Would you think there's gonna be arrests and
everything else from it? Yep, I don't. I think there's
gonna be a couple a couple pawns thrown out there,
and there's gonna be more cover ups then you can believe.
And they're only gonna let redacted information. They're only gonna
(10:56):
let information out that they want out. They're gonna basically
secure all the information and just let you out what
you need to appease you to think something is being
out there. It's all controlled, so we don't know where
(11:17):
they're going with it.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
But just the fact that the epstein has been brought
to the public, you know, the issue of it twenty
how many years ago? Twenty years ago, nobody would have
known that what was going on, and now everybody's knowing
what's going on. So that is a step in the
right direction.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
So yeah, I mean, they could have completely hid this,
covered it up, and not really made a big deal
about it. But the fact that they brought it to
the public is getting people to question what's going on
in the government and who's involved. Even if they even
if they release a redacted version, you know, blotted out names,
and they don't expose the names. Don't you think people
(11:54):
are going to start the question what's blocked out and
start to question who's on it?
Speaker 1 (11:59):
YEP.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
So maybe you're right, Maybe they you know, maybe something's
coming out of this, at least being brought to the light.
But you know, the people that we have bringing this,
they're the ones that I'd like to look at at
this time. What does does Tucker Calson say anything about
(12:23):
that the Epstein files? Has he called for an examination?
What's his point?
Speaker 1 (12:28):
I haven't heard about him say anything yet. No, but shoot,
that would be good if he did on Fox News
that maybe let me see if I can google it?
Speaker 2 (12:40):
See all right, yeah I do that. I'm just gonna
say key points that like Tucker calls, and what we
know is he's positioned himself as a critic of the
mainstream left. But we're wondering if he if he's been
an instrumental in pushing a control limited narrative that doesn't
go deeper to address the corruption within the political elite.
(13:05):
Does he cover for them? He allowed he is he
exposing anybody I mean, he's had a history with Fox.
He's a corporate media giant with ties to global elites,
Rupert Murdoch, global connections and stuff. So we wonder if
he's got these connections, did he break ties or is
(13:26):
he treading with caution? And does that make him does
that make him controlled? Because he's got a tread with caution?
Don't go here, Carlson.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
Well, actually he was interviewed and it says Tucker Colson
had claimed that Jeffrey Epstein was working for the Israeli
government and that every single person in Washington to see
thinks the same. Oh, I've never been met I never
met anyone who doesn't think that. I don't know any
of them that hate Israel. But no one feels that
(14:00):
they can say that.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
Yeah, hmmm, Well, here's what came up recently in an interview.
In a striking revelation he had, he expressed his surprise
upon discovering that his late father, who is his name
is Dick Carlson, had connections with the CIA. He said,
(14:30):
I didn't know that. According to him, the information came
after his father's death that prompted people to ask about
his family legacies in there and their connections with intelligence works.
He he he acted like he didn't know. He said
(14:54):
he just found out when his father died. Wow, my
father was a CIA. I thought he he was going
to the office every day. I thought he was, you know,
a laborer working in a factory. How could he not
know something? But it's claiming they're claiming that he just
found out and didn't know, and people are questioning it.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
That's strange.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
But you know what else came out?
Speaker 1 (15:19):
What's that?
Speaker 2 (15:20):
It also came out after talking about his family ties
to the government agencies, that it comes to find out
that Tucker Colson himself attempted to join the CIA in
his youth but wasn't hired supposedly, so he did have
connections with the CIA. He at least tried to join them.
(15:44):
How do you know, all right? With the CIA and
their secretive I tried to join them, but I was
not hired. How do you know he was wasn't How
do you know he wasn't hired? Just because he says
he isn't a CIA is a is going to cover
their tracks? How do you know he's not secretly an
(16:04):
agent of them, or at least an informant for them
or whatever. He was even mocked by Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
I remember the interview he had with him. I remember, Yeah,
Tucker interviewed Putin there.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Yeah, and they brought it up, and you know, he
was mocked by him. Now I'm wondering. Okay, so his
family connections. Dick Carlson was a director a Voice of America,
involved in media and government, but also connected with the
CIA obviously or not known to Tucker till just recently.
But what about his Jesuit influence? Is there a potential
(16:44):
that the Jesuit Order has connections, But I don't think
there's anything direct. Although the Order has been linked to
influencing political and media narratives. So are they behind the
scenes controlling the voices or at least stifling them, at
(17:06):
least warning them of the boundaries. It's quite possible, right, absolutely,
If Tucker went all the way, do you think he
would be targeted?
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Probably, forget about it. He would have been going by now.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
But the fact he's left standing, he knows his boundaries. Now,
I gotta say this, I'm saying this with all candidness.
Sometimes when we're giving these presentations, we are forced to
hold our hand like hold hide our hand because if
(17:41):
we divulge everything and go after everything, sometimes we get
restrictions from the social media, from YouTube, from different ventures.
That prevents our information from going out. So therefore we're
not able to express the informa if we hit certain
(18:02):
buzzwords or let go of certain information. And some information
is actually it may be dangerous for us to totally
go into in public. So maybe we are restricted what
is it called reserved, reserved a little bit so that
we don't go overboard and put ourselves in a hot seat.
(18:24):
But is that controlled or is that just being cautious.
Some people will say that's controlled, but it's controlled. Opposition
is more of an agent that's been put out in
the field to play the stage, this character or this angle,
but instructed where not to go. That's different. I have
(18:48):
never been approached to be told not to go there.
I just may not go totally overboard with some of
the information because it flags algorithms that put me back
in the in the in the search engines and such,
and you know, we don't want that because we want
our information known. So that's a little bit different being
(19:09):
reserved than it is. And frankly, I got a Patreon page,
and I let some of the Patreon page go with
some of the information I'm thinking that I don't tell
publicly because there it's it's sort of guarded. It's people
that subscribe and contribute, and they're less likely to be
wolves or trolls that will attack me. You got to remember,
(19:32):
if you go out there on social media and you
start blabbing your mouth, you're gonna get flagged by people,
and you're gonna get reviewed, and you're gonna get reported
and banned. And if not careful, having an agency looking
at you too, you gotta be careful. So reserved is
one thing, but controlled like actually in the in the
(19:52):
camp of of what being watchful and watching what you say,
and maybe you're maybe you're traded, uh restrictions for information,
you know you know what I mean by that. Like
Fritz Springmeer once, when I was talking to him at
a time, he said the CIA approached him and the
(20:18):
Rothschild's I'm sorry, ciawa after him. The Rothschilds approached him
and said we could give you information, but you got
to do it under our terms. And he says, no,
I'm not going to do that and get restricted. In
other words, he would be controlled. That's a control opposition.
You're you're told what to say, what you can't say,
and told the boundaries. They'll give you the information and
(20:40):
feed you the information. As long as you feed the
information they give you and not go outside of that,
that's a controlled agent. Of course. Fritz spring Meriers said,
you know, he denied that, and he got stripped of everything.
His his wife crossed him and burned all his documents,
which I've talked to her before. She seemed saying at
the time, but she went haywhile wire burned all his
(21:04):
documents and left them. Maybe that was part of the setup.
I don't know, but it was freaky weird. Could be
the lord's his wife. So you know, these I don't know.
I don't know what goes on. But there's other other
characters out there besides Tucker. This one just came up recently.
But what about Candice Owens. What's your opinion on her?
Speaker 1 (21:30):
I haven't really been following her too much, but actually
I haven't, you.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Know, Yeah, well, yeah, she says things that I agree with.
She's she she's called out Israel, the aggressors and and
and stuck up against the Zionist regime.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Oh well, yes, okay, I just brought up her picture. Yes,
I'm in agreement with what she says at least majority
of the stuff.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
Yes, well, some people say she avoids the Zionist control.
I have a statement here that she's praised by many
conservative movements for her bluntlessness, bluntness. But does she avoid
going after true dark forces like global banking systems, centralized powers,
(22:17):
or even the influence of the Zionist lobby and politics. Yeah,
I think she has.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
She does. Yeah, when you see them going against that,
the true the head of the beast what you just said,
the Zionists and the other you know, then you know
that there there's a good chance there not controlled opposition.
They're actually you know, they're on their line.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Yeah, but there's people that still question that she's leading,
steering the narrative towards a controlled opposition platform that criticizes
only surface issues, avoids going too deep into the conspiratorial subjects.
But I think she's hit some things head on. I'm
not saying before you say I endorse her or oh
(22:59):
it sounds like you're not critical enough. I'm not going
to go totally overboard on these people, But I don't
support anybody, just so you know, I'm just analyzing this
from a point of view. I've heard her, you know,
I've heard her say things that I would say. It's
a dangerous line when you come against a Zionists, and
(23:21):
she's got criticism. I'm wondering if she's got any Jesuit
connections though her family background there, I don't think there's
any direct Jesuit ties that I know of. But her
marriage is to a well connected individual, George Farmer, who's
the son of a British Conservative peer group, and he
has ties to the British aristocracy and international interests. And
(23:49):
she has converted to Catholicism based on him. So is
this a trap to get her towards closer to a
Jesuit connection the Catholic Jesuits. I don't know. Is it enough?
I don't know. It's a possibility, and could they be
running the narrative of the anti Zionist group, But I
don't know. All Right, they're in the.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
Same team basically, right Zionis and Jesuits. They're both agreeable.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
People would contradict that. People will say no, they're totally opposition.
But and then you'll get the circles that say, no,
the Zionists are in control of the Jesuits. They started
the Jesuits, the crypto Jews started the Jesuits. And you
know my feelings on that. I think that was a
fabricated documents and letters that people like Melazaski whatever his
(24:39):
name is, Benjamin Nettinnat Yahoo's father Benzion melan Kinski or
whatever his name is Russian, he was touting for the
Desionist movement. He was a Zionist, and he started bringing
up this information that said that, oh, the Jews were
hiding crypto Jews so they can creep in and infiltrate
(25:02):
and take over all these sectors of society. They're strong men,
they're heroes, not weak followers or slaves of the Inquisition. No,
they changed the profile. But so they said that the
Zionists may have or the Jews may crypto Jews may
be so strong that they started the Jesuits. You know,
(25:26):
because Ignatius of Loyola was it Jesuit or a crypto Jew. Well,
there's no real proof of this. This is just speculation.
So when you say are they working hand in hand,
I think it's more I think the Jesuits acted more
of the spy, spying out the Rabbis and the Jews,
and helped propagate them for their purpose. If you have
(25:50):
a scapegoat, you could take the eyes off the Jesuits
and off Vatican, and you can put it on something
that's neutral, And to them it was neutral to put
it on the Zionists. So the Jesuits may be working
with the Zionists, but they may be working in opposition
of the Zionists to set them up. Who knows, mm hmm,
yep so, but yeah, all you know, all roads leading
(26:14):
to the same means to the end. But you know,
I don't think they're necessarily working together, but I think
they're working in conjunction with each other towards the new
world order. You know, the Jesuits are handling the religious
political affairs and the Zionists are handing handling the Israeli
(26:36):
Middle Eastern Jewish affairs of that leg. So they're working
in concert of each other, probably more so. So, I
don't know. That's all right. Then we have the character
of Alex Jones. He's a polarizing figure, isn't he.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Oh, he's amazing, unbelievable off me.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
Do you do you do you like his information? You
think it's credible?
Speaker 1 (27:01):
Well, what he gives is mostly good, But is it all,
you know, all the information we need to hear, you know,
first of all, or is he leaving omitting parts out
that he shouldn't tell.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
I think of him? Okay. So there's things he says
that leads to documents that are official documents, and I've
I've gone to his I don't listen to him, but
I've gone to his site to find info WARS was
behind the release of a document that they found in
the army, or they found in the military, or they
found in the government. But I don't go through his channel,
(27:38):
you know. In other words, I don't go through his filter.
I don't like listen to what he says about it
and go through his filter and take his word for it.
What I do is I take the hint to the document,
and then I go find the document myself in the
government files, and then I make my own assessment. But
I wouldn't have known those documents existed if he didn't
(28:00):
him out. So he is useful. It's just you don't
want to really trust his information because, like you said,
he could be short circuiting it, and I think in
that I consider him more of a gatekeeper.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
But he does say it can be checked out. That's
the thing, because everybody listens to Worldwide and it.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
Does get you. I checked out many of the things
he says, and what he's saying, what he's pointing to
is correct. It's just I think he goes off the
wall with it, and I think he takes it to
an extreme where he's redirecting you to a non threatening
area where it's not threatening to the elite, like he
takes it just so far and then bends it. And
(28:40):
I have proof of this. You ever hear of Melissa
and what's his name? Uh? Dyke's their uh stream truth
stream TV something like that. No, they came from Alex
Jones's staff. They were part of staff, and the reason
(29:01):
they left was because they said that they would they
would come upon the deep sections of a story and
look into it and investigate and find that it went deeper,
and they would present it to Alex Jones and Alex
would say, no, no, we're not going there, We're stopping here,
and he would cut him off and wouldn't let him
investigate any further, and they deducted from that that he
(29:25):
only goes so far and then diverts in another way.
So he's being controlled somehow. And I believe, and this
is speculation, that he's exchanging information with Intel for his
you know, sworn sworn that he won't go into areas
(29:51):
that they don't want him to go. And I think
that's what happened at Sandy Hook. I think he went
overboard and went too far, and they show him down right.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
I've seen pictures of Sandy Hook shooting of the parents
standing around and it looked like they were standing at
their kids soccer game. It was like social hour, everybody
talking around, chatting, smiling.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
Well, we know there. We know there was also a
drill going on at the same time, and they filmed
the drill as part of the event. And there's there
was people that were active in that that were crisis actors.
We know that for a fact. But they muddied it
up so bad that they they put live events in
their live reports to make it. But his problem was,
(30:35):
you know, he came out too far. I mean, you
may agree with him, but because he's controlled, he went
further than his boundaries let him allowed him. So I
think that's why he got found out or why he
got cut down. But he's discussed the globalist agenda, he's
(30:57):
discussed Desigonist influence. He's even discussed the New World Order.
But then he said the new World order is good
as long as you control it.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
And I think I heard that. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
And he's also made hint that he has a secret
society connection that he made reference that he comes from
a line of Freemasons in his family and he says,
I'm not one, but I come from a line my grandfather,
you know, my uncle. He talks about family that were Freemasons,
(31:31):
and he says he wouldn't go there, but they did.
So had he been brought up in this idea, has
he been targeted to go further so that he can
lead the gatekeeping controlled opposition part of it, I don't know.
I'm just saying he's he's definitely up for being a
(31:54):
classic case if there was one. And then you got
a couple couple key figures. We got a question, what
about Joe Rogan. He brings some good stuff, he says,
some good stuff, and he has some inside stuff, and
he does some research and he's got people that criticize
the Deep State and such, but his rise in popularity
(32:19):
and connection to tech giants like Spotify and Silicon Valley
makes you wonder if he's got connections that he's catering to. Also.
I mean, he is an entertainer, he's come from that,
but I think he has a genuine desire for truth.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
You know, he seems like he's legitimate, hopefully.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
But does he steer his platform away from the real
issues of the global control, like the deep state? That's
what we wonder. Does he just go so far? He
keeps it on an entertainment level, but and he goes
far to a certain extent, But does he just kind
of veer off when it comes to naming names and
going for it. He wouldn't be here with us, and
(33:06):
he's making millions with just podcasting, so he's connected. He
can't sever that relationship. He loses wealth. So he's got
to be controlled. If he's not reserved like I talked about,
maybe he's controlled. Maybe they're giving him exchange of information
or allowance of information as long as he doesn't hit
(33:28):
those boundaries. Just be careful when you listen to people,
because you don't know what their true intent is you
don't know if they're just naive and where they're going,
or that their true intent is to just steer you,
Like I wouldn't listen to Sean Hannity. He has a
long tenure with Fox News, and he's been on w ABC,
(33:49):
and he's got a talk show that he went mainstream
and mainstream media. And you know, he advocates the right,
the political right, but is he's serving a creation of
illusion of opposition with the confined confines to the mainstream media.
He seems to be on a narrative that is acceptable.
(34:13):
He never talks about the New World Daughter, never talks
about anything with the Zionists or anything. You know, to him,
nine to eleven weeks was not an inside job, it
was the narrative was correct. It was terrorists.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
Makes sense what you're saying, I gotta say it.
Speaker 2 (34:30):
But he also makes reference to his Catholicism loyalty. So
maybe he has favor with the Jesuits. I know, I don't.
I ticked them off one time, but anyway, So then
we have Michael Savage, who actually got taken off the
air because of his outward expression. He crossed the boundaries
(34:52):
that they didn't like. So he just went he went satellite,
and he's known for his outspoken criticism of the left
and his nationalist sentiments, but does he ever go deep
into the deep state. I remember Mark Dice, the famous commentator. Uh,
(35:14):
he's kind of a bold blunt. He confronted Michael Savage
and said, what about the New World Order? You never
talk about the New World Order? And Michael Savage blew
it off and said, oh, there's no new world what
are you talking about? And then eventually Michael Savage started
coming around and talking about the New World Order, and
he even admitted both parties are controlled, so there's no
(35:35):
sense in taking sides. They're both controlled. The New World
Order is vast, but he says, I don't like talking
about it. At least he admitted it. But I think
he went over to board over the over the Top.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
And then Chase from what's that the Savage Nation.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
Yeah, that's his, that's his that's his fans base and stuff,
and that's his talk show and his fan base and stuff.
But you know, I started liking him. He started going
off the wall and started rallying against the New World Order.
But he, like I said, he admitted, I got to
stop here. At least he admitted I can't. He even said,
(36:17):
I can't go any further or they'll be coming after me.
Speaker 1 (36:20):
That's good, he said that.
Speaker 2 (36:21):
Really Yeah, at least he admitted. That's different. It's a
little bit different. Maybe he's not controlled, maybe he's just reserved.
But then there's there's the Hagman Report. I don't know
if you ever was privy to the Hagman Report. I
used to listen to them, Hagman and Hagman his son.
His son was on the show and unfortunately died of
(36:41):
a heroin overdose, and his Doug was trying to say
he was set up and hit off, but we don't know.
But Hagman, Doug Hagman has a history of being a
former private investigator, and that's his show's focus on investigative journalism,
and he uncovers the intelligence and follows a narrative that
(37:04):
focused on some of the inside information. But he admitted
on the Greg Jackson Show that he was a graduate
from Jesuit seminary. He's Jesuit trained, and he admitted that
his views come from the Catholic view, so as he
(37:25):
controlled by the Jesuits. He admitted it off the air
or off the cuff. I think it was in a
silent part of the interview off air that they recorded.
But believe it or not, Darren, I have connections with
some of the people associated with that show. I've interviewed
(37:46):
some have had some talk to me, but I'm not
affiliated with any of them. I don't support any of them.
I just had connections with him. I think Doc Marquee
came from that crew. I've even I've even talked to
Steve Quail at part of that crew and briefly just
(38:06):
just acknowledged, uh what he was working on. But uh,
you know, maybe he had heard of me. I don't know.
Probably not. They probably don't care who I am. But
uh uh, there was other people on that show that
know who I am. I'm sure. And then this guy
that came about I heard him having a talk show
(38:29):
on radio, Buck Sexton. Have you come across that name?
On conservative radio?
Speaker 1 (38:36):
Him?
Speaker 2 (38:37):
And he has connections with the FBI, but he avoids
the deep state stuff. He doesn't go into the central
banking system and criticism. But he graduated as a as
a Jesuit. Also, he graduated from Jesuit Regi Regis High School,
earning a bachelor's degree in political science from Amherst College.
(39:00):
But when you learn the Jesuit ways, you learn globalism,
you learn inside stuff. So both may be serving a
purpose presenting alternative views in such a way, but they
they got to stay away from the boundaries too and
hit a certain certain demographic that you know, they've got
(39:23):
to stay to their audience, but away from the target,
so you know, And then we have news sources. I
don't know how you feel about Newsmax again another conservative media.
That most of these media are shortsighted. They don't go
(39:47):
far enough, they don't go as far as we go.
But maybe that's all they're supposed to go. That's all
they know. Maybe I don't know, maybe they know more.
I don't know, but I think that's all they know.
I think they're really just short sighted. And then you
got the extreme, the Q the QAnon and yes, you
might be a fan of them, but I'm not. I
(40:09):
just don't.
Speaker 1 (40:11):
They don't appeal to me, not the Noons, but possibly
Q just hoping. I'm hoping it's real, but it could
not be.
Speaker 2 (40:17):
Still don't know who they are. Didn't some maybe Trump,
that's what they're trying to say. I don't think he
doesn't have time for that. Uh, then they didn't some
come out like Michael Flint or something else. Is that
a name that sounds familiar? Wasn't he coming out as
though he was cue?
Speaker 1 (40:36):
I think I heard that, yeah, the name, and then he.
Speaker 2 (40:38):
Ended up to be uh talking about spaceships and aliens
and stuff coming from other planets. These are the people
were trusting in our intel U for our intel inform.
So I don't buy into it. I just don't trust
the Q information. I still think it's bought algorithms just
regurging like an AI. If it's I think it is
(41:00):
because it speaks like an AI. AI can be can
be AI can be programmed for anything. And and your's
not just one AAI. It's not just open AI that's
created AI. It's not just jet GPT or whatever that's
done it. There's Venice, Venice, there's uh, there's other ones
(41:21):
that are out there. There's more than one AI. How
do you know? Q is just not some sophisticated AI,
and they just didn't reveal it because some of the
stuff that's coming up with is regurgitating old news and
some of it's just basically out there. Yeah, appeasing the base.
Speaker 1 (41:40):
Yep. I wouldn't be surprised.
Speaker 2 (41:41):
I wouldn't be surprised. Maybe that's why it's anonymous. Maybe
that's why they can't name it. Maybe it is an AI.
That would be interesting. I just came up with that.
Speaker 1 (41:53):
I think I'm the imagine asking AI who Q is?
Speaker 2 (41:56):
Wow, let me try it. I don't know, okay, Uh.
It might not tell the truth.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
Of it, of course not. It might get mad at you.
Speaker 2 (42:07):
You know, they don't usually get mad at the people,
but they might get mad at.
Speaker 1 (42:12):
The They said it has like a It can actually
sense sarcasm if you ask it a question.
Speaker 2 (42:20):
Yeah, it can.
Speaker 1 (42:24):
Imagine, I think can actually get mad. Wow, that's scary.
When you get AI mad at you, you know you're serious.
Speaker 2 (42:32):
Well, I've caught it in lies. I've tried it, and
I caught it in a lie and I called it out.
Speaker 1 (42:36):
I'm going to try to catch it on a planet
earth flat Earth. I came up with an idea.
Speaker 2 (42:41):
All right, So AI says Q for Q and on movement.
See I told you that Q. You said Q is
different than q andon. Q or the q Andon movement,
which is synonymous, is not an individual It's a centralized
far right conspiracy theory movement that began on online from
(43:05):
for forums like four chan. Q is supposedly identity of
an original poster who started it. Q andn movement grew
around interpretating and spreading those posts. Q and on followers
believe in a variety of conspiracy theories involving government corruption,
(43:25):
child trafficking, secret war. I mean, we know there's child
trafficking obviously, but they claim that they're after them and
they're they're arresting them, which is really just a fantasy
of it. It's a false hope. Could Q be an AI? Okay,
I'll ask AI. Oh yeah, that's a great relevant question.
(43:49):
And while possible in theory, there isn't evidence that it's
an AI. It's got signed of human behavior. All right,
I'm going to contradict it. I'm using AI right now.
For folks that say you should never ever use AI, well,
(44:10):
I'm using AI to explore AI. Could Q have been AI? Technically, yes,
that would be a very complex operation, powerful enough that
natural language would need to human like understanding of political context. Okay,
watch this, Yes, but as I explore AI, it seems
(44:35):
that you have and can develop human like behavior. Let
me see how to word it. What did I say
about what it said about human signs of human okay,
(44:56):
human like behavior? Okay? And response? All right, how's that? Q? AI?
Take that? You're right? Modern Ais are talking very human
That's exactly why your question could AI have been? Q
have been? AI? Isn't just imaginative, it's plausible. Oh thank
(45:20):
you Ai. AI has just validated my suspicions that Q could,
in fact, after thinking about what I just said, having
human like because it says, oh, Q is too human
like with responses No, not really, AI has very human
(45:44):
like learned responses and ut critical thinking. Yes, you're right, Jim.
Now I didn't say Jim because I didn't plug my
name in. Yes, you're right, it could be so, AI
agrees with me. All right, dare you have it? Darren boy?
Oh boy, that's a freaky thing, isn't it?
Speaker 1 (46:05):
Sure? Is man?
Speaker 2 (46:08):
Well, that'll get people thinking. All right, well, let's let's
uh let's end there. We had a nice discussion, a
nice session tonight. So to ease back into our our
our experience, our discussion, UH forum here. Thanks Deren for
rejoining me after several months and.
Speaker 1 (46:29):
Uh it's been a while, looking forward.
Speaker 2 (46:31):
To some more and folks out there be ready for
some shifts and discussion. Maybe maybe we will open up
some of these topics. I gotta get brave enough to
do so, because, uh, I don't. I tend to not
want to go towards subjects I don't absolutely, adamantly agree
with or believe in. But who am I? Maybe I
(46:52):
should bring them up because maybe I can openly criticize him,
you know, bring up the skepticism about things? Right? Why not?
Speaker 1 (47:05):
Sure? Why not?
Speaker 2 (47:06):
Anyway, let's go with that. Thank you for listening, and
God blessed. We'll see you next time. My website Jimdukeperspective
dot com, and we can be heard on all your
favorite apps. Share it, spread it, tell people about the information,
and thanks for those that have been contributing, supporting and
sending some good messages and reviews. We'll see you next time.
Wake Up Radio Network. A rational voice in a world
of conspiracy. Jim Duke perspective.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
All right, Darren, I got you, I think right you there.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
I'm here finally. Wow, we have technical difficulty.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Yeah, how you doing? How you bet?
Speaker 1 (00:22):
It was so much better, very good, excellent, just keeping
busy and.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
So I know we're on a different device and we
had to try to configure things. And not only that,
I haven't been in my studio and I'm still on
an archaic system. I can't find my microphone arm adjust
adjustment arm. I can't find the microphone holder. I don't
know where it went in the move. So I've got
(00:45):
a hybrid mic. I'm using my SM fifty seven right now,
just because it's lighter on the on the on the microphone.
But they're very good mics. They're very durable. Anyway, nobody
needs to know the technical details, Darren. And there's a
lot of stuff that we needed to catch up on
and uh over the over the past months, a couple
of months that we've been on together. Boy lot going on,
(01:09):
a lot going on. I had a studio build and
I finally got it built. I put it on social
media to show people the version of it that I have,
and Uh, I had to get back into into the
into the you know, into the thing of seeing. Uh,
getting back into groove of things. That's what I'm trying
(01:31):
to say. All right, I see, I'm so flustered, I
can't even speak. But there's a lot of things going on,
and since our last meeting, I'm thinking about a new studio,
new direction. Maybe we'll maybe I'll start to entertain some
of these other off topic fringe topics that you know,
(01:53):
our taboo because I don't have to first of all
agree with them all just to present them right, Darren,
I don't have to agree exactly right. But I also
I may not be correct on everything. This is the
thing I used to want to come on and be
your expert, you know, be your person to go to
(02:14):
for the inside information. And there's so many people doing
it now it's so saturated. And you know what I'm
finding Darren. You know what I'm finding out about all
these experts, What's that they're only experts in their one
sphere of realm, of their angles that they take. So
(02:34):
in other words, if you got an expert and he
knows all about this area, he only knows about that
area that he's read or that he's looked into, or
that he's privy to. He might not know what you
and I might know because he might not have read
the same collection of books that we read. So their
(02:54):
expertise is only based on the information at hand for them.
Some people do go into more widely spread research papers
and such, but still they take it sometimes from an
angle from their bias. And I think we all do that.
So are we really equipped as experts on our own
(03:19):
or just maybe in the one sphere that we have
that we're biased towards, And maybe we need the collection
of others that are that have the information on their
biases to really make a whole, you know, connection to everything.
In other words, you can't know everything is is you know.
Speaker 1 (03:40):
Yeah, that makes total sense. Absolutely can't be a you know,
the jack of all trades.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
No, And everybody that says they're an expert, you'll notice
that they fail in considering other information that they're not
privy to. So maybe we better be a little more
careful when we say, oh, my information, I'm more of
an expert than you are. Maybe we need each other
to fill in the blanks. So I'm going to be
(04:08):
one voice that has an opinion that may have his
own opinion. It may be Jim's perspective, and it may
be what I see right now. But you know, you
may bring information that I haven't had, that I hadn't considered,
and so you know, maybe I'm not the only voice
that needs to be heard, and maybe I will entertain
(04:31):
some other voices out there, you know, But then you
run into trouble people saying, oh, you brought them on,
how do you know they're credible? You know, you're entertaining
these people that they're fakes or they're false, or they're
false prophets, or they're this or they're that. Well, yeah,
(04:54):
maybe they are, maybe some are, but maybe we're just
being harsh and critical of people that we don't really
see their point of view at the moment. So let's
all humble ourselves and maybe just present the information and
if you don't agree, we don't agree. We don't have
to prove ourselves all the time. We could try to
(05:14):
prove ourselves for our point to make our case, but
if somebody doesn't get it or doesn't see it, or
are we to make them see it or get it,
because maybe we don't have it all right. I don't know.
Sometimes we try to be our own experts. But anyway,
I'm going to try to.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
You know, make sense what you're saying.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Absolutely, yeah, okay, So saying that I want to look
into some things that came up recently speaking of people
that don't always have it together, or people that are
short sighted or whatever. Did you see the latest the
news of an interview with Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
I've heard some things about him, you know, like very questionable.
Speaker 2 (06:01):
You know, all right, well what have you heard?
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Well, once when he was asked about nine to eleven, Uh,
he didn't want to comment on it, like he was
denying that he was corroborating the mainstream narrative that it was,
you know, the nineteen terrorists.
Speaker 2 (06:18):
Oh so he wasn't following the narrative of the truth.
Speaker 1 (06:22):
Or alternative right, like of yeah, the truth is that
it was you know, an inside job. So that I'm
like right away when I heard that, I'm like, this
is strange.
Speaker 2 (06:30):
So you may you may have I don't know him
that well, I haven't followed him, but you may be
more privy to that than I am. So, I mean,
he seemed to kind of not change but come to
grip with things and start to like seem like he's
acting like the truth or movement a little bit.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
Right, Yes, since then? Yeah, so he does things that
are you know, says things that are you know that
makes sense, and other things. It's hard to say. I
don't know about him. I'm not sure.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
It's hard to judge these people. Before we go on
with that, let me since we haven't talked in a while,
since we're on you know, the control of things and
the release of information. I'm sure you have different angles
that you have taken over this Epstein file thing. We
haven't talked about this because we haven't been together since this.
(07:20):
I kind of mentioned it on some podcasts. But what
do you think happened with this Glainne Maxwell testimonies? What
do you think will come of it? And is this
a set up for future arrests or are they just
inquiring how much she knows?
Speaker 1 (07:41):
You know?
Speaker 2 (07:41):
It's a very good question. Yeah, actually I do.
Speaker 1 (07:44):
If I knew, i'd want to say, i'd say it,
you know, Okay, I actually don't.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (07:47):
I'd like to think that they can use there for,
you know, to get better in other names.
Speaker 2 (07:52):
Are they doing that I don't know. Or are they
getting to know where what she knows so that they
can backtrack and protect those all right?
Speaker 1 (08:02):
That could be a too Yeah mm hmm.
Speaker 2 (08:05):
So is the epstein Is that still trending? I mean,
I don't want to make a whole show of it.
I just wanted to touch base of it. I mean,
people sick of this already.
Speaker 1 (08:12):
And the whole world was talking about it.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
Yeah they were one, even the even the conservatives, even
the Trump supporters. And but she was questioned by what
the d o J is that? And and she didn't
hold back, and she didn't hold back any information I
know it. So they said she didn't hold She spewed like,
do you think there's going to be an event of
(08:36):
a suicide someplace along the way? Well, she all of
a sudden, uh, decided to commit suicide? Or and is
Trump still deflecting the importance of this because he was.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
Or she die of natural clauses the next day? Yeah? Yeah,
yeah right.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
But Trump, it was still deflecting the importance, wasn't.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
He Yeah he was.
Speaker 2 (09:02):
And he was claiming, he was claiming it was all
a democratic plot. Remember that, did you hear that?
Speaker 1 (09:10):
He said?
Speaker 2 (09:11):
He said Oh, it's the Democrats calling for this. They
are the only ones interested in this. I don't know, Darren.
I don't know about you, but I'm not a Democrat
and I'm interested in this. I was interested in hearing
what they had to say. And you know, if the
argument is that if Trump was in it, the Democrats
(09:32):
would have used it to expose him, So the fact
that they couldn't expose him from it proves that he's
not in it. You think that's.
Speaker 1 (09:43):
True, Well, it's possible.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
But if they're also in it, they don't want to
expose him because they'll expose them. So maybe that's why
they're not. Yeah, maybe that's why everybody's hush hush about it. Uh,
the Democrats. You know, if he was in it, if
he had something to hide, the Democrats would have been
all over this. No. Not. If they have something to
hide too, they're probably all over it too. Remember Clinton,
(10:11):
They said Clinton's name is all over it.
Speaker 1 (10:14):
Mh wouldn't would be funny, not funny, terrible if they're
all in honest, they're all they're guilty.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Yeah, but so do you think we're gonna get anything
out of this? Probably not?
Speaker 1 (10:26):
Huh, it would be nice. You know, I think there
will be a big release of names coming up. I
honestly think so.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
I think. Would you think there's gonna be arrests and
everything else from it? Yep, I don't. I think there's
gonna be a couple a couple pawns thrown out there,
and there's gonna be more cover ups then you can believe.
And they're only gonna let redacted information. They're only gonna
(10:56):
let information out that they want out. They're gonna basically
secure all the information and just let you out what
you need to appease you to think something is being
out there. It's all controlled, so we don't know where
(11:17):
they're going with it.
Speaker 1 (11:18):
But just the fact that the epstein has been brought
to the public, you know, the issue of it twenty
how many years ago? Twenty years ago, nobody would have
known that what was going on, and now everybody's knowing
what's going on. So that is a step in the
right direction.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
So yeah, I mean, they could have completely hid this,
covered it up, and not really made a big deal
about it. But the fact that they brought it to
the public is getting people to question what's going on
in the government and who's involved. Even if they even
if they release a redacted version, you know, blotted out names,
and they don't expose the names. Don't you think people
(11:54):
are going to start the question what's blocked out and
start to question who's on it?
Speaker 1 (11:59):
YEP.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
So maybe you're right, Maybe they you know, maybe something's
coming out of this, at least being brought to the light.
But you know, the people that we have bringing this,
they're the ones that I'd like to look at at
this time. What does does Tucker Calson say anything about
(12:23):
that the Epstein files? Has he called for an examination?
What's his point?
Speaker 1 (12:28):
I haven't heard about him say anything yet. No, but shoot,
that would be good if he did on Fox News
that maybe let me see if I can google it?
Speaker 2 (12:40):
See all right, yeah I do that. I'm just gonna
say key points that like Tucker calls, and what we
know is he's positioned himself as a critic of the
mainstream left. But we're wondering if he if he's been
an instrumental in pushing a control limited narrative that doesn't
go deeper to address the corruption within the political elite.
(13:05):
Does he cover for them? He allowed he is he
exposing anybody I mean, he's had a history with Fox.
He's a corporate media giant with ties to global elites,
Rupert Murdoch, global connections and stuff. So we wonder if
he's got these connections, did he break ties or is
(13:26):
he treading with caution? And does that make him does
that make him controlled? Because he's got a tread with caution?
Don't go here, Carlson.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
Well, actually he was interviewed and it says Tucker Colson
had claimed that Jeffrey Epstein was working for the Israeli
government and that every single person in Washington to see
thinks the same. Oh, I've never been met I never
met anyone who doesn't think that. I don't know any
of them that hate Israel. But no one feels that
(14:00):
they can say that.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
Yeah, hmmm, Well, here's what came up recently in an interview.
In a striking revelation he had, he expressed his surprise
upon discovering that his late father, who is his name
is Dick Carlson, had connections with the CIA. He said,
(14:30):
I didn't know that. According to him, the information came
after his father's death that prompted people to ask about
his family legacies in there and their connections with intelligence works.
He he he acted like he didn't know. He said
(14:54):
he just found out when his father died. Wow, my
father was a CIA. I thought he he was going
to the office every day. I thought he was, you know,
a laborer working in a factory. How could he not
know something? But it's claiming they're claiming that he just
found out and didn't know, and people are questioning it.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
That's strange.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
But you know what else came out?
Speaker 1 (15:19):
What's that?
Speaker 2 (15:20):
It also came out after talking about his family ties
to the government agencies, that it comes to find out
that Tucker Colson himself attempted to join the CIA in
his youth but wasn't hired supposedly, so he did have
connections with the CIA. He at least tried to join them.
(15:44):
How do you know, all right? With the CIA and
their secretive I tried to join them, but I was
not hired. How do you know he was wasn't How
do you know he wasn't hired? Just because he says
he isn't a CIA is a is going to cover
their tracks? How do you know he's not secretly an
(16:04):
agent of them, or at least an informant for them
or whatever. He was even mocked by Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 1 (16:16):
I remember the interview he had with him. I remember, Yeah,
Tucker interviewed Putin there.
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Yeah, and they brought it up, and you know, he
was mocked by him. Now I'm wondering. Okay, so his
family connections. Dick Carlson was a director a Voice of America,
involved in media and government, but also connected with the
CIA obviously or not known to Tucker till just recently.
But what about his Jesuit influence? Is there a potential
(16:44):
that the Jesuit Order has connections, But I don't think
there's anything direct. Although the Order has been linked to
influencing political and media narratives. So are they behind the
scenes controlling the voices or at least stifling them, at
(17:06):
least warning them of the boundaries. It's quite possible, right, absolutely,
If Tucker went all the way, do you think he
would be targeted?
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Probably, forget about it. He would have been going by now.
Speaker 2 (17:19):
But the fact he's left standing, he knows his boundaries. Now,
I gotta say this, I'm saying this with all candidness.
Sometimes when we're giving these presentations, we are forced to
hold our hand like hold hide our hand because if
(17:41):
we divulge everything and go after everything, sometimes we get
restrictions from the social media, from YouTube, from different ventures.
That prevents our information from going out. So therefore we're
not able to express the informa if we hit certain
(18:02):
buzzwords or let go of certain information. And some information
is actually it may be dangerous for us to totally
go into in public. So maybe we are restricted what
is it called reserved, reserved a little bit so that
we don't go overboard and put ourselves in a hot seat.
(18:24):
But is that controlled or is that just being cautious.
Some people will say that's controlled, but it's controlled. Opposition
is more of an agent that's been put out in
the field to play the stage, this character or this angle,
but instructed where not to go. That's different. I have
(18:48):
never been approached to be told not to go there.
I just may not go totally overboard with some of
the information because it flags algorithms that put me back
in the in the in the search engines and such,
and you know, we don't want that because we want
our information known. So that's a little bit different being
(19:09):
reserved than it is. And frankly, I got a Patreon page,
and I let some of the Patreon page go with
some of the information I'm thinking that I don't tell
publicly because there it's it's sort of guarded. It's people
that subscribe and contribute, and they're less likely to be
wolves or trolls that will attack me. You got to remember,
(19:32):
if you go out there on social media and you
start blabbing your mouth, you're gonna get flagged by people,
and you're gonna get reviewed, and you're gonna get reported
and banned. And if not careful, having an agency looking
at you too, you gotta be careful. So reserved is
one thing, but controlled like actually in the in the
(19:52):
camp of of what being watchful and watching what you say,
and maybe you're maybe you're traded, uh restrictions for information,
you know you know what I mean by that. Like
Fritz Springmeer once, when I was talking to him at
a time, he said the CIA approached him and the
(20:18):
Rothschild's I'm sorry, ciawa after him. The Rothschilds approached him
and said we could give you information, but you got
to do it under our terms. And he says, no,
I'm not going to do that and get restricted. In
other words, he would be controlled. That's a control opposition.
You're you're told what to say, what you can't say,
and told the boundaries. They'll give you the information and
(20:40):
feed you the information. As long as you feed the
information they give you and not go outside of that,
that's a controlled agent. Of course. Fritz spring Meriers said,
you know, he denied that, and he got stripped of everything.
His his wife crossed him and burned all his documents,
which I've talked to her before. She seemed saying at
the time, but she went haywhile wire burned all his
(21:04):
documents and left them. Maybe that was part of the setup.
I don't know, but it was freaky weird. Could be
the lord's his wife. So you know, these I don't know.
I don't know what goes on. But there's other other
characters out there besides Tucker. This one just came up recently.
But what about Candice Owens. What's your opinion on her?
Speaker 1 (21:30):
I haven't really been following her too much, but actually
I haven't, you.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Know, Yeah, well, yeah, she says things that I agree with.
She's she she's called out Israel, the aggressors and and
and stuck up against the Zionist regime.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
Oh well, yes, okay, I just brought up her picture. Yes,
I'm in agreement with what she says at least majority
of the stuff.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
Yes, well, some people say she avoids the Zionist control.
I have a statement here that she's praised by many
conservative movements for her bluntlessness, bluntness. But does she avoid
going after true dark forces like global banking systems, centralized powers,
(22:17):
or even the influence of the Zionist lobby and politics. Yeah,
I think she has.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
She does. Yeah, when you see them going against that,
the true the head of the beast what you just said,
the Zionists and the other you know, then you know
that there there's a good chance there not controlled opposition.
They're actually you know, they're on their line.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
Yeah, but there's people that still question that she's leading,
steering the narrative towards a controlled opposition platform that criticizes
only surface issues, avoids going too deep into the conspiratorial subjects.
But I think she's hit some things head on. I'm
not saying before you say I endorse her or oh
(22:59):
it sounds like you're not critical enough. I'm not going
to go totally overboard on these people, But I don't
support anybody, just so you know, I'm just analyzing this
from a point of view. I've heard her, you know,
I've heard her say things that I would say. It's
a dangerous line when you come against a Zionists, and
(23:21):
she's got criticism. I'm wondering if she's got any Jesuit
connections though her family background there, I don't think there's
any direct Jesuit ties that I know of. But her
marriage is to a well connected individual, George Farmer, who's
the son of a British Conservative peer group, and he
has ties to the British aristocracy and international interests. And
(23:49):
she has converted to Catholicism based on him. So is
this a trap to get her towards closer to a
Jesuit connection the Catholic Jesuits. I don't know. Is it enough?
I don't know. It's a possibility, and could they be
running the narrative of the anti Zionist group, But I
don't know. All Right, they're in the.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
Same team basically, right Zionis and Jesuits. They're both agreeable.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
People would contradict that. People will say no, they're totally opposition.
But and then you'll get the circles that say, no,
the Zionists are in control of the Jesuits. They started
the Jesuits, the crypto Jews started the Jesuits. And you
know my feelings on that. I think that was a
fabricated documents and letters that people like Melazaski whatever his
(24:39):
name is, Benjamin Nettinnat Yahoo's father Benzion melan Kinski or
whatever his name is Russian, he was touting for the
Desionist movement. He was a Zionist, and he started bringing
up this information that said that, oh, the Jews were
hiding crypto Jews so they can creep in and infiltrate
(25:02):
and take over all these sectors of society. They're strong men,
they're heroes, not weak followers or slaves of the Inquisition. No,
they changed the profile. But so they said that the
Zionists may have or the Jews may crypto Jews may
be so strong that they started the Jesuits. You know,
(25:26):
because Ignatius of Loyola was it Jesuit or a crypto Jew. Well,
there's no real proof of this. This is just speculation.
So when you say are they working hand in hand,
I think it's more I think the Jesuits acted more
of the spy, spying out the Rabbis and the Jews,
and helped propagate them for their purpose. If you have
(25:50):
a scapegoat, you could take the eyes off the Jesuits
and off Vatican, and you can put it on something
that's neutral, And to them it was neutral to put
it on the Zionists. So the Jesuits may be working
with the Zionists, but they may be working in opposition
of the Zionists to set them up. Who knows, mm hmm,
yep so, but yeah, all you know, all roads leading
(26:14):
to the same means to the end. But you know,
I don't think they're necessarily working together, but I think
they're working in conjunction with each other towards the new
world order. You know, the Jesuits are handling the religious
political affairs and the Zionists are handing handling the Israeli
(26:36):
Middle Eastern Jewish affairs of that leg. So they're working
in concert of each other, probably more so. So, I
don't know. That's all right. Then we have the character
of Alex Jones. He's a polarizing figure, isn't he.
Speaker 1 (26:55):
Oh, he's amazing, unbelievable off me.
Speaker 2 (26:57):
Do you do you do you like his information? You
think it's credible?
Speaker 1 (27:01):
Well, what he gives is mostly good, But is it all,
you know, all the information we need to hear, you know,
first of all, or is he leaving omitting parts out
that he shouldn't tell.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
I think of him? Okay. So there's things he says
that leads to documents that are official documents, and I've
I've gone to his I don't listen to him, but
I've gone to his site to find info WARS was
behind the release of a document that they found in
the army, or they found in the military, or they
found in the government. But I don't go through his channel,
(27:38):
you know. In other words, I don't go through his filter.
I don't like listen to what he says about it
and go through his filter and take his word for it.
What I do is I take the hint to the document,
and then I go find the document myself in the
government files, and then I make my own assessment. But
I wouldn't have known those documents existed if he didn't
(28:00):
him out. So he is useful. It's just you don't
want to really trust his information because, like you said,
he could be short circuiting it, and I think in
that I consider him more of a gatekeeper.
Speaker 1 (28:14):
But he does say it can be checked out. That's
the thing, because everybody listens to Worldwide and it.
Speaker 2 (28:18):
Does get you. I checked out many of the things
he says, and what he's saying, what he's pointing to
is correct. It's just I think he goes off the
wall with it, and I think he takes it to
an extreme where he's redirecting you to a non threatening
area where it's not threatening to the elite, like he
takes it just so far and then bends it. And
(28:40):
I have proof of this. You ever hear of Melissa
and what's his name? Uh? Dyke's their uh stream truth
stream TV something like that. No, they came from Alex
Jones's staff. They were part of staff, and the reason
(29:01):
they left was because they said that they would they
would come upon the deep sections of a story and
look into it and investigate and find that it went deeper,
and they would present it to Alex Jones and Alex
would say, no, no, we're not going there, We're stopping here,
and he would cut him off and wouldn't let him
investigate any further, and they deducted from that that he
(29:25):
only goes so far and then diverts in another way.
So he's being controlled somehow. And I believe, and this
is speculation, that he's exchanging information with Intel for his
you know, sworn sworn that he won't go into areas
(29:51):
that they don't want him to go. And I think
that's what happened at Sandy Hook. I think he went
overboard and went too far, and they show him down right.
Speaker 1 (30:01):
I've seen pictures of Sandy Hook shooting of the parents
standing around and it looked like they were standing at
their kids soccer game. It was like social hour, everybody
talking around, chatting, smiling.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
Well, we know there. We know there was also a
drill going on at the same time, and they filmed
the drill as part of the event. And there's there
was people that were active in that that were crisis actors.
We know that for a fact. But they muddied it
up so bad that they they put live events in
their live reports to make it. But his problem was,
(30:35):
you know, he came out too far. I mean, you
may agree with him, but because he's controlled, he went
further than his boundaries let him allowed him. So I
think that's why he got found out or why he
got cut down. But he's discussed the globalist agenda, he's
(30:57):
discussed Desigonist influence. He's even discussed the New World Order.
But then he said the new World order is good
as long as you control it.
Speaker 1 (31:07):
And I think I heard that. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 2 (31:09):
And he's also made hint that he has a secret
society connection that he made reference that he comes from
a line of Freemasons in his family and he says,
I'm not one, but I come from a line my grandfather,
you know, my uncle. He talks about family that were Freemasons,
(31:31):
and he says he wouldn't go there, but they did.
So had he been brought up in this idea, has
he been targeted to go further so that he can
lead the gatekeeping controlled opposition part of it, I don't know.
I'm just saying he's he's definitely up for being a
(31:54):
classic case if there was one. And then you got
a couple couple key figures. We got a question, what
about Joe Rogan. He brings some good stuff, he says,
some good stuff, and he has some inside stuff, and
he does some research and he's got people that criticize
the Deep State and such, but his rise in popularity
(32:19):
and connection to tech giants like Spotify and Silicon Valley
makes you wonder if he's got connections that he's catering to. Also.
I mean, he is an entertainer, he's come from that,
but I think he has a genuine desire for truth.
Speaker 1 (32:39):
You know, he seems like he's legitimate, hopefully.
Speaker 2 (32:43):
But does he steer his platform away from the real
issues of the global control, like the deep state? That's
what we wonder. Does he just go so far? He
keeps it on an entertainment level, but and he goes
far to a certain extent, But does he just kind
of veer off when it comes to naming names and
going for it. He wouldn't be here with us, and
(33:06):
he's making millions with just podcasting, so he's connected. He
can't sever that relationship. He loses wealth. So he's got
to be controlled. If he's not reserved like I talked about,
maybe he's controlled. Maybe they're giving him exchange of information
or allowance of information as long as he doesn't hit
(33:28):
those boundaries. Just be careful when you listen to people,
because you don't know what their true intent is you
don't know if they're just naive and where they're going,
or that their true intent is to just steer you,
Like I wouldn't listen to Sean Hannity. He has a
long tenure with Fox News, and he's been on w ABC,
(33:49):
and he's got a talk show that he went mainstream
and mainstream media. And you know, he advocates the right,
the political right, but is he's serving a creation of
illusion of opposition with the confined confines to the mainstream media.
He seems to be on a narrative that is acceptable.
(34:13):
He never talks about the New World Daughter, never talks
about anything with the Zionists or anything. You know, to him,
nine to eleven weeks was not an inside job, it
was the narrative was correct. It was terrorists.
Speaker 1 (34:28):
Makes sense what you're saying, I gotta say it.
Speaker 2 (34:30):
But he also makes reference to his Catholicism loyalty. So
maybe he has favor with the Jesuits. I know, I don't.
I ticked them off one time, but anyway, So then
we have Michael Savage, who actually got taken off the
air because of his outward expression. He crossed the boundaries
(34:52):
that they didn't like. So he just went he went satellite,
and he's known for his outspoken criticism of the left
and his nationalist sentiments, but does he ever go deep
into the deep state. I remember Mark Dice, the famous commentator. Uh,
(35:14):
he's kind of a bold blunt. He confronted Michael Savage
and said, what about the New World Order? You never
talk about the New World Order? And Michael Savage blew
it off and said, oh, there's no new world what
are you talking about? And then eventually Michael Savage started
coming around and talking about the New World Order, and
he even admitted both parties are controlled, so there's no
(35:35):
sense in taking sides. They're both controlled. The New World
Order is vast, but he says, I don't like talking
about it. At least he admitted it. But I think
he went over to board over the over the Top.
Speaker 1 (35:50):
And then Chase from what's that the Savage Nation.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
Yeah, that's his, that's his that's his fans base and stuff,
and that's his talk show and his fan base and stuff.
But you know, I started liking him. He started going
off the wall and started rallying against the New World Order.
But he, like I said, he admitted, I got to
stop here. At least he admitted I can't. He even said,
(36:17):
I can't go any further or they'll be coming after me.
Speaker 1 (36:20):
That's good, he said that.
Speaker 2 (36:21):
Really Yeah, at least he admitted. That's different. It's a
little bit different. Maybe he's not controlled, maybe he's just reserved.
But then there's there's the Hagman Report. I don't know
if you ever was privy to the Hagman Report. I
used to listen to them, Hagman and Hagman his son.
His son was on the show and unfortunately died of
(36:41):
a heroin overdose, and his Doug was trying to say
he was set up and hit off, but we don't know.
But Hagman, Doug Hagman has a history of being a
former private investigator, and that's his show's focus on investigative journalism,
and he uncovers the intelligence and follows a narrative that
(37:04):
focused on some of the inside information. But he admitted
on the Greg Jackson Show that he was a graduate
from Jesuit seminary. He's Jesuit trained, and he admitted that
his views come from the Catholic view, so as he
(37:25):
controlled by the Jesuits. He admitted it off the air
or off the cuff. I think it was in a
silent part of the interview off air that they recorded.
But believe it or not, Darren, I have connections with
some of the people associated with that show. I've interviewed
(37:46):
some have had some talk to me, but I'm not
affiliated with any of them. I don't support any of them.
I just had connections with him. I think Doc Marquee
came from that crew. I've even I've even talked to
Steve Quail at part of that crew and briefly just
(38:06):
just acknowledged, uh what he was working on. But uh,
you know, maybe he had heard of me. I don't know.
Probably not. They probably don't care who I am. But
uh uh, there was other people on that show that
know who I am. I'm sure. And then this guy
that came about I heard him having a talk show
(38:29):
on radio, Buck Sexton. Have you come across that name?
On conservative radio?
Speaker 1 (38:36):
Him?
Speaker 2 (38:37):
And he has connections with the FBI, but he avoids
the deep state stuff. He doesn't go into the central
banking system and criticism. But he graduated as a as
a Jesuit. Also, he graduated from Jesuit Regi Regis High School,
earning a bachelor's degree in political science from Amherst College.
(39:00):
But when you learn the Jesuit ways, you learn globalism,
you learn inside stuff. So both may be serving a
purpose presenting alternative views in such a way, but they
they got to stay away from the boundaries too and
hit a certain certain demographic that you know, they've got
(39:23):
to stay to their audience, but away from the target,
so you know, And then we have news sources. I
don't know how you feel about Newsmax again another conservative media.
That most of these media are shortsighted. They don't go
(39:47):
far enough, they don't go as far as we go.
But maybe that's all they're supposed to go. That's all
they know. Maybe I don't know, maybe they know more.
I don't know, but I think that's all they know.
I think they're really just short sighted. And then you
got the extreme, the Q the QAnon and yes, you
might be a fan of them, but I'm not. I
(40:09):
just don't.
Speaker 1 (40:11):
They don't appeal to me, not the Noons, but possibly
Q just hoping. I'm hoping it's real, but it could
not be.
Speaker 2 (40:17):
Still don't know who they are. Didn't some maybe Trump,
that's what they're trying to say. I don't think he
doesn't have time for that. Uh, then they didn't some
come out like Michael Flint or something else. Is that
a name that sounds familiar? Wasn't he coming out as
though he was cue?
Speaker 1 (40:36):
I think I heard that, yeah, the name, and then he.
Speaker 2 (40:38):
Ended up to be uh talking about spaceships and aliens
and stuff coming from other planets. These are the people
were trusting in our intel U for our intel inform.
So I don't buy into it. I just don't trust
the Q information. I still think it's bought algorithms just
regurging like an AI. If it's I think it is
(41:00):
because it speaks like an AI. AI can be can
be AI can be programmed for anything. And and your's
not just one AAI. It's not just open AI that's
created AI. It's not just jet GPT or whatever that's
done it. There's Venice, Venice, there's uh, there's other ones
(41:21):
that are out there. There's more than one AI. How
do you know? Q is just not some sophisticated AI,
and they just didn't reveal it because some of the
stuff that's coming up with is regurgitating old news and
some of it's just basically out there. Yeah, appeasing the base.
Speaker 1 (41:40):
Yep. I wouldn't be surprised.
Speaker 2 (41:41):
I wouldn't be surprised. Maybe that's why it's anonymous. Maybe
that's why they can't name it. Maybe it is an AI.
That would be interesting. I just came up with that.
Speaker 1 (41:53):
I think I'm the imagine asking AI who Q is?
Speaker 2 (41:56):
Wow, let me try it. I don't know, okay, Uh.
It might not tell the truth.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
Of it, of course not. It might get mad at you.
Speaker 2 (42:07):
You know, they don't usually get mad at the people,
but they might get mad at.
Speaker 1 (42:12):
The They said it has like a It can actually
sense sarcasm if you ask it a question.
Speaker 2 (42:20):
Yeah, it can.
Speaker 1 (42:24):
Imagine, I think can actually get mad. Wow, that's scary.
When you get AI mad at you, you know you're serious.
Speaker 2 (42:32):
Well, I've caught it in lies. I've tried it, and
I caught it in a lie and I called it out.
Speaker 1 (42:36):
I'm going to try to catch it on a planet
earth flat Earth. I came up with an idea.
Speaker 2 (42:41):
All right, So AI says Q for Q and on movement.
See I told you that Q. You said Q is
different than q andon. Q or the q Andon movement,
which is synonymous, is not an individual It's a centralized
far right conspiracy theory movement that began on online from
(43:05):
for forums like four chan. Q is supposedly identity of
an original poster who started it. Q andn movement grew
around interpretating and spreading those posts. Q and on followers
believe in a variety of conspiracy theories involving government corruption,
(43:25):
child trafficking, secret war. I mean, we know there's child
trafficking obviously, but they claim that they're after them and
they're they're arresting them, which is really just a fantasy
of it. It's a false hope. Could Q be an AI? Okay,
I'll ask AI. Oh yeah, that's a great relevant question.
(43:49):
And while possible in theory, there isn't evidence that it's
an AI. It's got signed of human behavior. All right,
I'm going to contradict it. I'm using AI right now.
For folks that say you should never ever use AI, well,
(44:10):
I'm using AI to explore AI. Could Q have been AI? Technically, yes,
that would be a very complex operation, powerful enough that
natural language would need to human like understanding of political context. Okay,
watch this, Yes, but as I explore AI, it seems
(44:35):
that you have and can develop human like behavior. Let
me see how to word it. What did I say
about what it said about human signs of human okay,
(44:56):
human like behavior? Okay? And response? All right, how's that? Q? AI?
Take that? You're right? Modern Ais are talking very human
That's exactly why your question could AI have been? Q
have been? AI? Isn't just imaginative, it's plausible. Oh thank
(45:20):
you Ai. AI has just validated my suspicions that Q could,
in fact, after thinking about what I just said, having
human like because it says, oh, Q is too human
like with responses No, not really, AI has very human
(45:44):
like learned responses and ut critical thinking. Yes, you're right, Jim.
Now I didn't say Jim because I didn't plug my
name in. Yes, you're right, it could be so, AI
agrees with me. All right, dare you have it? Darren boy?
Oh boy, that's a freaky thing, isn't it?
Speaker 1 (46:05):
Sure? Is man?
Speaker 2 (46:08):
Well, that'll get people thinking. All right, well, let's let's
uh let's end there. We had a nice discussion, a
nice session tonight. So to ease back into our our
our experience, our discussion, UH forum here. Thanks Deren for
rejoining me after several months and.
Speaker 1 (46:29):
Uh it's been a while, looking forward.
Speaker 2 (46:31):
To some more and folks out there be ready for
some shifts and discussion. Maybe maybe we will open up
some of these topics. I gotta get brave enough to
do so, because, uh, I don't. I tend to not
want to go towards subjects I don't absolutely, adamantly agree
with or believe in. But who am I? Maybe I
(46:52):
should bring them up because maybe I can openly criticize him,
you know, bring up the skepticism about things? Right? Why not?
Speaker 1 (47:05):
Sure? Why not?
Speaker 2 (47:06):
Anyway, let's go with that. Thank you for listening, and
God blessed. We'll see you next time. My website Jimdukeperspective
dot com, and we can be heard on all your
favorite apps. Share it, spread it, tell people about the information,
and thanks for those that have been contributing, supporting and
sending some good messages and reviews. We'll see you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!