Making Sense of the “Ye” Spectacle with Ryan Cristian

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Unknown (00:19):
Hey there, you're
listening to Unlimited Hangout
and I'm your host, Whitney Webb.
Today we are going to talk about
the latest quote unquote
celebrity distraction, the
apparent meltdown of Kanye West
who now goes by the name of yay.
While some may understandably
dismissed the entire situation
as something meant to divert our
attention away from other more
pressing topics, it seems to me

(00:39):
that there is something much
deeper and concerning going on
here that does deserve our
attention. For several years
now, I have been reporting on
the war on domestic terror
agenda, its origins, its
evolution and the development of
related policy, particularly
during the Trump administration.
And now at the Biden
administration. If you fully
understand the domestic terror

(01:00):
agenda, and its antecedents, as
well as the role of the US
national security state,
historically and manufacturing
terror threats, both at home and
abroad, the entire situation
with Kanye West starts to look
very different. It also raises
all sorts of other questions,
some of which we will hopefully
have time to broach today.
Joining me today to offer an
overview of the domestic terror

(01:20):
agenda and how it colors the
current Kanye West situation is
my friend and colleague, Ryan
Cristian, I'm sure most longtime
followers of me and my work will
be very familiar with Ryan who
runs and as the founder of The
Last American Vagabond, or TLAV,
Ryan and I have been
collaborating specifically on
this issue of the domestic
terrorist situation for years
now. And we've done several
videos over the years about this

(01:41):
agenda and how it has evolved.
And it goes without saying there
is no one I would rather talk to
you about these topics than him.
So thanks for being here today,
Ryan, and welcome back to
Unlimited Hangout.
My pleasure, always, always
happy to join you.
So there's a lot of different
points where we could start, but
I guess it makes the most sense
to discuss first, you know, the
whole situation with Kanye West,
how that's been unfolding. And

(02:02):
then go and add the important
context here about what is
likely driving, the talking
points being that are sort of
driving public discourse around
the whole insanity of Kanye West
right now. And as of for those
listening, we're recording on
Friday, December 2, so the most
recent developments right now.

(02:23):
And this whole situation around
Kanye West is him being banned.
Again, but this time on Twitter,
but this time being banned by
Elon Musk on Twitter, as opposed
to regular Twitter of
yesteryear, and also his rather
outlandish interview on the Alex
Jones program. So I guess we can
start with one of those two
things. So what are your

(02:45):
thoughts on the latest there?
Ryan, we'll go from there.
Well, it's interesting to see
how this is developed as, as of
today in the second and you
know, he so as peers, it's only
a as it stands a limited
suspension, you know, the 12
hour countdown that we've all
experienced, where you're
supposed to delete a tweet, I
guess, or punishment, we'll
we'll see how that pans out by
tomorrow. But the interesting

(03:06):
point is where all this is
developed, I think this really
comes down to the core concept
of free speech, right, you know,
and really, the genuine concept
of whether you're willing to
defend the most appalling
speech. And if you're not, then
that's not free speech. And the
problem is that today, we're
seeing this, to your point in
your opening there, which you
you've been calling out for a
very long time. And we've been

(03:27):
covering this trends, this
transition from, you know, hate
speech and medical
misinformation, to the point to
where now even with Biden's
executive order, and so on,
literally arguing words, or no
violence, when a representative
of Congress actually just spoke
on the record, saying that, you
know, sticks and stones now
actually break your bones like
they're literally making these
childish arguments about how
this is where we are. And so

(03:48):
it's interesting now to see how
this has developed. And I'm sure
it will talk about his interview
with Alex Jones, and so on, but
to the point of today, where
he's now on Elon, Twitter, and
even the engagement by Elon, you
can see how this develops. And I
was looking through this this
morning. So essentially, he
posted a joking tweet saying
this will be my last tweet. And
it was like an image of Elon

(04:09):
Musk being sprayed with a hose
it looked really unbecoming, I
guess. And Elon under that said,
That's okay. And then I'm
assuming the next week,
underneath of which Elon said
that one's not okay, is the one
that he got censored for, which
is a Star of David with a
swastika in the middle. And my
point was, regardless of what
your opinion is on that tweet,
and the images and so on,
images, and symbols are not

(04:31):
violence. And this is what
they're trying to force it and
he was censored for that. And
Elon used argued in the tweet
back and back and forth, that
that was because he promoted
violence. So this is brings us
to your main point here is that
we're at a point now where even
Elon Musk is still discussing
how hate speech has gone down on
the 2.0 everything platform,
he's calling everything out but
new Twitter app, and everyone

(04:52):
seems to be promoting the idea
that violence or words are
violence and this affects people
like us where it looked back to
Biden's executive or Under where
they discuss things as domestic
terrorism COVID Medical
misinformation, right? So this
is where I'm most concerned is
that this is clear that even
Elon Marino's that are not I
think he does is playing a part
in this. And the right is
seemingly holding them up as

(05:13):
some of them as kind of a savior
of free speech. And that's
clearly not what's happening
with Alex Jones with a with
where are the doctors that are
still censored and so on, right?
So I'm sure we could take this
1000 different directions, but
that's what I think is most
pressing right now.
So not let's forget everything
else that's happened with Kanye
West up until this point and
just focus on the tweet that he
was banned for. So before, in

(05:36):
rather, in recent weeks,
especially since Elon Musk took
over the platform, there has
been a lot of pressure from the
ADL, the anti Defamation League
and its parent organization. But
I prefer to have Twitter adopt
the I HR a definition of anti
semitism, which among other
things, essentially, conflates
anti Zionism and anti semitism.

(05:59):
Yes. Which is very thorny, for
numerous reasons. One being that
if you criticize the State of
Israel that can be deemed anti
Zionism and thus, anti semitism.
Right. So it's sort of
protecting criticism of a
particular state. So if you, for
example, point out, you know,

(06:20):
ethnic cleansing on the part of
the Israelis against Palestine,
and some people go to lengths to
sort of compare how,
particularly the new government
set to come to power in Israel
right now, where you have
followers of Mayor Kahane, who
openly call for completely
eliminating Palestine, annexing

(06:41):
it, and potentially deporting
Palestinians outside of Israel,
which is obviously an ethnic
cleansing campaign if it comes
to pass. You know, if you
compare that to things that
happened in World War Two, how
different you know, having
banned Kanye West for this
particular image, that seems at
least I didn't see the image,
but the way it's been described
seems to imply that the State of

(07:03):
Israel acts in a way that is,
you know, has features of
Nazism. Right, if you make sort
of any of these more nuanced
arguments, will you be banned
now, in the fact that Kanye West
was banned for that particular
image, I think is a, it was a
stepping stone, or could be a

(07:23):
stepping stone to Elon Musk,
adopting the IH ra definition of
anti semitism on Twitter.
Well, he's already pointed out
that he's consulting with the
ADL and other you know, thought
leaders and stakeholders, as he
puts it, right in the same, you
know, in the conversation of how
this will be regarded going
forward. And so that mean that
he publicly tweeted about that,
so it's not surprising that he

(07:44):
would kind of fall in line with
that direction. But there's a
lot of points to make in all
this, you know, first of all,
some people are pointing out,
and rightly so, you know, the
historical, the history, the
history around these symbols,
and how they're historically not
what we think of them as today
and how these symbols have been
overlapped in the past and
Buddhism, you know, whatever.
But the bottom line is, as
perceived today is how it's
being focused on. But you know,
the problem is that, to your

(08:06):
point, I'm glad you brought that
up the election, let's say, as
Robert wrote about, wrote about
for the last American vagabond,
that the let's just take, for
instance, the Jewish power
party, right, where even the ADL
will point out these people are
racist, right, openly and even
in the past have been deemed
almost a terrorist level by some
of these same people. Right? And
these are this is the group that
just got elected into power. And

(08:27):
if you point out what the ADL
says about these groups today,
you're called racist. I mean,
that's inherently count. That
doesn't make sense, right?
You're the bottom line is, it is
when people are pointing out the
Zionism aspect. Let's say it's a
political party, but then you
get called a racist for doing so
because they act like oh, well,
you're actually mean this. But
see, there's the problem is that

(08:47):
there is a world of conflating
things. Exactly. And there is a
world in which we're there are
people like us that are actually
pointing out the political
agendas of a government, not
necessarily an entire
organization or a grouping of
people, and they just the end,
so anybody on us can point out
that inside of that people with
honest intentions will get
wrapped into the argument of
anti semitism. So that is

(09:08):
obviously what's happening in
part. And so today, when your
point about him and adopting
that, I think that's absolutely
a given. I think that's already
where it's going with what he
just did. Right? You're you're
arguing that this image is a
violation and is violence. And
that's kind of the same
sentiment that's being spread
there.
Yeah. So my question is now
after Kanye West gets banned for
that image, are people who point

(09:30):
out the similarities between the
ethnic nationalism that's very
extreme, being promoted by
certain people set to take power
and Israel right now to ethnic
nationalists of the past of
great infamy. Is that is it will
they be banned now? Regardless
of their past actions? You know,

(09:52):
I don't know. But
we'd be guessing but I would
argue yes, I would argue it's
pretty clear based on where this
is going, that that is going to
be happening. It's Based on
again, the overlap with the EDL,
but also the previous actions,
but that's already been a
standing situation on a lot of
these platforms for a long time
now, right? Like, that's just
offensive, right? You're not
allowed to say these kinds of
things. You're not allowed to
have objective conversations and

(10:13):
question the narratives about
this, you know, or any number of
things today, and I think that
one's pretty clear. That's my
opinion, though.
Yeah. And I think it's gonna be
very bad. If this develops into
a situation where criticism of
Israeli government policy, or
Israeli intelligence becomes as
an East answerable offense. I
mean, obviously, that's going to

(10:33):
be bad for people like you and
me, but I mean, you've been
kicked off Twitter how many
times? I think, right. So um,
you know, I mean, it's already
complicated for for some of us,
I'm, it's a miracle that mine
still around, but I think it's
because I don't tweet very
often. At least, that's what I
what I assume it is. But you
know, if that comes to pass,
it's going to get very dicey to

(10:54):
make criticisms of a country
that is very influential in
geopolitics and other, you know,
situations globally, absolutely.
Well outside of Israel, as well.
So this is, um,
they want to scare people away.
Right? Yeah, like so people
actually, then. And this is
what, and we know this, a lot of

(11:14):
people, even independent media
will self censor, whether we're
talking COVID-19, whether we're
talking Israeli foreign policy,
or US foreign policy, people
will water down what they're
saying. So they can, you know,
skirt, the algorithm, or however
we defended today, and that's
exactly what they want from us.
And that's what that kind of
statement does, you know, and we
should be able to objectively
have a conversation about
exactly these things. Even when

(11:35):
it comes down to the supremacist
mentality of some of the people
in these countries because of
the Zionist direction from this
government. That doesn't mean
everybody, right? It's the same
point they make about Ukraine,
right? I mean, it's obvious, you
can see an overlap of very
extremist mentality from the
government down, and that has
influenced a lot of people both
were there originally. And that
came from other places. But that
doesn't mean every Ukrainian has
X, Y and Z. Right? We have to be

(11:57):
able to have these objective
conversations today. And that's
exactly what they're trying to
scare us away from.
Yeah, well, I also think people
because of how the Kanye West
situation has played out, most
people are going to be focusing
on the outlandish stuff, right?
And I'm glad you said that the
aspects of it that actually
matter. And in this is troubling

(12:17):
to me. So for example, you know,
the most there was a three hour
interview that Kanye West did
with Alex Jones, the other day,
and the most talked about, quote
of Kanye is from that is where
he appears to be praising
Hitler, right? I'm not going to

(12:38):
defend that, obviously. But what
I am going to point out is that
at the same time, we send how
many billions of dollars to
Ukraine to support people
fighting in that war, that
praise Hitler much more in a
much more overt and consistent
way than Kanye West did on the
Alex Jones program. Right? Um,

(12:59):
you know, it's it's, uh, that
particular, you know, outrage,
type of outrage over that type
of of rhetoric is either is only
highlighted, in my opinion, when
it's, you know, serves a
particular agenda. So I think
you see sort of the self
destruction of Kanye West here,
but I think it's also being used

(13:21):
for other reasons, because, you
know, like I just mentioned,
Nazis in Ukraine are okay, but,
you know, Nazis elsewhere. Not
okay. And nationalism and
extreme ethnic nationalism is
okay, in Israel, but as bad
everywhere else,
right. Right. And I think, oh,
go ahead. Sorry.
No, I just think these extreme

(13:42):
double standards need to be
scrutinized, because it's, you
know, people can point out the
hypocrisy, but there's something
else going on there. 200%.
I mean, there's a lot of
different factors at play. But I
think the important parts to
include there for is, you know,
obviously, as I made, I keep
pointing out, regardless of your
opinions about what he is
saying, does he have a right to

(14:03):
say these things? Obviously, if
you don't defend the most
appalling of the speech, you
don't believe in free speech,
but we have a right to argue
that if you feel that way that
he's wrong, or disgusting, or
whatever you may think, right,
that's free speech. But what's
interesting you point out there
is, you know, there, and this
is, people even criticize our
coverage of it from yesterday
for the same reason, and it's a
fair point. My point yesterday
was more about defending the

(14:23):
Free Speech aspect and going
into the actual nuance of this
conversation. But since we're
talking about it, you know,
there was a lot of things that
he said there that I would even
argue my sense of this is it
feels like this is being set
there, whether they know it or
not to divide people in the
actual conversation of free
speech, like always divide and
conquer, but it's almost being
used to give objectivity a bad

(14:44):
name. Right. And the point being
is that he said, say, like, you
know, we I love everybody, or
there's good things to
everybody. And I think that is
almost meant overlap with
Trump's comments about you know,
good people on all sides kind of
thing. But, you know, then he
goes and says, you know,
specifics about you know, Hitler
did this or whatever. And the
point is that Do you it's when
you highlight the one exact
point, you can make it seem far

(15:05):
more radicalized than other, you
know, whatever. But the bottom
line is that he did say things
that I personally disagree with.
But it really doesn't matter
because it comes down to the
fact that he has a right to say
them and words are not violence,
right. But it's all being used
to drive a very clear direction.
And I think it's meant to
overlap with this whole. I would
which I've called you know, the
vanilla ISIS SIOP or creating
the idea that these people are
exactly what many of them have

(15:26):
always thought they were because
of the propaganda. Now, I don't
know if they know that or not.
Right. But I that's happening.
Yeah, so the whole vanilla ISIS
thing is, you know, as we've
talked about, and as I've
written, you know, for your
site, the war on domestic terror
is basically that that is the
narrative that it's vanilla ISIS
meaning white people isis this

(15:48):
time, right. And the narrative
has been that it's anti semitism
and anti semitic Trump
supporters that are going to be
the quote unquote, domestic
terrorists. So at the same time,
then you have the inter the
cross pollination between these
groups, Nazi groups that are
being funded with us money and

(16:09):
Ukraine, like the Azov battalion
being the most well known. They
cross pollinate with groups in
the US and the FBI knows this.
They've known it for years, and
nothing is done about it. Right.
Okay. So if you were familiar
with the history of al Qaeda, or
even the history of ISIS, which
was sort of, you know, the

(16:30):
second Middle East boogeyman
that was, has similar roots, in
a sense to al Qaeda, which, you
know, the official narrative of
that is complete bunk. You know,
I think the easiest way for
people to get a handle on that
is to watch the recent
documentaries that James Corbett
has put out on the topic, if you
want, you know, a crash course

(16:51):
in that. But it's, you know,
that was created for very
specific purposes, ie the quote,
unquote, war on terror. And the
war on domestic terror is no
different. Even going back to
the Oklahoma City bombing,
which, again, if you look at the
actual events around that the
official story is bunk. There's

(17:11):
no way Timothy McVeigh did that
alone. There was involvement of
other actors, but the narrative
was dangerous. Veterans.
militias are dangerous, you
know, in these sovereign citizen
movement, all that stuff, it was
all sort of blamed on them. And
there was an effort to create
domestic terror legislation at

(17:31):
that time, which was actually
introduced by Joe Biden. And
among other things, that
particular piece of legislation
wanted to give the President of
the United States complete
autonomous authority to declare
what groups and what people in
the United States are
terrorists, right, like he has
unilateral authority to declare
that that was that bill, but

(17:52):
Biden introduced. It didn't
pass, obviously. But it's very
interesting that you have Biden
in power right now, when a lot
of this stuff is coming to a
head
that his his executive order
about domestic terrorism
essentially, is his now he's
president. Now. He just kind of
writes it in as an executive
order at the same point, right.
Oh, right. Well,
that yeah, that tradition that
sort of develop, especially
since you know, the George W.

(18:13):
Bush era, I'm just legislating
through executive order. Yeah.
Yeah. So there's that President
that where he could, you know,
develop that really any way he
wants? I mean, who knows, maybe
that same type of policy will
rear its head sooner rather than
later. With with him as
president, you know, that
remains to be seen. But anyway,
you know, you have that
narrative being seated. Way back
in 1995. And since then, we've

(18:35):
had these events that have, you
know, really pops, you know,
gotten a lot of mainstream media
coverage, like the the failure
or the failed attempts to kidnap
the governor of Michigan,
Gretchen Whitmer, which is now
basically been revealed to have
been like a FBI setup. Right.
And some of these other things
like January 6, of course, and

(18:55):
it's involved in the involvement
of the FBI there and how they
were being waved in and how
people that I'm sure we'll talk
about again, today at DHS
basically said this was going to
happen a year before it did and
compared it to the next 911 We
can't stop and it's going to
happen. And it's going to be
like this before it happens. You
know, sort of like the new Pearl
Harbor quotes that proliferated

(19:18):
before 911. So, you know, if
you're looking at the national
security state, and all of this,
the domestic terror narrative,
if you've been following it, is
definitely painting a very
specific picture and has been of
what an alleged domestic
terrorist looks like. Right,
right. And it seems like Kanye
West, and you know, is being a

(19:40):
he's also going around with Nick
Fuentes. Right? It looks to me
that these are going to be the
new poster child, children for
that particular narrative,
regardless of how true or not
true that is. Yeah,
yeah. No, I agree. And I And
that's important that whether
they know it or not, because I
think that's kind of one of the
ways these kinds of plays work
today. A lot, you know, you
could take Trump, for example,

(20:01):
like, I'm still debating on
whether I feel like he's really
aware of how he's being used in
this, or he's completely
involved. And it could just be
these people are being used
social engineering everyone to
discuss it, you know, they may
not even realize they're playing
these bars.
Yeah. So let's turn back to
Kanye for a second. So the most
interesting thing about this
whole situation to me was when
he published those text messages

(20:23):
between him and his parent,
personal trainer, a guy named
Harvey Pasternak. Yeah. Whose ex
Canadian military intelligence,
if I'm not mistaken. Yeah. Very
strange. Yes. And apparently, I
forget where I read this, but
I'm going to try and find it to
put it in the show notes. You
know, it's important to point
out that, you know, MK Ultra,

(20:44):
right, the program, I'm sure
everyone's heard of it, that
involves Canada and Canadian
intelligence to a significant
degree. And the claim has been
made that, you know, these
programs continue to exist to an
extent, maybe that's true. And
you know, in the case of the CIA
and groups like that, if they
don't ever face accountability
for something more likely than

(21:05):
not, they'll continue to do it.
Oh, yeah. But, you know, I can't
really give you an absolute
think it's continuous still, I
think most people, you know, in
the space that we work in,
probably do. But again, I can't
provide direct evidence for
that. Yeah. But this particular
exchange of messages between
Pasternak and Kanye West is

(21:27):
quite revealing, because this is
supposed to be a guy who's a
personal trainer, which you
would I think most people think
of as the guy that like takes
you to the gym and helps you'd
like work out. And what he's
saying instead is, I don't like
what you've been saying. So you
can either have a conversation
with me, or I'm going to have
you institutionalized and
drugged and send you back to

(21:47):
Zombieland forever. Right?
That's, that's not a trainer.
That's a handler.
Yeah. So that's a pretty crazy
exchange. Yeah, right. Um, and I
think, okay, so if, if he was
being, you know, handled or
whatever, or this Pasternak guy
from some time, and spent times,

(22:09):
you know, the way it was written
the message, he was basically
saying, this had been done to
Kanye before. Okay, I just want
to say that since the situation
started, and Kanye has come out
and been saying this stuff,
there's no way this is a guy
that is like, operating at 100%.
Right now, if he's been through
some sort of crazy, like,

(22:30):
institutionalized drug thing,
and like all this other stuff,
with people that have
intelligence ties sort of
handling him, you know, it's
very likely that I don't really
I think he's being used right
now.
I 100% agree with that. That,
but I would, you know, and I
know you would agree. I mean, we
don't who couldn't say for sure

(22:51):
whether he you know, he seems to
know what he's saying. Like, if
you just kind of watch his cut
his dialogue, though. Yeah. But
here's, here's my thing. Well, I
just think if you're gonna if
he's like, mess up like that,
and you're trying to come out of
it, who's the the people that
are guiding him towards the
answers that he's found? That he
thinks explain his predicament?
Right, who are the people who

(23:12):
are surrounding him right now,
as he's having this meltdown?
It's a new group of people. Are
these his new handlers?
Right? Yeah. I mean, that's
again, I don't I it's hard to
say, but I think it's clear.
Now, we don't know. But I think
it's worth pointing out because
I don't think, you know, I think
they want someone like him out
who's been through these
experiences that maybe have
given him, you know, problems.

(23:36):
Right, and like acting, quote,
unquote, normally, and they want
to push him out there. They want
to give him specific
information, and talking points
and have him make a fool of
himself. Right? Yeah. If for
example, Milo Yiannopoulos, or
however you say his name, who I
think in Nick Fuentes, who were
supposed to be like managing
quote, unquote, Kanye West's

(23:58):
suppose Id presidential
campaign, why would they not sit
down with him and be like, if
you want to actually do this?
Why don't you make a well
reasoned case? For why the US
Israel relationship is messed up
and needs to change? Well, yeah,
I mean, from a political
standpoint, obviously, like if
you're if you're actually trying
to play the game, but what's

(24:18):
interesting, but he's
not trying to play the game, and
neither are the people behind
him. Exactly. Exactly.
Exactly. And what he's saying
is, I mean, and it's important
to point out that even though
you can argue he has a right to
say these things, there's
endless examples of how they are
being completely broad brushed
are saying, you know, there's
points where you're he's saying
Zionism, but there's also points
where he's saying that Jewish
people do this and so on. And

(24:39):
you can't no honest person can
stand by a statement like that.
It's broad brushing no matter
what group you're talking about.
Sure. Right. And so I would
argue again, with I agree with
you, I think it's it's
intentionally inflammatory to
the point that we're nobody
honest, can defend it. So I
agree. I mean, that's why I feel
the same way. I feel like this
is a setup, whether they know
that or not, and I agree with
you, I think that people will
sign on alongside them. You
know, these people aren't

(25:00):
stupid, they're well aware of
how these things are being
subjectively presented, in my
opinion. And I think you're
right. I think there's a reason
to it. My point was, it's about
the whole overlapping of words
and violence, which Elon Musk
just made clear. Personally, I
think so.
Yeah. So I am leaning towards
the view that it is a setup.
And, you know, I think,

(25:21):
obviously, there's no intent to
actually have any sort of
positive, productive, like
nuanced discourse come out of
this whole Kanye West situation.
And I think that's because of
the people that have been in his
circle since he sort of left the
pastor neck orbit then and he's
moved on, you know, to these

(25:41):
other people who are around him
constantly in arranging these
interviews for him that's not
currently doing that himself.
Right. Right.
Well, I mean, it's important to
look at the the trainer handler,
you know, in the whole situation
itself, even before this point,
and just, you know, I mean, what
kind of what person can can have
you involuntary vault
involuntarily committed, or

(26:02):
argue that you'll be drugged if
you do X, Y, and Z, like, that's
not normal, even for somebody in
that position with, you know,
lots of money and so on. Like,
we just need to see that for
what it is first, and then
realize that from there, it's
only gotten more intense, you
know, so just something is going
on like this is clearly and
something's happening right now,
what that is we could all be
guessing at, but it doesn't seem
organic to me.

(26:22):
Yeah, I don't think it's
organic, either. Because think
about the early interviews he
was doing. And as this whole
situation has developed, the
earlier ones, were very, very
different than the one with Alex
Jones recently, right? Where
he's like, talking on an Elmo
voice and like, has makeshift
Puppets and Stuff and he has a
ski mask on his face like he's a

(26:43):
member of ISIS or so yeah.
It's meant to be outlandish what
my question is, how did he get
from their those early
interviews? Yeah. Where it was
much more nuanced what he was
saying, not necessarily like
agree with everything, right.
But it was much more nuanced
compared to what was being said
during the Alex Jones and a real
Yeah, how has that evolution

(27:04):
happened? Because he's been
around these particular people,
Nick Fuentes, and Milo sorry, I
tend to say Meelo sometimes
because it's like the oval teen
equivalent and Chile that my
daughter is obsessed with. So I
think it's important to point
out that, you know, that what,
you know, again, this, who knows
if it's organic or not, however
it is or not, I don't think it
is, it's being used in a way

(27:25):
that's obvious, right? Like,
what they're showing you right
there to me, is the pipeline,
what they want you to think is
the pipeline of radicalization,
right? Here's what happens when
you look at the right talking
points, you become more and more
extreme. And the point is, I
mean, I don't think it's
organic. But just to play object
objective on either side of
this, you could argue that this
is a person who's gotten so
frustrated by the fact that

(27:46):
nobody's hearing what he's out,
no one, everyone's out, you
taking them out of context. And
so he's become more and more,
you know, everybody's okay. And
I'm trying to be more like, I
don't, that doesn't make sense,
right? Because you don't end up
going to a point either he
thought these things from the
very beginning, and he was being
soft rolling them out or not
either way, right now, this is a

(28:06):
person who's making arguments
that are subjective in a lot of
different ways. You know, and
that is not an intelligent
argument. You can't broad brush
these things. So I ultimately
think it's being like you're
saying that there's something
coaxing this from behind right
now driving this interaction,
and it's causing exactly what
they want from a larger agenda
standpoint that yeah, I'm
calling out for three years.
Yeah, there's something I
definitely think at this point.

(28:27):
There's something behind this
evolution from point A to point
B with point A being the early
interviews and point B being the
Alex Jones kerfuffle. And what I
worry about now is what happens
next. Right? Are they going to
institutionalize him because
he's too crazy. There have been
calls for that on social media

(28:47):
people saying like, he looks
like he's going to shoot up a
mall and stuff for that he's
acting like a terrorist and
stuff.
Well see, this is where I want
to bring up the points what
here's what's happening
simultaneously, is this right?
In Louisiana, a guy just got
arrested under anti terrorism
laws for making a joke comparing
the COVID-19 process to zombie
apocalypse, arrested under anti

(29:08):
terrorism laws. Now he got let
go. But the people that arrested
him got qualified immunity for
some unknown reason. Nothing
happened right in Germany. 91
people over the last so many
weeks, just got arrested,
interrogated for hate speech. So
there's this very clear shift.
Even me personally, like my
appeal for Twitter got denied
during this amnesty process. And
yet the new claim they gave me

(29:28):
was hateful conduct and
violence, but it was censored
under medical misinformation, as
you know, in the first place. So
there's clearly some kind of
shift happening about why you
know, into the words or violence
realm. That's where I see this
going. Now, if he is
institutionalized for this, it
will only divide things further,
it's going to dry. I mean, I
think what this has done, first
of all, is divided very
strongly, right down the center

(29:50):
of the Free Speech argument,
right? So now people are
divided, but it's going to cause
even more of that and it may
even create the very kind of
civil war mindset that people
are, you know, like that. We
know they're trying to initiate
to point out, I think I would
argue I know I believe that's
what I want to bring up to. And
what I want to drive home during
the course of this conversation
is that the war in domestic

(30:10):
terror as designed is a war
based on pre crime. Right? You
and I've talked about this a
lot. I reported a lot on this
starting in 2019, when William
Barr Attorney General under
Trump launched a pre crime
program. The justification for
that being things like the El
Paso shooting, which is I noted
in my previous reporting, at the
time at MIT Press, Bill Barr

(30:32):
seem to miraculously predict not
that long before it happened.
And that, you know, basically,
that event happens and then
manufactures consent for this
policy that he was already
developing at the time, he made
this amazing prediction. And
then this program that came out
of it is called deep and then
around that same time, as you

(30:54):
and I have talked about before,
Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner,
were pushing for the creation of
Harpa, the health DARPA, the
first program of which was going
to be called safe homes with
safe homes being a very long
acronym for something sorry, I
do not remember off the top of
my head. But it was basically

(31:14):
about data mining social media,
and using it using AI to
determine which accounts showed
quote unquote, early signs of
neuro psychiatric violence, with
the aim of stopping mass
shootings before they happen.
And a lot of these mass
shootings at the time were being
framed as the work of white
supremacist.

(31:34):
It's an overlap of like social
credit with medical pre crime,
regular pre crime, like I mean,
I just don't see how people
can't see how all of these
agendas are converging in like
one exact point, right? Yeah.
And it's so alarming, so that
we have the Kanye West
situation, being at this point
now, because of what's happened
very much in line with the

(31:55):
changes at Twitter right now.
And then you think, you know,
the fact that social media is a
key part of this whole war on
domestic terror thing, and that
pre crime is a is a part of it,
and your speech is used to judge
you as to whether you may or may
not commit a violent crime in
the future. Based on the speech,
you are saying, all of this

(32:17):
stuff needs to be considered
when we're talking about what's
developing with Kanye West. Now,
he is being made a fool of Yes.
But he's also being made the
poster child for something
right. And it is a model that is
going to be used to justify what
happens to people after because
Arpit Harpa. Under Trump didn't
happen. Yeah. But the same, the
exact same entity was created

(32:39):
under Biden. It's called ARPA H.
Right? ARPA das Ah, but it's
still the health. DARPA Harpa.
Yeah, they just moved the age to
the just last sort of pistons.
Yeah. And they framed it as
being about cancer. Right.
Right. But the same people that
designed safe homes and Harpa
under the Trump administration

(32:59):
designed ARPA h, which is now
there, right? And, yeah, no,
went oh, I'll just leave it
there.
Sorry. I was just laughing
because it's, you know, it was
such an obvious ploy to be like,
we made up something new and
it's totally not Trump's thing.
It's a totally different word.
You know, it's, it's it's funny,
but But it's so alarming to me
this overlap of, you know, what

(33:21):
you're what we're talking about
here is not just pre crime,
right? Because pre I mean, it is
pre crime about, you know,
there's this person's violent
and going to commit a mass
shooting, but now we're seeing
it kind of blend with the
medical pre crime, too, because
they're framing this now as a
medical health crisis, right,
these people, right, but it's
also overlap with COVID. Because
there's arguments about how this
can affect your mental health.
And I've seen numerous studies

(33:41):
about this. So this is huge kind
of swinging thing that's
undefined until they decide to
really define it about how just
there's this nebulous problem.
And if people are predisposed to
violence that may make it worse.
And all these conversations are
being had. I want to point out
on top of the German thing,
Louisiana thing that I just
mentioned, in New York City as
of the last week, they're now
arguing and I've really
concerning way that they're

(34:02):
going to start involuntarily
committing people, homeless
people they aren't they frame
it, because they're a threat to
themselves. If they're mentally
ill, and they're like, look,
it's a it's a misconception.
They need to be violent to be
contented, detained. But what I
found really concerning is when
you read through what they're
talking about, like the actual
legislation, or the the point
they're writing out, it doesn't
really mention homeless people.
So they're using that as they
frame it. Well, the homeless

(34:22):
people are concerned. But all it
really translates to is we're
writing down that we have a
right to involuntarily detain
you if we decide you're a threat
to yourself. And this is all
happening simultaneously. Right.
So I think that's connected. And
I think that's what all of this
is about. And you're right. And
I think he's being set up as the
poster child.
Yeah. So well, so at the very
least, we've already covered a
lot of reasons why this does no

(34:44):
good. This whole thing as it's
playing out right now and why
it's really bad. And so I want
to turn right now to some of the
other stuff that you and I have
talked about a lot and I sort of
mentioned earlier. Well,
actually a couple things.
Thanks. So I want to talk about
this Lady Elizabeth Newman, who
you and I have talked a lot

(35:04):
about. But I also want to make
some time to talk about the anti
Defamation League, which is
playing a big role in stuff
going on here and what the deal
is with them, and why it is so
bad. And why it's an awful idea
to have this be the organization
that decides what's anti semitic
and what isn't. And to be
involved in drafting free speech

(35:25):
stuff, one of the reasons being
that it's essentially an
admitted by many objective
sources, even it functions as a
lobbying arm of Israel's
government. But there's other
reasons that I want to get into
about why it's not good to have
them in this particular role.
But first off, I want to talk
about Elizabeth Neumann. So I
know that you have the clip, and
we can throw it in the show
notes. So Elizabeth Newman was

(35:45):
testifying at this Senate
hearing, I believe, in February
2020. And the the name of the
topic, or the name of the
hearing, specifically was
confronting the rise in anti
semitic domestic terrorism. So
at this point, even in the
testimony, she the there's
really not that much evidence or

(36:06):
examples of recent anti semitic,
specifically anti semitic
domestic terror. There was I
think, the Tree of Life
synagogue shooting, and there
was a lot of talk from a
particular Rabbi claiming
talking about cyberbullying of
his children. Yeah. So those two
things in and of themselves are
rarely enough to prompt a

(36:26):
congressional or Senate hearing,
especially in a lot of the
things that were referenced were
the spate of mass shootings in
2019, that were around the
William Barr situation I just
talked about, but none of those
were anti semitic. Right? They
were framed in the media as
white supremacist. But that's
not the same thing, right?
And even necessarily very
subjective on the way they
framed these things to based on

(36:48):
their perceived points.
Yeah, so in this particular
Senate hearing, and then she did
another one in 2021, I think
when she wasn't part of the
Homeland Security, or I'm not,
I'll have to check up on that.
But she's been around in the
media and been a big voice,
claiming that Trump pours fuel
on the fire of the white

(37:08):
supremacist movement, and has
been setting a lot of narratives
about this for a long time. And
it's worth pointing out that
before she was in this DHS
position, she worked at the
Office of National Intelligence,
which is, you know, the Director
of National Intelligence is
office. And of course, that
would be the person who is not
just who is basically in charge

(37:29):
of all 18 US intelligence
agencies. So the top spy in the
country, the person that
ostensibly oversees the CIA, the
NSA and all this stuff. Yeah. So
just want to point that out,
before we go any further.
Because it's, it seems pretty
important. So yeah, so she ended
up resigning in April claiming
that the Trump administration

(37:49):
and Trump is trying it is taking
taking steps that are making
domestic extremism flourish in
the US, and she voted for Biden,
and she's talking about all
sorts of things to justify her
concerns. And she, she harps on
over and over again, about anti
semitic hate crimes, but again,
doesn't really supply a lot of
examples about what those hate
crimes are, right. But in this

(38:13):
recurring theme that we've been
seeing, it's all related.
There's so much focus, not just
from Newman, but other people
like her that say similar things
on social media and social media
censorship. So again, I want
people listening to this to
understand that you can't really
divorce the war on domestic
terror in this whole you know,

(38:34):
creation of this new terror,
boogeyman, vanilla, ISIS,
whatever it is, it is now you
can't separate it from the
social media discussion about
censorship, or monitoring or
whatever. So one of the things
that we have focused on Neuman
for, is what I mentioned a bit

(38:54):
ago, her prediction that another
911 is building, and we can see
it coming, but we can't quite
stop it. Meaning, you know, if
you're DHS, and he, you know, or
work with the intelligence
agencies that surveil the
American public, if you see it
happening and can't stop it, you
know, it, you're probably
letting it happen, or you're

(39:15):
going to plant it and then let
it happen. You know, but yeah, I
they obviously would not admit
to that. But you know, it's a
very telling quote, because this
essentially comes to pass with
January sixth, not that much
later. And then after you have
Newman statements, you have
things like the transition
integrity project that predicted

(39:38):
January 6, again, before it
happened in the same timeframe,
basically saying something was
going to happen between Election
Day and Inauguration Day that
fits the same metrics, right?
Yeah. And one of the top people
at the transition integrity
project was another former DHS
head, Michael Chertoff. So you
know, this is all worth paying

(39:58):
attention to when you consider
the Fed facts about January 6,
that there are videos of people
being waved in, and that it was
basically a setup to, you know,
create this whole narrative that
there's violent domestic
extremists that want to topple
the government.
I 100% agree with that, that
January 6, was meant to be
something that could be used

(40:19):
that didn't, I argued the people
didn't take the bait on didn't
bring guns didn't bring, you
know, we have the RE EPS point
about, you know, and it was very
clear this was being coaxed or
we have people from Antifa
literally on video saying that
they tricked people to go
inside. And, you know, now
that's inciting the
investigation. Right. But
there's another point to make
here about about Joseph Newman.
And this is the point we made
when we first discussed this.

(40:39):
And again, I'm Kevin, huge shout
out to the election special that
you you set up for us on T love
right that we did a three part
on, I mean, just so prescient,
so many things in that were
clear that MIT came to pass him
on COVID around all of this, I
recommend gonna go back and
check that out. But we discussed
this. And the other point was,
even in the way she says that,
that we don't know how to stop
it. Well, if they're breaking

(40:59):
the law, then you'd be able to
stop them. Right. So the point
is, even as she made clear in
the discussion, these people
aren't breaking the rules.
They're just finding ways to
kind of wink wink, say what they
you know what we think they
mean, but they're not actually
violating the rules of social
media. And our argument is, we
don't know what to do with that.
So their argument is people
aren't breaking the law or
breaking the rules. But we think

(41:20):
we know what they really mean.
And we want to do something
about that. So
you want new tools? That's part
of her Spiel there. Yeah.
Meaning that they want to be
able to go after people who are
saying things they think are
dangerous, but aren't breaking
any laws?
Yes, exactly. Yes, exactly. And
that's where we see that
translate into today is that now
they're just going well, you
know, and again, obviously,
Kanye is being inserted in this

(41:40):
with the things he said to make
the most extreme version of the
point. But you got people like
us, they're gonna say, well,
here, the Israeli government,
just, you know, xy and z, this
crime they committed, and then
that gets translated to violence
against Jewish people, right.
And that's actually how this is
happening right now. And even it
doesn't mean that there isn't
actual violence or people that
actually commit crimes, but
we're being conflated from a

(42:00):
hot, you know, from every
possible conversation right now,
too. If you challenge the
narrative, you're now a
terrorist. And it's not that
hard to see the connection with
Biden's executive order and
everything else we discussed.
And it goes all the way back to
what she said right there. And
it's all on the surface.
Yeah. So now that we've
established the role of
Elizabeth Newman here, and sort
of setting up this narrative,
she was one of the top people at
DHS, by the way, when this was

(42:22):
going on the Assistant Secretary
for counterterrorism and threat
prevention at DHS sounds like
precrime right there. Yeah. So
where is she working? Now? She
is currently Chief Strategy
Officer for moonshots, which
again, remember, moonshot was
also the term that was used for
Biden for what is now ARPA H.

(42:45):
Yeah, the Cancer Moonshot. Oh,
that's ARPA h now, because he
friended about being about
cancer. But as I mentioned
earlier, the same the exact same
initiative was about social
media, pre crime, preventing
violent crime and shootings
before in terrorism right before
that can happen, which is,
again, is an outgrowth of this
stuff after 911 like total
information awareness. Anyway,

(43:06):
we'll get to that later. But you
know, the name is interesting.
So what is moonshot? According
to her bio, it is a social
enterprise, working to end
online harms, including a
violent extremism,
disinformation by applying
evidence, ethics and human
rights, whatever that means, on

(43:27):
the last part. And so let's look
at moonshot for a bit. So there,
it's not moonshot.com. It's
moonshot team.com. If you want
to go and check these guys out.
They are partnered with the UN,
Facebook, Google, the British

(43:48):
Home Office, the British
department for Homeland
Security, the Australian
Department of Home Affairs, and
the anti Defamation League.
Yeah. Welcome back to the ADL in
a second. So this is a pretty
interesting company. I would
encourage people to go through
their sites, they have some
pretty interesting case studies
that they highlight here. One is

(44:11):
they were contracted by Facebook
to evaluate the performance of
their search redirect program in
the US and Australia. So one of
the first case studies they
profile on their website, this
moonshot company, they say
moonshot was contracted by
Facebook to evaluate the
performance of their search
redirect program in the US and
Australia and make
recommendations for future

(44:31):
deployments. They claim that
they're that search redirect was
designed to combat violent
extremism in dangerous
organizations by redirecting
users who have entered hate or
violence related search queries
towards the education towards
educational resources and
outreach groups. Yeah, so what

(44:53):
did this actually look like? And
this is, by the way for people
interested if you go to
Facebook's website and look Look
for the redirect initiative, you
can find some more information
about it here and also about the
team up with moonshot. But
people may remember not that
long ago that Facebook, for
example, was redirecting people

(45:14):
who like false Coronavirus
information to the World Health
Organization website that's part
of this redirect initiative they
were involved in. So it's not
just violent extremism. Yeah.
And then last May, Facebook
announced that it was going to
take stronger action against
people who repeatedly share
information on the platform. And

(45:35):
part of that was going to be
that people who engage with the
post will be redirected to
something a more accurate source
on the topic. And this wasn't
just violent extremism. Yeah,
this was according to the
article COVID-19 vaccines of
COVID-19 in general, climate
change elections or other

(45:55):
topics. So right away, we can
see that this has nothing to do
with violent extremism
necessarily. This is being used,
you know, as a basically as a
hammer to go after go after
everything. But it's a it's
complicated.
Well, it's important to include
the other angle to this right,
which is, and this is the this

(46:16):
is where it's getting more and
more convoluted, and more and
more concerning for people like
us who are just trying to
objectively converse about these
things is they've, it's, they
the way they've included these
things under the guise of
violence is now disinformation,
as we've seen during COVID
equals violence or harm, which
then is violence, right?
Ultimately, you're scaring
people away from taking the

(46:36):
injection, or you're scaring
people away from doing the right
thing about climate change,
whatever. And they argue that
translates to people dying,
therefore, you're now a
terrorist. And that's clumsy,
but they're doing it. And that's
why I feel like these are kind
of patched together. And by the
way, there's also the info
interventions platform with
Google, which is like the same
exact thing. Have you seen that
one? It's, it's a new thing, but
it's the same thing. It's a

(46:57):
setup about redirecting people
and, you know, having things
show them about, you know,
basically at this, what do they
call it the pre bunking? Right,
if you heard them talk about
that, it seemed kind of
one of the guys that was
involved in setting the stage
for that is actually one of the
cofounders of this moonshot
thing. Where's the Google? Yeah,
Google program to do this kind
of stuff. But anyway, so it's

(47:19):
not just big tech companies like
Facebook. Yeah, it's also like
the US government. Here, they
talked about one they did with
the State Department, where they
worked with the US Department of
State to create tests and build
capacity for comedic content in
Malaysia. That was again use the
quote unquote, redirect method
targeting audiences deemed at

(47:40):
risk of violence, Salafi
jihadist extremism. And then
other corporations aside from
the tech industry, teaming up
with Lloyds, a massive bank,
they selected moonshot to join
the Lloyds lab innovation
accelerator to help better
understand global geopolitical
risk. And then nonprofits and

(48:01):
the nonprofit Of course, who
else would it be they're
partnered with the anti
Defamation League to analyze us
source search traffic in
response to the threats posed by
white supremacist narratives and
ideology in the US. And the
seventh month period, moonshot
recorded over 500,000 white
supremacist searches and

(48:21):
identified important trends that
gave a fuller picture of the
threats posed to at risk
audiences by this online
community. Of course, the answer
is more censorship. And
interestingly, they focus a lot
of their attention on not the
big platforms, but Gab, Telegram
VK outlet What's the truth,

(48:44):
social, and gather? And you
know, these other you know,
supposedly alternative ones bit
shoot? Who's on here? Yeah,
yeah. We chat. Also here, and
they operate in 30 languages,
and they operate in 60
countries. So this is a very

(49:05):
interesting group to look at,
they definitely deserve some
more of our attention. But a lot
of work is going on, to set up
these continual narratives about
what constitutes violent
extremism or domestic violent
extremism. So if you look at
their most recent threat
bulletin, which was for October,

(49:26):
not so not that long ago. These
are the examples of the domestic
violent extremist trends here.
So claims of election fraud,
again, about 2020, or about the
recent midterms are endemic and
DVE domestic violent extremist
spaces, prompting a high volume
of violent hostility towards
Democrat politicians. So if

(49:47):
you're really mad at the
Democratic Party, or you think
they, you know, weren't exactly
fair with some stuff in terms of
the elections, election fraud
happens in the case to benefit
But both parties depending on
which period of US history
you're talking about, or
gerrymandering and all other
sorts of stuff, right? What was
the basis for that, though?

(50:07):
Like, I mean, that's what people
would think about the basis is
these halfhearted SIOP
narratives like January 6, or
cultural, the cultural does that
say that correctly? Right?
Hotel? I
think I'm not sure how to say
yes,
I'm saying correctly, the same
point about her being, you know,
basically set up by the FBI. And
the point, the point is that
these aren't sound, right.
Where's the example of people

(50:28):
who are questioning the election
carrying out terrorist acts or
so on? Like I if they informed
me if I don't know about it, but
how can you make this gigantic
argument that people questioning
elections, you know, while
ignoring the Democrats doing so
about the 2020, as I think you
just said, it's just it's just
silly. And ADL was inherently
anti free speech and biased. I
mean, very clearly, whether you

(50:49):
agree with them or not.
But I mean, this this bulletin
here, you know, this is
involving top top people,
contractors to Silicon Valley,
and the government and groups
like the ADL. So, you know, I
want people to really pay
attention to some of the stuff
that's in here. So it's not just
this claim claim of election
fraud. You're inciting violence

(51:10):
against Democrat politicians?
Yeah. Here's some other
examples. For tracted Pay Pal
misinformation policy, sparks
violent sentiment.
Wow. I'm actually pretty
surprised about that. So the
fact
that Pay Pal retracted their
misinformation policy, where
they're going to take $2,500 out
of your PayPal account, if they

(51:30):
decide you have misinformation
that was even criticized by
former top executives at pay,
pal. Yeah, that is deemed as
sparking violent sentiment. It
says violent threats and slurs
are being directed at the
company and its employees. So
again, incitement to violence,

(51:51):
and then also claims the policy
was developed in partnership
with the anti Defamation League
or prompting anti semitism and
calls for violence against the
ADL. All right, we're not going
to stop there. Twitter being
framed as a, quote, battleground
of extremist beliefs a space to
spread extremist views to quote
unquote, normies. Ilan must take

(52:11):
over Twitter is being celebrated
by domestic violent extremists.
Yeah,
yeah. I mean, let me I'll
comment anytime you want me to
every single one.
Well, the next one's a doozy
too. So if you want to just go
ahead and express your feelings.
Okay, run up to the midterm
witnesses first Q anon posts

(52:33):
since June. Yeah. But here's the
kicker. It's at the end of the
paragraph. In broader domestic
violent extremist spaces,
reactions to the drops are more
mixed with many alleging that Q
anon is a quote, psychological
operation. Why? Oh, domestic,
violent extremist, and Q anon is
a psyop. That's not good. How
does that they say, Isn't that

(52:54):
insane?
Yeah, like BuzzFeed, like,
logically speaking. So you're
saying so these people are being
radicalized by Q Anon, which is
one of their arguments, but yet
people that don't believe it are
also being
able to think it's a psyop? Or
also, yes, yes. Good.
Let's just cover all the bases,
right. People that don't even
know what exists are also being
radicalized.
You have to think it's real but
bad. Yeah. It's, it's crazy, or

(53:17):
Yeah, I don't know.
I mean, we can laugh about it.
Because there's no logic to that
you're just making it both sides
of the argument and saying,
Well, if it involves the queue
discussion, you're being
radicalized. And it's, it just
doesn't make any sense. But at
the same point, with all of
this, you can play this game and
anything the EDL talks about, in
my opinion, sorry, go ahead. I
know you're thinking, here's the
last
thing so we can bring everything
full circle. threats against the

(53:39):
Jewish community are at their
highest levels in six months,
increasing 29% compared to a
three month baseline. So before
I go to the next part, they
don't provide any information on
how the threat level is
calculated, of course, or what
they deem threats to be. Or, you
know, what the amount of threats
actually is? Yeah, just the

(53:59):
highest in six months. Anyway,
after that, it says coma,
peaking on October 17, following
a series of anti semitic social
media remarks by rapper Kanye
West. Of course,
to your point before it, there's
plenty of things that are
wrapped up in the argument of
what's anti symmetric that are
provably not, at the very least

(54:20):
they like you said things that
are like even arguably not are
debatably, white supremacist,
but they call it that and then
it gets scooped up by the ADL
and this list. They don't really
define right? Not to be clear.
Are there any cement people
obviously are there racist
people? Yes, that but to just
broad stroke all of these as
what they want them to be and
then not give you any metrics.
The point is, if you say these
things and go will prove what

(54:41):
you're saying ADL, they call you
an anti Semite, right? It's the
same game. It says there's no
way to make these arguments or
to try to defend or dispute what
they're saying. It's a game
that's being played and just
scooping anti to Kanye West kind
of makes our point, doesn't it?
This is being used.
Yes. It's definitely being used.
Yeah. Because why else would
this the These people like be
bringing it up and focusing on

(55:02):
it, highlighting it out of the
biggest domestic terrorist
threats in the month of October,
a major contractor for multiple
governments of Silicon Valley,
and very powerful and heavily
funded quote, unquote,
nonprofits.
You know, what scares me the
most at this point is now just
hypothetically speaking, that
this would be the perfect
moment, if I were a an

(55:23):
intelligent apparatus to execute
some kind of a false flag to
justify the entire thing. And
say, This is what his words just
led to, there's your proof of
words lead to violence, and
everything spins out of control.
I hope that hasn't happened. But
that's where this seems to
logically go.
Well, since you and I have been
watching this semester domestic
terror thing unfold, you know,

(55:43):
for a long time. You know, it
seems almost inevitable. It'll
happen at some point, but we
can't exactly pinpoint when it
will happen. I guess we're all
waiting for the next Elizabeth
Newman to say, we're seeing the
next January 6, and we're seeing
it build and we can't quite Stop
it until you give us the tools
to arrest people for pre crime,

(56:04):
which I would
argue they don't even need. The
next one was a new one. Because
that's what they need would be I
mean, to the point we always
make, too, it doesn't even have
to be manufactured. It could
just be some random thing that
happens. And they go
I know, I was joking, because I
know man tipped us off that
something was gonna come soon
about that.
Right. So I know, I knew I was
just building on that. But the
point being that ultimately,

(56:25):
that we're, everything's in
place, it doesn't even have to
be something that's created. It
could just be waiting Rahm
Emanuel styling, what never let
a good crisis go away. Suddenly,
this is what they want to be.
Right. I mean, and that's,
that's the scariest part about
this is it's that simple. And
people that already want to
agree with whatever they say is
racist will jump on that
bandwagon without even thinking
twice.
Yeah. Well, let's keep in mind,

(56:46):
too, that the rhetoric in this
country about things like race
and like white supremacy are
just like in some circles of the
country are completely divorced
from reality. There is a segment
of the population that thinks
every Republican voter is an
oxy.
Yes. And literally thinks that
which is actually pretty
ridiculous that to your point,
it's absurd, and you're
disconnected from reality. It's

(57:07):
absolutely, but it's not just
Republicans either, right? I
mean, it's the same point they
make about anybody who questions
vaccine efficacy, you're just
suddenly a terrorist all of a
sudden, sure.
Well, remember the story? I
don't know if other people do,
but I'm sure you do. Ryan and
2020. There were these claims
that white supremacist, we're
going to weaponize COVID. That's

(57:27):
right, become biosecurity
threat. All right, that they
were going to like Nazis were
going to start licking your
doorknob to give you it sounds
insane now, but these were real
headlines back in 2020.
I'm actually really glad you
brought that up that see this is
this is something you and I were
talking about. And and I still
think we're in on this track the
the overlap of the vanilla ISIS
and the COVID narrative, and we

(57:47):
were almost kind of there,
right? It's just become, you
know, hate speech,
misinformation from every
possible angle. So it's
interesting that that we, you
know, that was one of those
earliest predictions that that
was kind of going to overlap,
what I actually thought was
going to happen was going to be
some kind of a bio attack blamed
on a foreign country working
with the maggot group, or blah,
blah, blah, just guessing, but
either way this pans out and

(58:08):
kind of leads in the same
direction. So very interesting.
I'm glad you brought that
up. So there's been some weird
overlap. And I think we've sort
of referenced this a little bit
earlier in the conversation how
there is this overlap between
quote unquote white supremacy
and quote unquote, the anti
vaccine movement or COVID-19,
you know, questioning the the
official narrative and there's
been articles like the one I
have up right now and so it's

(58:28):
called alt medicine but like all
spelled like all dash right,
it's like all dash medicine. And
the subtitle is how the far
right weaponizes vaccine
hesitancy and it says all
medicine groups have managed to
monetize their opposition to
COVID-19 vaccines. So now we've
got we've gone from all right to

(58:49):
all medicine, right, but they're
framing it in those same sorts
of metrics. And I think most
people like don't even
understand what all right is
supposed to mean and so here all
medicine are people that don't
necessarily believe the official
narrative and you're seeing you
know, like these laws in
California for example, where
like, if you don't toe the line,
and you're a doctor, you're

(59:10):
like, screwed basically. So you
have to you know, the state
decides what is, you know, the
science basically, cannabis
similar this has happened, I
think, I think British Columbia
passed passed or something to
build their hands. This
particular article accuses the
quote unquote, anti vaccine

(59:30):
movement and specifically refers
to people, organizations like
children's health defense, they
say they dab and extremist
hatred, including let's see.
Here's a here's a couple
sentences from this article. It
says, However, once the anti
mass protests of 2020 have
evolved into the anti

(59:51):
vaccination protests of 2021,
the far rate has managed to
successfully groom traditional
anti Vax communities, turning a
public health concern into a
political problem of far right
extremism. Wow, this anti Vax
anti government far right
nationalist protest. medley is
evident anywhere from Canada to

(01:00:12):
Australia, where COVID-19 Anti
lockdown protests have turned to
violence and conspiracy driven
anti semitism. Wow. How does
that even get roped in? Because
they say in France, the
ubiquitous yellow stars used by
protesters to denounce that
unvaccinated status became a
stark reminder of how the pain
of holographic Holocaust
survivors can be easily

(01:00:33):
appropriated. But I'm sure they
want reference at various
Shirov. They're very outspoken
Holocaust survivor about the
parallels of what the civil
rights abuses that we saw on
COVID-19 with what she
experienced in her younger life.
So this is
a real quick, I mean, this is
the fundamental kind of like
juvenile, or maybe just

(01:00:54):
ignorance of the corporate
media, you're gonna
fundamentally choose to
misunderstand or actually
misunderstand the whole premise
of why they're wearing that
star, right? You just argue that
it's anti semitic, because
they're doing so. But their
entire point is that they are
the ones being persecuted. And
they're so essentially aligning
with the history of that idea.
Like it just it's
counterintuitive. Like they

(01:01:15):
don't, the point is their
audience doesn't care. They're
so dumbed down and willing to
gobble up whatever they put in
front of them. They don't even
realize their own point proves
that they're wrong. I just think
that's incredible. It's it's a
little microcosm of the
conversation. But
yeah, but if you're looking at
this on the broader agenda, you
see how the war on domestic
terror is not about white
supremacism like you've been
told. And it's not about anti
semitism, like they'd like to

(01:01:35):
say it's really they'll look for
Anyway, like this rather
creative quote unquote, article,
I was just reading fun from
anything they don't like any
ideology, they will find a way
to make it fit into their
narrative of these are dangerous
domestic terrorists that
threaten the public good or
public health. Or, you know,

(01:01:55):
well think of how it ever
terribly that aged, right.
That's what 2021 That article,
look at where we are right now
whether lockdowns were clearly
bad or the injections are
clearly hurting people when
people like mucholder are
standing up. Everyone's kind of
now starting to I'm sorry, I
made a mistake. These are bad.
And yet that's still there.
Oh, Amnesty says the Atlantic
Yeah. All
right, exactly. Please flip
Let's just all forget and move
forward. It's like I don't know

(01:02:16):
about.
Yeah. But again, returning to
what we talked about earlier. So
if far, right, extremism is bad.
Why can't we talk about people
like the mayor Kahane, followers
in the Jewish power party write
out exactly how to become in
charge of the State of Israel?
Right? Well, I mean, the
important point to make is
these, the leading human rights
organizations in the world are

(01:02:37):
outspokenly, calling them an
apartheid state that sell them
literally says they're a Jewish
supremacy, government. I mean,
that's their terms as leading
human rights organizations. So
you can't call these anti
semitic when you're coming from
a point of that they're
oppressing people, and it's
coming from an apartheid state
position. And then the point
about the ADL openly, and it's
not just the Jewish power party,
it's the one that I can remember
off top my head, but there's

(01:02:58):
other groups. And you may
probably know, the other groups
Alongside this, this current
coalition that have been elected
that are, like, deemed racist
and extremist even by these
Jewish groups. And yet, now
they've been elected. And that's
we're not allowed to point that
out. I mean, you overlap that
with the hypothetical, right?
You can say that Wink wink,
here's what he really means over
here in the US when he says XY

(01:03:19):
and Z. But it's still even if
they're, even if that's true,
it's still convoluted over here,
they're outwardly saying these
things, and we're not allowed to
point that out. I think that's
what you're saying. Right? I
mean, it's just, it's inherently
contradictory. And why doesn't
the ADL say that? Why isn't that
what they're focusing on? You
know, it's
Yeah, bias. So I think now is
probably a good time to talk a
little bit about the anti
Defamation League, its roots and

(01:03:41):
why it's not a good organization
to have here. But in before we
get to that point, the ADL, if
you look at their website, and
you type in nationalism, you're
going to get a lot about how all
ethnic national nationalism is
bad. White Nationalism is awful.
Black Nationalism is awful, and
so on and so forth. Right. But
if you look up Zionism, yeah.
And their complaints about how,

(01:04:01):
you know, they allege that anti
Zionism and anti semitism are
one in the same. Yeah, they will
say, how do they define Zionism?
Oh, well, it's just Jewish
nationalism. So Jewish
nationalism is okay, right. But
every other type of nationalism
is not if you're against ethnic
nationalism, you should be
against all forms of ethnic
nationalism, right? Otherwise,
you are supporting one ethnic

(01:04:23):
nationalism over all of that.
And that's technically ethnic
supremacism, isn't it? Right?
Yes,
yes. Or no. So I got a
curiosity. How do they rope in
Ukrainian nationalism in this
conversation today?
They probably don't have a part.
Right. So about that.
Which is such a huge big, you
know, elephant in the room in
the conversation, especially
since
you know what a bigger bigger

(01:04:44):
elephant in the room is? Why has
Israel's government funded as
off battalion? Exactly,
that's exactly where I was going
with that in 2018 Haaretz even
wrote about that where their own
people were like, stop funding
Nazis. Now they act like that's
not what's really happening.
It's it's current what currently
is, as you know, it's incorrect.
Whoa.
So anyway, the anti Defamation
League who's who's really behind

(01:05:05):
them, who funds them, where do
they come from their parent
organization has been I breath
if you have read or plan to read
my books, one nation under
blackmail, you will learn about
but my birth to an extent. But
my breath was founded and like
the night the 19th century, it
is basically follows the same

(01:05:26):
model as Freemasonry, but is a
Jewish fraternal organization,
but also admittedly a secret
society. And I mean, if you go
through the The New York Times
archive, you will find, you
know, articles and hybrids from
like, the 1870s, and stuff that
openly call it a secret society
and what have you. And, you

(01:05:46):
know, sort of talk about the
founders and it just like, you
know, Freemasonry, it has
different lodges and all of
that, the first of which were,
you know, in sort of the New
England area, and have expanded
across the country since then.
And they come up in the book a
lot, because a lot of the people
I end up writing about in the
book are involved with Banai
breath are on their Board of

(01:06:07):
Overseers. And a lot of these
people that are on their Board
of Overseers are people that are
provably as I noted in the book
tied up with organized crime,
intelligence, or both. So you
know, if you want the details on
that, I'll refer you to the
books and not take up too much
time here today. What the anti
Defamation League is an
outgrowth of that that was

(01:06:27):
created in the early 20th
century, as a result of the fall
out, or rather, the lynching of
a man named Leo Frank, Leo Frank
was lynched after he was found.
Well, after he didn't go to
prison for the murder, and
rather apparent rape and murder
of an underage girl that I
believe worked in the factory,

(01:06:47):
he either owned or managed, that
entire trial is insane, and
really crazy stuff. So you know,
there's been a lot to sort of
try and sanitize the details of
that over the years. But I would
encourage people to try and find
the primary source stuff about
that trial. And you know, why

(01:07:08):
things happen the way they did,
but basically, the local
community felt like felt like
Leo Frank was guilty. And there
were lots of reasons that came
out in the trial to think he was
guilty, regardless of how you
feel about the particular event
or the particular people
involved, you know, so that but
the claim from the ADL is that
this effort to go after Frank

(01:07:28):
wasn't because the community
felt like a guilty murderer and
pedophile. Got off, you know,
easy because of his powerful
connections, because he was a
B'nai Brith. Member. Right. Um,
you know, it's been claimed that
it was antiSemitism. And there's
been movies that have been made
with financing from some of
these networks to sort of paint

(01:07:48):
Leo Frank as the victim here.
Right, right. But anyway, that's
sort of the whole situation that
led Banai Brett's decree, the
anti Defamation League, right.
So the anti Defamation League,
you know, frames itself as
defending against, you know, not
just, you know, defamation of
the Jewish community, but all
sorts of different communities.
But it's, again, important to

(01:08:09):
look at who funds it. And if you
look at the people that have
historically been funding it,
it's the Bronfman family, Leslie
Wexner is historically a big
funder of it, and you know,
people sort of in those, those
networks, yeah. So here's the
problem, as I see it, if you're
like me, and you want to write a

(01:08:30):
book, about someone like Jeffrey
Epstein and his connections, and
you end up talking about the
Bronfman family, for example,
who have provable ties to
organized crime and lots of
subjectivity over the years. So
I make criticisms that are fact
based and reasonable. But the
Bronfman family, and the ADL can
come in and call me an anti
Semite. Right? Even people that

(01:08:52):
were Jewish, that have been that
I've written about the Bronfman
family in the past were called
anti semitic by the Brahmins, or
they were called self hating
Jews or, you know, stuff like
this. Yeah. But essentially, the
ADL comes in to help defend
interests or people who are tied
to its funders, just like a lot

(01:09:12):
of other organizations. I don't
think that's exclusive to the
ADL. But the problem is when you
conflate someone who is actually
involved in crime and reporting
on their provable involvement in
crimes to anti semitism, you're
essentially conflating the
activities of this criminal who
happens to be Jewish to the
entire Jewish community.

(01:09:32):
Right, great point, which is,
they're essentially doing what
they claimed by itself
is creating anti semitism.
Right,
exactly. And which could very
well be by design, but you don't
have to say things like that
either. Because you you're
insinuating that they may do
that would be anti semitism.
It's everything they can claim.
So in my opinion, the ADL
conflates uses anti semitism to

(01:09:52):
its advantage in that sense, so
maybe it will, on occasions
point out real troubling
examples. anti semitism and
other times it will conflate
anti Zionist rhetoric, which is
fundamentally political and not
racist. There are anti semitic
Jews, for example, right, a
significant community of anti
anti Zionist Jews. And actually

(01:10:14):
before World War Two most Jews
were anti Zionist. So it's not
at the anti Zionist Zionism is
not inherently anti semitic at
all.
Well, exactly. But you can make
examples of this about how
contradictory they are, or
inherently hypocritical. I mean,
I personally think this is an
entity that is doing things for
political reasons, and not
necessarily even maybe at all
about defending in a certain

(01:10:34):
group. I mean, you could point
out that they'll openly say that
wells Alinsky is Jewish,
therefore, he's not what you say
he is, how can you even make an
argument like that with what the
history we already know? Like?
There are examples of Jewish
people working with the Nazis?
Like, it's just so silly that
you can make that kind of broad
argument or what about the
Ethiopian Jewish population,
they get openly, Segre, you
know, attacked? And like there's

(01:10:54):
just no consistency to their
argument. Right. But the one of
the things that I think is
interesting today to overlap
this with the fact that they are
really more about controlling a
narrative than actually
defending the reality or facts
is, I don't know if you saw this
new documentary that came out on
Netflix actually came out today
or yesterday, I don't have
Netflix. Well, it's called
Farhan. And it's an apparently
Israel's just completely worked

(01:11:15):
up about it, calling it all like
literally, it shows, in my
opinion, and I've touched base
with a few people that, you
know, really understand the
history, they think it was
really well done, that it really
does show about the NOC bot or
something. Yeah, exactly. It was
about what happened to the
Palestinians. And and the
problem is that they're acting
like it's fake, but the stuff
they showed in the duck
documentary, or is literally
still happening today, you know,
and it's, you know, they're

(01:11:36):
coming out and tacking this as
anti semitic, and blah, blah,
blah. But you know, you can
provably show that this is even
currently still happening. So
it's just there's no
consistency. There's no facts in
this, in my opinion, it's really
just about controlling a
narrative. And, you know, you
could argue that there are
people that work with the
organization that try to do some
good, I don't know if I can
prove that. But ultimately,
that's something you could say
about any of the organizations
even something like a foreign

(01:11:56):
policy group, but to the point,
these people don't have the
interest of a group in mind, in
my opinion, I think it's about
selling us on the idea that what
they want us to think is racist
when they want us to, to x y&z
what we're talking about today
create words or violence, right
to make
the the billionaires and the
people like the Bronfman to the
Wexner. And some of these people

(01:12:16):
I talked about in the book that
are that are major funders of
the ADL, if you look at the
other organizations they've
created, like birthright, for
example, or the mega group or
things like this, what they're
most, a lot of their quote
unquote, philanthropy is focused
on instilling Jewish Americans
and also Israeli Jews with this
particular political identity

(01:12:40):
and a lot of it for these guys,
these funders of the ADL that
I'm talking about here is is
very much Extreme Pro Zionism.
very extreme ethnic nationalism,
ultimately, at the end of the
day, and you even have, you
know, key members of this of
this group here like Michael
Steinhardt saying things like, I

(01:13:02):
think that he, he's an atheist,
but he says Jews need to replace
their religion with Zionism,
worship of the State of Israel,
right. And you have these
politicians coming to power
right now that, you know, since
Likud has been in power on, you
know, more or less since the 70s
or so, a lot of people have
pointed out that the right has

(01:13:22):
really dominated Israeli policy
political discourse for a very
long time. But the current group
to come to power is even more to
the right of that paradigm.
Alarmingly so and significantly.
So yeah, yeah,
I should say, I really hope
people take the time to look
into that specifically, because
we could do an entire show on
the the outwardly spoken
extremist perspectives of the

(01:13:43):
people that are currently in
power in Israel, more so than
we've seen before. Like you can
show videos of that in the past.
But this is a whole nother
level. It's like we pointed out
even these groups that are
pointing out racism elsewhere
have in the past called these
groups themselves, like
borderline terrorists. I mean,
it's just incredible. This gets
voted in. I mean, again, I put
the caveat in if that's really
what happened. I doubt whether I

(01:14:05):
tend to question most of these
democracies today, personally,
but that's another discussion.
Yeah. I mean, I don't I don't
really know the situation there.
Because again, I don't I don't
really follow geopolitics as
closely as I as I used to,
because of everything that's
gone on in the past couple
years. And you know, sort of the
arc that might work is sort of
has sort of taken but as I see
it, the ADL is sort of there to

(01:14:25):
shepherd speech with a
particular political agenda
behind it. Absolutely. And a
part of this political agenda is
laundering the reputations and
protecting criticism of powerful
actors who engage in criminal
activity, whether that are, you
know, people in Israeli
intelligence or whether it's,
you know, people like the
Bronfman, some people like that,
that's creating an atmosphere

(01:14:47):
where legitimate criticism of
them is, you know, deemed
racist, right. And it's not
what's racist, is to say that
people that are basically in the
As the remnants of what was once
the Jewish mob, the successors
to people like Mayor Lansky, and
whatever, that calling them out

(01:15:07):
for engaging in criminal
activity is, you know,
conflating people like that with
regular Jewish people.
Right? What do you need of
itself is racist? Which is not?
That's what that's what they do,
though. Yeah, that's it do
exactly. Yeah. So, um, I don't
know what else you want to cover
today. But I did really quickly
want to want to make a return
sort of, of what we're
discussing in the beginning and

(01:15:28):
make a point that if this was
not about setting up Kanye West
for complete destruction, and to
further this particular
narrative we've been talking
about today, there is a very
nuanced case to make that
criticism from the conservative
side that criticizes the US
relationship with Israel, and,
you know, Zionism, in its

(01:15:50):
influence on American foreign
policy, and in even domestic
policy in the United States. And
I just, you know, for people
that are listening, I just think
it's important to point out some
of these key points. And one of
the, I think most important
points out of this is it is
documented that as part of the

(01:16:11):
US special relationship, quote,
unquote, between the US and
Israel, the US provides Israel
with sensitive US military
technology. Since the 90s people
in the US national security
state, the early 90s, have been
going off on how Israel has been
sending all of that tech stuff
to China, to undermine our US
national security, then you have

(01:16:32):
the case of the PROMIS software
scandal, confirmed Israeli
intelligence even involved
Robert Maxwell, put backdoors
into sensitive US nuclear net
laboratories install nuclear
research, you have that
happening, involved the same
Israeli intelligence network
responsible for Jonathan
Pollard. There is a numerous

(01:16:52):
cases of Israeli intelligence
engaging in espionage against
the US national security state,
and then using that sensitive
stolen data. And and giving it
to our best and civil
adversaries. If you are a
conservative concerned about the
rise of China, and the these
types of things. You have to
look at this stuff. You can't
look away from it. But for some

(01:17:13):
reason, you know, people do are
we going to subsidize the
Israeli military when they're
undermining US national
security? Right? Are we going to
continue to subsidize not just
their military, but also they
get lots of other subsidies from
the US from their men? For like
economic stuff and industry? And
what that but they have low
standard of living that's

(01:17:33):
comparable to the Netherlands?
Why are we pouring billions over
there? Exactly. It's still, you
know, so I mean, from a
conservative standpoint, there's
a lot to criticize. And if the
people around Kanye West were,
quote, unquote, serious about
starting a real conversation
about some of the issues here,
they would calculate, make
calculated moves, like any

(01:17:54):
political campaign, right? You
sit down, you talk about the
talking points, you plan them
out, you plan out your PR, and
all of this stuff, and people
write speeches for you, and set
up talking points for you for
interviews and whatever. And
since he's had this quote,
unquote, campaign staff, he's
gone from, you know, trying to
have, you know, his version of a

(01:18:16):
quote, unquote, normal
conversation, I guess, to, you
know, having a ski mask on his
head and talking to talking as a
makeshift puppet and unelma
voice on Alex Jones.
Yeah. Right. I mean, let's not
forget as well, that that
Netanyahu during Trump's
administration, will just his
government, let's say was, was
openly caught and covered by the
corporate media for spying on

(01:18:36):
Congress, like during, or excuse
me, the White House? Yeah,
the stingray devices around the
White House.
Right, right. In I mean, was
that did you? Did you include
that? If you missed it? No, no,
I hadn't referenced that. Yeah.
Okay. Okay. No. And so that's an
important. I mean, it's
incredible that that just got
dismissed, right? Or, I mean,
any number of examples like
that, that show you that?
There's, I mean, you know,
what's a great example of the

(01:18:57):
ignorance around the China point
is that the, in the injections
of warp speed from Trump's
polling, warp speed, operation,
warp speed, that code genetic
code for that came directly from
the Chinese through the two
Maderna on the rest of the
companies through the genetic
sequencing platform, before they
claim they've been isolated. And
yet the argument is China bad
guy, and the question what

(01:19:18):
they're doing yet the entire
impetus for the entire program
still rests on the genetic
sequence coming from China. You
know, the point is that the
whole conservative mentality
around China bad guy, or how
they perceive these things are
like we're pointing out or based
on talking points. And the
reality of this is usually far
more nuanced. And I think, to
your point about this is that if
until we're ready to have an
actual conversation about these
things, and we're only going to

(01:19:39):
get the extremist sides being
put forward by the manipulators.
Right. And you're right, though,
like if he really wanted to make
this an actual run, which I
don't think they do, right, they
would have meant they would have
been more calculating about
their moves here. And I think
anybody honest can see that the
way that this is being presented
is, I mean, again, it's my
opinion, but it seems meant to
be inflamed. matory. Right. And

(01:20:01):
I think that's your whole point
that that wouldn't be the way
you'd go about this. If you were
truly trying to inform people or
actually run for president
candidacy, you know, but I think
that we're being set up. I
really do.
Yeah. I mean, that's how it
seems to me. And you know, what
I've talked about a lot,
especially in the context of my
book is how government right now
is organized crime and its
transnational. I talk a lot

(01:20:21):
about in the book, for example,
how there were like Robert
Maxwell, obviously, because of
Glenn Maxwell and Jeffrey
Epstein. Robert Maxwell,
according to top people in the
US FBI before he died set into
motion, a global coalition of
organized crime, he united
organized crime groups all the
way from Japan, to Eastern

(01:20:42):
Europe to the Middle East and
Europe and beyond. Yeah, yeah.
He's credited with doing that.
One of his key business partners
was a guy named Semion
Mogilevich, who's Ukrainian. But
this of course, you know, was
when the Soviet Union was still
around. And he, Robert Maxwell
with Israel's approval, got

(01:21:02):
Mogilevich Israeli passports,
which enabled him to take his
organized crime activities, not
just to Israel, but to the
United States and beyond. Right,
allowed him to go global. Right.
So, you know, if people want to
talk about specifically
conservatives about the US
having a deep state, Israel
provably has the equivalent of
that, yeah, in a huge way. And

(01:21:24):
their involvement with some of
these organized crime networks
in Ukraine is considerable. So
when people want to find answers
as to why Solinsky is allowing
airsoft battalion to operate,
why Israel is giving you no
money to as off battalion, all
of this, you will probably find
the answer and the fact that
organized crime is in charge of
multiple governments around the
world. And, you know, yeah, I

(01:21:47):
don't think they want people
looking into these types of
networks, obviously,
if not, they are organized crime
entirely, right. I mean, I
remember you and I talking about
this, you know, a while back and
the interesting points about,
you know, whether, whether, you
know, just for and who knows if
its entirety or not, but whether
at some point, and this was all
based on your research about the
overlap of the Jewish mob at the

(01:22:08):
time with, you know, the, the
during prohibition and the
overlaps, and all these
different timeframes about
whether the organized crime
essentially took over the
government and just realize,
well, hey, if we play the game
the right way, we can just
become the government and
they're playing the same game.
They're just better at it, you
know? Yeah. And I think
genuinely, that's where we are
today, you know, whether it's
exactly that or not, it's,
they've essentially become that,

(01:22:29):
but I wonder whether it is
actually that, you know, and
they just decided amongst
themselves, we're just no longer
gonna tell on each other. You
know, it's very interesting
conversation. Yeah. I mean, I
know you do get into that in
your book, right. I recommend
people check that out. If I
haven't said that before. I
think it's yeah,
no, I do. I do talk a lot about
that stuff in the book. But you
know, as I see it, it's not
just, you know, this particular

(01:22:49):
group that got in bed with
intelligence and took over a lot
of political power for itself
has evolved over time. So
originally, it was sort of this
National Crime Syndicate, as it
was called, which was mostly a
coming together of the Jewish
mob and the Italian Mafia. But
you look at it over time, and
most of the Italian Mafia guys
got taken out by none other than
Rudy Giuliani in the 1980s. And
to me, that was consolidation of

(01:23:10):
control, they framed it as the
end of organized crime, the
United States. And that's not
the case. Because you have
people like I prove, basically,
you know, I make a really
convincing case, in my opinion,
of course, in the book that
people like Leslie Wexner, well,
actually, unless the Webster's
case, it's a documented
organized crime connection, he
has documented ties to organized
crime that you just can't,
unless you want to say that,

(01:23:31):
like local police in Ohio, and
you know, even beyond that, at
the state level are full of
shit. You know, they say it,
that's not nothing for me, you
know. So, you know, the
organized crime stuff is still
around. And it's definitely, you
know, once enough Americans
realize the government is
organized crime, I feel like

(01:23:52):
something has to happen, you
know what I mean? But if we're
going to cheap in the actual
discourse, and the actual
reality, to you know, Kanye
West, going around, and like
screaming about stuff on Alex
Jones's show, like, no one's
gonna bother to engage with
like, actual research about the
powers that be
that's exactly what I think this
is being done for I and I know,

(01:24:13):
this is something that not
everyone agrees with. But you
know, I've been saying this
before COVID. But clearly,
through this whole illusion, I
think things have shifted quite
dramatically. And maybe it is
just because of you. And I
talked about how clumsy this
was, and how it sort of forced
people to realize that they're
being lied to you whether
Ukraine or any other thing we've
seen since the beginning of
this, but that, that most people
are seeing through this. And I

(01:24:33):
think these are acts of
desperation to try to shock
people back into place, you
know, like that. When's the last
time we saw this kind of
madness, from all different
angles? I mean, whether it's the
great reset, or COVID, or
Ukraine or Kanye, I mean, it's
just everything's spinning out
of control. And we all feel
that, but I think it's not. I
mean, part of it is by design, I
think to drive people back into
their place, because people just

(01:24:53):
aren't really buying everything
right now. Even people that were
moments ago, buying things are
kind of like, I'm just gonna
pause for a minute, you know,
I'm not going to take that A new
booster. I don't know what's
going on right now. People are
listening more to people like
you and information like this
than ever before. That's what I
think this is all meant to do.
Yeah, yeah, it's really
possible. I mean, it's
definitely possible. So really
quick, I want to give a quick
overview before we wrap up about

(01:25:13):
some of this some other stuff go
a little farther back than we've
already gone about the domestic
terror stuff. And where this all
really comes from. So in the
book, right, I write a lot about
Iran Contra and different parts
of it and the particular power
Nexus that was responsible for
that. Yeah. So you have people
like Jeffrey Epstein and his

(01:25:34):
crowd in that mix. More
specifically, Robert Maxwell.
And that side of it, you have
Israeli intelligence, you also
have US intelligence in the CIA.
And you have a lot of other
actors, but the main players you
could probably argue, are us and
Israeli intelligence. Yeah. When
Iran Contra is going on one of
the key guys involved in it, who
people are probably familiar

(01:25:55):
with Oliver North, was
testifying as part of the
investigations into Iran Contra,
and he's asked essentially,
about the main core database,
and then the line of questioning
is shut down. Right. It's not
allowed to be answered. Yeah. So
you just record date? Sorry.
Yeah. Yeah, there's clips around
of that particular exchange. And
they're very instructive about,

(01:26:17):
you know, what part of what was
going on here? So basically,
main cord was created between
with the involvement of US
intelligence and also Israeli
intelligence. Yeah. All right.
It was a creation of a database
of perceived dissidents,
American dissidents who had
committed no crime. Yeah. But

(01:26:38):
they were deemed unfriendly,
quote, unquote, and could be
rounded up in the event of a
vaguely defined national
emergency. This is part of what
is known as the continuity of
government protocols. Right.
Yeah. In the event that there's
an attempt to overthrow the
United States government,
basically. Or but I mean, you
would assume it would be that
right. But no, it's also, as

(01:27:00):
they wrote it, if too many
people protest against the US
military intervention abroad,
well, this can be activated.
Yeah, you and I've talked about
this a few times, I think and
like the, you know, the Reagan
shadow government overlap. And
you know, how that played a part
in this. And, you know, it's
very, it's very interesting that
there, there's numerous times to

(01:27:20):
this been discussed. But I think
it's most telling that this was
briefly pointed out, I think the
continuity of government point,
during COVID, for example, or
during a few different things,
but the point that you make
there about protesting foreign
governments, I mean, we're
seeing this happen all over,
where if you just put like for
here's a good overlap, like
pointing out how CNN is calling
the protests in China freedom
fighters, but when we protest

(01:27:41):
COVID lockdowns in this country
were terrorists, you know, it's
all subjective. And I think the
real point is they can choose
and pick and choose where and
how they want to apply this, you
know, and ultimately, it just
makes you know, you're if you're
challenging the government
narrative, you are on this list.
I think that's pretty obviously
clear today. And I think the
problem is that it's already
been exposed that a lot of media
personalities, and so on, are on

(01:28:01):
these kinds of lists. And it's,
it's,
it's Yeah, so, um, to follow
that up, right. So main core
never went away. It has
continued to be active. It's
still active today. Yeah. During
911, it was seen being accessed
on White House computers. The
last mainstream, while I'd say

(01:28:22):
rather mainstream adjacent
reporting, on Main, on main core
was from like, 2008. And in that
reporting, they basically talked
about how main court had
developed to basically be it
profiles, Americans, right. But
everything the NSA, or other

(01:28:44):
intelligence agencies have
sucked out, or all the data
they've liked, you know, certain
surveilled and obtained from
you, through illegal
surveillance programs is under
your profile, right? It's all
there, like your financial
activity, all your search
history, whatever, all that
stuff's on there. Whether it
comes from Facebook, Google, it
doesn't really matter. Right?

(01:29:04):
That's all there. Okay. So the
the way to turn these masses of
data into actionable
intelligence and decide who gets
into main core is not is
Palantir. Yeah, just Peter
TEALS. Company. But let's go
back a second. So 911 happens,
right? And there's, you know,
this desire, apparently, to use

(01:29:26):
main core, and there's this
previous agenda. Developed in
the Reagan administration.
There's obviously a lot of
overlap between George W. Bush's
administration and the Reagan
era, right? To further this idea
of domestic terror, pre crime,
stop terror before it starts,
and so on. This led to the
development of the total

(01:29:47):
Information Awareness Program at
DARPA, which was going to be run
by John Poindexter, who was one
of the top co conspirators in
Iran Contra who was actually
indicted and convicted but of
course, pardoned by William
Barr. You 1991 So he didn't
actually serve prison time I
don't pollution. But anyway,
he's the guy that decided to put
in front of the and in charge of
this, what a coincidence, right.

(01:30:08):
And total information awareness
is all about stopping pre
current, you know, stopping
terrorist attacks before they
happen. But not just that. There
was, as we've talked about a bio
surveillance program that was
about stopping pandemics before
they happen. Wow. So ahead of
its time, not really. What
happened with COVID was just
part of an older agenda, right?
But total information awareness

(01:30:30):
gets shut down, because people
point out it will in privacy in
America and profile innocent
Americans. And it's, you know,
what a dictatorship would do.
That doesn't stop them. Instead,
Peter Thiel teamed up with the
CIA to resurrect it as Palantir.
And one of the key people
involved in that was Richard
Perle, who has a very
complicated and very disturbing
relationship with Israeli
intelligence going back to I

(01:30:51):
believe, the 70s. And of course,
he was in the Reagan
administration in the Department
of Defense at the time, he was
advising Peter Thiel about this.
And then Peter Thiel at the same
time, develops and helps put
Facebook on the map by get by,
you know, turning them into the
corporation, they are today
becoming their first big funder,
right, which was Facebook itself
was a successor to a related

(01:31:11):
DARPA program called Lifelog,
which is also about profiling
you and deciding how naughty you
are. Right, exactly. So these
agendas still exist. And this
desire, what we're seeing now we
talked about the more recent
history, the domestic terror
program in 2019, and pre crime
and Harpa and ARPA H, and all of
that earlier, but this has been

(01:31:32):
going on a very long time, you
can arguably trace it even
before the 80s back to the
Vietnam era, which actually
Yasha Levine and surveillance
Valley does quite convincingly.
But there has been an effort by
the national security state to
use the same policies are
really, you know, dissident
elimination programs that they

(01:31:53):
initially have done, you know,
in most cases have done abroad,
the Phoenix program in Vietnam,
Operation Condor in Latin
America, the the quote unquote
Deep State, which I don't like
that term, I prefer the national
security state because it's more
accurate. I have wanted to use
that in America for a very long
time. They need the pretext to

(01:32:15):
do it, they need people to think
the threat is enough. And they
need a certain amount, not the
entire population, not even a
majority, but a segment of the
population to support them. And
from what we've been talking
about today, it seems like Kanye
West because of his visibility.
And now in recent iterations,

(01:32:35):
the outrageousness of his
behavior is going to be part of
the pretext there. But I don't
think it's going to necessarily
be just him. But I think this is
going to be utilized towards
these ends, however, that
develops remains to be seen. But
I would encourage people

(01:32:56):
listening, we should not be
feeding the rhetoric about haha,
Kanye West is so insane, blah,
blah, blah, there is obviously
something that is using this for
very sinister ends. And we
should be bringing attention to
that information to the into
those agendas, because it's
intimately tied up with the
efforts to completely eliminate
free speech and it states,

(01:33:17):
particularly online, at least
first, right, and then usher in
what they have been trying to do
for decades now, a pre crime
system.
Completely agree. I mean, I
would argue just like with the
great reset agenda that we've
just read, reached this moment
now where the technological
advancements are enough to where

(01:33:37):
they can execute these things
like whether, you know, the
total information surveillance
and so on, you know, was clearly
continuing, but now they're at a
point where this can be
executed, I think and achieved
in a certain level that weren't
that wasn't possible, then
they're going back to the Reagan
administration. Right. And so
that's kind of where I think we
are and I think you're right, I
think this is all being lined up
perfectly. And whether they know

(01:33:59):
this or not, are being used and
we just need to be very careful
about that. Because these
actions are being you know,
they're pointing at the comments
of people in the the the things
they say alongside this as the
bigger picture and showing how
people agree or don't agree and
this will be used against us
very clearly, you know, and no,
like we I am I'm a free speech
absolutist and I've made that
clear, but it doesn't mean they
still won't use that against us

(01:34:21):
right so and I'm I'm absolutely
against self censorship either,
but this conversation is going
to be used to censor your
speech. And you know, we need to
fight back against that. So
thanks. Thank you for having
this conversation today. I think
this is important.
Yeah, thanks for being here.
Ryan. So why don't you let
people know where they can find
you and follow your work?
Oh, yeah, this the last American
vagabond.com That's that's the

(01:34:42):
central hub for all of this you
know, whatever else you want.
We're not you know, my daily
Wrap Up Show. Now rebuffed is
now part of Eli we're doing the
pirate stream pirates free media
discussion, which you and I
should talk more about, but the
the everything you'd find her to
live will be there but we're on
every possible channel out
there. So check us out.
And I know you've been censored
a lot on Twitter, do you want to

(01:35:03):
share your current Twitter
handle? Your telegram channel?
Anything? Anything like that?
Since you know, I know that you
have expressed like, since
you've been deleted from a lot
of the big platforms, people are
like, do you have just
disappeared? And you're like,
No, I'm still here. Right? So do
you have like a link tree that
gets updated to where all the
different stuff is anything like
anything like that, that you

(01:35:23):
want to share?
Yeah, as well, same point.
That's why I you know, try to
make it as the last American
vagabond.com is the best place
to go. You'll find all the links
to wherever we currently are.
The pirate channels we're
currently using. If you don't
understand that, just look up
pirate, the hashtag pirate, you
know, Tila pirate streams, and
you'll understand what we're
doing. But yeah, it's after
hours live with the after hours,

(01:35:43):
like underscore live. It's just
one. It's Brian Richmond
channel. He's letting me use
now. But we're going pointing
out right now how we're being
just denied the appeal to our
old plot, you know, old to a
vagabond account. So we'll see
how that pans out. But telegram
I believe just just search the
last American Vagabond most
these platforms, and it should
pop up unless it's being
suppressed. But anywhere else
you look, you'll find it into

(01:36:03):
that. But yeah, any I think
right now we should be doing our
best to lean into alternative
platforms. Just on a side note.
No, I definitely agree with
that. And RSS feeds. If you're
not familiar with that to go
take a look, that's probably the
best, you know, best way to
really develop your own news
feed and not have to depend on a
very corrupt social media

(01:36:23):
company to do that for you.
Absolutely. Yeah. It's funny.
Somebody asked me to put that
back on our website a long time
ago. And I was like, really RSS
like, now I'm realizing I'm glad
we did. Because it's you know,
it's been there for so long. But
a lot of people don't do that
anymore. It's just like a direct
feed right to your website. It's
important. Yeah.
So you can get like RSS feeders
and you can like put all the
different RSS feeds from sites
you follow. And it'll all be
there. Right? It's very, very

(01:36:44):
convenient. Definitely
recommended. All right. So
anyway, thanks again, Ryan for
being here. Probably a little
longer than my usual podcast,
but definitely an important
conversation that needs to be
had. Because so often these,
these distractions are out there
to divert our way, our attention
away from things that really
matter. But in this case, like
we've talked about today, this
seems like it's just a celebrity

(01:37:05):
distraction, maybe to some
people, but there's really a
deeper agenda sort of hovering,
at least over this situation to
an extent that definitely needs
to be talked about and
understood by as many people as
possible, I would say. So if you
found this information
compelling, I would encourage
those listening to share it,
particularly once it becomes
publicly available, which was
just a few days after we

(01:37:25):
initially publish it first,
which is, you know, for
subscribers on rockfon, and
elsewhere. So thanks again to
everyone that supports this
podcast and catch you all next
time. Thanks.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

24/7 News: The Latest

Crime Junkie

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Making Sense of the “Ye” Spectacle with Ryan Cristian

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

24/7 News: The Latest

Crime Junkie

All Episodes

Making Sense of the “Ye” Spectacle with Ryan Cristian

On Purpose with Jay Shetty