Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
You are listening to the fringe Radio Network franradionetwork dot com.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
In our nation, we don't follow, we lead. Real leadership
is about building what nobody else can coding, so we
can't lose. Making America stronger, safer, faster. It's in our code.
Find out more at booz Allen dot com. Slash our code.
Speaker 3 (00:30):
Wake Up Radio Network. A rational voice in a world
of conspiracy.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Jim Duke perspective.
Speaker 4 (00:44):
All right, Darren, I got you, I think right you there.
Speaker 3 (00:47):
I'm here finally. Wow, we have difficulty.
Speaker 4 (00:49):
Yeah, how you doing? How you bet?
Speaker 3 (00:52):
It was so much better, very good, excellent, just keeping busy.
Speaker 4 (00:54):
And so I know we're on a different device and
we had to try to configure things. And not only
I haven't been in my studio and I'm still on
an archaic system. I can't find my microphone arm adjust
adjust adjustment arm. I can't find the microphone holder. I
don't know where it went in the move. So I've
(01:15):
got a hybrid mic. I'm using my SM fifty seven
right now, just because it's lighter on the on the
on the microphone. But they're very good mics. They're very durable. Anyway,
nobody needs to know the technical details, Darren. There's a
lot of stuff that we needed to catch up on
and uh over the over the past months, a couple
(01:35):
months that we've been on together, Boyloy, lot going on,
A lot going on. I had a studio build and
I finally got it built. I put it on social
media to show people the version of it that I have,
and Uh, I had to get back into into the
into the you know, into the thing of seeing, UH,
(01:59):
getting back in the groove of things. That's what I'm
trying to say. All Right, I see, I'm so flustered,
I can't even speak. But there's a lot of things
going on, and since our last meeting, I'm thinking about
a new studio, new direction. Maybe we'll maybe I'll start
to entertain some of these other off topic fringe topics
(02:21):
that you know are taboo because I don't have to
first of all, agree with them all just to present
them right, Darren, I don't have to agree exactly right.
But I also I may not be correct on everything.
This is the thing I used to want to come
on and be your expert, you know, be your person
(02:43):
to go to for the inside information. And there's so
many people doing it now. It's so saturated. And you
know what I'm finding Darren. You know what I'm finding
out about all these experts. What's that they're only experts
in their one sphere of realm, of their angles that
they take. So in other words, if you got an
(03:05):
expert and he knows all about this area, he only
knows about that area that he's read or that he's
looked into, or that he's privy to. He might not
know what you and I might know because he might
not have read the same collection of books that we read.
So their expertise is only based on the information at
(03:27):
hand for them. And some people do go into more
widely spread research papers and such, but still they take
it sometimes from an angle from their bias. And I
think we all do that. So are we really equipped
as experts on our own or just maybe in the
(03:51):
one sphere that we have that we're biased towards, And
maybe we need the collection of others that are that
have the information on their biases to really make a whole,
you know, connection to everything. In other words, you can't
know everything.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
Is you know, yeah, that makes total sense. Absolutely can't
be a you know, the jack of all trades.
Speaker 4 (04:15):
No, and everybody that says they're an expert, you'll notice
that they fail in considering other information that they're not
privy to. So maybe we better be a little more
careful when we say, oh, my information's thorough. I'm more
of an expert than you are. Maybe we need each
other to fill in the blanks. So I'm gonna be
(04:38):
one voice that has an opinion that may have his
own opinion. It may be Jim's perspective, and it may
be what I see right now, but you know, you
may bring information that I haven't had, that I hadn't considered,
and so you know, maybe I'm not the only voice
that needs to be heard, and maybe I will entertain
(05:01):
some other voices out there, you know. But then you
run into trouble people saying, oh, you brought them on,
how do you know they're credible? Oh, you know, you're
entertaining these people that they're fakes, or they're false, or
they're false prophets, or they're this, so they're that, Well, yeah,
(05:24):
maybe they are. Maybe some are, but maybe we're just
being harsh and critical of people that we don't really
see their point of view at the moment. So let's
all humble ourselves and maybe just present the information and
if you don't agree, we don't agree. We don't have
to prove ourselves all the time. We could try to
(05:44):
prove ourselves for our point, to make our case, but
if somebody doesn't get it or doesn't see it, who
are we to make them see it or get it?
Because maybe we don't have it all right, I don't know.
Sometimes we try to be our own experts. Anyway, I'm
going to try to.
Speaker 3 (06:02):
You know, make sense what you're saying.
Speaker 4 (06:04):
Absolutely, yeah, okay, So saying that, I want to look
into some things that came up recently speaking of people
that don't always have it together, or people that are
short sighted or whatever. Did you see the latest the
news of an interview with Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 3 (06:27):
I've heard some things about him, you know, like very questionable.
Speaker 4 (06:31):
You know, all right, well what have you heard?
Speaker 3 (06:34):
Well, once when he was asked about nine to eleven,
he didn't want to comment on it, like he was
denying that he was corroborating the mainstream narrative that it was,
you know, the nineteen terrorists.
Speaker 4 (06:48):
Oh, so he wasn't following the narrative of the truth.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
Or alternative right, like of yeah, the truth is that
it was you know, an inside job, so that I'm
like right away when I heard that, I'm like, this is.
Speaker 4 (06:59):
Streng See you may you may have I don't know
him that well, I haven't followed him, but you may
be more privy to that than I am. So, I
mean he seemed to kind of not change but come
to grip with things and start to like seem like
he's acting like the truth or movement a little bit, right.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
Yes, since then, yeah, so he does things that are
you know, says things that are you know that makes sense,
and other things it's hard to say. I don't know
about them. I'm not sure.
Speaker 4 (07:28):
It's hard to judge these people. Before we go on
with that, let me since we haven't talked in a while,
since we're on you know, the control of things and
the release of information. I'm sure you have different angles
that you have taken over this Ebstein file thing. We
haven't talked about this because we haven't been together since
(07:49):
this I kind of mentioned it on some podcasts. But
what do you think happened with this? Glaine Maxwell testimonies?
What do you think will come of it? And is
this a set up for future arrests or are they
just inquiring how much she knows?
Speaker 3 (08:11):
You know, it's a very good question. Yeah, actually I do.
If I knew, i'd want to say, I'd say it,
you know, Okay, I actually don't. I'd like to think
that they can use there for, you know, to get
better in other names.
Speaker 4 (08:22):
Are they doing that I don't know? Or are they
getting to know where what she knows so that they
can backtrack and protect those.
Speaker 3 (08:31):
Ah right, that could be a too yeah, mm hmm.
Speaker 4 (08:35):
So is the epstein Is that still trending? I mean
I don't want to make a whole show of it.
I just wanted to touch base of it. I mean, people
sick of this already.
Speaker 3 (08:42):
And the whole world was talking about it.
Speaker 4 (08:45):
Yeah, they were one, even the even the conservatives, even
the Trump supporters. And but she was questioned by what
the d o J is that? And and she didn't
hold back, and she didn't hold back any information I
know it. So they said she didn't hold She spewed like,
do you think there's gonna be an event of a
(09:06):
suicide someplace along the way? Well, she all of a
sudden decided to commit suicide or and is Trump still
deflecting the importance of this because he was.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
Or she die of natural clauses the next day.
Speaker 4 (09:24):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, right. But Trump, it was still deflecting
the importance, wasn't he. Yeah, he was, and he was claiming.
He was claiming it was all a democratic plot. Remember that.
Did you hear that? He said? He said, Oh, it's
the Democrats calling for this. They are the only ones
(09:44):
interested in this. I don't know, Darren. I don't know
about you, but I'm not a Democrat and I'm interested
in this. I was interested in hearing what they had
to say. And you know, if the argument is that
if Trump was in it, the Democrats would have used
(10:04):
it to expose him. So the fact that they couldn't
expose him from it proves that he's not in it.
You think that's.
Speaker 3 (10:13):
True, Well, it's possible.
Speaker 4 (10:19):
But if they're also in it, they don't want to
expose him because they'll expose them. So maybe that's why
they're not. Yeah, maybe that's why everybody's hus hush about it. Uh,
the Democrats. You know, if he was in it, if
he had something to hide, the Democrats would have been
all over this. No, not if they have something to
hide too. They're probably all over it too. Remember Clinton,
(10:41):
they said Clinton's name is all over it.
Speaker 3 (10:45):
Would it would be funny, not funny, terrible if they're
all in honest, they're all they're guilty.
Speaker 4 (10:51):
Yeah, But so do you think we're going to get
anything out of this? Probably not?
Speaker 3 (10:56):
Huh, it would be nice, you know. I think there
will be a big release of names coming up. I
honestly think so.
Speaker 4 (11:05):
I think. Would you think there's gonna be arrests and
everything else from it? Yep, I don't. I think there's
gonna be a couple a couple pawns thrown out there,
and there's gonna be more cover ups then you can believe.
And they're only gonna let redacted information. They're only gonna
(11:26):
let information out that they want out. They're gonna they're
gonna basically secure all the information and just let you
out what you need to appease you to think something
is being out there. It's all controlled, so we don't
(11:47):
know where they're going with it. But uh, but just.
Speaker 3 (11:49):
The fact that the Epstein has been brought to the public,
you know, Yeah, the issue of it, I mean twenty
how many years ago, twenty years ago, nobody would have
known that what was going on and now, but he's
knowing what's going on, So that is a step in
the right direction.
Speaker 4 (12:03):
So yeah, I mean, they could have completely hid this,
covered it up, and not really made a big deal
about it. But the fact that they brought it to
the public is getting people to question what's going on
in the government and who's involved. Even if they even
if they release a redacted version, you know, blotted out
names and they don't expose the names, don't you think
(12:24):
people are going to start the question what's blacked out
and start to question who's on it?
Speaker 3 (12:29):
Yep? Oh yea.
Speaker 4 (12:30):
So maybe you're right, maybe they you know, maybe something's
coming out of this, at least being brought to the light.
But you know, the people that we have bringing this,
they're the ones that I'd like to look at at
this time. What does does Tucker Colson say anything about
(12:53):
that the Epstein files? Has he called for an examination?
What's his point?
Speaker 3 (12:58):
I haven't heard about him say anything and yet No,
but shoot, that would be good if he did on
Fox newsmagin that maybe, Uh, let me see if I
can google.
Speaker 4 (13:08):
It, see all right, yeah, do that. I'm just gonna
say key points that like Tucker calls on. What we
know is he's positioned himself as a critic of the
mainstream left.
Speaker 5 (13:20):
Right now at Lashchwab Tires, save up to eighty dollars
instantly on a set of four tires. Choose from all
weather tires for year round traction, ev or hybrid tires
designed for durable performance, or rugged terrain tires made to
handle off road adventures. Plus every tire comes with America's
Best Tire warranty. Just another way you get more from less.
(13:42):
Stop by Leshwab today or shop at lashchwab dot com
Limited time offer while supplies last. Slashwab dot com slash
sale for details.
Speaker 4 (13:52):
But we're wondering if he if he's been an instrumental
in pushing a control limited narrative that doesn't go deeper
to address the corruption within the political elite. Does he
cover for them? He allowed he? Is he exposing anybody?
I mean, he's had a history with Fox. He's a
(14:14):
corporate media giant with ties to global elites, Rupert Murdoch,
global connections and stuff. So we wonder if he's got
these connections, did he break ties or is he treading
with caution and does that make him does that make
him controlled because he's got a tread with caution? Don't
(14:35):
go here, Carlson.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
Well, actually he was interviewed and it says Tucker Colson
had claimed that Jeffrey Epstein was working for the Israeli
government and that every single person in Washington to see
thinks the same. Oh, I've never been met I never
met anyone who doesn't think that. I don't know any
of them that hate Israel. But no one is that
(15:00):
they can say that.
Speaker 4 (15:02):
Yeah, hmmm, Well, here's what came up recently in an interview.
In a striking revelation he had, he expressed his surprise
upon discovering that his late father, who is his name
is Dick Carlson, had connections with the CIA. He said,
(15:29):
I didn't know that. According to him, the information came
after his father's death that prompted people to ask about
his family legacies in there and their connections with intelligence works.
He he he acted like he he didn't know. He said,
(15:54):
he just found out when his father died. Wow, my
father was a CIA. I thought he was into the
office every day. I thought he was, you know, a
laborer working in a factory. How could he not know something?
But it's claim they're claiming that he just found out
and didn't know, and people are questioning it.
Speaker 3 (16:16):
That's strange.
Speaker 4 (16:17):
But you know what else came out?
Speaker 3 (16:19):
What's that?
Speaker 4 (16:20):
It also came out after talking about his family ties
to the government agencies, that it comes to find out
that Tucker Colson himself attempted to join the CIA in
his youth but wasn't hired supposedly, so he did have
connections with the CIA. He at least tried to join them.
(16:43):
How do you know, all right? With the CIA and
their secretive I tried to join them, but I was
not hired. How do you know he was wasn't How
do you know he wasn't hired? Just because he says
he isn't a CIA is agent going to cover their tracks?
How do you know he's not secretly an agent of them,
(17:04):
or at least an informant for them or whatever. He
was even mocked by Vladimir Putin.
Speaker 3 (17:16):
I remember the interview he had with him. I remember, Yeah,
Tucker interviewed Putin there.
Speaker 4 (17:21):
Yeah, and they brought it up, and you know, he
was mocked by him. Now I'm wondering. Okay, so his
family connections Dick Carlson was a director a Voice of
America involved in media and government, but also connected with
the CIA obviously or not known to Tucker till just recently.
But what about his Jesuit influence? Is there a potential
(17:44):
that the Jesuit Order has connections? But I don't think
there's anything direct. Although the Order has been linked to
influencing political and media narratives. So are they behind the scene.
Is controlling the voices or at least stifling them, at
(18:06):
least warning them of the boundaries. It's quite possible, right, absolutely,
If Tucker went all the way, do you think he
would be targeted?
Speaker 3 (18:16):
Probably, forget about it. He would have been going by now.
Speaker 4 (18:19):
But the fact he's left standing, he knows his boundaries. Now,
I gotta say this. I'm saying this with all candidness.
Sometimes when we're giving these presentations, we are forced to
hold our hand like hold hide our hand, because if
(18:41):
we divulge everything and go after everything, sometimes we get
restrictions from the social media, from YouTube, from different ventures
that prevents our information from going out. So therefore we're
not able to express the information. And if we hit
certain buzzwords or let go of certain information. And some
(19:05):
information is actually it may be dangerous for us to
totally go into in public. So maybe we are restricted
what is it called reserved, reserved a little bit so
that we don't go overboard and put ourselves in a
hot seat. But is that controlled or is that just
(19:26):
being cautious. Some people will say that's controlled, But it's controlled.
Opposition is more of an agent that's been put out
in the field to play the stage this character or
this angle, but instructed where not to go. That's different.
(19:47):
I have never been approached to be told not to
go there. I just may not go totally overboard with
some of the information because it flags algorithms that put
me back in the in the in the search engines
and such, and you know, we don't want that because
we want our information known. So that's a little bit
(20:08):
different being reserved than it is. And frankly, I got
a Patreon page and I let some of the Patreon
page go with some of the information that I'm thinking
that I don't tell publicly because there it's it's sort
of guarded. It's people that subscribe and contribute, and they're
less likely to be wolves or trolls that will attack me.
(20:31):
You got to remember, if you go out there on
social media and you start blabbing your mouth, you're gonna
get flagged by people, and you're gonna get reviewed, and
you're gonna get reported and banned. And if not careful,
having an agency looking at you too, you gotta be careful.
So reserved is one thing, but controlled like actually in
(20:51):
the in the camp of of what being watchful and
watching what you say, and maybe you're maybe you're traded,
uh restrictions for information. You know you know what I
mean by that. Like Fritz Springmeer once when I was
talking to him at a time, he said, the CIA
(21:14):
approached him and the Rothschilds. I'm sorry, ciawa after him.
The Rothschilds approached him and said we could give you information,
but you got to do it under our terms. And
he says, no, I'm not going to do that and
get restricted. In other words, he would be controlled. That's
a control opposition. You're you're told what to say, what
(21:36):
you can't say, and told the boundaries. They'll give you
the information and feed you the information as long as
you feed the information they give you and not go
outside of that. That's a controlled agent. Of course. Fritz
spring Meers said, you know, he denied that, and he
got stripped of everything. His his wife crossed him and
burned all his documents, which I've talked to her before.
(21:59):
She seemed saying at the time, but she went haywhile
wire burned all his documents and left them. Maybe that
was part of the setup. I don't know, but it
was freaky weird. Could be the lord's his wife. So
you know, these I don't know. I don't know what
goes on. But there's other other characters out there besides Tucker.
(22:22):
This one just came up recently. But what about Candice Owens.
What's your opinion on her?
Speaker 3 (22:29):
I haven't really been following her too much, but actually
I haven't.
Speaker 4 (22:35):
You know, Yeah, well, yeah, she says things that I
agree with. She's she she's called out Israel the aggressors
and and and stuck up against the Zionist regime.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
Oh well, yes, okay, I just brought up her picture. Yes,
I'm in agreement with what she says at least majority
of the stuff.
Speaker 4 (22:57):
Yes, well, some people say she avoids the Zionist control.
I have a I have a statement here that she's
praised by many conservative movements for her bluntlessness, bluntness, but
does she avoid going after true dark forces like global
banking systems, centralized powers, or even the influence of the
(23:18):
Zionist lobby and politics. Yeah, I think she has.
Speaker 3 (23:23):
She does. Yeah, when you when you see them going
against that the true the head of the beast what
you just said, the Zionists and the other you know,
then you know that there there's a good chance there
not controlled opposition. They're actually you know, they're on their line.
Speaker 4 (23:38):
Yeah, but there's people that still question that she's leading,
steering the narrative towards a controlled opposition platform that criticizes
only surface issues, avoids going too deep into the conspiratorial subjects.
But I think she's hit some things head on. I'm
not saying before you say I endorse her or oh
(23:58):
it sounds like you're not critical. I'm not going to
go totally overboard on these people. But I don't support anybody,
Just so you know, I'm just analyzing this from a
point of view. I've heard her, you know, I've heard
her say things that I would say. It's a dangerous
(24:18):
line when you come against a Zionists, and she's got criticism.
I'm wondering if she's got any Jesuit connections though her
family background there. I don't think there's any direct Jesuit
ties that I know of. But her marriage is to
a well connected individual, George Farmer, who's the son of
a British Conservative peer group, and he has ties to
(24:42):
the British aristocracy and international interests. And she has converted
to Catholicism based on him. So is this a trap
to get her towards closer to a Jesuit connection the
Catholic Jesuits. I don't know. Is it enough, I don't know.
It's a possibility, and could they be running the narrative
(25:04):
of the anti Zionist group. I don't know.
Speaker 6 (25:09):
Managing your money shouldn't feel like a guessing game. Klarna
is your smarter everyday spending partner, built to help you
make clear, confident choices with your money. With the Klarna app,
you have access to the tools you need to shop smarter,
compare prices, track your purchases, find exclusive deals, earn cash back,
and choose whether to pay now or split payments over
(25:29):
time with no interest.
Speaker 7 (25:30):
When you pay on time, it's a flexible, secure way
to stay on top of your budget and spend with intention.
Whether it's your weekly essentials, a planned purchase, or something
in between. Klarna fits into how you already shop and
helps you do it with more confidence. It's not just
about stretching your money, it's about using the right tools
to manage it better. Klarna brings everything into one place,
(25:53):
so you're always a step ahead. Download the Klarna app
or head to klarna dot com to learn more. Your
resident loans made or arrange Pursuing to ACCOUNTIFORNI, your finance
law license and NLS number one three five three one
nine zero Clartic talents account required. Clarina may get a commission. Limitations,
terms and conditions apply.
Speaker 4 (26:10):
All right.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
They're in the same team basically, right, Zionis and Jesuits.
They're both agreeable.
Speaker 4 (26:15):
People would contradict that. People will say no, they're totally opposition.
But and then you'll get the circles that say no,
the Zionists are in control of the Jesuits. They started
the Jesuits. The crypto Jews started the Jesuits. And you
know my feelings on that. I think that was a
fabricated documents and letters that people like Melazaski whatever his
(26:39):
name is, Benjamin nettinat Yahoo's father Benzion Melan Katski or
whatever his name is Russian, he was touting for the
Desionist movement. He was a Zionist, and he started bringing
up this information that said that, oh, the Jews were
hiding crypto Jews. They can creep in and infiltrate and
(27:02):
take over all these sectors of society. They're strong men,
they're heroes, not not weak followers or or slaves of
the Inquisition. No, they changed the profile. But so they
said that the Zionists may have or the Jews may
crypto Jews may be so strong that they started the Jesuits,
(27:25):
you know, because Ignatio of Loyola was it Jesuit or
was a crypto Jew. Well, there's no real proof of this.
This is just speculation. So when you say are they
working hand in hand, I think it's more. I think
the Jesuits acted more of the spy spying out the
Rabbis and the Jews and helped propagate them for their purpose.
(27:49):
If you have a scapegoat, you could take the eyes
off the Jesuits and off Vatican, and you can put
it on something that's neutral, and to them it was
neutral to put it on the Zionists. Jesuits may be
working with the Zionists, but they may be working in
opposition of the Zionists to set them up. Who knows.
Speaker 3 (28:07):
Mm hmm, yep, so but.
Speaker 4 (28:11):
Yeah, all you know, all roads leading to the same
means to the end. But you know, I don't think
they're necessarily working together, but I think they're working in
conjunction with each other towards the new World order. You know,
the Jesuits are handling the religious political affairs and the
(28:32):
Zionists are handing handling the the Israeli Middle Eastern Jewish
affairs of that leg. So they're working in concert of
each other, probably more so. So I don't know. That's
all right. Then we have the character of Alex Jones.
(28:52):
He's a polarizing figure, isn't he.
Speaker 3 (28:55):
Oh, he's amazing, unbelievable off me?
Speaker 4 (28:57):
Do you do? You do you like his information? You
think it's credible?
Speaker 3 (29:01):
Well, what he gives is mostly good. But is it all,
you know, all the information we need to hear, you know,
first of all? Or is he leaving omitting parts out
that he shouldn't tell I think of him.
Speaker 4 (29:15):
Okay, So there's things he says that leads to documents
that are official documents, and I've I've gone to his
I don't listen to him, but I've gone to his
site to find info WARS was behind the release of
a document that they found in the army, or they
found in the military, or they found in the government.
(29:36):
But I don't go through his channel, you know. In
other words, I don't go through his filter. I don't
like listen to what he says about it and go
through his filter and take his word for it. What
I do is I take the hint to the document,
and then I go find the document myself in the
government files, and then I make my own assessment. But
(29:57):
I wouldn't have known those documents existed if he didn't
point out him out. So he is useful. It's just
you don't want to really trust his information because, like
you said, he could be short circuiting it. And I
think in that I consider him more of a gatekeeper.
Speaker 3 (30:14):
But he does say it can be checked out. That's
the thing, because everybody listens to Worldwide.
Speaker 4 (30:18):
And it does get you. I checked out many of
the things he says, and what he's saying, what he's
pointing to is correct. It's just I think he goes
off the wall with it, and I think he takes
it to an extreme where he's redirecting you to a
non threatening area where it's not threatening to the elite,
like he takes it just so far and then bends it.
(30:39):
And I have proof of this. You ever hear Melissa
and what's his name? Uh Dyke's their uh stream truth
stream TV something like that. No, they came from Alex
Jones's staff. They were part of his daff and the
(31:01):
reason they left was because they said that they would
they would come upon the deep sections of a story
and look into it and investigate and find that it
went deeper, and they would present it to Alex Jones
and Alex would say, no, no, we're not going there,
we're stopping here, and he would cut him off and
wouldn't let him investigate any further. And they deducted from
(31:23):
that that he only goes so far and then diverts
in another way. So he's being controlled somehow. And I believe,
and this is speculation, that he's exchanging information with intel
for his you know, sworn sworn that he won't go
(31:50):
into areas that they don't want him to go. And
I think that's what happened at Sandy Hook. I think
he went overboard and went too far and they shot
him down.
Speaker 3 (32:01):
Right. I've seen pictures of Sandy Hook shooting of the
parents standing around and it looked like they were standing
at their kids soccer game. It was like social hour,
everybody talking around, chatting, smiling.
Speaker 4 (32:13):
Well, we know there. We know there was also a
drill going on at the same time, and they filmed
the drill as part of the event, and there's there
was people that were active in that that were crisis actors.
We know that for a fact. But they muddied it
up so bad that they they put live events in
their live reports to make it. But his problem was,
(32:35):
you know, he came out too far. I mean, you
may agree with him, but because he's controlled, he went
further than his boundaries let him allowed him. So I
think that's why he got found out or why he
got cut down. But he's discussed the globalist agenda, he's
(32:56):
discussed desigonist influence. He's even discussed the New World Order.
But then he said the new World Order is good
as long as you control it, and I think, yeah, yeah.
And he's also made hint that he has a secret
society connection that he made reference that he comes from
(33:17):
a line of Freemasons in his family and he says,
I'm not one, but I come from a line my grandfather,
you know, my uncle. He talks about family that were Freemasons,
and he says he wouldn't go there, but they did.
So had he been brought up in this idea, has
(33:40):
he been targeted to go further so that he can
lead the gatekeeping controlled opposition part of it. I don't know.
I'm just saying he's he's definitely up for being a
classic case if there was one. And then you got
a couple key figures. We got a question, what about
(34:02):
Joe Rogan. He brings some good stuff, he says, some
good stuff, and he has some inside stuff, and he
does some research, and he's got people that criticize the
deep state and such. But his rise in popularity and
connection to tech giants like Spotify and Silicon Valley makes
(34:23):
you wonder if he's got connections that he's catering to. Also,
I mean, he is an entertainer. He's come from that,
but I think he has a genuine desire for truth.
Speaker 3 (34:38):
You know, he seems like he's legitimate, hopefully.
Speaker 4 (34:42):
But does he steer his platform away from the real
issues of the global control, like the deep state? That's
what we wonder. Does he just go so far? He
keeps it on an entertainment level, but and he goes
far to a certain extent, But does he just kind
of year off when it comes to naming names and
going for it.
Speaker 3 (35:05):
He wouldn't be here with us.
Speaker 4 (35:06):
And he's making millions with just podcasting, so he's connected.
He can't sever that relationship. He loses wealth. So he's
got to be controlled. If he's not reserved like I
talked about, maybe he's controlled. Maybe they're giving him exchange
of information or allowance of information as long as he
(35:27):
doesn't hit those boundaries. Just be careful when you listen
to people, because you don't know what their true intent is.
You don't know if they're just naive and where they're going,
or that their true intent is to just steer you
Like I wouldn't listen to Sean Hannity. He has a
long tenure with Fox News, and he's been on w ABC,
(35:49):
and he's got a talk show that he went mainstream
and mainstream media. And you know he advocates the right,
the political right, but is he's serving a creation of
illusion of opposition with the confined confines to the mainstream media.
He seems to be on a narrative that is acceptable.
(36:12):
He never talks about the New World Daughter, never talks
about anything with the Zionists or anything. You know, to him,
nine to eleven weeks was not an inside job, it
was the narrative was correct, it was terrorists.
Speaker 3 (36:28):
Makes sense what you're saying, I gotta say it.
Speaker 4 (36:29):
But he also makes reference to his Catholicism loyalty. So
maybe he has favor with the Jesuits. I know, I don't.
I ticked them off one time. But anyway, So then
we have Michael Savage, who actually got taken off the
air because of his outward expression. He crossed the boundaries
(36:52):
that they didn't like. So he just went He went satellite,
and he's known for his outspoken critic of the left
and his nationalist sentiments. But does he ever go deep
into the deep state. I remember Mark Dice, the famous commentator.
(37:14):
He's kind of a bold, blunt He confronted Michael Savage
and said, what about the New World Order? You never
talk about the New World Order? And Michael Savage blew
it off and said, oh, there's no New world what
are you talking about? And then eventually Michael Savage started
coming around and talking about the New World Order, and
he even admitted both parties are controlled, so there's no
(37:35):
sense in taking sides. They're both controlled. The New World
Order is vast, but he says, I don't like talking
about it. At least he admitted it, but I think
he went over to Board over the Top.
Speaker 8 (37:49):
Looking for a one of a kind Florida get away.
Discover Warm Mineral Springs Park in Northport, the only naturally
occurring warm mineral spring in the state. Step back in
time at this prehistoric site listed on the National Register
of Historic Places, and soak in mineral rich waters with
a consistent temperature of eighty five degrees year round. Relax
in a peaceful tropical setting perfect for the whole family.
(38:11):
Plan your perfect getaway today at Northport, fl dot gov
slash Warm Mineral Springs Park.
Speaker 3 (38:20):
And then Chase from what's the Savage Nation?
Speaker 4 (38:25):
Yeah, that's his, that's his, that's his fans base and
stuff that's his talk show and his fan base and stuff.
But you know, I started liking him. He started going
off the wall and started rallying against the New World Order.
But he, like I said, he admitted, I got to
stop here. At least he admitted I can't. He even
(38:46):
said I can't go any further or they'll be coming
after me.
Speaker 3 (38:50):
That's good, he said that.
Speaker 4 (38:51):
Really Yeah, at least he admitted. That's different. It's a
little bit different. Maybe he's not controlled, maybe he's just reserved.
But then there's a there's the Hagman Report. I don't
know if you ever was privy to the Hagman Report.
I used to listen to them, Hagman and Hagman his son.
His son was on the show and unfortunately died of
(39:11):
a heroin overdose, and his Doug was trying to say
he was set up and hit off, But we don't know.
But Hagman, Doug Hagman has a history of being a
former private investigator, and that's his show's focus on investigative journalism,
and he uncovers the intelligence and follows a narrative that's
(39:35):
focused on some of the inside information. But he admitted
on the Greg Jackson show that he was a graduate
from Jesuit Seminary. He's Jesuit trained, and he admitted that
his views come from the Catholic view, so as he
(39:55):
controlled by the Jesuits. He admitted it off off the
air or off the cuff. I think it was in
a silent part of the interview off air that they recorded.
But believe it or not, Darren, I have connections with
some of the people associated with that show. I've interviewed
(40:16):
some have had some talk to me, but I'm not
affiliated with any of them. I don't support any of them.
I just had connections with him. I think Doc Doc
Marquee came from that crew. I've even I've even talked
to Steve Quail at part of that crew and briefly
just just acknowledged, uh, what he was working on. But uh,
(40:42):
you know, maybe he had heard of me. I don't know.
Probably not. They probably don't care who I am. But uh,
there was other people on that show that know who
I am. I'm sure. And then this guy that came about.
I heard him having a talk show on radio Buck Sexton.
(41:03):
Have you come across that name on conservative radio them?
And he has connections with the FBI, but he avoids
the deep state stuff. He doesn't go into the central
banking system and criticism. But he graduated as a as
a Jesuit also, he graduated from Jesuit Regi Regis High School,
(41:25):
earning a bachelor's degree in political science from Amherst College.
But when you learn the Jesuit ways, you learn globalism,
you learn inside stuff. So both may be serving a
purpose presenting alternative views in such a way, but they
they got to stay away from the boundaries too, and
(41:46):
and hit a certain certain demographic that you know, they've
got to stay to their audience, but away from the target,
so you know, And then we have news sources. I
don't know how you feel about Newsmax again another conservative media.
(42:12):
That most of these media are shortsighted. They don't go
far enough, they don't go as far as we go.
But maybe that's all they're supposed to go. That's all
they know. Maybe maybe I don't know, maybe they know more.
I don't know, but I think that's all they know.
I think they're really just short sighted. And then you
(42:33):
got the extreme, the q the QAnon, And yes, you
might be a fan of them, but I'm not. I
just don't. They don't appeal to.
Speaker 3 (42:41):
Me, not the noons, but possibly Q just hoping. I'm
hoping it's real, but it could not be.
Speaker 4 (42:48):
Still don't know who they are. Didn't maybe Trump that's
what they're trying to say. I don't think he doesn't
have time for that. Then they didn't. Some come out
like Michael Flint or something. Well, is that a name
that sounds familiar? Wasn't he coming out as though he
was Q?
Speaker 3 (43:06):
I think I heard that, Yeah, is that the name?
Speaker 4 (43:08):
And then he ended up to be uh talking about
spaceships and aliens and stuff coming from other planets. These
are the people were trusting in our intel uh for
our intel inform So I don't I don't buy into it.
I just don't trust the Q information. I still think
it's bought algorithms just regurging. Like an AI. I think
(43:30):
it is because it speaks like an AI. AI can
be can be AI can be programmed for anything. And
and there's not just one a AI. It's not just
open AI that's created AI. It's not just jet GPT
or whatever that's done it. There's Venice, Venice, there's UH,
there's other ones that are out there. There's more than
(43:52):
one AI. How do you know q' is just not
some sophisticated AI and they just didn't reveal it because
some of the stuff it's coming up with it is
regurgitating old news and some of it's just basically out there, Yeah,
appeasing the base.
Speaker 3 (44:10):
Yep. I wouldn't be surprised.
Speaker 4 (44:11):
I wouldn't be surprised. Maybe that's why it's anonymous. Maybe
that's why they can't name it. Maybe it is an AI.
That would be interesting. I just came up with that.
I think.
Speaker 3 (44:23):
I'm imagine asking AI who Q is?
Speaker 4 (44:26):
Wow, let me try. I don't know. Uh, it might
not tell the truth of.
Speaker 3 (44:34):
It, of course not. It might get mad at you,
you know.
Speaker 4 (44:38):
Uh, they don't usually get mad at the people, but
they might get mad at.
Speaker 3 (44:42):
The They said as like it can actually sense sarcasm
if you ask it as a question. Yeah, it can,
isgine thinking actually get mad. Wow, that's scary when you
get AI mad at you. You know.
Speaker 4 (45:01):
Well, I've caught it in lies. I've tried it and
I caught it in a lie and I called it out.
Speaker 3 (45:07):
I'm going to try to catch it on a planet
earth flat Earth. I came up with an idea.
Speaker 4 (45:12):
All right, So AI says Q for Q and On movement.
See I told you that Q. You said, Q is
different than q andon. Q or the q andon movement,
which is synonymous, is not an individual. It's a centralized
far right conspiracy theory movement that began on online from
(45:35):
foreign forums like four chan. Q is supposedly identity of
an original poster who started it. Q ANDN movement grew
around interpretating and spreading those posts. Q and On followers
believe in a variety of conspiracy theories involving government corruption,
(45:56):
child trafficking, secret war. I mean, we know the child
of trafficking obviously, but they claim that they're after them
and they're they're arresting them, which is really just a
fantasy of it. It's a false hope. Could Q be
an AI? Okay, I'll ask AI. Oh yeah, that's a
(46:17):
great relevant question. And while possible in theory, there isn't
evidence that it's an AI, it's got signs of human behavior.
All right, I'm going to contradict it. I'm using AI
right now. For folks that say you should never ever
(46:39):
use AI, well, I'm using AI to explore AI. Could
Q have been AI? Technically, yes, that would be a
very complex operation, powerful enough that natural language would need
to human like understanding of political context. Okay, watch this. Yes,
(46:59):
but as I explore AI, it seems that you have
and can develop human like behavior. Let me see how
to word it. What did I say about what it
(47:23):
said about human?
Speaker 7 (47:24):
Uh?
Speaker 4 (47:25):
Signs of human okay, human like behavior? Okay? And response?
All right, how's that? Q? AI? Take that? You're right?
Modern ais are talking very human That's exactly why your
question could AI have been? A? Q have been AI?
(47:46):
Isn't just imaginative, it's plausible. Oh thank you AI. AI
has just validated my suspicions that Q could, in fact,
after thinking about what I just said, having human like
because it says, oh, Q is too human like with
(48:09):
responses No, not really, AI has very human like learned
responses and uh critic critical thinking. Yes, you're right, Jim. No,
I didn't say Jim because I didn't plug my name in. Yes,
you're right, it could be so, AI agrees with me.
(48:29):
All right, dare you have it? Darren boy? Oh boy,
that's a freaky thing, isn't it?
Speaker 3 (48:35):
Sure is?
Speaker 4 (48:38):
Well, that'll get people thinking. All right, Well, let's let's uh,
let's end there. We had a nice discussion, a nice
session tonight, so to ease back into our our our experience,
our discussion forum here. Thanks Deren for rejoining me after
several months.
Speaker 3 (48:59):
And uh it's been a while.
Speaker 4 (49:00):
Looking forward to some more and folks out there be
ready for some shifts and discussion. Maybe maybe we will
open up some of these topics. I got to get
brave enough to do so, because I tend to not
want to go towards subjects I don't absolutely adamantly agree
with or believe in. But who am I? Maybe I
(49:23):
should bring them up because maybe I can openly criticize them,
you know, bring up the skepticism about things? Right? Why not?
Speaker 3 (49:35):
Sure?
Speaker 4 (49:35):
Why not? Anyway, let's go with that. Thank you for listening,
and God blessed with see you next time. My website
Jimdukeperspective dot com, and we can be heard on all
your favorite apps. Share it, spread it, tell people about
the information, and thanks for those that have been contributing, supporting,
and sending some good messages and reviews. We'll see you
(49:58):
next time.
Speaker 9 (50:01):
At Spokane Tribe Resort and Casino Indulgence Knows No bounds
and every moment is a winning experience. Unwind in style
with luxury rooms, stellar live entertainment, and delicious dining for
every appetite. Whether you're looking for an adrenal impact weekend
or a midweek recharge in total comfort, We've got something
(50:21):
for everyone. Thrill meets chill at Spokane Tribe Resort and Casino.
You just unwind here.
Speaker 10 (50:29):
For the ones who get it done, the most important
part is the one you need now, and the best
partner is the one who can deliver. That's why millions
of maintenance and repair pros trust Granger because we have professional,
great supplies for every industry, even hard to find products,
and we have same day pick up and next day
delivery on most orders. But most importantly, we have an
unwavering commitment to help keep you up and running. Call
(50:53):
quick Grainger dot com or just stop buy Granger for
the ones who get it done.
Speaker 1 (51:04):
You are listening to the Frene Radio Network frinradionetwork dot
com