October 30, 2025 • 31 mins
Randy Purham and Jeff Dornik dive deep into the spiritual and political unraveling of California, exposing how “reparations” and AI control laws are not about justice or safety but about replacing God-given freedom with state-engineered dependency. Jeff also reveals insights from his upcoming book Following the Leader, a prophetic examination of how blind obedience to corrupted authority is shaping the future of America—and how truth must rise before tyranny becomes our new religion.
Follow Randy Purham on Pickax: https://pickax.com/rpurham
Tune into The Jeff Dornik Show LIVE daily at 1pm ET. Subscribe on Rumble and never miss a show. https://rumble.com/c/jeffdornik
Subscribe to my Pickax account today and get my hard-hitting, uncensored email newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.https://pickax.com/jeffdornik
Big Tech is silencing truth while farming your data to feed the machine. That’s why I built Pickax… a free speech platform that puts power back in your hands and your voice beyond their reach. Sign up today:https://pickax.com/?referralCode=y7wxvwq&refSource=copy
Follow Randy Purham on Pickax: https://pickax.com/rpurham
Tune into The Jeff Dornik Show LIVE daily at 1pm ET. Subscribe on Rumble and never miss a show. https://rumble.com/c/jeffdornik
Subscribe to my Pickax account today and get my hard-hitting, uncensored email newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.https://pickax.com/jeffdornik
Big Tech is silencing truth while farming your data to feed the machine. That’s why I built Pickax… a free speech platform that puts power back in your hands and your voice beyond their reach. Sign up today:https://pickax.com/?referralCode=y7wxvwq&refSource=copy
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Hey, good day to you are welcome to Permanent a
socialis I'm your host, Ready, perm damn quicker than want
to quick? We got very special guests with us today.
I wanted to get right to the way he's been
here before. Y'all know who he is. But nonetheless, for
those that don't know who he is, we have none
other than Jeff Dornick. And He is the founder and
(01:29):
CEO of pick Axe And. He is also the host
of The Jeff Dornick Show, where he's interviewed prominent voices
like Senator Ron Johnson, doctor Pierre Corey, cash matel General
Michael Flann, Lauren Berbert, Jason Miller, and many more. He's
also co hosting a bold New weekly show where Matt
Couch called Unsanctioned. An author and editor, Jeff published and
(01:52):
co author Church and State, How the Left used the
Church to conquer America and social justice Social Injustice You,
Supposing the false Gospel of the social justice movement. His
fourth coming book, Following Following the Leader, is currently available
for pre order. Jeff is a frequent speaker at national events,
including the Reawakened American Tour at Trump Dorell the summer
(02:16):
for the Truth and Wellness and Stand Against Marxism conference
and the Walker hashtag walk Away American Restoration Tour in
Beverley Hills, where he served as MC Ladies Gym introduced
as Summer Present the others, mister Jeff Doring, Nick Bill, Morning, sir,
good morning, good morning, good morning. How you doing doing
pretty good? How you doing living a legend, living the legend? Hey,
(02:40):
welcome back. Tell us what have you been up to
the last couple of couple months since you've been on.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Last Yeah, we've just been with pick Acts.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
We've just been uh full on in our beta testing,
onboarding more people into our beta app for for Pickaxe,
and it's been it's been a lot of fun to
kind of see everything come to fruition and more people
buy into our vision and our concept of where we're
trying to go. So that legitimately, basically my entire life
is just building building out this platform and chasing around
(03:09):
a three year old. So you know, those two things
that keep me keep me busy.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Three year old. Oh, terrible threes. Terror I actually called
it this terrible twos. I called them terrorist threes because they.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Called they called they called this So it's like Terrible
twos and then you have a three major and I
think it's the next phase.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
So they're still terrorism in my book. But I wanted
to get I wanted to get into talk about California
since you're there and your your eyes on, hands on,
boots on ground, dealing with Gavin Newsom, Uh, Governor Gavin
Newsom airquot that somebody else is run the show apparently
(03:48):
because I just can't see him doing doing all this craziness.
But uh, there's a series of bills that they that
that was signed to a long in California, and two
of them particularly stood out to me, as like, I mean,
there's a bunch of them, of course, but two of
them particularly stood out to me. And I'm just like, hmm, okay,
(04:10):
because California, to my recollection, correct me if I'm wrong,
but according to history books, because I wasn't there, according
to history books, California never had slaves, right about correct.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
From what I From what I understand, like, California was
not a slave state.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Yeah, that's what I thought, you know, And so I
so this bill I got right here in front of me,
uh said Bill five eighteen. Ladies, gentlemen, you could you could.
I'm laughing at this stuff because of the assert of
the assertinity of it all. And it's just hilarious to
me that California, people in California voted these people into office,
and these people in turn create these policies and is
(04:51):
now going to be law. To your expense, ladies, gentlemen,
just keep that in mind, to your expense, not mind yours.
Sent it Bill five eighteen. Go look it up. It's
says it establishes the Bureau of Descendants of Americans Slavery
within the California Department of Justice. Now that's an odd
place to put a place like that in the Department
of Justice. Okay. The new agency will be responsible for
(05:15):
verifying eligibility, processing claims, and recommending forms of restitution for
descendants of enslaved African Americans. The law also gives Californians
whose families were dispossessed of property through racially motivated imminent
domain and right to seek compensation under the government claims
that lawmakers described the measure as a key step in
(05:36):
California's broader effort to address historical racial injustices and lay
the ground word for future reparationist policies. Jeff, I want
more to California, sorry, because I think that's what's gonna happen.
There's going to be a a I guess you could
(05:58):
say a demographical shift in the United States if this
goes into law and implementing and people starting to see
how it was working, and there are all that people
are gonna move, especially African Americans. And I say African Americans,
I laced gentlemen. There is a distinction here. We have
African descendants of slaves, of slaves called atos or you
(06:18):
will you might hear to turn foundational blacks, meaning that
they was their ancestry was rooted here in the United
States during the time of slave You're gonna find this
particular set of African Americans moving to California because that
would be the only state in the nation that has
given out reparations to black people. So, Jeff, I want
(06:38):
to get your thoughts on that, sir.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Yeah, well, it's it's it's interesting deal dealing with this
because I think we have to take a step back
to look at the at the broader picture of Gavenus
specifically because you know, as you said, you know he's
governor right now, but he's being termed out as governor
of California, so he can't run for re election. And
on a side note, the front run out here in
California is absolutely insane. And I've already told my wife
(07:03):
if if Katie Porter wins this next election, then we're
probably leaving the state because I don't feel safe with
my three year old living in the city of California
with Katie Porter as governor. But with Gavin Newsom, he okay,
it sound sounds I've got a lot of friends in Texas.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
You know, Texas might might be a front runner.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
But it's interesting because you know Gavin Newsom, obviously he's
being turned out. And if you've noticed that since Trump
got elected, he's been trying to position himself as being
the Democrat nominee for president. You know, he's going on
this nation He's gone on this nationwide tour, speaking all
over the country, you know, dealing more with national events
as opposed to California stuff. And so, but what's interesting
(07:46):
is he's specifically trying to from a Ford facing position,
trying to portray himself as a moderate, as the sane
alternative to the far right extreme maga Donald Trump. But
then if you look at his policies, his policies are
catering to the far left fringe of you know, the
(08:07):
loudest minority in the Democrat Party, and so he's kind
of playing both sides of the fence, and so, you know,
forward facing, it's you know, I'm the saying, whatever, you know, person,
I want to talk to all sides, I want.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
To do all this kind of stuff.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
And then he implements policies like this, where like you said,
California to be the first date in the country to
implement you know, reparations.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
I don't even know how. And again this is just
from like.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
A logistical standpoint, I don't know how you verify, you know,
whether somebody is a descendant of a slave. I mean,
you know, it's kind of on the honor system, because
it's not like there's like records. It's not like you
can go back and you can see, well, here's a
certificate stating that your family is you know, fill in
the blank. I don't know how logistically you do it
(08:49):
outside of like the honor system.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
Again, maybe you've got some other kind of insight. I
don't I don't know how you do it.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Yeah, kind of, And as to your point, you actually
make a great point there. There would be like it
would have to be kind of an honored system because
the first claim that a person would make, because I
would make this claim, I already know how you think
it would be. It would be along the lines of, well,
you know, during slavery, y'all to keep records on who
we you know, who we worse people when y'all took
(09:16):
us from our homeland. So of course not, you know,
you can't. I can't prove, you know, that I was
a descendant of a slave, So that would be that argument.
But however, through DNA genetic testing, you know ancestry dot
com for example, because I traced a lot of my
linings to ancestry dot com, and you know it, it
gets skeptical, you know, once it gets into the seventeen hundreds,
(09:38):
it's kind of like, okay, maybe maybe some maybe some
you know, elite white people that really cared about this
stuff kept records of all of that, and it populated there,
and so that's how I'm able to leak into it. Perhaps,
But you know that, but there is that mechanism. Now,
how many people are running around doing that. I yeah,
(10:00):
it's not that many. So I think there's gonna be barriers.
I think California would have enough common sense to put
up some barriers and protect them. They're the treasury there
to say, okay, okay, stop. You know, if you can't
definitively prove you know that you were affected by this,
then get the hell out of here. But what my
my whole thing is, it's California. There was no staves
(10:23):
in California. So you're saying the sentence of slavery in California.
That's literally no one. So it's kind of like, like
do you do you have to have a residency require
a bit like what are we doing here? So that's
that's why I'm kind of like, uh, that's where I
met on that. It's like, how are you to your point?
How are you logistically gonna handle this? Now? Maybe we
(10:43):
got to get into the weeds of the bill, you know,
and go through all that, and maybe it lays it
all out. Maybe it's gonna be discretionary, who knows, but
I just to me, it just doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 3 (10:56):
Yeah, I think I think also like on that standpoint,
it's like, like you said, like California, it wasn't a slave state.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
You know, it would make more sense.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
And again I don't necessarily think it's the right approach,
but like it would make more sense if it was like,
you know, one of the Southern states and they're like,
we never we never dealt we never dealt with the
Jim Crow laws that we had in effect, we never
dealt with the fact that you know, the the you know,
we know for a fact that this piece of land
was taken from this family at this time. Like, there's
certain things where it's like, yes, there should be there
(11:25):
should And you could make a legitimate argument that if
the government came in and they and they implemented some
kind of law or they confiscated land illegally or whatever
it is, and then there's a family and you can say, well, look,
this land was owned by this family, and you know,
you have all these generations that were affected by the
fact that we took this property or we did this,
or we did this as a governmental entity. You could
(11:47):
make an argument like, okay, we can go back, we
can pinpoint that, let's make reparations for that. But I
think when you're looking at a state like California, who
had nothing to do with slavery. Again, as far as
I know, based based on California history, that that didn't
have it. It's a very weird position to take unless
you're just trying to get votes. You're trying to get
you know. And the other thing to think about as well,
(12:08):
Donald Trump and the Republican Party has been gaining on
the African American vote, you know, every single election cycles,
it seems like when you look at the poll numbers.
So this could be a play by Gavin Newsom to
try to bring some of that back into the fold
of the Democrat Party where they've taken for granted the
African American vote, you know, every going back, you know, decades,
and then all of a sudden they're like, oh crap,
(12:28):
the Republicans seem to be gaining some ground over here.
Speaker 1 (12:31):
Yeah, And to that point, you know, there is there
is that sentiment, you know, So it's a there's a
here here in Austin particularly there there is a migratory
movement taken place of African Americans and even Latinos Hispanics
you know, coming over to the Republican Party. And so
you know, of course, you know it's a it's a
(12:53):
shocker to you know, the traditional Democrats that that you know,
I think that they own that voting block. They're like,
they're trader, they're being traders to us. I'm like, God,
call them names. They're hitler, you know. It's like like, yeah,
you call black Ben hitler. You know you're gonna get
real so far with that, okay, But but but to
(13:16):
that point though, you're right, and they're they're waking up
to that. So I think that the dayling the character
in front of in front of the black community saying oh, look, reparations,
come on back. You know, I don't think it's gonna work,
you know, because it's like, yeah, we we we already
been down this road for the last one hundred plus
years now, and y'all haven't given us anything. You haven't
(13:38):
even you always want to do a study, But what
the hell is this study? Because gonna insist of because
we already know what happened, so we don't need to
study this again, you know what type of things. So
I think that, you know, the Democrats have lost that
that footing, that grant, that foothold with with the black community. Anyways,
in terms of trying to bring them back onto the
(13:59):
proverbial plantation. No pun intended there, little folks, but that's
what we at right now. So it's interesting. But I
don't think I don't think they're gonna getwhere with that.
I want to jump into the next bill here, and
this one is right up kind of like up your
alley in your domain, I would say, because you're in
(14:20):
the tech world and all that kind of stuff. And
this one here, Lady Gentlemans, Senate Bill five two four
and focus on transparency and the use of Artificial intelligence
by law enforcement agencies. The measure requires that any police
report or official document generated with the help of AI
must clearly disclose the fact that fact and identity identify
(14:43):
the technology used under the law. Agencies must retain all
AI generated drafts, maintain detailed audit trails showing who access
or modified them, and ensured that preliminary AI drafts cannot
be treated as an officer's official statement. We'll makers say
the bill aims to increase accountability as AI tools become
(15:04):
more common in public safety operations. Now this this what
this tells me is if a police officer says, you know,
I really don't know how to word this, you know,
so let me throw it into AI and generating, you know,
make it sound better. At that point, it's now an
AI generated police report, which could translate to being in
(15:25):
a misavoy court. Good thoughts, sir.
Speaker 3 (15:29):
So it's one of those things where, to me, this
is a a where they're kind of dipping their toe
in the pool, you know, as a government, of getting
into what we need to regulate AI, which I do
think that there does need to be certain kinds of regulations,
but primarily around protecting our constitutional rights, because I think
a lot of AI does biolate our constitutional rights. I
(15:51):
don't necessarily think that this is one of those, but
I think it's an easy one to sell because a
lot of people have distrust of the of the police, right,
and so when you're looking at it from that perspective,
you know, you know, to me, I don't think that
you need this kind of regulation. I think all all
that you really need is you need is you need
to be able to say okay, whoever signs off on it.
(16:12):
So in this case, it would be the police officer
whoever signs off on the report. It doesn't matter whether
it was AI generated or the police or the police
officer himself wrote the police report. It just matters whether
it was truthful or not. And you know, whether it
was AI generated or whether it was a police officer,
a police officer that wrote it. Either way, Like there's
a lot of times there are discrepancies. And that's why
(16:33):
so many people can get a lot of their cases
actually thrown out in court is because well, this was
factually inaccurate. The police officer misremembered or fill in the blank.
And so I think that to me, I don't think
that we need necessarily the you know them, you know,
accountability if the police officer uses AI, because I think
what it's what's doing is it's actually now placing or
(16:53):
putting these you know, pretty much any police report under
question of you know, okay, if let's say the police
officer did use A because you know, who knows, maybe
the police officer is not that great of a writer
and he's like, look, here's what happened.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
AI.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
Can you clean it up for me whatever it is.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
But now if it goes before a jury, and now
the jury will be like, well, the police officer didn't
actually write it was AI. Well, technically the police officer
probably did write it and he just wrote out all
of his recollections and he put in AI, so that
way it actually sounds better. But now you're putting that
question in a jury's mind that this is illegitimate just
because a lot of people don't understand how AI actually works.
(17:28):
So to me, this is it's you know, we do
need regulation of some kind when it comes to artificial intelligence,
and I've got a lot of concerns about AI. But
on the flip side, I don't think that this is
the kind of regulation that we need.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
I agree, and you know, to me, it's no different
than utilizing it in an advanced version or advanced software
of grammar check. You know, you you put there and
you throw into a whole bunch of rung sentences, mispunctuated
you know where you know, statements, and everything goes and
you say, okay, cleaning is up for me. Technically, that's AI.
(18:01):
You know, in a in a grand scheme of things,
when you look at the overall, overaarching apparatus of what
it does, that is artificial intelligence is cleaned up your work.
You know. So I'm there with you. You know, I don't
think they should be utilizing or try to leverage the
power of government to regulate in that sense, because what's
(18:23):
gonna stop them to say, Okay, well, now if you
use AI to even write a bill, Members of Congress,
you can't even use you can't use AI to do
that because you got to track, you know, and do
show me your drafts and show me what was the
intent and all this. So now we're litigating litigation, and
so it's gonna get you, gonna run down a rabbit hole,
(18:45):
and it's gonna just get stupid from there. Once again, California,
I get it. But the other thing that I want
to point out too with this is if if AI,
if if California wants to regulate AI in the space
of law enforcement, then the kind of green lights of
(19:05):
law enforces to say, well, hell, we could use AI
to recreate the crime scene. We can or make our case.
We can say, hey, here's a movie, ladies, gentlemen of
the jury. It's AI generated, but it's just to give
you a visual of what happened. And they play this
movie and it looks so real because lately I've been
on social media and I'm seeing these clips and good
(19:26):
thing they have a little watermark. They'll let you know.
With AI jenery, but they look so real and it's like,
oh man, this is so scary. Like you can literally
take you know, regular people and make them do things
that's not real, you know, so it's like fighting a
bear or you know, play particuling a tiger, and shit,
(19:47):
it's like what are we doing. So police can actually
effectively do the same thing. They can recreate a crime scene,
make it into a movie and say this is you know,
this is what the defendant did, and the jury will
be convinced that that say, Okay, this was a great
movie that they put together. I'm convinced that he's guilty
of this. Could I mean, do you see something like
(20:08):
that happening? And as as long as long as they
give the disclaimer day was AI generated according to his bill,
do you think that should fly?
Speaker 3 (20:18):
I mean, it's it's it's one of those things where
this is this is one of the big problems when
it comes to artificial intelligence in general, is because it
can be so manipulative. And I think, and I think
that you know, I think that you know, to me,
I could see pretty legitimate legislation being introduced and probably
should be that that AI canon shouldn't be used in
(20:40):
a court of law in this way, for for a
variety of reasons. To me, you should be using actual documentation,
actual evidence, actually you know, actual investigations, not know AI,
you know, manipulative you know, imagery or something along those lines.
You know, because because even if you're like, okay, this
is this disclaimer, this is a recreation, the assumption is
(21:05):
it's it's recreating the facts. And we all we all
know that AI takes liberty. It fills in gaps where
where there's not information and to where I think that
it can be used. And also too, like you know,
if you put it from the perspective of you know,
like you know, here, here's a recreation. But then on
the back end, they're they're they're doing it in order
to push a particular narrative, which again in a court
(21:26):
of law they will be doing. To me, now, you're
setting people up to be, you know, found guilty of
something that they possibly didn't do or vice versa.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
And this is the problem.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
So again, this is where proper legislation can come into
effect of safeguarding our justice system from AI and especially
how manipulative it can be. And I think again there's
a lot of safeguards that I think that we do
need to put in place to make sure that the
AI is not used in a wrong fashion, because again,
(21:59):
we have to protect situtional rights, and one of your
constitutional rights is that you are in a sent until
proven guilty, not manipulated into a guilty verdict.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
Right, And thank you for that. And you're absolutely right,
you know, reading this and what you just said as
you as you was explaining that I thought ammliately about
Minority Report with Tom Cruise, Lady JI, if you were
if you remember that movie, if you've never seen that movie,
because there's some years ago now, uh, go back and
watch that movie Minority Report with Tom Cruise, and that's
exactly how they did things. That's how they that's how
(22:31):
they if that's how they ran a judicial system. It
was like, you thought about this crime, so we're gonna
play this movie to show you how you have primitive
this crime and you're like, but ain't you doing any
of that yet, like like it was literally your dream.
You're sending me to death for a dream, Like what
the you know? So that's literally what kind of like
(22:52):
what this would do. It's saying like, hey, you can
do this, but so I know pre called uh uh yeah,
no that that would be a bad thing. But Jeff,
I want to get jump into to talk to them,
to talk about your new book here following the Leader. Oh,
for those that have not heard the story behind this book,
(23:15):
tell us what it's about in and what was the
idea behind writing it?
Speaker 2 (23:22):
Yeah, definitely.
Speaker 3 (23:22):
So back in in in my book, I think it
was a church, church and state how the Left used
the church to conch America. And again I brought together
a bunch of people that all wrote a chapter in
the book. So some pastors, some theologians, some experts in
different fields and all that kind of stuff in my chapter.
And that one was about the evangelical cult of personality.
So how how a lot of these megachurch pastors they
(23:44):
would basically almost set up their own you know, uh
cult within evangelical Christianity to where it was like it
was set up to where this pastor is the greatest
pastor of all time and our amazing pastor fill in
the blank. You know, you got to read his book,
you got to listen to his sermons, you got to
go to his conferences, and and you know, if he
says something, then clearly you need to trust him. You
(24:05):
can't question the all the almighty pastor so and so
and so. That was the chapter I wrote about and
how easily it is for us to be theologically manipulated,
and how that has actually been used in order to
push the evangelical church further to the left, as opposed
to actually comparing everything with scripture. So then you know,
over the last you know, five years or so, I've
really been seeing this trend really be implemented within the
(24:28):
political sphere and the cultural sphere, in the in secular
society here here in our country. And so I decided
I should probably write a book about it. Where in that,
you know, hence the name following the leader, where the
idea is, are you following somebody?
Speaker 2 (24:42):
Are you?
Speaker 3 (24:42):
Or are you actually following your own convictions, in your
own belief, in your own worldview? And as I started
researching this more, I started figuring out like, well, you
know a lot of a lot of these same tactics
were used in the cults, like scientology and Jim Jones
and Charles Manson and you know, all these different places.
And then as I'm doing more research, I'm like, well,
why do these cult leaders have direct ties with intelligence agencies.
(25:05):
That's a little weird, right, Like repeatedly, over and over
and over again, Jim Jones, Charles Manson filled the plank.
They've all got some kind of tie with an intelligence agency.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
So what's going on here?
Speaker 3 (25:15):
And so as you're looking at this, you're just sitting
here and you're like, okay, so and again, this is
just a theory that I'm positing, But I feel like
when you're looking at the documentation, like this could be
a legitimate case. Were these cults actually testing grounds for
a lot of the mind control tactics? Because when you
think about it, you look at all these cults, they
all used very similar procedures. They all used very similar tactics.
(25:39):
And what they all did, they all did this thing
where they would take normal everyday people off the street,
like literally scientology. You go down on Hollywood Boulevard in
Hollywood right now, they've got people out proselytizing, Hey, you
want to come in for an auditing session, and they
get you on this idea of you come in and
personal development, self growth, become a better person kind of
(25:59):
a thing, right, and then they build on top of
that and then they use these cult tactics in order
to get you to believe insane things, like in scientology,
they believe that aliens are dropping into the ocean in
the Pacific Ocean, climbing up on the beach. And that's
why there's so many scientologists in Los Angeles, because they're
in dwelling people and you're just sitting here, like, if
you were to pitch people on that off the street,
(26:20):
they'd be like, you're crazy, don't come near me. But
because they start off on this very basic that lie,
they build on top of it, build on top of it,
build on top of it. Then all of a sudden
they get you to believe in sane, crazy things. Same
thing with Charles Manson. You see that you're able to
get normal everyday people to eventually go out and do
these mass murder helter skelter type campaigns, And you're just
sitting there and you're like, how did they do this?
(26:41):
And so you see this and you're like, Okay, they
all use the same tactics, they all have ties to
intelligence agencies.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
And then guess what.
Speaker 3 (26:48):
Now we're seeing the same tactics being used on the public,
both in the Democrat Party and in the Republican Party
and across the board.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
And so the entire.
Speaker 3 (26:58):
Idea of the book is is taking a look at
all this documentation and they're looking at your own life
and figuring out what do I believe it?
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Not just what do I believe, but why do I
believe it?
Speaker 3 (27:07):
Am I a sucker for some kind of cult mentality?
Or or do I actually believe what I believe because
I know that it's true. And so that's really the
whole idea of the book.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
Excellent, And you're absolutely right. You know that we said
that those those different characters of history, you know, ties
to intelligence agency. You're absolutely right, you know. And this
is where we get the co Intel, pro m k
oul Trup, operation of mocking Bird. All these things that
are labeled as conspiracy theories, they they resonate, They resonate
(27:42):
not only with these people, but with the general public
that that actually pay attention to these kind of things
and these patterns, and they say, huh, that's that's interesting
that this is going on. So there may be some
validity to this. Maybe this is not a conspiracy theory.
And you know, they say everything's a conspiracy theory theory
until it comes it's true. You know, I'm just like, well, yeah,
(28:02):
there you go. So, but yeah, thank you for that, because, uh,
I know, I know people are probably looking forward to
reading this and oh where where can people get pick
up this book?
Speaker 3 (28:14):
Yeah, you guys can I actually get it at my
publishing company. It's called Gatekeepers Online dot Com and you
guys can actually go there. You guys can preorder the
book there. You guys can check out some of the
other books that we put out there as well. We've
got another book over there by doctor Bobby Lopez called
Cancelproof Christianity, which is a phenomenal book that we'll be
releasing here very soon as well. So we got some
good stuff going on up there at Gatekeepers online dot com.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
Cool gatekeepers dot com? Is that right? Gatekeepers dot com?
Speaker 2 (28:40):
Ye, okay, Gatekeepers online dot com.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
Gatekeepers online dot com. But he's a gentleman, excuse me,
perfect though also awesome. Jeff, Please share us any thoughts
that you may have party party thoughts.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
Yeah, definitely.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
I just I think that, uh, you know, in general,
the you know, the the key that I think, you know,
I want everybody to really be thinking about it is like,
you know, what's my worldview?
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Why do I believe what I believe?
Speaker 3 (29:07):
And uh, and then just take a look at take
a look at the world from from that perspective, and
you know, and be willing to entertain the idea that
you could possibly be wrong and that's okay. But believe
what you believe one hundred percent until it's proved, until
it's proven that you're wrong, and then don't take offense
that you were proven wrong.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
Actually change your change of mind, you know, follow the
truth wherever it leads.
Speaker 3 (29:26):
And that's really a huge, you know, focus of what
we're what we're trying to do with Pickax, with our
social media platform, is you know, allow for nuanced conversations,
long form debates, long form conversations, let's let's let's get
into the get into the weeds on different issues, get
into the nuance of stuff. And so we're building a
platform from that perspective and then you know, kind of
giving people a voice that uh, you know, social media
(29:47):
platforms and algorithms don't allow to have their voice get
out there. So if you guys are interested, you guys
can go to pickax dot com, p c k ax
dot com, yes, and follow me there, subscribe to my
email newsletter. They we're going to be rolling that feature
out as well as so definitely be be checking that out.
Speaker 1 (30:03):
Sweet sweet Jeff, Hey, thank you so much, and uh
be safe out there and see you again soon. Sounds good.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
I always appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (30:12):
Yeah, absolutely tell Gavin hello.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
If if if you allow me to run into him,
I will.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
Right I told you so, take it easy. God bless
you lady and gentle man Jeff. Jeff Dornick a great,
great guy. I love, love the conversation. Be sure to
pick up his book following the Leader. Uh, it would
be soon to go to gate gatekeepers online dot com
(30:40):
to pre order that, folks. I don't have much much
else to cave you out all today, excuse me random,
but be sure to tune in uh later on. Uh
this week, I think I got another guest I'm working
working out for details. Feel be a true. If it
(31:00):
don't work out, then maybe next week or something like that.
But anyway, folks, I'm about to get up out of here.
I will catch you all on sometime. Say God bless
and touch out. Hope you enjoyed today's program. You can
follow like, share, subscribe on Spotify, substack, rumble, YouTube, Facebook,
(31:25):
and your news and also you can download Let the
Truth Be Told at on your favorite streaming platforms such
as Firestick, Apple TV and Roku. Take care, God bless
Hey, good day to you are welcome to Permanent a
socialis I'm your host, Ready, perm damn quicker than want
to quick? We got very special guests with us today.
I wanted to get right to the way he's been
here before. Y'all know who he is. But nonetheless, for
those that don't know who he is, we have none
other than Jeff Dornick. And He is the founder and
(01:29):
CEO of pick Axe And. He is also the host
of The Jeff Dornick Show, where he's interviewed prominent voices
like Senator Ron Johnson, doctor Pierre Corey, cash matel General
Michael Flann, Lauren Berbert, Jason Miller, and many more. He's
also co hosting a bold New weekly show where Matt
Couch called Unsanctioned. An author and editor, Jeff published and
(01:52):
co author Church and State, How the Left used the
Church to conquer America and social justice Social Injustice You,
Supposing the false Gospel of the social justice movement. His
fourth coming book, Following Following the Leader, is currently available
for pre order. Jeff is a frequent speaker at national events,
including the Reawakened American Tour at Trump Dorell the summer
(02:16):
for the Truth and Wellness and Stand Against Marxism conference
and the Walker hashtag walk Away American Restoration Tour in
Beverley Hills, where he served as MC Ladies Gym introduced
as Summer Present the others, mister Jeff Doring, Nick Bill, Morning, sir,
good morning, good morning, good morning. How you doing doing
pretty good? How you doing living a legend, living the legend? Hey,
(02:40):
welcome back. Tell us what have you been up to
the last couple of couple months since you've been on.
Speaker 2 (02:44):
Last Yeah, we've just been with pick Acts.
Speaker 3 (02:48):
We've just been uh full on in our beta testing,
onboarding more people into our beta app for for Pickaxe,
and it's been it's been a lot of fun to
kind of see everything come to fruition and more people
buy into our vision and our concept of where we're
trying to go. So that legitimately, basically my entire life
is just building building out this platform and chasing around
(03:09):
a three year old. So you know, those two things
that keep me keep me busy.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
Three year old. Oh, terrible threes. Terror I actually called
it this terrible twos. I called them terrorist threes because they.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Called they called they called this So it's like Terrible
twos and then you have a three major and I
think it's the next phase.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
So they're still terrorism in my book. But I wanted
to get I wanted to get into talk about California
since you're there and your your eyes on, hands on,
boots on ground, dealing with Gavin Newsom, Uh, Governor Gavin
Newsom airquot that somebody else is run the show apparently
(03:48):
because I just can't see him doing doing all this craziness.
But uh, there's a series of bills that they that
that was signed to a long in California, and two
of them particularly stood out to me, as like, I mean,
there's a bunch of them, of course, but two of
them particularly stood out to me. And I'm just like, hmm, okay,
(04:10):
because California, to my recollection, correct me if I'm wrong,
but according to history books, because I wasn't there, according
to history books, California never had slaves, right about correct.
Speaker 2 (04:23):
From what I From what I understand, like, California was
not a slave state.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Yeah, that's what I thought, you know, And so I
so this bill I got right here in front of me,
uh said Bill five eighteen. Ladies, gentlemen, you could you could.
I'm laughing at this stuff because of the assert of
the assertinity of it all. And it's just hilarious to
me that California, people in California voted these people into office,
and these people in turn create these policies and is
(04:51):
now going to be law. To your expense, ladies, gentlemen,
just keep that in mind, to your expense, not mind yours.
Sent it Bill five eighteen. Go look it up. It's
says it establishes the Bureau of Descendants of Americans Slavery
within the California Department of Justice. Now that's an odd
place to put a place like that in the Department
of Justice. Okay. The new agency will be responsible for
(05:15):
verifying eligibility, processing claims, and recommending forms of restitution for
descendants of enslaved African Americans. The law also gives Californians
whose families were dispossessed of property through racially motivated imminent
domain and right to seek compensation under the government claims
that lawmakers described the measure as a key step in
(05:36):
California's broader effort to address historical racial injustices and lay
the ground word for future reparationist policies. Jeff, I want
more to California, sorry, because I think that's what's gonna happen.
There's going to be a a I guess you could
(05:58):
say a demographical shift in the United States if this
goes into law and implementing and people starting to see
how it was working, and there are all that people
are gonna move, especially African Americans. And I say African Americans,
I laced gentlemen. There is a distinction here. We have
African descendants of slaves, of slaves called atos or you
(06:18):
will you might hear to turn foundational blacks, meaning that
they was their ancestry was rooted here in the United
States during the time of slave You're gonna find this
particular set of African Americans moving to California because that
would be the only state in the nation that has
given out reparations to black people. So, Jeff, I want
(06:38):
to get your thoughts on that, sir.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Yeah, well, it's it's it's interesting deal dealing with this
because I think we have to take a step back
to look at the at the broader picture of Gavenus
specifically because you know, as you said, you know he's
governor right now, but he's being termed out as governor
of California, so he can't run for re election. And
on a side note, the front run out here in
California is absolutely insane. And I've already told my wife
(07:03):
if if Katie Porter wins this next election, then we're
probably leaving the state because I don't feel safe with
my three year old living in the city of California
with Katie Porter as governor. But with Gavin Newsom, he okay,
it sound sounds I've got a lot of friends in Texas.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
You know, Texas might might be a front runner.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
But it's interesting because you know Gavin Newsom, obviously he's
being turned out. And if you've noticed that since Trump
got elected, he's been trying to position himself as being
the Democrat nominee for president. You know, he's going on
this nation He's gone on this nationwide tour, speaking all
over the country, you know, dealing more with national events
as opposed to California stuff. And so, but what's interesting
(07:46):
is he's specifically trying to from a Ford facing position,
trying to portray himself as a moderate, as the sane
alternative to the far right extreme maga Donald Trump. But
then if you look at his policies, his policies are
catering to the far left fringe of you know, the
(08:07):
loudest minority in the Democrat Party, and so he's kind
of playing both sides of the fence, and so, you know,
forward facing, it's you know, I'm the saying, whatever, you know, person,
I want to talk to all sides, I want.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
To do all this kind of stuff.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
And then he implements policies like this, where like you said,
California to be the first date in the country to
implement you know, reparations.
Speaker 2 (08:26):
I don't even know how. And again this is just
from like.
Speaker 3 (08:29):
A logistical standpoint, I don't know how you verify, you know,
whether somebody is a descendant of a slave. I mean,
you know, it's kind of on the honor system, because
it's not like there's like records. It's not like you
can go back and you can see, well, here's a
certificate stating that your family is you know, fill in
the blank. I don't know how logistically you do it
(08:49):
outside of like the honor system.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
I don't know.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
Again, maybe you've got some other kind of insight. I
don't I don't know how you do it.
Speaker 1 (08:55):
Yeah, kind of, And as to your point, you actually
make a great point there. There would be like it
would have to be kind of an honored system because
the first claim that a person would make, because I
would make this claim, I already know how you think
it would be. It would be along the lines of, well,
you know, during slavery, y'all to keep records on who
we you know, who we worse people when y'all took
(09:16):
us from our homeland. So of course not, you know,
you can't. I can't prove, you know, that I was
a descendant of a slave, So that would be that argument.
But however, through DNA genetic testing, you know ancestry dot
com for example, because I traced a lot of my
linings to ancestry dot com, and you know it, it
gets skeptical, you know, once it gets into the seventeen hundreds,
(09:38):
it's kind of like, okay, maybe maybe some maybe some
you know, elite white people that really cared about this
stuff kept records of all of that, and it populated there,
and so that's how I'm able to leak into it. Perhaps,
But you know that, but there is that mechanism. Now,
how many people are running around doing that. I yeah,
(10:00):
it's not that many. So I think there's gonna be barriers.
I think California would have enough common sense to put
up some barriers and protect them. They're the treasury there
to say, okay, okay, stop. You know, if you can't
definitively prove you know that you were affected by this,
then get the hell out of here. But what my
my whole thing is, it's California. There was no staves
(10:23):
in California. So you're saying the sentence of slavery in California.
That's literally no one. So it's kind of like, like
do you do you have to have a residency require
a bit like what are we doing here? So that's
that's why I'm kind of like, uh, that's where I
met on that. It's like, how are you to your point?
How are you logistically gonna handle this? Now? Maybe we
(10:43):
got to get into the weeds of the bill, you know,
and go through all that, and maybe it lays it
all out. Maybe it's gonna be discretionary, who knows, but
I just to me, it just doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 3 (10:56):
Yeah, I think I think also like on that standpoint,
it's like, like you said, like California, it wasn't a slave state.
Speaker 2 (11:02):
You know, it would make more sense.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
And again I don't necessarily think it's the right approach,
but like it would make more sense if it was like,
you know, one of the Southern states and they're like,
we never we never dealt we never dealt with the
Jim Crow laws that we had in effect, we never
dealt with the fact that you know, the the you know,
we know for a fact that this piece of land
was taken from this family at this time. Like, there's
certain things where it's like, yes, there should be there
(11:25):
should And you could make a legitimate argument that if
the government came in and they and they implemented some
kind of law or they confiscated land illegally or whatever
it is, and then there's a family and you can say, well, look,
this land was owned by this family, and you know,
you have all these generations that were affected by the
fact that we took this property or we did this,
or we did this as a governmental entity. You could
(11:47):
make an argument like, okay, we can go back, we
can pinpoint that, let's make reparations for that. But I
think when you're looking at a state like California, who
had nothing to do with slavery. Again, as far as
I know, based based on California history, that that didn't
have it. It's a very weird position to take unless
you're just trying to get votes. You're trying to get
you know. And the other thing to think about as well,
(12:08):
Donald Trump and the Republican Party has been gaining on
the African American vote, you know, every single election cycles,
it seems like when you look at the poll numbers.
So this could be a play by Gavin Newsom to
try to bring some of that back into the fold
of the Democrat Party where they've taken for granted the
African American vote, you know, every going back, you know, decades,
and then all of a sudden they're like, oh crap,
(12:28):
the Republicans seem to be gaining some ground over here.
Speaker 1 (12:31):
Yeah, And to that point, you know, there is there
is that sentiment, you know, So it's a there's a
here here in Austin particularly there there is a migratory
movement taken place of African Americans and even Latinos Hispanics
you know, coming over to the Republican Party. And so
you know, of course, you know it's a it's a
(12:53):
shocker to you know, the traditional Democrats that that you know,
I think that they own that voting block. They're like,
they're trader, they're being traders to us. I'm like, God,
call them names. They're hitler, you know. It's like like, yeah,
you call black Ben hitler. You know you're gonna get
real so far with that, okay, But but but to
(13:16):
that point though, you're right, and they're they're waking up
to that. So I think that the dayling the character
in front of in front of the black community saying oh, look, reparations,
come on back. You know, I don't think it's gonna work,
you know, because it's like, yeah, we we we already
been down this road for the last one hundred plus
years now, and y'all haven't given us anything. You haven't
(13:38):
even you always want to do a study, But what
the hell is this study? Because gonna insist of because
we already know what happened, so we don't need to
study this again, you know what type of things. So
I think that, you know, the Democrats have lost that
that footing, that grant, that foothold with with the black community. Anyways,
in terms of trying to bring them back onto the
(13:59):
proverbial plantation. No pun intended there, little folks, but that's
what we at right now. So it's interesting. But I
don't think I don't think they're gonna getwhere with that.
I want to jump into the next bill here, and
this one is right up kind of like up your
alley in your domain, I would say, because you're in
(14:20):
the tech world and all that kind of stuff. And
this one here, Lady Gentlemans, Senate Bill five two four
and focus on transparency and the use of Artificial intelligence
by law enforcement agencies. The measure requires that any police
report or official document generated with the help of AI
must clearly disclose the fact that fact and identity identify
(14:43):
the technology used under the law. Agencies must retain all
AI generated drafts, maintain detailed audit trails showing who access
or modified them, and ensured that preliminary AI drafts cannot
be treated as an officer's official statement. We'll makers say
the bill aims to increase accountability as AI tools become
(15:04):
more common in public safety operations. Now this this what
this tells me is if a police officer says, you know,
I really don't know how to word this, you know,
so let me throw it into AI and generating, you know,
make it sound better. At that point, it's now an
AI generated police report, which could translate to being in
(15:25):
a misavoy court. Good thoughts, sir.
Speaker 3 (15:29):
So it's one of those things where, to me, this
is a a where they're kind of dipping their toe
in the pool, you know, as a government, of getting
into what we need to regulate AI, which I do
think that there does need to be certain kinds of regulations,
but primarily around protecting our constitutional rights, because I think
a lot of AI does biolate our constitutional rights. I
(15:51):
don't necessarily think that this is one of those, but
I think it's an easy one to sell because a
lot of people have distrust of the of the police, right,
and so when you're looking at it from that perspective,
you know, you know, to me, I don't think that
you need this kind of regulation. I think all all
that you really need is you need is you need
to be able to say okay, whoever signs off on it.
(16:12):
So in this case, it would be the police officer
whoever signs off on the report. It doesn't matter whether
it was AI generated or the police or the police
officer himself wrote the police report. It just matters whether
it was truthful or not. And you know, whether it
was AI generated or whether it was a police officer,
a police officer that wrote it. Either way, Like there's
a lot of times there are discrepancies. And that's why
(16:33):
so many people can get a lot of their cases
actually thrown out in court is because well, this was
factually inaccurate. The police officer misremembered or fill in the blank.
And so I think that to me, I don't think
that we need necessarily the you know them, you know,
accountability if the police officer uses AI, because I think
what it's what's doing is it's actually now placing or
(16:53):
putting these you know, pretty much any police report under
question of you know, okay, if let's say the police
officer did use A because you know, who knows, maybe
the police officer is not that great of a writer
and he's like, look, here's what happened.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
AI.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
Can you clean it up for me whatever it is.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
But now if it goes before a jury, and now
the jury will be like, well, the police officer didn't
actually write it was AI. Well, technically the police officer
probably did write it and he just wrote out all
of his recollections and he put in AI, so that
way it actually sounds better. But now you're putting that
question in a jury's mind that this is illegitimate just
because a lot of people don't understand how AI actually works.
(17:28):
So to me, this is it's you know, we do
need regulation of some kind when it comes to artificial intelligence,
and I've got a lot of concerns about AI. But
on the flip side, I don't think that this is
the kind of regulation that we need.
Speaker 1 (17:40):
I agree, and you know, to me, it's no different
than utilizing it in an advanced version or advanced software
of grammar check. You know, you you put there and
you throw into a whole bunch of rung sentences, mispunctuated
you know where you know, statements, and everything goes and
you say, okay, cleaning is up for me. Technically, that's AI.
(18:01):
You know, in a in a grand scheme of things,
when you look at the overall, overaarching apparatus of what
it does, that is artificial intelligence is cleaned up your work.
You know. So I'm there with you. You know, I don't
think they should be utilizing or try to leverage the
power of government to regulate in that sense, because what's
(18:23):
gonna stop them to say, Okay, well, now if you
use AI to even write a bill, Members of Congress,
you can't even use you can't use AI to do
that because you got to track, you know, and do
show me your drafts and show me what was the
intent and all this. So now we're litigating litigation, and
so it's gonna get you, gonna run down a rabbit hole,
(18:45):
and it's gonna just get stupid from there. Once again, California,
I get it. But the other thing that I want
to point out too with this is if if AI,
if if California wants to regulate AI in the space
of law enforcement, then the kind of green lights of
(19:05):
law enforces to say, well, hell, we could use AI
to recreate the crime scene. We can or make our case.
We can say, hey, here's a movie, ladies, gentlemen of
the jury. It's AI generated, but it's just to give
you a visual of what happened. And they play this
movie and it looks so real because lately I've been
on social media and I'm seeing these clips and good
(19:26):
thing they have a little watermark. They'll let you know.
With AI jenery, but they look so real and it's like,
oh man, this is so scary. Like you can literally
take you know, regular people and make them do things
that's not real, you know, so it's like fighting a
bear or you know, play particuling a tiger, and shit,
(19:47):
it's like what are we doing. So police can actually
effectively do the same thing. They can recreate a crime scene,
make it into a movie and say this is you know,
this is what the defendant did, and the jury will
be convinced that that say, Okay, this was a great
movie that they put together. I'm convinced that he's guilty
of this. Could I mean, do you see something like
(20:08):
that happening? And as as long as long as they
give the disclaimer day was AI generated according to his bill,
do you think that should fly?
Speaker 3 (20:18):
I mean, it's it's it's one of those things where
this is this is one of the big problems when
it comes to artificial intelligence in general, is because it
can be so manipulative. And I think, and I think
that you know, I think that you know, to me,
I could see pretty legitimate legislation being introduced and probably
should be that that AI canon shouldn't be used in
(20:40):
a court of law in this way, for for a
variety of reasons. To me, you should be using actual documentation,
actual evidence, actually you know, actual investigations, not know AI,
you know, manipulative you know, imagery or something along those lines.
You know, because because even if you're like, okay, this
is this disclaimer, this is a recreation, the assumption is
(21:05):
it's it's recreating the facts. And we all we all
know that AI takes liberty. It fills in gaps where
where there's not information and to where I think that
it can be used. And also too, like you know,
if you put it from the perspective of you know,
like you know, here, here's a recreation. But then on
the back end, they're they're they're doing it in order
to push a particular narrative, which again in a court
(21:26):
of law they will be doing. To me, now, you're
setting people up to be, you know, found guilty of
something that they possibly didn't do or vice versa.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
And this is the problem.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
So again, this is where proper legislation can come into
effect of safeguarding our justice system from AI and especially
how manipulative it can be. And I think again there's
a lot of safeguards that I think that we do
need to put in place to make sure that the
AI is not used in a wrong fashion, because again,
(21:59):
we have to protect situtional rights, and one of your
constitutional rights is that you are in a sent until
proven guilty, not manipulated into a guilty verdict.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
Right, And thank you for that. And you're absolutely right,
you know, reading this and what you just said as
you as you was explaining that I thought ammliately about
Minority Report with Tom Cruise, Lady JI, if you were
if you remember that movie, if you've never seen that movie,
because there's some years ago now, uh, go back and
watch that movie Minority Report with Tom Cruise, and that's
exactly how they did things. That's how they that's how
(22:31):
they if that's how they ran a judicial system. It
was like, you thought about this crime, so we're gonna
play this movie to show you how you have primitive
this crime and you're like, but ain't you doing any
of that yet, like like it was literally your dream.
You're sending me to death for a dream, Like what
the you know? So that's literally what kind of like
(22:52):
what this would do. It's saying like, hey, you can
do this, but so I know pre called uh uh yeah,
no that that would be a bad thing. But Jeff,
I want to get jump into to talk to them,
to talk about your new book here following the Leader. Oh,
for those that have not heard the story behind this book,
(23:15):
tell us what it's about in and what was the
idea behind writing it?
Speaker 2 (23:22):
Yeah, definitely.
Speaker 3 (23:22):
So back in in in my book, I think it
was a church, church and state how the Left used
the church to conch America. And again I brought together
a bunch of people that all wrote a chapter in
the book. So some pastors, some theologians, some experts in
different fields and all that kind of stuff in my chapter.
And that one was about the evangelical cult of personality.
So how how a lot of these megachurch pastors they
(23:44):
would basically almost set up their own you know, uh
cult within evangelical Christianity to where it was like it
was set up to where this pastor is the greatest
pastor of all time and our amazing pastor fill in
the blank. You know, you got to read his book,
you got to listen to his sermons, you got to
go to his conferences, and and you know, if he
says something, then clearly you need to trust him. You
(24:05):
can't question the all the almighty pastor so and so
and so. That was the chapter I wrote about and
how easily it is for us to be theologically manipulated,
and how that has actually been used in order to
push the evangelical church further to the left, as opposed
to actually comparing everything with scripture. So then you know,
over the last you know, five years or so, I've
really been seeing this trend really be implemented within the
(24:28):
political sphere and the cultural sphere, in the in secular
society here here in our country. And so I decided
I should probably write a book about it. Where in that,
you know, hence the name following the leader, where the
idea is, are you following somebody?
Speaker 2 (24:42):
Are you?
Speaker 3 (24:42):
Or are you actually following your own convictions, in your
own belief, in your own worldview? And as I started
researching this more, I started figuring out like, well, you
know a lot of a lot of these same tactics
were used in the cults, like scientology and Jim Jones
and Charles Manson and you know, all these different places.
And then as I'm doing more research, I'm like, well,
why do these cult leaders have direct ties with intelligence agencies.
(25:05):
That's a little weird, right, Like repeatedly, over and over
and over again, Jim Jones, Charles Manson filled the plank.
They've all got some kind of tie with an intelligence agency.
Speaker 2 (25:14):
So what's going on here?
Speaker 3 (25:15):
And so as you're looking at this, you're just sitting
here and you're like, okay, so and again, this is
just a theory that I'm positing, But I feel like
when you're looking at the documentation, like this could be
a legitimate case. Were these cults actually testing grounds for
a lot of the mind control tactics? Because when you
think about it, you look at all these cults, they
all used very similar procedures. They all used very similar tactics.
(25:39):
And what they all did, they all did this thing
where they would take normal everyday people off the street,
like literally scientology. You go down on Hollywood Boulevard in
Hollywood right now, they've got people out proselytizing, Hey, you
want to come in for an auditing session, and they
get you on this idea of you come in and
personal development, self growth, become a better person kind of
(25:59):
a thing, right, and then they build on top of
that and then they use these cult tactics in order
to get you to believe insane things, like in scientology,
they believe that aliens are dropping into the ocean in
the Pacific Ocean, climbing up on the beach. And that's
why there's so many scientologists in Los Angeles, because they're
in dwelling people and you're just sitting here, like, if
you were to pitch people on that off the street,
(26:20):
they'd be like, you're crazy, don't come near me. But
because they start off on this very basic that lie,
they build on top of it, build on top of it,
build on top of it. Then all of a sudden
they get you to believe in sane, crazy things. Same
thing with Charles Manson. You see that you're able to
get normal everyday people to eventually go out and do
these mass murder helter skelter type campaigns, And you're just
sitting there and you're like, how did they do this?
(26:41):
And so you see this and you're like, Okay, they
all use the same tactics, they all have ties to
intelligence agencies.
Speaker 2 (26:47):
And then guess what.
Speaker 3 (26:48):
Now we're seeing the same tactics being used on the public,
both in the Democrat Party and in the Republican Party
and across the board.
Speaker 2 (26:56):
And so the entire.
Speaker 3 (26:58):
Idea of the book is is taking a look at
all this documentation and they're looking at your own life
and figuring out what do I believe it?
Speaker 2 (27:05):
Not just what do I believe, but why do I
believe it?
Speaker 3 (27:07):
Am I a sucker for some kind of cult mentality?
Or or do I actually believe what I believe because
I know that it's true. And so that's really the
whole idea of the book.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
Excellent, And you're absolutely right. You know that we said
that those those different characters of history, you know, ties
to intelligence agency. You're absolutely right, you know. And this
is where we get the co Intel, pro m k
oul Trup, operation of mocking Bird. All these things that
are labeled as conspiracy theories, they they resonate, They resonate
(27:42):
not only with these people, but with the general public
that that actually pay attention to these kind of things
and these patterns, and they say, huh, that's that's interesting
that this is going on. So there may be some
validity to this. Maybe this is not a conspiracy theory.
And you know, they say everything's a conspiracy theory theory
until it comes it's true. You know, I'm just like, well, yeah,
(28:02):
there you go. So, but yeah, thank you for that, because, uh,
I know, I know people are probably looking forward to
reading this and oh where where can people get pick
up this book?
Speaker 3 (28:14):
Yeah, you guys can I actually get it at my
publishing company. It's called Gatekeepers Online dot Com and you
guys can actually go there. You guys can preorder the
book there. You guys can check out some of the
other books that we put out there as well. We've
got another book over there by doctor Bobby Lopez called
Cancelproof Christianity, which is a phenomenal book that we'll be
releasing here very soon as well. So we got some
good stuff going on up there at Gatekeepers online dot com.
Speaker 1 (28:36):
Cool gatekeepers dot com? Is that right? Gatekeepers dot com?
Speaker 2 (28:40):
Ye, okay, Gatekeepers online dot com.
Speaker 1 (28:42):
Gatekeepers online dot com. But he's a gentleman, excuse me,
perfect though also awesome. Jeff, Please share us any thoughts
that you may have party party thoughts.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
Yeah, definitely.
Speaker 3 (28:57):
I just I think that, uh, you know, in general,
the you know, the the key that I think, you know,
I want everybody to really be thinking about it is like,
you know, what's my worldview?
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Why do I believe what I believe?
Speaker 3 (29:07):
And uh, and then just take a look at take
a look at the world from from that perspective, and
you know, and be willing to entertain the idea that
you could possibly be wrong and that's okay. But believe
what you believe one hundred percent until it's proved, until
it's proven that you're wrong, and then don't take offense
that you were proven wrong.
Speaker 2 (29:22):
Actually change your change of mind, you know, follow the
truth wherever it leads.
Speaker 3 (29:26):
And that's really a huge, you know, focus of what
we're what we're trying to do with Pickax, with our
social media platform, is you know, allow for nuanced conversations,
long form debates, long form conversations, let's let's let's get
into the get into the weeds on different issues, get
into the nuance of stuff. And so we're building a
platform from that perspective and then you know, kind of
giving people a voice that uh, you know, social media
(29:47):
platforms and algorithms don't allow to have their voice get
out there. So if you guys are interested, you guys
can go to pickax dot com, p c k ax
dot com, yes, and follow me there, subscribe to my
email newsletter. They we're going to be rolling that feature
out as well as so definitely be be checking that out.
Speaker 1 (30:03):
Sweet sweet Jeff, Hey, thank you so much, and uh
be safe out there and see you again soon. Sounds good.
Speaker 2 (30:11):
I always appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (30:12):
Yeah, absolutely tell Gavin hello.
Speaker 2 (30:15):
If if if you allow me to run into him,
I will.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
Right I told you so, take it easy. God bless
you lady and gentle man Jeff. Jeff Dornick a great,
great guy. I love, love the conversation. Be sure to
pick up his book following the Leader. Uh, it would
be soon to go to gate gatekeepers online dot com
(30:40):
to pre order that, folks. I don't have much much
else to cave you out all today, excuse me random,
but be sure to tune in uh later on. Uh
this week, I think I got another guest I'm working
working out for details. Feel be a true. If it
(31:00):
don't work out, then maybe next week or something like that.
But anyway, folks, I'm about to get up out of here.
I will catch you all on sometime. Say God bless
and touch out. Hope you enjoyed today's program. You can
follow like, share, subscribe on Spotify, substack, rumble, YouTube, Facebook,
(31:25):
and your news and also you can download Let the
Truth Be Told at on your favorite streaming platforms such
as Firestick, Apple TV and Roku. Take care, God bless
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.