The Ochelli Effect 6-15-2022 Joël Bailey and John Potash Re-release 110925

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Chilly Effect is sponsored by Wallstreet, Windows dot Com
and listeners like you Yeah Now, Best Reggivated Noise and
a Media Chucky.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
June fifteen, twenty twenty two.

Speaker 3 (00:16):
Allegedly, according to that thing we call a calendar, this
happens to be the show you were looking for.

Speaker 2 (00:20):
How do I know that? Because you're hearing me say
this anyway.

Speaker 3 (00:23):
Wednesday, Wildnesday, middle of the week, that's right, and this
is the wildcard. Now, if you're listening to me on
the live streaming, you're going, what the hell? Why'd you
start eight nine minutes late?

Speaker 2 (00:33):
Eh?

Speaker 3 (00:34):
Technical issues abound, but let's see if we can keep
them under control at least for the next two hours,
and it will be an interesting two hours. First hour,
you know what, I'm gonna let my first hour guest
introduce himself because I look at a lot of different
ways I could introduce him and I'm not sure how

(00:55):
this conversation is gonna go. H this is This could
be one of the most awkward first time guest appearances ever.

Speaker 2 (01:03):
But then again, maybe not. I have no idea. Of course.

Speaker 3 (01:06):
This comes from the mind of nature Boy, the Wednesday
night producer, who I don't put any restrictions on as
far as who it is he thinks would be interesting
to bring on the show. So there's that in the
first hour, stick around for it. In the second we'll
get to John Potash, who you have heard from before
on this show, and we might be covering some stuff

(01:27):
I don't know that'll get me kicked off with.

Speaker 2 (01:28):
Some platform or other.

Speaker 3 (01:30):
I do want to talk to him about the TUPAC
documentary piece, but he's got a newer one that's coming
out that we did talk about some months ago on
the show. He is the author of weapons Oh Man.
I don't want to screw up the title. I got
it on my bookshelf behind me. But look the drug
war and the absolute lunacy, ridiculousness and sham and fraud

(01:52):
that it is. John Potash is an author to discuss
that about. Anyways, we'll get into that. But documentary in
the second hour with John Potess.

Speaker 2 (02:02):
Okay. So again, as I said my first hour guest,
unusual to.

Speaker 3 (02:06):
Say the least. Okay, And I'll tell you, Joel. Your
first name is Joel and that's all the listeners know
at the moment. So how would you introduce yourself to
some people who hear people talking all the time about politics,
social issues, everything else.

Speaker 2 (02:24):
Raw thing.

Speaker 3 (02:25):
You're coming out of nowhere, And of course we'll talk
about where people can find you and all that before
we're done discussing things tonight. You are an interesting character
all the way around, so let's just do it that way.
How would you introduce yourself? Okay, people you never heard
of me before, this is who I am.

Speaker 4 (02:41):
Well, first and foremost, thank you so much for having
me this podcast.

Speaker 5 (02:46):
I mean, it's phenomenal to even be here.

Speaker 4 (02:48):
Well, for the people who don't know me, I'm Joe
Joel and I go by Token Black Guy USA, so
I know the name is very unique to a point
where I just want to spark conversation every time someone
hears it, so it'll get you asking questions. But I
was actually born in Africa. I was adopted into a
military family at the age of fourteen years old, but

(03:12):
I was in an orphanage for basically.

Speaker 5 (03:16):
My whole life.

Speaker 4 (03:16):
I started learning English when I was five years old,
and from then on it was like meant to be man.
I know what it's like not to be an American.
So from the time I was five, I knew America
was kind of my destiny and I had to be
here because honestly, opportunity arise in the US and you
have to pursue that American dream.

Speaker 5 (03:38):
And that's kind of.

Speaker 4 (03:40):
My story in a nutshell, but adopted from in a
military family with predominantly white parents, even though I really
don't see color, but apparently I'm supposed to. So my
parents are two tremendous individuals who have instilled so much
conservatism into my life. But it's always kind of ran

(04:03):
in like my bloodstream, I feel like, because everything just
comes naturally when it comes to.

Speaker 5 (04:08):
My thought process.

Speaker 4 (04:09):
And I guess a lot of people are triggered by
that fact because they see me and they say, I'm
supposed to be on one side of the aisle, and
then they hear me speak and they're like, Okay, interesting,
maybe he's not one of us. And they're kind of
right because I'm.

Speaker 2 (04:29):
In the middle.

Speaker 4 (04:29):
I'm not on the left, I'm not in the right,
but I'm actually more on the right than I am
on the left.

Speaker 5 (04:35):
But I don't really play the identity game.

Speaker 4 (04:38):
I like to talk about it, but I don't play
the identity game like they ask me to do so.
But all in all, I'm a college student who just
graduated college, living my American dream already. So and now
I'm working for the North Carolina GOP ready to take
on the awful Biden administration this midterm election. So yeah,

(05:02):
there's far more behind that story, but that's just me
in a nut show.

Speaker 2 (05:07):
Awesome.

Speaker 3 (05:08):
Well, look, you know, first of all, it already sounds
pretty unusual. Tell you why, you know, token black guy?
First thing, I think, I'm sorry. I watched a lot
of cartoons is south Park, and recently they decided that
they were going to say that token was actually named Tolkien.

Speaker 2 (05:26):
But he's been token.

Speaker 3 (05:27):
Black guy a black kid for years on the show, right,
and began as a joke because he was literally the
only black character in South Park. So I'm wondering if
that inspired any of this token black guy USA stuff
or if, you know, did that have anything to do
with it.

Speaker 4 (05:45):
It actually had nothing to do with it until after
everybody was like, oh, is it from.

Speaker 5 (05:50):
The South Park I'm like, no, I don't.

Speaker 4 (05:53):
Watch South Park. I had never heard about it. I
actually had to google it. But it actually stems more
from the fact that I've always kind of been that
token guy who happens to be black in the.

Speaker 5 (06:06):
Group a circle of his friends.

Speaker 4 (06:09):
I've never always like just assumed or gotten into like
one area or one black group or one white group
or whatever. It's always been a very diverse group of
friends that I've been surrounded with, and I thank God
for that. But I've always been that one black guy
in that circle. So I was like, Okay, something that

(06:29):
fits me. Token Okay, because they're gonna call me token,
so I might as well just embrace the name and
then add the hint of USA at the end because
I'm an avid patriot.

Speaker 5 (06:41):
So it just fit perfectly token black guy USA, right.

Speaker 3 (06:45):
And the other strange thing is that, you know, when
I think of a token black guy, you know, and
I'm just gonna be blunt with you here, man. You know,
tell me if I offend, I'm still gonna speak the
same way. I'll tell you that right now, because first
of all, on the left or the right, I'm just
gonna go h So, you know, I I equally bash
both lap wingers and right wingers on this show, which

(07:06):
makes it hard for me to bring certain guests on
and UHU, because I find that we've gotten into a
position where I don't believe we should be. And I
hear your enthusiasm for the American dream.

Speaker 2 (07:16):
I wish I had it.

Speaker 3 (07:18):
To be honest with you, now, most people would call
me white, and I know that's not correct. First of all,
because even according to the people that want to, uh
you know, instill the ideas of white purity and so
on and so forth, I'm disqualified because first I'm Sicilian.

Speaker 2 (07:34):
So that's the end of that.

Speaker 3 (07:36):
Okay, you know anything about world history, you know that
Sicilians are are are not entirely white.

Speaker 2 (07:42):
Uh it cannot be.

Speaker 3 (07:43):
Uh So, uh yeah, I don't pass the purity test,
and I really don't give a damn. The other thing
is that when when I hear token black guy, I'm
thinking to myself, that's usually the guy that's introduced there,
just so you have a black presence. And I saw
this among general's. After mind, I'm a generation excerp so
I'm older than you if you just finished college probably,

(08:06):
although you could have just finished college at my age too.
I mean, things are different nowadays, but either way, I
think i'm older than you based on what I've read
a little bit about you. And it's a different generation
now when it comes to racial identity. Strange thing is
it's more extreme, it's more polite, and yet it's more

(08:26):
extreme than it was when I grew up. So a
token black guy, though, would be somebody that you just
brought in there just so you could have black skin
in the game. It was like, you know, well, we
have to have, you know, our affirmative action guy here,
he's the token black guy. I would almost find that
ridiculous and insulting if you don't want to embrace that
as a primary function of your identity. And also, by

(08:48):
the way, just quick commentary before I let it get
out of my head. You don't sound like you came
from anywhere else. You very much sound like you were
born here and a natural English speak all the way around.

Speaker 2 (09:01):
Your accents, you know, not like mine.

Speaker 3 (09:04):
You can clearly tell, you know, even though I live
in Georgia, I'm from the Northeast, but your accent is mixed,
but it's clearly American, and that's what I hear. And again,
I mean, I'm gonna nail this racial thing in the
next few minutes, and then we're going to get into
some real topics because quite honestly, I wish it didn't

(09:25):
count to anybody, it's really stupid. And I'm not saying
that to be an apologist or to cover up for
my white guilt or any It's just that it seems
to me to be a massive waste of time when
we have so many other things.

Speaker 2 (09:37):
That we need to address collectively.

Speaker 3 (09:40):
And you know, look, nationally, I think we're we're on
a downhill slope and we've been there a while. And
by the way, I don't just blame Biden for that,
but you know, anyway, look, I threw a bunch of
things at you, But what about the seemingly almost insulting
nature of the idea of the token black guy that
you're in brace saying as sort of a way to

(10:01):
get a conversation started.

Speaker 2 (10:03):
I mean, are you purposely trying.

Speaker 3 (10:05):
To evoke a little bit of that sort of well,
you know, sentimentality that could cut both ways on that?

Speaker 2 (10:10):
Is that really what the point of it is?

Speaker 6 (10:12):
Then?

Speaker 4 (10:12):
Yeah, the point of it is really to kind of
have both people kind of shocked every time they hear it.
And it is a shock factor for sure, because then
they're like, hmm, interesting because.

Speaker 5 (10:24):
Most of them know what exactly that means. So once
they kind of it's like a breaking the ice type thing.

Speaker 4 (10:31):
They come up to me and they're like why and
because they want to know, and then I have to
just explain exactly what I just explained to you, and
then they kind of let.

Speaker 5 (10:40):
Their guard down, or they're more open.

Speaker 4 (10:42):
To having a conversation with me because they see that
I have a sense of humor, and they're more likely
to approach someone who is more laid back than someone
who's like, oh, I hate all liberals or I hate
all conservatives or whatsoever. So I don't find it offensive
at all. I just find it hilarious that I actually
most time.

Speaker 5 (11:01):
Always end up being the only black person in a room.
But does that bother me?

Speaker 4 (11:08):
Absolutely not, because if black people wanted to be in
those rooms, they would make a way to get there.
And for me, it's just like, Okay, I walk in
a room and I see a bunch of Americans.

Speaker 5 (11:19):
That's all I see. I see a bunch of Americans.

Speaker 4 (11:21):
I'm never going to gravitate towards black group just because oh,
they share the same skin color as myself.

Speaker 5 (11:28):
Never, that's not what you do. When you enter a room.

Speaker 4 (11:31):
You enter a room, you look for familiar faces of people,
you know, or family members or a smiling face. You
don't just gravitate towards that. And that's the problem. That's
the problem with a lot of the black culture, and
they just assume just because you look a specific way,
you have to gravitate towards them. And that's kind of

(11:51):
what barrier I'm trying to break with that one token
black guy user.

Speaker 3 (11:56):
Name Okay, cool, look, and I do understand that. And again,
I don't want to spend the whole time with you
on the politics of race and identity. Oh well, you know,
might as well hit it upfront since you put it
up front, right, So here's the thing. I would say
that it is sensible though to understand that not everybody

(12:17):
like like I've said on this show and gotten flat
for it.

Speaker 2 (12:20):
You know.

Speaker 3 (12:21):
Really, the funny thing to me is that black people
and white people don't actually exist. And you know, people go,
what do you mean by that? And I say, well,
you know, even the people that are supposed to have
white skin, they're not actually white. I mean I've even
known plenty about buyo people of all ethnicities, and quite frankly,
as pale as they are, they're not actually white. First
of all, and secondly, you know people that are black,

(12:44):
and I've known some dark people, you know, and they
come close to purple in color when they get dark enough.
The fact is I've never seen I mean, I've seen
black hair, but I've never actually seen black skin, absolutely
black skin close. So really, this idea of black and
white is all is a misnomer to begin with. And

(13:06):
I have bad eyesight, I know, but but I think
I can see this clearly. We're all just different shades
of brown, honestly. I mean even people that would say, well, no,
there's yellow and red and yeah, but when you look
at it, we're all just these odd, sort of weird
mixed shapes of brown anyway, one way or another. Even
even the whitest of white people. And yes, some people
are ghostly white. I know, there's still not actually white.

(13:30):
So you know, like I always, I always find that
weird to begin with, just from a like, how do
you label anybody anyway? Now I get there's African, and
there's a and you were born in Africa, so you
could literally say I'm an African American, and and you
don't want to go with that because you figure that

(13:51):
it's American. And maybe I came from Africa, but so
did everybody else come from somewhere else. So whatever. And
I don't even really love the American label anymore because
we're so much at each other's throats. I don't see
it as a good accurate label. Now that's a weird
position for me to be in, yeh. But here's the thing.

(14:12):
I think it's also valid for some people that and
I want you to address all.

Speaker 2 (14:16):
Of this, by the way, I'm not just trying to
run my mouth.

Speaker 3 (14:19):
I think it's also valid to recognize that not everybody
thinks like you and me, and that there are different
ways that people are treated, whether it's spoken out loud
or somebody says it straight up or you know, I
always love the listen, I'm not actually racist. I know
there's going to be a butt and then there's gonna

(14:40):
be something where they're just going look. I definitely in
the American psyche there is a racial ism which is
not necessarily racist all the time, but racialist where even
on the positive side, right, somebody might say, if they're
very racialist, okay, again, your skin dark and most people

(15:00):
would call you black. Fine, they might think, you know what,
this guy is probably athletically better than average white guy
just because well your heritage. Yeah, you know, some people
might say, uh, okay, I'll pick on myself for a minute.
Uh so so so I'm Sicilian and Irish, right, so

(15:21):
maybe some people will think I might have a propensity
to be a drunk. Some people might think I have
a propensity to be affiliated to Italian businessmen, you know,
is something like this.

Speaker 2 (15:32):
They might not be wrong. Uh but and I'm not
a drunk anyway.

Speaker 3 (15:38):
The thing is, there's a lot of ways to go here,
positive and negative. But people start to make these sort
of stereotypical decisions, and the truth is that we are
we are diverse, and yes, indeed our heritages do lend
themselves to certain things. I mean, I'm not going to
tell you that I would worry about you as much

(15:58):
getting a sunburn as me. Quite frankly, although you can
get a sunburn. Anybody who's you know, white and doesn't
believe black people get sunburns, that they're wrong.

Speaker 2 (16:08):
And here I am.

Speaker 3 (16:08):
Using those terms again when I don't even want to
use them. So one would say even that, are you
just not willing to recognize and this is an honest question,
not willing to recognize that in many cases, let's just say,
in dealing with the police, and I've seen this straightforward
many different times. Of course, police are unkind to poor
people in general, but even among poor people, I don't know,

(16:31):
they seem to be a little less hostile to people
of my skin tone than they do of your skin tone.
And I've seen that for myself. It's not the news,
it's not you know. And indeed that may be on
a situation by situation basis, but you've got to acknowledge
that there are people out there that, whether they say
it out loud or no matter what it is, they
try and virtue signal. Truth is, they're going to look

(16:54):
at you and say you and I are getting arrested.
First of all, you're a younger black guy. I'm an
older white So suddenly, although it never happens to me
because I don't know why, but they might give a
gradi sort of response to us where I'm less dangerous
than you, Maybe I don't need to be as handled
as harshly as you, and maybe indeed you're more of

(17:16):
a criminal than me. In many places in the US,
not just the South, that does happen, so you got
to acknowledge that maybe not everybody is, you know, working
on being colorblind or even getting anywhere near it in
truth in their internal being. So wouldn't you say that
there might be some complaints that could be had by

(17:38):
you that could not be had by me in America?

Speaker 5 (17:41):
I mean by me and you.

Speaker 4 (17:44):
Okay, yes, on an individual's basis, for sure, a lot
of people could they have been ruffed up by the
police here and there. However, to me, it's more so
how you behave in a situation like that. You see
a policee officer and you don't respect a police officer,
and so how are you going to react to that

(18:05):
police officer or the police officer approaches you. If your
first assumption is that he came up to you because
of your skin color, then you might be kind of
right on that notion. But how you react to his
approach will also in fact kind of.

Speaker 5 (18:24):
Cause how he treats you.

Speaker 4 (18:26):
And that's kind of something I try to explain to
a lot of my black friends that I have, the
very few that I have. I'm like, if I see
a police officer, I already know I respect them enough
and their job is hard enough because I would never
want to be put in a.

Speaker 5 (18:41):
Position where I have to.

Speaker 4 (18:44):
Basically make sure the law is kept in that matter,
because everything you do is under a microscope, and then
if you do something just an inch off, you will
be criticized for So their job is already hard enough.
So I'm going to treat them to the best of
my ability, regardless of whether or not I'm wrong or not,

(19:04):
because there's a reason that they pulled me over or
they're approaching me. So I'm gonna treat them the best
ways I can possible.

Speaker 5 (19:13):
But to your notion, yes, am I more afraid?

Speaker 4 (19:17):
Am I more afraid when a police officer approaches me?

Speaker 5 (19:20):
No? No, it matters not to me whatsoever.

Speaker 4 (19:24):
Am I intimidated because it's a police officer, Yes.

Speaker 5 (19:27):
Because he maybe who knows, who knows? Maybe I did
something wrong? Or is it my skin color?

Speaker 4 (19:35):
But that's not ever going to be my first jump too,
is my skin color? I'm going to ask the right questions,
and if that police officer is indeed, let's say racist,
then it's not on me, it's on.

Speaker 5 (19:49):
Him so or her. So ultimately, yeah, it happens to people,
but I it doesn't.

Speaker 4 (20:00):
It's never happened to me. So I guess on a
basis that's a loaded one. That's a loaded one.

Speaker 3 (20:08):
You can see that other people's experiences may vary, but
you actually have experienced it yourself.

Speaker 2 (20:14):
Yeah, I mean, you know, but.

Speaker 4 (20:17):
I don't think would happened to me because of the
way in which I conduct myself, because I would never
disrespect a police officer because the majority some black people,
they already have that instilled into them, where oh, they're
gunning for me. So if you have their their gunning
for me kind of mentality, you are going to do
something that will set it off somehow, and.

Speaker 5 (20:40):
I don't know why. And it's a cultural thing.

Speaker 4 (20:43):
It really is a cultural thing because they've been trained
to think that the police are out to get them,
which in fact is not true. What do you They're
doing their jobs and if they stop you or tell
you okay, look I need to check something, and if
they're wrong, okay, call them out. But I know it's
not as simple as I make it out to be.

Speaker 3 (21:06):
So ye see, Look, I would dispute the notion that
you have there that they're just you know, always worthy
of respect and always just they're doing their job, or
that it's just a cultural thing that people have been
taught to approach them as the enemy. Because I got
to tell you, I'm getting a sense, and maybe I'm wrong,

(21:26):
I'm getting a sense that as the child of let's
just say, a military kid, which you said you were,
probably I don't know if you ever grew up in
really bad neighborhoods at all. If you didn't, you might
have a different attitude towards the police, no matter what
color you are, because quite honestly, they don't come into

(21:50):
the nice neighborhoods with the same attitude that they do
in places where I've lived, and you get a mentality
that has nothing to do with what your parents teach you.
Because I watched and listened and heard all of the
parents in the bad neighborhoods I knew trying to tell
us all, you know, look respect to what the cops
say this, and that they're there just doing a job.

(22:12):
And we independently, as kids, uh, some of us rightfully
so developed the idea that when they show up, they.

Speaker 2 (22:19):
Are the enemy.

Speaker 3 (22:20):
And it is not simply based on a cultural teaching,
it's based on their actions. Now, they come into hostile
situations with hostility, and I think that's part of what
goes on. And again I'm the I'm the pale skinned one.
They're in the equation, not the only one, because I
grew up in very mixed areas.

Speaker 2 (22:39):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (22:39):
But but I did always see that there was a difference.
And of course if I wandered into the wrong neighborhood
and my friend, I got to tell you, and I
stuck out like a sore thumb.

Speaker 2 (22:49):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (22:50):
You know, those police officers were harsh to me, but
they could deal with, you know, the residents of their
neighborhood who they clearly knew belong there differently. You know,
I used to get thrown across the hoods of cars
and have my pockets empty and everything else for walking
down the wrong street.

Speaker 4 (23:06):
You know.

Speaker 2 (23:07):
It just I didn't look right.

Speaker 6 (23:09):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (23:10):
And and again not a black guy, not even close
to be and identified as one.

Speaker 2 (23:14):
Clearly they would call me white and all that.

Speaker 3 (23:16):
And these were white officers, so it wasn't a racial
thing between us quite frankly, I'll tell you this.

Speaker 2 (23:22):
Uh Again, here I go being racialists, but I got
to do it.

Speaker 3 (23:25):
Frankly, Black officers were always kinder, gentler, and nicer to me,
even when I was doing things wrong because I was
a juvenile delinquent. They were always better people to me
than the white guys who wanted to step on me.
So I don't I don't know what to say about
it except that your your experiences could vary because of

(23:45):
your financial status, your zip code.

Speaker 2 (23:48):
There's a lot of factors that could go into this.

Speaker 3 (23:51):
So but then again, look, I asked you about your
experiences and you gave it to me, So all right,
that's great, And again I want step away from the
racial stuff unless you want to add to anything I
just said and get into some other questions if you
don't mind, Oh no.

Speaker 5 (24:06):
Yeah, let me add like one final bit. But for sure,
the zip code probably does matter.

Speaker 4 (24:12):
And I'm not going to sit here and deny that
there are some police officers that are in fact have
a very harsh bias. However, at the end of the day,
painting all police officers, which I think the BLM movement
has kind of done and went forward because that's what
BLM does. They have painted all of them as the enemy,

(24:32):
and that's something we need to kind of rid ourselves
of when in fact the police officers are not. When
you do remove them from communities such as the black communities,
let's say those crimes increase tremendously. Police officers no longer
want to go into these neighborhoods because, yeah, it's too dangerous.

(24:53):
Why because they're more likely to get killed in or
shot or get in an alter case in those areas
than any other area.

Speaker 5 (25:03):
So the lack of communal and cultural awareness that.

Speaker 4 (25:09):
The black community commits more crime than any other community.
But ultimately they completely ignore that fact. They ignore that
fact and blame it on police brutality whatsoever.

Speaker 5 (25:24):
But when in.

Speaker 4 (25:24):
Fact, I am more likely to get killed if I
go into one of those areas by a black person,
not the other way around, and I will pop. And
that's an actual fact. So raising your kids to hate
the police when you're worse and your most dangerous situation

(25:46):
could be by the hands of someone who.

Speaker 2 (25:48):
Looks just like you, Well, I'll tell you what I think.

Speaker 3 (25:52):
Maybe maybe you and I will have a separate discussion
at another time if you think that this interview is
a value, because I really explore all of that which
he just said. But again, I don't want to just
stay on the it's just discussing race. I swear to God,
I don't want to do it anymore much rather talk
about what it is we can do to solve the

(26:14):
things that actually affect us all, you know, and and
what are the problems across the board? So I'm going
to go to something that doesn't actually have color, because
don't even tell me it's got green to it anymore,
because who the hell carries cash? Well, let's talk about
the financial issues that are in front of us, because
you said you're a bit more of a conservative guy,
and you clearly signaled that you know Biden is a disaster,

(26:37):
which I can't.

Speaker 2 (26:38):
I can't argue with you.

Speaker 3 (26:41):
He's a disaster, but you know, to me's the continuation
of the mess that has been made for a long time.
And quite frankly, now I'm going to be ageist ready,
you know, I think it's it's really time for the
old men, all of them, to be moved out of
the positions of power, because they're not connected to what's
actually going on and it's not their future that are
in jeopardy. So I'm tired of them all together. Anybody

(27:03):
who's over a certain age. Sorry, And and by the way,
I'm not offering up my Generation X as any sort
of uh panacea here.

Speaker 2 (27:13):
We don't have the misers.

Speaker 5 (27:15):
Go ahead behavior, Is that what you're trying to do?

Speaker 2 (27:20):
No? No, I'm sorry you cut up there. I only heard.
Is that what you're trying to do? Go ahead?

Speaker 7 (27:24):
Oh?

Speaker 5 (27:24):
Can you hear me? How about now?

Speaker 2 (27:26):
Yeah? I can hear you. Fine.

Speaker 4 (27:27):
Oh are you trying to be a savior to the
Generator generation prior to yourself?

Speaker 2 (27:33):
Or what?

Speaker 5 (27:34):
Now?

Speaker 2 (27:34):
No?

Speaker 3 (27:34):
No, I don't want to be a savior. I want
all of us out of the way. I think younger
people are going to think outside of the box. Need
to get in there and start making decisions because we're
all suffering financially right now. This didn't happen overnight, and
I don't see it getting any better. And I'm getting
tired of the boom and bust reality of you know,
greater corporate America, who, no matter what, seems to benefit

(27:57):
while the rest of us scramble to try and figure
it out.

Speaker 2 (27:59):
Now.

Speaker 3 (28:00):
Yeah, I know you said you're getting finished with college
and you're getting ready to really get in full swing
with your American dream.

Speaker 2 (28:06):
But most of the people I know are.

Speaker 3 (28:08):
Not in that position, are not close to that. If
they're coming out of it, they're they're they're sitting there
looking at massive debts, the inability to live on their own.
As we well know, inflation is right now choking all
of us, you know. And again this isn't across the
board issue. So I wanted to transition into finance. But
when it comes to you know, who should be in power,
and people want to get diversity in there. Uh my

(28:31):
claim is that diversity needs to start with the younger
people whose futures are actually being determined now when it
comes to finance and everything across the board. And I
don't care if they're black, white, or uh they you know,
their ancestors came from a Latin nation. It really doesn't matter.
Let's get to the reality.

Speaker 5 (28:50):
Goodhead, this needs to be American. That's all we ask for,
and they just need to be American.

Speaker 4 (28:55):
But to that point, yes, I just graduated college and
from then on, I mean I understood it was going
to be a rough world out there. Granted I had
a lot of support from my family of course. And
am I in debt, Yes, I am actually in debt,
and I refuse to basically take the handout that the

(29:15):
government wants to completely erase my financial debt from college,
and I made that decision personally because I was under
the influence that, Okay, that's what the old American dream
is all about, the traditionalist American dream, going to college,
getting your degree, then getting your master's. So I did
that consciously, and I'm not about to have someone pay

(29:38):
for that whatsoever. Or have you who went to college
and may have finished it and have finished paying off
your college debt, I'm not going to have you do that.

Speaker 5 (29:46):
It's because it's not fair. I made that decision.

Speaker 8 (29:49):
I alone should have the burden of paying that kind
of debt off.

Speaker 4 (29:53):
But to that point, when it comes to, yeah, finances,
it is a hard world out there, and especially as
a college student who just graduated, Yeah, it.

Speaker 5 (30:02):
Was extremely hard to find a job.

Speaker 4 (30:04):
But opportunities arise and you just have to make the
best out of it and understand that we live in
a time where yeah, gases, man, it hurts to say
eighty dollars just to fill up my gas tank and
having to struggle to kind of meet ends. Some people

(30:26):
who are not in very beneficial financially stable families are
struggling far more. And the top pier, the politicians, were
the ones making these decisions are trying to make them
more dependent on them. That's why we've had these stimulus
checks going like money is printed on the freaking trees.

Speaker 5 (30:50):
Who knows.

Speaker 4 (30:51):
But ultimately everyone is going to struggle. And I make
this point all the time. We here in the US
are going to be hit the last. We're going to
be hit last because we're at the top of the
food chain. Everybody else outside of the US are getting
hit now, like the Ukraine odeal right now.

Speaker 5 (31:11):
Great wheat is produced.

Speaker 4 (31:14):
A lot of the wheat that they get in Africa
is from Ukraine. That shortage has started hitting most of
the African continents and anything that's below poverty will get
hit first. And then who's going to be hit last.
It's going to be the Americans. So it's a very
hard world. But we also need to understand that we're

(31:34):
at a position where we are at the top of
the food chain, and if anything's going to happen, it's
going to happen to the ones on the bottom. And
that's what as you were talking about the elitist group
that met in Switzerland, was it Switzerland? What was it again?
Was it Switzerland? With the organization?

Speaker 2 (31:56):
Which one you want to talk about the World Economic
Forum or well.

Speaker 4 (32:00):
On that one, that one their goal apparently to in
twenty thirty was to reduce the population by fifty percent.

Speaker 5 (32:09):
Or what population are they talking about.

Speaker 4 (32:11):
They're talking about populations that are outside of the US
who have who are going to be the first ones
to hit, And that's.

Speaker 5 (32:19):
Kind of like their whole goal.

Speaker 4 (32:20):
I'm not really a crazy person, but he said it.

Speaker 8 (32:26):
What's his name, the advisor director, He said it right
out of his mouth.

Speaker 5 (32:31):
That is what we're trying to accomplish.

Speaker 4 (32:33):
And unfortunately, we're getting hit in the US and we're
feeling the struggle because we don't understand. We've never experienced
something this bad, and we're about to really get hit,
especially the entire little brats that my generation has created.
We're going to struggle a bit more because we don't
have the life skills. So it is time for us

(32:54):
to kind of step into leadership positions in order for
us to take hold of our future.

Speaker 3 (33:00):
Well, see, that's the thing is people at that certain age,
they don't have the same life skills that I know
my generation had.

Speaker 2 (33:08):
And by the way, we were blamed for not having the.

Speaker 3 (33:10):
Same life skills as the previous generation it hasn't gotten
any better, I gotta tell you. And it's weird to
watch an unrealistic situation unfault. But but what do you
think about the general conditions? I mean, look, let's be honest.
Me at a minimum wage job, okay, come out of

(33:31):
high school, I was.

Speaker 2 (33:32):
Able to live. You can't do that today, not even.

Speaker 3 (33:37):
At the you know, people go, well minimum wage not
actually minimum wage. Yeah, but you know what in the
time that I was born to the time now, okay,
you would need to pay me like twenty five dollars
an hour to make minimum wage that I would have
made in nineteen seventy two. Okay, I mean it's that
far removed from this idea that you could just go
ahead and work and you could work your way up.

(33:59):
I mean, it's no longer the same thing. Corporate culture
has changed. You don't have as many independent businesses as
you once did.

Speaker 2 (34:07):
That were available readily in the community.

Speaker 3 (34:10):
Almost everything is dominated by the Walmart model.

Speaker 2 (34:13):
I mean, you're.

Speaker 3 (34:14):
Stepping into a situation again you didn't create. But how
do I blame you even for not having those life skills?

Speaker 6 (34:23):
Right?

Speaker 3 (34:23):
How do I even blame And I've got kids, you know, Look,
my kid's agent range. My daughter just turned twenty three,
my oldest, and I've got one child that's going to
turn eight shortly. I look at them and I say,
I don't know what the hell you guys are supposed
to even do, yea, because this is a very rough
situation to come into. I could tell you that, look,

(34:44):
if you work at it, you go to college. You know,
if it was twenty years ago, I could say, do
you go to college, It'll be okay. I can't even
say that today, and you still sound, you know, very
much enthusiastic with that old line of thinking.

Speaker 2 (34:57):
And I'm wondering why.

Speaker 4 (34:59):
Well, to me, it's because that whole line of thinking
kind of helps me see the light at the end
of the tunnel because right now, I've experienced famine. I've
experienced not being able to eat before, and it's awful.
But a lot of Americans who were born in the
US have never experienced that, especially kids my age. So

(35:23):
for me it's like, ooh, interesting, I have to kind
of like fight my way in and I have life
skills and life some wisdom that they don't, So for
me it's kind of it helps because I've been there
and I know what it's like not to have that
American privilege. Because there is such a thing as American privilege,

(35:45):
we just don't talk about it. So for the kids
my age who have never experienced any other kind of struggle,
this is going to be a tough time for them,
especially when they don't even teach them how to balance
a checkbook high school. They don't even teach them financial
literacy and high school or college. So being having to

(36:07):
kind of being pushed out there is probably the best
thing we can do for them.

Speaker 5 (36:12):
You have to force them to swim.

Speaker 4 (36:14):
Are some going to drown, absolutely, but ultimately you have
to learn to swim in very hard conditions. And that's
the kind of position they're being put in. And I
think we were getting a little bit too entitled, too
entitled kids asking for things after they haven't worked, Kids
who are refusing to even do.

Speaker 5 (36:36):
Trade kinds of jobs.

Speaker 4 (36:38):
We need those kinds of jobs, and they're refusing to
do that because they want a degree in gender study
and gender study. How are you going to survive with
a degree in gender study?

Speaker 5 (36:49):
You're not.

Speaker 4 (36:50):
So we need to kind of go back to those
traditionalist jobs that built America, that made America.

Speaker 5 (36:57):
They what it was, which were the blue.

Speaker 4 (36:59):
Collar kind to fields like a plumber, like there's a
shortage of those like electricians, like all those that require
you to have an actual skill. And that's the problem
that the government has kind of like created and it
it's basically told everybody you need to go to college
in order for you to be successful, and kind of

(37:21):
abandoned the blue collar system. And that's what happened during COVID.
They're like, oh, small business owners, we don't need you.
We're gonna let the big corporate companies take care of
everything and you won't have to worry about it. What
in fact, that's exactly what we need, is those small
businesses and those blue collar workers.

Speaker 3 (37:40):
Well, right, and look, the corporatetocracy, though, is also done.
It's a fair share of damage to this as well.
Right where we have okay, let's just go with the mechanics,
car mechanics. Okay, yeah, good solid trade used to be
something that again you know, I grew up in poor neighborhoods.
They would or just go to vocational school, you can

(38:03):
go get this skill. But then you have these you know,
corporate elements that have come together and created this you
know thing that substitutes for a lot of mechanic services
that are presented in packages. You get a cheap oil change,
you get a cheap this cheat that took away a
lot of the jobs it could have been there because

(38:24):
now you got Jiffy Loube okay for instance. I mean,
I'm calling them out, but there's many others. And they
consumed that and then controlled the wage that could be
paid to somebody. We even add some of those skills
so you could be partially skilled, or even some of
them would train you. You don't know anything about cars, fine,
we'll show you. And you know, now you don't have

(38:45):
to hang out your own shingle. And they turn around
and pay you again a wage which is not even
a proper wage, and they consume things. I mean, very
much the same way of like, why is it we
can't get food in our neighborhood, Well, go look to
the walmart on the ones of town that is beating
the hell out of anything that could be an independent market,
and you might know why there's no diversity.

Speaker 2 (39:07):
In your food.

Speaker 3 (39:08):
Yeah, you know, and again you can't blame the people
on the bottom of it.

Speaker 2 (39:12):
Going, Well, I got to go where the groceries are cheap.

Speaker 5 (39:14):
Yeah, you know, because that's all they're given. That's all
they're given.

Speaker 4 (39:19):
And yeah, you have all these resources, all those choices. However,
those choices are what are kind of hindering you at all?

Speaker 5 (39:27):
Purports. Why is healthy food so expensive?

Speaker 4 (39:32):
Why are we making that a very luxurious thing to
be able to afford it? But it's also a lifestyle
kind of choice where you can choose to eat healthy
and kind of pay that extra in order for you
to have a healthy lifestyle. But yeah, they're basically kicking
all these small businesses out of the way, and that's

(39:53):
kind of what we that's the opposite of what we
need to be doing. We need less Walmarts. I couldn't
care less if some small or home little story opened
up in my hometown, I would support them over Walmart
any day. And that's kind of those Those are the
kinds of companies that Americans need to go back to

(40:13):
support so our economy and our individual holistic society can
kind of be saved because we can't rely on these
monopolies to run our worlds or the government is going
to do exactly what they have done thus far.

Speaker 3 (40:31):
See, here we go and that's why I'm glad I
got into the financial discussion. And now with the last
say quarter of our discussion tonight, I want to turn
it over to you about what you think is the
biggest concern at the moment, what you think people in
general need to address pay attention to. You know, I'm
tired of having these things dragged back out the Roe v.

Speaker 2 (40:53):
Wade thing. Yeah, I could have opposing viewpoints on that.

Speaker 3 (40:57):
I don't want to. I don't want to really evolve
into that discussion right this second. But my point is
that they're hauling out all these other things to keep
us distracted, I feel, from what's really the problem here.
And I'm curious about what you think needs to be
addressed in the most immediate way. Where do we need

(41:19):
to stop the bleeding? Because look, if you're out there
trying to speak out about anything right now, you obviously
believe that something ain't right.

Speaker 2 (41:27):
I mean, it's just that simple.

Speaker 3 (41:29):
So what is your main, absolute king of something ain't
right at the moment.

Speaker 5 (41:34):
Well, my main thing.

Speaker 4 (41:36):
It's actually a multitude of things, and it's probably the
main reason as to why I'm in North Carolina right
now working to try to fight for the local elections.
For these midterms, we have kind of strayed away from
these elected officials who have a lot of control in
our lives. And we saw it during COVID, and I

(41:58):
think that's something we should be focused still a little
bit more. We had a glimpse of it while COVID
was happening, and while it was kind of like dwindling away.

Speaker 5 (42:05):
However, we're kind.

Speaker 4 (42:07):
Of swaying away from it and kind of fixated on
the whole notion that it's all about the federal government,
when in fact, a lot of it has to do
with your local officials as well, or else your rights
would not have been stripped so easily during these COVID times.
And that is why I'm here at North Carolina because
as a battle state, I think there's so much to

(42:31):
be done from like look at Florida. Florida is taking
it on a local level where they're taking control of
and given the middle finger to the federal government. And
that's kind of what the American people need more so
and what they need to be focusing on. Because these midterms,
I'm not going to dive into like the unfair.

Speaker 5 (42:52):
Presidential election.

Speaker 4 (42:53):
I'm not going to dive into that, because that is
a completely different story and you will get banned for that.

Speaker 3 (42:58):
So well, yeah, there, Look, there's always that in North Carolina.
By the way, I'm curious how the dynamics there are.

Speaker 2 (43:09):
You know, when you're inside.

Speaker 3 (43:10):
Of it, it does not look ash as most people
would think it does looking at it from the outside.
I lived in Kinston for a couple of years in
North Carolina, and yeah, that's not a typical southern state
that the politics are not typical at all. Also, people
think Georgia is one way or the other. Gotta tell

(43:31):
you something about Georgia.

Speaker 2 (43:32):
Georgia is.

Speaker 3 (43:35):
Controlled by one party here, no matter what noise they
try and make in the media. And it's uh, it's
not the Blue team, I gotta tell you now. I
don't care except that they maintain their stranglehold. And uh
that is never spoken of in the national media ever. Okay,
and that's top to bottom. Now, North Carolina's weird because

(43:57):
top to bottom I don't see a singular control where
you have one party really controlling it. It's actually still
I don't know, up for grabs from the local all
the way to the you know, to the state level.
In my opinion. Do you think I'm off on that
or what?

Speaker 4 (44:14):
Oh no, you're not, Absolutely no you're not. And that's
kind of and that's why I'm here because I understand.
I like the balance of power within the state. Actually
it kind of makes it great, but it also but
with the radicalism that has kind of like arisen, is
kind of the problem is the fact that they're going

(44:35):
into these schools to try to indoctrinate the kids, and
it kind of go into territories that they don't need
to be going into. And I think you asked me
what was the biggest problem, and I think the big
problem is the education of our children, and that's what
they're trying to draw our attentions away from because they're

(44:55):
the future and they're already destroying the future and how
else you do that?

Speaker 5 (45:00):
But how else do you destroy.

Speaker 4 (45:05):
A majority's little future when you can easily control the
way in which they think as they get older and older.
So I think North Carolina is one of these states
that probably is well out, but it could be so
much better if we got control of it. And I'm
not saying the Republicans are going to do a better

(45:27):
job more than the left.

Speaker 5 (45:31):
They are but we also.

Speaker 4 (45:32):
Need to understand that that could also change to a
completely different route. What if they get control, what if
we get control as a red state here in North Carolina?
Are they also going to try to infringe on people's rights?
Are they also going to go the complete opposite that
the left was doing? So we kind of have to

(45:55):
keep that balance of power when it comes to talking
about the red wave, which I completely want a red
wave to happen, but I.

Speaker 5 (46:02):
Want it to happen in a very conscious manner.

Speaker 3 (46:07):
Right, Okay, So I'm getting to gist here that you know, Look,
you want things to be on one side of the equation,
but you don't entirely dismiss.

Speaker 2 (46:16):
The opposition because opposition is important. See, that's a unique thing.

Speaker 3 (46:21):
I want you to know something that's extremely unique because
most times people that are on that side of the
equation that I'm talking to lately, and by the way,
I can't find anybody that's coherently on the blue side. Okay,
so I have to speak about the people that are
coherently on the red side. They are coherent, but most
of them it almost sounds like I want to trade

(46:42):
that authoritarian vision for my authoritarian vision. And I go,
wait a minute, the opposition, the resistance to that must
be understood and recognized because you know what, if you're
going to look to govern all the people, and you
better keep in mind that not all of them are
going to agree all the time. No, And I think

(47:02):
that is the thing that is missed by a lot
of people because again, at the top of the power structure,
the way this nation was imagined, excuse me for being constitutionalists,
per second, the way this nation was imagined, the people
are actually at the top of the power structure. See,
a lot of people think the federal government has supremacy.
That's exactly the opposite of the reality.

Speaker 4 (47:23):
And that's what they're, yes, you're good away from and
think that they're the ones that have the power. And
that's probably the biggest, biggest faux pap that a lot
of Americans have tended to kind of think it's true.

Speaker 2 (47:41):
Right.

Speaker 3 (47:41):
No, but I'm hearing that in you where you're saying, listen,
I think that my vision is right, but I've also
got to consider that it's not the only answer. Is
an intellectually honest position to take. It doesn't matter what
your politics are, man, you got to understand that no
matter who you are, no matter how intelligent you are,
no matter how educated been, you don't have everything.

Speaker 2 (48:02):
Yeah, it's just that simple. Okay, now it's not.

Speaker 5 (48:06):
It's not.

Speaker 4 (48:07):
It's kind of like, okay, let me add like a
bill that's being proposed in Florida right now. Florida very red,
and we love that. I love Florida. That's where I
want to end up. However, and someone made and rose
that question today and they're like, and the bill is
to ban make it a felony for parents, for parents

(48:29):
taking their kids to a drag show. And I'm completely
against taking a kid to a freaking dragt show. I
don't care however, whatever it is. However, there's also all
drag shows are not created equal.

Speaker 5 (48:41):
Think about that.

Speaker 8 (48:42):
And there's adults who are very hesitant to go into
drag shows.

Speaker 4 (48:47):
I would never go to one myself because that's not
my thing, but kids don't belong in there. But that
doesn't mean the government needs to step in and be like, look,
it's a felony. In order for you to yeah, iree,
you should hold parents accountable for exposing their kids to
things like that. But that's kind of like the extreme
way that we are taking on the right.

Speaker 5 (49:09):
We can't do that.

Speaker 4 (49:10):
We have to we preach small government, Yes, we preach
small government, but we also have to understand that with
that small government, we have to give the other side
an equal voice.

Speaker 3 (49:23):
Well not only that, but I mean in examining just
that one issue you just brought up, right, you know
what I note here being discussed is what about the
idea that you know you're as a parent, you're supposed
to be the one who is Now. Now, I'm not
saying that that's a great decision to bring your kids
to the drag show, but honestly, is it not your
decision to make? Is it the government's decision to make?

(49:46):
See this is where it gets icy for me. And
now I'm gonna sound right wingy, but got to tell
you the government doesn't need to be involved in my
decisions about my child. Not exactly if I'm harming my child,
I kind of.

Speaker 2 (50:00):
Understand a step in.

Speaker 3 (50:03):
But see, it's whose definition of harm to some of
those people that are supporting that bill. They think that
that in and of itself constitutes the same thing as
you know, breaking the kid's bones.

Speaker 2 (50:13):
Yeah, they really do.

Speaker 3 (50:15):
And I got to tell you that's always got to
be kept in check.

Speaker 2 (50:18):
You can't.

Speaker 3 (50:19):
You know, you want to say that you want to
support a parent's right when it comes to masking. Okay,
I understand you. You want to and and by the way,
I support that too. You want to tell me that
it's a parent's decision about vaccines, Maybe you do, maybe
you don't. I'm not ascribing it to you. I'm just saying, theoretically,
I understand you.

Speaker 2 (50:38):
You tell me that you want, you know your child
educated a certain way.

Speaker 3 (50:42):
I absolutely understand you. You tell me that you know
you want to expose the kid to some things because
you feel they're ready to be exposed to them, whatever
that may be, so long as it's not again, things
that have been.

Speaker 2 (50:55):
Deemed completely age inappropriate.

Speaker 3 (50:57):
Now, somebody would say, there you go, Chuck, that's what
this is with the Drag Show. But no, no, no, look,
nobody said that you have to be of a certain
age to go in there. Now. I can't bring my
three year old into a bar and give them a feer.
That's a problem. But you know, if I'm letting them
watch TV. This is just my personal decision. And unless

(51:20):
there is something in place there which somebody would say, well,
find let's make the law that you have to be
eighteen to go to the drag show. If you do that,
then now you have to define drag show. Look, legal
definitions will matter if you're gonna make laws, Okay, And
at which point does your power to make the decision
for your child? And and the government now is allowed

(51:44):
to make a decision because calling it a felony means
that now you have to define that as a crime.

Speaker 2 (51:50):
How is it a crime?

Speaker 3 (51:51):
You know? And it becomes complex, and to me, that's
the right going too far exactly.

Speaker 2 (51:57):
Now.

Speaker 3 (51:57):
I'm not saying you need to bring toddlers to the
drag show. I'm not saying that. But you know what,
if it was your decision that your nine year old
is to go there for whatever reason, I don't know
what I have to err on the side of the
parents should make the decision.

Speaker 5 (52:12):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (52:12):
No, I now with you on that front one hundred percent,
because we made that a big deal when it came
to COVID and I was avidly it's your it's the
parent's choice, and this should be the parent's choice regardless.
And I think and that's where we kind of have to,
like you said, we have to define what a drag
show is and put limitations. Everything has a limit, and

(52:36):
we have to have a line that's drawn. Where like
I said, some are not not all drag shows are
created equals. Some can be innocentce I guess, I don't know.
I've never been one, I've never seen one. I don't understand.
But so that's kind of where we have to define it.
Be like, Okay, if this kind of content is being
shown at a drag show, what what we need to

(52:58):
go into depth with it.

Speaker 5 (52:59):
But it can't be Oh nope, nope, nope, you can't
do that.

Speaker 4 (53:04):
When we are asking for a small government, we're kind
of being hypocritical about it when every single time there's
something we don't necessarily agree with one percent, no matter
if it's morally wrong, absolutely put your foot down, put
your foot down. But when it comes to parental decisions
like that, yeah, I agree with you on that front.

Speaker 2 (53:25):
I agree.

Speaker 3 (53:26):
Like I'll give you a quick for instance here just
to nail this point down entirely right, and I'm gonna
ask you a personal question. At some point, your parents
probably decided to have you know, what we used to
call the birds in the bees discussion, right. Uh, and
it has changed over the years, I know. And don't
go there. Let's go to where your parents would have
went standard stuff. Okay, probably they said, look, you're a boy,

(53:49):
this is what you got. Okay, this is what girls have. Uh,
you know, and look, these things kind of work together.

Speaker 2 (53:56):
Now.

Speaker 3 (53:57):
They chose the time to do that, and that might
have been appropriate for you, or maybe it was something
that had to be done in bits and pieces. Okay,
we tell you this much when you're five, we tell
you this much when you're seven, we tell you this
much when you're ten.

Speaker 2 (54:11):
And you know what, no matter where it started.

Speaker 3 (54:13):
I mean, you could tell me if you want, But
that might be exactly the right decision for you and
not the right.

Speaker 2 (54:19):
Decision for my son. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (54:22):
And I think as his father, and as you know,
the man that was involved in adopting you, right, who
became your father in that way, I think that's his decision.

Speaker 2 (54:33):
I think he needs to make it. I mean mother too,
if you have both. But either way, whoever.

Speaker 3 (54:38):
Is parenting you makes that decision and that is their
right and that should be protected by the government, not
infringed upon.

Speaker 4 (54:48):
In my mind, Oh yeah, that's the role of the
government is to protect the role of the government is
not to infringe whatsoever. And if a child, yeah, is
in harm's way, they have to step so, and.

Speaker 5 (55:01):
You're absolutely right they have. It is the parent's choice
on where.

Speaker 4 (55:06):
But ultimately, if it's like, okay, if you're teaching the
kid about all of it at five years old, that's
an issue.

Speaker 5 (55:14):
We can agree on.

Speaker 3 (55:14):
That, right well, not necessarily because see, look I got
taught about this stuff very young, but I was intellectually prepared. Yeah, okay,
I was a little different. Now, other five year olds
maybe not so much. I mean I understood, and by
the way, it was all very clinical. I mean like
I knew the menstrual cycle and all this kind of stuff,

(55:36):
and how testicles worked and how to make a diagram
and all that. Because I was very medically curious and
a little ahead of other five year olds.

Speaker 2 (55:46):
It was appropriate for me.

Speaker 3 (55:47):
Now that doesn't mean that that's appropriate like my son
right now, my youngest, I haven't gone very much near it.
There's a difference between boys and girls. That's about all
he can handle. But in a couple of years, or
maybe a couple of months, I will watch as he
grows and develops and as he asks questions, and that's
when I'll enter that. And that has been my decision
about that. You know, my oldest, my daughter a little

(56:12):
earlier by this age, she had a lot more information,
but she was individually more prepared.

Speaker 2 (56:18):
I made that decision on an individual basis.

Speaker 3 (56:20):
I wouldn't even make it across the board based on age,
because it's.

Speaker 2 (56:25):
Every kid is different.

Speaker 3 (56:26):
Yeah, you know, so you err on the side of
not pushing these things to them and letting the parents
make those decisions. Which is why I have all these
mixed feelings about the sexual education issue in the classroom,
because in some cases it may be the correct decision,
but the school does not have the resources to evaluate
this on an individual basis, no matter who you are,

(56:49):
where you are, so frankly, it should be left to
the parents to sort this out.

Speaker 5 (56:55):
And nor is the school the parents of the child.

Speaker 4 (56:58):
The school at some level is an extension of the government,
especially the public schools. So it's like, okay, the public
schools and yeah, no, that's why parents are so pissed
off on that notion, because yeah, kids can learn about
sexualite and in school. By however, if you give my

(57:19):
kid a lesson on that when they're not ready and
you didn't do your research and you're not its parent.

Speaker 5 (57:25):
Yeah no, that's not.

Speaker 4 (57:26):
Okay, and that's definitely something we can both agree on.

Speaker 2 (57:31):
Where yeah, see, this is the thing.

Speaker 3 (57:33):
It's not their position here to make that decision.

Speaker 2 (57:37):
It's simple.

Speaker 3 (57:38):
And look if you say, well, look we have a
certain age here where okay, you know what, we also
have the right to take them to private schools, and
we should have the right to pull them out of
that stuff, because this is not necessarily the function of
the schools.

Speaker 2 (57:52):
It's not their primary function anyway.

Speaker 3 (57:55):
Now, the idea that you have high school health classes,
I think in some cases good idea. Okay, even junior
high schools, because frankly, again, not all parents are created
equal either, and this may be the only place they're
going to get some actual information. I've seen it with
my own eyes, where you know, there's a fully developed

(58:17):
looking girls who do not understand what their bodies do.
And maybe they should be taught that when they're at
that age, but no, when they're much younger. It's all
sorts of a variant decision. And again, these things should
be primarily left up to the parents. I mean, if
you want to engage in that, you want to have
the schools do it, well, maybe there should be an

(58:38):
option at a certain point, like I said.

Speaker 4 (58:41):
Yeah, I have a conversation with the parent before you've
been I think about even engaging in such a conversation exactly.

Speaker 2 (58:49):
But you see how there's nuance here where it's not
all one thing or the other.

Speaker 5 (58:53):
And you have and that's kind of what we're lacking.

Speaker 4 (58:55):
We're lacking at one specific skill because I think it
is a skill that you're either born with or you're not,
and some people just can't understand it and.

Speaker 5 (59:07):
Either go from one end to the next. And we
need people who are able to see both sides of
the aisle.

Speaker 4 (59:13):
And it's the open mindedness, because we want to call
ourselves open minded, but when push comes to shove, we
are not fully open minded. There's alect few who are,
and then there are those that.

Speaker 2 (59:26):
Are not right. So look, we ran right against time.

Speaker 3 (59:30):
And I'm telling you, it's fascinating to just discuss things
with you because you're very considerate and very direct about
your approach, and I love it. There's a flexibility in
your thinking that is I think absolutely necessary.

Speaker 2 (59:45):
We're not going to get anywhere in any.

Speaker 3 (59:48):
Debate, discussion, or attempt to come together in a socratic way.
It's not going to occur without a give and take.
And that's why I love these conversations on this show.
Script any of this, as you well can tell, it's
it was weird in this direction. So what I do
want to do before anything else happens is tell people

(01:00:10):
where they can find you follow what you're doing.

Speaker 2 (01:00:14):
You know.

Speaker 3 (01:00:14):
Again, I guess if we just google Choking black Eye USA,
we might find you, but who knows?

Speaker 4 (01:00:20):
Uh?

Speaker 2 (01:00:21):
So could you give people some.

Speaker 3 (01:00:22):
Direct places where they can go to follow you? And
I think you and I are going to have to
have some discussions in the future.

Speaker 5 (01:00:29):
Please please. I love these kinds of dialogues, I really do.

Speaker 4 (01:00:32):
And I'm always looking for people like you who will
challenge me on issues like the black on the crime
issue and all that, because that's a fascinating one.

Speaker 5 (01:00:44):
But that's on a different notion.

Speaker 4 (01:00:45):
But to add to a little bit what you said,
I think the power is in conversation. It's not in debate.
Debates are very structured. Conversations are very friendly where you
and I are just exchanging ideas and we're trying to
underst and both sides and the other person that you're
communicating with, and people want to debate with the notion

(01:01:07):
that they have to win. You don't have to win
every conversation. So and that's the difference. And that's what
I promote on my Instagram. It's Token black Guy USA
on Instagram, on TikTok, on Twitter, it's token bg Underscore USA,
and the same on getter and and that's it. I

(01:01:28):
do have a website, Token black Guy USA at chiap
at Token black Guusa.

Speaker 5 (01:01:32):
Dot com and you can find me there.

Speaker 4 (01:01:34):
But all those platforms the saying, just go to Token
black Guy USA dot com.

Speaker 5 (01:01:39):
And you can follow me on every single one that
I have.

Speaker 3 (01:01:42):
Right, Token black Guy USA dot com. And I bet
all of those social media links are there.

Speaker 5 (01:01:48):
You right, they are?

Speaker 2 (01:01:50):
They are all right.

Speaker 3 (01:01:51):
I have got to check out more of what it
is you're saying and more of the conversations you're having,
because I find this fascinating. First of all, you may
be to the right of me. I'm just going to
tell you now, but here's the thing. I think the
solution might lie in exactly what you said, which is
having a conversation, having an understanding of you know, maybe

(01:02:15):
points of view that are not necessarily our own. I
didn't even try to challenge you, by the way, I
just wanted to address a couple of things because and
going this as open minded as possible, because I love
doing that. I really thought that. Frankly, I'm going to
admit something right now. I thought we were going to
have a hostile conversation because a lot of conservatives that

(01:02:37):
have hostile conversations with me, and you're looking a little
conservative to me, so I'm going, uh oh.

Speaker 5 (01:02:45):
Trust me.

Speaker 4 (01:02:46):
But when you get hostile, that's when the first person
to get hostile loses it. The argument one hundred percent,
whether or not you're leftist or your conservative, you have
lost that argument one hundred percent.

Speaker 5 (01:03:00):
That's what it is.

Speaker 3 (01:03:02):
And and don't take offense of me talking about you
being on the right. At least that means I know
you made sense. I mean, there's absolutely no coherence on
the left anymore.

Speaker 4 (01:03:10):
So as what are you talking about? And I don't
get offended. It's a feeling. If I'm offended, that's on me.

Speaker 5 (01:03:16):
It's not on you. It's a reflection of me.

Speaker 3 (01:03:19):
Awesome token black guy USA dot com check it out,
and I've I've got to check more of his stuff out.
I'm even I don't even go to Instagram very much.
I'm on there, but I think I got to go
to Instagram now and check out this stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:03:33):
Thank you, come check it out.

Speaker 5 (01:03:35):
Would love to have you on a live as well
or something like that.

Speaker 2 (01:03:39):
Oh yeah, hey, listen, I would.

Speaker 3 (01:03:41):
I would love to have a wide ranging discussion with
you on on I guess a lot of different topics,
because very intelligent and very interesting, very considerate, and uh,
this is how we're going to get things done, is
if we actually talk to one another and not just
at one another.

Speaker 2 (01:03:56):
So that's that's the way that works.

Speaker 3 (01:03:59):
Away And sorry I mispronounced. I said Joel, and you
said Joel. Uh little French accent on that, but I
didn't realize it.

Speaker 2 (01:04:11):
French.

Speaker 3 (01:04:12):
So yes, absolutely, So there you go, Joel Choken black
USA dot Com. Check out his stuff, and uh, I
think we'll have to have them on again in the future.
The Ocelly effect continues with John Potash after.

Speaker 9 (01:04:25):
This, I'd like to call the order, this secret conclave
of America's media empires. We're here to come up with
the next phony. Malooney crisis to put Americans back where
they belong and dark rooms glued to their televisions, too
terrified to skip the commercials. Well, I think, NBC, you
are here to listen and not speak. I think we

(01:04:47):
should go with a good old fashioned public healthcare.

Speaker 2 (01:04:49):
Yeah, a new disease. No one's immune.

Speaker 1 (01:04:52):
It's like the Summer of the Shark, except instead of
a shark, it's an epidemic, and instead of summer, it's
all the time.

Speaker 9 (01:05:00):
I hate to be the guy who derails what everybody
else loves.

Speaker 2 (01:05:02):
He loves being that guy.

Speaker 1 (01:05:04):
But Janie, we do have standards. This can't be a
made up disease.

Speaker 9 (01:05:09):
The only moral thing to do is release a deadly
virus into the general public. We do have something we've
been holding on to, but it hasn't been tested.

Speaker 2 (01:05:17):
Get over here, NBC. Well, we certainly believe in testing.

Speaker 5 (01:05:22):
But I a.

Speaker 6 (01:05:26):
Wow wow, oh yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:05:28):
So we've got our deadly disease.

Speaker 9 (01:05:31):
Now we just have to blame it on something that's
in every household, something that people are a little bit
afraid of already. House cat flu is coming people. The
Center for Disease Disinformation predicts with some degree of probability
that the house cat flu might spread in the following
hypothetical lot break pattern.

Speaker 1 (01:05:48):
Oh Chili dot com.

Speaker 2 (01:05:51):
Wall Street window dott.

Speaker 1 (01:05:56):
Do you like history? Real history that you were never
taught in schools? Why the Vietnam War Nuclear Bombs in
nation Building in Southeast Asia by author Mike Swanson, with
new documentation never seen before that'll open your eyes to
events that led up to this. Why the Vietnam War

(01:06:16):
Nuclear Bombs in Nation Building in Southeast Asia nineteen forty
five through nineteen sixty one. Get your copy today at
Amazon dot com. Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson.
Every time I've put it on my face, I'm able
to breathe.

Speaker 2 (01:06:37):
Just a little bit deeper. What are people saying about
my true essence?

Speaker 5 (01:06:41):
Dot Net?

Speaker 2 (01:06:42):
I'm gonna tell you something serious, man. I just want
to tell you listeners. I put some some of them
well different from Kirsty.

Speaker 4 (01:06:49):
And she gave me she got she made me up
some of this emo oil mixed with some other stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:06:53):
I don't know what's an it, but I like the
way tomorrow and I started putting it on, rubbing it
on my foot, then on my knee, and like the
second day, I didn't you know, I just noticed that
I'm walking around. I'm like, damn, I knee is Lucien.

Speaker 10 (01:07:07):
I can tell you that that that oil you gave
me helped me with my carpole and my shoulder problem.

Speaker 2 (01:07:13):
And it wasn't I couldn't even I wouldn't be working.
My ankles would just really be pesky and bother me.

Speaker 3 (01:07:19):
And I am telling you the pain just went away,
just a little rule.

Speaker 2 (01:07:26):
And when I put that on, it's just it's like
my skin came alive. My true essence.

Speaker 5 (01:07:32):
Dot net? What up to we would we get to
bring my mother?

Speaker 3 (01:07:37):
That's where I thought it from second hour. The O'Kelly
effect begins now at o'atelli dot com. But of course
you could be some other time, some other place listening
to this discussion.

Speaker 2 (01:07:47):
Now, UH tell you right up front, I'm not sending
this to YouTube.

Speaker 3 (01:07:51):
Uh. And why UH learned a little lesson because uh,
John Potash is with me and potash potash. You know,
I always pronounced different ways in my own head. But
we know who we're talking about. Okay, drugs as weapons.
That author last time he was on we discussed Tupac
Shakur rather extensively in his writing on it. Now, I'm

(01:08:14):
going to talk to you about a video that relates
to that writing in a minute. But tonight we're actually
going to discuss something we previewed on that show. And
I don't even know if that audio still exists on YouTube.
I've been taken down for so many things that are
tied to vaccination and such that. Gee, I don't know

(01:08:37):
if they allowed that up there. But we'll get an
update on what John is doing. I'm really glad to
have him back. He was scheduled I think at an
earlier date and something went wrong. I think that's when
I got sick or something. But either way, I'm extremely
happy to have you back. And John, you're late too.
I'm making you late, I'll tell you, man, I'm just
treating you badly. Bro, I don't mean to. You're a

(01:09:00):
great writer and you're a great guy, and I thank
you for your patience, But not only do I want
to thank you for your patients. This DVD on Tupac
Shakor and the war against Black leaders and the radical left.

Speaker 2 (01:09:16):
I kind of didn't want.

Speaker 3 (01:09:19):
To take your thesis all the way, and then I
watched your video and I checked out all the stuff
that you sourced and the way you did it, and
it is. Look, it's not the flashiest of Hollywood things
that I have here on this video, but boy, am
I grateful to have it. And you got me convinced
there's something there, a great stuff, great stuff. You got

(01:09:41):
me convinced. Well, I knew there was something there to
begin with, but John has actually convinced me that there's
a lot more there than I ever thought was. And
he referenced a whole bunch of stuff that people should
know but don't seem to know. I'm almost curious to
ask about, you know, what you might have thought of
the recent Netflix thing with you know, Malcolm X's alleged

(01:10:02):
killer is getting let go over new evidence and how
that was you know, a big puppa smoke that disappeared
in the mainstream media. But I want to get to
this new documentary after.

Speaker 2 (01:10:14):
So first off, how you doing tonight?

Speaker 5 (01:10:17):
Man?

Speaker 2 (01:10:18):
Thanks?

Speaker 6 (01:10:19):
Yeah, I mean I had eight hour work day and
but I you know, doing counseling. I do psychotherapy for
a living. But it was a good day and I'm
glad to be talking to you now after it's done.
And I really I really appreciate you watching that first
video of mine is my first attempt at a film.
I did it with a local PBS documentary filmmaker who

(01:10:41):
just who just is paid to do the audio with
me and to get all the you know images together
with the audio in a professional way.

Speaker 5 (01:10:50):
And so it's you know, a rudeimentary.

Speaker 6 (01:10:52):
Kind of film as opposed to my Drugs and Weapons
Against This, which is more elaborate, but still I was
just I'm glad it moved to you, and I'm glad
it got the content of when, you know, the ideas
I wanted to get out there, you know, in a
way that satisfied generally happy about that.

Speaker 5 (01:11:08):
And a lot of people have.

Speaker 6 (01:11:09):
Bought have bought this DVD and told me, you know,
nice things about I showed it in the number of
colleges around Maryland and.

Speaker 5 (01:11:18):
You know, it's just nice to get good feedback.

Speaker 2 (01:11:20):
Well.

Speaker 3 (01:11:21):
Also, Drugs and Weapons against Us absolutely essential viewing for
my listening audience, because uh, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:11:30):
You you did include a section with a couple of
people I know, so.

Speaker 3 (01:11:37):
One way or another in there, and it's not I'm
not saying it because of that. It's it's more of
a slick production than the video that we just talked about.
But but both of them. I gotta be honest with you.
If you think you're educated on the subjects of co
intel pro and the drug war, do me a favor
and watch these films in double check, because if you

(01:12:00):
weren't before, you will be educated on both issues.

Speaker 2 (01:12:03):
Okay, thanks, Yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:12:05):
The second the first film I ever did, of course,
was that the FBI War on Tupacs, Acre and Black Leaders,
and so again that was, you know, a simpler film.

Speaker 5 (01:12:14):
But yeah, the Jugs Weapons against Us.

Speaker 6 (01:12:16):
I had gotten gotten the technique down better and worked
with some really good professionals when that wanted to get
down in a much slicker way, in a nicer way.

Speaker 5 (01:12:26):
And you also got a.

Speaker 6 (01:12:27):
Good top entertainment law firm helping me get fair you know,
fair right use or was it called a fair use
of lots of video supportive video was really good.

Speaker 5 (01:12:39):
It was really helpful.

Speaker 6 (01:12:40):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:12:41):
No, look, and that stuff is all interspersed in there,
and I'm telling you it's it's as good as any
documentary possible total package. But that first attempt at the
film is loaded with so much information. I do not
care that I'm watching the slide show. As a matter
of fact, of the slide show is actually an enhancement
to me because I'm looking at these you know, xerox

(01:13:03):
file copies of people's faces, and you go, Okay, he's
using kind of a cheap looking graphic here, right, But no, no, no, no, no, no,
don't judge it that way. What he's doing is showing
you and this to me is an artistic thing. And
maybe you didn't even intend it, and maybe I'm overthinking it,
but to me, it's like, look, they're just the subjects

(01:13:24):
on these files. They are not the complete person. In fact,
that's not taken into account. When you're looking at a target,
you don't need to see the whole of the person.
You just need that flat, basic identifiable image that, by
the way, you come across when you study official files
on nearly anything. And I noticed that thematic approach to it,

(01:13:47):
and I went, Man, what he's telling us here is
that it didn't matter that these people were people.

Speaker 2 (01:13:54):
They were just targets.

Speaker 3 (01:13:55):
And I thought that was a hell of a message
that you never spoke of in that.

Speaker 5 (01:14:00):
Yeah, that's that's the way I did.

Speaker 6 (01:14:01):
My cover was a big target on their faces, you know,
bullseye on it on their faces to show. They were
all targets that way. They were leading to like bullseye targets.

Speaker 3 (01:14:12):
Yes, yeah, because it's got that you know, that rough
sort of a part of it, and I like it
that way.

Speaker 2 (01:14:19):
Don't remake it, Okay, thank you. It is. It is
just the way it should be.

Speaker 3 (01:14:25):
And you need to look at these things cold and calculated,
because guess what, Uh, that's the way the government was
looking at it. So anyway, let's move on, because again,
both of those works are great and go to us.

Speaker 6 (01:14:38):
So it's too bad that the only yeah, the only
place you can find it is on my website right
now because Amazon just took it down.

Speaker 5 (01:14:46):
It's probably my folts.

Speaker 6 (01:14:47):
I was taking down all my inventory because a new
publishing company republished my book and I didn't want to
get things confused. But yeah, I'm not sure if they
took it down for that reason or they just took
it down for censorship reasons behind it.

Speaker 5 (01:15:00):
Because I only.

Speaker 6 (01:15:00):
Wanted to take down my book, and then they take
down my DVD, I'll set but it's FBI World.

Speaker 5 (01:15:05):
Tupac dot com is where you can get.

Speaker 6 (01:15:07):
That DVD or John Podash dot com either one.

Speaker 3 (01:15:11):
Yeah, I was just saying and potash, even though no
matter how I mispronounced it is.

Speaker 2 (01:15:16):
P O t A s h.

Speaker 5 (01:15:19):
Okay, t asa trade, thank you. Potash is definitely easier
to say. I like that.

Speaker 3 (01:15:23):
Yeah, I'm just look, I'm just mispronouncing things because I'm
like that. But I'm used to reading things more than speaking.
And believe it or not, even though I run my
mouth on here plenty. But let's get to you run
in your mouth because, uh, tell us about this newer
piece of film that's gonna come out. And by the way,
go to John's website. I'll mention it again before we're done.

(01:15:44):
Either one of those websites, get that video, get get
any of John's work. Actually, there's not anything bad in it. Okay,
like there's nothing. I would say, listen, I recommend John stuff,
but don't read this. Uh, and I know I do
that sometimes. No, all of John stuff is good. So
go to John protest dot com. And again that's p
O T A s h. Put enough out of me
and your promotions and your plug. How about what it

(01:16:08):
is that you're coming out with that Again, we did preview.

Speaker 2 (01:16:10):
Some months ago on the show. Give us, you know,
give us the whole rundown.

Speaker 6 (01:16:16):
I'll shut up now, Okay, yeah, I I I'm a
little scared to even talk about because again I don't
want anything you know, censored for for you, I don't
want your shit censored at all. But it's uh so,
the new new movie coming out in three weeks exactly
three weeks July fifth, twenty twenty two, is called Shots
Eugenics to Pandemics, and it's it's not on as many

(01:16:41):
digital platforms as Drugs' Weapons Against This was Drugs' Weapons
against This is made on many, you know, a number
of different digital platforms in terms of you know, Amazon
Prime and to B and what else, Voodoo and and
different one like that. It's probably about eight different ones now.

(01:17:03):
This new one is actually on twelve different digital platforms,
but Amazon Prime and to be are the biggest ones.

Speaker 5 (01:17:10):
It didn't get on some of those.

Speaker 6 (01:17:12):
Like Voodoo and things places like that because it's it's
being censored.

Speaker 2 (01:17:16):
For sure.

Speaker 6 (01:17:17):
I can't, as you mentioned, I can't get the trailer
up on YouTube because they censor that topic and anything
on you know, the shots and you know, and an
alternative point of view when the shots they censor. But
I really it's a much more advanced film than Drugs

(01:17:38):
and Weapons against Us in terms of lots of special effects,
with the different kind of I also have song parodies,
so I try to make it a bit musing, even
though I try to put a lot of new information
about the history of these shots, as I say, from
the time of eugenics, the eugenics movement in the United
States in starting in the early nine eighteen hundreds all

(01:18:01):
the way.

Speaker 5 (01:18:02):
Up to now.

Speaker 6 (01:18:03):
And so the whole film project, I actually originally planned
to make just a comic version of Drugs' Weapons against Us.
The film Drugs Weapons against Us. I was going to do,
you know, just just a humorous version of it all
because there is so much, you know, so much stuff
you can make fun of with the whole drug war
and even with MK Ultra, you know, the Seis Project Ultra.

Speaker 5 (01:18:26):
But so that was a majority of the film.

Speaker 6 (01:18:28):
And as I was finishing the film, COVID hit, and
so I just included a little bit about COVID At
the anks there is some overlap. There's a group called
Imperial College was a you know, this this university in
England that was doing all this research on psychedelics, and

(01:18:50):
they also got a huge grant to do all this
research on uh, basically funding this guy, this British supposed
expert when COVID who was predicting that, you know, tens
of millions or so, these huge amount of people are
going to die in England of COVID. And so this guy,

(01:19:11):
I forget his name off the top of my head,
but he was considered he actually never got a degree
in a health field, and so he was not you know,
they acted like he was a leading urologist, and he
actually didn't have any degree in a health related field.
And yet but he was being funded by the Gates
Foundation in a huge way of Imperial College, in the

(01:19:32):
same way that these oligarchs were funding the psychedelic research.

Speaker 5 (01:19:37):
And so I showed that overlapped and I included something
on him.

Speaker 6 (01:19:40):
His name was actually Neil Ferguson, and so Ferguson predicts
this massive amount of people are going to die in
England and then he gets it completely wrong. He gets
it wrong by a factor of one hundred. I mean,
it's ridiculous. So he's kind of made fun of it,
you know, in England a bit. And so meanwhile, while
they had the lockdowns in various countries like England, he

(01:20:00):
apparently gets COVID.

Speaker 5 (01:20:01):
He's comes up being positive for COVID's supposed to be sick.

Speaker 6 (01:20:05):
He breaks the COVID rules to go and have sex
with some woman who's married to someone else, gets caught
doing it. So of course, like some of their tabloids said, uh,
professor Lockdown gets caught with his pants down, and so,
you know, so easy to make fun of some of
these guys. And so he gets you know, just shamed.

(01:20:26):
And not only is he shamed for you know, I
really don't care that much that he's having an extra
marter of relationship with you know, someone, but but he's
just an asshole because he's making these wild predictions and
causing us all to have to be you know, locked
inside forever, and you know, making a bigger thing than
it was now. Granted thought you know, lots of the
world lockdown. But so I just show a lot of

(01:20:47):
the research that says that the CDC, even under the
most dangerous threat of all viruses like this, if there
was a you know, the Black Death in the world
that was killing hundreds of millions of people, they still
did not plan to do what they did, which is
locked down the whole world, and you know, closed schools

(01:21:11):
for for six months to a year, a year and
a half maybe even. And so they you know, all
the CDC planning for something like this, never had them
get this draconian. And so I showed the evidence that
this was a big build up from the eugenics time.
And the eugenics movement was about targeting poor people. It's

(01:21:32):
about targeting immigrants in particular. It was about targeting really
most most of society that wasn't wealthy, white Anglo Saxon
Protestant believe it or not, that was what the eugenics
laws were about. When you see the best writings on them,
like such as Edwin Black's War against the Weak and
other and other writings on that time. And so so.

Speaker 5 (01:21:55):
I go into that.

Speaker 6 (01:21:56):
With the eugenics movement, it was the Rockefellers, the carnegiese
the Harremans, the JP.

Speaker 5 (01:22:00):
Morgan family that was inter locked with the Rockefellers.

Speaker 6 (01:22:04):
They started, they got eugenics laws passed in thirty states
calling for sterilization of defectives, and defectives was anyone who
got low IQ scores and the iq i Q test
asked about things like tennis courts and bowling that immigrants
knew nothing about in that time, you know, And so
it was just really about sterilizing and eliminating low tons

(01:22:26):
of the population. They really wanted to eliminate the population
ten percent at a time, okay, And so.

Speaker 5 (01:22:33):
That overlapped with World War One.

Speaker 6 (01:22:35):
They also put huge money into promotion of why we
should go into World War one, you know, defend as
if we needed to defend our country in some based
on some little war skirmish in Europe. And so part
of I show the evidence, I think that part of it,
part of World War One and sending millions of troops
over there was the was part of eugenics to get

(01:22:55):
rid of people, to get rid of the unwashed, you know,
the useless eaters as some of these politicians have called them.

Speaker 2 (01:23:03):
Right. Look, this is this is a deep issue.

Speaker 3 (01:23:06):
Because I think that a lot of Americans actually failed
to recognize the eugenicist.

Speaker 2 (01:23:13):
History that's here in America.

Speaker 3 (01:23:16):
You know, you say eugenics, and you talk about eliminating
the week and this kind of thing, and where does
their mind usually go.

Speaker 2 (01:23:23):
Well, they go Nazi Germany and.

Speaker 5 (01:23:26):
Appropriately though appropriately.

Speaker 3 (01:23:28):
Look appropriately but maybe not. And you know why, because
those ideas were really fostered guess what here.

Speaker 6 (01:23:36):
Right exactly, Chuck, and I say appropriately because they were
fostered here and then our oligarchs funded the rise of
Hitler exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:23:45):
But that's yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:23:47):
See they're they're in and I'm sorry to cut you
off again, but there realizes the problem. They think, Oh no,
there were people that subported Hitler over here. But hold on, no,
if it wasn't for that, the whole you Genesis program
in Germany might not have even existed.

Speaker 2 (01:24:04):
I'm not saying.

Speaker 5 (01:24:04):
Absolutely, I totally agree. I'm right with you to that,
no doubt.

Speaker 3 (01:24:08):
Yeah, I mean, and it's and it's crazy that you
got to explain this. It's like this stuff here it
was sanitary laws or something like that, where it was
you know, and think about that for a second.

Speaker 2 (01:24:18):
Sanitation, what do you think about today?

Speaker 3 (01:24:20):
You think about the people taking out your garbage, right,
they're your sanitation workers. All right, Well, that's pretty much
what they were talking about with people. They were sanitizing
us from those that were weak and looking for the
sterilization of people that yeah, failed IQ tests, and IQ tests,
by the way, are not accurate measurements of intelligence. Altogether

(01:24:42):
to begin with, not the sharpest scientific tool to be using,
but even so, eliminating people because what they're handicapped, all
that kind of stuff one way or another, whether it's
psychological or physical, because that was another thing.

Speaker 2 (01:24:55):
You know, if they're not going to you know.

Speaker 6 (01:24:57):
Produce, eliminate people because they're a poor pulpers people laid
on paying fines people true it were truant from school.

Speaker 5 (01:25:05):
They were just the people they were.

Speaker 6 (01:25:07):
They were talking about getting rid of eliminating some unbelievable
you know, the categories.

Speaker 3 (01:25:12):
Yeah, and as you said, there were laws that were
on the books here that justified the government taking care
of that. Again, I bring you back to the garbage men.
This was the idea, except guess what you might not
realize that you're listening right now, could have been thrown
in the category of the garbage that needed to be
taken out.

Speaker 2 (01:25:30):
And I think that's an important point. Now.

Speaker 3 (01:25:33):
Somebody might say, how do you get from that to uh,
you know, the pandemic and all this other stuff. Well,
you know what, if your scientific community is inundated with
people who think like this, uh, guess what, it might
motivate them to.

Speaker 2 (01:25:48):
Make certain decisions.

Speaker 3 (01:25:49):
About what they call safe, about what they call necessary,
about what necessary risks are you know, and and and
by the way, you also talked about you know them
funding psychedelics. Now, you and I might have a slightly
askew view on this together because a couple of years ago,
I was really suffering.

Speaker 2 (01:26:10):
And here we go.

Speaker 3 (01:26:11):
Now, I'm gonna dig on your psychotherapist background for a second.
I was suffering brutally from PTSD, which I've carried around
since the child, since I was a child, And I'm
not using the more common definition that people use today.
It seems like it's thrown around everywhere. I mean, I
was diagnosed with this in like say, nineteen eighty one
and when I was nine. Okay, so this is not

(01:26:35):
the Oh, no, I had a bad day form of PTSD.
They call it PTSDC or something like this, which I
don't take it seriously because sorry, I carried the other
thing around for thirty five years. Anyway, in doing that,
in desperation, I dosed myself with psychedelics.

Speaker 5 (01:26:57):
To be honest with you, if it helped you, great,
I'm not against that.

Speaker 3 (01:27:02):
Well, no, I'm just saying though that you know, some
people hear that Okay, so the wrong people are funding
that research right now, it's they're not funding it in
a I'm not ascribing their motives here, But what I
am saying is there is something to this because it
absolutely saved my life.

Speaker 2 (01:27:19):
I'll tell you that is that psilocybin.

Speaker 3 (01:27:22):
It has allowed me to live, and I really believe
I was dying from it before. So I'm just saying, yeah,
it's not as though there isn't something valuable that might
have been exact. I don't want somebody to say, Okay,
see the evil people are funding this, so therefore the
entire concept is no good. In fact, as much as
I object to vaccination in general, I'll tell you this,

(01:27:46):
I do understand the concept as valuable.

Speaker 2 (01:27:50):
I understand it, you know what I'm saying.

Speaker 3 (01:27:52):
Sure, But the people that are running this program and
the people that are distributing this, manufacturing this, I'm sorry,
I don't trust them.

Speaker 2 (01:28:03):
I don't believe they're doing the right thing.

Speaker 3 (01:28:04):
I don't believe they have the right motivations, and it's
destructive as it stands now. The general concept of introducing
a bit of a say, a disease to somebody in
a controlled way so that their immune system can actually
react to it. Not a bad or fouled concept in
and of itself.

Speaker 6 (01:28:24):
Right, Yeah, by itself, it's fine. It's just what you
put in that vaccine is very important. And that's the
key exactly. A quick quick word about psilocybin. I don't
cover psilocybin in my book or my film because I
think psilocybbin is a good bit safer for sure.

Speaker 5 (01:28:42):
It's not like acid.

Speaker 6 (01:28:43):
Acid is massively kind of you know, artificial and has
problems with it where and be you know, STP is
a super psychedelic, it's got serious problems.

Speaker 5 (01:28:55):
B Z and other super psychedelics, serious problems. The psilocybin
is as.

Speaker 6 (01:28:59):
Much safer, and I think if that can help someone
with PTSD, that's great, that's fine.

Speaker 5 (01:29:04):
I'm not talking about psilocybin. I'm talking about you.

Speaker 6 (01:29:07):
Know, the uh, the acid and you know LSD and
the z STP that they used against some of the
activists like Paul Robison and others to mess up their heads.

Speaker 2 (01:29:18):
Oh no, no, And that's and that's perfectly valid.

Speaker 3 (01:29:20):
But I just want to make that distinction that there
is you know again here it is there are scientific
concepts that could be useful and actually helpful to humanity,
and then they're in the wrong hands and anything can
be weaponized.

Speaker 2 (01:29:33):
That's the point. So I just wanted to make sure
that was real clear. Sorry.

Speaker 6 (01:29:38):
Well, the other thing is I want to just point
out that e M d R Eye movement desensitization reprocessing
is something I got trained in seven years ago and
it's been miraculous for PTSD, Absolutely miraculous, and I I
can't say more about it. It's it's incredible work for PTSD,

(01:29:59):
and it's you don't have to worry about any side
effects whatsoever. Not that psychedelic mushrooms automatically have side effects.
But I had some side effects from psychedelic mushrooms when
I was younger, but you know, nothing major, nothing like
acid at all. They went away after a month or
two or three. You know, there's no problems after that.
But they did last for you know, one or two

(01:30:19):
or three months for me. But it's acid lasted years
for me. You supposed to just months. And so I
think that EMDR has no side effects and it's an
excellent technique for PTSD. And that's why I just say
there's better techniques even than psychedelic mushrooms for PTSD.

Speaker 3 (01:30:38):
Oh yeah, but everybody's an individual, John, And you know,
do you think with that kind of technique for me,
I would be disqualified from it for certain neurological reasons.

Speaker 2 (01:30:48):
So you know, in that case, you can see why
it is I did that.

Speaker 5 (01:30:53):
You know, whatever works for you, I agree with Chuck,
you know.

Speaker 3 (01:30:56):
And and that's the thing is that it could work
for me and not work for the ten guys, but
maybe it'll work for the eleventh.

Speaker 2 (01:31:02):
You know. Sure, we're all different.

Speaker 3 (01:31:04):
Anyway, I do have an option here before I let
you go on, because I want you to keep discussing
this and tell us the rest about what's going to
be out in this film in three weeks and of
course to John Potash dot com and uh, you have
the the trailer there, but I have the audio for
the trailer if you actually want to play it for
a minute or two. Here, what is it? It's well,
it's actually almost four minutes long.

Speaker 5 (01:31:26):
I don't know.

Speaker 6 (01:31:26):
I got I got so, I said, I sent the
link to you guys of the two minutes and fifty
six second chair.

Speaker 5 (01:31:33):
That's the new tailer, that's the go.

Speaker 3 (01:31:37):
Okay, let me, let me go ahead, and grab that.
But let you continue to talk about this for a minute,
and I'll try and set that up so that we can, uh,
you know, at least play the audio.

Speaker 6 (01:31:47):
Well, I said to the Dave Davy, I think, David,
I think you've got that in your email right the
tail few.

Speaker 3 (01:31:55):
If he does, do do me a favorite man, drop
it over into the sky chat and I'll open it
up and we'll play it right here live there.

Speaker 5 (01:32:02):
Good. I just don't want you to get banned for it.
That's the only thing, you know.

Speaker 3 (01:32:06):
Ah, you know what, it's gonna happen. It's gonna happen.
The only thing is I'm just telling you I can't
send this to YouTube.

Speaker 2 (01:32:11):
Other than that.

Speaker 6 (01:32:12):
Well, yeah, sure, that's fine, as long as you don't
do that, right exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:32:17):
Yeah, I mean I should be okay.

Speaker 3 (01:32:18):
I mean, who knows, maybe you'll be the test case
out that it's actually much worse than that.

Speaker 2 (01:32:23):
But anyway, let.

Speaker 6 (01:32:25):
Me Yeah, I'm gonna put this in the chat now
and hopefully that'll be easy enough.

Speaker 2 (01:32:30):
To get a great Hey.

Speaker 3 (01:32:33):
So in the meantime, yeah, continue telling us about this.
I kind of sidetracked you for a second about psychedelics,
but I just want to be clear about that. And
also I never object, by the way, to anybody's look
people's personal drug.

Speaker 2 (01:32:46):
Use or whatever. I don't ever want to make it
sound like that.

Speaker 4 (01:32:49):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (01:32:50):
And that's a fact.

Speaker 3 (01:32:51):
If you're using something, whether it's natural or not, I
feel like it's none of my business.

Speaker 2 (01:32:55):
But it's are weaponized.

Speaker 3 (01:32:57):
Against the population, and it does become my business because
there are people doing that in yours and my name John,
And that's not something we signed off on, or would we.

Speaker 6 (01:33:10):
Yeah, as there are tax dollars going to uh, you know,
Operation Paper equip Nazi scientists they brought over to be
part of mk Ultra to learn how to use these
drugs as weapons against activists, and that's just part of it,
you know.

Speaker 5 (01:33:24):
But Yeah, people's personal drug use. I could care less about.
It's up to them.

Speaker 6 (01:33:28):
I mean, I'd like to see them just you reach
your fullest potential without the drugs. But if they if
drugs help them in some way, that's their their personal business.

Speaker 5 (01:33:36):
I don't care sactly. Yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:33:39):
So I so in terms of the shots eugenics to pandemics,
the eugenics during World War Two, the big thing I argue,
and I show the evidence of is that the first vaccines.
There was about two a dozen to two dozen different
vaccines that were given to these millions of soldiers going

(01:33:59):
up to World War One, and they were completely experimental
vaccines coming out of the Rockefeller Institute, and so you know,
there was a there was different journalists and scientists and
people that were documenting the fact that these things were.

Speaker 5 (01:34:16):
They didn't know what they were doing when they had
these vaccines.

Speaker 6 (01:34:19):
They were just experimenting on all these young soldiers and
these and these soldiers were dying. Someone were dying on
the spot, so you know, tons of them were getting
sick immediately. And there's lots of evidence to say to
suggest that the so called Spanish flu actually came from
these experimental vaccines at the Rockefeller Institute was pushing on

(01:34:43):
everybody because they Rockefellers and the Morgan families had huge
investments in banks in Europe, in many European countries, and
they ended up pushing these vaccines all in all these
different countries, not just US, but in European countries.

Speaker 5 (01:34:59):
And when soldiers over there and people.

Speaker 6 (01:35:00):
Over there, and then countries that that resisted those vaccines,
they didn't get the Spanish the so called Spanish flu,
and only the you know, the countries that that took
one of the vaccines got this Spanish flu. And so
books were written about that showing that and the people
that resisted the vaccines in the United States never got sick,

(01:35:23):
according to people.

Speaker 5 (01:35:24):
That lived back then, including this.

Speaker 6 (01:35:27):
One scientist that quoted uh whose name leaves me at
the moment.

Speaker 5 (01:35:32):
But so you'll see evidence around that around the first
experimental vaccines that they tried when they didn't know anything
about vaccines, and they were just you know, they were
part of the eugenics movement, I argue.

Speaker 6 (01:35:43):
And so then you go, you go into the thirties
and you see the build up of Nazi Germany, and yes,
the oligarchs of America and some of England, you know,
funded the eugenics movement that really became Nazi Germany. And
it was really I argue that it was really a
takeover of Germany because they were destitute after World War One,

(01:36:06):
financially destitute, and so they used that opportunity to just
put tons of cash in there and and really take
over the country with funding the brown Shirts of Hitler,
and it was imposed on them, and you know, and
you had had the killing of millions of Jews, Gypsies,

(01:36:28):
you know, communists, et cetera, and gaze et cetera, and
you know, and that was just the end of that
eugenics movement that was.

Speaker 5 (01:36:40):
Ended up waging a huge war when.

Speaker 6 (01:36:42):
The Soviet Union because most of the battalions, really the
biggest bulwark against Nazis was the Soviet Union. They lost
twenty to thirty million people, whereas England and America together
lost less than a million people.

Speaker 5 (01:37:01):
So who really, you know, who really was that war about?
That war was about.

Speaker 6 (01:37:06):
It was a war on the civic union, I could argue,
but nonetheless, I don't get into that. It's just that's
that's a you know, part of what the numbers say.
But nonetheless it was that was the extent. The Nazi
was the last extension of eugenics at that time in
terms of like the fullest.

Speaker 5 (01:37:21):
Extension of eugenics.

Speaker 6 (01:37:22):
So the Nazis made eugenics look bad after they were defeated,
and eugenics went a bit underground. Now, they still put
out notices and they still had meetings, but they were
they were more covert, you know, more underground, and so
tons of Nazi scientists were taken into the CIA to
be part of our rocket.

Speaker 5 (01:37:41):
Program, to be part.

Speaker 6 (01:37:42):
Of our you know mk ultra with you know, use
of drugs as weapons, you know, And they were sent
down to South America and they helped, you know, create
the rat lines that I mean, helped create the cocaine
lines down there. They were sent actually the Middle East too,
or all over the world a lot of these Nazis. Nonetheless,

(01:38:02):
I don't get into that as much. I just mentioned
that stuff. But what what authors have found is that
they started testing all kinds of biological weapons, and uh
in Korea for example, it used all kinds of biological warfare.
And then they were doing, you know, testing chemical weapons.
And they had Fort Dietrich and they had a fort
you know, Edward Arstale that's in my neighborhood of Maryland

(01:38:24):
here where I live, my hometown. You know, Fort Dietrick
is just maybe forty five minutes away from me, sadly enough,
and so that's where they were. They were they were
testing all kinds of new chemical weapons in terms of
biological weapons, and that's when you get into and so
into the gain of function research.

Speaker 3 (01:38:45):
Well, every conflict, by the way, John presents a new
opportunity for them to have an open air laboratory to
test things. I pointed out that in Vietnam we definitely
had weather manipulation. You have chemical warfare being tested there,
the de fully hitting agent of age and orange.

Speaker 2 (01:39:01):
Sure.

Speaker 3 (01:39:01):
Sure, but only in very recent times are they even
willing to discuss the burn pit syndrome that Iraq and
Afghani war veterans are now suffering from. Even though I had,
you know, a guy who was in the military, he
couldn't get his own book into military bookstores on bases
and things about it years ago. Well, now it's sort

(01:39:22):
of acceptable to say, well, there might be a little
something to this burn pit thing. You know, these guys
were exposed to some chemicals maybe maybe you know, but oh,
the gol war syndrome, that's not real.

Speaker 6 (01:39:33):
Though John Steart did a great thing on the burn
pits with the problem with John Stewart, I saw an
episode of that where they test all the evidence of
the burn pits.

Speaker 2 (01:39:42):
Yeah, oh yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:39:43):
But I had a guy and I think his name
was Joe Hicks, like maybe six years ago, and immediately
that was one of the first things that I got
like shot down for on a bunch of platforms was
talking about this guy was in the military who served
saying listen, my friends are sick and this is why,
and they didn't want to hear it.

Speaker 2 (01:40:01):
And he published his book anyway.

Speaker 3 (01:40:04):
You know, it's like, okay, you know, I don't know
what happened to the guy ever since, but I know
he was trying for years.

Speaker 2 (01:40:12):
To get people listen and nobody would hear it. Anyway.

Speaker 3 (01:40:15):
I've got that now loaded up your your your trailer?
Why did I not get that word in my head trailer,
which is available on bitch shoot don't look forward on YouTube,
but it is available on bit shooting a couple other platforms.
And I think you and I could just be quiet
for a minute and play this audio, because you're in

(01:40:36):
the midst of a great explanation. But I'd like you
to take a breath. So let's let's do that. We'll
be quiet, and this will be about two minutes or so.
We'll leave the microphones open, though, but you and I
just quietly listened together. I haven't heard this, and I'm
going to be seeing it. I'll give you, guys the
link in the show notes so you can go see
it for yourself. But for now here's the audio.

Speaker 11 (01:41:04):
By nineteen twelve, the wasp super wealthy families, America's oligarchs, including.

Speaker 2 (01:41:10):
Railroad tycoon E. H.

Speaker 11 (01:41:11):
Harriman, the Rockefellers, and Morgan's, had joined the Carnegie in
sponsoring eugenics nationwide.

Speaker 2 (01:41:18):
And state hospitals.

Speaker 11 (01:41:19):
They fed the feeble's milk from tuberculosis infected cows to
get rid of them. The oligarchs overflowed with creative ways
to kill. NBC News covered how some states kept practicing eugenics.
As late as the nineteen seventies.

Speaker 5 (01:41:35):
Thirty one states had legal eugenics programs.

Speaker 11 (01:41:38):
Pharmaceutical giant vaccine makers Bristol Myers and Merk interlocked with
The New York Times and Time Incorporated, respectively. The ABC
News article cited CDC findings that ninety four percent of
the reported COVID nineteen deaths involved an average of two
point six other potential cause of death. As the narrator

(01:42:02):
of this documentary on Bill Gates revealed, he was also
the top donor to the Center for Disease Control CDC.
This Brookings Institution article shows CDC stats that report how
middle aged, black and Latino death rates are at least
six times higher than for whites.

Speaker 2 (01:42:21):
ECR is separate from that.

Speaker 4 (01:42:22):
It's just a process that's used to make a whole
lot of.

Speaker 2 (01:42:25):
Something out of something.

Speaker 5 (01:42:27):
That's why it is not It doesn't tell you that
you're sick, and it doesn't tell you that the thing
you ended up with really was going to hurt you
or anything like that.

Speaker 10 (01:42:35):
At inne vaccine, Tony Falci's top a's own royalties to
that sow people in his agency collect one hundred and
fifty thousand dollars a year in royalties on that vaccine.

Speaker 11 (01:42:52):
Pfizer a name you can't trust, said the US Justice
Department in two thousand and nine.

Speaker 2 (01:42:58):
The federal government today announced the larger medical fraud settlement
in US history.

Speaker 12 (01:43:03):
Mountains of data have emerged from many centers and countries
around the world showing the miraculous effectiveness of ivermecan. It
basically obliterates transmission of this virus.

Speaker 7 (01:43:15):
Side to get some contexts, over the past twenty years
all vaccinations combined, there are reported four and eighty two
deaths over the past twenty years. In the past four months,
we're now sitting in seventy eight deaths associated with the
COVID vaccine were to study commissioned by the Department Health

(01:43:35):
and Human Services. It's in twenty ten and Harvard carried
out this study and the conclusion was only about one
percent of adverse reactions are ever reported to THEIRS.

Speaker 3 (01:43:45):
Also, what's more, what's more, well, john that is the
the creepy AI voice, I would say is appropriate, and yeah,

(01:44:06):
these are these are the facts, some of these facts
that are just there, and your trailer.

Speaker 2 (01:44:10):
Should be enough to get people to consider what the
hell is going on here.

Speaker 3 (01:44:15):
I love that you point out that Pfizer is, you know,
clearly not one of these trusts. You know, you should
trust the science and trust the people giving you the
scientific you know, stuff for you to get better, for
you to be better, right, I keep pointing out.

Speaker 2 (01:44:29):
And they don't. They don't bring it up anymore.

Speaker 3 (01:44:31):
You notice that the Johnson and Johnson vaccine is no
longer in discussion at all. I wonder if that has
anything to do with the fact that Johnson and Johnson
repeatedly has been called on the carpet for what they
can't figure out how not to put something that's cancer
causing intal compowder first of all, but also, hey, you know,

(01:44:52):
that whole opioidydemic epidemic thing that seems to have also disappeared.
They contributed mightily to that by creating an interest thing
where you could harvest the entire poppy plant, okay, and
crush up the opiate straw so that you could more
effectively harvest your crops to make guess what the pills

(01:45:13):
that everybody got hooked on, that that people are still
hooked on if they haven't found their way to regular
street level heroin. Because you know, that's a good thing
for a company to participate in. Johnson and Johnson, your
friends who also can't figure out how not to put
in bombing fluid in products that babies are going to
put in their mouths wonderful. Sorry anyway, john I'll turn

(01:45:33):
it back.

Speaker 6 (01:45:34):
It's hard to believe that Pwiser is actually, you know,
even more corrupt than Johnson and Johnson, you know, with
all the things you just mentioned it.

Speaker 3 (01:45:41):
That's the thing is, that's the scary part is that
Peiser is actually worse when you go to look at
their list of products that they've had plenty of these
class action lawsuits against. Because this may result in death,
you know when there's a female reader. Of the various
side effects, you know, rectal bleeding, your eyes might swim, well,
your tongue might fall out, and also death.

Speaker 2 (01:46:03):
You know, check with your doctor if any of these
things happen. How do you do that? If you did?
All right?

Speaker 3 (01:46:07):
Sorry, John, by all means go ahead. I just needed
to point that out, in vent that first second. But
I love this the audio of it. I love the
visuals on it.

Speaker 2 (01:46:17):
Robert F.

Speaker 3 (01:46:18):
Kennedy Junior in it. Uh, you know a guy I'd
love to talk to personally. But anyway, go ahead.

Speaker 5 (01:46:25):
John, Yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:46:26):
So, so, just to add to what you're saying, Darena
had never had a vaccine authorized before, and here we were.
They got a billion dollars of our taxpayer money for research.

Speaker 5 (01:46:37):
How did our taxpayer.

Speaker 6 (01:46:39):
Money, a billion dollars of it go to a company
that never had author got a vaccine authorized before? Could
it be because they have JP Morgan on their you know,
board of directors, you know JP Morgan employee, I mean
not JP Morgan himself.

Speaker 5 (01:46:53):
Of course, one of the employees from JP Morgan. I mean,
it's just so corrupt, it's incredible. And we're supposed to
trust these groups.

Speaker 6 (01:47:00):
You know, trust these pharmaceutical companies that are all corrupt
as hell, and so the.

Speaker 5 (01:47:04):
Yeah, in terms of.

Speaker 6 (01:47:07):
That that trailer, I'll just say people couldn't see that
the person talking about the PCR test was doctor Carrie Mullis,
who was the inventor of the PCR test, and so
he's the one that said it's not for you know,
uh calling whether you have you know, it's not for diagnosis.
The PCR test is not for diagnosis, he says, basically.

(01:47:28):
And he's the one that won the you know, Nobel
Prize for inventing the PCR tests and he died right
before COVID came out, so uh, you know this. These
are some of the sources of of of the evidence
that I have in my film, and I have other
Nobel Prize winners like the guy who was won the

(01:47:49):
Nobel Prize for isolating HIV, Luke Montaigne, and so they
are very credible sources. The guy I talked about ivermectin
was asked to testify about about it in front of
the US Senate, and that's where he's getting He's talking
about vermectans to the US Senate. He was in the
US senex he's on the front line, doctor pr Cory.

(01:48:09):
So there's a lot of great sources that are saying
the stuff that you know, you heard in that film,
in the trailer for the film, and in my film
in general, I think, and so I'm just glad to
get them on film saying these things.

Speaker 5 (01:48:20):
Of course.

Speaker 6 (01:48:21):
But so you know, with that what I was telling
that history when you know, I argue that that war
is partly for resources and partly as a form of eugenics,
like just these these guys are expendable that go out
and fight for those you know, taking over lands for
those resources, for.

Speaker 5 (01:48:40):
The rich to just you know, the greedy rich to
gain those resources control over them.

Speaker 6 (01:48:46):
And so but as you said, they were also using
biological warfare and chemical warfare in a lot of these wars,
from Agent Orange to the biological warfare biological weapons that
dropped on Korea, and international panels have discovered that, you know,
what happened in Korea, and so they were continually practicing it,

(01:49:09):
finding new forms, new weapons in that way, to the
point that they were now you know, up into the
nineteen nineties and two thousands, they were doing more and
more gain of function research, which is the euphemism for
making viruses more deadly. Okay, make them, you know, function

(01:49:30):
even stronger, and function the viruses, the deadly viruses that
they found in animals, they were trying to figure out
how to make them functioning even deadlier, gain function in humans.
And they were successful with things like the coronavirus and
you know, other viruses, and and it's really ugly that
they were doing that kind of research. Now, I don't

(01:49:51):
know how successful they were with this coronavirus, to be honest,
but nonetheless, obviously some people died. I don't think any
we are near as many as they say, because as
the CDC, as ABC News said about what the CDC said,
you know, ninety four point six percent of people that
supposedly die of COVID could have caused you know, died

(01:50:14):
from two or three other things. So you know, it's
not known that they definitely died of COVID. They could
have died of these other things that could have caused
their death. They changed the whole way they determined death
in this country. You know that for decades they had
a certain way the way they determine the death, and
they completely change those rules just for COVID.

Speaker 3 (01:50:37):
Just all right, because the major point to be made
here is, you know, people that oppose my viewpoint on
this often say, look, the statistics don't lie, and you
know what, I agree with you, the statistics don't lie.
But here's where the lie can come in. What you
decide to feed into a statistical equation is where you

(01:50:57):
can lie.

Speaker 5 (01:50:58):
Okay, changed, Yeah, the equation has been completely changed. That's
the issue.

Speaker 6 (01:51:04):
They changed their rules and the way they developed those statistics,
and that's the problem, you know, And so we don't know.
We just can't know for sure how it all worked, ow,
you know. So nonetheless, the other issue is now whether
coronavirus was very deadly or not.

Speaker 5 (01:51:19):
I mean, maybe it wasn't. That's whatever, that's what it is,
and we don't know for sure.

Speaker 6 (01:51:24):
But if it was, Okay, so people were in the hospital,
what do we do with them?

Speaker 5 (01:51:29):
What do we treat them with?

Speaker 6 (01:51:30):
They found that ivermectin and also, as controversial as it is,
the hydroxy quirkham with zinc, which I don't mention in
my film, but there's loads of studies about show that
they can help this COVID. And instead, now I didn't
I didn't get to get this research. But I do

(01:51:53):
show that the two prescriptions for what they should use
in the hospital.

Speaker 5 (01:51:56):
It's two main prescriptions.

Speaker 6 (01:51:58):
One is ventilated and then a study after the use
of ventilators for months, they found that ventilators, like eighty
eight percent of people that were put on ventilators died
and they were killed by the ventilators.

Speaker 5 (01:52:10):
Okay, the best evidence is they were killed by the ventilators.

Speaker 4 (01:52:14):
Okay.

Speaker 6 (01:52:15):
And you know, nurses blew the whistle on film, and
I show that in my movie. Well, the fact that
they talked people in that didn't even weren't even COVID
positive into getting on the ventilator and then they died
on the ventilator, you know. So the other thing they
prescribed was remdesevir And now RFK Junior's book, excellent book,

(01:52:36):
The Real Anthony Fauci quotes nurses who say they dubbed it,
they nicknamed it run Death is near, Okay, because remdesevir,
according to the studies, killed over half the people that
they gave it to in the studies, So they were
giving people a poisonous medicine, you know. And so those
are two main things prescribed for people and it's.

Speaker 3 (01:52:59):
It's have no fear, John, because you know you're good
friends at Fvizer. Now have an oral medication which you
can take to uh, you know, prevent your your COVID
symptoms from getting out of control.

Speaker 2 (01:53:11):
Don't you know that? I mean we we we should
all relax now.

Speaker 3 (01:53:14):
Everything's good because they've given us the solutions.

Speaker 2 (01:53:19):
You know, you know what I'm really saying.

Speaker 6 (01:53:21):
To you, right, Okay, joke, it's it's such a joke.

Speaker 2 (01:53:26):
You know.

Speaker 6 (01:53:27):
They they completely ban these these medicines that are considered
essential medicines, you know, hydrox cor quin and ivermectin or
on the uh we're originally on the World Health Organization's
essential medicines lists.

Speaker 5 (01:53:41):
I mean they were for decades. They were you know,
at least a decade or more.

Speaker 6 (01:53:45):
They were considered essential medicines that weren't that weren't allowed
to be, you know, taking advantage of by greedy pharmaceuticals,
you know. So you know, they were used throughout the
world and and really helped other issues. And then they showed,
you know, they did a bunch of studies when could
they help with this coronavirus and they found they could

(01:54:06):
and there was great there's been great studies out there
on both those drugs because I drox the quork when
helps zinc into the cells, and i remectin is a
great you know, as you heard from doctor Pierre Corey
was on the front lines.

Speaker 5 (01:54:18):
He had a tea.

Speaker 6 (01:54:18):
He represented a team of doctors that reviewed all his
studies all over the world about ivermectin to come up
with what he said, you know, and so you know
what he testified about to the US Senate.

Speaker 5 (01:54:30):
So this is so they.

Speaker 6 (01:54:31):
They they then take their their media assets and they
vilify iv remectin and they pretend like these scientists who
discover the great uses of ivermectin never won a Nobel
Prize for their great find But ivermectin is a horse
medicine only, and that people it's not you know, it's
poisonous for people, like you can't give it to people.

Speaker 5 (01:54:52):
It's dangerous for people. That's what all the press was saying.

Speaker 6 (01:54:55):
You know, my wife had a back and forth debate
with a calumnist and you o Balemar's son about that.

Speaker 5 (01:55:00):
That ridiculous.

Speaker 3 (01:55:02):
Well, and the realistic thing is, look, too high of
a dose of ibermectin is bad, but so is too
high of a dose of penicillin, okay, which people would
think is the most innocuous thing in the world.

Speaker 2 (01:55:16):
This is the truth.

Speaker 3 (01:55:17):
You have to have a measured and proper response, and
yes you do have to rely on science. But you know,
the thing is, again, as I said earlier with the
psilocybin issue, not.

Speaker 2 (01:55:28):
Every solution is for everybody.

Speaker 3 (01:55:31):
And you have to explore and know and take a
look at the interactions and know what's going into your body.
Know your body first, I mean, And all this stuff
to me boils down to what should be decided between
a physician who is actually interested in a sustaining life
and a patient exactly.

Speaker 6 (01:55:50):
And so let the doctors do the work, good work
they do. They they found that this works, let them
use it. And instead they're they're taking away doctors life
licenses for using the medicine that they found worked for
their patients. They took away doctor Merril NASA's license. She
was an expert on biological weapons, you know, such as

(01:56:12):
the anthrax you know, which she was asked to They
actually created new legislation around her great research on anthrax
in front of her testimony in front of Congress, and
you know, because she had found like just how I
was used. You know, they pretended like anthrax was something

(01:56:34):
that was some naturally occurring thing, and she found that
it was actually weaponized.

Speaker 5 (01:56:39):
And so it's just they they.

Speaker 6 (01:56:42):
Took away her medical license for using ivermectin to help
COVID patients.

Speaker 5 (01:56:48):
It's absolutely crazy.

Speaker 3 (01:56:49):
No look, and and we live in a crazy world.
John Potash dot Com p O T A s H.
And John is just spelled John. Okay, uh p O T.
Pot Let's see, Yes, I got it right the first time,
all right, yeah yeah, But anyway, dot com go there
you can see the trailer. We're gonna give you the

(01:57:12):
the bitch shoot link for this trailer.

Speaker 2 (01:57:15):
Also, somebody dropped in the chat room.

Speaker 3 (01:57:17):
I'll include it with the show notes Drugs's weapons on
bit shoot.

Speaker 2 (01:57:21):
I think that's the trailer as well.

Speaker 3 (01:57:24):
Anything with John Potash's name on it. Again, pronouncing it
that way so you'll remember how to spell it anyway.
Uh yeah, Look, all of his work is valuable. Drugs,
his weapons, this new documentary, which I'll have him tell
you about one more time, and even even his work
on Tupac. As much as I gotta be honest with you, John,
I wanted to.

Speaker 2 (01:57:44):
Reject it a little bit.

Speaker 3 (01:57:46):
I wanted to go along with part of it and
say maybe you went too far. And then after I
watched this, this film you put together, which you said
was the first one you ever put together. Yeah, I
don't want to argue with you anymore. So great evidence,
great stuff. He puts a lot of research behind what
he does. It's not just about speculation, although it might
cause you to speculate about what's really going on. So

(01:58:11):
the Ocelli Effects done for tonight, John one more time,
John Potest dot Com?

Speaker 2 (01:58:15):
Anything else you want to throw in here?

Speaker 6 (01:58:18):
No, just said the shots you janks. The Pandemics is
being released on July fifth. Look for it on Amazon
Prime and two B and whatever other channel, and you
might want to look for it on Google Play, Google
TV and stuff, well.

Speaker 2 (01:58:32):
Wherever you can get it. And I'll tell you this,
If you can get it and.

Speaker 3 (01:58:35):
Download it and keep a copy of it, I would
do so because who knows they might disappear this work.
I mean, I'm not trying to make you worry, John,
but it might. We live in an age where if
you can't get a hold of a copy of this
and hold it in your hand or hold it on
your own computer.

Speaker 2 (01:58:50):
You never know they might disappear it

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Ruthie's Table 4

The Joe Rogan Experience

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Ochelli Effect 6-15-2022 Joël Bailey and John Potash Re-release 110925

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

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

Ruthie's Table 4

The Joe Rogan Experience

All Episodes

The Ochelli Effect 6-15-2022 Joël Bailey and John Potash Re-release 110925

On Purpose with Jay Shetty