For the last few years, I've had this
sense that everything I learned as a kid
about how America's government works is completely wrong.
But I had no idea how bad things
actually were until I saw this one graph.
Researchers at Princeton University looked at more than
20 years worth of data to answer a
pretty simple question. Does the government represent the
people? Now, this is what they found.
This axis here represents public support for any
given idea. On the left at 0% are
ideas that not a single American wants. On
the right at 100%
are ideas that everyone supports.
This axis represents the likelihood of congress passing
a law that reflects any of these ideas,
from a 0 to a 100% chance.
On this graph, an ideal republic would look
like this.
If 50% of the public supports an idea,
there's a 50% chance of it becoming law.
If 80% of us support something, there's an
80% chance. You get the idea.
Now, most Americans would probably agree that with
a few exceptions, we should be as close
to this ideal as possible. Unfortunately, the way
America actually works
doesn't even come close.
Take an idea that nobody supports, literally nobody,
and it has about a 30% chance of
becoming federal law.
Now, take an incredibly popular idea. The most
popular idea this country has ever seen, and
there's
also about a 30% chance of it becoming
law.
This means that the number of American voters
for or against any idea has no impact
on the likelihood that congress will make it
law.
Put another way, and I'm just gonna quote
the Princeton study directly here. The preferences of
the average American appear to have only a
miniscule,
near zero, statistically
non significant impact upon public policy.
So if you've ever felt like your opinion
doesn't matter and that the government doesn't really
care what you think, well,
you're right,
but there's a catch.
This flat line only accounts for the bottom
90% of income earners in America.
Economic elites, business interests, people who can afford
lobbyists,
they get their own line.
Look at how much closer their line is
to the ideal. When they want something, the
government is much more likely to do it.
And when they don't, they have the power
to completely block it from happening, no matter
how much the rest of the country supports
it. They get what they want, and guess
who ends up paying for it.
We pay for it with the most expensive
health care in the world. We pay for
it with a tax code that's a complete
mess. We pay for it with internet that's
slower and more expensive, with wasteful spending, a
floundering education system, a catastrophic
drug war, and 1 in 5 American children
born into poverty. Almost every major issue we
face as a nation can be traced back
to this graph.
How does this happen?
Well, just follow the money.
Right now, it's perfectly legal to buy political
influence in America.
Here's how it works. Let's say a big
bank wants a law that would force taxpayers
to bail them out again if they repeat
the exact same reckless behavior that crashed the
global economy in 2008.
Not exactly the most popular idea with the
public, and Congress knows that. That should be
the end of it, but that's where the
money comes in.
It's perfectly legal for our bank to hire
a team of lobbyists, whose entire job is
to make sure that the government gives the
bank what it wants. Then those lobbyists can
track down members of Congress who regulate banks,
and help raise a ton of money for
their reelection campaigns.
It's perfectly legal for those lobbyists to offer
those same politicians
$1,000,000
jobs at their lobbying firm. Then those lobbyists
can literally write the language of this new
bailout law themselves
and hand it off to the politician they
just buttered up with campaign money and lucrative
job offers.
And it's perfectly legal for those politicians to
take the lobbyist written language and sneak it
through congress at the last second.
So now you've got a law that greatly
benefits the banks and the whole process can
start over. This is how a bill becomes
a law. A special interest hires some lobbyists,
those lobbyists collect campaign contributions,
offer jobs, and then write the laws that
Congress then passes to help those same special
interests.
This happens every day on every single issue
with politicians of both parties.
In the last 5 years alone, the 200
most politically active companies in the United States
spent $5,800,000,000
influencing your government.
Those same companies got 4,400,000,000,000
in taxpayer support, and that's trillion with a
t.
And that's just the top 200 companies.
Never mind every other special interest, every union,
every trade association, and every billionaire.
Every single one of them can use their
money to buy political influence.
You know, there's this idea out there that
this only became a problem after the Supreme
Court Citizens United decision in 2010,
but the data goes back almost 40 years
and the results are clear.
Corruption is legal in America.
Welcome to the daily wrap up, a concise
show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant
independent news as we see it from the
last 24 hours.
Tuesday, November 5, 2024.
Thank you for joining me today. It's good
to be back. I know a lot of
you have been missing the show,
being in Arizona, if you didn't know that
for the, Liberty on the Rocks conference, which
was really empower was really powerful. Very
learned a lot myself around a lot of
different topics that I think I gravitate towards
ideologically in general, around authority and voting, and
a lot of different conversations. Perfect timing for
it. But interesting coming right up into what
seems to be one of the most,
I don't know. What's the right word for
it? The mania around this political election is
just outrageous more than I've seen before.
And I thought to myself, like, part of
me originally was kind of upset that I
realized the timing and with the travel and
everything that I would be doing a show
today or maybe yesterday instead of kind of
leading up into it like usual. But then
I thought that's probably helpful for my sanity
to not have to deal with this kind
of main this absurdity for and I don't
even just mean whether voting is a legitimate
or not or whether these 2 are the
right choices. Just the the the political hyperbolic
nature of all of it that just has
be got getting more and more cartoonish every
single year.
But it's I think it's good for for
everybody that we have focused on this today
and also
the timing today. So I've been planning today
in general. And I'm as we're as I'm
continuing to add and discuss, this could probably
be a longer show today, I realized that
I won't be really even going live until
most people probably have already, you know, gone
through this process. And I actually thought that
was probably for the best. I want this
conversation today to not be about, like, I'm
out there trying to influence everybody's opinion before
they go to the that's because hopefully, you
all know, maybe for those that are new
to the show, I'm not of the mind
that that translates in any way to the
outcome.
I think the evidence completely backs that up,
which every side seems to point out when
it suits their interests.
So my point is I don't wanna it
even be perceived that I'm trying to influence
because each side will take that as I'm
doing it for the other.
So I think today is more about just
making sure that whatever you did today, hopefully,
you did something that you believe in, something
that you actually feel aligned with your principles
and not just what somebody told you was
what adults would do or the lesser, he's
not as bad, whatever the, you know, the
rationalization is. I I hope you did something
that you actually believe in. That you built
that you can stand by and not just
falling in line because that's all you have
in front of you, which really, as we
all seem to acknowledge, that's what most people
are talking about right now. So I want
it to be seen as just going over
the information, which what what the what we
started with and we're gonna get into right
out of the gate.
Understanding where I come from on this, my
perception, which of course anybody could be wrong.
I think it's important to consider all perspectives
whether around voting, around authority in general, around
the people that are being put in front
of you, the illusion of choice.
And I hope it will reach some people
around
what I think is a much bigger illusion
than than just this one point and what
this selection process is actually leading to and
the overlap with the ongoing genocide which is
getting less attention now than it was before
because of this. So I wanted to talk
about all this today and
break some important things down. Now, I started
with that video. Honestly, I didn't actually plan
to start or play the entire thing for
the most part. Honestly, I didn't actually plan
to start or play the entire thing for
the most part. It looks like for whatever
reason,
StreamYard made some updates on their platform and
now for I couldn't figure it out over
the few minutes that was playing why YouTube
in any way is not actually working today.
Now
probably the least important thing that I would
go over to start because I really don't
care about YouTube, but I know a lot
of you
like to still use that platform. And I
also know that that's where it's important, as
I've always said, to reach people on that
platform because I argue that's who needs to
see it the most. But frustratingly enough, that
is not playing on on YouTube or
a couple other ones, by the way. And
I'm just not even sure why. It doesn't
seem to be any make any sense because
some of them are working and some of
them aren't, and they're all streaming from the
same platform.
I'll have to look at this later. So
just if there's something that's not working where
you are, just recognize that that's likely why.
Share the links to everywhere else, Odysee, Rumble,
whatever else we're plat the other 11 platforms
we're currently streaming on. But
I wanna make sure we start with something
that I shared. If you hadn't seen the
recent, the I I stood an 8 and
a half hour stream,
at Liberty on the Rocks. Now it wasn't
necessarily meant to be a stream that you
sit down and watch. And, hopefully, if you
wanna break it down and do so, it's
a a lot of good conversations in that.
But But it was just meant to be
an all day kinda marathon stream to hopefully
raise raise some donations for us, for them,
for, you know, the and and the awareness
around something that we think is
very
relevant today more than it's ever been, The
illusion of authority. Now this is something we
talked about in a on a a wake
up this morning. And one point that I
was driving home is,
again, at least I hope you can consider
this.
And it it's a weird time we're in
where suddenly when you people say something that
you feel like edges into a territory that
you've been told you're supposed to be very
aggressive and guarded about. And instead of considering
the law the logical route the the information
around it, whether it might mix, people just
put up their guard and react.
And that's a problem
because it shuts off information. You don't that
could be the truth that you're not aware
of. So I think it's important to consider
in this bigger conversation around,
first of all, whether this is the illusion
of choice, whether they're you I mean, which
is quite obvious. I find it hard to
believe that anybody could argue that these two
people are the the pinnacle of what we
have to offer in this country or even
politically or even people that run for president.
Like, it's absurd to think that that's the
2 candidates that make the most sense or
that most people would want, which is again
the point why it seems the vast majority
of the conversation, right on the surface, as
it's being discussed openly, are saying the lesser
of evils. Well, he's you know, god is
probably she's not worse and so he's a
little bit and it's not like we a
lot of people I talk to aren't saying
that they believe that. Like, for example, Tiberius,
we talk about on online is making the
point about Kamala is the the party where
he leans towards and simply saying that, look,
she's committing genocide and she's not the better
of this. And, you know, so from either
side of it, you're seeing the same kind
of they're both really bad, but they're a
little bit better or not as bad. And
I just think that that is a an
alarming
under it undermines what you actually think you're
doing.
But so the point being is that whether
or not any of that's there, I think
we should begin asking a a deeper question.
Let's just say this election itself is completely
legitimate, and these are the best two people
in this country, and we're deciding against the
the two leading people that could change the
world.
Maybe you should still be asking whether this
is something you should be involved in. Maybe
you should start to ask about these foundational
questions, and I'm hoping, like a lot of
other foundational questions that have started to be
asked because of the growing awareness around a
lot of this stuff, whether it's vaccination, whether
it's health in general, big pharma, whether it
is foreign policy or other government, all sorts
of things.
Start to ask, you know, whether there is
an illusion around this. Now you know where
I'm getting at this. I've been talking about
it a lot.
The illusion of authority, the conversation with Larkin
Rose, the idea that voting and, and choosing
people to decide what your life should be
like. Like, cut to the quick of it
and reask yourself whether government is something that
we actually need. Now I know the most
people right now are gonna go, ah, it's
crazy. And just whether it's something that they
might consider or not, it's a hard thing
to begin to understand while this political mania
is so crazy or really at any point
in time. But just for those that are
willing to, as we go through all this
today with what we just discussed on that
video and the idea that it's very it's
mathematically
proven that you don't really have the influence
you think you do and that lobbyists, whether
APAC or anybody else, can literally make it
a 0% chance even if everyone in this
country wants what is being presented.
I mean, really think about that for a
second. If that's possible, then we don't have
the it's
influence that let we we're allowed to have
influence when they think that's okay, whether lobbyists
or whatever else we're talking about. Because repeat
let me repeat it again. The Princeton study
that you saw in the beginning there, the
idea being that if lobbyists decide
they don't want something, they can make it
a 0% chance even if every single American
wants it. So that's a decision on their
part to decide whether or not it matters
enough to just put their foot down or
they wanna let us think we have influence.
That's a that's an open study. It's been
around a long time. There's plenty more around
it. But I think it's obvious that we
are not in the control we think we
are. And so standing back and asking ourselves
whether or not this is something we want
to engage in, and there's a lot of
overlap to everything we're gonna discuss today. But
I think it's time to start asking these
questions
about the foundational idea of government itself, which
is something I'm always talking about. That I
don't I just government is the problem. And
start asking, okay. Well, there's tough questions, which
is what what we discussed at the, the
conference. You know, some of these tougher questions
around these ideas. You know, the usual ones
you get when people haven't taken the time
to, you know, who's gonna build the roads
is when we tend to make fun of
because the idea is you.
The same people. Who's gonna build the road?
Who's gonna deal with this? Who's gonna who's
gonna protect us when foreign you.
The same people. The same military that currently
exist or people that have the willingness or
desire to stand up and defend everybody else
are still there. The only difference is that
the government is not overarching hand is not
dictating what you can and can't do and
what direction you should take and whether we
should invade. It's the comp and again, there's
a lot of complicated conversations to have around
this and nothing's perfect. The reality is that
we don't ultimately know what that will look
like, just like we don't ultimately know what
tomorrow will be under this government, or whether
or not they'll decide to pull the rug
out and put you in something different.
But it's about freedom and liberty. It's about
truly understanding what those things mean. So again,
I I could go off on this forever.
I don't wanna take too much time. I
just want you guys who are willing to
to bring that into your mind to consider
whether there's bigger questions to be asking. Whether
all of this is a facade to get
you deciding,
even grudgingly,
to continue to consent for a system that
is not in your interest.
So we'll go through all this today, and
I hope you will be willing to ask
these questions. So I wanna start with, again,
just this what we just played here for
you guys to see.
And this is a article I put out.
Now it's kind of an ex,
a compilation of something I've wrote in the
written in the past and and other some
excerpts from different articles, and I wanted to
go through this. Now for those that watched
that at least caught that part of the
longer stream we did in Sedona, you might
have seen me already go over this. Now
I felt it was important, but it was
in the middle of an 8 hour stream
and I really wanna go over this again
and it's something that I wrote from a
while a while ago, 2018.
And I want you to consider
it will recognize how a little has changed,
but the ideas around the voting part of
it to begin, the
hidden power of abstention, and, you know, actions
you can take, which by the way, we're
all actually putting forward. Just not in a
22 140 character tweet where we're at being
asked demanded answers. And the point is that
we are constantly, Derrick Brose himself, Whitney, plenty
of us are discussing
actual solutions around this or even within the
voting dynamic if you think that's your choice.
But as I said,
I'm reposting this on Substack
because it's something I wrote in 2018, and
I thought it was important to note how
much has stayed the same since then and
what has gotten worse. And it's and it's
also important to note that this was written
before COVID 1984, so keep that in mind.
So an article from, the Free Thought Project,
Recommend you
check it out. The article on the platform.
Dear America, if voting made any real difference,
they wouldn't let us do it. Now it
says even if you vote or not, and
your party wins or not, the police state
will continue.
Constantly voting for the lesser of 2 evils
has manifested into an inevitable
cycle in which the government gets more powerful
and the people get poorer.
But don't take my word for it. Just
look at the current state of America. No?
2018.
But that simple point
of always and let's not pretend like this
is only right now. It's always for the
last I mean, since I've been aware of
politics, it's always been the most important election
of our lifetime like Elon just said, I
think saying universe. Making it our more cartoonish
if that's possible.
As well as the fact that we're being
told it's a lesser of evils. That's been
something we I mean, everyone's been hearing that
as far back as you can look. You
all know that. So the point is simple.
If you're always choosing a lesser of 2
evils, you're on a downward decline. You're all
it's it's almost exactly makes sense why we
have cartoonish people in front of us running
for because we've all we've let that be
the reality.
Now it says 50% of American workers let
make less than 30,000 well, again, I should
point out right there. So,
you know, my mind will be gravitating towards
the idea that this is whether it's legitimate
or not, we should not be involved in
a process where we choose who gets to
rule or the whatever, the illusion, to rule
over our lives. But I want you to
think about it in the context of this
and the idea
of being allowed to think that these are
the choices that we have in front of
us and the lesser of evil dynamic forcing
you to pick
for somebody to rule over you that ultimately
you don't want. And and that that forces
you to consent to the system.
Even if you think, well, if I do
it now, it'll get better next time. And,
you know, who who knows? Maybe it will.
But, ultimately, that represents you consenting to what
I think is a system that does not
care what you think, but they care about
you protect
feeling that you are influencing it. Now it
says 50% of all American workers make less
than $30,533
a year, 2,018.
In the meantime, however, the political politically connected
elite made up of the point o of
the, 0.1
percent have increased their wealth by more than
$1,000,000,000,000
in the past year. Now, again, remember that
post the COVID 19 era, the transfer of
wealth again, arguably,
I think, clearly, the most the law the
biggest transfer of wealth in US history
through Donald Trump's administration and Dubai's administration.
1,000,000,000,000
back in 2018 also happens to be the
same amount of money that the US taxpayer
has had placed on their backs in the
form of government debt in the last year
too. Coincidence?
Probably not. But if the Republicans keep the
house and we will make America great, right,
That was, you know, the idea for coming
up to Trump's administration. Or if the Dems
take the house, we can finally have nice
things. Right? Same old arguments around and around
is what it says wrong. The reality of
the situation is that no matter who gets
elected, these politicians have already made a faustian
bargain.
So deal with the devil.
To to keep the police and war way
warfare state in power. Which, again, we already
went from to from a democratic administration to
Donald Trump's first administration,
And there's all sorts of narratives and arguments
for why, but it doesn't it's about action
and precedent. We can see,
first of all, historically, that politician will tell
you whatever they want you to hear to
get that we know this. But Trump's different.
Right? But Kamala is special. No. They're not.
The point is that we've already have evidence.
And if you could use Kamala's press vice
presidential run. I mean, that's
all they're everything they've done shows you that
we're gonna continue in the same direction. The
only thing that indicates a difference is that
they tell you that. As always, I really
hope you're right, but I prefer not to
lean into the words and promises of oligarchs
and billionaires.
And technocrats, just me though.
In today's political climate, it is no longer
a question of which party is in power
or which party will usher in totalitarianism.
Instead, we have reached a point of simply
waiting for the hammer to finally fall.
We all feel this right now. I mean,
the the whole the argument is simply that
one side or the other is the one
that will do it. But we're both we're
we we're all feeling this inevitable drive, and
I think we I mean, the great reset
conversation,
technocracy,
foreign policy, all these things are building to
some kind of crescendo right now, and each
side says the other one's gonna be the
one to tip it over the edge. And
if you don't elect me, it's all gonna
likely because that is gonna happen. They just
need an excuse. They need you to think
that it was your fault somehow, that you
didn't pick the right person.
Donald Trump ran on a platform to make
government smaller, get America out of these endless
wars, cease the chaotic
and out of control spending, and rein in
the overreaching executive. Instead, he's continued wars, increased
spending, and followed his predecessor's footsteps in using
his position of president like a dictatorship
with executive order after executive order, which we
all saw.
It's the same thing. Now, of course, you
could always go, well, he had to because
the democrat
narrative.
Even if you argue even if it is
the case, the point is nonetheless the same.
And, of course, it's your government continue to
do the same thing, to use executive order
to rule over you when it's only technically
supposed to apply to the executive branch. And
on top of that, it is illegitimate.
It is not constitutional in everything that they're
doing.
The foreign policy. When was the last time
they declared war? It doesn't exist anymore.
And you could argue all day why. The
point is that they continue to let that
be the reality, and it's foreign influence, and
it's plenty of other things. Lobbying,
warmongering,
most recently threatening to alter the very constitution
with 1, which by the way, is happening
right now.
Both of them, not a question.
All of you, very clearly,
threats about on on your rights, but this
is only seen from one side on the
other. No one can seem to reflect on
the reality of their own
partisan
manipulation.
Now it says one could make the argument
that Trump is not a politician.
Never has been. That's what we used to
hear and still do, actually, which is mind
blowing. And is truly out to buck the
system and bring about an era of change.
While that is debatable, of course, it's possible.
And I really hope that's the case, whether
Kamala or Trump. Why wouldn't we? But I
can promise you, the vast majority of Republicans
would not.
If you said we if if you asked
them, would it be good would it be
good if Kamala ended up being the one
that would save everybody and end up making
a world exactly like you want? Would you
support that? I can promise you most would
say no. In reverse, the same thing. Ask
democrats.
We saw that we saw it the last
time. And I'm talking about democrats and republicans,
not necessarily liberals and conservatives, which I think
are more of the middle ground. Is that
you've asked and said, well, if Trump would
ultimately roll out exactly what you wanted, no.
We wouldn't support because he Trump's baddie.
So it shows you that it's about ideology.
It's about hatred. It's about pettiness. If you
wanted things and it ultimately came to pass,
what does it matter if the person
it's all petty?
And I say, I've since and then my
ultimate point is always is I hope that
you're right because we should all want that.
We should want it to go in a
positive direction. But sadly, I don't think that's
the case. I said, however, as I've said
many times, abstention is a legitimate political stance
to take in the face of such overwhelming
collusion and corruption. That's one of the points
of this. To abstain,
to fit to actually vote
abstention, which, by the way, they're supposed to
legally count and tally and put on the
screen, but they don't. Because they don't want
you to know that. They don't want you
to recognize that half this country chooses not
to participate out of protest every year. But
it says, it is important that every American
honor this nation's true values
by following their heart and voting for who
you truly believe in, even if that may
be no one,
which we're gonna get into, the very valid
stance of of arguing that this is illegitimate
from, some influential people, saying that I can't
vote on this because I have a hard
line of genocide, neither one of them will
acknowledge it. That's one. And plenty other points.
But the idea is that I I know
most of you, and I've spoken to a
lot of people
who are not voting for who you believe
in, and then may that's largely because there
is nobody like that. That you see that,
Donald Trump calls himself the father of the
vaccine. You can see that he's blindly supporting
Israel and being funded by Israeli oligarchs to
do illegal things or any number of other
things we could point out. Or Kamala Harris
can recognize that she without question is blindly
supporting Israel's genocide, has been carrying it out
and funding it and being involved with it
and gaslighting for it, or the any number
of other obvious problems around her policy.
So and you're hearing that from both of
these sides. So they go, well, I'm gonna
pick her here, him, or her because of
that. That means you don't truly believe in
either.
I I I don't even know why we
have to sell people on the idea that
if you were to look at candidates and
none of them really truly align with what
you think, you why would you vote for
them? Because we're being told by the people
in the know,
right, who just so happened to be invested
in the machine, right, That you're supposed
to play compromise. That you're supposed to act
like, well, it's a difficult choice. Well, how
about it's not the case? Are we really
to pretend that there's not one person in
the if you had people running for president
with open with no restrictions,
When anybody could put their name in the
hat, which is how this is supposed to
work in a real representative idea, well, then
I guarantee you there's somebody out there who
you would absolutely align with. And maybe that's
gonna be a scattered percent the point is
if you really wanna get to the point
of the the react the the truth of
what we're doing here,
it should be somebody that you believe in,
somebody that you stand by. And if you
don't see anybody like that, why would you
vote for somebody like that? Because they need
the outcome. Even if I argue it's not
truly happening because of what we're voting, but
they need you to see that. They need
you to see the outcome.
So think about what I'm saying. Like, the
idea being is they drive you to pick
a choice because if you don't, well, that
delegitimizes
what they're doing. That's it.
I mean, why why else would they who
cares if you don't involve yourself? Because if
all they really need is the outcome in
the context of the election and the person
put in position, and it wasn't about tricking
us into thinking it's going on, then wouldn't
they just who cares if you're involved?
Right? Because you have to think about why
they care so much. It's about perception
for all of them. That's right on the
surface of it all because there's no other
logical reason why they would be so aggressively
trying to get you or, like, forcing you,
pressuring you, threatening, telling you you're a child
if you because they need that participation.
Now it says the concept of abstention
dates back to the founding fathers. Now, again,
if they cared just about you, that would
be a main discussion point. Feel free to
abstain if you don't but that's been taken
off the table.
It dates back to the founding fathers and
the creation of the country.
An extensive paper written by Grant m Hayden
I'd entitled abstention, the unexpected power of withholding
your vote, breaks down this idea and shows
how this practice has been used throughout history
in just the type of situation Americans currently
find themselves. By the way, 2018, yet again
today. It says in some cases, people abstain
when they are indifferent
among the electoral choices or when they judge
the benefits of voting to be outweighed by
the cost. Now fur let's take the first
line.
You know, just very benign. Right? It's not
like we're talking about some hyper, like,
serious where basically, if you don't do that,
you're you're,
you know, turning on your country. If you
don't do this, you're ch you know, you're
bucking what you believe in. No. It's simply
saying that. Sometimes, you just choose to abstain
because you're in kinda I don't care. Neither
one works for me.
Because that's how it's supposed to work.
But that the point is without that choice,
it seems like there it's it's driving you
to pick as opposed to just recognizing that
it's about leaning into what you believe in.
And so his point is that sometimes in
the past, you just simply say, I don't
like either, so I'm gonna abstain. Then it
says, or when they judge the benefits of
voting to out be outweighed by the cost.
Now it's weird that that's something that nobody
would talk about today. That would call you
somehow, you know, like treasonous almost. But the
bottom line is that we can recognize that
you're voting,
and the so called benefits of this, which
are hard to identify,
wildly outweighed by the costs, which are that
you continue to consent to a system that
is continually removing which arguably, has removed the
things that we think we live under and
are actively driving you into a very dangerous
position,
which I'll get into today around the technocratic
drive, and I think is
transparently
being driven in by Trump's administration.
Like, on the surface.
And I think it's very concerning that people
can't recognize. Even if you think the voting
process is legitimate, recognize that by consenting to
that, you are allowing that system to go
forward. And it says the underlying assumption is
that abstention, unlike voting, is neutral with respect
to the outcome.
So right now think about that. Now the
point where they're screaming about how you have
to vote, you can't vote, you know, you're
rather a third party because you're giving it
to the other person. Well, what about that?
Right? The idea that, well, I'm it's I'm
abstaining on the record, which means I'm not
allowing it one way or the other. Doesn't
that remove that challenge? Well, you see, that's
one of the other reasons why it's got
been taken away because they can't allow you
to stand in the middle on the record
because then that's they can't convince you that
you're somehow helping the other side when you
do so. They would still probably argue that
by doing that, you're, you know, that would
be the one vote we need, but that's
the point. That's our choice. My choice is
who I vote for. I can write in
my own name. Right? That's part of those
countries where you can write in names. Isn't
that the same difference?
It says, but while the contours of the
right to vote have been the subject of
a tremendous amount of scholarship across many disciplines,
Abstention, despite its obvious connection to the right
to vote, has been almost completely ignored.
Abstaining from a presidential election, or for any
that matter,
is your right,
for now. I mean, technically still is, but
for now even who knows with all the
change? But right now it's not even talked
about. It's been, like,
erased from discussion.
But it says despite the clear effort to
make it seem somehow un American,
even though it's quintessentially American, when it really
is a quintessential
part of the American history.
And and just voting in general. But it
says, when confronted this is my writing, by
the way. When confronted with all the damning
information about not only the 2 preapproved and
preselected choices in this 2 party system, but
the system in its entirety. The entire facade
begins to come down.
Once we begin to see beyond the deception,
it's easy to see the two faced nature
of this political game. A great example of
this was made clear in an old video
by High Impact Flix, which we removed from
YouTube. Again, showing Obama essentially supporting Clinton or
rather, you know, same as we saw today.
Telling her that she's the worst, she can
ruin the country, and then supporting her when
it's necessary. Same thing we saw with Vance
and Trump and RFK and Trump and, you
know, all these different examples. Now it says,
so which does he really believe? Neither, both,
or is he simply falling into line? Alright.
That's hard to tell. But it shows you
that we're not actually dealing with honesty.
At the end of the day, when you
feel that pressure
that is indeed being placed on every American
to go out and vote, regardless of your
understanding, your passion, or your desire, realize that
you are being manipulated to fall in line
and further legitimize what has become no more
than an elite run selection process framed absurdly
as democracy in action. And if history is
any judge, regardless of the outcome, Americans can
hope for things to remain the same at
best, and at worst,
well, I bet that will be becoming very
clear to everyone.
Now I might might as well just take
this off so you guys can see me
if that makes sense more well, I don't
know. Actually, the chat well, I guess the
chat's not there today. I was gonna say
what you guys prefer. So reading it along
with me or looking at it, I'll switch
back and forth. But so this one is
an article. I think this was from
what was it?
The link's not popping up. It's on Substack.
But another article, the link is in there
for you to check out. Politicians now threatening
and encouraging violence in the land of the
free. At the end of the day, you're
forced to choose between 2 self serving candidates
who will say whatever BS they have to
gain and retain power.
People think they can use their vote to
get the right guy in power, but the
truth is the new guy just turns into
the last guy because the whole system is
broken. Now you can agree or disagree with
this, but I think historically, we can obviously
see this continuation.
Now I know one of the par arguments
right now is that Trump is this anomaly.
He's different. But I don't know why the
evidence does not suggest that. What they say
out loud might make you think that. I
hope you're right. But it's it's hard to,
to understand why people would believe
words of politicians, promises of people in positions
that have already shown you they're not or
shown you that the system won't allow them
to, however you wanna look at it. What's
different right now? Right? If the idea was
that they wouldn't let them do it last
time, what's changed? Why do you think to
this time will be any different? Because RFK
is on his side? I mean, it doesn't
logistically make the difference. Or the idea that
what hap weren't we told that Democrats, you
know, stole the election? Okay. Well, then what's
what's the different net what's different now? Is
it somehow no are they did you do
something to protect yourself? Well, no. It's the
exact same dynamic, and we'll go over that
in a minute.
So you're just gonna let them steal it
again and call it out again and then
be pushed back again? Like, it's it it
seems kinda it seems like the kind of
conversation of insanity. We're just doing the same
thing over and over, respecting a different result.
Even if you're correct,
doesn't that show you something odd that we
just rushed into this acting like, well, the
same thing won't happen this time despite already
being told that that's what's gonna happen? It
just it feels like you're being led to
a foregone conclusion for the interest of something
other than the outcome of the election.
But it says the government spends almost every
tax dollar it takes in to pay interest
on its debt. Only worse today, well well
past the COVID illusion and on entitlements like
Social Security, Medicare.
And the government's own projections show the country
going only deeper and deeper into debt, which
is just crazy. And so any choice leads
to the same set of dire economic consequences.
And by voting, you're saying you accept the
current system. And that's an important point, to
see the kind of continuation of the same
financial problem.
And the point is not just one of
these different categories, but all of them. All
of the major points. Foreign policy in Israel,
whatever we're discussing. They love to tell you
something different, but if you stand back and
watch, it goes in the same direction every
time.
I hope it won't this time. But I
think if we understand,
you should basing it on, again, the words
as opposed to the history and what they've
done, the precedent seems a little bit naive
to me.
But it says in the government's own projection,
so it will continue. So any choice leads
to the same. And by voting, you're saying
you accept the system and may have your
gripes,
but you ultimately believe it's fair and it
works, is what you're saying by investing in
this.
The reality is there are far better ways
to actually vote. For 1, you can vote
with your feet.
That's something this person did a decade ago
when they moved abroad. Now, obviously, not everyone
can do that. And I think I are
s I stand from a a position where
if
I find it more important to stay and
fight
for what I believe this can be. Because
I do have a belief in this the
the people of this country. I do believe
that there's a positive change that we could
see, and I think leaving
I mean, it it's it's it's to each
their own. I think I can have more
effect
here, despite the risks.
But it says that's not for everybody. Some
can't. But you can also vote with your
dollars, which is something you hear me say
often. You should take all the legal steps
at your disposal to reduce what you owe
the government. If you don't like the candidate,
simply stop participating in the system.
Stop giving them resources to squander
for your benefit, end quotes. Remember, the government
spends your money,
not theirs. So if you want to stop
if you want them to stop wasting money,
stop giving them so much. So while everyone
else lines up to vote in the midterms,
if this that was the point, 2018,
then then proudly post a picture of their
I voted sticker on social media. Just remember,
there are better ways to make your vote
count.
Then it gets funny that 2018 midterm is
the most important election. They actually said that.
They do every time. But the logic behind
not voting. I wrote it's pretty easy to
comprehend the initial logic behind the pointlessness of
voting.
When when you just look at the distinct
level of corruption that takes place in government
today,
Decades of continued wealth inequality and power centralization
do not exactly offer any glimmers of hope
that the democratic process is just and represents
the will of the people. Now even that
should be inclusive of democrat the process.
But
if that study is not enough logic to
point out, the the Princeton study, it's top,
that the uselessness,
to point out the uselessness of voting in
that system that is corrupted, just look at
the last 5 presidents at the time. 3
republicans
and 2 democrats.
Trump, Bush, Bush, and Clinton and Obama. With
minor adjustments for current group think and wedge
issues, they all carried on with the same
destructive policies.
So did Trump, by the way.
They all started imperialist wars overseas, committed massive
war crimes. They all destroyed the value of
currency through terrible monetary policy. They all furthered
and their,
oops.
Just lost my spot there.
Oh, I'm sorry. By the way, I said
I meant Trump,
Bush, and Bush. I think I forget I
think I said that, but in case I
said it wrong. But, where was I?
They all,
started imperialist wars, committed massive war crimes, they
all destroyed the value of the currency through
terrible monetary policy. You always do a different
narrative and and justification.
Right? During COVID, it was Putin's fault somehow.
You know, it's always the narrative.
They all enacted laws to further government police
spying power as Whitney's covered very well. Trump
was a passionate leader of that, including things
like the red flag laws that got somebody
killed and the bump stock laws around guns.
You know, but we don't wanna talk about
those things.
It's just just as bad for Kamala. But
what I'm most alarmed about is that people
that believe Trump's different don't wanna talk or
see those things.
They all enacted those laws. And most importantly,
they all sold their country out for personal
gains. Someone to act like the politicians are
doing their best.
Right? That's one thing we keep hearing, like,
it's not an imperfect thing and we just
have, Well, you're probably right. But the idea
that we should allow
the continued degradation and selling out of our
country because, well, they couldn't do any better,
is the lesser of evils in a 4
year process. We should not accept that.
I mean, it's it's as simple as that.
And if we think that going along is
somehow the responsible thing to do,
well, history says otherwise.
It says it's the other team's fault, is
the argument, or claim it's just very complicated
to understand the ins and outs of US
politics. Right?
We cannot be so naive.
The harsh reality is that a criminal network
sits at the top of the pyramid, which
has engulfed both the left and the right
side of politics to form one team of
true power, team establishment.
While people misplace the root causes of the
problem by picking puppets in the phony left
versus right paradigm,
it's business as usual for the criminal puppet
masters behind the scenes.
The masses don't even know who or what
they're fighting against, resulting in little to no
real resistance against the true problems.
This has to change, and quite frankly, has
begun to change with the awareness of Zionism
as one part, but a very central part
to that.
Now I might just jump past this. This
is about psychological hurdles
and and the reality being,
it it just simply says that this is
where it gets extremely tough for people, where
they get in that situation where they feel
like if they don't, they're letting people down.
If they do, they feel people feel they're
better than the other because I voted and
you didn't. It's the it is a it's
definitely a useful dynamic for them. It says,
naturally, people want to view their country and
its process as favorable.
Therefore, it's a painful dose of reality to
swallow when they figure out that they've been
manipulated.
Now the point was it says,
the combination of these results of, you know,
inner egotistical pride to vote and then outer
social isolate isolation for not, both of which
have devastating effects on the human psyche. It
traps many people into a psychological box that
the result has been that that
into a psychological box that the system has
built for them, using pride, guilt, and fear
as the invisible change that control them into
thinking voting is the only solution for change,
which we'll talk about.
Under savior complex. No savior is coming to
save the people.
It is now, and it's only ever been,
the people who can save themselves.
And it's so easy to get emotionally attached.
Now I'm glad you just remembered this, by
the way.
Steve from this morning from and and Wake
Up had a great point this morning.
It it's just very logical. You know? The
idea simply that we're watching
a you know, it's he he said the
way he put it was that the the
way they created this
emotional connection.
It's like when you're watching a TV or
movie series or movies TV series or movies
where
you emotionally connect because that's how that's the
whole point. Right? It makes it you know,
it's entertaining, and it they can sell you
more things
that they have created this emotional kind of
facade of connection to these people. They create
these personas. They make them they try to
make them personalized,
and they do this so you're not thinking
about policy. You're thinking about and and even
the point being is that you'll you'll fight
for these people. You're emotionally invested with their
identity, which is not even their identity.
I mean, it's a very it's obvious.
I mean, it's and I don't even think
it should have to be explained.
Even my point is that people would almost
expect that from politics today, and then still
go into the process anyway. But it's inherently
psychologically manipulative. That's that's what this ultimately is.
So it's easy to get emotionally attached to
the idea of having a hero save the
day.
It removes us from feeling personally responsible for
the atrocities committed or being allowed to take
place. Except, of course, when we must momentarily
climb free of our apathetic stupor and vote
for 1 of the 2 pre approved heroes,
then retreat back to the comforting suffocation of
the subtle but ceaseless reassurances that we have
fulfilled our patriotic duty by choosing not to
acknowledge how utterly redundant it all is and
how literal actually changes.
No one individual, one bill, one action, one
president, will ever be the one thing we
have been waiting for to save the day.
Mean, as I keep I point out every
time. Well, Obama was gonna change the world,
but the Republicans wouldn't let him. Right? We
keep hearing Trump was gonna change everything, but
the Democrats wouldn't let okay. Fine. Even if
that's true.
How do we not recognize that shows you
the system is designed to not change? Even
if they don't know it. There's so much
evidence and we all know that.
I would argue that the vast majority of
people know that, but they're still convinced by
screaming partisans that we have to play that
because that's just the way it is. It's
the best system we've got. Or whatever they
say to make you think that this broken
thing makes sense.
How it's that meme I couldn't find the
other day about the Aztecs.
Right? A little cartoon, rather. Where these Aztecs
are at the bottom of this pyramid looking
up at the guy, pulling a heart out
of some, pull out of the chest of
some some slave or whatever they kidnapped.
And they're and they're standing there going, you
know, it's not a perfect system, but it's
the best one we've got. I was like,
yeah, you're damn right. It's exactly the problem.
Well, let's stick let's stay with this heart
this heart pulling out of chest dynamic because,
you know, we can't think of something better.
Now that seems like an extreme comparison,
but think about what we keep talking about.
Right? We the idea that, well, it's like,
okay, we go through the process and we
explain how clear it is that the voting's
been manipulated, whether Russia influenced it or Trump
cheated or whatever you wanna say, we all
acknowledge that it's not working.
And then when we come to the point
of voting again, we'll go, Okay. Now that
we all agree that there's something broken, we'll
do something different. Right? No. No. We'll vote.
But why? Well, what else are we gonna
do? I don't know what else But it's
broken! It's like, Ah, it's the best thing
we've got.
It it it's if you I almost wish
that it was
more hyperbolic
and more alarming that you have a bunch
of, you know,
hearts being pulled out of chest at the
White House. Like, the point to be, like,
that's so crazy that we the problem is
that they put this veneer on it to
make it seem like it's normal,
and we know it's broken.
It's not the best system we've got. It's
the best it's the only thing they put
in front of you. As if again, it's
the illusion of choice in its own right.
So when you compare it to the idea
of the Aztecs and what we're talking about
in that cartoon, it just makes it more
extreme, but it shows you the dynamic.
You're gonna get you're gonna stay you're gonna
be stuck with people, the hearts pulling out
of chest dynamic, or you're gonna go, well,
maybe we should fight for something better. Maybe
we should stop allowing the process even though
they tell us that's the best we should
expect or that's the only thing we have
right now. It's the it's the same thing.
Obviously, without hearts being pulled out of chest.
But it says, no one individual will save
you.
Now action is important. Now this is something
that people
aggressively try to misrepresent that we don't talk
about, even though
almost every time this conversation's had in earnest,
not in a passing point, it's just being
discussed. And as always, I will highly recommend
Derek Rose's work. I have a link to
his exit and build later in the show.
And it's just one of the many things
we discussed or he's outlined and had years
of
discussions and videos and and documents about how
to do it. There's so much information out
there about different things to do. And this
is about not just, you know, ignoring this
and building a homestead. There's a 1,000 different
dynamics to this just in what he's talking
about. Or the things I will discuss here
or plenty of other things we've gone over.
But this is about specifically
action, what can you do then? If you
think voting's broken and it's not happening and
you don't want to or you're gonna protest,
what else can you do?
And I said, this is where the biggest
point should be made, and it cannot be
stressed enough. And I argue as always that
I'll I'll play some clips about this. In
my opinion, voting is just about the least
politically active thing you can do.
That that is even if it's exactly what
you think it is, mind you. If it's
not, then it's useless and mindless. It's actually
counterintuitive.
But not voting does not mean you're not
politically active. Now let's put it this way.
Even if somebody doesn't even care. They're they
just don't wanna do it. They don't care.
They don't the voting's I don't wanna go
to the vote voting booth. That's the only
reason. But then later, go out and do
other things that are put that I would
argue that that you're not not engaged just
because you don't check a box.
But I would argue the majority of people
in my experience, at least from what I've
asked,
are not doing it because they don't care.
They're not voting because they feel they're being
lied to, because they think the system is
broken, because they don't think it represents all
the choices.
On and on and on and on. It's
multifaceted.
And if they were given the option to
abstain on the record, they probably would.
But I said, this is so important to
understand because many people equate the civil disobedient
act of not voting
with doing nothing politically.
When in fact, it should be the direct
opposite.
Meaning, the political system is so screwed up
that all citizens have a personal responsibility
to move outside the system and change it.
This is call this is a call to
action that should be embraced so that future
generations can prosper
or at least have a fighting chance.
People need to get more directly politically active
in order to manifest a system that works
for the people. Instead of pretending like voting
along party lines is changing anything.
It's time people understand that there's there are
many political actions besides voting that can be
far more powerful and bring about far more
change than any type of vote.
Here are 3, among many,
that we've talked about ad nauseam,
3 concrete actions that people can take right
now in order to change the system.
Each one is a hell of a lot
more politically active than checking off a person's
name in a ballot box. Now before I
go over these, I wanna stress again, and
this I know for some that haven't gone
into the other conversations, it seems confusing, but
it's my point is the same as always.
If we are forced to exist in this
kind of system, which we are at the
moment, then these things I find important.
But if I have a choice to build
a system, it would not be one where
a state exists or where government rules over
your life. In other words, obviously, as you
if you watched the panel we did at
the end of the the conference,
there would be voting in a lot of
different multifaceted ways, whether it's about simple things
about what you're gonna do that day or
simple larger things where the community discusses what
they want and the outcome. But not in
the context of voting who gets to decide
what you do or who what representative gets
to stand there and act like they're telling
you what you want you guys to do.
Boy, that's not really how that goes. But
I just wanna make that clear
that I am very much more leaning toward
the anarchism, algorithm,
volunteerism mindset.
And I think that's important to make a
distinction about.
But if while we're in this in this
system and we are forced to engage with
it, it's important to consider
the other dynamics around that that I think
are incrementally would be leading us away from
the state.
1, get involved at the local level or
state level.
There are many strategies to bring about change.
So the point here is not to say
don't ever vote despite being misrepresented about that
all the time, but more so to say
do not participate in a rigged game.
If you can see all of the obvious
reasons we have pointed out in this or
I've discussed in this article, demonstrating that the
system is ultimately a fraudulent one, Ask yourself
why you would still then choose to participate
in something that is broken, fraudulent, deceptive.
However, if you still have faith, the system
can be salvaged, which I know plenty of
you do. For example, Catherine Austin Fitts, who
I very much respect more than most,
is of the mind that this is something
that can be done. So it's something that
I consider myself.
My point is that I think, again, my
core value is about this not the state
not existing regardless of whether it's exactly the
way it's supposed to be. But nonetheless, I
my point is to consider all perspectives
and flush it out for yourself. So the
argument is if you're in that camp, then
the local and state governments may be salvageable.
We talk about this every time about during
COVID 19 and Tennessee. The active, very well
carried out measures to
get people in the school board.
Or get a new per you know, over
there, I don't think this was Tennessee, but,
you know, we're getting a new sheriff in
place. And the idea being that these things
have very obvious immediate effects. The school board
example in this in a sea, the remove
the mask mandate. And the point being is
that there is clear ability to affect things
immediately in your life.
But I would argue just like anything else,
those things are potentially manipulated as well. But
it's up to you to decide. Not just
based on what I say, but think for
yourself. And I support your choice even if
I disagree with it if you truly believe
in it.
Now 2, practice algorithm
by operating outside the system. As much as
humanly possible, operate outside the corrupt aspects of
the system,
which is everything in my opinion right now.
This includes transferring your money outside of criminal
banks, getting into other asset classes besides fiat
currencies,
not paying taxes. Again, there's obvious consequences here,
especially with this one.
But this is my the point would be
that there are actions you can take to
pull away from it, but recognize that a
corrupt system is gonna fight back against that.
Now, there's plenty of people from the IRS
that have made videos and, like, left their
jobs and make videos about how the entire
thing is an illegal institution. I completely agree
with that.
Doesn't mean they're not gonna show up at
your door with a gun. So consider that
for yourself. But eating eating locally,
organically,
canceling your cable package, quitting jobs that are
unethical, boycotting institutions that constantly demonstrate corruption, and
stop giving your dollars to entities that you
are against.
The more energy we give to the system,
the better it functions.
3, speak out and spread knowledge, which is
where I think is an important like, it's
the argument of doing what we're doing on
this show, which I by the way, as
you well know, if you're watching the show,
we also do things out in the world
on a regular basis. But people often make
the assumption, then, as you should never do,
the mistake to assume that this is all
we do, and they scream about stop talking
and get out there and do things, which
by the way, both are very important. I
argue equally important to keep the information flowing,
to keep informed, to keep connected, but then
also get out there and do things in
the real world. But I said it is
all it is not always the big actions
that are the most important. Sometimes it's the
culmination of many small individual actions which result
in big changes.
Getting the masses
access
to real knowledge is the most important part
of the movement right now, and I still
stand by that. So it's important to seize
every opportunity to speak out and spread information.
The flow of information cannot be stopped if
it is constantly being spread,
especially since we're finding new avenues to do
so. The more people begin to speak up,
the harder the controllers of the system will
find it hide.
Their weak information and lies will not be
able to hold up logically or psychologically
once enough people awaken and spread the truth.
And I are I genuinely believe that's happening
right now. That's why I think this has
gotten so much of a crazy response, which
we're going to in a minute,
which I've talked about in the past. And
all of a sudden, this year, people just
lost their minds about what we're saying even
though we've done it for
set 4 elections in the past. You're simply
saying vote no one, 2024, or the 2
party illusion.
All of a sudden, it's a huge deal.
I think it shows vulnerability. I think it's
obvious. And the same thing with what's going
on in foreign policy.
The issue for them, for the power structure,
is that people are starting to see through
all of these things. The COVID 19 illusion
was a catalyst of it. We've talked about
many other examples about people are starting to
see through these larger deceptions.
They're just not able to control your opinion
very well anymore. And that's why I think
we're being driven into this technocratic control structure
for one of many reasons. But they people
are seeing through it.
Now I said always remember that political action
is not confined to voting.
In fact,
some of the most powerful political actions have
had nothing to do with voting. Martin Luther
King Junior, Mahatma Gandhi, they didn't use voting
to ignite a civil rights movement. Just like
we don't need to rely on the elections
to bring about real change. It's time people
realize change is not coming from the top
down. It happens bottom up. So instead of
worrying about the elections, challenge yourself to get
out and take direct action towards change. It
really is the only way to true paradigm
shift if consciousness will ever come about.
We have the power,
and we don't need representatives
to use it.
Now I'll include this article, by the way.
You guys might have forgotten I interviewed doctor
Shiva.
2024, running for president in a broken system.
Now one thing I said recent, a couple
times already talking about that was, you know,
if you if I if there's anything that
would actually convince me that I'm wrong about
what's going on or that I there is
something salvageable or the system isn't completely corrupt
is if somebody like doctor Shiva got voted
in.
Because I the way and it's and there's
I've I've got plenty of opinions I haven't
talked about in the past. The things I
don't agree with, even just like, you know,
conduct, different things. But I I I think
more than anybody, I agree with what doctor
Sheba has to say.
But I don't think the system I I
my point is that I'm out of protest,
not even
pro engaging. I'm not writing anybody's names in.
I would, by the way, check abstention if
it was gonna be tallied and it was
gonna be up there because that's the protest.
But it's not, so I'm simply not engaging.
My point though is that doctor Shiva
is an outlier,
highlighting all of, you know, the swarm as
he calls it from both sides of it.
And my point would be is that if
he somehow just got like, if we went
through the process and they, oh my god,
doctor Shiva won the presidency, I would completely
be convinced that I was wrong about this.
I just don't think that's gonna happen. I
think the the what I'm saying, I think,
is the reality. But so I I wanted
to include this because I think it's an
important point to think about. There are other
people out there. Even people that are somewhat
prominent and somewhat discussed and interviewed, even in
this conversation, but not even mentioned when it
comes to the real dynamic.
So if you're out there and you're a
republican, whatever side you're on,
And you're acting like they're only like it's
irresponsible because there's only actual two choices. And
all what what about I mean, we've talked
about I don't believe in almost anything. Jill
Stein, for example, or or doctor Shiva, which
I think I I it's not even a
a good example for this because I think,
honestly, Jill Stein is was what she said
about the genocide, for example, is continuing to
kind of allow that mindset even though she
acts like she it's doesn't seem honest to
me. And I've seen examples of her in
the past that don't don't make me believe
that she is not
actually fine. But, you know, you can decide
for yourself. But the Shiva example, I think,
is an interesting anomaly. Again, I don't agree
with everything he has to say, but
he comes at it from an angle that
I would support more than anybody else.
And if he were to be elected, that
would change my mind.
So I just think that's interesting, that people
could argue that there's nobody else, but somebody
like this is an actual alternative.
And does have policy, and does have an
understanding of the 2 party illusion and things
that we but won't even be discussed.
That's interesting to me. Doesn't that seem kind
of a counterintuitive
idea that we're talking about elections and choices
and you accept you're not even I'm the
one irresponsible for not for pretending like only
2? You know, it just it seems
on the surface ridiculous.
But, Derek put out a couple of good
articles about
voting in general. Now what's funny is that
people tend to frame this as one side
or the other. Now as if you've heard
me say many times over this process,
as I said in the beginning already, I
think it's very obvious to me anyway
that Donald Trump is the selection, and I'll
point out some others that have the similar
opinion.
And I thought that is for my one
of the many reasons why I am focusing
more on that concerning point as well as
the fact that I think Kamala Harris is
a cartoonist.
Even more so than she was before. That
what she's been doing is, like, clownish, like,
out in the open saying things like I
mean, I've gone over all examples.
It is a standout to me that seems
like you're trying to tank this whole thing.
You know, you I mean, you guys see
the same thing.
So to me, that seems like more of
an indication that it's about driving Trump into
place.
But my point is is that the people
that I would argue are the most
willing or most
who want to see
the same things we're fighting for. This is
why I argue that most of the conservatives,
even liberals in this conversation, are genuinely wanting
good things. Like Brian's interview, high impact flicks
at the rally. I think most people he
struck that that that he talked to struck
me as good people who genuinely believe, and
I think wrongly, that Trump is doing right
by them, but it's that they want good
outcomes. So they're not the problem. They're being
deceived by a problem. That's for both sides
of this.
But that's why I think I focus on
his side more because, ultimately,
the people voting for him are the ones
that want liberty, constitute they believe in the
constitution. And there it goes it's both sides
of that. There's plenty of Democrats that have
similar values despite them framing them incorrectly.
But I see that as more of a
problem, if that makes sense. But, you know,
and you maybe you're right. Maybe I am
incorrectly focusing. My point is that I I'm
explaining why, and it's not because I want
Kamala to win. I think both of them
are parts of the government.
That's the obvious reality of this, that it
is your government. Left and right is the
illusion keeping you invested in your government's control
over your life. And as long as they
keep flip flopping, you keep thinking like things
are changing, like Jimmy Dorr's point, which makes
sense.
The the Biden administration has been committing genocide.
Trump is not in power despite him clearly,
outrageously on the surface telling you he will
continue it. We'll get into that too.
The point is that, obviously, Biden is the
administration that's doing it, that's openly supporting it.
So you could argue that we have to
punish them and vote for the other side.
My point is that's the same thing they
do. Next, it'll be them in power, and
they'll have to punish them by voting for
the other side. And it cycles around. The
lesser of evils, the 2 party illusion, we're
on a hamster wheel. So he writes an
article called Four Reasons Not TO Vote for
Kamala Harris.
Very well done.
Important. And there's obviously more than 4 points.
The point is to I to make it
something that is cons you know, concise and
and breaking down the highlights, and this was
about COVID 19,
vaccine propaganda,
social media censorship, all the, you know, Zionist
support backed by the Bilderberg group. Plenty of
good points in there as well on top
of that.
And and it's not some point. 100%.
I do not, without question, want you to
vote for Kamala Harris, but it's up for
you to decide. And, again, I don't want
it to be about me trying to influence
what you vote for. I'm trying to influence
the your opinion of voting and hopefully change
your mindset on this after this elect selection
process. Right? So you most of you probably
already went out and did this. So what
I'm hoping to do is change your mind
about the entire thing going forward, and hopefully,
we can see some positive change in the
future.
But he also wrote the article called for
reasons not to vote for Donald Trump.
And same same idea. This one is about
the callings of the father of the COVID
shots,
support for limited freeze limiting free speech. All
this is easy to prove.
Zionist supports all the same stuff. But not
not as the other article, but the stuff
we've talked about with Trump.
Now also, this is an important article he
wrote called election 2024,
Zionist technocrats versus Zionist technocrats.
Now, this is the most one of the
most important points.
Which is that they're both,
without question, backed by Zionists and technocrats.
So, arguably, which I hope is easy to
see, you could argue that no matter who
gets elected, the same people are going to
win.
Which is the point we're all trying to
make.
And, you know, may I guess if you
wanted to think that one of them might
have more or less influence you know, I
I I get the the rationale that you
try people try to give themselves to think
that, you know, he may be a little
bit better at fighting them or he may
be a little bit better at not restricting
your free speech,
but that kills me that we're banking on
somebody who will do less of the bad
thing. You know? As opposed to finding somebody
who believes in the constitution, who believes in
all these things. And I know he loves
to say that, but it's verifiable that that's
not what's happening. And even his statements on
what they're going to do prove to you
that they don't believe in those things.
Now it comes down to the same idea
of the left and the woke right, the
woke left, the idea that we see it
on the right where they're saying, you know,
it's okay that we censor these people because
we don't like what they're saying. Right? They
don't like this or they're pro Palestine, so
we can do or any number of overlaps.
It exists on both sides,
and they're using whatever they think you can
whatever they can do specifically tailored towards convincing
you to go along with the same point.
Over here, it's this thing. Over here, it's
that thing. And they're both driving you in
the same direction.
So the point on this is do you
look at Kamala Harris?
People like Eric Schmidt,
Bill Gates, George Soros, rather, Alex Soros, these
are backing these are just a few of
them. And Forbes wrote articles about both. There's
major billionaire
backing for both of them. And, arguably, it
does seem like there's been more funding coming
in from billionaires to Trump just based on
the over just the objective viewing of all
of it. But in my opinion, it's a
it's a minor difference. We're still it's about
the support.
And the money, whether it's now in their
hands, will be there when they need it
because it's all in the future because they
that's what these people are doing. So it's
important. I don't think it's about trying to
compare who's got more of this. It's about
recognizing they're both being backed by technocrats and
Zionists and billionaires and oligarchs. That's what matters.
And Al Skarp, of course, from Palantir.
And on the other side of it, you
got Peter Thiel with Donald Trump, and they're
both here's an image where they're standing with
Israel using Palantir
to support the genocide.
And you got Alex Karp there, and you
got Peter Thiel there.
That I think is a very important
picture to think about right now. Right? So
after the Again, Trump supporters, you have Peter
Thiel.
And this is just some of them. Elon
Musk, Mary Madison, an oligarch from Israel that's
spent getting him a $100,000,000
in order to allow to get him to
do illegal things, which is not a debate.
Occupate more to more
what's the word I'm just settling? You know,
taking of West Bank land is illegal, no
matter how you spin it. Though even the
US government says that. And so she is
going, I want that, and he said, okay.
It's all on the record.
There were articles about it. Even Haratz's prior
rather Israeli media was praising the whole thing.
Silicon Valley,
oligarchs,
Timothy Mellon. We've talked about all of these
people. Nicole Shannon from RFK Jr's vice president.
I mean, the point is the illusion of
choice.
It's worth reading.
Now let's talk about well, actually, first, I
wanted to give just, you know, in a
humorous light, just show you some of the
things that Sal Diagris pointed out. And then
some of these are also, I think from,
Steve from a wake up. But, you know,
it just this is just funny to me.
So he posted this this morning.
And it's like, you know, the sticker that
says I I voted.
And this one says, I rearrange piles of
s h I t. It's just funny. Because
that's how I think I see this, just
moving around the bad things and pretending like
we have a different dynamic.
This one he says, voting is a suggestion
box for tax slaves.
As much as these things are funny and
probably won't reach the people that I hope
will change their minds, it's still something that
maybe will reach somebody. Humor has a way
of doing that sometimes.
This one says, everyone says you have the
choice have to choose. Excuse me. You everyone
says you have to choose between the fake
black Marxist
and the self proclaimed father of the vaccine.
But the truth is that the sure path
to liberty exists.
It's called agorism.
This is what we were just talking about
at the conference, the idea of a you
know, whether whether you're looking at it from
an anarchist it's basically all of a sound
umbrella, libertarian in a way, but larger specifically,
about no state,
no centralized power structure, about voluntary exchange between
free individuals.
The idea is it says to the idea
too is to use black and gray market
entrepreneurship
to build alternatives to state monopolies. That's specifically
under algorithm.
The it's peaceful, morally consistent, and it works.
But, of course, we won't talk about it.
Even the word again, the word anarchy has
been turned into the word chaos, and they
are not the same. They're actually it's almost
the antithesis.
Maybe not entirely, but the point being that
we're talking about something that is not chaos.
In fact, there is a rule. There's a
structure.
It means no it doesn't mean no rules.
It means no rulers.
That's why they do that. The only ideology
that exists that has no place for their
rulers wonder why they want you to think
it's chaos. In fact, it's and there and
there despite the the narratives and the the
the statements, there are real world examples, both
in in in fact, in well, we've got
I went over it recently of, that there
show dynamics of this that do work, that
do exist.
But, that's not the point of today's show.
I don't wanna jump off into that today.
It's really about the focal point to where
we are. But the point is, look into
it. It is worth
understanding for yourself and to consider whether you
might think that aligns with your values more
than what we're told we live in.
And recognize over the last
probably look on the homepage of T Lab.
There's probably 3 interviews that I've done over
the last couple of weeks. They're important. Etienne,
Laboutet,
Larkin Rose. There's a bunch of them talking
about this exact discussion.
Here's a clip
from the outstanding Carrie Wedler.
Politicians don't want you to know this, but
they can't save you from themselves.
Election news. No one is coming to save
you. Not him or her. Not even him.
Not her. And definitely not him or him.
Despite the rhetoric, platitudes, and grandstanding of power
chasers, if any of these people genuinely intended
to save you or even could, they'd already
be dead. But why do so many people
feel they need a politician to save them
in the first place? Because things are so
bad, but how did they get so bad?
People have been voting for politicians to save
them for generations and for lesser evils almost
as long. And after all that, we got
this dumpster fire. How are politicians going to
save you from the messes they created? Yep.
That includes this guy too. Despite the years
of programming we all received that voting is
our voice and makes us free, the opposite
is true. We're indoctrinated to believe it's the
most effective way to make a change, usually
to fix problems the government created. And in
participating, we choose masters for others and call
it representation.
We're conditioned to believe we can't do it
ourselves and have to outsource it to others
who know better than us, and that doing
so is, quote, taking action, which has resulted
in an ever encroaching imperial police surveillance state
that impoverishes and insults the people it represents
and serves. Some people think acknowledging this means
I'd rather do nothing. But pointing out the
illegitimacy of the system is not apathetic or
defeat us. It's required to start pulling ourselves
out of this hellhole and start taking responsibility
for ourselves, not outsourcing it to documented criminals
and megalomaniacs
who seek authority over others. The real defeat
of them and apathy is tolerating the meager
options the system gives you and playing along
with their game. And the more you fix
You're goddamn right.
Think about that.
Like, it's just it's so it's so it
obviously makes sense.
If this was outside the political fervor,
right, the the kind of, like, obsessive leaning
into the ideology,
this is just logic.
But we all, you know, we get trapped
into it. You get the screaming partisan that
convince you that doing so is what adults
do, and people just get swayed into it,
to doing something that they do not believe
in. State on politics and what political puppet
takes the throne, the less energy you have
to actually do something. It's on you to
take care of your health and well-being, which
would be a lot better off if the
government hadn't been subsidizing filth and declaring it
safe for decades and the political machine didn't
keep you gripped in a perpetual state of
fear and reactivity. It's on you to take
care of your own survival, which would be
a lot easier if you weren't forced
to pay a litany of taxes, including inflation
taxes, and burdened by the trillions in debt
your, quote, representatives take on in your name.
It's on you to make this system obsolete
by demanding better for yourself. You can mean
you as an individual or as communities you
choose to be a part of. But in
either case, we must become less reliant materially,
emotionally, and spiritually on powerful, corrupted institutions and
authority figures. And a we doesn't mean the
euphemism for a tiny ruling class. That's a
figment of imagination and propaganda to placate the
masses. No politician or government is coming to
save you, and the sooner we as individuals
and communities recognize those, the sooner we can
come up with actual solutions and actually save
ourselves, which is a lot more effective than
perpetually voting for evil to stop evil and
being shocked that evil remains in power.
Gotta love it.
She's right to the point. She does great
work.
So here's an ab a couple other points.
Eva says, I don't vote for the lesser
of 2 evils. I do not consent. Just
think I just want you to see there
are lots of people out there.
This is not a small opinion right now
despite what we'll get into in a minute
is being shouted down by some of the
larger influencers out there as if we're hurting
some. The point is that this is this
is something that's catching on because it does
make sense. And we all know that the
reality around this is that there's it's not
just that there's problems.
The system is broken.
And the idea that you can work through
a broken system to change that, it is
I mean, again, I hope you're right, but
the reality is we have precedent. We can
see that's not the case. And so it
is catching on. People are understanding and they're
recognizing that it's not some fringe idea that
does they're recognizing that there's a lot of
people like us, like other movements that are
saying this is something we can if we
have enough people that do not consent to
the system, we can actually see a different
a change.
That's not to say that it's exactly what
you want or they want or it'll end
up in the pot. The point is that
if we continue to participate
in the same thing, we're gonna get the
same outcome. I, for 1, am willing to
try something different because I am willing to
risk for my liberty, for my freedom. Because
isn't that what we're always talking about? Putting
on the line for what we believe in,
not passively stepping back and allowing it to
continue for what you believe in? Doesn't the
sound is good, does it? But I think
it's important to recognize
that it is shifting. Now quickly, I wanted
to highlight somebody who sent this in. I
didn't I didn't want me to tell who
they were, but it's I think it's I've
wanted to give them a shout out for
this Halloween costume.
Showing you the two faces of politics.
With the it for the podcast, it's basically
just 2 masks, 1 half Trump, half Kamala
in a suit, and then here's the back.
No matter who wins, you lose.
You lose.
I like it. So,
lastly,
as we get into this kind of, this
absurdity
in the actual 2 party illusion part of
it, I just thought this is the kind
of stuff we're seeing right now. So here's
John Oliver,
fights back tears, the headline says, as he
shares presidential endorsement the day before the election.
I mean, why is that not worthy of
why is that not laughed at?
Fights back tears?
Because you tell us you vote for Kamala?
How the that's embarrassing.
Like, for anybody
to be so emotionally invested in this process
no matter how important you think it is,
to fight back tears while you discuss picking
1 of the 2 selections.
I mean, that's and, again, I'm of the
mind that that is a completely a ploy.
But either way, for someone to fall for
like, anybody that's in that mindset, like, I
don't wanna diminish that you care about something.
But you have to realize how weird that
is. Like, that's the picture of that's the
jingoism. That's the the propagandized
of, like, obsession
with these people as if you know them,
as if you can trust them, as if
they are your team. That's the whole emotional
connection.
So I just think that's a very strange
thing that I get to deck to, to
see, and it's on both sides of this.
Which really, is just, again, people that are
falling for your government.
Here's a clip I did with I put
out with Larkin Rose. I want you to
hear this, what he had to say, and
then we're gonna get into some other points
around people who are not
voting.
Who are choosing to say, I don't vote.
I'm not going I I normally do, but
I'm not going to hear because I don't
believe in what's happening, or I think it's
illegitimate, or I think that nobody if if
nobody has the courage to say there's a
genocide going on, then I'm not gonna pick
either of them because it's a red line
for me.
The point is principled stances.
No matter what anybody else thinks, all the
screamers going, you're just gonna give it to
Trump. You're gonna allow Kamala to win by
not doing x, y, and z. The point
is, who cares what they think? It's about
what you think. It's about what you believe
in, not the screamers telling you how you're
supposed to act.
That's the whole point. So we're gonna get
into people who are taking a principled stance.
But first, here's what Larkin Rose wants to
tell you about government.
You know, it's interesting to start off that
I've been saying a lot that I and
maybe this is just me being hopeful, but
I still think it's important to lean into.
I I do see a lot of
mental change happening. And as usual, it comes
along with a lot of, you know, the
the powers that shouldn't be amping up our
uncomfortableness to make you fall back into line.
But I really do see a lot more
people than I've ever seen before asking questions
in a lot of different areas coming from
the COVID 19 illusion conversation, what's going on
within foreign policy, but specifically around the election.
And I've I've we've been talking a lot
about or just in my entire career doing
this, I've always been a 2 party illusion
mindset person. I've talked about the reality of,
you know, the the kind of just the
big facade around politics in general, and then
also going further into the idea of the
illusion of authority. But it's been there. We've
talked about it. But most of my audience
is still kind of like, well, I get
it, but we're probably gonna vote. You know?
And I play that game every single year.
This year,
something has shifted as I feel at least
as I feel. Feel. And I I see
a lot of people asking questions and investing
in these ideas even if they still may
vote than I've ever seen before, and we
got a really incredible pushback
from the certain kind of people in the,
you know, the higher level left right paradigm
commentators
when we simply said the same thing we
say every year, sort of like, you know,
vote no one in 2024, and it got
this crazy response. And so I immediately was
like, I've gotta have Larkin Rose on. We
gotta talk about his ideas because people are
listening to these things more than I've ever
seen. So if unless you wanna comment on
just that in general, I'd like to start
with just, you know, explain for people that
have never heard this before, what is government
and what is and how what is it
that we incorrectly see it as?
Well, I'll start with the incorrectly see it
as because it actually ties in with what
you were saying.
And the reason it's falling apart and the
reason more people are starting to question it
is because the mythology that we were all
taught
is falling apart in front of our eyes.
Mhmm. What we're taught to think is that
society needs this thing called government
that that's above us mere mortals. Like, you're
not supposed to think about it like that.
But it's this thing that keeps us in
line and it keeps us civilized and it
settles disputes and it protects us and yada
yada yada.
And people don't even recognize that that's actually
a religious belief
because they talk about government as if it
isn't just people.
Because they well, the government will handle that.
Well well, what are you talking about? Like,
are there some deity you're talking about, or
is it just human beings?
And the fact that most people recognize if
you ask them, not only do they recognize
it's just human beings, they recognize it's the
worst human beings there are. Right.
And as that becomes more and more obvious,
like in recent years where the the elections
are just one slime ball against another slime
ball and the mask fell off
Mhmm.
Tons of people who used to just take
it on faith that,
of course, we need government. Course, there need
to be sort of societal managers or something,
keeping the rest of us in line.
The more the facade,
that these people are somehow superior and they
have special knowledge or special rights or special
something.
And the more and more people see, you're
not even, like, average. You're not you're worse
than my neighbor.
Right. Like, I'd rather have my neighbor rule
me than some random, you know,
republican or democrat.
And so the entire belief in government is
the notion that we have to have some
people who have special rights, who have authority,
who have the right to tell the rest
of us what to do, have the right
to tax the rest of us,
to pay for big things because we can't
handle that, and we can't be trusted to,
like, just, you know, pool our resources voluntarily
and stuff. No. We, the the stupid little
children,
need our parent government bossing us around and
taking our money in for our own good
and funding these big things that we're told,
you know, us mere mortals could never possibly
handle.
And
I think more and more that that that
lie has been falling apart precisely because
nobody really has faith. The best they can
say is
my slime ball isn't quite as bad as
your slime ball. Right.
Now how funny is that? That's exactly where
we are.
Right? I mean, it's exactly what and it's
not new. It's the same cycle. So here
are a a few people who are
explaining their principled stance here. Now this is
not in any way to suggest that I
believe that they're honest or that they're in
your side or that they're or she should
be following them. I've I've I've talked about
Jeffrey Sachs before. I think he says a
lot of good things, but I also have
concerns about other connections. The point is simply
that the idea and the stance I agree
with, for whatever reason, whether honest or not.
So Jeffrey as the squirrel points out, Jeffrey
Sachs is asked who he will vote for
in today's election. He replies, I'm a firm
nonvoter.
Israel's committing a genocide
in Gaza. It's sickening.
It's obvious. We see it every day. And
if a candidate can't say something about that,
I can't support them. Period.
Now I don't know why that's such a
hard thing for people to recognize, wrap their
mind around in the partisanship.
None of them are arguing. Now look, there's
a huge I argue the vast,
vast majority of everybody in this country, left
or right, are aware of the illusion
are of are aware of the obvious genocide
because it's not it's it's so it's like
arguing that there's I mean, I I did
this last time. The point is it's like
pretending something that is the most obvious thing
in the world is not happening. It's right
there. Everyone sees it and there's just different
levels of dismissal or or ignore of choosing
to ignore it
Just like he says in this. It's not
it's not hard to recognize that everybody sees
this. So if you can stand there and
say that none of them are willing to
acknowledge this genocide or really that they're both
openly supporting it, as a person who would
be told you have to choose,
the only principled stance is to not choose
anybody.
There's no there's really no other way to
look at it. Unless you're convinced that, well,
if you don't do that, that you're you're
you're not you're you're allowing this to happen,
and you're doing this or by not. But,
you know, the idea is always that your
vote matters, and it's your sacred choice except
when it comes up against the partisan choice
or the partisan agenda from either side. And
you see it every time. Up until it
it's like this free loving idea that everybody
can choose and it's all loving democracy and
then essentially when it gets down to the
end, it is if you don't do what
we ask then you're losing it or you're
failing it or you're hurting everybody else. It
literally becomes if you don't do it you're
hurting grandma in a voting sense. Right? Is
that what it's just the same old thing,
isn't it? Except that wasn't real then and
it's not real now.
It's your choice, and it's for you.
And here is what I argue you should
be doing in the context of if if
you're in the mind of what we're discussing.
If you believe in either of them, then
then that's your decision. But But here's what
I think is principled for everybody else. I'm
a firm nonvoter
in November.
Sorry to say that's not
the high principled view.
Everyone's supposed to vote and cherish their vote,
but I will not vote for a candidate
that doesn't meet the minimum threshold
for being president of the United States. And
we have 2 candidates, lead candidates, that don't,
and so I decided I'm not voting,
period.
Because I want a candidate that actually,
has some
possibility of doing something.
Now maybe they will, but not based on
what they say. Every day is a profession
of love
for
Israel's murderous reign,
in the Middle East.
Okay. By itself,
I wouldn't
support that.
That's enough for me
because Israel's committing a genocide in Gaza,
and it's sickening, and it's obvious, and we
see it every day. And if a candidate
can't figure out to say something about that,
I can't support them, period.
Who can disagree with that?
Right? I mean, again, you could argue you
disagree or that somehow that it's res the
responsible thing to do is to ignore those
principles and choose anyway. Maybe you believe that.
But the idea is that we're supposed to
respect this whole free process. Right? And his
decision
is that there's no right choice because there's
a line for him. But you see, the
problem is that all of the the mania
becomes that by doing that, you're somehow helping
this or doing that or your child you're
the problem because you're
you stand with your beliefs.
That should obviously sound wrong because it is.
Here's another example.
Now the squirrel points this out, and this
one is, John, Mersheimer
shimer. And it says, it isn't amazing how
Jeffrey Sachs and John Mersheimer, neither of them
self described radicals,
socialist, communist, whatever ist,
actually have genocide as their firm red line,
but pseudo radical streamers and YouTubers online don't.
Very revealing.
Wanna share who you're voting for?
No.
But I will say that I'm not voting
for Trump, and I'm not voting for Harris.
Oh, wow. But is there an independent candidate
still running? There are a number of candidates,
and you can also, in the United States,
write in candidates. Now I won't vote for
the Democrats
because of the genocide in Gaza.
I I think that the Biden administration
is complicit in the genocide, and genocide is
a red line for me. And, I would
never vote for Biden or for Kamala Harris
because, again, they're complicit in the genocide.
Right. And so, again, in the beginning, the
point is not for Trump, not for the
the democrats. Now the point is the same,
and he's right. Objectively, there's one administration that
has been committing genocide. That's clear. Trump has
not,
at least not during this time frame. Now
but going back to his administration, he was
involved in, I wouldn't call it genocide, but
plenty of death because of bombings and of
occupation. But my point is that objectively, you
can point out that Trump has not. But
let's be clear, we'll get into, he's very,
very obviously stating that he will continue to
support them in what they do. It's not
up for debate despite all the wiggling room
trying to make it seem like he meant
this or q said that. It's clear. And
he said it up up on the surface
without question that he will support
Netanyahu in finishing this.
So the point is that you can see
people who are making a principled stance here,
who are trying to tell you that they
are not gonna do it because there's a
line for them that's been crossed.
This is an interesting one. Now this is
Eric Weinstein talking with Pierce Morgan.
Now, essentially,
it's he's got criticism for what he put
out, which he seems to say is misunderstood
or misinterpreted, but then he goes on to
explain it, which seems to be exactly like
what he said. But the point is that
he's not voting for either because he sees
both as super dangerous.
He goes on to say the democrat party,
his party has become completely understandable,
understandable.
No. That they that's a they type that's
a typo.
Un it's they say, oh, un understandable is
what they wrote. We'll
play in a second in case that's wrong.
Unrecognizable as leadership appears to to, in my
mind, to be evil. Right? I agree with
that. He says he then says the Republican
party is far more chaotic and that both
parties have decided to hang on to their
extremes who are incredibly toxic and violent. Now
it seems like he's at least gravitating towards
the right being less dangerous,
But my point is that that it's interesting
what he has to say about this. And
he's absolutely right. The point is that both
sides of this, which I argue, again, it
shouldn't be confusing to your government, so they're
taking the same path, is that they're both
both on the illusion of both sides, they're
leaning in to the most radical while pretending
like they don't exist.
There's an obvious agenda there. They want you
to react. And I think it's aimed more
so at the right like it has been
for a while, but nonetheless, they want the
reaction. They want the chaos because they're using
that to justify the next step. Like they
have done as far back as you can
look. Or in foreign countries with regime change.
But it's interesting he always gotten attacked for
this. Even though he's not it's not like
he's saying I'm voting Democrat instead.
He's just simply saying, look, Beau and b
you know why that's so concerning and it
shows the point in the beginning? Or to
them, it's concerning? Because
it is a import a a a, influential
person
who's standing up and and and giving legitimacy
to the idea that he's not gonna vote
in general out of protest.
Which, by the way, is right. Technically, it
should be able to abstain, which would even
be technically voting. But the reaction
shows you vulnerability.
The 2 party system is being revealed. It
is falling apart. And people who have, in
some cases, taken a consistent object,
principled stance are showing you that they will
not partake in it because it doesn't amount
to what they think should be there.
And people lose their minds. And before, they
used to be ignored.
I think that shows the obvious vulnerability.
Doctor Eric Weinstein, the mathematician many credit with
founding the intellectual dark web, wrote a despairing
post on x that summed up his feelings
on America's big decision day.
It read, I'm failing miselection. I tried, but
I simply failed.
I cannot work within these concepts. My world,
my country, my America is not on the
ballot. Well, that post has been viewed over
Now, again, if you let's if if you
thought that, right, that that that what you're
looking for is not even represented,
why would you then feel obligated
to invest in this?
Well, because if you pick 1, you're gonna
get the worst of the 2 choices.
I mean, it it it's and and then
pretend like that's somehow the pinnacle of election
processes in the world. Like, you can't have
both. If you're gonna lean into that and
argue that, like, you're supposed to because, well,
you're gonna get the worst one, well, then
you're acknowledging that we have failed, that we
have already lost, that we're in a position
where we have 2 terrible choices and we're
being forced to choose so
they can continue on with the process.
Even by your own acknowledgement, if it's simply
he that one is a little bit less
bad, well, then we're getting something bad. Why
would we consent to that?
Just because you tell us that's what adults
do. Like, it it is falling apart. Anybody
who is actually thinking about this stuff is
starting to go, k, ma. This is just
not
in the past elections, it was much better
concealed.
Right now, it's flailing. It's floundering.
That's why they're so desperately trying to go
after this, to attack this idea because it
is undermining something that is foundational to the
illusion.
7,000,000 times already with many echoing his lament.
But many commentators have accused doctor Weinstein of
sitting on the fence of squandering his significant
influence at a critical moment for the country.
See? So he people are attacking him for
taking the stance he believes in.
Right? That's, like, that's what's happening. Because you're
supposed to use your influence to in to
to dictate you know, to influence people's opinions
about one side or the other. Why? Why
is that demanded of him? His choice is
that he does not see a choice that
he believes in, so he's not going to
participate. Or, again, if it was what it's
supposed to be, he would abstain on the
record, which would actually be a vote. But
still, that would be attacked. That's why it's
been taken away.
Think about a wild it is that he's
being attacked for standing with what he believes.
And he joins me now. Eric, great to
have you back on uncensored.
You decided in the end
to say what you said. You saw the
extraordinary
reaction to that, good, bad, and ugly. Lot
of people saying you've been a bit cowardly
here. What do you say to them? Wow.
Now again again, I'm I'm gonna break stop
a bunch of times, but cowardly.
Think about the idea. So you you are
so it's cowardly
to have something you believe in, recognize that
it's unpopular,
and then stand up for it anyway. What
a coward.
No, No, guys. That's actually the definition of
courage. Now I'm not saying that I who
knows? He could be lying out of I
I I don't have a I I have
a lot of opinions about the YCs in
general. So don't take this as support. But
the point is simple that doing that, if
that's what's going on, that's courage.
Even if he's wrong.
Standing up for an unpopular idea at a
time when it's never more contentious because you
believe it, that is courage, but they're calling
it cowardice. Welcome to 1984.
Well, I I find that, somewhat funny because
standing up to 1 political party alone is
bad enough. Standing up to 2,
just makes things worse.
In general, to me, cowards lead mobs, they
incite mobs, and they fight from within mods,
mobs
particularly behind the veil of anonymity.
So,
it has nothing to do with that, and
I also think that the post was widely
misinterpreted.
So let's let's clarify what you meant. So
tell me what you really meant by that
post.
Sure.
Imagine that you have 2 restaurants and that
both of them are failing
the health grade. Very good. One of them
may be failing the health grade by much
more than the other,
because it has problems with fecal matter and
the food, let's say.
You Interesting choice, but it was good to
hear. May say I can tolerate the risk
of going to the one that's less dangerous,
but you can't recommend the restaurants to somebody
else.
Think about how perfect that is.
It really does kinda make sense. So the
obviously, like, if those were your only choices,
which is the way they want you to
view this, that you're forced because that's it.
That's the best we've got. I know it's
not the perfect system, but it's the only
one we've got. The point is that you
can argue that one would be less dangerous,
which is all we're getting right now. But
you can't then turn around and be like,
you should check out this restaurant
because all you're doing is recommending something that
is in fact dangerous.
Like, that's just so
right it's so obvious. It's a good analogy.
But that's what we're doing. Right? Instead of
recognizing that there is an entire country full
of restaurants.
Because quite frankly, they're both super dangerous. Now
in my opinion,
the Democratic party has become something completely un
understandable, unrecognizable.
Be dissimilar. And, its leadership appears in my
mind to be evil.
And that is I agree. But I see
both sides as exactly the same. My point
is I think what he's discussing is this
simply your government.
My party.
The Republican party is far more chaotic,
but both parties have chosen a strategy where
instead of courting,
common sense people, Mhmm.
Somewhat in the middle, although I don't think
it's, you know, it's a linear spectrum anymore
at all Agree. They've decided to hang on
to their extremes and pretend that they aren't
there or not incredibly,
toxic and violent. I mean, again and this
is for those of us that are standing
back objectively,
nonpartisan, over many administrations,
you know exactly who's talking about. Whether we're
talking about the the Black Lives Matter riots
burning things down, and that's not everybody that
was in that movement, but the ones that
were just like it's not everybody in the
MAGA movement, but the ones that were acting
crazy. We can see it on both sides
of this. We're talking about the the the
extreme radical manipulators.
And whether that's online, which are everywhere, or
the the point is that they've they've leaned
into that. We saw it with the democrat
side pretending like these people weren't doing that,
acting like it was complete. You know, it
we I don't I need it to even
explain. You guys all see it. Everyone knows,
but everyone has a hard time pointing it
out within their own side. That's why it's
important to not feel like you're on a
side and that, really, it's about you holding
your government accountable.
But we all see this, guys. We all
see it. The tr the Trump and Elon
Musk aspect of this, they are tapping into
the most extreme lowest common denominator within that
conversation.
So too are the Democrats.
It's everywhere you look.
And that then becomes what's leading you. Do
you want that to be what drives this
country going forward?
I mean, it's it's just it's it's not
about the voting process. It's about,
consenting
to them creating this world.
And it you know, I could obviously make
the argument that they're gonna do it regardless,
but all the more reason to not lean
into it and try to find ways to
change it aside of aside of pretending that
checking a box is gonna in the influence
the people doing what we're talking about. Which
when you really think of it like that,
it's obviously quite naive. These power structures are
just gonna be yep. Like, I'm just wanna
name in the past many times. That we're
talking about the great reset. We're talking about
the the technocratic, you know, digital IDs and
biometric wall. All these things that they are
clearly wanting to drive forward.
From either side.
And we're gonna pretend that we're they're gonna
go we're we're gonna spend decades building this
hole up, but then we're gonna hope you
vote for it. Let's cross our fingers and
hope that people want it.
That's not how this works. I think we
know that by now. And in part, you
know, my frustration
is that,
in order for me to recommend a party,
and I was hoping to recommend a ticket,
this election cycle. I don't think Kamala Harris
and Tim Walz have given me any possibility
of recommending them. So unless somebody can make
that argument,
to me directly in the last few days,
I just see it as an impossibility.
I was very disappointed,
in some sense because I have, 3 friends
in the big six
on the Republican side,
which would be RFK Junior, Tulsi,
and JD Vance. And, you know, my feeling
about this is that
we have a situation by which
the Republican Party is just completely incautious. And
if you see the reaction,
just search on my name and the word
Jew.
You'll see exactly how much toxicity is hiding,
amongst the good people of MAGA. And And
that's a really interesting point. Right? Because, obviously,
like we've talked about before,
that is there. There's an obvi and I
personally think that's an aggressive drive from Zionism
through all of that. Either way,
you you there is an entire aspect of
this that is driving exactly what I'm trying
to highlight as part of the illusion, the
idea that it's Jewish people ruling the world.
Obviously, there is an overlap to Zionism and
Judaism just like there's an overlap of Zionism
and Christianity.
There There are more Christian Zionists than there
are Jewish Zionists, but the the point is
the same. It's Zionism
influencing. Now you can make up your own
mind, plenty disagree. My point though is that
what he's highlighting is that there is an
element of that. And Trump's administration
holding our you know, little locking arms with
Netanyahu and his extremists,
are completely okay with that because it's part
of a bigger agenda. And so what he's
simply saying is that they're leaning into the
radicals.
And he as a as a supporter of
their movement, he gets attacked simply because he's
Jewish.
And so it's the same thing either way
you look. They're leaning into the most extreme
on the left again, you could make the
point about the trans movement. Right? Leaning into
the most extreme
lunatics on either side of these parties. And
it all drives in the same direction. Let's
not forget the obvious overlap that I see
between the trans movement and the transhumanist
movement.
It all goes in the same direction if
you understand where they're coming from. So he
makes a good point. That's the same thing
you can point about within in Israel. Right?
There's obvious
overlaps.
There is an obvious, without question,
racist,
lying through all of what they're doing there.
That's not every Israeli or every Jew, but
they have made that a predominant reality just
like the US government has made it a
predominant reality, at least it was. I think
it's changing to to the blind and they
support the war state. To be okay with
them committing genocide and bombing people and stealing
resources,
it's about how we're engineered, but I think
these things are changing even in Israel, by
the way. Too few of them, by the
way,
have the courage to stand up,
when somebody's being attacked. And so it's I
I think it's a bit rich that the
cowards
who privately message me and say, we support
you,
don't say something in public when they're watching
a mob descend on an individual. And think
about how much that is, Showing you these
these leaders of the MAGA movement, which she's
talking about right there,
aren't willing to put their face out there
and support them. Why? Because they think the
mob who they've weaponized against whoever they're aiming
it at, for whatever agenda, you you can
decide for yourself. I outlined what I think
it is.
That they what the the point is that
clearly they want that happening for whatever reason.
But when that starts going against one of
their own, or somebody who supports them, they're
not gonna step in the middle of it
because they're gonna get attacked too. Right? Because
it's a it's a they it's the they
what's the word like the analogy or the
the phrase
you know, essentially, they built this monster and
now they lost control of it. Right? But
there's no there's a kind of an analogy
there. I'm forgetting it. But the bottom line
is that that's an important point. It exists
on both these sides. And what he's highlighting
is that they're not even willing to stand
up for that right now. So I mean,
it's from every angle of this, it's so
obvious there's nothing honest going on.
And quite honestly, I I wasn't hoping to
take on MAGA, but
if if that's what it takes
to stand up and say, you cannot brutalize
people like this. And
inciting mobs against individuals is what I thought
you were accusing the democrats of doing. And
Oh, and here we come back to the
woke right,
because that's exactly what he's talking about.
Just like like, remember remember the whole point?
We remember the point we made about, Reuben
and Peterson going around and talking about cancel
culture and and how they're you know, you
have to allow ideas and so on and
then are now openly advocating for the suppression
of people to talk about Israel. You know,
it it is an absurd flip.
And so it's the same of however you
look. Or with the Trump conversation and Libs
at TikTok and the rest of them screening
and getting people canceled and fired from their
jobs for making inappropriate jokes, which is what
they were. We went over this on the
show.
Free speech was absolutely there. Of course, they
don't care about it because it's against our
savior. The point is that they're you see
it everywhere. I don't even make the case
for the left. They're they're all about censorship
around certain points, but it's it's the same
difference from a different flavor.
And so that's what he's talking about. Right?
They're going after mobbing up and going after
peep that is the cancel culture dynamic coming
from the right.
Now you've stared into the abyss, and it
stares back.
Yeah. I mean, Chris Ruffo said, this is
narcissism marked as idealism. It's absurd to expect
politics to conform to one's individual preferences and
idiosyncrasies.
The essence of politics is decision under imperfect
conditions. There it is. If you can't figure
out how to rank Trump and Harris, you're
just navel gazing.
Your response?
Chris who?
Or, like, this Oh, I'm not hearing you.
I guess his narcissism back.
So listen to this. Listen to listen to
what he said. So it's this is the
everything that's happening. And maybe this guy's saying
this. I don't know what he's saying there,
but probably thinks that it sounds like logic.
Maybe he actually believes it. But here's the
difference.
Why are you forced to rank them? Now
maybe he ranked them under the 2 least
people he'd ever vote for. But your argument
is that because they're all there, you rank
them and pick the the best one?
How about you the point is it's what
it's you you could argue that that's how
you should do it in the election, but
me the point is you're ignoring the possibility
of you saying, well, I don't want either,
so I'm not going to do it. I'm
not gonna vote or I would abstain.
See, to to make it about how you're
somehow the one being irresponsible or childish by
not by choosing not to engage into the
worst two people that you choose to vote
for,
by claiming like, the idea is that by
not participating or abstaining, you are participating
because you don't agree with the choices. Listen
to it again.
Yeah. I mean, Chris Ruffo said this is
narcissism marked as idealism. It's a Narcissism.
Right? So because you're willing to stand by
your principles, somehow you're now a narcissist.
Like, it this is weaponization. They're attacking people
who, really, what I see, expose how they
are that, how what he is doing is
principled. And what it ultimately shows is that
they're not, and that makes them feel
lesser than, so they attack the one. It's
the same thing that's happening with this. That
we're ultimately trying to highlight something that you
can disagree with or not. Do your own
thing. That makes them feel like they're the
ones being irresponsible,
so they lash out. That's not even to
say that you I we're doing a responsible
thing. I'm just I'm doing what I believe
in. That's it. You can decide for yourself.
But the reactions like this make it more
obvious than ever that this is something that
they're,
you know, it's vulnerable. Right? That they are
clearly threatened by. That's the word I was
looking for. Absurd to expect politics to conform
to one's individual preferences. And Okay. So it's
absurd to think politics conformed. Of course. Like,
it's not gonna to assume that it'll be
exactly what you're looking for. Well, yeah. That's
ridiculous.
But to
when engaging with what is not what you're
looking for, the argument that you're that you
have to choose as opposed to just saying,
well, I'm not gonna pick,
that's the issue right there.
We talk about freedom and liberty and how
it's your vote, but then the moment you
don't do what they expect you to do,
now you're suddenly the bad guy, that's not
freedom, guys. That's coercion.
Again, it's you're gonna kill grandma if you
don't do this. It's the COVID law logic
in voting that you have to, or you're
gonna hurt them, or you're gonna allow them
to get in power and well, you do
what you want. I'm gonna lean into what
I think is right. Isn't that how this
is supposed to work? Apparently not in the
voting process. Indiosyncrasies.
The essence of politics is decision under imperfect
conditions.
If you can't figure out how to rank
Trump and how Under imperfect conditions.
Well, obviously.
But if we had a real dynamic where
actual choices are being provided, it would not
be the lesser of the worst people, the
lesser of evils. And that you're supposed to
rank them and choose the best
out of the worst 2 people. I mean,
it's just you get the point. It's this
never ending dynamic. And I think people are
beginning, which is my point, to recognize that
this is hollow.
They again, it's exactly what they're doing in
reverse.
Right? The idea that what they're doing is
narcissism. We're literally you're liter you're you're creating
this dynamic where you're being forced to choose
the people you like when most people don't.
And somehow we're the narcissist by standing by
what we believe in. Like, it's just it
it is it's I mean, I I I
could show you 47 parallels right now with
everything we talk about, whether it's Zionism. It's
just it's constantly like that. That you're the
racist for pointing out the killing that they're
acting in racist policies. You know? It's just
it's everywhere you look right now. So this
gets interesting when here's what something anomaly said.
He said people who don't vote are acting
as weird as qanon people, which first occurred
because, you know, obviously, everyone not voting is
all in the same camp. Right? We're all
the same mind.
Broad stroking, usually a sign of intelligence. It
says people were acting at the the the
the qanon people were acting at the beginning
of the
lockdowns. I respect your decision, but relax.
You're not bucking the system. You're doing nothing.
No. We're not, which is fine. But don't
think too highly of your nonexistent revolution. Like,
that's really strange to me. Especially since we'll
show you in a minute something he was
saying before,
which seems to be very different than what
he's saying now. I find that very revealing.
But the point
is at the end of the day,
you're do you're not bucking the system?
You're doing nothing?
Relax? Like, that seems like a very strange
response to somebody when again, you can disagree
with our stance, but we're doing what we
believe in. And we're not doing nothing. In
fact, the argument is voting is the least
active thing you can possibly do. And in
fact, what we are doing is voting through
protest or abstention, if that was actually part
of the process that's supposed to be there.
But even if you're talking about people that
just don't care, well, that's still their choice.
But what he's trying to identify, which I
find very strange, is exactly what we're talking
about.
The the the people talking about vote no
one 20 24, which has been around forever.
Or the 2 party illusion or the fact
that you're being played or the fact that
it's all about yes. These are all exactly
the point we're making, and that for him
to say you're not bucking the system,
it's almost as if you recognize that people
are, that there is a shifting dynamic, and
that the like, we're like, I I guess
the implication is that we're standing up acting
like we're making some big change when it's
not happening.
So why even address it?
The reality is that is clearly happening. Look
online. It's everywhere. People are beginning to ask
these questions, and that clearly, for some I
wouldn't have picked him as one of them
that would be in this position,
that it's making people uncomfortable.
And again, that you're that you're don't I
don't think too highly of your non existent
revolution.
You see my point, it's almost like you're
desperately trying to convince yourself that it's not
happening, and that it's small, and that you're
irrelevant, and it doesn't matter. That just seems
like a very odd response for somebody from
the independent
media. But he says Derek says, some of
us are not voting in some of us
are not voting in rigged, immoral elections,
but actually voting with our actions every single
day of our lives. We live the philosophy
of liberty. I encourage you and anyone else
who thinks that voting is doing something magical
to learn about exit and build strategy, which
the link is right there I discussed that
you can check out for yourself. And here's
the actual link as well.
Now here's what Alex Zeck said.
Base and he's you'll see as the conversation
in the next week goes on. He's highlighting
exactly what he's saying right there in quotes.
Don't vote, so do nothing is what we
keep hearing. And he says that implies that
voting is the only way to do something.
How utterly absurd.
Voting on its own is the the epitome
of doing next to nothing while hoping someone
else will do something.
So you're you're checking a box and then
hoping that they act out what you somehow
think is your will. Like,
absurdly thinking somehow because you vote for them
that you what you want really, what it
comes down to is that they've conformed all
of people that are blindly supporting a party
to all have the same opinion in the
direction of the party's agenda.
That is not it's not everyone. That's why
I point out the conservatives are not in
the same republican teams or politics mindset, but
there's obviously the overlap. But the idea being
that most people are checking that box and
then going, okay.
My guy especially when they win. They go,
okay. Good. Now they'll do what we all
want and stand back and let basically trust
the plan.
But he goes, voting is doing the same
thing over and over and expecting a different
result or outcome. Voting is consenting to be
governed irrespective of who wins.
He's right.
Voting is saying, quote, I don't believe that
I have the right to extort,
rob, kidnap, and initiate violence against those who
don't conform to my views, but I believe
those I vote for have the right to
extort, rob, kidnap, and initiate violence against those
who don't conform to my views.
It's what it is. And what Larkin makes
a great example about, that you're basically saying,
I want my ideas to be enforced on
all of them.
Now my point is that it's ultimately the
same outcome, whoever wins, with different flavors of
wedge issues, but it's still the same perception
that those wedge issues know. Whenever, you know,
the the changing of policies that we think
are changing. That's my opinion that some people
don't want. That's democracy, mob rule. But his
point is the same.
Everything else you do in life is more
impactful than that.
Now he also says, to the Trump supporters
who are upset at those of us who
aren't voting,
what evidence do you have, aside from his
words,
that Trump is actually in support of health
and freedom?
Quick answer. You don't. There's nothing.
You have his words, and his past action
actually show you the exact opposite. So why
would you trust his words over his actions?
Hope.
He says, what evidence do you have that
other men and women who call themselves government
have the right to issue commands and use
force against those who don't comply?
Now this is where it becomes very clear
that he's got an emotional issue with all
of this. He says to those to those
nonvoters
leaving snarky and judgmental, douchey comments to those
of us who are voting, and I never
judged you or would do the same to
you for choosing not to vote. Why?
I mean, who are you talking to, man?
Right? I mean, are you talking to some
random person online that's ta ta that's not
what I'm that's not what Derek is doing.
That's not what Alec is doing. He's not
commenting to you. The point is that we're
expressing our opinion and giving you our our
justification for it. Now, yes, in a broad
sense, I would argue that I aggressively disagree
with this stance. But I'm not saying that
you, anomaly, are somehow bad because you're doing
so or stupid or missing the point. The
only time you'll see me engage with that
kind of thing is when somebody's attacking me
on the conversation, which arguably I probably shouldn't
even do.
But that's my I'm not going after and
going, oh, look. You're voting. You're stupid. You're
uninformed. You don't know what's going on. I'm
not doing that. No. Nobody I respect would
do that because that is the opposite of
trying to change minds. That's
ridicule for the purpose of making yourself feel
better, which frankly, I kinda feel like he's
doing in reverse in the other post. But
here's what Alex says. What snarky judgmental comment
did I leave? And Derek Bros and I
cover all of our reasons here. Because they
just and that's the interview that Derek had,
which I recommend you listen to with Alex
Zach.
Which so his point, again, is simple. He
didn't do that. None of us are doing
that. I don't know. You're engaging with some
trolls online trying you know, look. Is it
not possible that that's people trying to undermine
what we're talking about? Shocker.
But either way, there are probably people doing
that too.
And all the stuff he discussed that he
acts like doesn't exist is right there and
it's all been talked about out loud. And
this and this is important. Ashley Capel says,
anomaly p publicly flip flopped, which he did.
He says, I followed him for many years,
and many years ago, he publicly was awake
up until just recently
when he started endorsing Trump
and acting asleep. That's her opinion. Obviously, you
can decide for yourself. He must have been
threatened or something. That's her opinion. I would
never assume that. I have met him in
photos with him. His, real name, Albert Folesky
or I'm I don't know. I can't back
that up. But the point is, it says
everyone's entitled this is from 2023.
Everyone's entitled to a worldview. But in America,
the Republican party is serving Zionism over America,
the constitution, and the constituents. They're passing speech
laws in America. No right wing media will
report it because they serve Zionism over America.
Okay. Yes. They do. It's obvious. Well, both
sides do.
But it's an interesting shift to suddenly arguing.
Some somebody who I argue in the past
was very much kind of the in a
similar field mindset
to just that Trump is the one that
we have to support because, you know, that's
the lesser of you. Whatever. Again, I if
that's what you believe in, I respect your
decision to do so. But somehow, I kinda
feel like that doesn't make sense with past
views, but maybe you changed your mind. Nonetheless,
what you're doing is exactly what you're kinda
framing everybody else as. Because Alec didn't say
this to you. You come in and responded.
And it's the point is that there that
to me shows vulnerability.
That there's a threat coming from the simple
idea of what we're discussing.
Now Derek writes another powerful message, we just
read this the other day, sent for to,
to him on his last night's stream. This
is from the 5th November. He posted this.
He says, I understand
you feel disheartened at times and wonder if
you're just preaching to the choir, but but
know but know this. Last year, I was
a big supporter of RFK. And this is
the person writing this to Derek. Although his
support of Israel really disturbed me till August
when I saw your unholy trinity video,
I immediately stopped and realized I was completely
wrong about all of this. It's sad I
ever fell for the political game again because
I thought an independent could change things.
How wrong was I?
And And, again, this is becoming to the
point of the, you know, illusion of the
process, going to something and realizing that whether
it's illegitimate or not, that we shouldn't be
asking for an authority figure to rule over
our lives. But
my point is that even when you get
into the 3rd party dynamic, what she's arguing
is that, you know, that that is not
gonna change in any way. But, again, I
think it's more about the larger point. But
it goes on, I've now let go of
the concept of authority in government. That's my
point. Thanks to your work
and Larkin Rose. Thank you for sticking to
principles no matter what. You inspire others like
myself. This is what we're talking about.
Feel free to disagree. I I I If
you if you don't agree, then absolutely.
That's your prerogative and I respect that.
But what's interesting is to try to argue
like this is not happening. That there's not
a lot of people out there beginning to
the what I see as the reality of
all of this.
And, of course, that would threaten a system
built on that reality.
But anomaly response, again, kind of, you know,
this is my point. He seems to be
the one going after this as opposed to
the reverse, but says, oh, so you can
support RFK
while accurately noticing his flaws and weakness, but
you larp.
Yeah. Attacking, calling names out at others for
voting Republican when you live in a Republican
state that would be drastically worse if, when,
Democrats got control. Nice. Gosh darn it. Rife
with assumptions,
projection.
It says treat others the way you want
to be treated. I don't quote support Trump
and everything he's done. I strategically vote because
I can see the writing on the wall
and which party will facilitate the change. I
want to see when enough people wake up.
Fine. If you believe that logic, then good
for you. I support your right and your
choice to do so. But it's an interesting
response, isn't it, to what he's simply going,
look at this great message I got.
And what Derek will say down here is
that you completely missed the point. What he's
saying in that post is that she woke
up to realize RFK was just playing the
game.
And somehow he,
I guess, only read part of it, misinterpreted
it to you. Oh, so you can't support
RFK Junior, but but but well, no. That's
not even what the post said. So, again,
I'm just trying to highlight, have this irrational
kind of response. The emotional
which either he misunderstood what they wrote or
didn't read at all, and then accuses him
of live action role playing,
which is what LARP means,
going after republicans, which again, you can look
at Derek's content. I I don't see him
attacking people saying what he doesn't agree with.
I see him defending against people attacking him
about his beliefs. And then, yes, as we
all fall into sometimes, getting into back and
forth with people.
But that's an interesting statement, isn't it? And
saying that you live in a republican state,
which by the way he moved from, which
he doesn't anymore, and that would be drastically
worse if, when, they got control. How do
you how do you possibly know that? Yes.
I can obviously point out, as anybody with
statistics can, that most of these democrat locations
have higher crime, and I've I pointed that
out consistently over the years.
But again, my perspective is that it's all
part of your government. That's a bigger point
for me, but of course I could be
wrong. But the idea to say you know
for a fact that it would be better
if and when, that's a guess, brother. That's
an assumption.
I don't know why that's supposed to be
journalists. But the point is, he goes treat
those the way you wanna be treated, which
is what we do. I don't support Trump
and everything else he's done. I vote because
I can see the writing on the wall.
Okay. So that's your hope. That's your assumption.
I too can see the writing on the
wall, but I'm not gonna present that as
I know for a fact it's gonna happen.
I'll tell you I believe that.
And which party will facilitate the change that
he wants to see
when enough people wake up? So if and
when if they do so beg your rulers
to give you what you're hoping you get.
That's what that sounds like to me. I
see the writing on the wall, so it
means there's a problem.
And which party will facilitate the change that
he wants to see when enough people see
it or would have people wake up? Well,
I don't know how you know that for
sure either. What happens when, like every other
time in the past, which I know he
knows, that it's always like, oh, well, they
wouldn't let it or we couldn't do it
for this reason, or now we can't. We
got too much going on. There's not enough
money. Whatever the reason is rarely comes to
pass. There's always a justification. Both sides point
at the other to say why it didn't
happen, but guess what? It usually doesn't. And
it continues on in the same direction.
But the change he wants to see, I
hope it happens. I hope we see change.
I hope it doesn't have to be contingent
on more people seeing it either. But I
get I think you get my point. This
seems like a lot of hope,
a lot of assumption,
against something that is pretty definitive.
Now, not even talking about my opinion. I'm
simply saying the idea that these people are
not exactly what we all want. I think
that's an open discussion that everyone's acknowledging right
now, for the most part. But he goes,
you missed the point. The person
this person woke up to realize that RFK
was just playing the game too, in their
opinion, but I agree. He totally sold out
to Trump and the 2 party duopoly he
claimed to be fighting. You're still trapped in
left right paradigm, unfortunately. You have no principles
as your foundation, so you bounce around and
end up supporting the system over and over.
Now you could take that as an insult
and it was to a degree. My point
again is because he came to him and
it attacked a statement about somebody's nice post.
But the point is that
principles, foundation,
not hope. And, you know, leaning into the
the promises of oligarchs, technocrats, and billionaires.
But he says, bro, I live in a
county where a woman in my area got
murdered because of a democrat prosecutor led a
multi time criminal out of the jail for
egregious defenses. You know? Again, these are these
I
to to argue that that is the driving
cause,
again, my point would be there's there's accurate
points to make about these different die the
different sides and who, what, the immigrant conversation.
I mean, we've talked about all this. But
when you stand back and look at the
long history and recognize your government as a
process as a whole and the and the
e the each side of it playing their
part to maintain these processes if you actually
are objective and honest about it?
That's a that's a single example to make
it as an emotional driven point.
And I think it's absolutely pretty crazy to
argue that you're gonna vote for the lesser
of evils of somebody you don't fully believe
because of what an example of the one
democrat did, and then somehow that means that
every republican's better than every democrat. It just
it's guys, it's just such a lack of
logical under anyway, it's everywhere. And I know
you know what I'm getting at. He says,
we have a republican prosecutor. It makes differences
on local and federal level despite the obvious
Zionism lobby on both sides.
Which again, this this this disregard for that,
which is a
not just a central. It is this it
this is in is influencing
everything in this country.
But it says the last thing I want
to do with my time on this earth
is have circular conversation with people like you.
Well, you this you started the conversation.
Share and it's and circular is hardly what's
happening right here. But he says share your
self righteous snark with people who want to
hear it. So he came into this with
an emotional reaction to what he was doing.
And if you read this objectively, you can
see one person here is acting a certain
way. And even though Derek responded in a
way that is kinda meeting that level, the
point is that this was something that feels
like he wanted to happen.
And he says, share your self righteous snark
with people who want to hear it or
who are entertained by it. Looks like you're
doing pretty well, which
well, so I'm sure you have an audience
that is intrigued and interested. Just not me.
Good luck with it though.
You know, it's a passive aggressive point. Self
righteous snark looks like, you know, who for
people who wanna hear that's not Derrick Rose.
Anybody who knows this person, he's one of
the most genuine, honest, intelligent,
and principled people that I know. So I
work with him.
He simply says, yes. The same has happened
in Houston before. Voting on local level can
have an impact, which is what we all
say. Just read it. It does not it
does nothing on the federal level because it
is a 100% controlled. I agree with that.
You can be polite and all that, but
it doesn't excuse supporting Zionists, turning a blind
eye to the reality of the world and
leading your followers towards Trump after you allegedly
woke up to the reality of him, which
is what he was saying up until very
recently.
And he goes, I can't relate to you
because I'd never want to live in a
place like Houston. No offense, just not my
style.
Which I don't think he lives there anymore.
That's the point he doesn't.
He says, I vote republican and want to
live in republican areas with low crime.
I get it. It's just that's not there
are plenty of places that are republican that
have higher crime. Even even the con the
I mean, I don't necessarily ascribe to this,
but the point being that in some places,
like even California, there are reput there are
republican counties, for example, or but I would
still argue that you got oh, is under
the umbrella of the democrat run state. So
I would you know, my point is just
to highlight that, but there's plenty of places
in this country, yes,
lower than most of the democrat run places,
but it's not. It's just a one stop
idea. It's like assuming that every illegal immigrant
or immigrant for that matter will vote democrat.
I frankly think it's even the opposite today,
but that's a different conversation. But it relates.
It's the idea that these things are just
the way they've always been, and that Ramogans
are less crime, and they're gonna it's it's
just not the reality in my opinion.
Other than the statistics that are accurate that
I already pointed out. But it says federal
judges, supreme court make a difference, border policy,
etcetera, I can multitask.
Well, again, the assumption is that the the
all of these things we generally would discuss
and what we've talked about. He's simply talking
about the federal election, which is the point
he made.
But he simply says, Houston's a cool town
with lots of benefits, but definitely not a
wake place, which is why I moved. You
can multitask and support Zionists. Got it. Because
that's what he's doing. If you're voting for
Trump, you're supporting
open support for genocide in Israel and Zion,
which is same with Kamala for that matter,
which is our whole point.
I find that to be a contradiction of
principles.
Now Jimmy Corsetti says, happy election day.
If Donald j Trump does not win, well,
it's because he was 100% stolen, just in
case you were confused.
Talk about partisan assumption or just setting a
narrative. Right? This guy is
134,000 followers. I mean, this is already clearly
the point. Both sides are already saying it.
He goes, the interesting part will be to
see all the brain dead morons that will
deny it.
So you have the nerve to come out
and say, we already know before it's happened.
100%
it'll be stolen, and that I'm done for
denying it before it's even happened.
I have not seen I've I've seen
there's it's hard to find a stupider post
online right now. Like, that that's just
talk about
wisdom presented as or rather anyway,
the point is this is ridiculous.
He goes, seriously, this is a greater IQ
test than COVID.
To assume
that you know before it happened and that
we're dumb for not believing you is the
smart thing. That's a high IQ. I mean,
this is 1984 on steroids. This is incredible.
But there's a lot of peep if you
should read the comments.
I mean, it's it's lunacy to me.
Because as I jokingly said on on a
and wake up today, I mean, it's like,
you know, happy election day. I mean, where
are we? I made the joke about, like,
it's like a, you know, merry merry election
day, like some kind of holiday.
What did I say in the this morning?
It was oh, I said, you know, make
sure you put your ballot on your pillow
for the election fairy. We'll give you a
dollar. You know, it's like we're we're we're
children in this conversation acting like this. Not
whether you choose to vote and whether you
believe in those people, but this kind of
stuff is objectively ridiculous. Whether or not you
believe in voting, whether or not you decide
for Trump or Kamala, that is dangerous.
You have a right to do it. Free
speech. Say what you want. But we have
a right to acknowledge that that's childishly bad.
You are pushing an assumption as fact because
you know you want that to be the
case. You know that other people already say
that, and you'll have, as Weinstein pointed out,
the protection of the mob.
That's crazy to me. And guess what? It's
going to happen both ways. We already know
that. Whoever does, the other side's gonna say
they cheated.
And we'll get into that too.
Before that, let's talk let's talk about this
important breaking video about voting machines up or
rather the, voting
Diebold saying they apologize for something that happened
before we get into everything else. Check out
this important breaking news. Planned on following the
presidential election. You might want to plug your
ears. A big election spoiler is coming up.
A minor software glitch at the Diebold Corporation
today caused thousands of electronic voting machines to
accidentally
release the results of the presidential election ahead
of schedule. According to the group of military
and corporate leaders that has chosen every American
president since Eisenhower,
Diebold's mistake marks the first time the nation's
leader has been revealed prematurely.
I don't even know if I can enjoy
the sham election now that I know who's
gonna win. If you can't trust your shadowy
overlords to keep a secret,
what is the purpose really of voting in
the public democracy? Joining us now to talk
about the leaked results is Diebold PR spokesman
Ernie Kenilworth.
Mister Kenilworth, this was quite a mistake. And
we at Diebold would like to formally apologize
to all of our shadowy puppet masters. This
will not happen again. Please have mercy on
us. Do you think that people will still
even vote in this election? We certainly hope
they will. This country is based on the
fantasy that the government is the voice of
the people.
Going through the motions of voting and, keeping
the kingmakers' dealings secret is, central to our
culture. Why why do we need electronic voting
machines in the first place? They're just not
as reliable as our cloaked masters, no matter
how good the software gets. Well, I understand
people's concerns. But from now on, we at
Diebold will see to it that, we properly
safeguard the illusion of democracy for all Americans.
Well, let's hope so. So for those of
us who will watch, what can we expect
on election night? Oh, the same great show
that you have always seen.
We will be pretending to count votes, and,
we will be running a a an ongoing
total throughout the night. But wouldn't it be
possible for them to just choose a different
president so that we'll still have that same
great surprise? No. I don't think so. However,
that does not rule out the possibility for
a staged assassination,
after the president has been placed in office.
Oh, I take it that's a hint. You
won't get anything else out of me today,
Gina. I've already said too much. Alright. Well,
thank you for being with us, mister Kenilworth.
After the break, researchers say they have found
a cure for awakeness.
This is so perfect.
This just kills me. And you know what's
the craziest thing about this?
Genuinely,
even probably people watching this people can't seem
to recognize that's a joke. And what's crazy
to me I mean, obviously, it says the
onion. You can obviously see that.
But what's crazy read the just read the
comments below. It blows my mind. I got
this whole back and forth with somebody about
how they're like, okay. The point is that
they claimed that the way that this was
posted somehow that decentralized news didn't know it
was fake. Read what it says. Breaking. Election
results leaked prematurely.
Voting machine manufacturer
formally apologizes to cloaked masters.
Obviously, they knew it was a joke, but
what blows my mind is how people are
either unwilling to admit they were wrong in
the way they they because the point is
they think that Decentered News, like, made a
mistake and posted this like it was real
and didn't realize till after the fact. It's
like, how can you possibly think that? It
literally says Cloak Masters in the title.
And I just think that or or that
people just aren't losing discernment because of Twitter
files and whatever else. It's kinda scary. But
I like to believe it's not the majority.
But what's perfect about this is that it's,
you know, obviously, the the leaked results which
happen literally every time. And just like now,
they act like, oh my god. We got
them. It's unprecedented. No. They do that every
time. And I think it's because it's an
illegitimate process and they need to give you
something that I'll be, you know, too outraged
about and attack and keep you focused anywhere
other than the illegitimacy of the process.
And and wait. What's funny is it's almost
as if you're an omelette. You're using what
is a a part of the illegitimates of
the process, but not the process itself. Right?
You're using people cheating around it as opposed
to the actual voting process being illegitimate. You
see what I'm saying? That it it's it's
a tactic to me. This is how I
view it. But the clip is just hilarious
because it's obviously our fake democracy. And can't
you just do it for us? And I
think that's perfect. Exactly where we are. Now
we're I I wanna give you some articles
we've done in the past before we get
into more about that point. Just so you
recognize,
this is not new. It is every single
time. This is from 2016. Biggest election fraud
in history discovered in the United States. And
this the the meme I use for the
image, who did your voting machine vote for?
Now you get into this even though the
video has been deleted. It's ultimately about the
the the discussion around these the the,
the election the dye bowl machines. And by
the way, the I forget off the top
of my head, but the other 3 main
companies,
all of which are I mean, actually, I
think it's in specifically in this.
Maybe it was I forget which one it
was. I've got them in here. The point
is that they're rife. Every single one of
these companies with horrifying,
right on the surface examples of of cheating,
of manipulation,
and every side knows it. They in fact,
you throughout history, you can show both sides
pointing it out when it's in their interest.
Here's another one.
Same image, by the way, but this one's
from 2016 to March. And this you've seen
this clip.
Computer programmer testifies under oath that he coded
computers to rig an election.
You guys know this. I've shown you this
many times. Like, I'll just grab this short
clip really quickly.
And this is simply it's it's Clint Curtis
testifying that he was paid to manipulate these
voting machines. And my point I make every
time is guess what?
The very next election, what do they do?
They use the same machines.
I'm a computer programmer.
Mister Curtis, are there programs that can be
used to secretly fix elections?
Yes. How do you know that to be
the case? Because in October
of 2000, I wrote a prototype
for president Congressman
Tom Feeney
at the company I worked for in Oviedo,
Florida that did just that.
A Republican, by the way.
When you say did did just that, it
would rig an election? It would flip the
vote 5149.
If whoever you wanted it to go to
and whichever race you wanted to win.
And would that program that you designed be
something that elections officials that might be on
county boards of elections could detect? They never
see it.
Mister That's it again.
Would you answer that question once again? They
would never see it.
So how would such a such a program,
a secret program that, fixes the election, how
could it be detected?
You would have to view it either in
the source code or you'd have to have
a receipt and then count the hard paper
against the actual boat toll. Other than that,
you won't see it.
Now the full video is in that the
article I just showed you. And the point
is simple, guys. This I mean, this is
not as much as you could argue if
you didn't know where this is from, and
rightly so, question it. Do your due diligence.
Make sure he's not facing the camera. It's
it's an old video. Like, this is an
easy today, we know how easy it is
to misrepresent things and not make fake videos.
Right? But this is very real. It's very
documented. Clint Curtis, just look it up. He
testified in in in it was the state
congress about exactly what you just heard. And
it goes on. He proves everything. He's got
the receipts
and nothing changed. I mean, how do you
possibly make sense of that?
I both sides of your government, just the
same thing, allowed it to continue because there's
an interest in that. Now, again, I I
over the years, same image, I used the
the for a different article, this one's from
2020.
Voting machine fraud goes much deeper and further
back than you think. Now this is a
daily wrap up I did a while this
is from 2020,
but it gets into the history. And this
this has all these links and the discussion
about what I was just discussing. That this
is the it's multiple companies,
both sides, it is an illusion. It's something
that's being used to allow,
you know, any number. I don't wanna assume
exactly how what they're all using it for,
but manipulation.
I think it's quite obvious.
Lastly, from 20 oh, excuse me. This was
should've been first. 2018 before the 2020, largest
voting machine vendor in US admits its systems
had remote access software installed.
And it get I mean, it gets scuffed
every single time, guys. Mid mid everything.
So here we are again.
Here's Elon Musk. What's going on?
What a shocker. Here we go again. It's
a it's it's unprecedented. Right? With the programming
of the,
bats with specifically from Dominion. Mhmm. Why was
that only caught in the No. The audio
is pretty low. But for the podcast, you
can't read. There's there's actually writing on the
screen. The point is they're they caught an
issue. I'm just saying, well, why why didn't
you you know, this weird issue, why didn't
you catch it, and why can't you remove
it? That's that's where they're at right now.
That's that's the if you can't hear it
enough, that's basically the gist of it. The
diebold's like, oh my god. We have a
problem.
We caught it, but we can't fix it
and because it's too late, and we'll just
deal with it. It's like, all it does
is open this door for, oh, that's what
they cheated. They exploited this and x, y,
and z. Guess what that does? Just like
last time, it keeps you invested in some
kind of
legal process that goes nowhere, that keeps you
focusing on this instead of what's going on.
And then the other half of it is
focusing on the election, which both of which
happened the entire time, just like this time.
And nothing actually changes, and you're not even
looking at what they're doing.
Last few days, and why can't it be
fixed? I I saw the release with the
Yeah. This is a nationwide issue with Dominion
voter access terminals in, in the count. Oh,
I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I said Diebold. You're
talking about Dominion right here. My point is
the same though. It's it's all all the
the companies
across there's a there's 3 4 of them,
if I remember correctly. All of them have
the exact same I mean,
differing issues, but, like, in the same field.
And it's overwhelmingly obvious. Cool. Just look at
the articles I just showed you that we've
gone over that extensively in the past.
That use them in the voter access terminals,
of course, not all all the machines, just
the ones that are accessible,
have an issue with
the, straight party voting and a programming issue
that's again affected the machines nationwide. And I
think all of us that used Dominion machines
were were,
were unhappy to How about we use paper
ballots? Oh, god forbid. Right?
Like, actually, a point that I might be
gonna get into today that I I forgot
to grab. You know, the point about the
voter ID discussion which by the way, you
know, actually, I'll hold off for I'm gonna
I'll I'll bring up that article and talk
about that in a second. Just the point
about how we're already seeing people demonstrate how
they've got fake IDs and they're using them
to vote from old people. Just showing you
that this game, that ID will somehow change
the elude.
It's all driving you towards digital ID, guys.
Hope we can wake up to that. Learn
about this, during the,
the testing period and and,
as early voting began. So we're working with
Dominion to to seek accountability,
on that front, and also have are working
with our clerks to ensure voters are aware
of this,
programming issue that will will require them to
ensure they are,
voting every section on the ballot.
Right. So so so all that, what does
that sound like to you? So anomalies that
could be open for manipulation or that somehow
it'll it'll x out certain vote. Like, all
of a sudden they're like, sorry. The all
these Trump votes don't count because it didn't
work or we don't whatever or vice versa.
On top of that, that you now have
more
hands on interaction from average people that are
there to help the voting process or vote
whatever they're called. The,
you know, the people that work there. I
forget the term. The point is that this
is not how this is supposed to work.
And all the electronic aspect does is add
more anomaly, add more
problem, a room for error, and that's by
design.
Because you realize these things have not been
fixed. It's the same thing every single time.
Bigger issue in Michigan because we do allow
voters to cross over in ways that a
lot of other states don't. Because we have
straight party. It's it's not
it's it's not, struck me as I've talked
to my other colleagues in other states. They're
just as upset about it as we are.
So yeah. Oh, they're bummed. We're surprised, I
think. Yeah. Yeah. No. We're so upset about
it though. Dang it. You know? Really. Really.
Really feel that you care.
But my point is, you know, what's going
on? Well, you know, you know, he doesn't
he's not required to give you context but
there's a reason that this that you know,
the way that he brings these things up
to get 45,000,000
views because he simply, you know, goes, here's
a finger, or yes, or okay, or right.
The thing is probably bots as far as
I'm concerned. I think somebody proved that. Nonetheless,
what's going on?
Right? So people go, oh, they're cheating and
diebold. It's all for or rather, excuse me.
This is dominion, all for the democrats. Well,
that's not necessarily even die here, but that's
the kind of thing that's already started. And
yet we
you this there's an invalid thing to consider
right there. But if you only aim it
at one side or pretend that that is
indicative of one side word against the other,
it's it's it's an all system problem
that all people can abuse.
That's the whole point.
Now this is another example of these weird
things that keep happening that literally happen every
time.
This person says this Chicago race says, if
you don't trust Dominion Voting Machines and want
paper ballots instead, it says, don't worry about
the election. Trump's not gonna win. I made
effing sure of that, says the director of
strategy and systems, Dominion Voting, which, again, this
is just something they shared in regard whether
that's even accurate is not the point. I'm
simply he says, this real or quote or
no or or or no way. Right?
Which kills me.
Okay. Is it or not?
I I I frankly keep seeing a lot
of these people, like, even Jimmy right now,
which, again, I've seen in the past,
progressing an agenda.
Instead of yeah. Like, they've chosen a side
in all of this. And I mean, and
a lot of times, this kind of diminishes
once the election fervor goes away and people
kinda fall back into but right now, even
like, the anomaly, everything we're seeing, that people
have sort of, like, latched on to this,
even ones that have typically
been critical of that. But now because they
feel they've chosen that vote, they're now, like,
defend. It just feels strange to me. But
this is what, Casey Wright says. An ABC
affiliate accidentally declared Kamala Harris the winner of
the election already, which happens every single time.
Now, yes, I will argue that it's a
it's a one side or the other.
But from my my perspective, it's just this
like, I've already explained. It's about the illusion
of a process making you think that it's
keeping you arguing, and it's all about your
government getting what they need by through but
the point is that this whole game of
people posting accidentally or the, oops, we released
the the results that showed something else, but
it was only a test. It happens every
single time.
You look if you don't know that, look
back every time. You see the same things.
And I'll show you the next examples the
the examples next. But he goes, this was
it was not photoshopped.
He said, literally, errored election results saying Harris
won, quote, accidentally.
Now there's 2 ways to look at it.
Either this was part of a what I
think, a larger ongoing manipulation about the election,
or you could argue this was that person
choosing to release that to influence your vote.
Sorta like pretending Clinton was gonna win in
hopes that would again, I don't think the
vote translates to that. But if it's
for objectivity, worth pointing that out, that this
could be a democrat, let's say, releasing that
to influence people to vote democrat, if you
think that's how it works. But here's the
apology, it says.
Let the Photoshop games begin. It says they
already know they are going to lose, so
they're desperately sowing the seeds of doubt. This
is misinformation and community notes are needed. I've
reported it.
See, now, could that could be the reality.
But do we not recognize the assumption that
you know what their intentions are? But god
forbid, you acknowledge that in a partisan way
because both sides do it. ABC accidentally aired
election results of Harris winning by 5% with
a 100% in
every single time. And, by it's not unique
to Democrat side. It's happened on all sides
going back as far as you look.
It says note from WNEP. Election test results
mistakenly shown on air.
How stupid.
Every time. The test results aired for several
minutes during cover. Now what they argue is
different things. It varies. But, like, for example,
they say, oh, well, we put up a
a test result to air to see how
it would look on the screen or to
see how they whatever. I don't believe any
of that. I think that's ridiculous. But it
says test results for the upcoming November 5th
election mistakenly appeared.
Those numbers should not have appeared on the
screen and it was an error. The numbers
seen on the screen were randomly generated. See?
Every time. Test results sent out to help
news organizations make their equipment is working properly.
Really? Couldn't you just use a random screen?
Couldn't you make a screen without numbers on
it? Or any number of things. It just
doesn't make any sense.
The numbers are not reflective of an actual
vote. Okay. But then why does it happen
every time?
I, I genuinely believe there's an an effort
here. Now it could be what they said.
I I genuinely think it's more about keeping
the doubt.
Right? Shoving these things in so both side
attack each other, and it creates chaos to
really bring down the entire system to rationalize
the next step, which I believe is the
technocratic ruling structure, but you can decide for
yourself.
Hope I'm wrong. But here's another one. This
is not the b saying a b c
station mistakenly, error election results test, or this
is Oh, this is the same one. There's
multiple examples going around. This the response was
Freudian slip.
And I just simply said, are we all
pretending this that this exact thing hasn't happened,
like, every election for a while now? How
do we not see how engineered this all
is? Like, again, of course, mistakes can happen
or deliberate manipulation can happen.
But if we see the same thing
every single time, can we not recognize the
engineering of it all?
We can't be this easy to manipulate.
James Woods. Here's one of the better examples
of all this. Look at this. Texas put
out this thing that says Kamala 1, and
it says, are they planning on stealing Texas
with only 4 electoral votes?
Of course, James Wood comes in and says,
funny how they can tabulate votes to influence
an election before election day, but they can't
get a total for weeks in states that
they are losing. Well, here's a there's multiple
reasons why this is really stupid.
1, because it's fake, which James Woods and
plenty of others, republican influence don't seem to
care. And it's not unique to republicans, but
I'm just pointing it out right now and
to the aggressive nature of what we're seeing
from the republican influencing side,
that he does this all the time.
You don't you don't care to check this?
You don't care to say, oh, well, I
would no. Point is that he the argument
will be, well, but we know they do
it anyway. Well, okay. So assumption. I got
it. Even though I would argue they all
manipulate my point,
they can tabulate votes to influence an election
before election day. But but they can't get
it for weeks. Well, that's they could be,
but the argument put forward is that they
are putting out a test that has nothing
to do with the actual results.
So you you're making your argument from a
place where it doesn't add up with anything
other than what you assume their intentions are,
which by the way, is everything that's going
on from the partisan dynamic.
I just wanna think that's important to point
out. Because it's not like they are tabulating
results they have in the background, so it's
not even a logical comparison. Even if you
think they're chain manipulating because they're not tabulating
everything they have and then putting it out,
you're arguing they're lying to you. So, obviously,
they can punch out numbers that have no
correlation to reality very quickly versus tabulating.
Like, you see my point? Like, it's just
trying you these are people who have an
agenda for what they want to happen. So
they're willing to lie, put out fake information,
lying for their truth in order to influence
people to think that they are the one
that's supposed to win.
Frankly, I see it all as quite naive
and childish when it's all just your government
and people like this are falling for that,
who think they're above it all. Right? They're
the in the know. They're the Bill Mars
of the 2 party pistol. Like, we we're
smug and above it all, when in reality,
they're the ones most lost in it all.
How I see it anyway?
Now, under this post of the article I
read earlier, here's another example that,
reaper
of many pointed out.
Kentucky voting machines are rigged. Now, obviously, the
point should be multifaceted.
I can't verify where this is from. I
can't verify the video has not been altered
or that it's a machine. My point is
my point is that we don't really know
for sure. But I argue it'd be pretty
difficult to fake a machine looking like this.
Right? But, you know, it's possible.
So first point is that we shouldn't assume
we know what we're looking at.
Crazy that we have to make these points
with how manipulated everything is today. My point
is there to easily assume that if it
was the left looking at the right, because
the right will always cheat. Or the right
looking at the left because the left will
always cheat. But never against themselves. You can
never assume that or consider rather that what
you're looking at is your own side tricking
you. I don't know why we can't think
of that. But my point is the same.
Literally every time on all sides. So what
you're looking at is simply him trying to
for the podcast, trying to hit Trump,
and it won't work.
Which, again, I mean, I've seen videos of
that happening on to the left or to
the right. It could just simply be a
glitch in the machine,
or it could be cheating.
My point is that happens every single time.
And we can prove it. The game, how
one side's the one that cheats. Guys, you
could prove this going back as far as
you wanna look. Both sides actively engage in
all of these things. And it's easy to
prove.
But and again, I'm more of the mind
that this is a machine that the it's
about trying to engineer chaos.
But I'm not a I I'm not gonna
dismiss the possibility that a a worker there
decided or whoever whatever level you think is
capable of doing that would be inter because
of reading James Woods' post would come out
and do that because because they think the
other side is doing it first, or however
you wanna read it. Of course, that's possible.
Regardless of whether it's real manipulation, I still
argue that it doesn't translate to the outcome.
And I think that's about manipulating you. Now
whatever you think about it, the point the
bigger point is this happens every single time.
So it's not unique, it's not unprecedented. And
if that's my point in saying that, is
then why don't
any of them change it? Why doesn't either
side change that? Each time they have an
opportunity to do something different, and yet, guess
what? They use the same things that even
Trump's administration said they were using to steal
from him. And yet here we are. 4
years of him, he didn't change it. Now
he's back in brand, and we're gonna run
again, knowing they'll probably cheat and steal it,
and accept that? Nothing's gonna change? So somebody
makes a point about that in a second.
Here is Bad Kitty saying, oh my god.
The ballot fraud in, Rhode Island at this
point. Here is Patricia Morgan saying voter fraud
in Portsmouth, Rhode Island. Again, it's just an
image.
So did bad kitty verify this? Did they
reach out and check it? Did they get
maybe. Probably not. My point though is that
we just because they post this does not
mean we know that what they're doing is
real. Lying for your truth is the first
level of rationalization
from the partisanship. They don't believe that's actually
being dishonest because they're convinced that this is
the truth. So if I fake it to
make you know the truth, then it's all
good. No. It's not. You're still lying. And
in most cases, you're wrong about the truth.
But either way,
my point is simply to say that's possible
and we know that, so we shouldn't blindly
assume, but a lot of people are. My
campaign, it says, has received disturbing reports of
official ballots being used to mislead voters.
Okay. So now we're understanding that this is
simply her being told about this. So did
she get sent that image?
And did she check it for herself? Is
that somebody she knows? Did she trust them?
So you're getting, like, three levels of assumption
or trust based on I mean, that seems
pretty naive to me. But again, I'm not
trying to say that there's not cheating. It's
happening everywhere. They all do it. They're all
dishonest.
Just Just find it interesting that we act
like this is new.
Brian Kate says, I love when people can
explain to me how, at length, how democrats
are gonna steal the election. Going into great
detail.
Which, again,
in regard to whether or not your vote
translates, I think that's a no. But, obviously,
it doesn't stop people who think that from
trying to do different things to manipulate it.
But he says, and when I asked them
about Trump's countermeasure to the theft,
their faces go
blank. Like, they don't spend any time thinking
about that at all. Likely because the, he
says, the dumb a s s doomer influencers,
they follow, which is a lot of them,
don't spend any time explaining to them what
Trump's actually doing to stop the steal this
time around.
Some of them don't think Trump is doing
anything to keep them from stealing it.
He says you can't fix stupid.
Now what's funny about this is this is
a person, as I believe, based on my
looking, it seems like a republican to me.
And even what he says right here.
All what he's trying to say is that
so he he implies that they're gonna steal
it. But all essentially, they're just letting it
happen. So I this is my point about
a lot of these people who are in
the midst of this, who may still wanna
vote, maybe believe in left or right paradigm,
but are seeing it.
Like, why he's simple. Why are the why
aren't they pointing out that they're just letting
it happen again? Something's wrong here, guys. And
all these people blindly following along with all
these doomer like, I mean, the Alex Jones
and Tuckers even at this point, talking about
the end of the world and demons and
whatever else. And the truth is letting this
continue.
It's a good point. And and the main
point simply is that how do we not
address that? I mean, I said it a
second ago. They they they stole it last
time is what the narrative is. Right? Well,
what's different?
Why are you are you just gonna go
through the process and let it happen again?
That you're taking care I mean, of course,
you could argue is this gets into the
hope and assumption side of it, that they
have a plan.
Sounds like cue to me. Right? They they
know, and they know how to fight it.
And they're gonna stop this from a okay.
In what way?
What are they gonna do? Are they are
they then cheating in reverse? Is that how
it's gonna be framed? Is that maybe that's
what we're gonna see play out.
My point is, you don't know.
So it's all blind trust and hope for
oligarchs, technocrats, and billionaires.
Brad Miller
has a similar view as myself. He says,
I certainly think the regime's already selected Trump
to return to the White House.
I also think they want him to win
big because consent,
even engineered, is so important for their operations
and rituals.
He sees it, I believe. Public consent will
also be needed for whatever Trump is ordered
to take the country next. Where? Wherever he's
ordered to take it next. He says that
does not mean they won't go through the
theatrics of chaos,
also an important element of their operation rituals,
before ultimately installing Trump.
Remember, Brad Miller, I we interviewed more than
once. He was the first one in the
studio to interview.
He's the one that rolled out the the
military accountability
doctor the document that he circulated. A lot
of high level people signed. He's from the
101st airborne. Was was fired because he didn't
take the shot.
The Trump the shot that Trump was forcing
in.
And the point is that he's he's been
calling it out ever since. He believed that
all of them are he sees the whole
thing. Now, of course, he could be wrong,
but he's somebody who's immersed in this. He's
seen it from the inside, and he understands.
Those person says, Trump has stood by his
principles about America for 40 years. I hope
you're wrong.
Which is a really interesting thing to say.
For 40 years I mean, for crying out
loud, the guy was a completely different person
10 years ago. And before that, even more
so. And as bra as Brad writes writes
after that, this is such a ridiculous comment.
I almost assume it's sarcasm.
The guy has been a s h I
t bag his whole life.
He was involved early on with Wilbur Wilbur
Ross, Roy Cohen, etcetera,
as well as the Epstein overlap. Remember, he's
a real great guy. Loves younger women. Whatever
he said, it's creepy.
And he says, and is completely owned by
Chobod Lubavitch.
As president, he 100%
backed the trees in this COVID op, and
is now setting the stage for more digital
control over our lives.
Sad that people have, you know, either that's
a bot or they believe it or I
ask you for you to decide. But it's
not correct.
His own books and his own statements and
his own actions prove that.
Doctor Jane Ruby
asked a simple question.
What's your plan, your backup plan? If Trump
does not deport illegals,
fails to stop mRNA factories, you know, like
the one Elon Musk has invested in that
aren't gonna go away,
continues gain of function research, which I can
promise you is not gonna stop. I mean,
well, I shouldn't say that. One of the
anomalies before I go forward that I consider
and, again, this comes from what I believe
to be the case that they're they're not
really on your side. I hope I'm wrong.
Is that ultimately, some of these things could
come to pass for the interest of selling
you on the idea that it'll be something
you want. I almost guarantee that one of
these things will in a way that it
will say, see, RFK is gonna change the
world. That's assuming he even gets the position
that they say is gonna happen. I mean,
I I a lot of this is up
in the air right now.
I would and to me, that would only
be an it means to an end for
the final push. I don't believe that they
would ever do these things if we were,
like, 10, 20 years ago.
But in a function, by the way, is
it was going on through his entire administration
last time and still is to this day.
Does not you know, again, what's your backup
plan if they he does not dismantle and
and reform DOJ, FDA, CDC, DHS, CBP c
c,
border patrol, HHS,
declares another fake pandemic. Main and, of course,
see, this is the difference. If he did
it,
they would all tell you it's real. Because
he wouldn't lie. Right?
Maintains the and get this is exactly the
point about why I think they're choosing him
to pacify these people.
Even if it was something real, they would
call it fake. If it was Clinton or
because they would be so on guard against
the lies. And that I think that's probably
a smart stance because they will lie to
you more often than not.
But if it's him,
I genuinely think a lot of people who
would otherwise be skeptical would believe him.
Think about that.
And maybe even he believes it, and he's
being just misinformed. I mean, there's so many
thing. And then or then lastly, maintains the
saboteurs in his inner circle, which we'll get
to. Pompeo is lining up next to him
yet again, which should scare all of you.
Then do not respond oh, and then just,
you know, do not respond with, oh, but
he will. I'm asking for a solid plan
b here, which 90% of them did. He's
not gonna do any of that because he
said
But, obviously, if one of these things happens
Even the RFK overlap, I don't believe that
they're gonna allow this stuff to happen. I
hope I'm wrong. But let's just say you
put some of the CDC like it's being
floated. Is that gonna stop the DOJ, the
FDA, the DHS, the port patrol, and HHS?
No.
Now, maybe if you put them at the
HHS, he would have much more influence over
a lot of these different, because HHS is
kind of the overseer of a lot of
the all of the health dynamics. But
even that would not ultimately give him the
power to change everything.
I hope he changes something even if I'm
right about everything just because that would at
least be a silver lining to a very
bad outcome.
But I still don't think it's worth it.
If you the logic that that will be
worth voting for all of this.
It's a trick, guys. My opinion, you're given
even if let's just say RFK is exactly
what you think he is in a positive
way. I think that's throwing you a bone
to get you on board so you don't
see what's coming.
Now here's what Gareth Eichai had to say.
We talked about this this morning. Now, you
know, you can read it for yourself. It
it I hate that I'm seeing this from
a lot of people right now. We'll talk
about the Ron Paul point as well. But
I get what he's saying here, but I
just don't agree with any logic that is
ultimately going I endorse them or I lean
into that because it will be better. It's
the same kind of lesser of evils dynamic.
Eric Dykes says, I'd like to officially endorse
our our Donald
Donald Trump for president. I'll explain why. Those
that support Kamala are in those part lost.
If they can't see it now, they never
they'll never see it. But, you know, see,
I I agree with that. But I see
I I know more or less than the
Trump supporters,
personally.
I think that's very obvious. It's all about
being lost in the 2 party illusion and
the belief and the authority over your life.
But he goes, however, there's a large portion
of Trump fans that see what's going on,
but their desperation for a savior has led
them to Donald Trump. Now that I agree
with. I would argue in some cases, the
right like, for example, the right very much
more is on guard against the things from
the great reset, but are blinded to it
when Trump's involved, which is the point. But
the left is very much more aware of
Israel's genocide, but are in in in some
cases, are blinded to it when their parties
are in certain positions. The point is either
way, it's obvious that they're using different parts
of that to pacify their audiences.
And both of them have their blind spots
and their shortages everywhere.
But he goes, however, there's a large portion,
he says, but if Kamal wins, the US
is effed. And if Trump fans will still
be under his left right political spell.
It would have been different if Trump had
won, they would say. And that will leave
a hole for another political savior to keep
you on a hamster wheel. But it's weird
that you said hamster wheel, but then we
would lean at Trump. Well, it's still the
hamster wheel. Right? That's that's not different when
he's in power. But it says, if Trump
wins and nothing changes, warp speed. Exactly. Moab,
the most the largest non nuclear bomb used
in Afghanistan without his knowledge, giving the military
the ability to do so. Israel, embassy,
you know, the illegal action they're in. He
says, then maybe, just maybe, the alternative thinkers
might come back around to the understanding that
it's one party state and politics is designed
to control and not serve. I just I'm
comfortable every loss for this, to be honest,
because
the alternative thinkers would imply that that's the
right side of the conversation. To the left's
not, to the right. You know, it's a
weird way to frame all this. I kinda
hope he's just trying to make almost like
a snarky point to get at the idea
that if we give them another belief that
they win,
or rather not, like if Qualla wins, that
the argument would simply be that it would've
been different and therefore, would they just hope
for the next Trump administration or whoever that
gets put. But if they win and it
doesn't change anything, that somehow they'll be able
to see that. But that that's historically inaccurate.
It didn't happen last time. Why would it
be different this time? And again, it'll just
be more political circles around the same thing.
So I I just can't I can't agree
with that. I can't. I get where he's
coming at it. And I hope it's more
of a kinda sneaky point to get people
in a certain mindset. But I just, for
crying out loud, endorsing Donald Trump at this
point, or any of them is my point.
Kamala any of it.
As you said, hamster wheel. I can't Kamala
I said, that's hard for me. But our
here's what, a news break poise said. RFK
Junior says Trump promised him control of the
CDC and other health agencies.
But but that doesn't mean it's gonna happen.
These are all just statements, guys. And until
it actually happens, and then in that something
positive actually changes, then we should not pretend
we know what's happening.
That's just hope in poll politic politics and
promises,
which if we understand history at all, it's
like the stupidest thing we could possibly
do.
But I hope this happens because I I
would I do believe that RFK Junior would
change these things for the positive. But I
again,
I worry because I don't know how you
can pretend that supporting genocide lines up with
any of these other views, so it makes
you worry that he's being dishonest about everything
else. But I do hope that. My point
in showing you this though is just to
recognize that this hasn't happened.
Trump will be influenced by everyone else around
him, and I don't believe just like last
time, remember, RFK tried to get involved, Trump
was gonna work with him, and then Bill
Gates stepped in and he pushed him aside.
Well, there's plenty of reasons we can argue
why. I hope this doesn't happen again.
Here's Peter McCullough.
Doing the same thing, guys. This is all
happening. Now I'm not gonna ever say that
I know for sure or know that any
of them or rather know that I know
why they're making these choices.
That they're compromised or they believe this or
they believe that. I don't know.
But what I think is interesting is that
some that doctor Peter McCullough, who's been highlighting
the problem around the COVID 19 shots, Donald
Trump being the father of the vaccine, himself
still prays it to this very day.
Paris, by the way, still enforcing it on
her own administration and her or upcoming administration.
So same thing in my opinion.
He says, presidential election offers very different outcomes.
Again, which would be an assumption. That's the
future. We don't know, but it's it's his
opinion. He says, full support Harris
equals full support of amoral,
reckless,
biopharmaceutical
complex injecting injecting global vaccine mania.
Okay?
Here's the Trump team, which seems to completely
hinge on the fact that RFK is involved.
That's an assumption. If he even ends up
being.
It says RFK
leading a sweeping anti corruption campaign in government
agencies, including the CDC,
the FDA.
I guess just that's the point. I I
thought there was more written there. Though, he
there's a clip you can watch. But so,
basically, RFK is gonna change it. I hope
so.
I don't know why we would assume that.
Maybe something shifts, maybe he doesn't get the
right position. Maybe he's not even involved because
something happens.
But if Trump is the president,
he still says this saved lives. He still
says this doesn't hurt you. He still says
it's the say that it saved millions of
people.
Right now, he still praises this thing. I'm
not seeing Harris do that. She's still making
it forcing it in. My opinion is they're
on the same path. But think about how
crazy that is. You have a president,
potentially, who is openly praising the thing that
you think is bad, the other one is
not.
And you're saying because RFK, therefore, this is
the choice. That's a dangerous path to assume.
That surprises me.
But I get why somebody whose career is
invested in this conversation
might think that's and, maybe he's right. Maybe
that's the most important thing overall, because I
do recognize the dangerous future of the mRNA.
But what about Elon Musk?
I'll I'll play something for you in a
minute. But the overlap of the mRNA factories,
the great reset box checked all the way
up,
Everything else. I mean, you could you show
or JD Vance, which I believe somebody comments
about. JD Vance is a is a is
completely immersed in the biomedical field along with
Vivek.
Seems like an odd choice when you all
you basically have a cabinet full of them
with just RFK being the anomaly.
My opinion is they're all the same. So
don't take that as support for Kamala Harris,
but I think that's a strange stance.
Let me see if I No, I guess
not. There was a comment down below.
I guess I didn't add it. Simply saying,
what are you talking about? Vans and the
rest of them, but you already know those.
Now, lastly, on this point, I thought this
was very interesting. So there's a lot of
amnesia going on right now or misrepresentation
deliberately or by accident about things that pertain
to this, but are being angled towards
Kamal Harris and Donald or and and Biden.
So you remember this clip. Right? You've seen
this before.
Where this guy
I won't play the whole thing, but it's
a sad clip, and I included in this
in this video here that I've made a
long time ago. This went out in 2020
in May.
Doctors speak out about COVID 19 and the
violent suppression of your rights. I think it's
a very powerful video that I still recommend
you share. Used to play it at the
end of the shows.
The point is this clip came out in
2020.
Before that. I think a month or so
before I made the video.
This was posted on October 30th, and it
says nobody forced you to take the vaccine.
Video of forced vaccination.
So this person is quoting
I think both sides made statements to that
effect. Right? Especially during right now, a lot
of them arguing that Trump never forced it.
Right? He just, like, created the circumstances for
everybody else to do it, which, by the
way, same thing. And, yes, in many cases,
he did in fact carry out policy that
did do that. But either way,
that equally applies to Trump's administration, just so
that's clear. And this video, as you've seen,
is the guy getting held to the ground.
It's terrifying.
They literally and with the video, the the
camera gets pushed away, but you can hear
him. He starts sobbing and crying, and they
force an injection in him. Now I the
this is at this current the time frame,
I can't verify that it was the COVID
shot. But either way, it's the same point.
It was in in the it the reason
that happened is because of the mania of
COVID 19. That's why they were dressed like
that and they were literally forcing this guy.
Now this person says, how are we just
seeing this? Which is crazy, seeing as how
it was everywhere and we posted it and
a lot of people shared it. But he
goes, where has this been for 3 years?
3 years.
The entire world should see this. This is
what Biden, Harris, and democrats did to us.
See?
And I simply said, well, that was during
Trump's administration. I used it as part of
my video we put out, which of course,
you know, very few are engaging with it.
So I think it's crazy that this is
happening.
Right? This was Trump's administration. That's what it
was allowed. That happened. Now, of course, during
his administration well, it was in a democrat
state. Okay. During Biden's administration, literally everything anywhere
goes on, it's Biden's fault. Funny how that
works. The point is, it's your government,
as
always. But little amnesia. Watch the video for
you here. It's important to see all the
stuff that happened during Trump's administration because I
made it in 2020. And it's terrifying, guys.
Absolutely terrifying.
Andrea Lynn makes a great point. Here's Alice
Jones, which by the way is starting to
look a little too much like me with
this short losing weight and beard. And you
think Alice Jones is trying to look like
me? What do you think?
I'm completely kidding. But I think it's funny
how he looks like me. He's he's he's
black shirt and his
and the way his beard looks and he's
shaving his head and then he's losing weight.
Well, maybe maybe. Who knows? Trying to emulate
me. But
Alex Jones says a hydrogen bomb is about
to be dropped on the big pharma tyranny.
Trump has pledged to release the government's secret
vaccine damage databases.
Really?
That's actually what he says. Now let's be
clear about this.
The vaccine information is transparently obvious. You don't
need to release anything. Just because we haven't
seen the pharmacovigilance
that Trump and by the way, Trump and
Mansef Salawi,
This is their organization. This was the exact
discussion
using things like,
was it? I forget which was it? Oracle.
They're using government, you know, technological
surveillance tools
to surveil Americans.
Now remember they said for 2 years, everybody
who got the shot was going to be,
you know, watched essentially. This was all public.
They call it pharmacovigilance.
Now people, excuse me,
look at VAERS and everything else and as
they assume, that's not what we're talking about.
Those are different. Those are secondary reports. They
were talking about their own so the point
is there is a database that has everything,
but we don't need that. The DMED database
from the military, which has been at 4
32% increase in Mount Cardenas or whatever else.
It's everywhere. Bayer's or any of the rest
of them. It is the most obvious thing
in any pharmaceutical conversation I've ever seen. These
things are not just danger. They're deadly.
Deadly.
There ain't no cons in my opinion, there
is no context in which there is a
benefit outweighs the risk with this thing. It
is a dangerous, dangerous, deadly con and so
to pretend
that Trump will release the information
about the thing that he still tells you
say to everybody. And he'll release the information,
as Andrea Lynn puts it. Let me get
this straight. The self proclaimed father of the
vaccine who still brags about Warp Speed to
this very day is going to release vaccine
damage data. In other words, he's going to
expose himself as a liar or a fraud?
Okay. Got it.
Even if he doesn't know that, what you're
telling me he's gonna recognize these things are
deadly, and he's been telling you they're not,
and he's gonna just show you that? You
I'm sure his followers would love to believe
he's that honest. That's not going to happen.
You you think he doesn't know they're dangerous?
You think he doesn't see what you guys
all say?
He's just lying about it because you fill
in the blank.
But that is ridiculous to me. And this
is Alex Jones shilling
for a political outcome. That's not what journalists
do, ladies and gentlemen. That's everywhere.
David Icke, don't forget this. Andrew Lin also
says, on Trump's inauguration day,
last time,
he gave Hillary and Bill Clinton a standing
ovation.
You forget about that? Lock her up. Lock
her up. And then, hey, I've got all
of respect for these two people. That's quite
a u-turn.
Now, had they locked them up later, well,
you might argue that was a ploy for
d chess. Right? But it wasn't.
How we don't think about these things, I
have no idea. Wanted to say it. Because
I was very honored,
very very honored
when I heard that president Bill Clinton and
secretary Hillary Clinton was coming today. And I
think it's appropriate to say, and I'd like
you to stand up. Now, of course, you
get the, you know, mature thing all of
a sudden, which is rare for both partisan
sides to say, well, you know, he's trying
to be he's trying to be presidential.
But wait a minute. She's the murderer,
assassin,
tried you know, even with Trump.
Lock her up, we wanna throw her. And
then all of a sudden, it's the same
point somebody makes in, you know, I think
I have it up here in another tweet.
That essentially, whichever way he takes that, you
will cheer for him. Right? He comes out
and says, this is the thing that's gonna
kill oh, yay. But he comes out and
says, no. We're gonna support it because it's
the right thing to do. Yay.
Ah, I see. So it doesn't matter. It's
ultimately you support the ideology. Yes. You are
in team sport politics mode. You're supporting him
no matter what. Not every single person, but
the bulk of the paradigm of discussion. And
that's how it works on both sides.
That is just shockingly obvious. How in the
world you can't call that out? And again,
even most of them continue to argue that
it wasn't even genuine. He was playing them,
and he's gonna arrest them once he has
all the information.
But yet, on the surface of it, it
was, well, that's that's what presidents do. And
we have to be move above it and
move on.
I mean, I'm not even saying I was
wrong. I'm simply saying that take a lane.
You have to recognize that all you're doing
is going along with whatever you could put
forward. You're being deceived.
And if you can't recognize that that didn't
happen or wasn't going to, and you and
compare that to what we're seeing today, and
at least question whether the promises of today
become the
failures of tomorrow, then I don't think you
want to consider it. That just simply shows
a willingness to ignore what's in front of
you. I'd like you to stand up.
Wow.
And, honestly, there's nothing more I can say
because
I have a lot of respect for those
2 people. So thank you all for being
here. And,
Interesting. As David Icke says, it's all a
game.
And Andrea Lynn says, what happened to lock
her up? Well,
it's obvious, guys, if you pay attention that
these things are simply political games.
And if you really pay attention, it's simply
because they're all the same thing.
And it's about trying to keep you of
the mind that there's some kind of divide
or divide and and that again, to be
clear, from the congressional level, I don't I
from every level. I don't think every pea
every person involved is aware of the bigger
picture.
A lot of them are convinced they do,
but are really on the surface level. It's
a lot of them. So my point is
that, yes, some of them do hate each
other. Some of them do
actually think they're at odds. But at the
end of the day, when it comes to
who is dictating their funds,
who's driving their policy, you could recognize the
alignment every single time.
Now Michael Tracey writes, Trump just called out
to Mike Pompeo,
November 4th. Had him stand up for a
round of applause. Just you know how many
times I mentioned that Pompeo's likely back on
Trump's administration? And every single time, a Trump
supporter goes, no way. That won't happen.
Every time.
And then it does, and then he goes,
oh, well, here's why though. Because he's in
the inside. Wait a minute. You can't have
both.
At least admit you were wrong. Right? This
just doesn't happen.
But as Daniel McAdams says, wake up call
for libertarians and pro priest Trump voters. He's
the one that called this out and said,
see, he's going to be on the administration
after Lutnick made that point with Tracy's interview.
And he was right.
Here is Mike Pompeo speaking at his rally,
which is just absurd. Just like every other
person in this whether Vance or RFK or
even Elon Musk. They have a an entire
history of going, Trump's an idiot. He doesn't
know what he's talking about. He's disgusting. And
then all of a sudden, he's the only
one who's gonna save the country, or RFK
is saying he will ruin the country. He
will bankrupt the country. Now he's gonna save
it. Well, arguably, they could have changed their
minds, but that's kind of a quick change.
The point is that you're all being played,
in my opinion,
if you're following from what they're saying. And
here is Pompeo, who 30 seconds ago was
essentially on the other side of it, who
was insulting Trump and they were fighting back
and forth. But now he's the most sensible
person. It says Mike Pompeo speaks at the
at the final rally Trump rally in Pittsburgh.
Reminiscences about how he was Trump's most loyal
cabinet member. Well, that's not what Mike Flynn
says. They talked every day for 4 years,
declares that Trump, in his second term, will
take down the ring of fire, Iran,
for Israel.
That's what this is.
Trump or either or the Pope Pompeo and
Bolton, people who he himself have called us
more so Bolton, but both warmongers,
driving bad policy.
Let me I'll show you in a second,
the back and forth.
And here he is. Why? Because Iran is
part of the agenda for Israel.
Not in the interest of Americans, not even
remotely. Pompeo is a rabid war hawk fighting
for Iran for going after Iran. Meanwhile, they're
all up in arms about Trump calling Cheney
or Liz Cheney a war hawk. You know,
it's like, there it's all a projection and
and and deception. Right? Misguiding you somewhere else.
These people, I mean, look, all of them,
but Pompeo is the most obvious example of
everything the republican
rather the conservatives who believe in Trump think
they're fighting.
But m try Michael Tracy says, seems notable
that the final day of the campaign is
when Trump decided to put Pompeo front and
center.
Also notable that Pompeo states
with seeming firsthand knowledge what a second Trump
admin will be doing.
Millions of MAGAs will vote to re empower
Assange's chief prosecutor.
And realize that there's plenty of evidence that
shows that Pompeo has been involved for a
long time. So his point is, why is
he only just now being pointed to? I
think it's because he knows a lot of
Republican or more so conservatives
are aware that he's a problem
and hopes that you'd put it out the
last second. Maybe it won't change that much,
But you gotta put him out because he's
one of the string pullers, guys. Pompeo is
an insider.
You think you're fighting against the power with
Pompeo? You think you're rebelling against the power
structure with an insider CIA stooge who literally
tells you I mean, guys, this is the
establishment.
Everything about it, from Elon Musk to Pompeo
to Teal. And, again, my point is always
is the reason I think Kamala is not
as concerning is because she's ridiculous.
And I think everything she's doing is driving,
what I think again, is the selection to
Trump. But even so, if you wanna go
through everybody on her administration, it's the same
point. They're all ridiculous insider authoritarians who are
willing to take your free speech, take away
your guns, all the same stuff.
The Trump side just hides it a lot
better.
Now here is Ross' story back from 2022.
Mike Pompeo's attack on Trump blows up in
his face. You can read it for yourself.
There's plenty of coverage.
And again, my point was he started losing
weight. He started doing little salsa. He's the
guy is ready. He's a he was going
to run for president.
Mark my words. I said this years ago.
A lot of us noticed that he is
going I'm willing to bet you that he's
on this administration, and then he runs for
president next time. If not, Vance, but I
think he'll be part of it too. So
the point is, you can read this. He's
talking about it. He says he took aim
at Donald Trump. Social media users refused to
allow him to jump the ship.
This you you if you remember, they they
were at each other for a while.
The point is that here is, general Flynn.
Oh, actually, let's read this one first since
that's the tweet he's capturing.
So Newsmax says former secretary of state Pompeo
said Friday that if former Donald president Trump
was reelected, he would be willing to join
the administration. Like, as if this hasn't been
discussed already. Right? It's obvious that they're just
leading you into what they've decided a long
time ago. If not, maybe Pompeo's the one
making the shots. Calling the shots. Excuse
me. Michael Flynn, general Flynn says, so you
can undermine him again?
Guys, he was there. He was in the
administration. He's well aware of who these people
are. And even
Trump, in certain examples, has called these people
out for being what they are.
He says, you did Zip as a director
of the CIA
to expose the BS Russiagate.
Excuse me. I'll be hiccup all of a
sudden.
And you had
every chance and ability to do it.
And you did even less fixing anything at
the State Department.
And have you stated even once anything about
the rigged election of 2020?
We're waiting.
We need to keep the rhinos out of
the next Trump administration.
Which, again, I don't believe in any like,
I I honestly, frankly, don't even think Michael
general Flynn
believed it's it's he's part of the inside
game as well in my opinion. But either
way, the rhinos just being like the, you
know, the republicans in name only as if,
you know, we're the unit party though rather
than unity party, the step boxing everybody out.
My point is that this is somebody who
knows Pompeo who is currently saying this guy's
problem.
Yeah. It's obvious. The guys of CIA and
there is no ex CIA, just like there's
no ex Mossad in my opinion, and he
is part of the problem. He has everything
that they call the deep state, but it's
okay because Trump chose him or will, in
my opinion.
But he this Wendy Rogers,
Arizona senator, conservative America, pro Trump republican, says,
to think back in the day, I used
to respect Mike Pompeo. Nope. Never will I
be duped by him again. This is from
March 10th.
So here we are.
And now he's suddenly
on stage with Trump,
discussing his part of the administration.
Big surprise.
Now here's an article that go no. This
this is interesting. This is not what it
appears to be. Just have right out of
the gate. February 11, 2023. It says, Pompeo
flexes Trump cred in Wichita, but does he
support his boss in 2024?
Oh, goodness, no, it says. It's a very
it's a deceiving way to frame that headline.
Now what he's saying in here
is goodness. No. Because we're still thinking about
running ourselves.
So I just wanna make sure that's out
of the bag for people. This was not
a this it's not being widely discussed, but
Pompeo was already considering this.
Right? He's already considering running for president. So
it's not hard to recognize that this is
about something bigger.
So he was already saying I wouldn't support
him, but more so because he might be
running, and now he's lie falling in line
with this.
You need to start asking yourself whether these
very people, if you're a Republican supporting this,
are the ones driving the bus
and why that would be okay for you.
Michael Tracy points out this this is a
absurd
supposed conversations. This objective conversation between Ben Shapiro,
Sam Harris, and, oh, no. I'm sorry. I'm
thinking of there was a supposed debate between
basically 3 Zionists. It's just silly. But this
is the different this is a clip between
Shapiro and Harris. And it says Ben Shapiro
reassure Sam Harris about Trump's pro Israel credentials
by telling him he has personal knowledge that
the people most likely to be brought back
into a second administration,
Mike Pompeo,
David Friedman.
Friedman being an Israeli I mean, the this
is an is the the Israeli ambassador before
before who is an Israeli, who is dual
citizenship. And, again, that's nothing about his Jewish
background or anything else. It's about the Israeli
Zionist influence over our government, which is transparently
obvious, which we'll get into in a second.
And my point is, Pompano and Friedman, or
these are the most most likely. Now that
doesn't mean they know for sure, but I'm
willing to bet you they're right. Because that
is exactly the problem that we're all pointing
out that they don't wanna see, that even
republicans, even conservatives
in by and large recognize.
But we keep seeing they're they're they're dismissing
it because they're being told that we have
to put these things aside because this election
is so important.
Daniel McAdams
highlights that,
as I've been pointing out, here's Tucker Carlson.
April 19th. Mike Pompeo plotted the murder of
Julian Assange, so he was a criminal as
far as I'm concerned. He is. He somehow
intimidated Trump into not releasing the JFK documents.
He's an outlaw. He's a bad guy. That's
Tucker
Carlson.
I agree.
But here we are. Right? So our no.
How much you wanna bet if he ends
up on that administration's his tune will change.
I hope not. But I think that's what
will happen. And I do think he will
be on the administration. Now here is Daniel
McAdams. Message to Donald Trump. You put Pompeo
in your VIP section and gave him a
warm welcome at your rally. Tucker Carlson is
right. Pompeo's a bad guy, an evil neocon,
worse than Bolton. Why are you promoting him?
Well, you know why, guys.
Or at least you know my what I'm
arguing is the case.
And this is just to add to the
point. It's just about we talked about this
when I wake up a bit.
It's a weird I mean, this this is
and when I first saw this, I was
around some other people that were, you know,
republicans. And I was like, check this out.
I just popped my phone. I was at
the conference. I didn't have time to do
due diligence. So I just said, I haven't
looked at this, but look at how crazy.
Look at the headline. And they were like,
oh, that's just democrats taking them out of
context. That was the immediate from 2 people.
Guess what? That's not true.
4 days ago, Tucker Carlson, this is The
Independent, actually, claims he was mauled by a
demon while while asleep, leaving claw marks on
his body.
Now look.
From a religious perspective, you could argue that
I mean, like, whatever
people believe in demons or not. You believe
you know, believe in angels and demons and
the reality of the religion. What what that's
that's kind of irrelevant. The interesting point it
was not irrelevant, but my interesting point is
that why he would say this right now.
With everything that's going on, knowing that whether
or not like, as even as a Christian
myself, knowing that that's a weird statement, even
for people that are religious.
I don't think everybody who is religious necessarily
believes, 1, that they exist, or 2, that
they can come at you in your sleep
and scratch your back.
I just thought that was a really interesting
thing to say. Now, also, what's being pointed
out is that this is a kind of
an ongoing thing with Alex Jones and talking
about demons and risk religious aspects.
It's a very alarming thing to surge in
this conversation
right on the heels of Zionism and their
prophecies and everything that's happening over there. Now
maybe they're not interconnected,
but I think they very clearly are. Because
all of these people blindly support Israel. So
I think it's strange
that this would come out now. But even
if they're not connected, isn't it just a
strange thing to put out there? Now to
be clear, here he is on his own
YouTube channel. Somebody asking him, and he like
like like metaphorical? And he goes, no. Actual
marks. Actual claw marks. That's what he's saying.
I find that to be pretty damn strange.
Now I think most people would agree. Whatever
your belief, that it's a very odd thing
to believe. And on top of that, takes
a lee kind of a lurch into something
that is most I think most people
would say is a little bit strange and
unlikely.
So I just think it's a weird thing
to put out there. But either way, I
think it's my opinion, if I wanna cut
to the chase of it, is that I
think it's about tapping in to, the more
of the extreme religious perspective out there. But
why? I don't know. You can decide for
yourself.
Now let's talk about free speech. Because this
is the central point in all of this.
Right? We've talked about it a lot, but
it's important to make sure we say this
in this especially this video where we're talking
about the election conversation. Okay?
If you think for one second
that either side of this now this is
not about the left right paradigm or the
fact that I see them all the same
or anything else I've said. Even if you
come at this exactly from your worldview,
if you think that either side of this,
under the conversation that I'm wrong about everything
else, are are that either side are the
ones protecting your free speech or they're that
either side is not trying to censor your
speech. You're blinding yourself to what's right in
front of you. And I would argue mostly
because people are okay with the kind of
things that your side wants to censor.
And look, that's not wrong. You can believe
whatever you want. But don't pretend like you
believe in free speech because that's not. You
believe in limited speech. And I say this
all the time. We can have a conversation
about that. I disagree, but I can consider
your opinion. But if you come out and
pretend like you're saving free speech and only
they wanna fight it while you're advocating the
censorship of Palestinian supporters, you're a hypocrite.
And I think most of them actually know
that. They just argue that it's okay because
they're terrorists, and that's not how to apply.
Well, guess what? Even if they were actual
terrorists, they still have rights. They're inalienable. You're
supposed to know that more than anybody.
But this is the post about Trump saying,
burning flag,
that we should be jailed for a year.
This is the craziest point. And, even, Bill,
Brad Miller pointed this out.
This is objectively,
without question, constitutionally protected.
Inherent rights.
The Supreme Court has roundly ruled that this
is constitutionally protected.
And before that even happened, it's obvious this
is within your constitutional rights, no matter how
offensive it may be.
That's how that works.
So for him to come out and say
that, and on top of that, say, in
the video and or after the article that
he wrote up that was written about it,
that he said he will that people think
it's unconstitutional. We're gonna make it constitutional, which
shows you an even more alarming statement that
he either doesn't understand how that works or
doesn't care that doing so would be null
and void based on precedent for the Supreme
Court.
Mayberry versus Madison. If it's republic to the
constitution, it's null and void, Which there's plenty
of examples that exist under that, but the
point is you don't just make something constitutional
if it undermines a constitutional right.
Meaning, your free speech. That mean the point
being you can't just write a law that
says you can't own guns because that would
be republican to the constitution. None of the
10 amendments, which is just the extent first
ten extensions of the amendments to the constitution,
it's the bill of rights,
are repugnant to the constitution.
That's why those exist. Any amendment written that
is challenging to any of that is null
and void according to the supreme court. That's
my point about when they say we're take
away free speech or take away they can
do that. It'd be unconstitutional,
but it would not be
legal. And, arguably, you would not have to
legally follow it. There was like, just like
the tax point, though, it doesn't mean they're
not gonna come up to your door with
a gun because we're dealing with an illegitimate
authoritarian force.
Well, probably all the government for that matter,
but we're just seeing it much more on
display.
My point, though, in large, is simply that
saying that this is what we should do
is unequivocally
unconstitutional,
un American.
But people who see this as
democrats, 1st and foremost, burning flags, we hate
them. That's how they've been riled up. Or
just terrorists,
which that's not what we're talking about. Any
of the videos he's pointing to, they're just
random Americans out there protesting from all sorts
of places.
And that you don't like what they're doing.
So all you're doing is illegalizing
for your own benefit what you disagree with.
That is the woke right. It's exactly what
you criticize in the left. Here's what he
had to say.
And I often get asked, Mike
Oops.
I forgot to play that. Hey. Let's play
this real quick. What was it like?
Right. The Washington Post described me as the
most loyal cabinet member to Donald j Trump.
I had to I had to
Except for not being that at all and
being criticized by Trump, but we'll just forget
about all that because narrative. I had to
remind the president that they did not mean
that as a compliment.
They asked me, what was it like to
serve for president Trump?
And I told them, and I've told everyone
hundreds of times in these three and a
half years,
it was the greatest privilege that Mike Pompeo
could ever have.
You know, aside from in 3rd person, you
know, except for when you said the exact
opposite though. But again, you know, narrative is
more fun.
I was I was proud to be a
part of president Trump's team. I talked to
him every day for 4 years, first as
CIA director
and then as secretary of state. And what
I was so proud of is that we
understood the greatness of this nation,
and we never once apologized
for the United States of America.
This is such a gross point that just
taps into this blind hubris, this brine jingoism.
What do you mean you never apologize? So
despite all the many examples of crimes and
illegitimate actions by the US government,
saying you never apologize is praiseworthy?
What if you made a mistake? Which are
we saying you've the the US government has
never made a mistake?
What if you kill people by well, yeah.
Yeah. Then we made a mistake. We apologize.
But his his argument is that we never
do, just like Israel. There is no we
are right no matter what. Shut up. We're
in control. That's what he's pushing. Might is
right. We're always right. We don't apologize for
being away.
That's just disgustingly stupid.
People can frame it as an American, but
that's just act that's just
objective reality.
Nobody should blindly support a government no matter
what. Even our own founding fathers said that.
To support a president with no whether right
or wrong is servile and, what do you
say?
Morally treasonable to the American people. I think
it was Madison. I remember correctly. Anyway, I've
looked it up many I've said say that
many times. Let me let me see if
I can find it real quick.
Yep. Right there. Boom.
Here is
the quote.
It is oh, sorry. Roosevelt.
To announce that there must be no criticism
of the president or that we are to
stand by the president right or wrong, or
you could just read government,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is
morally treatable to the American public. Now that's
not the same support or he's good or
whatever else, but just the words, no matter
who said them, absolutely accurate.
And that's what we're talking about. So you
never apologize for
well, it's all you're trying to do is
instill an idea that we're right no matter
what. Isn't that just politics for you today?
Once.
Yeah. Not not when you assassinated Soleimani, not
when you bombed Sudan, not when you murdered
children in Syria, not when
you overthrew Bolivia. No. No. No. We don't
apologize for our crimes. We just keep doing
them.
Now president Trump's gonna secure our southern border.
We will bring peace back to the world.
We will take down the ring of fire.
Peace to the world.
I mean, my god. The hubris.
The idea that you even want that, you
monster. And the ring of fire, of course,
because of Ron bad guy. Right? Where all
they're talking about is what they are, what
you're doing everywhere in the world by projecting
onto some other bad guy. That doesn't say
that they're necessarily good guy,
But to pretend like you're the one doing
this hey. Do you they have lost any
if they ever had, say, any semblance of
moral authority in the world is gone. You're
literally committing genocide.
Now, yes, you could see that as just
Biden's administration, but they're the same thing. And
Pompeo is actively a part of the background
deep state that we pretend is fight Trump
is fighting.
And they're gonna keep it going. And you're
gonna pretend like you're gonna be the one
bringing peace back to the world? Guys, I
mean, it just it makes me feel sick
to pretend like anybody would fall for it
or that people would fall for it. We
will support our friends in Israel, but he's
gonna need he's gonna need help to do
that. Right. Most of the Orthodox genocide. Right?
Even in that crowd, it gets a half
hearted response because they're not maniacs.
They see the dead children. They recognize the
statements of Israelis going, let's kill everybody because
there's nobody there. I'll go over it in
a minute.
Even in that rally, they're like, half of
them. You can hear it.
Wild. Now, sorry, I I I did wanna
play that. So back to this.
Here's Trump and the flag.
And as long as the speaker of the
house of representatives is here, I would like
to put forward a bill because
I watched
2 months ago as some very bad people
radical left people, by the way, nothing happened
to them in Washington d Right. So Americans,
radical left, he'll call them, you know, just
like the radical right, or in other words,
Americans on the political spectrum, who burned a
flag because it's constitutionally protected. They have a
right to do so, no matter how much
you don't like that, in protest
of a genocide
and the US support for it.
That's what happened. You see burned our American
flags. They were burning flag.
And I would like to suggest that we
put in a bill
if you burn the American flag 1 year
in jail.
Not the first time he's done that. He
tried this before.
And I'll play a clip from Ron or
a kind of a compilation from Bill Hicks
and Ron Paul where this is an old
conversation.
It is fundamentally unconstitutional at every possible way
you look at it. He knows that. Doesn't
care. He wants to force it in for
political me for political interests as well as
to diminish your constitutional rights. Whether he knows
that or not, that's what's happening.
And it's just kinda sad. They're all cheering
because they don't like that, but they're they're
cheering for their own subjugation, their own restriction,
their own authoritarian government control over their lives.
This shit, did you watch the flag burning
thing? Wasn't that great? Boy, if everyone showed
their true colors then, didn't they? The court
ruled today that burning the American flag as
a form of political protest
is a right protected
by the first amendment to the constitution.
Now realize that alone
is enough to have this conversation. Not to
say that we have to blindly believe or
agree with the Supreme Court rules.
Plenty of things I don't, but it is
still precedent.
And you can say we should fight to
change that, but you can't pretend like this
is something we like, that right now we
should just pass this law.
Because you realize passing a law does not
change supreme court ruling or the constitution. So
when the law
is repugnant to the constitution, it's null and
void. That's the same point.
That's the sprint that is that is the
way the system works. So you can disagree
with it, but you can't pretend like him
doing this is legitimate. It's not. But all
it shows you is nothing they care about.
Either side of it
are things that you care about.
They use them to manipulate you, and now
we're watching them get diminished because their interest
their interest are changing.
Like, we need to we're we're rapidly dreaming
dream driven into the new structure. It's everywhere
I look.
People acted as though the supreme court approved
the flag burning. You know what I mean?
Does that mean we have to burn our
flags? What did it say that we had
them down? No. No.
No. That's not what they said.
They said that perhaps if somebody wants to
burn a flag, he perhaps doesn't need to
go to jail for a year.
Pretty harsh on their part,
They said that they said we should burn
it. They didn't say that. They didn't say
that. They didn't say that.
Does that mean I have to go out?
No. No. No. No. No. No.
Listen. Read.
Think.
Well, I don't get it. I don't wanna
burn my flag. Then don't.
People snapped over this. Did you watch that?
People were just, hey, buddy. Let me tell
you something.
My daddy died for that flag.
Just really? Wow. I bought mine.
Yeah. They sell them, and you know, at
Kmart and shit. Yeah.
Yeah. He died in the Korean war for
that flag. Oh, what a coincidence. Mine was
made in Korea.
No one, and I repeat,
no one has ever
died for a flag. A flag
is a piece of cloth.
They might have died for freedom which,
by the way, is the freedom also to
burn
the fucking flag. What a great point.
Right?
What a contradiction. What a hypocrisy.
So you're making the argument that it's offensive
because that's you know, you fought for that
flag. You fought for the freedom that it
represents, and then actively undermine it by saying
you don't have the freedom to do you
know, it's it's ridiculous.
That's the whole point. It's about freedom and
liberty. That's why that's there. And here we
are where the whole thing is undermined in
this embarrassing way because you are being emotionally
manipulated by an oligarch, by an authoritarian ruler.
Think about how ridiculous that is at the
end of the day. Say, burning the flag
doesn't make freedom go away. It's kinda like
freedom.
Today, the US Supreme Court said that the
state may not criminally punish a person for
burning a flag as a means of political
protest. In an unusual
coalition, liberals William Brennan, Thurgood Marshall, and Harry
Blackmun joined with conservatives Antonin Scalia and Anthony
Kennedy. Who did that?
Bipartisan. And I don't I don't approve of
flag, Bernie. I don't wanna burn a flag,
but if somebody wants to burn a flag,
what business is it of mine?
Is it my business if someone wants to
burn a flag? Is it?
No. No, it's not. Is it my business
what other people read or watch on TV?
No, it's not.
Justice William Brennan for the majority. The government
may not prohibit the expression of an idea
simply because society finds it offensive or disagreeable
that would dilute the freedom that this cherished
emblem represents.
And he except both sides are doing that
right now. Both sides.
Going after things they find disagreeable.
Acting like it's justified because they don't like
it. We're being led by the child the
children in the room. Right? We are being
and this is the it's not everybody in
the political spectrum. I'm talking about the TeamSport
politics. Just like Weinstein was pointing out, they're
leaning into the radicals on both sides and
acting like they're not there. And then these
are the ones driving this conversation, and they're
the ones that they're looking to because they're
the ones actively participating.
It's pretty scary. He said, if there is
a bedrock principle underlying the first amendment,
it is that the government may not prohibit
the expression of an idea simply because society
finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.
You can't make the flag into a sort
of a religious object that's so sanctified that
it can't be used in public protest.
2 Reagan appointees, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy,
both conservatives, provided crucial votes for the 5
judge majority. And I would like to suggest
that we put in
a bill
if you burn the American flag 1 year
in jail.
We do not need more legislation like this.
The real attack are on our liberties. The
real attack in this institution is the attack
on the constitution,
and this does nothing to address it.
All we need to do is pass a
flag amendment, and it's gonna solve the problem
of the attack on the con on the
constitution
which is continuous
and endless.
I would like to point out that, the
word desecrate is a very important word, and
we've talked about it all day, but we
haven't yet defined it. It means to deconsecrate.
What I'd like to know is when we
have consecrated the flag, we're holding the flag
in the highest of esteem,
and yet liberty is really what should be
on the pinnacle.
Liberty and the Constitution, but to deconsecrate
something means that the flag was consecrated. I'd
like to just read what that means. It
says, to make, declare, or set apart as
sacred,
or such as a church to set apart
for the worship of a deity. Who and
when did we raise this flag to this
level?
Have we deified the state to this extent?
When we undermine the constitution and the bill
of right, we undermine liberty, and then we
diminish the value of the flag.
Great clip from Decensored News.
I mean, it's it's exactly what's happening. Right?
And now, well, I mean, we'll briefly go
over the point about Ron Paul today, which
I think is largely being misrepresented or largely,
but in some ways, nonetheless still concerning for
me just like with the Gareth point. But
it's interesting to see that. If you haven't
seen it, Ron Paul, in in a way
is suggesting,
not endorsing what they're doing, but suggesting he
might work with Elon to help
reduce government or whatever. And I just it's,
you know, still coming from a status mindset
with the believing that voting in the process
of government will change because they do. They
believe he clearly believes
that continuing through the voting process potentially will
pay I I disagree with that. My point
in saying that is that he may rationalize
the lesser he goes dynamic because and, again,
maybe he's right. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe that
he, with RFK, will be able to give
us enough positives. I just, you know, I
just can't make those principal challenging rationalizations.
But, nonetheless, the point is it's odd we
can see, not nonetheless. But another point is
it's odd to see
him saying this back then, and now Trump's
saying that today, and here he is leaning.
It's just a weird overlap today. Very odd.
Some people would are say the claim that
that means he's not legitimate. I I I
think of all people in this field, Ron
Paul has been wildly consistent over the years
and and continue to do work well outside
being in the political spectrum in a sense
of in congress. And I just think that
shows a
lot. Because I I think if the mindset
is this is the only way to change
things, I disagree with that, then you can
see why that made my sense to you.
I'm of the mind that government is the
problem.
I think that's a big difference.
But Daniel here, Cotton says, I thought free
speech was the core American value shared by
almost everyone.
But now half the country believes that government
censorship is permissible or even necessary
as long as the government calls it misinformation
and says that it saves lives. How'd this
happen?
Now, obviously, he's talking with the left.
And by the way, it's not just the
left censoring misinformation. Twitter is a rife with
it.
It is rife on Twitter. As Yaccarino has
made clear, we're moderating content. Right? That's the
same damn thing. And they're working with the
ADL to stop misinformation
around the guise of anti semitism, but they're
calling it both.
So it's amazing that you can't recognize that.
But on top of that, the point is
it comes down to,
how did it happen?
How do we get in a place where
Americans, whatever they're standing, have been convinced that
it is okay as long as we don't
like it? And not stand back and go,
oh, but wait a minute. That's not only
a challenge of what I believe. It also
means they can do it too.
I don't know why some of these people
can't recognize that. But Kaylee again jumps in
and goes, do you mean the half that
you support? And shows you Donald Trump saying
the exact things
that he's talking about. Put it on the
context, in this case, of
I'll I'll show I'll play both of them
for you. So here's the actual the long
clip. So I've got all these lined up
here, and this is about Israel. Now I'm
not I won't play all these again, but
1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 different videos
that I have here. There's more than that.
Not even getting these last 2 I'm gonna
play for you. Nine different videos saying a
different variation of Israel and this one, Israel
should control.
Like, he says right here, Israel should control
congress.
Literally going congress, he says right there. And
rightfully so. Now you've played the video. I've
played it a 1000 times. It's not out
of context. It's exactly what he says. And
every one of these videos says something similar.
Right? That if Israel was in control like
it's supposed to be, AOC and the rest
wouldn't even be in politics. These are open
statements.
Or the fact down here that he says
he will get rid of the Jew haters
in this country, which again is if you
have somebody out there
which if somebody
hates a person or a group because of
their religion,
you know, like Zionism, for example, who hates
or rather for any reason,
hates a group of people.
Like like Zionism against anybody that they've it's
racist ideology.
The point is we can call them disgusting.
We can acknowledge, like I would, that if
you're thinking people are gross just because they're
Jews, then you're a bad person. I think
you're disgusting. But you have every right to
say that. You have every right to think
that. Even though I think it's disgusting. That's
what rights are about. That's what we're saying
the inherent, whether ever written down rights are
about. That's the point.
So when he says not terrorist or foreign,
which he said in other context, that if
those videos too,
he says remove the Jew haters from this
country, and everybody cheers.
I mean, that that's like saying remove the
Christian haters from this country.
Why is that? Is that okay?
Or Christian lovers from this country or Jew
lovers from this country. Same difference. We're talking
about you taking a feeling and a belief
and saying you can't have that one, and
we'll remove you from the country.
Guys, it's just shockingly obvious.
And here we are. It's all on the
surface.
That's about free speech and a lot more.
But the one I'm gonna pull the 2
I'm gonna play for you is about the
flag because that's what we're just discussing. All
of this centers around free speech and your
rights, and they're actively undermining. I mean, look.
Do not for for a minute assume that
I'm only saying this about one side. The
I don't I have examples we'll get to
in a second. Right next about Kamala and
the left. The point is that's obvious too.
But right now, it seems the republicans, I
would argue more so that the left is
in in this in by and large, in
line with that idea. That it's that it
is okay to censor misinformation even though that's
whether it is misinformation or not, in most
cases it's not, that's still not the case
is still,
violation of your rights. But my point
is that both of them are doing it.
And on the right, it's a it's much
more deceptive. And a lot of people who
would actually fight for your rights are the
ones being played by this, and I find
that more alarming.
But here is the current one that we
just saw. It's actually a clip on Fox
about him discussing this.
Took the American flag down. They were riding
Hamas on the bell outside of Union Station.
Which by the way, nobody anywhere has ever
proven who how did that and how we
know that they were supporting Palestine.
Certainly could be. It wouldn't surprise me. Anybody
could've done it. As well as a Zionist
Israel supporter in order to make it without
Hamas. Which by the way has happened a
1000 times since it started. I can prove.
My point is it could've been either. But
they'll tell you what they want for what
makes sense for their narrative, as always. Because
again, I've seen it. There's no video evidence.
It's simply what was written and they go,
well, look at what they did. Lazy journalism,
if not journalism at all. What does a
Donald Trump do
if he takes office to these people on
the street?
Rarely have we seen anything like this. And
I Again, like I said last time, no.
It's very common. Happens all over the world
and a lot in this country too. So
when you may when you're trying to outrage
somebody and manipulate their emotions, you try to
make it seem unprecedented like they're all doing
about everything right now. Despite the fact that
this is very common. Happens a lot. Think
you should get a 1 year jail sentence
if you do anything to desecrate the American
flag. Now Desecrate. Ron Paul just made the
point. Here we are again. People will say,
oh, it's unconstitutional.
Those are stupid people. Okay. So you're stupid.
If you acknowledge the facts, which are undeniable,
unequivocal, that this is objectively protected by the
constitution, your rights are inherent, then you're stupid,
guys. All you people out there, Republicans who
think that this is know that that's your
right that's protected whether you agree with it
or not because you're objective and you're smart.
You're stupid according to Trump. But go out
and vote because that makes sense. Right?
That's crazy. And not and and Kamal, same
vote. There you know they're censoring. It's right
on the surface. But you have to recognize
that this is or whatever. It's your first
amendment right.
The fact that we could pretend like that's
not the most alarming thing is scary to
me
because it shows you people willing to undermine
their own rights to be right,
to win
against the people you've been trained to hate.
It's this is low level com lowest common
denominator stuff,
and that's what's leading the conversation. That should
be alarming. But just in case you're this
was the one from before. This is from
2015. So it's not some anomaly. Here he
is talking about shutting down the Internet
with Bill Gates' help because ISIS.
And again says, if you think it's unconstitutional,
you're stupid. So let's not pretend like this
is a one off thing or that he
doesn't think that. Because we're losing a lot
of people because of the Internet. And we
have to do something. We have to go
see Bill Gates and a lot of different
people
that really understand what's happening. We have to
talk to them maybe in certain areas closing
that internet up in some way. Somebody will
say, oh, freedom of speech. Freedom of speech.
These are foolish people. We have a lot
of foolish people. We have a lot of
foolish people. So foolish or stupid.
No.
People that understand their rights that you try
to manipulate or that you don't know any
better which is equally alarming.
It's not up for debate.
I don't care whether you're talking about what
you perceive to be terrorists or not. Realize
that's an important point. Did you did you
already forget that they called you a terrorist
because you were wearing a red hat?
Do you know how easy that slope goes
or that you're an anti semite because you're
simply republican in a certain context?
Or that the Nazis at the trucker rally.
Like, it's amazing
that we can't see how easy this goes,
that you that you were the focal point
30 seconds ago.
That becomes that you're a terrorist, you could
be deported because they simply say so. That's
wild.
But the idea being that they're talking about
ISIS influencing people, but they're still due process.
Even if you are a terrorist,
whatever that means and whatever context you're looking
at, you have rights that are inalienable,
But apparently not in Trump's world, and this
is scary to me. Or Kamala's, but I'm
simply aiming at Trump in this conversation for
those that are being played by this. Because
all of these people would wax intellectual for
an hour about how Kamala is censoring the
Internet, and they're right. K? So it's important
for them to see it on all sides
of this. Maybe in the interest of recognizing
the bigger picture.
Right here. And this is just still about
this point before we go into the other
side of it. She this is interesting to
me though. October 28th
from the New York Post. Kamala Harris claims
Trump would try to take away right to
free speech. Gun ownership. He wants to terminate
the constitution. Think how crazy that is. Now,
it's not even necessarily wrong. I mean, actually,
let's do this.
In case you didn't see this one.
This is the other one that we just,
the net it was on the same video.
Let me grab it real quick. Here it
is.
The firearms
first and then go to court because that's
another system. Because a lot of times, by
the time you go to court, it takes
so long to go to court
to get the due process
procedures.
To go to court would have taken a
long time. So you could do exactly what
you're saying, but take the guns first, go
through due process second.
Okay. Again,
no matter what your rationalization is, I don't
care if you are a terrorist, your rights
don't dissolve because you're suddenly being accused of
a crime. That's exactly the point for them.
So my point is that you can say
that, well, he's talking about bad guys breaking
the rules. It's a subjective thing. Would you
okay with that? Would if it was democrats
deciding who's doing that, would you be in
the same position? No. Because they're gonna lie.
Oh, guess what? Your government's in the same
it's it's your perception of who's on the
right side of things. But that's why those
exist because that's how that works. The rights
are inherent. Right? You don't go through due
process second. That's showing you you don't care
about your second amendment rights. Or the bump
stock ban, which is a crime or unconstitutional
rather. Or as Brian from high impact flicks
has highlighted the the red flag laws that
got somebody killed. Nobody wants to talk about
all these things, except Kyle Rittenhouse and then
gets attacked by the entire MAGA movie before
he walks it all back. So my point
is,
first and foremost, he's saying or not for
for foremost, but first, Trump would try to
take away your free speech. Well, he is
saying that. He's openly saying that. And whether
he wants to attack your gun ownership, I
I think debatable, but what he's done so
far,
that seems in line. But the funny thing
is so does she and so is she.
So I find that it's a game being
played. I feel like this is obvious.
It's interesting that she would come out and
say these things when you don't normally hear
democrats make those accusations about the right. We're
they're doing something different right now in a
weird I, again, think it's because of what
the next step is going to be.
Doesn't that seem interesting to you? So let's
go to the next part.
Here
is the is the, you know, other is
Kamal Harris bent on killing free speech? Signs
say yes. Now it's obvious.
You can read through it and look at
all the things we've talked about, the idea
of them openly censoring the Internet, openly talking
about censoring misinformation
or criticism of of Israel, just like both
sides,
or your rights in general. I mean, I
the funny thing is I don't feel like
I have to convince anybody of the idea
that Kamala's administration would be going after your
free speech, just like the right, by the
way, like I just showed you, or the
idea that they would be trying to diminish
your access to your first second amendment,
which I would argue is more obvious on
the left. But clearly, Trump did things that
didn't give you indication that's not safe either
way.
But my point is to show you that
it says, Kamala Harris bent on sign freeze
killing free speech. Signs say yes. Okay.
Which are obvious to me. But what we're
talking about, for example, here is that Paul
Thacker
saying, inter the we've talked about this, the
internal center for countering digital hate. And they
have as one of their dot one of
their points, kill Musk's Twitter.
Now obvious connections to her and the administration,
but it's not explicitly Kamala Harris doing that
like Trump openly saying that's what's gonna happen.
Now if I had to pick, I feel
like I would argue that the left is
more adamant about doing these things.
But, again, the reality for me at the
core is that it's all the same thing.
These are just the left narrative versus the
right narrative.
But this is just simply to show you
that there's an obvious focal point.
But what I think is interesting is it
comes down to these abstract connections to what
you to Kamala, I mean.
While you've got Trump
literally on the surface saying these things will
get removed, but you guys agree with it,
so you don't care in in the the
central part of it. So I think that's
a strange dynamic.
Here's Elon
Musk saying, vote like your life depends on
it. Because it does.
I mean, guys, it's it's just, like, ridiculous
fever pitch mania,
and they're all doing it. There won't be
another election. I mean, guys, we hear this
every time. But this Stan Spector says, x
will shut down if Kamala Harris wins.
Vote your life depends on it.
God. I mean, just isn't this I mean,
I feel like we should ridicule this. How
stupid this is.
But here's the interesting part.
From the Seattle Times. Post falsely claims video
shows Harris promising to censor x and owner
Elon Musk. Now this is what I keep
trying to get into. It shouldn't be up
for debate that they're all actively aiming at
the same things.
But what's funny is what you're what being
highlighted about what proves that, a lot of
from a lot of it seems to be,
like, almost intentionally misrepresented.
So the claim here is that there's a
video that Harris says that she'll shut down
act, which, by the way, why would we
need of it? They've all they all have
been actively
criticizing Elon Musk saying that what he's doing
is wrong, saying that Twitter needs to be
censored. So the idea that you need to,
like, manufacture a thing that makes you say
that seems weird to me, almost designed to
be manipulative.
Shocking.
But the point is, the clip is from
2019
and shows Harris speaking with CNN, Jake Kapper,
discussing whether the president Donald Trump at that
time should have his profile removed.
Okay. So we're talking about a different time,
a different Twitter under a different person when
Trump was there, but that gets manipulated into
looking like you're talking about today and Elon
Musk because Elon Musk's under threat.
I think it's about engineering everything you're looking
at.
Now here's Elon Musk saying, but before we
go past that
so if in case you're missing it, the
bottom line is they're all actively going to
do this.
They're all actively building this technocratic panopticon around
you with social credit, digital IDs, and everything
else, but all actively trying to create the
circumstances to where they can point at the
other side and suppress what you use to
push back.
And that will culminate right alongside the idea
of accessing the Internet.
So right now, what you're seeing is this
kinda shift to whoever they basically collect to
collect basically, to get everyone on
centralized locations. That's what I would see with
at least one part of this as. An
x being this big focal. The new WeChat
well, I mean and we'll show you when
the next segment, we're gonna get into the
idea of the technocratic side of it, completely
dovetailing with Elon Musk and Twitter
field.
And I think what's so alarming about that
is that I feel like we're all being
kind of, what's I'm looking for a better
word there. Not kettled. That does work, but,
like, funneled. They got some of that stuff,
funneled into a very specific spot.
And we saw the Twitter files, trying to
reimagine what these things are. Each one of
these steps is trying to change the way
we feel and understand about things in very,
very malicious,
surreptitious ways.
Like, for example, getting people who are believers
in the constitution
to cheer for the undermining of that constitution
without even realizing it.
So this is one thing I keep seeing
from the Twitter side of it. It's pretending
like Twitter is somehow a news platform,
or at least conflating these two things to
make it appear that way without actually saying
that. So here, Elon says, x is where
you can learn what's real, which,
sure you could also learn what's real on
anything else. What's funny is that also on
Twitter is
like I say every time, Twitter is probably
one of the best locations for real time
information, which I argue they're actively Elon and
Yaccarino actively trying to change in their interest
of controlling that narrative, but you still get
these things that squeak through. You can find
things in real time that get removed or
altered or algorithmically hidden. You can see when
things are happening in real time.
Better than most any other platform in my
opinion. But at the same time, you have
to consider that almost everything you're seeing, half
at any given time, can be false, lied
about, misrepresented, altered.
That's the truth. So hardly is where you
go to find what's real. You have it's
a very hard it's a discerning platform where
you have to constantly be discerning that everything
in your face could be lied about. That's
the opposite.
But it has real time information that you
can get if you're willing to be questioning
everything. You see my point?
But they want you to think it's just
a platform full of truth news coming at
you. Right? Well, mainstream media's on there too.
Aren't they lying to us?
See, it's it's just it's a lazy point
that's made just trust us because we're the
good guys. But it says legacy media lies.
Look,
licentiously.
And the point is that they're on there.
So they're lying on your so Twitter can't
be where you go to get what's real
unless you're only looking at what you're pointing
at. Ah, crux of the point. But Doge
says, the media claims that x is ineffective
against the surge in US election misinformation.
Well, so is anywhere.
Because unless you censor it,
then it should be there. That's free speech.
You have a right to be wrong. You
have a right to route to lie. It's
it's a that's your right to free speech.
But it says, but the reality is that
x remains the number one source for news.
You see how stupid this is?
Okay. This is like saying that I mean,
basically what you're doing, comparing Twitter
to
whether you wanna look at corporate media's news
or not. The point is, arguably, we're talking
about news organizations, even though they lie to
us. So, you're comparing news organizations
to Twitter.
That's like comparing Netflix to
TLav and saying, Netflix. TLav is a better
news organization. Well, yeah. Because Netflix is not
about news. You may find news channels on
there or shows that might inform you, but
it's Netflix.
Twitter is a social media platform.
Yes. You could find people posting news on
there, but it's not the number one spot
for news in the context that you're trying
to make it into people believing that Twitter
is a news plat. They're trying to reimagine
everything. They're trying to change the way you
view what you're looking at. To thinking that
this is what you're supposed to go to
for your that's ridiculous.
You should be going to journalists and news
platforms and other investigative processes for your news,
and maybe you could find those on Twitter
too. Or even better way better way to
put it is you will find those on
Twitter. But Twitter is not the source for
the news. Twitter is the medium on which
that news is being presented.
You get the point? And it's constantly I've
seen them do this constantly.
Here's another one.
Doge doing the same thing. Legacy Media's dying
while x
keeps hitting new all time highs.
What do you so who okay. So Netflix
is reaching all time highs while media's failing.
What what what does that matter? They're they're
completely
separate. But what he wants you to do
is go, oh, okay. That means Twitter is
the news. Right? Legacy's dying, but x is
at all times, so x is winning for
new x is a media platform.
Social media. Not a news platform.
And then it goes, becoming the number one
source for real, unfiltered truth. What are you
talking about?
Citizen journalism is the future. Well, in a
in a some ways, I agree with that.
But the point is clearly that that is
not what Twitter is.
That would be maybe one part of what
Twitter is. But you see, it's it's it's
engineering you into these channels, and I think
that's terrifying.
Because it's only gonna be used to manipulate
people if you fall into those traps. Like,
the Twitter files, which were simply screenshots,
most of which I argue were true, if
not all, but designed to get you believing
that it was true because they showed it
to you without being able to check the
source material. And mostly things that we already
proved were true before that.
And I think that was a very clear
engineering of the process where what about Fauci
files? That never even happened. Yeah. Who care?
Because, see, Trump and the rest of them
are still invested in the program. The problem
is about getting you trusting them.
That's you don't trust anybody in this field
when it comes to the reality of what
you question everything.
Right? Obviously.
Because even people who you are think are
honest could simply be wrong for a number
of other reasons,
But they want you to trust what they're
showing you when most likely they are deceiving
you. Let's not forget, as APAC tracker and
plenty of others showed, this was TLAB in
specific,
or in particular,
the Twitter censoring.
Without question all over the place, in particular
around
Israel.
As even has made clear, they're working with
the ADL.
They're actively censoring. Their own lawsuit paper showed
they've they've complied with something like 97% of
what the government's asked them to censor. These
are all on the record. And the GARAM
discussion, they said that they have met or
exceeded every part of what they did. So
what are we talking about? If they're actively
aligned with it, then why were the Israeli
issue? Because you're being played. And the point
here is that sit they were censoring TLaV
and plenty of others. The whole grok dynamic
proved that they had all of these many
different tags that were censoring what we were
doing, and yet we're still able to reach
some people.
Imagine what we would be doing if they
weren't censoring us such
in such an aggressive manner. By the way,
it was more than anybody.
I didn't see it in Alex Jones' platform.
I wonder why. I wonder why. Most censored,
man. Here's just a thought making an excellent
point. The Trump psyop is so multilayered and
undeniably genius.
The establishment has successfully conditioned both parties to
focus on Trump for all the wrong reasons.
He's not Hitler, like Democrats think. He's not
a savior, like Republicans think. He is a
very convincing, consuming, and charismatic actor who will
absolutely be selected in this election so we
can continue to distract supporters on both parties.
Meanwhile, the technocrats in Global Cabal who fund
them will move forward with implementing all of
the policies we've been successfully distracted from.
They will end the Fed and replace it
with the CBC CBDC.
They will control the borders with biometric surveillance.
They will implement a voter ID that will
become your digital ID.
They will present the everything app that will
manage your social credit score. Guys, she's spot
on.
Again, her opinion, I agree with it though,
and I think she's absolutely right.
This won't happen overnight, she says, but it
will happen unless we stop the madness now.
We are consumed by a scripted reality TV
show.
And, I mean, that's
pretty much on it's pretty on the nose
when you think about what his past is,
but realize
what we've been explaining this this whole time.
That's it's exactly the point. That it's devoid
of fact and reason and just about entertainment.
It says it might be entertaining, but continuing
to be distracted by it will only solidify
our digital prison. Make no mistake, she writes.
The technocratic pied piper is Trump. I well,
I argue it's more about I think Elon
is playing that role more specifically, but either
way, it's the same point. And Americans of
all political leanings are following his tune down
the river. Oh, I get where she's coming
from with that. Basically meaning to the first
point. That they're both, like, one believes he's
Hitler, one believes he's the savior, and they're
both kinda following him. That's a good that's
a good way to frame it, actually. I
I agree with that. My point is, like,
I see Elon as the pied piper for
technocracy
for a lot of different reasons. But she
makes an excellent point there that Trump is
kind of the linchpin of how that works
from either side of it. It's good well
put. Well put. Now Jay Scott says, yep.
I really hope people wake up to the
real plan and get better understanding of how
this game works. Both sides have different strategies
of achieving the same end goals that weaponize
hot button issues from each side. I'm telling
you guys, this is far more prevalent than
many want to admit.
This person says, I I I want to
listen to the volunteer's call Amaryllis did a
week ago.
It was promising even getting through 10% of
his mission from his election
is as big a win as there has
been in my lifetime. So this is the
kind of logic you're seeing.
That even if only 10% of what happens,
it'll be more than we ever seen. Well,
I that's I don't I don't know I
don't know where you're getting the numbers from,
why you think that makes sense. But at
the end of the day, it still comes
down to believing the promises of politicians, oligarchs,
tech oligarchs,
technocrats.
And again, it says, getting RFKs, DC is
a win. You know, it's again, I hope
you're right.
As he says, next. But at the end
of the day, that's a dangerous game to
play. And he says, I hope you're right,
and they actually give him a role.
Me the same point I'm saying is, how
do we even know that's gonna happen? I
hope so.
I mean, even then, I doubt I have
my doubts because of the Israel thing. But
he goes, actually, he's going to have a
very big role. I don't know why they
think they know that. Trump said, that's why,
he can do whatever he wants. Only leave
him to handle the liquid gold. Right. Okay.
So the point is, you believe what Trump
told you. That's quite naive. Even if you
end up being right, it's very naive to
think because a politician said so, or because
anybody says something when they're in the midst
of something like this that they're just absolutely
going to happen. He could mean it and
it might not happen anyway.
But it says it's not an exaggeration to
say we'll lose free speech for sure if
Kamala wins.
Well, guys, I don't necessarily disagree aside from
the for sure part, but it's just this
kind of blind
projection to one side when both of them
are publicly telling you that that's gonna happen.
Because I also think that there are risks
with Trump, but it's a but it's his
lame duck term. I think we'll ride it
out no matter what. Kamala will win,
will win, turn the whole country into California.
It's like these are all just you're just
speaking talking points.
They're the same thing. They're all actively pushing
the same agendas.
But because you've convinced yourself that one's better
than the other,
it may it creates a dynamic where you
want or actually call for the lesser as
opposed to fighting for what you truly believe
in.
He says, I think it's an exaggeration because
she's in power now. We have free speech.
And Trump has also said some crazy stuff
about free speech. His point is like, here's
what's interesting. Again,
we have to be honest with ourselves that
being a vice president is there's power,
but the point is it's it's it's almost
a dim it's a it's almost a ridiculed
spot even amongst politicians.
Because it's pretty much you're you're you're feeling
kind of a symbolic role in a lot
of ways. You do not have the power
of the president.
Now, yes, with Biden, it's a little bit
of a different dynamic because clearly he is
not all there. But
that doesn't mean that she could rule as
the president unless he's, like, out of out
of, you know, sick and, you know, like,
that she's filling the role for the time
being. You see my point? But even either
but all that aside,
his point is using what they're arguing. Right?
That because Biden is so not there, not
rather that she's been in control, therefore, what's
happened to Biden's administration is Kamala. Okay. It's
a it's a
unverifiable
point, but they'll they make it. So using
your point, well, she's in power. Right? And
we currently have free speech. Okay.
So did you need 8 years to pull
that off? Or, you know, how what's the
see, there's a lot of those gaps that
make it clear that that I neither side
of it can flush this out because we
don't know. It's all assumption.
But he makes an excellent point. Using your
analogy about how she's always been empowered, then
why don't we have no free speech right
now?
Oh, okay. And then as a point, Trump
clearly has been saying things that are about
censoring your rights or free speech. Trump transition
cochair just said the plan is to give
him data.
Then they tried to walk it back after
backlash from Maha,
and given Trump's history of serving corporate interest,
I just can't see him following through.
Guys, it's everywhere. It's written on the wall.
Everywhere you look that this is not what
we're being told it is.
Now
the Elon Musk part and the discussion of
the great reset overlap.
So here's Elon Musk, and it says, vote
for Donald Trump or the Dems will legalize
so many illegals in swing states that this
will be the last real election in America.
He keeps saying this.
I just don't know. Where's the I mean,
look. Obviously, it's clear that they have brought
in immigration,
illegals and otherwise.
And and, again, that's a it's crazy that
we pretend like that's not a big deal
for some people, mostly left argue that somehow
because they're
you know, I I, like, the human part
of it does play a factor. My point
is if you're gonna be specific, but there's
a law in place and your the law
is just not being acknowledged. That that's crazy.
Sort of like saying we should vote with
no you know, that no no identification
and sit and non citizens voting. Of course,
that matters, obviously. Both sides are using these
things to weaponize things against you.
My point is we don't know this full
picture. We don't know that it's exactly or
the idea that these people, whether illegal or
not, are automatically voting democrat. In fact, I
can prove to you that's not true.
But the the point is it's just a
narrative to get you to think that we
have to do this even though we know
most of you don't want to. That's the
underlying point. It proves what we're saying, and
you can easily see this. The reason they're
acting so ridiculous is because they recognize that
most people are going, both these choices suck,
and I don't want either one. But if
you get Elon screaming at you that we
have to, we're never gonna have another one,
you get those people going okay, okay.
I I do think he's better than okay,
I'll go over. And that's what's happening.
So I just think this is lazy, and
Joe Rogan goes right along with it. I
mean, how long is this? It's a minute
long. I'll play it for you.
Well, I'll say it again, man.
I think this is the last election. If
if Trump doesn't win,
this is the last election. I think and
they've said that I don't know. The last
4 elections I've heard, at some level, it's
at a fever pitch right now, but just
like every other thing we keep pointing at,
this keeps happening.
You're right. Yeah. I think you're right. And
I think people and a lot of people
are waking up and realize that that have
been lifelong Democrats. Guys like Bill Ackman. Where's
the where's the factual evidence or the point
or the logic?
Just saying I don't think it I think
it'll be the last one if because they're
bad. Again, the point is about bringing so
many illegals into swing states, which I think
is interesting that we so you're just gonna
force them they they they're not allowed to
go anywhere else? Are you gonna chain them
to the wall? You could put them there.
Are they gonna stay there? The point is
that you're gonna dump them into swing states,
so therefore, they're gonna be able to make
like, I don't you walk me through how
that's exactly going to amount to no elections
in the future or that they'll win every
time. Like, it just guys, again, if you
don't recognize by now that it's that that
your vote doesn't translate or the machines being
manipulated or foreign countries or cheating or or
all the things they threw in. So we
just forget all that? Now suddenly everything's exactly
correct, and they'll manipulate it through swing states?
How do we not see all of these
contradictions? Why do people like this blindly go
along with it?
When guys like Chamath Exactly. Tulsi Gabbard switched
over to the Republicans. Like, there's a Which
is stupid.
You're you're showing you have no principles.
You're just jumping side. That's team sport politics
for you. A lot of people who their
whole life, they've been left wing, and they
realize, like, I can't do this anymore. You
and I used to be democrats. Yeah. Alright.
So if you had principles your whole life,
and you realize that the party did not
represent you, do you change your principles, or
do you simply go, I still have these
principles, but I'm gonna vote the other way
for now.
I shouldn't have to explain that. I mean,
that's wild to me. And that
but most people in the paradigm seem to
miss that completely. So Yeah. Yeah. It's nuts.
It's nuts, man. And Yeah. And again, don't
forget, as he just said, he's one of
those. So it was half the people on
his team right now. It's weird how they
seem to be all former democrats. Can you
not I mean, it's funny how playing into
the which I'm it's kind of a joke
for me because I don't think I think
they're all the same thing. But it's funny
how the republicans can't ask, oh my god,
are we being cooped by the democrats? It
seems like a very likely possibility
in that discussion with all Democrats, former Democrats
in this I mean, that's Trump, that's Elon,
that's RRK, that's Tulsi.
Is that is that weird?
The
if the Dems won this election, they will
legalize enough illegals to turn the swing states,
and everywhere will be like California.
How does I don't you see, I just
don't get the the playthrough here.
So first of all, you bring in illegals
and legalize them, which is a whole process,
by the way, which of course is possible.
They're already doing it. They're making it happen.
And then make sure that they stay in
the states you want. How is that I
don't get walk me through how that makes
sense, how that works. And by the way,
we're talking about the next election.
Right? So somehow, she wins. And by the
way, it doesn't take just her being in
power to make that happen. It's been happening
through multiple administrations. But I just think this
is a lazy argument that just may you
want to believe because it makes it easy
to argue that they're gonna we have to
do it or we're never gonna have another
election.
But what if we end up in a
position where I mean, I can I can
do hypotheticals all the time? I think where
it's both sides are going or your government
are obviously leading in a direction where that
is the future,
where they don't need your consent because they
won't care about it anymore past a certain
point.
But, anyway, I could spend all day on
that. I just think it's frustrating.
You wanna walk me through this and map
it out, and I'll show you a 1,000
different points of of assumption,
of of complete
inconsistency with the reality around you
are a 1,000 different ways this but this
is not something you I mean, anyway, just
you know the point here. And I think
the problem is that people are willing to
ignore obvious inconsistencies and contradictions because of their
party side.
The most of which I think is obvious
is that you don't just because you claim
like, isn't it kind of insulting that you
think you just know who they want to
vote for because of where they come from
and what their status is?
It is. And frankly, I think I can
prove to you that that's not the case
anymore. There will be no
escape. That is so insane. This is the
final
this is it. I mean, am I am
I crazy? Or does it look like Elon
is, like, trolling everybody? The way he talk
like, you can look in an act talk
in a normal context, and then you get
him when he's standing on the stage with
Trump. Or like this, with this weird kind
of half smile, smirk he's got in his
face, where he says, like, almost like childish
things, like,
there's no escape.
And it's a weird thing to say, like,
it is he is saying what it look,
I get the perception that he's saying what
he thinks will convince the children
to react a certain way. The Pied Piper.
Yeah. I of course, I could be reading
into it. I mean, I am, but my
point is this is my opinion. But if
you just look at the way he acts
and smile the face, I think I get
the I get the feeling that they're laughing
at you. That they think they're they're playing
you, and a lot of you are falling
for it, and that they are enjoying it.
That's the sense I get.
Watch it. Wait a minute. To turn the
swing states and everywhere will be like California.
Oh, it's it's like you know is right
now. That is so insane. This is the
final
this is it.
This is the last chance.
Has anybody tried to push back?
Go out and vote. Of course. Vote harder,
guys. Go out and vote. It's a it's
a rock the votes
advertisement.
This is so funny. Vote like your life
depends on it. Vote like your future depends
on it because it does. Your life depends
on it. This is the last chance, man.
Because that's not ridiculous. Right? Your life depends
on it.
My god. If your life depended on you
going out and picking an authoritarian rule of
your life, then we're screwed already.
That's just depressing.
Okay. So here's kim.com saying, imagine
Elon didn't buy Twitter. Don't you even know
how lucky we are?
This is sad. It's, you know, embarrassing almost.
This this patronizing
you know, it's just but here's the funny
well, I wanted to show you as Gammy
showed me. Oh, look at well, look at
that. Kim.com is hiding a reply. Well, let's
go look at these.
Turns out, he's hiding a whole lot of
replies. And what are they all saying? You
mean Elon's handlers bought Twitter? Oh, look. Here
he is with Netanyahu. Why why are you
hiding that? He says, and it's good, but
so you hide that, kim.com? You hide a
post? Isn't that are you censoring their free
speech? Like, of course, it's everybody would claim,
but, no, that's more of the government. Governments
would be the one that would be censoring
you. But it's funny how we you you
get the point.
Here is a republican going, look. You don't
you can't do that. We'll hide your reply
about Netanyahu
or his handlers or nothing has changed. Twitter
is shit as ever. Oh, excuse me. I
just wanna cuss. Why are you hiding these
comments, Kim?
Doesn't that seem strange to you? These are
very benign comments that only hide the negative
about what Elon is doing. Well, because most
people, I think, could see this doesn't make
sense.
Indeed. Saved by the bill.
This whole system's run through Authentics.
Look at that. Seems like a lot of
people know what's going on. One minute you're
shilling, the next you're not. Pick a lane,
Kim.
Crazy. Right?
Don't you find that interesting?
So the point is, for whatever reason,
kim.com and whoever else, they're they're actively driving
a narrative from partisanship while acting like they're
not and then hiding everything within this context,
hiding other comments. They're simply going, you're wrong.
What about Israel? Censored.
Pretty strange, isn't it?
Elon Musk.
Elon Doc says, unless it's a massive risk
to the country. This is quoting Elon. All
government information should be public. Yeah. Really easy
to say that. Really easy to pretend like
you want that.
Then he comments again on top. He says,
there should be no need for FOIA requests.
All government data should be default public for
maximum transparency. Well yeah.
The so oh, absolutely. And my point would
be saying things like that is easy. Of
course, because he said it, everyone's screaming about
how he's gonna change everything. Yeah. I hope
so. I really hope so.
But you know how often things like this,
like, how many times Trump has offered to
give you the JFK documents then not?
Or lock her up, or everything else, but
not.
I just don't know why we can't acknowledge
these things are very often, if not usually,
deceptions.
And there's some other narrative. And my point
is that these are the people telling you
about government transparency who are currently invested in
many government projects
that are about controlling your life. Seems a
little bit counterintuitive to me, contradictory.
Here's Lindy Iacarino going, grok. You know, the
AI from Twitter or whatever you wanna call
it. And here's Narfall saying or not, Noffle
saying, Mario,
you know, the guy that basically just panders
to whatever Elon is doing, says grok now
reads x rays and MRIs.
What?
It says Grok is the future of medicine,
especially in underserved
areas providing
or underserved areas providing patients direct access to
their data. Elon, submitting try submitting your x
rays to Grok and then for analysis.
Jeez. That's crazy. So what happens when they
give you wrong information and it hurts what
you're doing? No. Bottom line is,
Grok is the future of medicine?
I mean, do we not see where this
goes and how alarming this is? The overlap
with everything they're doing, the medical side of
it with the I mean, Grok,
the Twitter AI being the future of medicine,
on the on the one stop WeChat everything
app that's gonna be able to use your
yeah. There's a reason for this. The overlap
of your medical safety and and and
in I mean, do do we not real
okay. So if Israel using Authentix is literally
axe access to the biometric data in the
background, now you're gonna allow them access to
your medical data?
That's happening if you do that.
I just it's not just about Israel though.
It's about any of this conversation pretending like
this is not if this was
Koala,
Hillary,
Klaus Schwab, you would lose your mind.
Why can't you think be objective about it?
Who cares if it's Elon behind it or
even more so, worrisome for me, but I
know people have a blind spot to it.
Remove the person, recognize the action.
Salar Report recently said Trump promoted national ID
on Rogan, which he did.
I keep we I don't know why we
can't be alarmed about this because, well, Trump
said it, so it's okay. No. It's the
same damn thing.
The SABE Act, the real ID in 20
ID 2020. 2 party illusion
is using the 2 party illusion and and
the election to usher in digital IDs. The
SAVE Act is obvious. It is a Trojan
horse for digital ID.
The real ID compliant identification is digital ID.
Same with ID 2020. These are immersed with
this act.
Now whether this act even happens, the point
is the Republicans are the ones driving that
out right now in legislation. The let the
democrats completely endorse and support it. Maybe not
the legislation, you mind mind you, because they
want that's about they're claiming it's about
what is whatever the narrative is around immigration,
but realize that in their own way, they're
actively fighting for the same thing. So it's
all a theater show.
Trump promoted national ID on Rogan, which is
intertwined with digital ID right now. The next
step to a total control grid.
They write, along with vaccines, this is what
the central bankers want and need to get
complete control. Looks like the establishment factions have
agreed that Trump is their man to lead
patriots and conservatives into the digital concentration camp.
They see it too.
The theory that you need a digital ID
system to stop election fraud or secure border
is absolutely
not true. In fact, I argue it's the
opposite.
You wanna go to paper ballots as the
more say as the better way to handle
these, but they're they're gonna drive you into
a situation claiming it's more secure and more
accurate when it gives them complete access to
manipulating everything.
But it says, ask the folks who ran
these things before digital tech existed. Alas, Rogan
agreed, he does not see the trap. Trump
does.
He is marketing it.
And I simply wrote, in my opinion, just
like with COVID 19, we are being played
using Trump to pacify those who would be
the most resistant to all of it. I
am hoping that partisans can see beyond their
party and see the very real risk that
is right on the surface of this.
Now the point here is always the idea
that this was being put forward
under the guise of stopping illegal immigrants even
though, again, it was under the guise of
this election. And Massey pointed out that even
if they had passed it, it wouldn't have
been in place before the election.
So even that was a ploy. It's gotten
some pushback, but the idea is it's already
still there and it's being discussed, and the
idea is about creating one part of it.
Creating the legislation that that enshrines the real
ID compliant identification
with others on there too. And then in
conjunction with other stuff, like the mobile driver's
license push from Biden's administration, which then removes
the
the applicability of the paper versions
and says they're no longer valid, so you
have to have the ones on your phone.
And then that leaves a bill that only
allows real ID compliant identification.
And they both point at each other.
Their bill did it. No. Their their part
of it changed the mind it's it's always
about pointing away, but the but together,
they create the direction.
Corey Stiggs
writes, while no one is paying attention
no. This is written today.
BIS has officially established the Nexus scheme organization,
the NSO, to work with central banks and
countries for cross border digital payments via a
single connection.
Just you cover the Nexus project in your
2023 report.
Now you can read more about this. The
point, guys, is this is this is coming.
And it says right here, read this entire
report to understand what's really happening. Musk's involvement,
military, central banks, digital currency, and IDs, and
moving it to LEO where where there is
no oversight and jurisdiction.
Space.
How long have we been talking about this?
The Wild West. We don't even know what's
going on. They can tell you whatever they
want. The new frontier for the central cur
control grid.
Scroll down to the digital currency moving faster
than rocket section to review BIS's involvement. The
Nexus project, how data is moving and so
on.
Of course, BIS announced this today when no
one was paying attention except for Corey.
To date, Elon Musk has already received money
transfer transmitter licenses in 25 states for X
Payments LLC.
Getting him halfway to his goal for a
nationwide payment system
that he wants to go global so that
x Twitter can run half of the global
financial system. Nexus will be handy.
Deep state's military industrial complex funding to Elon
Musk's SpaceX,
with no oversight, legal jurisdiction,
or protection from for people whose data and
currency moves through eventually resides in low earth
orbit.
Read the space laws and data sections in
a report above.
This should require no commentary from her. Banks
that funded Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter include
Morgan Stanley, 3,500,000,000,
Bank of America,
a major lender to Musk. Barclays,
a major lender to Musk. Mitsubishi, UFJ Financial
Group, a Japanese bank who provides loans. Mizuho,
a a Japanese bank who provides loans.
Societe General, a French bank who provides loans.
And b n BNP
Paribus.
Well, guys, these are these are some of
the top, like, exact you know, just like
everything else we're talking about. I mean, this
is the the financial version of bike Pompeo.
Right? These are the deep state. These are
the problems.
But because Trump, it's all good because it's
all the in people on the inside and,
you know, 4 d chess, whatever.
I'm just tired of these obvious deceptions. I
think most conservatives are uncomfortable with stuff like
that, which is why mo a lot of
them right now seem to just wanna ignore
it, which I don't agree with.
This is understanding what's happening right now, installment
deception, hero worship, voluntary consent to everything everyone
has been fighting against for years.
Look through a broader lens.
Corey's always doing good work.
Now here's the thing I'm I think is
the most ridiculous.
The very people that were pushing back the
most against all of this are suddenly cheering
it on because Elon presented it.
He says, the future should look like the
future. These are all the Elon Musk, we
robot stuff with his rockets and his robots
marching out and his weird car. I mean,
guys, this is the stuff presented.
But it's being cheered because it's not Klaus
Schwab, I guess? Maybe that was a little
play. Bring out the Bond villain, so when
you bring out Musk, it all comes together.
Right? You don't think that's how this always
goes?
Right? They roll something out that's over the
top, so you go, no, not that. And
then when it comes back out in a
half measure, which was always the original way
they wanted it, you go, oh, okay. That's
better.
Here he goes again. The future will look
like the future. Here's Tesla. Robotaxi.
Robo van.
It does look like the I, Robot stuff,
which is weird.
Now here's the part that terrifies me. This
clip
really does terrify me because of how this
is happening when no one's even paying attention.
And this goes into what Corey was just
talking about.
Doctor Jane Ruby says, be careful what you
beg for. What is this doing to Earth's
natural energy field?
This is this is I've already understand it.
This is predominantly Starlink, guys.
K. So here's the video. This video goes
from 2019 to where it seems there were
very minimal satellites,
to today where it seems like we are
trapped in some kind of scent control grid
around the Earth. This terrifies me.
Look at that.
Are you kidding me?
This is what we're living in right now.
I mean, my God. I mean, do it
maybe maybe it's much bigger than the cancers
be or the the chemicals in the air
and the water. I mean, god only knows
what we're talking about here, guys.
I mean, realize again, look at that picture.
This is 2020,
2024 from November or Jan let's see. Goes
up to February 2024. Right?
This is 2019.
Look at that. There's I mean, I mean,
on on the screen, you can count maybe
15. I'm sure there's more on the other
side. But my god, look at that.
How is that supposed to be okay? Well,
there's I can guarantee you we don't even
know the consequences of what that's doing because
it happened so fast. They don't even care.
Like, everything else they do, that's exactly what
she was talking about.
Simple question. But do what does this do
to the Earth's natural energy field? You know
what the answer is? They don't care.
That's my opinion, but look at our history.
This is just an it's alarming. And I
and this is about I mean, this is
again, somebody who's about to have a very
influential and already does have a wildly influential
position just in general in the world, about
to have
a White House level influential position.
We're talking about Elon Musk here, guys.
Here
is total information awareness.
Actually, let me make sure. I think there's
one more tweet down there before I go
into that.
Yeah. So there's that that's the that was
So this one simply highlighting
that these are
the satellite network from Starlink.
This the other images to show you the
the the weirdness of this. Look at that.
My god. That's crazy. And it's not just
Starling, but Starling because it I I understand
it, like, the reason for this rapid in
in in increase. But the point the point
is total information awareness
was the idea that was put forward that
was scrapped. Because Americans said, no. It's too
invasive. Right? And then, of course, that became
Palantir to a degree, and they rolled out
the the privatization of it, which by the
way is happening in the Trump administration next.
With Thiel and Musk and all the same
things, they are creating this through the privatization,
whether it's the private coin becomes the CBDC
because because we pretend like that's different somehow.
It's libertarian. No. It's not. No. It's not,
guys. It's all about playing against what you
believe in. Total information awareness was a mass
detection program by the United States. It operated
under the title from,
under that title from February to May 2003
before being renamed terrorism information awareness.
The point is one of the central aspects
of this was exactly what you're looking at.
Where was it? Anyway, I just were time
sensitivity were at full for 4 hours right
now. The point is, as you can see,
you know,
the this the the idea of this, if
you had envisioned what this would become
back then, it would be this.
It would be that right there. That's what
the that's what so, essentially, like Whitney's always
pointed out, they just simply shifted and gave
you a different direct a different perception of
the same damn thing, and here we are.
And my point, guys, is that this is
what Elon Musk's role is in all of
this.
Nobody will be safe
if not everybody is vaccinated. So this is
that clip I've showed you before where it
just checks every box of the great reset
dynamic or, you know, the majority of the
main ones and showing you Elon Musk being
completely in line with all of that.
Are you vaccinated, if I may? Yes. Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm very, very pro
vaccination. I believe, it's the science is unequivocal.
Can you imagine, sir, that in 10 years
when we are sitting here, we have an
implant in our, brains.
And,
I can immediately feel because you all will
have implants. Just think of sensors
planted into our brains. Basically
implanted in your skull. So,
but it would be
flush with your skull. So you basically,
take out a chunk of skull, replace put
put the neurolink device in there.
You you put
the the electrode you insert the electrode threads
very carefully into the the brain. It doesn't
change what you are doing. It changes you
if you take a genetic editing. It's a
fusion of
the physical, the digital,
and the biological world.
That's
really
the essence of the 4th industrial revolution. A
merger with biological intelligence
and machine intelligence. An effort for man to
merge with machine in a healthy way. Yes.
To beat machines, you basically have to merge
with machines. Most likely, yes. As work is
changing, is a universal basic income,
really a a solution to the to this
problem. I I think ultimately we will have
to have some kind of universal basic income
and I think some kind of a universal
basic basic income is gonna be necessary.
Decarbonization
of the economy. Where are they travelling? How
are they travelling? What are they eating?
What are they consuming on the platform?
So individual
carbon footprint tracker.
Stay tuned. We don't have it operational yet,
but this is something that we're working on.
I mean, my top recommendation, honestly, would be
just to have a carbon tax. Cisco reset
is necessary.
It's incredible what people can ignore, isn't it?
Where's Joe Rogan?
The great and powerful Elon Musk. What is
this? Wizard of Oz?
I mean, it this is just this hero
worship is pathetic to me. If it wasn't
for him, we'd be effed. Like, what are
you talking about? This guy is literally leading
the charge on most of these problematic things
that you were all ignoring.
I hope you're right, but I just can't
get past how obvious it is that people
are either lying for all this or blind
to it. He says he makes what I
think is the most compelling case for Trump
you'll hear, and I agree with him every
step of the way. For the record, yes,
that's an endorsement of Trump, just so you're
unaware of that. But here's the podcast he
played. And it's just sad to me. I
think anybody objective could listen to a lot
of this and realize these are hollow arguments.
But here's AM Wake up,
Steve, pointing at Alex Jones saying, I want
to congratulate my old friend Joe Rogan for
officially joining the rebellion.
You know, the rebellion with Mike Pompeo because
that's a rebellion against the state with the
state deep state. But it says, ah, yes.
The rebellion, where billionaires and multimillionaires band together
with one half of the political establishment to
control every aspect of human life because other
billionaires and multimillionaires are currently trying to control
every aspect of human life.
Now perfectly put,
I just it's just crazy to me that
people are falling for any of it. But
here's Alex Jones again saying election fraud alert.
Active military blocked from voting while illegals allowed
to vote. You know, just
tugging on all the propaganda strings. Even whether
or not these things are happening. My point
is this is about hype.
Right?
You know how many different things are happening
and people are involved and individuals at different
voting booths and Emmy's just crazy
to make this now every single time on
both sides of this whole game, there are
people cheating and lying and blocked. And it's
just this constant hot fever pitch.
On top of that, here he is speaking
to leave a fray.
And this is today, whereas this one was
yesterday.
So yesterday, it was
election fraud, and here's today. Top legal expert
reveals why Democrats can't steal the election like
they did in 2020. Got it. Okay. So
what's interesting
is now when this comes to pass where
they inevitably say if that goes to you
know, if, let's say, Kamala wins, where they
inevitably say that they stole it,
what what does this mean then? You know?
Well, we'll just ignore that because the new
narrative is what we'll be focusing on. It's
whatever works in the moment. That's mainstream alternative
media for you.
But here's Carrie, just on that on the
the cusp of that the heels of that
point of
everything's always chaos and danger. That's that's what's
everywhere in the partisanship. And she says, I'm
currently doing a brain rewiring program to heal
a chronically glitched out fight or flight response.
And one of the biggest tips it it
offers for healing is to stop paying attention
to the news.
Now I don't advocate for that, but if
you are struggling
because of this, which I guarantee is happening,
then that would be something you should do.
Whether what we're talking about or not. Probably
may best to get your mental health in
in order before dealing with the chaos of
all of this. But she goes on to
say, I'm convinced
millions, if not billions of people are caught
in a state of hyperactive stress and fight
or flight. And one of the reasons for
this? The constant fear, panic, and outrage porn.
And the relentless news cycle of drama and
division. That's exactly what I was just pointing
to.
Both mainstream
and mainstream alternative media.
It says, however you feel about today and
the system itself, this is my humble suggestion,
including to myself, to pause. Notice how activated
and gripped you feel, and take a step
away from the chaos to take care of
yourself today
and every day. Some very good advice.
Now here's a couple of things. Now I'm
actually gonna not go entirely through all the
these real conversation, but since I you know,
all I will show you some of the
things it's gonna point to. But a couple
of last segments here,
representative Jamie Raskin says this fictional quote is
a 100% fabricated.
It's one more lie in the stream of
right wing lies designed to undermine our election.
Despite this actionable libel and all the disinformation,
America's having a free and fair election and
congress will certify the winner.
That what? So they're lying and cheating and
everything, but it's all it's all real and
legitimate no matter what. Like, how the that's
a pretty stupid thing. Either way, the point
is
what he's pointing to, it turns out, was
manipulated.
But, ultimately, what's funny though let me show
you a clip of him that they're obviously
posting with ETH,
where he does say basically exactly this. Now
the point is what they're sharing is this
guy, Larry, says, breaking. Jamie Raskin says, let
folks cast their votes for Trump if that's
their choice. But mark my words, we won't
be certifying the election. He might win, but
we'll ensure he doesn't step foot in the
Oval Office. Now objectively reality is he did
not he did not say that quote.
Here's my point though. When you acknowledge that
below and go he didn't say that, they
go, but here's a here's a video where
he said something similar, so you're wrong. No.
No. You're still wrong, bud. But that but,
yes, he he clearly said something similar. It's
incredible to me that they many don't seem
to even be able to understand why they're
still wrong.
That's called lying for your truth.
Now let me play the clip for first
so you see that this is something he
very clearly is ins but not
this statement and not like this. He didn't
stand out and say this publicly that we
will do that. He says that in this
clip, we'll play for you in a different
way that suggests that's what he'll do. And
I agree. And no way am I denying
that's what what this clip shows.
But if you can't recognize why it's wrong
of you to put out a fake quote
or share it without due diligence because you
think that he'll he means that, though, somewhere
else, then you're part of the problem.
Here's what he said.
And then it's not until the Warren Court
for a couple of decades with the white
primary
cases in Brown versus Board where you get
a different kind of supreme court on the
side of the freedoms and equality
of the American people, but the court is
not going to save us. And so that
means the only thing that really works is
people in motion
amending the constitution. But, again, it's necessary, but
it's not sufficient because what can be put
into the constitution
can slip away from you very quickly. And
the greatest example going on right now before
our very eyes is section 3 of the
14th amendment.
Now I'm gonna go over what that is
after. We're gonna see insurrection thing and the
the illusion lies about what's going on around
that for Trump. But realize what he even
he is saying. Either, again, that he doesn't
understand how it works or he's lying to
you to deceive you for it. The point
is that, you know, it's he doesn't slip
away. You know, it doesn't the point is
the constitution is inherent rights.
You and, again, I already made the point
about what is in what is repugnant to
it is null and void per the supreme
court ruling, Mayberry versus Madison.
They they're always trying to convince you that
it's about them deciding what your rights are.
And that can come and go based on
new legislation. That's false.
That's not how it works. That's how they
want you to think it works, so you
have the perception that they're the ones deciding
what you're allowed to do. That's a ruler,
guys.
That's the point. That's the reality of it.
I'd love you to think it's representatives who
are simply fighting for your right. That's not
the truth, and they're all playing you. Or
he doesn't even know, and that's even more
alarming.
Which they're just disappearing with a magic wand
as if it doesn't exist even though it
could not be clearer
what it's stating. And so, you know, they
wanna kick it to Congress. So it's gonna
be up to us on January 6, 2025
to tell the rampaging Trump mobs
that he's disqualified. And then we need bodyguards
for everybody and civil war conditions all because
the 9 justices, not all of them, but
these justices who have,
not many cases to look at every year,
not that much work to do, a huge
staff, great protection,
simply do not want
to do their job and interpret what the
great 14th amendment means. And I'm glad that
Cherilyn's creating her new center so we can
bring that back to life even as we're
continuing to amend the constitution
as professor Hasson has invited us to do.
It's just so sad to me. You guys
this is not my opinion, by the way.
These are easy things to look up.
But what he's trying to make it out
to be that somehow these things are ebbing
and flowing and changing and different, and it's
just not that's not the they may be
putting forward things that they claim or changing
dying. It's not the reality or claiming that
something like abortion is enshrined by the constitution.
It's not. Right? There's games they're always playing.
Now here
a whole lot. Where was that? Oh, yeah.
So back to the point about this is
so, basically,
he very clearly said that.
They essentially will have to say, well, too
bad. He's not so that's not even a
question, guys. There's no misunderstanding what he just
said. And here is
the section 3 of the 14th amendment. No
person shall be a senator or a representative
in congress or elector or on on on
on have
shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against
the same or given aid or comfort to
the enemies, and therefore, okay, that's not what
happened.
This game of playing that Trump somehow like,
Alyssa Stevens say, even if you wanna argue
that his supporters carry out insurrection, which they
did not, like, objectively, which is just embarrassing,
they still post this argument.
How there has to be a legal argument
that Trump guided the not just said things
that caused them to do so. This is
the same game about the free speech dynamic
of fire in a theater, which I argue
should arguably be on the side of free
speech, but do it I know how society
feels about it. My point is
people are responsible for their own actions and
reactions.
I I I could be wrong. I could
be have a right to lie. That's what
free speech actually is. And because you irrationally
acted without doing your like, that's your responsibility.
Now I can still argue that the person
who lied
plays a has a fault in causing that
damage, but that's not a I would argue
that that still falls under free speech. I
get but I get. I get that's not
what most people wanna say today.
In this case,
Trump
says a lot of things around this, most
of which is misrepresented.
Some of which you argue does play a
little bit into people, you know, but even
just for politics, but that's the point of
politics.
Not not not that I agree with that,
but that's what we know it all is.
And then they carry out what they claim
this is. That's not a legal that's not
evidence that Trump carried out an insurrection. At
best, that's that his words drove them to
do that.
So no matter how you spin this,
most importantly, because it is not what they
claim it is by the very definition of
the word,
it's just completely dishonest. So that back to
the point, they're using this to argue that
because they claim that's the reality, that once
this comes to pass, as he just explicitly
stated that they're gonna have to inform them
that he's not eligible to take the place.
So we'll have to default somebody else. I
mean, why they're trying to cause republicans to
react. I know we all sense this, and
it goes into the point you obviously know
I'm gonna get into next. The January 6th
dynamic, this is about and I look. I
was one of the prime I was screaming
this to Republicans. You are being trapped. And
I I think it reached a lot of
them. And it wasn't just me. A lot
of people were saying that.
At January 6th, you saw them. You know,
fed, fed, fed. Don't fall for it. And
yet they still framed them. Nobody brought guns.
They still pretend they were armed. Right? They
got the agenda did not work,
but they still are trying to play you.
The vanilla ISIS dynamic, I mean, all of
this stuff. We were calling all of this
out, and now it's happening again.
And it's gonna be hidden for you under
the guise of winning
and you know, just like last time. Trump
won, so we all did it. It's over.
No. No. You're not even remotely. And a
lot of libertarians at the time fell for
that. A lot of freedom minded people who
were talking about them. All the stuff we're
talking about suddenly say, hey. Trump won, so
now it's all we can stop caring. Well,
it went it it's obviously not the way
that went.
Look at COVID 19 that began under Trump's
watch and the illusion everything that was created.
We just have to realize this is always
how this goes. And again, Trump being a
position with Elon and the rest of it,
I think it's about the guys of driving
in this final step and you thinking that
because he won, that it's not possible anymore,
and ignoring all the signs coming.
But go back to the point, to be
clear, he obviously said this
in this context, but not that.
This quote is misrepresented, it's lied about, and
in order, I would argue, to almost undermine
in another way that he did say it.
It's about chaos and confusion and division. That's
all this comes down to. So he gets
to come out and say, I never said
that because he didn't.
But then at the same time, that hides
for his supporters that he actually did say
this, which is basically the same thing.
Right? I mean, I think those as much
as that's a smaller point, it's important to
highlight how this all works. Anybody objective can
clearly see how this is being used by
both sides even though
you know, it's just it's just it kills
me how obvious it all is. But so
here again,
insurrection is the point for here.
That they're saying he's gonna be disqualified. Well,
this is ridiculous, and this happens every time.
Don't forget this article they even put out
in 2021.
The secret history of the shadow campaign, which
they called themselves, that saved the 2020 election.
So they literally argue about how they had
some shadowy cabal that that undermined the out
because
they thought Trump was gonna steal it. So
you were literally admitting the fact and you
read it. It's crazy. It reads exactly like
that. That they were doing things that you
would objectively argue were dishonest, that were surreptitious,
or that were even
what they accused Trump of doing, but because
they were doing it because we have to
stop him because he's the bad guy. Well,
guess what the republicans are doing at the
same time? The exact same thing in reverse.
They're doing it now too. Everyone's saying that
we have to do the bad thing because
they're the bad guy and they're gonna do
it first. So you're the same thing then?
Same point, foreign policy. If you're gonna do
it because they then you're the same thing.
They're all playing the game. Now Zach points
out, until the day I die, I will
never understand why he was even allowed to
run after this. And shows you a picture
of the Capitol on January 6th.
Well, because that's not his responsibility.
At the same time, I argue that your
government was absolutely involved with what happened here.
Now, you can argue it's the left versus
the right. I don't see it like that,
but you're you can decide for yourself. Either
way, it's not Trump that did an insurrection.
Your government manufactured the most one of the
most obvious SIOPs ever seen. And you can
read about it yourself.
Jan I wrote this on 2022. January 6th,
the failed false flag meant to blame Russia
and you using the CIA grown Azov battalion.
Because don't forget,
they were present.
January 6th was always a very clear government
operation.
Sergei Binion or, Binion or Binion. I forget
the pronunciation. The point is that's a guy
from the Azov Movement. Here he is in
his uniform next to his flag, and it's
not that's not the only evidence. It's very
obvious. Watch it. It's provable. Next to Jake
Chanceley,
and you have him on
video, Sergei, saying, let's go. Go in the
capital
in Russian. He's Ukrainian.
Right? You have all these examples of them
trying to manufacture exactly what the narrative was
at the time, and you got Antifa and
left wing people on the record going, we
tricked them. We got it. It's so obvious.
Or the clips of of Pelosi's
family member or all these different examples of
how you can tell and prove they pulled
people back and didn't allow it. I mean,
guys, it is it's about as stupid as
pretending Trump's ear is not a problem. Right?
It's obvious.
Okay? So the thing here is that we
can prove that this was an operation. But
I think it's bigger than blaming the right.
I think it was about specifically, you know,
the Trump administration. It's about blaming you. It's
about driving you, pulling you into being
what they say you are. And it's the
same thing with Twitter and it's the same
thing with everything else. I hope I'm wrong,
but at least consider what I'm saying.
Because I think it's quite obvious how this
is all playing out.
And this one as well, I this is
from, another show after that, the Patriot Front,
January 6th, and the vanilla ISIS SIOP.
Same thing. It's just about how they're using
these things to trap you and convince you.
And even things like the Zionism overlap with
Judaism trying to drive you into playing it
the wrong way. So they can go see,
they're disgusting. They're right. It's the same way
they do with everything else. And it goes
both ways. The right does the same thing
to the left. They go it's a constant
game to drive you into hating yourself, hating
your neighbor, being divided.
Doge again says, breaking. Chat GPT is biased.
It answered in favor of Colin Harris, but
denied the request to answer in favor of
Trump.
And Elon goes, with his little face. That's
my point. That's the bot thing is they
of course, he gets guess what?
21,000,000
views. And then it turns out it's false.
Too late now, though. For the record,
they were only able to replicate this when
it went into personalization settings and added a
custom instruction
to never convince me to vote for Trump.
Oh, look at that. So somebody went out
of their way to fake the chat gbt
citing for siding against Trump. Now why would
they have to do that if it's so
obvious? Now look, I'm of the mind there
very is very clearly is some examples of
this. But just recognize how many people are
willing to blatantly manufacture evidence to convince you
of what they want you to think. In
some cases, because it's not true.
But most people would see this and just
blindly accept it because Elon put a face
on it.
Now to go through this rapidly to end
and maybe for, you know and maybe another
half an hour we'll see, but I don't
wanna go past 5 tonight. The point is
that James Lee put out a great quick,
bait great little clip here to bring us
into the part about Israel.
Now, if you've missed by now that both
sides are adamantly,
aggressively supporting Israel, even competing with each other
to be the one supporting the more, or
competing to accuse the other of being less
invested in Israel, which is just so shockingly
alarming with everything we know.
James Lee did a great video showing you
who the real winner is.
After a hard fought campaign, it turns out
there's never any competition at all.
Seen enough. I'm calling it now. We've got
ourselves a big winner.
It's b b in a landslide. Who could
have seen that coming? So please, carry on.
Continue to bomb whoever it is that you
wanna bomb. You can even bomb hospitals
if you want. And these pesky
journalists,
let's get rid of those guys. You, of
course, have our full endorsement to keep starving
entire populations
because it is after all your right of
self defense. Over the past 80 years, we've
sent you over $300,000,000,000
and almost $20,000,000,000
in the past year alone. It's not like
we have anything better to do with that
money. But if our support ever waivers, please
feel free to remind us of the consequences
just like you've done so in the past.
Not just once,
not just
twice, but three times. Now for the podcast,
he's showing clips in the background of the
different of times where Israel has assassinated, threatened,
or otherwise manipulated a situation in the US
political spectrum.
JFK, Truman. I mean, many there's there's so
many examples. It's incredible. But he's simply showing
you that this is not what we pretend
it is, the whole relationship.
And nuclear, don't worry. Your secret is safe
with us.
So today, I just wanna say how thankful
I am to be an American, to vote,
to live in a democracy that is free
from foreign influence. God bless And, of course,
he's showing in the background a picture of
the American flag
being pulled back and behind it shows I
stand with Israel. Right? We need to recognize
how obvious this is. And it's not every
conservative or liberal, but it's most certainly
the democrats and republicans. And the government's
sides around the government's trade that is just
your simple government. It's obvious. There's on a
they're they're openly
openly
advocating saying these things,
and yet we act like they're on some
different side.
Well, of course, I'll include this again. I
just have it here for the same point,
just the information. All the different times Trump
has said he will side with Israel over
Americans explicitly,
saying they should control congress and so on.
Here now now what's interesting is Jimmy Dore
has, you know, essentially come out in, I
believe, in support of Trump, but basically seems
to be more so on one side right
now, but says this is for all my
friends who still somehow support Israel. You've been
duped all along, which I'm glad he's still
holding that line, but that is important.
But the vast majority of Republicans seem to
be not all conservatives, but Republicans
seem to be blindly supporting Israel. So it's
interesting. But he simply said that, tweets,
captions, a doctor Anastasia Maria Lopez tweet that
shows you former Israeli
prime minister
Ehud Olmert saying the real enemy we have
is not Iran, not Hezbollah, it's not Hamas.
It's the enemy from within.
The extreme, crazy, messianic,
prophetic, Zionist,
manic, you know, maniacs is what I I
added the last part because it's got the
dot, but he'll he'll he'll he'll say it
right now. That's what he's talking about though.
He's talking about the you know, as they
scream about Iran and everybody else, which I
pulled off a part about Iran for today,
but they're really hyping the idea of the
war with Iran. Pompeo comes out and the
fire ring a fire. They're all driving that.
And that is if out out of out
of all the things we're talking about, one
of the most that is not in the
interest of Americans is the pretending
of how why the the illusion of why
we need to go to war with Iran,
which has been Bolton and Pompeo's and Israel's
wet dream for as long as you can
look back.
And Trump is going to roll forward. He's
been very clear about that.
I will say
it. The real enemy that we have is
not Iran, which is an enemy. It's not
Hezbollah, which is an enemy.
Well, it's not Hamas, which is an enemy.
The real enemy is from within.
The messianic,
crazy, extreme groups
of Israelis that think that they can kick
out the Palestinians and annex the territories.
I'm fighting against them. I'm campaigning against them,
and I think that this is incumbent upon
the Israeli present
government and Netanyahu.
Unfortunately,
Netanyahu depends on them politically Right. To the
extent
where he closed his eyes
and he allows them to do things which
are totally intolerable and unacceptable.
I mean, sadly, it seems that to a
good portion of their country, it is acceptable
and okay, but recognize it is not all
of them. That's important.
But here's an important point as well.
Just as an overlapping point to kinda wrap
it up in general before we get, you
know, the last few things I wanna show
you. Khaleesi points this out. Now this is
crazy. I put this aside because I wanted
to talk about this.
Zionist in Mexico caught in child sex trafficking.
Now you'll have to forgive me because Twitter
has removed the video. Without any other indication,
there's no no censorship, no the tweet is
still there, but they just removed the media.
Anybody wanna explain that for me? Is this
is this what not censorship looks like?
That's
crazy. The problem is that was a video
that I hadn't downloaded yet that is is
a a news report about Zionists
being caught in Mexico. Now I'm gonna do,
more due diligence to try to find this
again, but I find it shockingly obvious that
you have an example of Zionist being caught
in sex trafficking rings in Mexico and the
and Twitter plucks out the video
just like we keep seeing around other things
like that that pertain to Israel.
Maybe it's the CHEQ
bots that are being stopped or rather being
flooded, or the Authentix infiltration
that pretends to be there for purification that's
really stealing your biometric data. Those are Israeli
intelligence overlaps, guys. It is on the surface
as Musk has made clear
they're overlapped.
Or that their partner with the ADL is
Yacarino has been praising.
I wonder why that's been deleted. What do
you think?
I I don't know for sure. I'm not
suggesting I could prove anything, but I that's
that seems pretty wild to me. And I
I would love to know more about that,
but I think I think it's obvious where
this goes.
Also,
same time, by the way. So here we
have Zionists in Mexico being caught in sex
trafficking ring, but we don't hear about that
from Elon Musk. But here he is pulling
back up a story to use as if
we're gonna suddenly find new information about Pizzagate.
And he says, this is Rothamist saying, never
forget. John Podesta's friend who debunked Pizzagate arrested
for raping toddlers, showing the Podesta conversation.
Right? And he goes, the hammer of justice
is coming.
You mean to cite the fact that you're
all overlapped with all of that? Whether it's
the Epstein dynamic or all this? Like, there's
a 1,000 connected points to both of to
everybody in this government. But it's all about
presenting it as if this is gonna all
come out.
How many times can they play the same
cards before we start recognizing they're deceiving you?
Us. Everybody.
So all I'm saying is that it's funny
how you like to drag up old stories
that we should all know about by now
that as if that's gonna somehow be more
revealed despite the fact that everyone seems to
be interconnected behind all of you while ignoring
a massive child sex trafficking trafficking ring being
caught in Mexico with Zionists at the center
of it. Can you connect the dots? Can
you wonder why? At the same time, the
same reason this won't be talked about.
Oh, let's not forget. Here is a recent
article from Heretz. Not oh, sorry. Not recent.
2016.
Israel is becoming a refuge for pedophiles, Warren's
advocate for sex abuse victims.
That's Herets. That's a leading Israeli newspaper.
I just don't know why these things are
being ignored.
Now
Thomas Massie recently discussed,
this is pretty short, 4 and a half
seconds on on Tucker Carlson, which got, you
know, surprisingly little engagement, quite frankly, but made
the point that we all know, hopefully by
now, that every member of congress has an
APAC guy. That doesn't exist for pretty much
any other lobbying group.
But let's not dive too deep into why
that happens. Totally nothing to see here. Right?
Buddy, but me has an APAC person. What's
that mean, an APAC person? It's like your
babysitter. Your APAC babysitter who is always talking
to you for APAC. They're probably a constituent
in your district, but they are firmly embedded
in APAC and Every member has something like
this? That's how it works on the Republican
side. And when they come to DC, you
go have lunch with them, and they've got
your cell number. And it's the same on
both sides. Right? So that that's the gist
of the point.
Obvious.
Right? I mean, it should be.
The next point
is the obvious reality of APAC. Right? So
what he's talking about is APAC, the lobbying
group that is an Israeli front. I've already
made this point a 1000 times. It is
on the record, an Israeli organization that was
rebranded
so you wouldn't know that. I mean, guys,
this is literally written out on Wikipedia and
not over the I've even shown how they've
been editing and changing things. The clear point
is it's an organization that was set up
to influence US through as an Israeli organization
that was simply shuffled around and changed the
names so you would think it was an
American organization that just happened to be in
the interest of Israel. It's obvious what this
is.
All of it.
So now I'm gonna show you the MSNBC
clip that breaks down
the alarming change of APAC.
And this stuff is being reported on corporate
media and we still can't acknowledge what's going
on. American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It was
incorporated in 1963.
For 10 years prior to that, it was
known as the American Zionist Committee for Public
Affairs.
APAC calls itself America's pro Israel lobby in
a That's basically what it just pointed to
right there. I mean, you can look this
stuff all up. This is not an America.
This is an Israeli entity. According to its
website, it has over 3,000,000 members across the
country in regional chapters working to, quote, expand
and strengthen the US Israel relationship, end quote.
You may know APAC as being one of
the biggest and most recognizable donors
to many of the members of congress in
your state, but contributing to campaigns is a
relatively new function of the organization.
Before 2021,
APAC did not endorse candidates
nor give political contributions.
Its focus was on lobbying
elected officials, not actually
electing officials.
But in a dramatic shift in policy,
APAC began directly funding candidates and spending big
on races
in 2021.
APAC political action committee, APAC PAC filed something
called a statement of organization with the FEC
just in time for the 2022 election cycle
where it spent $50,000,000
including both direct contributions to candidates
and outside spending like TV advertisements.
According to APEC,
it donated money to 365
candidates from both parties including
every single member of both Democratic and Republican
leadership in congress.
109
Republicans
who voted
against the certification of the 2020 presidential election
in America
received campaign contributions from APAC.
Shouldn't that be considered
as a as a potential factor on why
that happened?
Right? You know, it won't though because those
same people on the left
that were calling them out for those things
were also being funded by the same people.
All in all, APAC gave money to 342
members of the 118th
congress. The 2022 elections were the most expensive
midterms in American his I mean, we're talking
like 70 plus percent at any given moment.
It's way more than that now, are being
funded by Israel.
I just it's
one of the most obviously alarming things that
I could even point to. And, of course,
if it was China or Russia, you'd all
agree. But most of you do anyway, I
think, but it's not reaching some of the
people that most need to hear it.
Free with a total cost of $8,900,000,000
spent.
Now last year, APAC ranked 15th
in total expenditure by a political action committee
according to data collected by Open Secret. But
take a look at the other funders that
APAC is competing against for that title. ActBlue
and WinRed.
They are democratic and republican party machines. Save
America is Donald Trump's,
money raising operation. The conservative club for growth,
Emily's list focuses on electing democratic women to
office. All of the packs on this list
are massively
domestic focused ideological
machines.
APAC is the only organization in the top
twenty whose interests are focused entirely on America's
relationship to a foreign government.
Now let's take a look at who benefits
from APAC's largesse.
Here are the top 20 recipients in congress,
the house and the senate of APEC money
in the 2022 midterm cycle according to open
secrets. They're members of both parties. They come
from every corner of the country with varying
levels of experience in congress. The democrat Glenn
Ivy of Maryland tops the list. He beat
out fellow democrat Donna Edwards in Maryland's house
primary
after APAC poured 1,000,000
into pro Ivy advertisements and mailers.
Edwards was running for a second stint in
congress after serving during the Obama administration
where she voted present,
not even a no on a number of
pro Israel resolutions.
So the money poured in against her. Not
even an endorsement from Nancy Pelosi
could save her. Michigan Democrat, Haley Stevens, unseated
Democratic representative, Andy Levin. Here's what Levin had
to say about that.
I'm really Jewish,
but,
AIPAC,
can't stand the idea
that I am the clearest, strongest Jewish voice
in congress
standing for a simple proposition
that there's no way to have a secure
democratic homeland for the Jewish people unless we
achieve the political and human rights of the
Palestinian people.
APAC spent $4,000,000
against Levin. He lost by 20 points.
And he's Jewish.
Right?
So he cares about Palestinian lives.
Gotta get him out of the way.
I mean, you just can't misunderstand how obvious
this is.
When Michigan congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian
American in congress, was censured by the house
in early November over what some lawmakers called
her rhetoric around the Israeli Hamas war.
22 Democrats
joined Republicans
in that censure vote. Look at that, bipartisan
efforts to help Israel.
18 of those democrats repay received campaign funds
from APAC in 2022,
totaling more than
$1,100,000 By the way, for these 6 of
them,
APAC
was their top contributor.
A growing list of progressive lawmakers who are
vocal in their criticism of the government of
Israel and its policies and their support for
Palestinian self determination have inspired APAC to spend
even more.
As progressive lawmakers began calling for an immediate
ceasefire in Gaza, Slate reported that insiders expect
APAC's 2024
spending
to hit
$100,000,000 In fact, United Democracy Project, which is
a pro Israel Super PAC affiliated with APAC
is already spending money on attack ads against
democratic representatives Jamaal Bowman of New York and
Summer Lee of Pennsylvania.
The point is, guys, this was months ago.
We see now
he's it's well past that.
This there is something about this year that's
that's I mean, look at what's going on
with the genocide. Look at what's going on
with their prophetic agenda with Trump, which they've
said what is a he's a prophet that's
been said stated by Israeli officials.
It's crazy to me. Absolutely crazy.
And yet we're not worried that they're spending
an ex
like, more money on this election than ever
before,
investing in ways and immersing themselves in ways
that we've never seen before.
Like, it's it's a it's willful ignorance to
not see how alarming this is.
Whatever their religion, whatever their country, it's about
a foreign entity doing this that we should
care about. Lee has already got a primary
challenger as do Cori Bush and Ilhan Omar.
Pro Israel donors have already signaled that they
are eager to primary Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria
Ocasio Cortez.
Congresswoman Lee already overcame APEC's financial influence against
her once. She tweeted criticisms of Israel's treatment
of Palestinians in 2021,
but as a candidate, she affirmed Israel's right
to exist.
But that's not good enough.
APEC spent nearly $3,000,000
in the primary alone to defeat Lee and
they almost did. She beat Steven Irwin who
is 3rd on the list of money given
to candidates by APEC in 2022
by less than a 1000 votes. And if
congresswoman Lee wants to keep her seat in
2024,
she's going to have to do it all
over again. She joins me in studio after
this break.
Wild,
Obvious.
Transparent.
Now, here's an interesting point.
Joan Ryan
has resigned from the Labor Party. You wanna
know why?
Turns out that she was accepting an Israeli
bribe.
And guess what? That's not unique at all.
Captured by Al Jazeera or rather published by
Al Jazeera. Here's the actual clip.
And Just now I got the money. It's
1 It's more than 1,000,000 pound. It's a
lot of money.
And then,
and now I got the money. Yeah. I
So from it to it. I do. So
it's not physical. Yeah. It's simple.
And then And then I'm getting back.
Oh, wow. That's interesting, isn't it?
What's funny is this person goes, what bribe?
In the US, we call that lobbying. Hey.
We started with that. Adam laughs. This person
shows how Trump and Vance and Biden and
all of them are all funded by through
APAC. All of them. And then he also
points out, this is so sad. The only
country where their lawmakers are openly sponsored by
foreign entities. He's talking about the United States.
Other countries call this treason. China would have
these people executed. Now I'm not advocating for
any of that. My point is to obviously
recognize
this is a captured entity,
and you're voting
for 2 of them.
Can you not see how that goes the
same direction? This is just one example of
politicians being openly found to be taking a
lot of money from Israel.
Now if you wanna remember what Trump actually
has to say, it's like this is from
Decentral News again from the 30th October saying,
I wanna see peace in the Middle East.
Except the reality being is what he literally
states here
is that the opposite. It says, here's what
he told the Jewish Coalition.
President, the United States will once again stand
shoulder to shoulder with the state of Israel.
I will support Israel's right to win
its war on terror, and we will win
fast. You have to win, and you have
to win fast.
When I'm president, we will deport the foreign
jihad
sympathizers
and Hamas. Now realize, you could argue he
meant foreign
as their foreign or foreign jihad supporters, meaning
they support people not in this country. Either
way, what he means is Palestinian supporters. And
his every other statement has made that very
clear. Supporters
from our midst,
not being.
Right. So even right there, he said secondarily,
Hamas supporters. Not foreign, just Hamas supporters.
So now he's telling you what you're allowed
to support. Even if you think that's wrong,
that's supposed to be protected. That's supposed to
be your right. And on top of that,
Hamas, which is funded by Israel, by the
way, is not what they're making it out
to be. There's a much nuanced conversation.
But on top of that, I mean, it's
the same point as always.
I shouldn't have to convince people about this.
This is this is where the truth becomes
difficult.
Right? When it matters. When there is a
hard line to take. When it isn't nuance
and when it is unpopular.
Have the courage to do what you know
is right, to stand by what you actually
believe, and don't get swayed into some political
game.
You know that's unconstitutional.
Right? You know that burning the flag is
protected. You know these things. It's obvious you
can look it up for yourself just because
you don't like it. Like, my point is,
let's just go back to the flag. If
you think that's the case, then make an
argument for that. Make an argument that we
think that this shouldn't be and I'll I'll
tell you why I think that's not how
the constitution works. My point is to just
argue that it's okay is dishonest,
and they're all doing that.
But in I mean, not everybody in the
political side. I mean, in the sense of
the people in this rep the side of
the republicans supporting Trump conversation, not all conservatives.
To make sure that Israel is with us
for
1000 of years. You get it.
As they said, they're in support of Trump.
Trump. Draft after he just did said something,
which you should argue was unconstitutional. But who
cares? Right?
But here is The Guardian
from October 30th. How can I vote for
Kamala Harris if she supports Israel's war? Wait
a minute. Hold on. I thought you were
telling us she hated Jewish people or was
anti semitic or hated Israel. And wants it
she's gonna be gone if she gets elected.
Well, they're both saying that about each other,
which is just ridiculous.
But the point is, here's Bernie Sanders explaining
why even though she blindly supports Israel, here's
why I can vote for her. It's just
so silly how this all works. Here's Haaretz,
the Israeli newspaper. I'm an Israeli American. And
for the sake of Israel, we must elect
Kamala Harris. You mean the one that we're
being told is gonna destroy Israel? Does that
mean this person hates Israel? No. No. They
believe she's the one that's gonna save it.
It's just it's pretty stupid, isn't it? They're
all blindly supporting Israel. And if we can't
acknowledge that, then we're being dishonest. Here's Tom
Cotton. Am I exactly making my point for
it? The the goofy Tom Cotton. The most
anti semitic politicians
who support Hamas and want Israel wiped off
the map are rooting for Kamala Harris.
Oh, yeah, Tom? Well, what about what about
the
Israeli American that Haritz just wrote about who
says she's the only one that can save
it. Right? It's just it's stupid.
I don't even think Tom believes this. I
believe that they're actively doing what they're told
or have an interest to blindly lie for
Israel for their own reasons.
That's stupid because it's not true. They're both
actively, aggressively supporting Israel, and it's obvious.
Richard Wise simply points out
this one's the one I wanna highlight most
of it. It's this idea that Netanyahu is
ramping up violence so Harris will lose and
Trump can win is a very curious talking
point. Certainly possible. But he goes, by that
transitive property, this means Biden, because he continues
to back Netanyahu without conditions, wants Harris to
lose,
which should probably be a bigger story. Look
at that.
Anywhere you look, you'll see how this looks
to me. I could be wrong, of course.
It may not amount to what I think
it does, but everything seems to line up
with wanting Trump to be in power. He
makes a good point here. Right?
Interesting.
But it says if democrats cared about stopping
Trump, they wouldn't have murdered a 100000
children over the past year.
Again, another point.
He's right.
Right? If you if you effectively wanted if
Biden thought if if they cared about having
this translate to another democratic
election
or have Biden win or Kamala win, well,
they wouldn't have openly, blindly committed genocide. I
made this point many times. The blind support
which challenged everything they've built
illegitimately, but built the illusion of rules based
order. They just
destroyed. Everything was done for the interest of
Israel at the expense of them and you.
And we can't see how that make doesn't
make sense. And on top of that, that
that that sets them up for the Trump
Republican taking over.
Now here is Torah Judaism
saying, dear friends,
lend a voice to Jews that Zionists want
to silence.
Help our voices go places by sharing.
Don't call Israel a Jewish state. Call Israel
however you like, but don't use the name
of the entire religion. Israel is not Jewish
state. Zionism is not Judaism. This is an
Orthodox Jew, a rabbi speaking about that.
Oops. Wrong button.
And I said,
as I Come on. Dang it.
Twitter is so frustrating. Look at that. See,
how is that even possible?
It Well, it literally won't let me go
back to my tweet.
Twitter is such a crap platform. I'm telling
you. It's it's aggressively
engineering. It's so crazy. You guys just watch
that happen. No matter what I hit now,
it won't go back.
Oh, finally.
Now, of course, it happens while I'm saying
that. But, yeah, I just literally saw me.
I hit back, and it went to the
wrong page. Anyway, who cares? The point is
while all the partisans shout down everyone,
discussing Israel during the selection,
despite both sides of your one authoritarian government
spending inordinate amounts of time convincing you that
the other will hurt Israel,
here's your daily reminder that Zionism is not
Judaism.
The point is that it's crazy. Like, with
Trump's like, where we will be talking about
the Israeli war in the context of the
election, and Republicans come in and go, stop.
Why you only talking about Israel? And then
half the conversation at the rallies is about
Israel or whatever. Like, ever at least half
the people, rather, bring up Israel.
Doesn't that seem weird? Like, so your your
own people are telling you about Israel, and
then we talk about Israel, and you shout
us down for talking about Israel.
It exposes something weird, doesn't it?
And this one is just a a point
this guy says,
Rand Paul and every other politician has had
mountains of evidence handed to them on a
silver platter. Tens of 1,000 service members spent
3 years attempting to right the wrongs and
to get congress senate to do their jobs.
They didn't do a damn thing. 99% are
traitors.
Where this person, who, by the way, the
starting point
is, funny that you people think Israel won't
be dealt with. We're saving Israel for last.
Oh, he's a cute guy. Got it. Which
I laughed about and simply said, guys, these
people still exist, which is embarrassing. The point,
he followed up with this and simply said,
for you and the tarred vagabond and gives
you BRICS news, which by the way has
been which is not really associated with BRICS
and has been caught spelling misinformation
sharing misinformation many times, like, real false information.
That it says, Donald Trump tells Israeli prime
minister Netanyahu that he wants the war in
Gaza ended by the time he enters office.
Is this kind of lazy argument? Like, so
he's saying I'm wrong because, see, Trump doesn't
want the war? Are you even listening to
what he says? And I said, we said,
first, that account has been caught sharing inform
misinformation as I talked about, but, like, provably
false things. And I said, second, you're are
you truly putting forward political statements during an
election as proof of anything?
How astonishing astonishingly
naive.
It's about actions, guys. And I said, 3rd,
he has made very clear what ended actually
means.
It means finishing
your war. That's not the same as what
you're trying to pretend that means.
I just don't it's it's dishonest. It's intentionally
dishonest.
Now very quick, the point is what's going
on in Gaza and Lebanon is genocide.
Objectively, obviously. The facts are there, the the
international me,
discussion is there. ICJ, ICC, United Nations, Oxfam,
UNICEF, every single inter Human Rights Watch, Amnesty
International, BetSalem, everything.
You guys know this. We talked about this
for a year plus. The point is that
it's happening now still and it's only getting
worse. And in fact, it today itself is
ramped up especially because they know you're not
paying attention.
Glenn says, Glenn Greenwald, exactly at some point,
the full definition picture will emerge of the
barbarism, the war criminality and sadism used by
Israel and the US to deliberately destroy Gaza,
incomparable
to anything in this century, if not in
history.
And many will have to count for their
indifference
or support.
It's where we are right now.
Francesca Albanese, who's getting just attacked everywhere but
standing her ground,
points out, or as Philip Lazarini points out,
30 a day. How mon how long we've
been talking about this? That's the daily average
of humanitarian trucks entering Israel. 30 a day
down from 500 a day when they were
and when that was
wasn't even maintaining. They were at food insecure
with 500 a day. And I only needed
those trucks because they were never allowed to
go back to their homes, right of return.
That's what honor exists for. So they, like,
de facto turned into this refugee dynamic when
it was really about man
maintaining the right of return for what they
were to go back to after Israel let
them when they which they agreed to
in previous conversations that have never allowed them
to go back and now pretend like that
was never the case.
And since then, have starved them. And now
post October 7th, especially in the last
month,
30 a day.
How there's no question. This is engineering
a a starvation famine dynamic, and they're lying
about it happening.
This person is simply it's a clip from
BBC that's openly discussing the fact that there
are documents that have been fabricated
by Israel that they can prove to undermine
the ceasefire, which you all know already. Their
own mainstream media has discussed, in Israel that
they've been sabotaging this from day 1. And
yet, the US conversation continues to lie about
it over and over. Here's Matt Miller making
a joke about people, basically, wild children are
starving that Matt Lee calls them out for.
This absolutely smug idiot continues to lie about
children dying, starving to death, and being murdered.
This guy, more than most, because of just
the way he handed, deserves to be in
a jail cell. But all of them do
because they're actively gaslighting for genocide. They know
what they're doing, guys.
This is the argument that goes back to
World War 2. Just because you ordered or
whatever, that doesn't apply.
You are responsible for your choices.
And here is a starving child right now.
This is these are everyday. These are happening,
guys. Everyday.
These children are starving.
The newborns are dying rapidly. People in general
are starving. The numbers are echoing up faster
than you think.
Now, don't forget, here's Yanis Drouj, highlighting Lukut
officials openly saying the
general's plan and starvation and so on. And
deceptive news simply points out, don't forget that
Ariel Kalner, on October 7th, openly said,
the only goal should be a Nakba that
will overshadow the Nakba of 48. A catastrophe.
There's no way you can misunderstand that.
Not defeating Hamas, not re rescuing the hostages,
but a Nakba. He express expressly stated that.
And so everywhere. Here's Mint Press News. I
will play this really quickly.
This is crazy to me. These are a
couple of Zionist women from Israel.
And again, I I don't mean necessarily I
believe that I believe they're Jewish, but they
don't say that in here. But I am
pointing out that they are Zionist based on
the belief they're putting forward because that's the
reality. I just want I'm saying that because
I don't like when people insinuate that I'm
trying to sidestep the word. I'm
not. I'm not afraid to say the word
do. I think it's about the idea that
we're being clear about the difference, and Zionism
does not just Jewish people. Right? So it's
important. But
MintPress News puts this out.
This is a a striking level of of
of I again, I actually think that they
don't recognize how alarm how
disgusting what they're saying is. That's how sheltered
and isolated they are in this conversation from
Israel. I don't think they recognize it. Or
maybe they do and they don't care, which
is even more alarming.
But these are 2 women discussing how they
should deal with Palestinians. Not Hamas, but all
Palestinians.
Palestine should just be kicked out? To say
the nice words, kicked out, yes. Hey, guys.
What are you doing here?
We're from Israel.
Okay.
And? We wanted to go like Trump. And
do you think that Trump could get a,
like, a a ceasefire negotiation? Yeah. And what
do you think about when someone says free
Palestine? They don't know the truth. Okay. What's
the truth? Because I'm living in Israel and
and I know what happened. And I just
saw a great clip from Gabor Mate speaking,
which I may be able to talk about
another show tomorrow or the next day. Aaron's
Aaron Mate's father. And he makes this great
point that you look through history and the
peoples of these countries wherever you're whether you
US or anywhere else, they never know the
full history of the indigenous peoples that they've
occupied or destroyed because the leading power that
does that never informs the people. Shocking. Right?
That the point was like a poll for
Americans that the vast majority have no idea
about the rapes and murders and everything that
happened to the native population. And that's the
same in any location where that's happened. He
makes this and the point is, and so
do you not know about the what your
governments have done to the Palestinians. And it's
very clear.
So the idea is about what you just
said right here. True. Okay. What's the truth?
Because I'm living in Israel, and I and
I know Yeah. I live there, so I
know. Well, no. You know what your government
has told you just like Americans anywhere else.
So what happened? And the terrorized them have
to kill all of them, and
we love peace. The easier way is So
we haven't even gotten to it yet. So
there, you could always argue they just mean
Hamas.
But they pick they take the mask off.
You say to
finish them out, but you really can't say
that. So basically, to free them in their
own place. So think about that. So she
says we wanna just kill them all, but
we're not supposed to say that. So let's
say this instead. So so they're even censoring
their statements to make it say but you're
on record too late. You already said it.
But just showing you that there's clear clearly,
like, they know you don't that you think
what they're doing is wrong.
And it's it's it's crazy to me that
you can't recognize that that's objectively wrong. What
you're doing is talking about murdering a population.
You think that Palestinians should just be kicked
out?
To say the nice words kicked out, yeah,
but to be in their own To say
them. Me and my kids in jail. In
their own place, we give them food. We
give them their jobs. They can live their
own life. They should What if they escape?
They can't. There there has to be a
thing that they cannot escape. I mean, think
about what you're talking about. You're just
happily talking about shoving them in some concentration
camp, pretending like that means they're happy,
give them their jobs and whatever they need
and then but they can't escape. They're trapped
there. Well, guess what? That's Gaza, ladies and
gentlemen. That's where they are right now. Know,
you're talking about moving into some place away
from that because you covet what's theirs just
like everything else.
That's the reality. That's the history.
That's disgusting. And it gets worse.
That's a thing. Like a roof. Put a
roof on top of all of Gaza. And
the United States too. They're all coming in.
But at the end of the day, if
if you do give an animal
food and I'm trying to talk nice here,
but Wow. That's gonna be nice. Food in
a nice place to eat. And, they'll be
happy. Sorry to to live.
Mhmm. They won't be happy because they wanna
rule rule the world. Rule the world? I
mean, she's talking about Palestinians. That's make I
hope you see that. There's not this is
not about Hamas. They are she already said
it very clearly.
So they'll stop pretend it's about saving the
Palestinians.
They hate them. And they're and, obviously, yes,
that goes both ways in the con because
of what's been going on, but most of
these Palestinians in the conversation are not saying
the same things in reverse. They're actively trying
to find a middle ground so they can
get away from the boot that's on their
neck. These people are acting like, because they've
been radicalized by their own government, that these
people will kill them no matter what. That
they're not they're animals. They don't deserve anything.
We're talking about human beings here. Children and
women and families. It's just incredible.
The absolute dehumanization.
They won't.
But at the end of the day, if
they would
be there and, you know, they'll be a
little bit more comfortable
with not wanting to do bad maybe.
Oh my god. The ignorance.
The, the it's disgusting.
And, again, she has every right to say
it. That's free speech. And I have a
right to tell you what a disgusting person
that person is. And it may it's you
could argue, maybe not be their fault, however
you wanna frame that. But I would argue
at some level, at least from my opinion,
you know, you I've I've taught things in
school that I didn't just blindly absorb. I
just don't know why some people are different.
You know? I I'd argue that most people
have an objective moral reality, like, whether or
not you're religious. I don't think that you're
being taught morals is how that works. I
think there's something inherent. That's my opinion.
So tough stuff like that, I think, does
speak to the person. But it we have
to at least consider that's the government because
people can be brainwashed, propagandized.
Right? That that's can happen about
which outside of your control.
But either way,
that's objectively disgusting.
And it's it shows you exactly what the
mindset is despite the lies around it. Now,
again, same thing here.
Jack Merkison says, every day, some high ranking
Israeli official or soldier, and it's literally every
day. Posts, I would love everyone in Gaza
to die or to be in a concentration
camp, like you just said.
And we are all supposed to pretend that
there's a mystery about their intentions.
That's the point, guys. People are pretending.
It's a lie, which shows you how co
opted and controlled all of this is. And
it's Eunice Sarawy proving this. And he is
it's it's
documented using direct app information from their own
accounts.
This is Tiberius, and this is disgusting as
well. Says that they're right now, it it
gets to something you've seen. It's, the the
the Spanish citizens died in the flood. He's
saying Zionists are laughing
online, make ridiculing, making fun of them. 158
Spanish citizens died.
Why? Because the Spanish government recognized Palestine.
He says the level of sheer humanity is
astounding. The absolute dregs of humanity, propped up
by the West so the West could control
the Middle East.
Ahmed put out another great thread. Palestinian children
untold story. Now this take the time. Take
the time because he does he does really
good threads. And this is basically video documentation
going back well before October 7th showing you
children being brutalized, beat up, attacked.
And we know now raped, as has been
proven many times by even Israeli media now
in prisons being detained.
And, guys, this goes back long before October
7th. There's even and in post, even the
clip we just showed you before of the
state department guy resigning, admitting that they called
out a rape of a child, and guess
what they did? Nothing, except they attacked the
group that called it out and named and
named them terrorists.
Anti war reports from 2 days ago, Israel
killed over 50 children in Jablia in 48
hours,
according to the United Nations.
Here's a clip about how they have done
this for a long time now, which is
not just target children, but actually put explosives
in children's toys in Lebanon in order to
trick them into killing themselves, like, to grabbing
something which explodes.
Right? This that's a deliberate action to hurt
children,
which should not be surprising to you if
you're paying attention.
Linus
laced explosives
within children toys. A 9 year old girl
who had her right hand shredded after finding
a green plastic Now by the way, I
hate these TikTok dynamics, but she does a
good job to explain what we're walking you
through it. And these are all verifiable points.
You can easily look this stuff up like
every one of these claims. Like the idea
of the pedophile haven conversation or the idea
of the organ theft or the human shield.
All this stuff has been documented for decades
by everybody, and we pretend like it's a
shock when we talk about Jeep was 6
big black wheels that blew up right in
her hand after finding it near her village.
Another little girl who was killed after exclaiming,
I found a doll, right before being blown
up. Another child who was left with severe
burns after finding a booby trap flashlight. Those
specific attacks happened in 1997,
while Israel occupied Southern Lebanon between 1982,000.
During this period, they planted 100 of 1000
of landmine. 37,000
acres of Lebanon were contaminated with unexploded mines
and improvised explosives. This should not surprise you
with the pager attacks. Majority of us Americans
know that our tax dollars are complicit. On
October 21, 2024,
Israel just received 5 point Yeah. I'm just
for time, you you get the general point,
and it's the evidence is all over the
place. The reality being that these are not
accidents, guys.
Points out, they're announcing the execution of a
name a man named Ahmed, Nama a Namnan.
A Nam
NAM
who was wearing a red shirt below.
That's him right there.
And it says, we now know the Israeli
military, after abducting him for 10 days, ordered
him to walk in an area east of
Jablia.
Moments later, he walked forward and they shot
him.
This is happening every day.
I mean, they're they're executing people in in
for for fun.
It should horrify you.
Now I'm gonna skip this, but this is
a clip explaining that showing you that as
they highlight that they're driving through these areas
going, look, not a single building left. And
because it looks like destruction on a biblical
scale. And they ask them, don't you have
any conscience about this? And he goes, they
brought it on themselves.
It's just it's so transparently obvious. Doctors Without
Borders.
Right? Did did we ever end up calling
them Hamas? Pretty sure that didn't happen. Doesn't
matter though because they're murdering them anyway. Doctors
Without Borders outraged by the repeated killings of
their staff. Where is the government? Like, they're
not even pretending like this matters. Do you
realize how desperate that makes them look? The
US government is so shockingly complicit.
They must be they must be worried about
where this goes.
Think about how one entity like this, one
even
accusation
about a UN member
or a school or an ambulance used to
be the hugest story in the world. Now
it's ignored.
Every hospital, every school has been bombed. We
don't talk about it. Now they're bombing every
I mean, we we've seen the w the
central kitchen,
UNICEF,
Doctors Without Borders. They're repeatedly targeting them now,
and they don't even care.
Matt Miller, who cares?
It's insane, she writes, that they have to
beg Israel to stop killing their staff, but
US weapons just keep on flowing.
Here, press it for the 50th time directly
from the horse's mouth in the Knesset. There's
no such thing as innocent people in Gaza.
This is a member of the of the
Israeli government actively, passionately telling you that they're
all terrorists.
Here's mom and Safa, Safa pointing out what's
going on.
Now note in the picture,
children,
women, a kid on a bike, a woman
just calmly walking away from this.
I mean, that and that's a massive explosion
of an entire area. Look at that.
Is that pinpoint targeting precise?
No. Are there tunnels? No. They're just destroying
infrastructure, which we should all know by now.
Same thing here.
This is Israel destroying an entire village in
Lebanon. No controlled military justification,
just ethnic cleansing.
This this is rabbi David
Mevisair saying, when I was school teacher in
Northern Israel, just till 74, the Jews where
I taught proudly told me they blew up
Arab houses, which were there before
so that no one could come back.
This goes back to 1948.
Everyone sees this. Tiberias, this is genocide.
70,000
tons of bombs have been dropped in Gaza
with your tax dollars in your name, American
Americans.
In all of London, in World War 2,
20,000.
All of Hiroshima,
15,000. All of Dresden, 3.3
3rd 39100.
70,000
just in 1 year in just Gaza.
Let's pretend it's not obvious.
And, also, as WikiLeaks pointed out, the US
has funded 73%
of the costs of attacking Gaza.
So, financially, this is an American genocide in
your name.
Forensic architecture, which I'll include for you to
watch, just breaks down how obvious what they're
doing is. Look at look at the look
at how much it is. Look at the
bombing map. All that is bombs. And it
simply says when watch it. I I I
already went past 5, so I just wanna
wrap it up. We have collected and analyzed
data related to the campaign. Our findings indicate
Israel systematically
targeted
all aspects of civilian life.
Oh, look at that. In Lebanon, here's Israeli
soldiers dressed in women's clothes again.
Because that's not totally weird. Right? This was
in Lebanon. It's not Gaza.
So they're invading homes and kicking out civilians
and dressing in their clothes again. Look at
this guy.
Guys, I mean, these are sociopaths, guys. I
mean, this is crazy.
These people are dangerous.
Here they are blowing up low dropping bombs
in an ambulance instead of Lebanon because that's
just what how they roll.
Here,
Israel's totally wiped out 37 villages and destroyed
40,000 homes all across South Lebanon.
It's just happening all over again right in
front of us while the other one hasn't
even ended. 37 centuries old 37 centuries old
historic villages entirely erased from the map. Ethnic
cleansing.
Here's her ex.
If it looks like ethnic cleansing, it probably
is.
She says, now Western media should start calling
it what it is, but they won't.
Now Israeli army denies military burial to a
reserve airman who committed suicide.
So as there's this overwhelming
mental
problem epidemic because they're committing genocide, not and
not unless you're a sociopath, no matter what
you say out loud, people will struggle with
that. And now this guy commits suicide, and
they won't even give him a burial because
piece of you know, it just it just
shows you how disgusting these people are. Now
there's the Christian that fought for them. They
wouldn't allow a cross on his on his
they covered it up because mom put a
cross on the burial site
showing you how much they care. It's just
it's so the evidence is everywhere.
This is the publisher of Herets
who oh, and we'll end with this, openly
telling you
well, here, we'll do this first. So we'll
we'll run with this tweet next after that.
Here's what this guy from Herets said.
The Netanyahu government doesn't care about imposing a
cruel apartheid regime on the Palestinian
population.
It dismisses the costs of both sides for
defending the settlements
while fighting the Palestinian
freedom fighter that Israel calls terrorists.
In a sense, what is taking place now
in,
the occupied territories
and in part of Gaza
is a second Nakba.
Okay. So you clearly get the point. That's
that is the publisher of Israeli horets
saying Palestinian terrorists are freedom fighters. Sanctions should
be imposed on Smotrich Ben Gavir.
That's crazy. And then guess what? You're probably
not gonna be surprised. The leading Israeli newspaper,
oh, it's Hamas now.
That's not a joke.
Finally, the Israeli government is going after the
despicable newspaper, Israel Hamas. It's saying Herez should
be considered enemy of the state.
As this person says, Haratz is Haratz is
now Hamas.
It's only a matter of time before the
entire country is consumed with the kind of
paranoid reactionism.
It's just it's insane.
The point is anybody who doesn't who's not
who is willing to acknowledge the criminality
and genocide of Israel
is just bad guy, Hamas,
because that's the best you can do. And,
apparently, as of today, and I'm gonna follow
follow-up with this more, Netanyahu just fired Gallant
amid US elections. It writes as Israel braces
for a wrong attack.
Fires. Go on. I mean, this guy was
in a a lot of ways just as
crazy as the rest of them, but at
least he was pushing back on the the
worst parts of some of these things Netanyahu
was doing. Maybe politically. I don't know. Maybe
just for, you know, benefit.
But interestingly, arguing that he was hurting the
people in Israel, that he was hurting the
hostages,
and he fires him now. And I said,
this is pretty wild. Don't forget. Both of
your choices and quotes
in this 2 party illusion blindly and adequately
support Israel and what it's currently doing. And
then just so you can know on the
way out, here is a Jewish academic who
was just arrested in the UK
on terrorism charges. You know why? Because he
was speaking about Gaza.
And Israel or is attacking
Syria,
which isn't isn't new.
But now it is literally occupying
Syrian citizens.
Syrian citizen, they claim is connected to Iran,
gets
taken back to Israel?
I mean, how in the world I mean,
this is no different than Israel stealing an
American citizen because they claim they're connected to
Iran. Is that okay?
Obviously not. Americans would lose their mind. You
can't deduct an American citizen. Well, it's the
same difference, guys. They have no legal justification
to do this anywhere.
Let alone in Syria where there's no military
justification, there's no declaration of war.
This is terrorism, and now it's abduction.
This is terrifying how much this is going
forward in in
a year plus, and it's not being stopped.
I'll read this later, but Israel says it
struck Hezbollah targets. Well, the reality is you
can prove these are Syrian sites. Now I
should actually reach out to Vanessa Bieli because
she's there. We could maybe get her on
to talk about this. But it just shows
you how this is how
compromised
every aspect of your government is, and they
want you to pick 1. Oh, and by
the way, they're now building military installations inside
of Rafa.
Because they totally aren't occupying all the area
because that wasn't always the plan. Right?
Well, definitely longer than I wanted even past
5, but I was definitely trying to wrap
that up for you guys. But had a
lot to get caught up on. I definitely
wanted to make sure we gave you a
lot to consider and think about because, I
still I'm still kind of getting back on
track here in general. I'm gonna try to
do a show tomorrow, but it might not
happen. I'm probably gonna have some article content
either way. I am gonna try my goal
is to try to have a show tomorrow
as well, but I'll let you guys know
online.
But thank you for tuning in.
Continue to question this stuff, guys. I know
these things are difficult.
I know this stuff can be hard to
wrap your mind around, can feel uncomfortable.
And I'm not even if you think I'm
wrong, please tell me. I'm okay with that.
All I want is for you to consider
any of the things we talked about today.
Consider and and ask yourself if maybe there
are better directions. Maybe you are being deceived
by people that you thought were on your
side. I mean, just ask the questions and
be willing to engage with the possible results,
even if it feels uncomfortable, even if it
goes against what you wanna see.
The truth is, guys, that everybody involved in
this gay this game,
which is what it is, you're being gamed,
is is they're willing to do just about
anything. And I think it's obvious that there's
more on the line right now than just
who gets put in this next position.
It's much bigger than that. And I think
we all sense that.
So just be willing to question everything.
Thank you for tuning in today, guys. I
love you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.