Welcome back to another panel with the Independent
Media Alliance. Today joining is myself, Kit, Steve,
Hvoor, Derek, and Catherine to discuss Trump policy
in general. But there's a lot to get
into around this topic, obviously. I think everybody
out there has their own
particular part of any upcoming administration in their
direction in their policy that interest you more.
So today, we're gonna go through starting with
some of the discussion of some some of
the policy or rather, excuse me, some of
the administration picks and some of the directions
they might be taking and then kinda just
have a general conversation about how we see
the Trump administration, the policies being proposed, how
we see that going in our our predictions
and our thoughts on where it might be
going. I think an important point to make
right out of the gate is to recognize
that these are all floated right now. They
are proposed policies. Some of which we can
relate to some precedent from Trump's previous administration,
things that we know they're more likely to
put forward. But by and large, this is
gonna be a hypothetical conversation about what is
likely to happen. And once we get to
a point in which we're actually seeing things
happen, we'll be able to compare that to
what we're discussing today. So welcome everybody today.
I believe I was wrong last time. I
believe this is the 4th panel for the
IMA so far. Lots more to come in
general. So I'd say we start off today
with a
I'll why don't we just throw it to
Kit to start since this was your proposed,
panel today? And we can just start off
with really just start wherever you'd like, but
I thought it'd be a good place to
start will be around some of the policy
picks that you stand out to you on,
at really whatever direction you think is most
important as you see it going forward.
Oh, k. I was expecting to go first.
I I can jump in if you'd like
if you wanna. Go ahead.
Rather than policy,
I think
a a useful discussion would be about
because as you said, policy is still just
hypothetical at this point. Mhmm.
Is about
the kind of presidency it's going to be.
And I think
I mean, for me, what I would expect
would be a policy and a presidency which
is about
regaining credibility
in in quotes.
I think the the meta narrative of the
world at the moment is an establishment trying
to regain credibility. And I think in the
specific instance, Trump needs to regain
some of his anti establishment credibility.
So I think for the first
6 months to a year of 2025,
you'll see Trump do stuff that you probably
wouldn't have done the last time. A few,
like, easy wins thrown out, like,
for a partner, for example, that would be
something he could do. I think that would
I would be would be wouldn't be surprised
if that happened. I think, I think he'll
he will give RFK
the free reign to at least talk about
stuff he's going to do.
I think they've actually played it very cleverly
already.
I think the, the rumors that he was
distancing himself from RFK post election, basically 2
days after the election,
which they immediately
counteract and say, no. We're not.
See? And they and they he names him
to be confirmed by the senate and everything.
That's a clever play that wouldn't have been
done last time.
Trump did dump all his anti establishment stuff
basically immediately last time, and I think
this time he worked. I think that's what's
the most interesting thing to talk about, how
he would, like, play up to anti establishment
stuff this time in order to regain some
bona fide ideas.
Really quickly, guys. Last time, we had a
little bit of some audio carryover. If you
guys could help me this time, I'm hearing
a little bit of feedback. We tried to
address it in the beginning, but just, try
muting your microphones as we're as other people
are talking. That'll probably help in general. But
I I agree with the opening point in
general that I think that,
you know, I mean, again, I think it's
clear my opinion of the kind of my
pessimistic view of government in general. I would
see this through a lens of how we
can how they can play the population more
so, whichever partisans I were talking about. However
you see it, I would agree that it
would seem that there is an interest in
trying to really play out the idea of
challenging the system, which I think personally, going
to the picks, is very hard to make
that argument with some of the, I mean,
straight out of the, you know, deep state
swamp, Zionist, technocrat choices that we're seeing picked
just for just for cabinet positions so far,
or rather tapped whether they actually become that
position or not, I think is interesting. But
I do agree, and I think that's a
a a it depends on how you see
it playing out with what their objective might
be. So why don't anybody else jump in
just kinda starting points, policy picks, or rather
administrative picks? Yeah. We were we were just
saying, Ryan, on AM wake up, like, an
hour and a half ago to you know,
from day 1, it's been pretty obvious that
the prerequisite
was Israel first
and then loyalty to Donald Trump,
as a a either a co first or
a close second.
And then the,
you know, the bait and switch with a
number of these different appointees
who say nice things
on camera or say things that, you know,
people with a couple of brain cells left
to rub together would be like, oh, yeah.
Well, that that does make sense.
You know, say that. And then there's also
interview after interview where they're pledging their undying
loyalty
to the Zionist entity
where you've got Pam Biondi
talking about, you know,
rounding up and deporting,
antisemites
where you've got
just example after example of massive government overreach
and complete trampling
of every existing right that we have remaining.
And yet people
who, ought know better, who have previously pointed
out the similar flaws, and a lot of
the same people and certainly the same type
of person,
are cheerleading
because,
you know, it makes the liberals cry or
whatever.
I just did a quick
shortlist.
Just my quick thoughts were
the different factions, I think, that are gonna
be strong in this second administration.
Israel, of course, the Times of Israel itself
just published an article
saying who are the Jews in Trump's inner
circle and how will they affect his second
term. And then, of course, I think the
defense military industrial complex is gonna have a
strong
presence, pharma, you know, Mehmet Oz, and others.
And for me, the big one is technocracy
or or or big tech. I think that's
the key. And I had chat yesterday with
Pat Wood, Patrick Wood of Technocracy, and he's
now he's gonna give a presentation this weekend,
he said, but he's talking about techno
populism.
And I think that's sort of the cutting
cutting edge of all of this. And, again,
the definition of techno populism says it's either
a populism
in favor of technocracy or a populism concerning
certain technology, usually information technology or any populist
ideology
conversed using digital
media. It can be employed by single politicians
or whole political movements,
respectively,
and, it says neighboring terms used are technocratic
populism, technological populism, and cyber populism.
And to me that sounds a lot like
the Trump administration with Elon Musk, where they've
merged populism
with technocracy, and that just seems to be,
I think what they're gonna be doing.
I I'd like to jump in here real
quick if I could. I'm I'm gonna have
to jump off in a few minutes, but
basically to pick off pick up there on
the techno populism angle, I think that is,
really important. And,
besides maybe some potentials like Kit was talking
about for Trump to, you know, do some
anti establishment things to try to get his
street cred bet back. I think we can
already clearly see what Steve was talking about.
The numerous people who are
associated with Israel, who have, you know, outright
supported Israel and Zionism.
You know, Trump's already saying he's gonna lift
any,
limits on arms deals to Israel. He's already
saying, you know, as soon as he gets
into office, they're going to start limiting free
speech on campuses to go after anti Semitic
propaganda. So I think we're gonna see the
increase in that. And in terms of the
technocracy aspect, Jim O'Neil, who is appointed or
at least, you know, nominated to HHS deputy
secretary who would serve under RFK if they're
both chosen,
he is a former CEO of Peter Thiel's,
the Thiel Foundation. So, I mean, that to
me is everybody here and hopefully in the
audience is aware of Peter Thiel and understands
the importance of that.
I'm also working on another investigation for TLAB
right now,
looking deeper into Elon Musk and specifically his
role. You know, why he's so,
so much embracing Donald Trump. And I think
there's some really clear obvious examples.
That would be for 1, he stands to
benefit immensely financially from,
all the different military industrial complex
contracts that his companies have.
And, I'm specifically looking at his star shield
program, which started to be report on late
in 2023, and it has, you know, bits
of information have been dripping out this year.
But what we've come to realize is that
it's a $1,800,000,000
classified contract,
and, more and more details are pointing to
that the contract's probably with the National Reconnaissance
Office, which handles all the satellites and the
surveillance around the planet.
And using Starlink and in the star shield
program,
Musk, especially now with Trump in office, it
can expect to get more financial business, but
also to help the military industrial complex, the
US military, the US intelligence apparatus
to have the ability in their own words
to see anyone anywhere on the planet
to a degree that they've never had before.
You know, where they're basically saying the the
head of the NRO,
in a recent discussion about this said there
will be nowhere for anybody to hide. You
know, of course, they're saying this is just
for bad guys, for terrorists,
but I think that's another aspect of,
creating this technocrat dream of being able to
monitor everything on the planet,
in order to allocate resources. Of course, you
know, terrorism, touch bad guys, all that sort
of stuff.
That to me is is another big picture
that a lot of the Trump supporters aren't
seeing. And I'll just throw this one in
real briefly since I can't be on too
long today. But Trump also just this week
announced Chad
who's a, currently a sheriff in Florida. He's
supposed to head the DEA.
Just one interesting connection here that our fellow
IMA member Whitney Webb has written about in
her book.
The sheriff,
Chad Kronister, his wife is Nikki,
what is the name? DeBartolo DeBartolo and,
her father,
Edward DeBartolo senior. He was,
known for his mafia connections going back to
Ohio where he was in business with Les
Wexner, who, of course, was one of the
financers behind,
Jeffrey Epstein. And Les Wexner was part of
the mega group, which is, of course, goes
back to Israel and and Assad connections there.
So the sheriff, head of
Florida,
who's being appointed at the head of DEA,
his,
his wife and her family have connections to
the mafia, and his her brother actually used
to own the San Francisco 40 niners, and
he was fined, like, $1,000,000
and, you know, given a felony conviction for
some shady business deals he did. Trump actually
pardoned him during his first term. So, again,
you can see that sort of coming full
circle. Trump Trump pardons a friend, and then
that friend's
brother-in-law is appointed to, b d d h,
head of the DEA. So, I mean, I
think we're seeing a lot of just swampy
different connections going on that hopefully more and
more people will be paying attention to.
Yeah. I definitely agree. I I think that
it's obvious that this is going
away from what was generally promised.
And I think that's what I'm so interested
by to see the reactions before we even
get into policy of the people that are
being tapped. They're so transparently
I mean, outside of the kind of, like,
you narrative of the insiders to fight from
the inside, which there's some level of logic
too, but it just does seem to be
pretty outstandingly,
you know, a deviation.
So anybody have have any opening thoughts about
policy or picks so far before we kinda
just jump into the actual different policy categories?
So I have been watching the battle over
the secretary of treasury.
One of the biggest issues faced by the
US government right now is
how they're going to modify
the global dollar system. So
you see an effort all around the world.
The the the dollar was weaponized with sanctions
starting in 2014,
and that
process is really,
you know, killing the goose that laid the
golden egg because more and more people are
now trying to move away from the dollar.
And the question is, how are you gonna
track them back into the dollar or force
them back into the dollar?
And if you don't, how are you gonna
reengineer the military
and cost of capital,
economics, including,
you know,
sitting down much harder on the domestic populations
within the g seven?
So there's fundamental economics in the system that
are changing,
and you have to evolve with it or
or find a way to significantly defend the
system.
And so you see as Trump is deciding
these different financial and
sort of the financial side of his picks,
you're seeing the debate of what you do
and how you do it. And there was
a a real tense,
debate over whether Scott Pissano was gonna be
chosen
of treasury, who finally was, versus Howard Lutnick.
So Howard Lutnick was the cochair of the
transition team,
and he is the head of Cantor Fitzgerald,
which is one of the largest primary dealers.
So
if you look at all of the funny
business at the federal government from the bailouts
to 21 trillion missing
to FASB 56,
Howard Lutnick is one of the key people
moving the money out of American Retirement Funds
and into the treasury, and then it disappears
out the back door. So you're basically
you know, this guy is the guy who's
had an unbelievably
successful career and become a billionaire
financing
one of the greatest
bank robberies in the history of the world.
Okay?
Which is why it's so interesting when they
talk about reengineering government and the Doge initiative.
They don't talk about, well, let's look at,
you know, keeping secret books. Let's look at
getting the government back into legal compliance with
the financial management laws. Let's look at where
the $21,000,000,000,000
went. Let's look at where the $23,000,000,000,000
on the ballot. They're not talking about any
of that.
And in fact, Ledkin in his speech and
different interviews,
at Bitcoin 2024
and different interviews
was very,
how can I describe it, was very encouraging
of privatizing the land and minerals at the
federal government? He he basically said we don't
need to worry about $36,000,000,000,000
of debt because we have $500,000,000,000,000
of land and minerals that can be
monetized.
So, you know, sort of the plunder team
versus,
if you look at the best record, he's
much more of an equity investor than equity
builder.
And if you listen to his recent statements,
he talks about how the US
is attracting capital from all around the world,
which right now is true.
So, it was really in the financial world,
it was really sort of the plunder and
private equity guys versus the the equity investors.
And the equity investors won, even though you
would think the Senate was not sort of
a Trump
pick. Lekin has been a very close and
loyal guy.
And I continue to believe that the Republican
establishment
really,
really supported Trump. You know, they've decided he's
the guy who can get the control grid
for them, whereas,
you know, Biden and Harris were not people
who could get the control grid done.
And, you know, if if anything, the signals,
the the sort of mainstream Republican establishment raising
their fist and saying no to what what
Nick and the plunder team, which I think
is very interesting.
We do have we do have the point
of, commerce secretary overlap. And so why don't
we start with the conversation of finances in
general since you you start there in general,
Catherine, talk about Donald Trump's movements around the
dollar. Because I do find this to be,
again, the general point of, like, very contradictory
to any of the floated directions.
Trump recently said this, on the 30th. The
idea that BRICS countries are trying to move
away from the dollar while we stand by
and watch is over. We require a commitment
from these countries that they will never neither
create a new BRICS currency nor back any
other currency to replace the mighty US dollar,
or they will face 100%
tariffs and should expect to say goodbye to
selling into the wonderful US economy. They can
go find another sucker. There is no chance
that the bricks will replace the US dollar
international trade and any and any country that
tries should wave goodbye to America. I've got
plenty of thoughts. Who wants to start on
that?
I would just say that I think that
this,
you know, for 1,
Catherine mentioned about a lot of good things
there with Howard Lutnick. And, Ryan, you and
I were there at the Bitcoin conference in
Nashville watching Howard Lutnick, give his big speech.
And for those who also don't know, Howard
Lutnick was also one of the next door
neighbors of Jeffrey Epstein and former Hillary Clinton
donors. There's a lot of weird things about
him. He also coincidentally
did not show up for work on 911,
and,
the Twin Towers collapsed with his building, his
company inside of it. Yeah. That's the article
I wrote there about the co opting of
Bitcoin, which I know was covered on the
previous panel.
But I think as far as the BRICS
things go, my main thought in that is
specifically that
I think this is gonna play up, and,
I know some folks here have done work
on this. Gonna play up this angle of
the BRICS versus the US hegemony, you know,
the
multipolar order versus the old world order
and, and just dynamics around that. So whether
that means people who because a lot of
people are starting to look at Russia and
China as the the opposition to the NATO
world order,
And, this is gonna kinda play into the
storyline that maybe Trump is taking that back
and he's, you know, taking a stand against
whatever the bricks are up to. Personally, my
view is that neither of them are for
liberty and are gonna be good for people
in the long term, and that's just another
false binary that people are falling into, which
is I know a big part of what
we've been trying to push back against here.
So, yeah, I I I don't have any
specific thoughts beyond that that I just think
that this this discussion and Trump's comments against
the BRICS are just gonna play further into
that binary.
Well, what it what it does is it
sets up
the imminent,
you know, immediate
co accelerated collapse of the dollar, especially if
he plans on
implementing tariffs
on top
of the income tax.
Yeah. It that's a
recipe for absolute
disaster
with an immediate solution being, well, here's a
series of tokens
that we're we're going to go ahead and
move our financial system onto.
And we have our strategic Bitcoin reserve
that we've paid down x percentage of the
debt or have
deals with,
you know, debtor nations.
And Catherine can probably speak better to to
how that's,
you know,
an absolute
strangulation
of both
what's already garbage fiat currency,
but, you know, the international dollar along with
the ease of implementation,
of what's ultimately going to be on the
back end, a a CBDC.
So here's here's the challenge if you're running
the dollar system, and that is
the Bretton Woods system was we pay and
fund the global military protection of the sea
lanes and the satellite lanes,
and we allow everybody to play on an
open platform. And you can sell under the
US market, which at the time was the
largest consumer market. Now it's it's the EU
was larger. But
but so we fund all the expenses of
running that open platform, and you get to
play on it as long as you use
the dollar.
And so
you got a tithe from the dollar, and
that tithe helped pay for
all the expenses of running the platform.
You still got the expenses of running the
platform,
but the tie that is being eroded. So
how do you evolve the model? And that's
the big question.
And do you have to shut down the
platform?
I agree totally with Derek. If you look
at the latest pronouncements from the BRICS, both
at the BRICS meeting, but then at the
g twenty meeting in New Delhi,
you know, they're fully on board for the
global
BIS digital ID, CBDC,
biometrics
control,
you know, so it's it's almost 2 different
flavors.
I think they're arguing about who's gonna be
the middle management for the control model.
So so neither of those guys are a
savior. But if you look at the fundamental
economics of the dollar system, it's gotta be
evolved in the question is how do you
do that?
Just to add on BRICS, I would my
my feeling is that it's kind of weak
sauce. A lot of what we hear about
BRICS, I was listening to Lavrov this week,
and he's like, yeah, the whole bricks payment
system, it was Lula's idea
in Brazil, like, a year or 2 ago,
and you hear all this talk, but nothing
is really coming of it. It's almost like
bricks has been concocted as this punching bag
for the western
hegemonic model. Well, but he here is what's
coming in. They are working on a payment
system, but what's real, and it's been going
on since the east Asian financial crisis,
is they're trying to do as much trade
as possible in their own currencies direct.
And if you look at the efforts China
has made to move currency hubs and trading
platforms around the world
and then to Moscow,
the Moscow Central Bank put a,
an office in Beijing,
and they're using gold to make settlements. That's
all very incremental,
but very slowly and steadily, it's chipping away
at the dollar reserve. You know, at both
the trade market share
and the reserve market share, that's real. There
is a there is an erosion of the
of the market share, and that erosion
is gonna be accelerated because the sanction
the way the sanctions have been used is
very short term and shortsighted. The dollar is
giving up a lot of market power,
you know,
by by scaring people.
And I think one of the things that
really scares them is not just what they've
seen from the sanctions so far,
but when you combine that with what they're
seeing in Gaza and in Israel,
I think that combination is very
it it it makes a country and their
financial officers
take a deep breath and go to the
long, slow, hard work of building alternatives, which
takes decades.
But they've they're working on it,
And that's real.
And just to add on both of your
points of the dollar collapse, I really I'm
a fan of Andy Schechtman's thesis of Miles
Franklin where he says that it's almost like
they're intentionally,
accelerating this this collapse
and pushing,
bricks because,
I mean, it's it's it's too too obvious.
You know, you've had a Mackinder and that
thesis for a century saying,
don't drive,
Eurasia together and everything that we're doing is
precisely
driving everyone. You can't be that stupid. And
so I think that the point is to
accelerate
this
to accelerate
the transition to whatever
Right. Right. But remember, the dollar system is
still unbelievably
dominant and strong.
And and the assets that it controls are
still
right now, the United States is in a
huge bubble with capital from all around the
world coming in.
And the US market Financial Times just published
a big piece that's correct about how the
worst bubble on the planet is the US
equity markets because,
both with respect to the dollar and the
US equity market, there's no other game in
town. And so,
you know, it's what it's what the economists
used to call dangerous and dominant. It's still
very dominant and very, very rich.
Well, so what's interesting to me is that
it seems that we are generally arguing that
no matter what people are thinking, that the
direction seems to be this kind of controlled
demolition for the next phase, the CBDC.
What I find interesting is that, you know,
from Trump's perspective and this is something I
can't stop seeing across all these different actions,
from the smallest part to the the largest
dynamic that they're using the problems that we
know are there that they've created to roll
you into the next problem. And so trust
coming at this from the brick side of
it. Right? Like, you know, that we're gonna
go after that, which by the way, doesn't
again, doesn't seem to jibe with what we're
being told. Right? Yeah. This seems to be
solidifying the control of this structure even going
with bitcoin and using it against the way
it's actually challenged the dollar it should be
using it to bolster it. So the question
is and this is so well played if
you think about it. Rather, the point is
that if he's going after it that way.
And we're arguing, well, that's gonna actually accelerate
the demise of the dollar and that's some
of his insiders gonna go, yes. He's seen
wink wink. That's the point. Trump Trump is
for the chess move is to destroy the
dollar for but that I don't think that's
the case. I think he's genuinely a part
of the establishment. So it's a point is
that it's so interesting how you can walk
that line and make it, you know, take
these actions that are, I guess, in line
with what he wants his base that thinks
he's fighting as the outsider to think he
would do, but in essentially in a direction
that brings in the CBDC. So it's, like,
how do you fight past that? It's a
broad question that we don't have to answer.
It's like it's just so interesting how they
play it, but go ahead. So let let
me ask you guys a question that I've
been trying to figure out.
So so we have Elon Musk. The Financial
Times just wrote a great piece
about the the fact that Tesla
is the most subsidized electronic vehicle
company in China.
Okay?
So this is a guy who's getting massive
subsidy from the Chinese government.
As was just pointed out, he's getting massive
contracts and subsidy from the US government. So
he's basically
a government contractor.
Right?
Massive, massive subsidy. He's not this is not
a private entrepreneurial
effort.
And and
and he has a company,
who
is working on putting a mesh network or
putting a network in the back of your
head and hooking you up to his satellites,
which is,
you know, clearly being billed as one of
the most powerful, if not the most powerful
surveillance tool in the world. So I can't
imagine anybody whose record
is more deep state than that.
And, you know, and imagine if if the
CBDCs can get hooked up and the social
credit system can get hooked up to the
back of your brain and run through satellites
that you can't shut off or protect yourself
from.
So why am I constantly being told in
many, many circles
that I can't criticize
Elon Musk because he's one of us and
he's fighting for freedom?
How
how is this achieved?
In a couple of different ways. 1, because
we live in the most propagandized
country on the face of God's green earth
ever in the history of always.
And number 2,
because the most craven, opportunistic,
well heeled
thought leaders
have been telling absolutely
everyone
for years now
that Elon Musk is the smartest guy in
every room that he walks in
and flowers literally spring up
from, you know, where he's trod.
And people buy into that.
The if you can convince people
for years
that everyone who talked about Harvey Weinstein
was crazy or everyone who spoke up about
Hollywood
was crazy. They said Dave Chappelle was on
crack and all that kind of stuff. If
you can, you know, convince people
that,
it's okay
to invade countries based on nothing,
except for, hey. I kinda think we should
invade this country, then you can definitely convince
them that Elon Musk,
saved
free speech
by not allowing any of you to see
who the people on XCOR
are that actually own
Elon Musk and the platform
with with only disclosing a handful of the
banks
that he drew loans from
in order to get that $44,000,000.
So, I mean, we I've said this before,
but we I've never seen
the inversion
of reality
on display the way that I have over
the last, I don't know, 18 months.
I think some important points to to highlight
are I one, I I don't think it's
the majority, my personal opinion, that is falling
for most of this. And I think that's
part of why it's so aggressive, but it's
definitely a large portion of the population. But
I think it comes down to the savior
complex. Right? There are people and I'm and
I'm specifically talking about the p that smaller,
let's just say, 49, 51, the 49% that's
falling for it. I think it but I
think it's that we have been so conditioned
to need somebody in power to to slip
in and save us from this. And so
that's the obvious always been their point, but
it's ramped up like crazy. Then I think
we add the reality that, like, we're talking
about in general, where they're floating
almost the problem as the solution. But as
long as the good guy is pointing to
it, then it's the right choice. You know?
The good guy AI, the good guy brain
chip. And I think that's as simple as
it gets. And I I I to your
point, Catherine, I'm actually of the mind that
it's rapidly
shrinking. And I think that's why there's so
much kind of flailing desperation when we can
see through all of this stuff because it's
just not working anymore. So there's a positive
spin to that. You know? And I think
that with Elon and the rest of them,
I mean, it's just so transparently the opposite.
You know, you're saving free speech while you're
literally censoring people. I don't think that's working.
But I just I think it's about people
that need to believe in that. You know?
So to to bring it back to the
dollar in general, you know, to this tweet,
you know, I think what's interesting is on
top of just the idea of
of doing the you know, what is kind
of bolstering the establishment position from an outside
perspective, if you will, if that's what they
wanna see it, neither that they won't be
able to create it. Like, so in what
world do you are you saying you're gonna
stop them from doing what they would want
to do even if it does counter your
objective
or not back any others? I mean, it's,
you know, a 100% tariffs, which by the
way is a tax on you, America. You
know? And what's interesting about the whole thing
is that it is
an authoritarian position. But, there's no question about
that. And so it comes to this idea
where you're through this illusion, flimsy as it
is of an outsider to to to get
in the minds of Americans that were supposed
to be like this. This is the might
makes right perspective, and it's exactly the opposite.
But here's the thing. It's it's it's an
operationally
it is operationally not possible to put a
100% tariffs on. Right. In other words, if
you look at the speed it would take
us to replace and make the stuff we
use
I mean, you know,
somebody the other day is a defense contractor,
said it brilliantly. He said, the only way
we can have a war with China is
if China keeps making our weapons.
That's right.
So so it's not you know, what he's
saying is not operationally feasible, and everybody knows
that.
Yep. And add add this, by the way,
to the the point. This was just recently,
at least disclosed TV reported this. China bans
exports of gallium, germanium.
I I'm not sure this is what? At
at attimony?
You don't mean I don't pronounce that one.
What is it? Antimony.
Antimony. Thank you. And these are just, you
know, rare earth mineral important, you know. So
it's I I think to your point, Catherine,
I think this if you like, James Corbett
has written over the years about the engineer
fall of the west that very much feels
like where this is going. Yeah. That's the
if I can just jump in there. That's
what I I mean, I think that,
slabs scale the 2 things we were just
talking about there.
I think for the long and you say,
what do we expect from Trump's presidency? I
would ex I think Trump is
the managed
deterioration of America.
I think Trump is a a transfer team
for the shift from
America being the global hub of power to
somewhere else. I'm not I'm not sure exactly
what that will be, but I think that's
what we can expect.
And I think going back to the Elon
Musk question, that's a very interesting question. Elon
Musk does want New Relic. He does want
a carbon tax. He said that before. He
does want
digital currencies. He's he's right there at the
forefront of all of that and is currently
anti establishment because the the grander propaganda
thing here is to define what the establishment
is.
Define it for us,
then kill it in front of our eyes
and claim the establishment is gone.
And what's in the establishment? Well, that's not
tech technocratic stuff. That doesn't count. That's all
rebellion stuff. Digital money? Elon Musk likes that.
That's rebellion stuff. Stuff. That's anti establishment stuff.
What's the establishment is? The dollar. What's the
establishment is the FBI. What's the establishment is
the wrong kind of politicians in the senate.
So we'll stuff the senate with a bunch
of loudmouth idiots who sound like they they
were rebels when they don't even understand anything.
We put an idiot in the White House
who just blouse on about nonsense, and we'll
claim that we've somehow overhauled the establishment
whilst at the same time, pushing nothing but
establishment agendas
the whole time.
And
Yeah. I just wanna add real quick to
that where I feel this the second time
around.
It's even more unnerving because
it's more insidious as as Kit just explained.
And, you know, here's just one more example.
Jay, who's last name I can never, pronounce,
Jay Bhattacharya,
who's gonna be the head of the NIH,
apparently.
He he approved.
He he did a lot of good work
with COVID, but I just saw a clip
of Peter Diehl speaking how he re referred
to Jay as his friend. And then you
you start seeing all these connections. I'm like,
wait. Jay is friends with Peter Thiel?
And then Thiel may you know, maybe he's
wittingly or he who he might wittingly or
unwittingly carry out ideas that Thiel has suggested
to him because he trusts
Thiel. And so,
you know, just other things we haven't brought
up either Sebastian Gorka, right, who's this crazy
war hawk tied up with British
intelligence. And so,
yeah, you see all these you know, if
you if you pull back the weeds, you
see all these sort of maggots underneath.
Well and and what's interesting about it all
is that, you know, these are I mean,
Bart Bodichar, for example, you know, of all
of the picks, I would say, like, I'd
say more like a Gabbard point is I
don't I it's better, I guess, than some
of the other ones we're talking about. But
I I agree that if you look deep
if you look into it, he was promoting
the shots at some points. Saying, you know,
yes, get this. It's good for some. Get,
you know, get the booster. And so, you
know, again, your to your point, and this
is always the fair objective way to frame
it. Maybe he's just wrong, but it still
doesn't change the fact that he's wrong in
a very important way and that's being, you
know, chosen for this. But I agree with
you. I think it stands to reason with
the the teal overlap and there's different things
that these are people that are more apt
to lean in that direction if they're, you
know, whether they believe it's right or wrong
or not. And I think that's it's an
alarming aspect of it. The the the,
Gorka example. You know? These are people that
are
they demonstrate exactly the same problems as everybody
else they claim they're pushing back against, but
because it's under a flavor of MAGA or
at least feigning to the right, it just
gets ignored. You know? And so in in
general, I I mean, I I'm all about
I the the administrative
picks, at least what they're putting forward before
they gets confirmed or not, I think are
very, very important to talk about. But, generally,
today, we were gonna get more into the
policy. But I I think the idea of
the picks themselves tend to overlap. So feel
free to jump back and forth, guys, between
between between Let Let me bring up one
one policy. So I've been watching Doge very
carefully,
and, obviously, it's, you know, it's just an
invention in everybody's mind right now. But,
it has been announced that the first audit
that Doge is gonna do is of the
IRS.
And I wanna point out 2 things because
I I have a very suspicious mind.
Last year, Janet Yellen said that the American
people owe 2 $7,000,000,000,000
in back taxes, uncollected taxes.
And if you audit if you were gonna
audit the 21,000,000,000,000
that's missing,
you would audit the Treasury, the DOD, HUD,
and the New York Fed. You wouldn't audit
the IRS. You can't find anything there.
If, you know, if you were gonna audit
all sorts of other serious financial pot crimes
and sort of the breaking of the financial
management loans, it wouldn't be the IRS. What
what you would do if you were doing
the IRS is you would be trying to
collect the $7,000,000,000,000.
And if you look at what Palantir does
and the the, you know, sort of the
the power of its software,
its software is perfect to track down and
try and collect that $7,000,000,000,000
from
everyday Americans.
So the one thing I would say is
that it looks to me,
if you look at those that you're looking
at something that's much more designed potentially to
plunder,
than to really fix things.
Yeah. I I wholeheartedly agree with that. And
I think the point again is to whether
this even becomes something, whether they're even nominated
in the in the first place, but I
think that what it's being outlined as and
I think we actually expressed this in the
last panel as well. It's just sort of
like this very obvious
trap door or whatever you'd call it, a
trap in regard to the artificial intelligence example,
you know, where it's quite on the surface
of it. They're openly already leaning in, pointing
to using AI to better, you know, make
things more efficient. Where in some cases, you
could obviously point out that that probably would
have some level of effect in a positive
way. It's good. Here here's the thing to
understand. If you're gonna use AI to do
that, it means you're gonna bring in corporate
contractors
to use AI to do that. You're not
gonna you're not gonna give AI's,
tools to the
to the civil service. And in fact, it
looks to me like they're trying to destroy
the civil service so you can have a
complete corporate takeover of the government.
I mean, if you wanna get to taxation
without representation, what do you do? You do
digital ID, CBDC, and you kill the civil
service.
Yep. And on top of that, the the
the large portion of the
AI elements are gonna be these Israeli start
up companies. And I was just covering this
recently on the show, and that's very alarming.
But
even just the spyware itself, which is intertwined
with all these, Derek was just covering this.
It's about 4
about almost 50% of the market of spyware
alone is Israeli startup companies, you know. And
it doesn't have to inherently mean that these
are malicious. But if you understand the overlap
there to the intelligence
elements, I mean, it's a very alarming point.
Now, we're talking about rolling out AI for
and this is just one element of what
they're using these for for efficiency.
And that's gonna end up being internally inter
interwoven with just about everything financial this country
does and a lot more. I don't know
why that's not a huge red flag. For
those out there from the right side that
don't see the threat for Israel, make it
China. Right? I mean, in your mind, whatever
it is, a foreign entity that has that
kind of access is very concerning to me.
So I just wanna point out, Matt Gaetz,
who went down quickly as the,
nominee for attorney general,
has never received any any contributions
from APAC or pretty much any. And if
you go look at his current,
page on open secrets, he's only got $9,000
he's ever taken in from PACS. Most of
his money is from individuals.
So he's no APAC. Massey,
many people hope Massey would get the the
department secretary of agriculture nod.
He also refuses to take money from APAC,
and APAC spent
400,000
plus trying to get rid of him, and
it it didn't, you know, it didn't even
bump his numbers at all. So it didn't
work, but he clearly didn't get secretary back.
So,
you know, it it does seem that Israel
is sort of a a gatekeeper on the
nominees.
And And as we mentioned already, Pam Bondi,
the replace Gates, again, still just the nominee,
is, openly, aggressively pro Israel. And the point
to say the point to make in all
these is not just that they're pro Israel,
but pro Israel at the expense of American
rights. And this is very clear based on
the way they discuss this in the context
of free speech and a lot of other
things.
Well, and Beyondy has an Epstein overlap too
that shouldn't be, you know,
ignored in terms of examining how she might
behave
in that AG position.
Absolutely.
Well, so on that point then, let let's
let's get into some other specific policies. So
do any other thoughts on could just just
Mhmm.
Finish on the pics. Like, the
a lot of it is gonna be a
more fluid situation
than like, a lot of it will be
putting names out there and seeing how the
public react. Right.
And and, like, people said at first
when it was rumored that he'll be distancing
himself from Kennedy,
people complained
that didn't happen in the end. Kennedy has
now put forward for whatever it is, health
secretary or something.
But the
this is this is itself sort of a
reality TV, like, episode where Trump can basically
name whoever he wants
in order to get his good boy points
because they will have to be confirmed by
the senate anyway.
So even if he had he can pick
people he has, he knows he has no
chance of ever getting the job, and I
think there are several on his list already
that won't be approved.
I mean,
I can't think of the, the guy the
FBI guy you just named.
Cash Oh, Cash Bekel. Thank you. Yeah.
Maybe Kennedy himself.
There are several. And and that will in
that way, when nothing changes, people will say,
well, he was
Trump was handicapped by the senate who wouldn't
pick his guys.
Right.
And then he'll be tricked by the deep
state again. Sorry, Ron. Good. No. That's I
just I say the same thing. I wholeheartedly
agree, and I think this is a very
easy part of this to see. Like, I
make the same point with RFK Junior, for
example. And, again,
my perspective comes from the left right paradigm
as a ploy from a government entity trying
to rationalize the choices they want. Right? So
I see it. Either way, it's the same
point that the RFK point is that he
gets floated floated and knowing the senate or
just the government doesn't want him in that
position. So then Trump can stand back and
act like he tried. The democrats wouldn't let
him and, you know, it ends up being
the same dynamic or more so from the
2 party part of it that Trump is
putting forward people that he knows they'll push
back on. So the other person who's just
a little bit less bad ends up being
the one, but that's the one he wanted
all along. I mean, these are easy things
to wrap your mind around. It's the lesser
of Eagles dynamic on a senate confirmation
situation here. And I think that that's problematic
because all these people like, can you imagine
all the different people that could be put
forward out there that maybe aren't politicians that
are just, you know, educating certain policy. I
mean, to pretend just like with the presidential
dynamic, if this is the best that they
have to offer, these are insider swamp creatures,
you know. So I I agree with your
point. I think that I think, I mean,
what do you guys think in general? Quick
quick question. Do you think
conservatives are seeing through this in a large
way, or do you think this is more
just my over, you know, hope wishful thinking
opinion?
I I see a good portion that are
buying into it. I'm not as I I'm
more cynical being, you know, from the Balkans
myself. Yes. But but,
just to go back to the when you
mentioned policy in the techno populist angle, you
know, I was looking at one of the
unpolitifact.
Right? Mainstream
news, where it says, Trump wants to end
a mobile phone application that migrants use to
access customs and border protection services.
Even though his administration
launched the tool in 2020, again, it's like
the whole Operation Warp Speed thing. And I
think his handle before were
by hook or by crook. Because of migration,
they wanna deport people. How are they gonna
classify, sift through who's been deported, who's not?
You know, digital IDs, there's clips of Trump
years back talking about
using these technologies
to, you know, close off the border and
and all this stuff. And the EU next
year is onboarding the EES entry exit system
and ATS. So now when you go to
non Europeans going to Europe, you're gonna have
to first apply through a social credit
system before you go. And then when you
get there, they're gonna take your eye scans
and and fingerprints,
and I think
they're gonna do the same in the US
and every country, matter of fact. So they're
gonna be building these entry exit systems in
every country
around the world. And so I think that's
gonna be part of the techno populist plan.
And I think we'll also see North American
integration
somehow. They'll be pushing that,
and then you've got the war aspect as
well. I think they're gonna Trump is
the guy for pushing war with,
Iran and perhaps pivoting
to,
China. And
and just kind of warning Canada with the
United States, I think, for the last couple
days if you saw that. So there you
go. Go ahead, Steve. No. And to to
kind of put a cap on,
you know, how
the the right has reacted to these picks.
Some of you guys know that,
you know, like, 20 5 years ago or
whatever. I used to do Renaissance Festivals all
over the country.
And,
there was a a particular event
that would happen called Mimosa Monday,
where after a particularly grueling week that involved
trying to entertain middle school and high school
kids for 3 days during the week when
you're supposed to be preparing for your weekend
work, you then had to go into your
weekend work, which was also a 3 day
weekend, and then see you have Mimosa Monday.
And
so, at Mimosa Monday, every time somebody would
show up, everyone who was already there would
go, yay.
And then when they would leave, everyone go
boo.
And and it went on for the better
part of the day. And that's where the
population is right now in terms of team
sports mentality with how all of these picks
are going. They'll throw a cash Patel or
a Tulsi Gabbard or an RFK at everybody
go, yay.
And then, you know, they'll bring up,
dude for DEA
or,
the the you know,
all of the Bolton and Mike Pompeo acolytes.
And then we'll go, boo, and then they'll
just go on with their day because that's
all the energy that, you know, a lot
of people have to give to this. And
if you can capture a news cycle
where it looks like
the other team is angry, then you feel
good.
And if it looks like the other team
is like, oh, well, that seems to be
a reasonable blah blah blah. You're like, oh,
what the heck is this, you know,
deep state no good, Nick, doing in my
administration?
Yeah.
It's like it's like getting a trade
for a player that you don't like from
another team.
And that's the mentality that it's being approached.
It's certainly the level of discourse that I
see about it, especially from a lot of
the mainstream alternative media.
Yeah. I saw a recent study that was
going around. No. I saw it was I
don't know if it's recent. I saw a
discussion of a study that was going around
that it might not be recent. But the
point being that
in the general recent time frame of politics,
like last decade, it seems that we generally
focus more, which we all see. We are
led more by the ideas of what they're
putting forward
than what they actually do, which we all
know. But this is being, like, statistically mapped
out. How people tend to just fall into
what they go, we're gonna do this and
we're gonna do that. And we all know
that they're just saying what we wanna hear,
but yet people seem to be swayed by
that more than ever. You know, so I
I agree. I think it's very obvious that
this is, you know, that that that if
the best they can do is, you know,
be happy the other side's irritated. Well, I
I think that's very much engineered. So let
let's start with a very large example of
all this that work was just pointing to
in in regard immigration. Right? The idea of
the mass deportation. Like, this is one of
the biggest policy points that I think, you
know, that I think it'd be really hard
for him to pull back on this. Some
of the rest of the things they float
when they're running, you know, they tend to
float a lot of things that don't come
to pass. That one, I think, will be
a very hard one to hold back on.
The mass the largest mass deportation
effort in American history. Okay. So I think
there's a lot of things that stand out
in this immigration point in general, like, some
of the things that, like, Forbes is writing
for example. To prohibit undocumented immigrants from receiving
any benefits
and birthright citizenship for citizens of undocumented
undocumented
immigrants, reinstituting a travel ban for example from
other countries.
The one that stood out to me was
mandate extreme vetting of foreign nationals, block other
grants to think to more cities,
and, ultimately,
like these policies that lead to more invasive
spying on Americans. Right? So some of these
things you could point out are are legally
makes sense, but the worry is whether these
are just a segue into more
surveillance of Americans whether on the border or
not. So let's talk about immigration. Any any
start wherever you want. Anybody wanna jump in.
I would say we're at the point where
we're not really talking policies anymore. Policy isn't
the word. What we're looking for is excuses.
Mhmm. The the American excuse for digital ID
is Right. Is illegal immigrants.
Get round people up, put them in camps,
take their biometrics, whatever, because we hate the
on on
you mentioned the European
ESS coming in. That's meant to be about
efficiency. That's about efficiency and saving time and
saving money, but it's the same exact thing.
In Britain as well, it's gonna be about,
stopping immigrants.
Other countries, it will be about securing the
border because of pandemics and so on and
so on.
These are excuses to do what they always
wanna do. They're not policies.
Maybe they'll be nasty poor people. Maybe they
won't. They'll they'll certainly spend a lot of
money building camps to store illegal immigrants in
and government contracts from the court to doing
it.
But whether or not they actually deport anybody,
it's it's
they don't care. They can just say they
did for one thing. Mhmm. They they can
stick a headline on the New York Times
that says they've deported 200,000 people since June,
and no one's gonna be able to say
he didn't.
It's a good point. Yeah. Well, I mean,
I I think in the idea of the
mass deportation,
it would be
difficult, I argue, to not do something. Right?
So, like, in like, what I think you're
it's interesting point that this could just be.
Well, I'm what what are the record you
think about the actual legitimacy of the entire
program? Do you think that there will be
a mass deportation? Or to Kit's point, do
you think that's just the entirely bloated guys?
I guess what I'm saying is I think
there are very clearly people within the republican
side that do have a very clear agenda
within that from a specific like, not just
the means to an end, but really do
have an interest in this for other local
reasons or other political reasons. So, what do
you guys think? Is that something that will
happen or is it just a complete feigned,
you know, feigned?
So here's the thing. If you say this
from the White House, then the sheriffs are
gonna get active doing it.
And you can't stop them from doing it
because they're they would be deporting people who
are here illegally.
I I will say, Gil, I agree entirely
with Kit that these are but not policies.
They're excuses.
Mhmm. And if immigration doesn't work, they're planning
on using election fraud. So Trump has made
a really big deal about using digital IDs
for election fraud.
But if you look at many of these
policies as excuses
and including war, the goal is to control
the domestic poll you know, population.
You know, not to fight with the Russian
population, but to control the you know, you
need an excuse to control the domestic,
population.
I don't know if anybody saw the the
interview with Joe Rogan and Mark Andresen,
which was very much designed to,
make Silicon Valley look like your friend.
But,
one of the things I I was floor
I was on the floor. Joe Reagan said
Rogan said, yes. You know, we absolutely need
AI to govern because it's all too complicated
for humans to govern. And you just you
said, I can't believe I'm hearing this.
So no wonder he gets paid so much
money.
Yeah. He I I like the phrase, you
know, back in March of 2020, I was
in Spiro Sclerosis
now defunct program, and I mentioned that COVID
was all about bringing in global algocracy or
rule by algorithm, and now you have Rogan,
and Tic Tac guys saying, let's bring in
algocracy rule by AI. And and just today,
I think, you know, off Guardian has done
a great job with this where then he
ran court in in in Canada.
His thesis was that COVID was sort of
a,
what did he say, like a simulation for
for war where you had rationing,
end of free speech,
almost martial law. This today, in South Korea,
the president declared
martial law, and the article actually said he
didn't really specify anything. He's like North something
North Korea. So Communist. He's like and he
he actually said for for freedom and to
protect the constitution. So sort of like war
is peace. You know, freedom is dictatorship. So
Okay. Martial law, and it's it's the same.
They just use these different pretext of pandemic,
climate,
war to carry out the same measures of
rationing. Well, they they
they call it all war in the end.
They it wasn't a pandemic. It was the
war on COVID. And it's not it's not
the climate change. It's the the war on
climate change. Right. The war on drugs. The
war on terrorism is always about putting people
on a war footing.
Right. Right. I mean and and the the
central point here, and that's a great thing
to bring up here in regard to how
the rationalization,
you know, whatever it is. The I think
the and I think SD was covering this
morning. I think they're even referencing, like, going
stopping fake news. Like, this is all about
fighting the information war, you know, and literally
using real world kinetic, like, martial law. And
so the point is this is what we
see, hopefully, as an American perspective, that this
is what's coming. Right? This is what is
literally the rationale to get us in that
position even if you think that position will
help fight the problem. You know, it's like
everything else. The Patriot Act, these things never
go away. Right? And the point I was
making this morning on a wake up is
even if you think this is the right
move and even if they
have the best of intentions, what happens if
3 weeks in, Trump has a heart attack
and then advance or whatever? Somebody takes power
who does wanna use it that way. You
know, it it I think that is Trump.
But either way, the point is anybody could
use this to effectively
remove your rights. You know? And so I
I'll go ahead. Post 911 America has been
about building the dictator's toolkit for the incoming
administration
regardless of what party affiliation
may be in power at any given moment.
And,
it that's that's been going on unceasingly. Ceasingly.
And it's amazing how people haven't necessarily
put 2 and 2 together on that and
made the connection that holy crap.
It really could be
literally anyone, even a cartoon character
like Donald Trump,
and that's how
the, you know, governance is done. The in
terms of continuity of government, there's a number
of different ways that you can apply it
and powers of the executive,
are one of the aspects that are least
discussed in terms of how this operation is
conducted.
Yeah. The executive order dynamic is ups it's
obscene, and and it's this this complete circumvention.
And I argue that's how a lot of
this stuff is actually gonna come to pass
as we were talking about this morning. Right?
Well, Fox News, was we were referencing that
joke this morning where it literally opens their
show the other day by saying, man, I
can't wait for for Trump to just executive
order his way through this. I was like
Yes. How depressing is a statement like that,
you know? When when they control every aspect
of the current situation.
It's it's it's crazy. But so, let's talk
about some of the more specifics like under
the crime dynamic.
Vowing to invest in hiring and retaining police
officers and specifically as Derek was talking about
earlier,
to increase their protections from legal liability
and and then and rolling out the stop
and frisk dynamic under a guise of getting
illegal immigrants,
deploying federal troops including the National Guard. So
let's be clear. You've he mentioned this about
foreign troops coming home. So we're in posse
comatatus
level here to restore law and order when
local officers refuse to act, which is important
because that's usually where you start to see
the breakdown. Right? Where the where the enforcement
arm starts going, you know what? We're not
gonna force you broken laws. Well, now he's
trying to set an authoritarian level to go,
well, we'll just come right over the top
of that or
death penalty for drug dealers and drug cartels.
I mean, that's, the Philippines dynamic. Right? I
mean, these are all very alarming even if
you're going after bad guys in your mind.
So anybody wanna talk about any of those
specifics of the crime aspect?
The protection from from liability is interesting. It
it reminds me of, a long time ago,
one of the a good documentary on the
very stock contract is all called Hot Coffee.
I don't know if you've ever heard of
it. It's wonderful.
Wonderful documentary.
It's about, the case with this,
old woman spilled McDonald's coffee in her lap,
burnt herself terribly.
And the propaganda that out when she sued
McDonald's, there was this massive propaganda push.
And people were talking about, well, the frivolous
lawsuits bringing up, but suing people because your
copy is too hard. It's ridiculous.
What we need is massive reform of the
of a, massive tort reform to stop people
being able to bring lawsuits against companies so
easily.
And that's essentially what happened. It I mean,
it was a probably justifiable case, but she
had terrible burns. But what happened is companies
got legal protection out of it. So you
can see
how much,
like, a few lawsuits against police,
for doing their job hit the headlines. And
we've seen that over the last few years.
This guy sued the police because they broke
his wristwatch restraining him or something, and then
he gets $1,000,000
out of it or something ridiculous like that.
They will use that as justification. They will
created it to use it as justification.
They're gonna say, well, our our guys now,
because of black lives matter, because of of
antifa or whatever, can't do their job properly
without being sued, and it's not fair.
That will be their argument.
I was I would be shocked if that
didn't happen.
Yeah. It's crazy to me that we get
to a position where I mean, look. It's
obvious to anybody objective that there are examples
like that where there is an unjustifiable
attack on or going after them for something
they didn't do unintentionally or didn't even do.
But it's incredible to me that we on
the side of more protection
when the argument should be, well, we should
be holding them to the highest standard, the
higher standard. Right? We should be making sure
that they are held to that screw. Like,
that just makes more sense for somebody who
is act. It's it's I guess, in my
mind, it's the same as, like, the US
government, the global foreign policy dynamic where they
go, well, Russia's using cluster bombs so we're
gonna give our guys cluster bombs or that's
not even the way it actually went down.
But the argument being, well, then you're just
the same. It's rationalizing we're gonna do the
same thing back. It's the same kind of
thing we're talking about that they should be
held to a much higher standard and I'm
I'm with you. I think this is about
creating a situation where there is no ability
to go after the enforcer,
you know. And and it's an it's an
alarming step in the direction more so of
an authoritarian control structure. Add to that the
digital aspect, you know, which I think is
where all this goes and then it's insurmountable.
But Just remember you, though, you you have
had you have cities all across America where,
essentially, there is no or very little law
enforcement, and you've gutted the police,
and you put in source prosecutors who won't
prosecute crime.
And you do have a serious crime problem
because you've
you've you've basically gutted your enforcement. And that
is a problem in cities. And it's a
big, big problem for the real estate community
in those cities. And remember,
you know, Trump is somebody who understands and
sympathizes with real estate.
I think that's an important point people tend
to overlook is that his he's very big
business. Right? He's very much I mean, even
in the context of, like, removing regulations, he
always tries to frame it in a way
that it's, like, pro freedom. And there is
a very clear argument to be made within
that, but it's a dangerous level when you're
emboldening
the corporate side while moving regulations. I'm I'm
I'm if you're gonna move regulations, then it
should be not emboldening at the same time.
Like, they should be we're like, that's the
point about suing and so on. So I
wanna bring up a question. I wanna go
back to Howard Lutkin talking about the fact
that the US has $500,000,000,000,000
worth of real estate and minerals.
We know under Trump in 2018, the United
Geological Survey started to survey
all the mineral resources in the country
starting at the ground level going down 3,000
feet,
including finding the rare earth mineral minerals that
would replace what has been coming from China.
So there is
an enormous effort to understand what the resources
are within North America
and see if you can get more of
what you need. We know that Trump has
said he wants to
drill oil aggressively.
And,
and many people don't realize around the world
that federal government and the states combined owe
a huge portion of the land,
particularly in certain states like Alaska. I think
it's 70% of the land in Alaska. Which
is entirely unconstitutional, by the way. Right. We
know 2 things on some of the Bitcoin
trial balloons.
They proposed that you could sell your Bitcoin
secretly,
and if you invested in real estate, you
could,
you could do it tax free.
So, basically, proposing a 1031
swap
so that, you know, if I bought Bitcoin
at a penny and I sell it, you
know, with a government buying program at a
very high price,
then I can keep it secret and I
can convert if I put it in the
right kind of real estate, no taxes, so
tax free.
The guy who just got appointed or nominated
to the secretary of HUD position is someone
with a long deep history in opportunity
zones. Now does everybody know what an opportunity
zone is?
It's a it's a tax,
it's a tax plan
that was really created in response to the
tech, the tech industry who had huge capital
gains on their stock. And
basically, if you sell stock or sell any
investment and roll it into
real estate or business in an opportunity zone,
you can roll it in tax free. And
if you leave it in long enough, you're
tax free forever. So you've avoided all your
capital gains taxes.
So now we've got Howard Lutkin licking his
chops over $500,000,000,000,000
of real estate.
RFK
proposing that people be able to get out
of Bitcoin at a high tax free
as long as they put their money in
real estate. And now we got an opportunity
zone guy over at at
HUD.
I don't know if you remember this, but,
during the during the riots, during COVID,
we did an analysis of where all the
riots were, and they were very much contiguous
to where the New York or where the
federal offices were, but also very contiguous to
opportunity zones.
So if you look at where the riots
were in Minneapolis,
you know, it was it was basically
a way of clearing all the real estate
and getting a hold of all the real
estate at the base of a big opportunity
zone in downtown Minneapolis.
So,
you know, I go back to the plunder
opportunity here. If you are going to,
you know, take the US out of its
lead position or even break it up, because
we know there are people who would love
to break it up. You know, the big
question is who gets all the assets and
how are you gonna reposition all the assets?
Because the assets on the US balance sheet
are extraordinary.
Probably makes a more Freedom City dynamic.
Just, you know, half joking, but that's where
this seems to be going. Right? This is
a kind of sidestep. And, again, same kind
of point in general that I'm seeing everywhere
under our guise of, you know, some
breaking away from the system dynamic when really
it's just kind
of beginning the new step. I mean, I'm
seeing this technocracy rise all over the place.
There's a lot of that happening right now
with Trump's administration. I mean, one point that
I wanted to talk about before we don't
know how much talk we had time in
general today, but was is about this overlapping
dynamic of his ethics pledge,
the transition pledge, the have you guys been
seeing that conversation? I mean, there's very much
a policy dynamic there, and that I mean,
that does overlap with the foreign policy point.
Well, first, since we are on the foreign
policy overlap, I wanted since you mentioned China,
it is one of the things you're discussing
about taking a hard line stance on China.
And I do think that has to do
with the overlap of the rare earth mineral
foreign policy issue. But for restrictions on Chinese
own infrastructure
and so on, I think those are interesting
points in there. But
for me, the overlap of this And again,
this point has to do with anybody. It
doesn't matter if foreign entity is this timing
right now where Trump hasn't signed the ethics
pledges
Or rather, it's ethics and a transparency pledge,
something he signed into law more so in
2020 that he did last time as well.
But it it leaves this opening gap where
there's no cap on donations.
There and you don't have to divulge from
where those donations are coming from. You don't
have to divulge your conflicts of interest. And
so it's So that's the financing of the
transition. Correct?
But both. Yes. So that opens up all
the funding for the offices for all these
different things. And so that's one of the
most alarming points is they're pushing back on
that in general saying we don't need it.
We're gonna be a fully
self sufficient organization. You know? And they're using
their own bot. They're walking out of Mar
a Lago. They're not using government emails and
computers. And, I mean, part of that to
me is, like, I get it, but I'm
very concerned. So in in conjunction with the
idea that you're not divulging where your money
is coming from, so you have no caps,
Trillions could be flowing in from Israel, China.
We'd have no idea. No conflicts of interest
divulged. And then they're working in this own
their own area is self sufficient, not taking
money from the government. And so my point
is there's this gap right now where that's
happening. They're already getting access to certain information.
I find it to be really alarming, and
I think that speaks to a full point.
The one thing I will say is if
I was running a transition,
presidential transition, I would do the same thing.
So I I can see why it feels
and looks alarming. I think if they don't
have ethical standards and and full financial disclosure
when they go in,
you know, that will be very alarming. Mhmm.
I do wanna bring up, I think the
number 1 or one of the most important
policy goals
right now that's desired
is the Federal Reserve
has a big problem, and that problem is
called the US Constitution.
And as long as the constitution
exists, they have,
you know, the the Fed is a creature
of Congress. Congress created them. Congress can cancel
them.
And they're not independent.
And so,
if they're going to move forward with a
control grid, they need to find a way
to get rid of the constitution
or
get free of the con or at least
the Federal Reserve to get free of the
constitution.
And, how are they gonna do that? And
and that's one of the things absolutely to
watch in this administration.
One way they can help get rid of
the constitution
is to basically be able to control government
payment systems and operations.
And that's why if you're Doge and you
get rid of the civil service and replace
it with tech contractors,
you know,
ba bing, that's how you do it. You
you've now got control through
basically, the intelligence agencies in the central bank,
and
and congress no longer controls government operations.
I can't help but, again, the overlap of
the the the technocratic
side of that. Right? Like, all these different
overlaps. And I I mean, same, even going
back to the same point, like, the
the influence of a of another entity in
all of this is something that stands out
to me more than anything. I mean, it's
obvious corruption taking place, but to me, I
can't stop seeing how that intertwines.
Right? I mean, is that is that something
is that more you Catherine directly, do you
think that's something that is more of a
oversized concern, or do you think that's a
right on the surface No. I and and
here's the thing. The you know,
what happens over time is power cruise the
guy
who sort of controls the infrastructure and handles
things operationally.
So the way the US got the power
to do the sanctions is literally we evolve
the Internet
and the hardware that carried the Internet to
the point where 99%
of digital communications and transactions
went through the US in a way that
the US could assert legal and financial
and operational jurisdiction.
You know? And so if you end up
with Amazon, Google, and Lockheed Martin running all
of the payment systems and operations
in the US government, they end up having
tremendous power.
You know, it comes over time through just
their operational control.
And and that's why, you know, we've seen
really
dramatic reduction of operational control by congress as
more and more in the rise of the
deep state is the rise of corporate contractors,
defense contractors, big tech firms, and banks
ending up controlling and running all of the
government's operations, including their financial transactions.
Well and this was a point I was
trying to make when people were doing cartwheels
over the nomination to Kash Patel. Kash Patel
is one of those guys who believes that
the deep state is just Democrats we don't
like.
Right. As opposed to what Catherine just laid
out, in terms of the operational infrastructure of
how the deep state moves.
Right. Which is why we're go ahead. It
was very strange. I was watching in a
recent interview that Kaush Patel did, and he
said,
you know, day 1, I'm gonna shut down
the federal,
the FBI headquarters in Washington and turn it
into a deep state museum
and send the 7,000 agents out into the
rural areas and countryside and, you know, it's
like the,
you know, the cultural revolution. But here's the
thing. If you understand how federal bureaucracy works,
you know that you can't do that without
congressional approval. You can't
you can't fund a travel budget that can
do that. You can't move your staffing levels
all over the country without
you know, those staffing levels are controlled and
dictated and and influenced by the levels are
controlled and dictated and and influenced by the
appropriations committee and OMB. I mean, you just
you you you're just as the head of
the FBI, you don't have the power to
arbitrarily do that. Why would you say that?
He should if you look at his resume,
he knows better.
I think it's in point. I think it's
seen now before. Go ahead. Go ahead, Ken.
A lot of what they are saying at
the moment is just about pleasing the people
at the back with the big Trump signs.
I mean, like, we're gonna audit the IRS
as part of that as well. Like, everybody
hates the IRS. So we'll say something about
how we'll order the IRS, and we'll get
all people that resent paying contact every April
to choose. I think because Palantir already has
an IRS contract as far as I know.
I think they are gonna do Well, I
think I they might do it, but I
think the only reason to say they're gonna
do it is to plead. Like, they could
just easily just put that in a two
line press conference in January, and it's my
press release in January and not make a
big public thing of it. Right. I I
think it's the secondary part as well, though.
It's about it's not just about you know,
it's about pointing to that, but also
seeing
the the being able to frame it as
the democrats wouldn't let him do the thing
that would have saved everybody. Like, that's always
how this seems to go. Right? The extended
confirmation is the same point. So, eventually, you
can like, as long as they keep the
the the zombie thing going forward and act
like, well, we would've I mean, I make
this point about Obama and the rest. Obama
would've changed the world, but they wouldn't let
him do it. Like, they constantly keep doing
this. Trump's term was the same thing. They
tricked him or they did this. So that
I think that's where this plays out in
the interest of shoving us into the next
control structure. So Ryan suppose.
You go, kid.
Well, I was just going to say, we've
we've talked a lot about policy down the
line, but there is there is the inauguration
and the confirmation areas here. Like, what do
you who do you think of the nominees
will get their job, and who do you
think is gonna be turned away?
Yeah. Good question. Do you wanna say something
first, Catherine?
Oh, so I was just gonna tell you
a story.
When I was assistant secretary at housing, I
got a call from the head of public
affairs who said you're in real trouble with
the Heritage Foundation,
which is conservative think tank in Washington. I
said, oh, well, that's terrible. Why don't we
just invite them over to dinner? So I
invited a couple of people who run the
Heritage Foundation over to my house for dinner.
We had a little dinner party. And I
said, Pray Tell, what have I done to
offend you? And they said, well,
you know, the secretary went up to Harlem
and had a cut press conference to Charlie
Rangel, and he told him he was gonna
fund all these these projects at Harlem.
And then he came back and told you
to do it, and then you you're implementing
it. I said, well, yes. He ordered me
to do it, and it's all perfectly legal.
And so, you know, I'm implementing his orders.
And they said, no. You don't understand.
You're supposed to make sure it never happens.
And he can say it's the bureaucracy
because he ordered it, but you're supposed to
just not do it. And and I said,
why is that? And he said, because the
point of the press conference is to make
sure that the white woman in Westchester who
watched the press conference
think that we care about people, but we
don't wanna waste any money. We already already
get the results from the press
conference, but you're the guy who's gotta stop
it so he has plausible deniability.
You just didn't realize that.
So depressing.
And you know what's most depressing, Catherine, is
that we know that that's everywhere, that that's
that's policy as usual or business as usual.
Well, but here's the thing. I was I
was at the dentist this morning, and the
dentist said to me, he said, because I'm
back in the Netherlands. He said,
he said, you know,
how how was it being over in America
during the period of the election? And I
said, well, you know, every 4 years, we
lose our minds.
And then, you know, hopefully, within some reasonable
period of time, we get it back. And
they just thought that was very funny. Because
to the world, it does look like we've
lost our minds. Yeah. And and I keep
coming back to the question that we the
role we have as media.
How do we help
the people watching this to understand what Kit
is describing
or you're describing? This is theater,
and you need to get back into the
real world and stop wasting your time on
the theater.
Let alone getting played for a patsy by
the theater?
How do we how do we help everybody
get back into the real world?
That is the question of the time, isn't
it? I mean, I the same thing we're
talking about. How do you reach somebody in
a cult? You know? Like, somebody who's, like,
socially engineered. Like, how do you circumvent that?
How do you show them that they're wrong?
These are classic questions in in this field.
And, you know, there's a lot of I
I think more than ever today, we're, for
some reason, breaking through through a lot of
them. Honestly, I don't know. I think everyone
has their own opinion. You guys wanna chime
in on that at
all? Any thoughts? I I it's it's a
complicated thing, you know? It's more of those
we each have our own ways we try
and circumvent it, you know? It's it's a
great question though and I think it's something
we should be focusing on every day. You
know, how do we show them this? And
not just, as I said recently that we
all can learn it myself especially,
it's not just, you know, tell them they're
wrong or stupid or do something that may,
you know, that's like I'm getting my point
is you engage on Twitter all the time
these days where you get pulled into these
vitriolic conversations.
And I think it's hard because, you know,
sometimes you think you are being, like, they
just don't want to and you wanna call
them out for it. But sometimes it's about
just trying to do what we're saying. How
do you reach them without making them feel
stupid? Or, you know, I I one of
the things I'll point out since I'm asking
the question is you try to find common
ground. You know, you come at it in
a little bit of what we like where,
you know, like as if you make them
feel that you're on the same side. You
know, that we see it the same way
but did you check out this thing that
seems to contradict that? So it left their
guard down first before you address something that
might influence their opinion, you know. But it's
it's a difficult thing. Plant the seed, water
it as often as possible.
Well, the the approach that you're describing is
something that works incredibly well in, like, small
group settings or 1 on 1 settings. But
from,
you know, from behind the camera
doing a show, what
the the best things that we can do
is what we're already doing, which is highlighting
all of
the, you know, blatant
hypocrisy,
the obvious agendas,
the to people,
you know, to people who may not necessarily
see it, but from a number of different
angles of approach.
And so what my buddy, Slim, says
from the beef initiative,
is that, you know, the best thing that
we can do is encourage absolutely everyone
in our immediate spheres to change their consumption
model.
And and that's across the board. That's what
you're putting into your body. It's what you're
putting into your brain. It's what you're doing
to nurture your soul and your spirit.
All of these things,
if that's the example that's being set and
if that's the, you know,
kind of the
conversations that we're having in our immediate,
then it does have,
an expanded effect going out in that you
have the consumption model in your community
can get changed relatively quickly just via food.
And if you wanna turn anyone on the
planet
into a conspiracy
theorist, give them a couple of chickens to
raise.
Chickens are the gateway drug to conspiracy theories.
They are because you noticed immediately how much
better the eggs are. And then you start
thinking about that and it opens up an
entirely brand new world,
of thought that you wouldn't have ordinarily
stumbled across
had you just simply listened to any of
us the first time.
Yeah. Well said. I love it. I mean,
it's it's I I think the the main
point of what we're doing in general, and
I Slim is well, I recommend you guys
check out his protect Texas Slim in general
and the work the he does. Steve talks
to them often. You know, just challenging these
models more than, you know, the consumption model
I think is a good analogy. The term
even works in itself but more than just
food, just kind of like what you consume
media wise and everything else and reflect on,
you know, how you may change that. And
I think what's important is that the people
watching, I'm of the mind and I know
I say this often, I'm of a positive
end.
I think more people than not are beginning
to see this or at least be entertaining
these questions. And I think it's because of
the work that you're all doing here and
the work that we're all doing with the
IMA. I really do see that and I
think it's a positive note. But why why
don't we end with the conversate with the
point that Kit put forward on on who,
you know, like, our our prediction essentially on
the different cabinet picks and the different people
who will or will not, you know, go
into as much depth as you'd like. Whoever
wants to start. You wanna start, Steve?
I I think that it'll be a difficult
win for them to get absolutely
everyone. I know that there are a number
of different,
democrats running around threatening
to make sure that Tulsi Gabbard
doesn't see the DNI's office. I know there
are people that are big mad at Bobby,
and he may not see HHS.
Cash Patel is a a toss-up because, again,
as with
Gabbard, as with,
you know, everyone who's been tapped, they are
Israel first. They've made that perfectly clear. Tulsi
Gabbard has a long standing history
of being very, very anti.
I think the focus group tested phrase she
uses is radical Islamist
jihadists.
Radical Islamists.
I think that's the the gamut phrase for
it.
But she is very much in favor of,
you know, the Bush doctrine
as far as, you know, preemptive strikes on
countries that may harbor, quote, unquote, terrorists.
But a lot of people don't like her.
I I think you're going to see the
more,
you know, quote, unquote radical elements
that he's tapped get pushed to the side
in favor of more,
establishment
creatures.
However,
if you put somebody in a position
that's a politically appointed position in the first
place,
their power is greatly hindered by the bureaucracy
that supports them.
And so,
you know, it it could have
all of the effect of a ceremonial
appointment.
Well, I think I think in general, my
gen my my overview on this is that
kind of in similar line with what Kit
and and mostly everyone else is putting forward
today is that I think that these picks
are
designed in a way to
distract, you know, to say like this, you
know, to to may rather
rationalize and justify a pick that they otherwise
wouldn't have wanted if it wasn't first they
floated Pompeo and Nikki Haley. Right? Like, that
that's already kind of happened. So these ones
are a little bit less or more digestible.
The when and how is hard to say.
I think the ones that I would argue
my prediction more than anything, I don't think
RFK Junior is gonna be allowed. I think
that was the point. I I think that
he, regardless of his blind spot for Israel,
it has a lot I mean, right now
is in contradiction to a lot of what
the the other parts of the administration are
doing. Right? Even the vaccine direction, the mRNA
direction.
I mean, if there's 14 different things you
could point out that he seems to be
against that the rest of the administration is
sort of at least allowing to go forward.
So I think that he will be refused
in senate confirmation, and they'll blame the democrats,
and that's how that's why they won't have
to go after mRNA, which both
you know, I think all of them. Diehl,
Vivek, Musk.
They all of them are invested one way
or another in that direction, which scares me.
But I think the other ones that are
the the other one like a Musk is
an interesting overlap. I can't tell whether that
was one that was meant to not be
or not in my opinion, but I think
the I'll just end on my my prediction.
I think there's some that will be are
designed up to be make it,
RFKB in the one I'll point to. But
the interesting part is you have the rest
of them like the HEGSAT, the Huckabees, the
Bodies that are
aggressive Zionists that are probably gonna fly through
with no problem. And I think that's gonna
be a big red flag to show you
that that's not the things they're worried about
despite how they're screaming about prophetic Zionist end
time, like, real conversations about how we are
gonna lead that. It's terrifying.
But I think the or like a Patel,
same kind of thing. Is that I think
that's gonna be the standout is that that
gets flying by and then whether Musk makes
it or not, I think is an interesting
example of, you know, I get the same
point. If he makes it, I think it'll
say a lot. Oh, go ahead, Catherine. Must
does not need a confirmation.
He's not in a cabinet position. Oh, that
you know, I'm glad you said that actually.
That's a He doesn't need a If if
they establish a government,
department of government efficiency, will he then require
confirmation?
If they make it a cabinet department, yes.
But I don't think they will make it
cabinet department. I think they'll make sure he
doesn't need confirmation.
Yeah. You have Vivek Ramos, Swami, out here
running around complaining about unelected bureaucrats while he's
trying to become an unelected it's I just
the
ah, it life should come with a rim
shot now. Just
every time these clowns open their mouth.
That's alright. So,
I Ryan, I have to tell you, I
do think that Bobby's gonna get confirmed. Yeah.
And the the reason I think he's gonna
get confirmed is if you look at
what
I think the deep state wants to or
the the establishment wants to accomplish with this
administration,
they wanna keep the young people,
you know, in the tent pissing out and
not outside the tent pissing in. Good point.
And I think I think they're looking to
get RFK to do that. They also know
that the, you know, that the what has
happened with food and drugs has gone way
beyond
anything. You know, it it really needs a
course correction. So I think the establishment
is willing to tolerate a course correction. I
think one's needed. But I think they're gonna
use this to keep
him, you know, pulling the young people back
in the tent in a way that, you
know, for many of us, it would probably
be better in the long run if RFK
wasn't confirmed. But I think the
the worst parts of the establishment want him
confirmed, and that's what will get him confirmed.
Because, obviously, the Democrats are still stinging from
what happened. Even though they were the ones
who threw him out of the Democratic Party,
he had no choice but to leave. They
made him. But but even though they see
him as a turncoat, I think the you
know, I I basically think the central bankers
and intelligence agencies will will overrule them, and
and he will be confirmed.
It's my theory. Real real quickly in your
mind, do you I make him sorry, Kate.
Real quick. Does that make him in your
mind somebody who's aware of that or that
he's being used?
You're you're I think I think he's being
used and,
you know, if I I think he will
try and do
get some very good things done in the
food and health area. Mhmm. And if I
were him, I would ignore why various people
are supporting me, and I would just go
and try and get them done. Makes sense.
Yeah. You're you always whenever you're in one
of these in a in a highly centralized
system,
you always have people using you and that
you would prefer not to have using you
as the way it is.
Interesting. Go ahead, Kent. I was I was
gonna agree. I was gonna say that I
think Kennedy,
they can't afford not to approve Kennedy. He
was so much of the ticket,
and his name still brings the family name
still brings such a a cachet with it
that I think they have to let him
in. And I think in some ways, what
he wants,
whether he wants this sincerely or not, can
be parlayed into important stuff. I mean, they
want to do food reform, and he's all
over food reform. He wants to make food
healthier.
Like, the greater establishment plan is to make
food, like, lab grown blocks that you have
to scan your wrist to get access to
from your local, food vending
machine.
But, you know, there are similar things at
play here. We want to limit the amount
of calories people eat. We want to limit
the kinds of food people eat. I actually
think I think I think Gabbard won't make
it thing. I think she's she's just there
to be there. She'll be she'll be replaced
with some other insider that no one's ever
heard of. But I think Kennedy will make
it. And I think I actually think my
big, like, wild card prediction is that they
will let him take fluoride out of the
water. That this will be the big winning
cause for the 1st 6 months of the
year.
And they'll do it in they won't actually
do it. They'll do it in the government
way. They'll have a a year long senate
hearing about days of fluoridation,
which It's not federally mandated, though. I'm sorry.
I gotta jump in here real quick because
Derek's Derek's not here to to fill this,
but fluoride is already being removed
from dozens and dozens of pounds and municipalities.
The
surgeon general of Florida
issued,
guidance for the entire state to remove it
about 10 or 11 days ago.
The this is something that is becoming
more and more and more prevalent.
Thanks to fluoride action network in that region.
But that's that's
that's that's that's fact. Quite really. Right. That
is like, it's just like, look. Look what
we did. I mean, the mythos may be
that Kennedy will get credit for it, but
I I just I have to point out
that it's already
happening.
Well, Hocho, by the way, is carrying out
new programs to add more fluoride. So there's
gonna be an opening there for something. So
I agree The the big the the big
opening is gonna be whatever genius out there
is already making fluoride pills and fluoride drops
to sell to all the outraged soccer moms
on both coasts to best pick whatever fluoride
back in their own water.
I have a fluoride removal system because my
my girl lives in Marin County, which is
one of the most heavily fluoridated counties in
the entire state of California.
And, and I got it direct you know,
it's a a fantastic system.
But it only it's only good for the
sink. You can't do a thing about it
through the shower.
You would have to hook up a secondary
one for your bathroom if you wanted one
for your bathroom sink for every bathroom.
And it's, you know, but that's what
it takes if you want to, you know,
if you're unfortunate
enough to live in a county or municipality
where they still do that, particularly at the
rate that they do when we're in.
But excellent points made in general. Did you
did you have some more ad kit? Was
that was that, I didn't wanna cut you
off.
No. No. That was pretty much it. Yeah.
I think it's it's a good point, you
know, is that it's all about the I
guess, it seems like we all generally agree
here generally agree that it's about presenting the
illusion or rather just the narrative, the construct
to, you know, whether
maybe some positives come out of it or
not, it's about more so presenting in a
certain way. So what I think is really
interesting is what we kinda highlighted there is
that it I guess it comes down to
whether we think they want it to be
appear want it to appear as if they
won or not in a long term sense.
Right? So if they want the, the the
people to think that Trump and his team
are succeeding in their mission, then I think,
yeah, it makes sense to have RFK be
a part of that. Or but if they
want them to feel that they are the
still under the attack of the democrats, which
that's where my mind kinda goes, where it's
about constructing this illusion that they're still under
the fight to so which will drive more
support into the final stage. Right? But I
guess that's the endpoint. And either way, it
still seems to be going in the same
direction. I do see a positive RFK in
there for some of the policies, like, Catherine's
saying that I think are obviously good in
a lot of ways. But I just I
have that concern. I guess, we'll just have
to wait and see how this plays out.
I think there's a a lot of good
things that were discussed today. I think it's
it's gonna come down to January 20th forward
and what actually rolls out, who's actually tapped,
whether the confirmations are actually there. We have
a while till we see what's really going
on. So We haven't even touched on the
idea they pull some
democrat version of January 6th yet or something
like that. I mean, there's a lot of
big things that could happen in that time.
Yeah. Good point. That's actually a really good
point that we don't know what will happen
between then. There's just weird limbo period that
always happens where if it's good right now,
Trump somehow tries to grab it and make
it his even though he's not in power.
If it's bad, it's, you know, by it's
like this weird time frame where if it's
bad, it's still Biden even though usually they
claim that he's not in power at all.
You know, it's like this everyone points it
to somebody else. I kinda feel like the
democrat version of January 6th would be a
bunch of liberals showing up and then trying
to get the capitol police to go in
and drag Trump out.
I don't know if I don't feel like
that. I don't even feel like they would,
like, take a podium or anything. Well, what
what's I I get that the joke is
well taken, but I think what's interesting though
is that it would ultimately amount to the
same thing it was last time, which I
argue were not a bunch of Republicans going
crazy. Right? I think there was I was
there. I get I know what I saw.
Yeah. You know? And it definitely wasn't that.
It definitely wasn't.
So, again, the Well, it could be the
same idea. Right? Where you just have another
a bunch of masked people that are FBI
agents for all we know, and it just
becomes some, you know, the point is it's
all up in the air. And that's a
great point to consider that we don't know
how it would play. Alex Jones is floating
that the deep the deep straight deep state
democrats are planning some kind of a we're
gonna stop him from taking power which by
the way wouldn't be that surprising. But I
don't know. Again, it comes down to whether
it wants to appear as if he has
succeeded in all this and now they're gonna
just blindly accept whatever goes forward or whether
they want more push to drive it forward.
It's up in the air or maybe we're
all wrong and this thing we've already been
saved and we're all happy now, you know.
So, who actually knows? But, that's a good
place to pin it in general. I really
appreciate these kind of conversations. Go ahead. We're
all gonna look really ridiculous when it's 2035
and we're all living in Musk's space cities
and everything's fine.
I really hope that's not the case. It's
a terrifying future. But I think we should
eventually have more of a direct panel on
the idea of the technocratic overlap, the kind
of freedom city,
Prospera, technocrat kind of overlap of all this,
which I don't know about you guys, but
I really see the fingerprints that kind of
that's poking out all over the place where
it's got a sidestep of power into some
kind of a technocrat driven mindset.
I I think that's where this all goes,
but that's, for another conversation, I think. But
anything else you guys wanna leave us with
on the way out? Anybody have final thoughts?
No. It's fantastic.
Yeah. I I really enjoyed the conversation, guys.
Thank you. And there's plenty more to come
here.
Thank you so much for doing this.
Thank you. Thank you, Catherine, Kit, Steve, for
and and Vork and and, and, Derek and
everybody else that, you know, will be coming
to the new the upcoming panels and so
on. I do have one, notification on the
way out that I think the last insight
we got from Odysee was, the new, the
next update will be coming probably the beginning
of January. A little bit further out than
I wanted,
but still coming up soon. So that looks
like after Christmas, we'll be getting, hopefully, the
new IMA website, which will be more of
this. We'll be funding through there. So but
lots more panels and interesting conversations coming your
way. So we'll leave it there. Thank you
all for joining today. And And everybody have
a merry Christmas. Yes. Absolutely. Yes. Before then,
have a merry Christmas. And,
leave it out with my tagline. As always,
everybody question everything, come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.