Welcome to the daily wrap up, a concise
show dedicated to bringing you the most relevant
independent news as we see it from the
last 24 hours.
Thursday, January 2, 2024. Thank you for joining
me today. Been too long, got a lot
to catch up on, a lot of craziness
happening.
I sat back today looking at all that
I was gonna try to cover. And as
I tend to do on these, you know,
mid so many days off kinda show, pushed
off foreign policy until tomorrow or the next
day and looked at all we were talking
about or all I was thinking about and
all that we've been covering up until, you
know, drones and all the different things. And
really just I and we've talked about 5th
generation warfare more than once on this show.
And I've done focused,
I guess, episodes on that in particular. But
today, in general, just looking at the full
picture, really thought it was an important time
to kinda reiterate
that idea.
And it doesn't remember, this doesn't mean fake
conversations. Like, the same way that, like, a
false flag
doesn't have to mean that everything was fake.
It simply just means that it's a manipulation.
It can mean that. But the idea of
5th generation warfare goes a lot deeper. And
we're talking about the idea, for example, things
like we see of the controlled
entities.
The Azov movement, actually, when you understand it,
being funded and controlled by outside forces like
the US and Israel or ISIS and Al
Qaeda, for example. And how these things are
used to drive certain actions for the population.
Social media, artificial intelligence, and all these new
elements are adding
a really alarming aspect to all of this.
And I think we've all started to see
I'm I'm not even sure how to frame
it coming off of, like, the Jack Dorsey
Twitter into the Elon Musk Twitter and however
you wanna call that difference. But, clearly, we're
all beginning to see more people than you
than than
lately more than ever because of what just
happened, beginning to see what is being it's
just it's something is falling apart. We're watching
what's happening with this. It's beginning to show
everybody across the board that, you know, what
a lot of us were saying is actually
pretty obvious now. And what it's show I
think what it's building is this idea, what
it's developing into, is this very clear picture
of some kind of coordinated effort to drive
people into a very, very specific location. And
I think more than not more than any
of the things we're gonna talk about today,
conservatives are the people that are beginning to
feel more
manipulated, more,
you know, controlled. And I think today, what
I think what what I wanna highlight is
all these different conversations, like the fog conversation.
Drone's not really focused on today, but I
included it for the point that it's I
think it's part of what we're seeing. We're
gonna talk about the fog. I wanna talk
about the overlap of the the smart dust
aspect that's been brought up into that. I
wanna talk about the Cybertruck discussion,
the both aspects of that conversation, the New
Orleans aspect, the you know, both the drivers,
both the examples, both from Fort Bragg, both
the all the things you probably heard talk
about what that looks like. And, of course,
just kind of seeing this in a large
way bring this to a high elevation view.
And, of course, because, you might have noticed,
this morning, there was no AM wake up.
And I'm sure a lot of you missed
out on that. I'm sure you're just pining
for the wonderful Steve Boykinen for tomorrow. But
guess what? You're in luck today because I
asked Steve to jump in because he was
unable to join, to do his show this
morning. And I asked him to join today
for the says boom. Uh-oh. Well, looks like
it's stuck chopping out already. But I asked
him to join, for the cohost to show
today because he didn't have this morning. But
we're not sure if it's gonna be a
good connection because he's kind of working on
the the,
second secondhand
equipment from people that are letting him use
it and so on. So let's see how
you're doing, brother. How are you? I think
I'm okay. I think so. I don't know.
I don't know. Now it's actually
out. But so really This is point thing
This is trial run number 1. We're doing
it live.
I think it's gonna be rough, we're gonna
give it a shot. So, basically, I'm gonna
go into this like I normally do. And
what I think where the plan is to
kinda just go through these little segments and
kinda take a moment and just discuss with
Steve what he's seeing. And, you know, and
as always, Steve, you know, feel free to
chime in whenever.
Anything you wanna interject. I'm gonna go
machine gun fire like normal on this show.
And if you wanna jump in and interject
on something, just please feel free and jump
in. So let's, let's
jump right into this and or and start
with a something I thought you guys might
find interesting.
Now this is
a an article I put out or show
from August 6, 2024. An Israeli false flag
could justify attacking Lebanon. You might remember that.
That's the discussion of the children playing soccer,
ultimately, a group the the simple story is
that it was a Iron Dome missile that
essentially fell back and hit these kids, and
this has happened more than once in this
area. And, ultimately, they use that to pretend
that they were attacked by somebody else. And,
you know, it was very clearly broken down.
And so that's not the point we're getting
into. It's about the article itself and the
image as well as this one.
Israel bombs Gaza refugee camps, and Gaza fires
rockets at Israel. Now I actually recently talked
about this on Steve's show, but, unfortunately, we
have now the 5th lawsuit. The 5th lawsuit
based on these two images. And what's interesting
to me is the page here you can
see
under the power of attorney from Flash 90.
It's the group that is suing me now
more than once for frivolous copyright claims, and
and I would argue are protected under fair
use or,
the the Fair Use Act or because I'm
I'm under the impression the ones I'm using
are Creative Commons. These ones both apply to
fair use. The point is it's the group
is Higbee and Associates, if that matters to
you, is that it's even signed in Hebrew.
And I just think that's important not because
it's anything about Jewish people in particular. It's
about the reality that I think this has
been coordinated, so does my lawyer at this
point. And he's not some conspiracy theorist, you
know, in quotes if I I can't tell
if my yeah. I'm on screen right now.
So in quotes, conspiracy theorist. And what's what's
interesting though is that this has all started
after October 7th. This waterfall of lawsuits that
seem frivolous and I mean, it is law
fair. My lawyer is in complete agreement with
you on this the way that it's been
going down, and I just think it's ridiculous
that every single one of these seems to
relate to Israel as well. Now that still
could just be a random coincidence. But I
just still wanted to let you all know
that now we have a 5th lawsuit
coming after me for a ridiculous amount of
money, probably about $50,000
in bills just for my lawyer to fight
this first one so far, just to keep
you guys updated on what's going on. And
I'm not feeling great about where it's all
going, but I do feel like we're making
headway, like, the in in regard to kind
of I I mean, I'm learning a lot,
let's put it that way, on how this
works and and ultimately the reality of the
legal system of this country which is money.
That's it. If you don't have money, you
can't really have a legal defense. And I
think that's the crazy part about all this.
Especially, on top of that, that this is
a
I'm calling it law fair for a reason.
Because as I've gone to you many times,
I'm not gonna go into it all now,
intent is the most is it is the
main part of proving this. And I can
prove if I had the money to go
to court for all these cases, which I
don't, that I am I the intent was
not there. That clearly, I think I'm under
the impression these are creative commons or fair
use, which basically means, for example, here, that
we're talking about this event. And this is
a and it's there are for news, criticism,
and there are a couple other categories under
the 76, I think, Fair Use Act. You
can use images or what would otherwise be
copyrighted for purposes of news reporting. And, you
know, so the point is they just don't
see us in that light. They pretend we're
not come after you anyway from the perspective
of the media or, you know, mainstream.
Nonetheless, I wanted to show you guys this.
I just think that's interesting. And on the
note of oh, actually, I included this. I
just thought this was funny. This somebody says,
the future Israelis will impose on their western
slaves. And it says, card declined. Please delete
all tweets that violate your bank's hate speech
policies to process payment, which
is not that crazy. When you stand back
and think about it, that's really not that
far fetched. I mean, whether it's real or
not, that's something that I think is we
all sense where we're going. And, I'm just
this is an interesting image. I'm not sure.
We could place that in a lot of
different things. And maybe the cyber truck explosion,
it's a little prescient.
But
wanted to include ways to support TLav if
you guys are so inclined. And this is
the donation page for the TLav website. I'd
I'd say it's probably one of the better
direction at the moment but still is using
Stripe. So how long until that rug gets
pulled out? I mean, by the way, I
did an interview with Derek Rose this morning
which will go out tomorrow. He just had
his wise account frozen. I I don't know.
I I don't know if you maybe heard
that from him, Steve, but he had his
Wyze account frozen completely. And that's what I've
been using as a kind of stop gap
after PayPal's removed and all these different things.
And he he is basically trying to work
through that app. It was for the people's
reset. And they they've basically frozen everything, and
he's trying to work out how to I
mean, it's just obscene how this keeps happening.
And no justification.
Just we want more information, and he he
they ask him for bank statements, and he's
like, look. I use this because I don't
have a bank, and they just didn't get
the answers they like. So they said, sorry.
And just but that's it. No no money
back. I mean, it's just so frustrating how
this keeps happening. And I'll also include the,
Gibson Go if you guys would like to
donate there. There's a lot of different places
you can if you'd like to donate.
So since that's that's one first little mini
segment, Steve, do you wanna comment anything? Yeah.
It's
a
too bad. Sure. It's a and I don't
know how I'm sounding right now.
You're good at the moment. It was chopping
up for a second. Yeah. I I I
okay. It's been like that for,
most of it. I'm on a borrowed laptop.
I will hopefully have this fixed
by midweek. I apologize if there's any weirdness
or delay. This is,
this is what we've been promised.
This is what we've been guaranteed
that that there will be financial repercussions
for people who speak outside of the narrative
as they speak outside of the narrative. And
then there's going to punitive damages that occur
through loss of being platformed.
There's loss of monetization,
effectively,
post gamer gate, what we have seen are
sanctions on the independent media
that have been
across the board.
It doesn't matter what you're talking about. If
you're talking about something that is outside of
the narrative, you're subject to a spanking.
Yeah. Yeah. I mean and that's what Twitter
is. I mean, not stated, but very, very
clearly shown everybody. I mean, most of us,
I think, were seeing it, but now with
the whole kind of tantrum that just played
out, it's very clear that that you know,
it's or or more so that what was
shown as the, I guess, the response or
byproduct of the tantrum, which is that we're
gonna change the algorithm
to basically
create,
the mob rule of Twitter, which has already
been there. Right? But the idea being that,
as he says, well, if if enough large
accounts decide to downvote or or, you know,
not like whatever that you know, the context
being is they can mob your account and
make it bad versus all the positive likes.
And it's just everybody commented on that. I
mean, every even people that largely support him,
they're like, man. That's that's Twitter point point
o. That's exactly the same thing. And I
just think everybody's beginning to see that. And
on the note of Twitter,
in general, I I thought this is fascinating,
Steve, and I know I talked about this
with you.
I talked about this on actually, before this,
I think a couple shows before, I just
kind of was interested in DARPA XI program
x AI program. Then I followed up on
this and was, like, just kind of blown
away how obvious this was. And as far
as I can tell, nobody's really stating that
this is the same thing. And I think
it is verifiably at this point, like, the
it's the the that XAI,
which is DARPA's program, and I'll show you
in a second, which ended in 2021.
Months later,
to Elon buys Twitter, turns it into x,
and then starts x AI, and it's the
same thing. And I'm gonna show you something
on Twitter that I just found today that
it really not found. It's very public, but
just to show you how I see this
all connecting. And in in in the chat
or you, Steve, let me know if you
think there's something we're missing or it's just,
to me, this is very interesting. So the
title was the quiet transition from DARPA's XAI
to Elon's XAI.
Right? And so the point is that x,
oh, that was for I'm gonna use that
for demonstration purposes in a second, not because
of the tweet. But so this is the
XAI program, DARPA's.
And this this was from just it,
December 2021, this was published. But the program
started in well, I think it was 2,015,
but, actually, in earnest in 2017,
and that was the 4 year program that
ended in the end of 2021.
I think it was December, if you dig
further in the article. And what this is
really about, and this is the most important
part for the point I'm making today, it's
about explainable
AI. That was the whole point. And so
the simple idea is that they just they
would wanna design not just our it wasn't
about designing artificial intelligence necessarily. It was. But
it's about designing something that could then like,
the next step of that to be able
to
give have AI give you instruction, but then
be able to explain it to anybody, not
just a tech guy, but anybody,
why that was the case and how they
got there. Like, essentially.
It's more complicated, but the idea being that
that way we would understand, not just tell
you instruction, but explain how it got there.
Now this was being done with individuals with,
like, social media dynamics. And, of course, when
it ended in 2021,
that's when right, like, you know, in 2022,
in the early part, Elon buys Twitter, turns
it into x, like his past examples, x.com
and everything else. And then XAI starts, and
then they start using it in the same
way to train his artificial intelligence. So that's
what they're stating on Twitter. This is we're
using your not on Twitter, but, when he
discusses this, it's been very public. Using your
tweets, using your engagement on Twitter to train
machine learn, whatever you wanna talk about. He
his artificial intelligence program, but a lowercase x
AI as opposed to the capital x AI
of DARPA. And what's interesting though is you
as you start to see that they go
through other aspects of it, which is using
social media, like, on studies.
And their XAI program to see if you
have mental illness. Or using the the twins,
the the, digital twin aspect of the metaverse
for the same purposes. Now all that's to
say that they're these are being presented as
2 different things. Here's what I just saw
today which I find wild.
Now I don't know if this is immediately
you today, but I hadn't noticed this until
today. You notice little x AI right there?
So if you click on that or you
hover over, what does it say? Yeah. Explain
this post.
And I'm going, what? So that's literally and
I don't unless unless I'm missing it, guys,
I don't see that Elon is calling this
explainable AI. He's just calling it x AI.
And so it's just very interesting to me.
So this is, in my opinion, literally the
extension of DARPA's program
through Twitter and Elon and what they're doing.
And see and explain this post. It's right
there for you. And it's and and they're
and then you engaging with this as further
training this. I find that to be quite
profound simply because we're talking about the connection
immediately to
DARPA, to the government's pro of, you know,
to a a program that, by the way,
has been run through Biden's administration and currently
still is. So that should obviously be a
point for conservatives that he's been working with
Biden's administration, but that shouldn't be too shocking
to anybody
objective or with the brain because he's been
clear. He's been a military contractor. But I
just found that to be pretty wild. And
then just Greg Reese saying the same thing.
Officially, Elon Musk originally founded x.com as an
online bank. Now, if I remember correctly, I
don't even know if he actually founded that.
I forget which one. You know, his whole
story is riddled with misinformation about his past.
But it says an online bank in 1999
with his business partners,
Hoefer and Payne. And then, of course, now
as Whitney's pointing out, they're starting the
a online aspect. And she simply says, one
of them, one of them, agree with Musk's
policy politics. And he not only punishes your
account like we just saw
socially, but also financially.
American WeChat as I'll play that clip when
you if if you wanna make some comments.
Musk's explicit original vision for this platform really
is taking shape, she says. It might have
a MAGA sticker on it, but it will
be the same surveillance social credit b s
just courtesy of the PayPal mafia instead of
the Chinese state adjacent firms. And this is
and Yacarino is calling this out. So I
find that to be incredible, man. I mean,
I think it's very interesting. I know you've
seen it seen it, but
that seems like a big deal for people
that didn't know that.
Any thoughts?
It is. And we
we've taken so much crap
over the last couple of years of Elon
Musk taking ownership of Twitter and turning it
into x and all of that, because we've
shown him in his own words,
saying all of the things that he would
like to do with the platform. And for
some reason, that is
beyond the pale.
People have a huge problem with it, if
you say
but that guy said,
and then when you show
them, no, no, no, no, no. Here's the
guy, in his own words,
saying the thing. They're like, oh, well, I
can block you because it will help my
bottom line.
And that's kind of where we're at with
narrative management right now is that it's clear
that they know
that there's
the no scales over the eyes.
At this point, they see it, they just
see a way to
short term financial gain for pretending that it
doesn't exist. And then they're gonna act surprised.
I don't know, 6, 8 months,
year and a half down the line.
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's the next segment
we're gonna get into right now is about
Elon and Century, like, kind of on the
tail end of what we all saw. I
mean, we both already been addressing that first
aspect of it, but they we're still seeing
some interesting kind of continuing fallout on this.
And I wanted to get into one part
that I really find interesting and kind of
I mean, I haven't really gone too deep
on it, but just what they're saying, the
conversation around it is really all I'm getting
into. You know, it's like the interesting kind
of
evolve the evolution of this conversation, like, in
the
Trump supporting circle. I I'm really personally trying
to get away from even like, MAGA does
not describe the full picture
of Trump's base and and people that support
him. And I even fall into that trap
where I'm saying, you know, the MAGA, and
it's just it's that's I I'm I'm I'm
trying to get away from that because
MAGA, I think, is a is just a
a general sentiment. And I think a lot
of good people want that, and some of
them are even skeptical of Trump. Right? And
end of the day, you have this overlap
of people that are both team sport politics
that I think are very MAGA, whatever you
wanna think that means, and then those that
are still in the same mindset but are
at least not blinded by the agenda. So
it's like this weird overlap. So my point
is, like, I I'm trying to stop doing
that. I think it's just a a trap
from the corporate media. You know? And it's
just so many things like that. But so
the, the,
musk part of the censorship
is is really interesting in the way this
is developed because, I mean, as to in
case case you happen to not see this,
you know, he kinda lost his cool around
the h one b discussion
and kinda just went on a tear. And
as what's funny is and we're what I'm
gonna start with is how he's now trying
to, like, narrative manage and be like, no.
Like, it was suppression of, like, some financial
stuff and that and I'll we'll go through
it. Like, really trying to, like, rewrite what
just happened eve and and act like it
wasn't censorship or really wasn't deleting anything. It
was just the demonetization or deep you know,
which by the way, it's funny how it's
evolved as you all as we've been highlighting
forever, that's exactly what we've been talking about.
And if any of it's happening, then we're
not talking about free speech here. Not in
the context of,
you know, like, breaking the law or violating
terms of service, but doing it because people
are saying a racist word, for example, which
you can argue that's what you want, but
that's not free speech. And I would agree.
That's a people being racist is disgusting, but
that's protected under free speech. So it's very
interesting. And so so one of those points
is about, like, the gore the gropers or
gripeers,
which I'm sure you're familiar with the
Fuentes kind of overlap there and
how they were just flat censored. Right? So
let's start with this. Musk defends demonetizing critics'
content on x. Now to be very clear,
as I hope anybody know normal to this
show is aware of, we're not just taking
the hill or whatever platform at face value.
It's just a starting point for the conversation.
Now here's what they're reporting he's saying. And
it says the the first this is a
quote from from him. The first amendment is
protection for, quote, free speech, not paid speech
for f f s,
Musk wrote on Wednesday. And I'm going, man,
what a coward. Like, what a what a
wishy washy sidestep. Now re first of all,
there's no carve out that says if you're
paying to be able to speak, somehow that
makes it okay to censor. Like, it's just
you know, the bottom line is that's in
the same conversation. Now, realistically,
a as we've all talked about, a platform
doing so
is not technically, in my mind, the same
conversation of, like, government level censorship, which is
mostly what this applies to, like, the terms.
But the point is not about whether it
meets the definition of which, by the way,
he's now part of the government, so maybe
it actually does. But it's about what meets
the terms of what we argue as censorship
in the context of him and the platform
and what he's promised. Right? So let's get
like, I think that's an important distinction that
what we discuss as censorship is often kind
of just
muddied with anybody. Like, you know, for example,
somebody removing somebody in a chat or, like,
a YouTube stream. I don't think that's the
concept that like, that's not the same as
censorship in the context of you having a
channel and people coming in and you're like,
it's I just you can call it something.
You know, you're still shutting down his ability
to speak on your platform and we can
say how we don't agree with that. But
I think there's an overlap to what we're
dealing with here in the context of actual,
like you know, what I'm saying is the
same thing. So they're just trying to
he promised he was not going to do
this. That's the only point I'm trying to
make. Right? So he ultimately said that he
wasn't gonna allow this unless they were breaking
the law or one of the other caveats
he said. And that was supposed to be
the standing rule and then we know that
didn't happen. And so now he's just going,
well, you know, they paid for it. So
so all those people out there making that
point, right, about paying for all this,
there's something to it. Right? The idea that
now he's trying to act like that's kind
of a side step away from it. And
he says Musk Musk, the owner of x,
was responding to a user or poked fun
at those who accused Musk of violating free
speech after some users' verification badges, monetization were
revoked. And, of course, people, some of which
I think are disgusting, horrible liars, but nonetheless,
I still would stand with the idea that
they shouldn't have been suppressed or censored in
any way based on his disagreement with them
or in general, by the way. It doesn't
even matter. We're talking about free speech. But
he said then it goes on to say,
people getting demonetized for their inexcusable behavior, men
complaining about free speech is hilarious to me.
That's far more important. He says, you can
say whatever you want. You just can't get
paid for it. Hope this helps. So I
guarantee you, he went to town. He went
to his team and said, how do we
make this work? Right? How do we carve
this out to make an argument for why
it wasn't just
plight and censorship? You know? And then we'll
get to the point, is that he really
very clearly did. But what are your thoughts
on that?
It's a
okay. We, you know, we we've been warning
about this from day 1 because he
came out early and said, this is what
I wanna do with the platform.
It as long as the extreme 10%
on either end of the spectrum are angry,
we're doing our job, we're catering to the
middle. It's freedom of speech,
not freedom of reach
all of these different things that he laid
out very, very early.
And now 2 years down the road when
people are acting
surprised by it.
That to me says, well,
there's a couple of things. One is you
sacrificed
any principle that you claim to have to
begin with in order for short term gain.
That's the worst,
the worst possible aspect.
You you know, you and aware individual
said, Okay, I'm hearing what Elon is saying.
I'm hearing what yak arena is saying. I'm
going to ignore that to squeeze a few
bucks
out of some of the rabble. And it's
a terrible way to look at things. But
a lot of people have done that. The
other is,
they were so caught up
in
the apparent
revitalization
of the platform,
where they they got sucked into cheerleading
for the obvious censorship that was taking place
on behalf of Elon towards the left
and said, okay, it's people I don't like.
So I'm okay with you censoring people I
don't like. And I'm just going to
temporarily
set aside the reality
that it could come back my way. It's
naivety
at best, craving opportunism
at worst.
Yeah. And then and it's it's pretty I
mean, I think one one of the things
that's really standing out to people that it's
changed like, I think people have been seeing
this for a while, but I think what's
causing the rift more than anything is there's
a lot of people, and this is just
my opinion, in these communities that are now
really seeing that. Like, it you you you
a person could get could make excuses for,
like, let's say, Trump saying something they don't
agree with or taking an action. You know,
they go, well, he must have inside information.
You know, that kinda the that's been pretty
common in partisan fields. But when you start
to see people who in your circle who
you see as your like, they start to
blatantly lie to the point to where it's
so obvious or this case, you know, continue
to lean into this this concept that, you
know, in order to gain as opposed to
tell the truth and their whole building ideas
that we're the media and we're changing. You
know, it it causes a really uncomfortable feeling.
They're like, this is your community. And I
think it's becoming very clear to some people
that this is not they're not they're they're
they're marching along with people that are not
really doing it for the same reason they
are. You know? And I think anybody would
be uncomfortable by that. And that's just my
opinion, but I think that's pretty clear. But
so it's interesting.
And I I I include this article, by
the way, US Israeli 5th generation warfare. So
I've talked about this in in August of
this year, actually. Israeli bots destabilizing propaganda. Digital
regime change. Funny. You get you go back
where we you know, both of us on
this show have been ahead of a lot
of this stuff. Now the the interesting thing
here include this actually.
Is so it's what I'm thinking about is,
you know, he's saying people getting demonetized for
their inexcusable behavior then complaining about free speech
is hilarious to me. Now so I think
what they're trying to do is carve out
a very clear difference here. Now first, he's
really clearly trying to make it sound like
we didn't remove anybody. We just demonetized, removed
check marks. And so I think that's how
he's able to go, well, you know, it's
funny to me that they think they can
just say all these things and then and
then maintain their monetization,
which that is a different conversation. Right? Now
you could argue, and that's where you're getting
a lot of these larger accounts in the
Republican side of it now going, this is
just a logical conclusion of you saying, Heil
Hitler and blah blah blah. And which I
don't really see happening in all the people
they're affecting. But, you know, the Nick Fuentes
side of this, you could see that they're
I think these people are being used or
they're part of it. Right? Like, they have
been for a while. Like, I talk about,
you know, following for these traps and then
becoming what they said you'd become with Twitter
and Elon. Right? I think that's all part
of this. But I think what's interesting is
there were people that were blatantly censored, even,
like, in Nick's kind of circle, they didn't
have large accounts. I mean, some of them
weren't verified or monetized, and they still got
they got straight up deleted. You know? So
it shows you clearly that I think he's
just trying to create this narrative Mhmm. That
these are just people whining because but, you
know, they're racist even though that kind of
goes against what they've all been trying to
do with this, you know. It's just interesting
how he's now challenging with, like, the h
one b conversation
and this, a lot of the group that
they've been really kind of stoking, which is
a lot of the racist elements in that,
which I don't think is the majority. And
I think it's kinda blowing up in his
face a little bit. But, anyway, I think
that's the main thing of this is that
he's just he says you can't say whatever
you want and get paid for it. Well,
so let's make this clear. I don't believe
that's what we're talking about. And anyone paying
attention, I think, already knows that. This is
just another article saying he gets fact checked
on x for dismissing platform suspensions.
This the article is only simply going into
the point we're gonna make next, which is
Nick Fuentes.
And
trying to hide that these were censored as
opposed to just demonetized.
And so you can see here
many accounts. And there there's plenty of them.
I mean, you can see, like, here's Suppress
News has been going to town about this.
I mean, there's a lot of these accounts
that were because they're not large enough to
get attention for it. Right? But so first,
Seth Seth Dillon says 1,600,000
views, this isn't censorship, about this guy, Nick
Fuentes, getting 1,600,000 views on a tweet that
says Twitter censorship is back, free speech is
dead.
Now what they're doing is knowingly deceiving people.
This is what these people do on a
regular basis. And a lot of the inner
circle of both I would see right now
as well as whatever left power structure is
there. Can this is what they do to
kind of cultivate that control structure or the
the narrative around the circle which a lot
of the underlings end up, you know, kinda
following along with. It's they're trying to make
it sound like he's pointing to himself. Even
though they're very aware of what he's actually
trying to say, which is this.
He's saying these people were censored, not me.
These people were removed from the platform. So
that's what he's saying. It's censorship is back.
But, of course, Elon says claiming censorship while
simultaneously getting millions of views is the clearest
possible evidence that Fuentes has s h I
t for brains. So think about that. This
is the kind of thing we should expect
from Elon now. He knows what he is
saying. He knows what Fuentes is pointing to.
This is already they've already been going back
and forth, and yet he still chooses
to put this out so they can then
make it look like it was only about
one thing. And then suppress news going, claiming
censorship? What happened to all these accounts? You
know? I mean, this is alarmingly clear. That's
why I think right now a lot of
the conservatives, that's what we're pointing out a
second ago is that they're seeing all these
other ones, these republican teams for politics going,
that's not true. Alex Jones, the day after
this happens goes, x is the savior of
free speech. And people are like, what the
fuck? Like, that oops. I just cussed him.
I'm thinking I'm on your show.
They're going like, what the hell is going
on here?
And so here's the point. He simply told
me Yeah. No. And and Go ahead. Go
ahead.
No. It's okay. I did. Yeah. I and
I understand people people feel like it's okay
cuss around me. It happens.
But no, that particular point
is so ridiculous.
It is because
you've got
arguably
the face of the truth community for 10
or 15 years.
That after the fact is coming out and
going no, no, no, no, no,
ignore all of the evidence in front of
your eyes and ears.
This guy is our guy. And
to me, and I think I even said
it,
it sounds like Alex is in
negotiations
with Elon for the purchase of info wars
because there's nothing
that would get
it. That's unsolicited,
cheerleading.
You know what I mean? Is it no.
But Elon didn't come out and say, hey,
get my back.
I'm under attack. Where are my people at?
None of that stuff. None of that happened.
That was unsolicited
Alex Jones going, I just watched this dude
lay waste to a whole bunch of people,
by the way, that make up the base
of his audience. There's a significant
overlap between
InfoWars viewers and Nick Fuentes viewers.
And you're saying, I don't care about this
portion of the base.
Elon promised me a new base. So I'm
going to go ahead and cheerlead
for this
because this is what I'm hitching my wagon
to. It's very
telling.
Yeah. And and don't and I think we
talked about on your show about the Owen
Owen Shroyer aspect, which I think he got
his blue check back, but I don't know
if he got, you know, the subscriptions or
whatever else. But it was interesting that while
that was going on, he was still you
know, Elon. Elon. He didn't seem to say
a word about it. Shows what shows his
side. You know? And I think that's that's
pretty telling. You know? So anybody's if I
was Owen Shroyer, I would be thinking about
that. You know? Or the other people like
Greg Reese who have you know? Or or
TrueStream
or Richard Grove or plenty of others that
have kinda fallen away from this and were
like, you know, as that clip I often
play from your show where it's like they
just kinda as, Tice told us, they just
kinda lurch into it and don't check their
sources, which I think anybody objective is able
to discern at this point. Well, here's another
example
as Elon saving free speech, but here he
is pointing to something which
Tommy Robinson is the focal point of this,
but that's not the point of this point
I'm making here. But feel free to comment
on him and the overlap. There's so much
to it. But Elon says, what's going on,
YouTube? Because he got a video that was
censored. And this is it's so transparent. Like,
this is and I'm gonna show you some
points again next about, like, Jack Posobiec and,
you know, it's clear to see what they
and this is my opinion, but in I
think it's clear what they try to do
when stuff like this happens. Right? So you
you step in it. Right? You make a
big mistake and you just kinda go back
to the same things. Right? It's about, you
know, the election being stolen or democrat attacks
or, you know, the same kind of big
things that catch attention. And so one of
them is, well, YouTube censors, you know, it's
like, look over there. Look. Look. What's going
on over there? What you just got caught
censoring? It's just plainly an effort to do
so, and that's against press news going, what's
going on, Elon?
Same thing. He's a complete manipulator. It's it's
just crazy how anybody can pretend they don't
see this. And, and you might have seen
he did for a moment
very weirdly change his name and his videos
and
you still go ahead. You wanna comment?
It's just cutting out. I didn't hear you
if you wanna comment. I was just gonna
say it's transparent and bad. I'm sorry about
the delay.
There's, like, a 4 and a half second
delay, and I I do. I apologize for
that. Again, I'm on a a backup laptop.
It's got the processor
of a drunken
squirrel,
and I I'm sorry. Yeah. No. It's all
good, man. No worries. I mean, I I
just it's it's basically, I think the best
thing to do is to
I'll I'll, like, wait until I get done
with the segment or I kind of, you
know, go to you, and then I'll just
wait. And it'll be, like, a couple seconds,
but and I will just kind of that
way we won't overlap as much. But even
even though still free feel feel feel free
to
jump in, I'll just pause and let you
talk. I mean, it's not a big deal.
We're we're, you know, this show is pretty
all over the place anyway with whatever jumps
into my head. Sort of like your show
but but so here here's what, is interesting
about this. And I I don't know if
you've talked about this in the morning, but
this, Keckis Maximus well, actually, the first thing
that jumps to my mind is yet again
an example of how, you know, rule for
the not me kind of thing. You know,
given he is the owner of this platform
or one of them, but I thought it
was hilarious how he went on this big
tear about how you lose like, one of
the things they were saying to some of
them was, well, if you change your name
or do this or change your picture, you
lose your your check and it might, you
know, for takes a while and so on.
He's just he changes this stuff. Of course,
had no not a missed moment of any
kind of suppress subscriptions or check marks because
clearly, you know, rules that apply equally to
people that are billionaire oligarch, Zionist, technocrats. But
what's interesting though is that this image and
what a lot of people pointed out first
of all, this is like the image. So
everybody's pointing out that so he goes after
them, censors them, and then, like, tries to,
like, nod to the community and hopes that
he can gain back some goodwill which I
I that's you people can decide for yourself
whether you think that's what he was doing,
but makes a lot of sense. I mean,
what that's an interesting thing to do. And
then as well as a bunch of overlapping,
overlapping points about how,
I guess, this translates in some way to
something dark, and it means that he's I
I I you guys can decide whether you
think that's the reality.
But ultimately, the argument being that it's like
a secret way of saying he's some kind
of secret
evil or, you know, whatever the breakdown was.
And I'm not doing a good just I'm
not doing a justice of explaining it. The
point is just that overall that this might
signify something else.
It's certainly not something I would ever dismiss.
Oh, and then in an at that, here's
Whitney right here. A desperate rebrand to court
the gropers. That's what I was referencing to
after the recent rift. Unfortunately, many are gullible
enough that after a few tweets about gay
video games and complaints about Hollywood making beloved
characters another race, many will come back into
the fold of this Zionist and US military
intelligence contractor
building the CIA spy satellite network,
which of course oh, I think I've got
it up right here. That's of course what
she's referencing right there, what Derek wrote about.
The Elon Musk and SpaceX are helping US
intelligence build the world's largest spy satellite network.
Well, I'll point to that in a second
when we come back to it. But so,
the point here was just simply that we're
oh, and this that's what it was. So
e you know, his little,
PR guy, apparently.
Nila, Nar Nar Mario Narfall. I don't know.
I actually not even trying to say his
name wrong. I I can't every time I
go do it, I'm like, I always I
I think Narwhal from the movie, and it
can always mess me up. Narwhal.
Mario Narwhal. And he says Everybody says Narwhal.
It's my brain just sees that when I
look at it. It's funny. But, it says,
Elon's final form met meme lord, kekis maximus,
and it says peak Internet achieved.
I mean, like, it really is done. I
mean, to me, that's, like, you know, based
in all these things. Like, I'm not trying
to make fun of any new lingo. It's
just the way that these groups you it
seems weird. I I I feel the same
way. And that's actually what he was saying
right here. Yes. That might be the possibly
the cringiest thing I've ever read. Cringe. Cringey
is the best way to put it. It's
weird the way that they use these terms
these days.
But Luke, of course, responded
about what Ashley St. Clair was saying, which
was this is how censorship starts on every
platform.
Go ahead.
You wanna jump in? Oh, I was I
was just gonna say it. Like, it it
is. It it's
it's the Steve Buscemi meme.
You know, hello, fellow kids. Right. That's what
he's doing. How would you like some Internet?
Would you like some I have the Internet
for you. Let's go ahead
and give you some internets. And by the
way, also your social credit.
Like, nobody picks up on
you what what's actually happening here. He deplatformed
30, 40, 50 people that had
ancillary
impact
on
the actual event that took place.
And it was for no other reason than
to lay waste to them. That's pretty freaking
crazy.
I apologize, Ryan. I have to hop up
real quick and take care of something at
the door, but I will be right back.
Yeah. Come on back. Whatever, man. I'll bring
you back in.
But yeah. So it's it's, it's definitely
interesting, to say the least. Like, to see
the responses around all this. I think, a
better word is revealing.
And, I mean, again, I this is not
even I mean, this is my opinion, obviously.
But
I know you're all seeing it. Like, I
I I was on, spaces, which was pretty
crazy, by the way, which probably not gonna
do those again for obvious reasons. But, I
mean, overall, I think it was actually fruitful.
I think there was my point, there's a
lot of people in that space that were
that I mean, it would largely a MAGA,
you know, Trump supporting kind of circle.
And, I mean, a more I mean, other
than a couple of, like, deliberate destabilizers in
that conversation, most people in there were going,
yeah. Like, I'm worried about that. Like, I
don't get what he's doing. I don't understand
that. And but still clearly in support of
him. But just recognizing
something amiss,
I just think that's powerful. And I I
was actually praising a few of them. Like,
you know, I just really value and appreciate
your your integrity to be able to go,
I support him. I voted for him. But
what just happened, I just can't understand. And
I'm and I'm it's I'm now I'm I'm
I'm stepping back. Like, that's not right, and
I need to understand. You know, that's being
able to do that when new information comes
along, that's intelligence, guys. That's what we should
be doing. But the problem is partisanship, as
I've said so many times over the year,
circumvents logic. And we ultimately end up side
stepping something important because it rubs up against
your chosen circle or, you know, it's where
it's like we've devolved back into some high
school circle dynamic where, you know, nothing else
matters but being in your clique. I mean,
it's it's sad. You know? But so this
is what Ashley Sinclair was saying. This is
how censorship start and, by the way, none
of what I was saying had to do
with her statement because she was on the
screen. It just happened to be the case.
This is how censorship starts on every platform
through every,
through every avenue throughout history.
They deplatform the worst, in quotes, people so
that people do not speak out because they
don't want to be associated with them. That's
actually really important to think about. And and
and usually the point and that's always why
we start there is that if you won't
protect, if you do not stand up for
the worst of speech, then you don't believe
in free speech. That doesn't mean you have
to support what they're saying, but you have
to stand up for their right to say
it. And that is the simplest way to
put it and is and we all know
this. It's just we get, you know,
influential you know, large influencers talking around circles
around something and people fall, you know. It's
it's about momentum. It's about this what I
just described, not wanting to go afoul of
it. And right now, as a lot of
people are pointing out,
a lot of these large group accounts and
groups basically
stepping on eggshells about what topic they're not
gonna talk about so in worry of upsetting
emperor Musk. I mean, it's a very real
conversation and that's causing a lot of very
clear
self censorship.
So she's saying and this is she's right.
Usually, they start with, you know, the most
obvious example of what most people would be
like, yeah. That's a gross person.
Because then, you know, it's you kinda just
you don't wanna stand up and support them.
Right? For example, like, a Laura Loomer example
where but, see, my point is I stand
on my principles more than anything, and so
I go, well, I think that's a that's
actually a perfect example of what she's saying,
but I would still stand up and fight
for their right to be gross and disgusting
and dishonest. That's that's how I see it,
and we all have to be that way.
But so and she goes on to say,
accounts are being suspended without reason,
and that's that's important because that's not just
the demonetization, the downranking. It is literal censorship.
And there's been a lot of them that
nobody wants to acknowledge. I mean, like, within
a recent time span, well, before that though,
we've all been calling out the censorship for,
you know, Palestinian accounts,
negative Israel comments. I mean, it's all been
pretty transparent.
They, right now, have a partnership with the
ADL. I think that should ex to say
it all.
And it says, a ability to purchase premium
removed, subscribers removed. If you're going to demonetize
them, whatever.
But to remove subscribers who are individuals choosing
to support somebody privately, very bad precedent. Now
that's a good point, but the problem is
that by demonetization, you then remove the possibility
for subscribers.
But I agree with the point is that,
like, what what you're basically doing like, I
guess the point she's making if I'm if
I'm understanding correctly is demonetizing the account when
it comes to every other aspect. But if
you got people, and I agree with this,
that are choosing to say, I like that
guy's content. I want to work I wanna
subscribe to it. Whether that's money or just
subscription in general, but she's talking about the
money, then, of course, they have that right.
That's Elon stepping in between them and going,
no.
I don't want that. I don't like them.
Or just to say Twitter to make it
objective to say that I I don't want
that. We don't think that should exist. We
don't want you to have that right, which
is not just about well, I mean, he's
stating it. You can't expect to just say
what you want and and get monetized. Well,
yeah, that's actual free speech.
You're deciding now what speech should be monetized.
Welcome back to Twitter 1.0, guys, with a
little bit different flavor. I it's as simple
as that.
That's why Luke steps up, and apparently, he's
just rubbing waking up for the first time
and going, oh my god. What's happening? This
is not what I signed up for. Where
the hell have you been? It's been clear
this entire time. And David Icke says, oh,
but you did, Luke. And you promoted the
Musk, Trump psyop as you promoted the COVID
psyop. Don't start moaning now. You made the
bed. Time to sleep in it, and take
the devastated credit
devastated
credibility that's coming along with Rogan, Carlson, Jones,
Brand, Weinstein, Poole, Johnson,
Knafel, Peterson, Carroll, the Tates, and oh, and
so many more. And what now you could
you could decide whether you agree with every
single name listed. The point he's making is
that people have, you know, the same thing.
This it's it's who have you know, basically,
the people that soft pedal the early part
of an entire a major conversation, let the
independent media, the earnest aspect of it, do
all the legwork, and then swing in with
a half narrative and carry it into the
basically, fold it back in with the the
mainstream direction
while screaming we're the free we're the ones
fighting the I mean, it's just it's so
to me, I've never seen well,
it's about as transparently obvious as COVID 19
and Zionism and Israel's genocide. Let's put it
that way. But he goes on to say,
who have bought
and promoted the Trump Musk's eye op.
He says it's also a head shaker to
see the alternative, in quotes, investigate deep state
false flags, which we'll get to in
a minute, through the years through the years
pouring over every alleged fact to see if
it stands up. But when anything happens involving
their side, they accept their official story without
question. Now that's a that's a simple sentence
that I want you to think about, that
I've talked I've I mean, I've said in
much more abstract ways over the years. You
know, the idea
that you have one side, and this applies
to the left in the same way. Look
at the COVID 19 conversation, the injections, the
science, trusting the science, same thing. That if
it's
the right, oh my god. They'll take it's
they all day to pour through every source
point and everything just to find anything that
makes you doubt what they're saying. Right? That's
what you should do for everything, by the
way.
And then, of course, when it's something that
they like or Fauci says so, well, it's
like, well,
trust science. We're not even gonna look because
we know they're right. That's the same thing,
and the right's doing the same thing right
now, and they both have been the entire
time. And so what he's saying is you
got these people pouring through every type of,
you know, like, if they perceive it to
be some kind of democrat false flag or,
I don't know, some kind of Palestinian secretly
trying to smuggle through the southern border.
But then, oops, it becomes connected to Israel
and we all run away from it and
never talk about it again. I've just talked
about that. Same thing. Right? That they
shield themselves to it when it comes up
against what they don't want you to to
admit or as as
Saint Claire was just saying. It feels like
it's gonna brush up against a topic that
the circle doesn't like right now.
He goes on to say, anyone who takes
a political side is not alternative and not
even a journalist.
Not least those that turn up at Mar
a Lago, summon a private jet to feast
on the Trump dollar, and then claim to
be independent.
The fake alternative
has been the Trump Musk promotion team and
funded promoted to be so.
In many ways, probably.
They need to be held to account as
this disaster for America unfolds
And what it is really about, the technocratic
take AI takeover becomes
ever clear.
Well said.
Now here's Elon Musk
saying and this person just shares these one
of these one you've seen before.
It says, strangulation by regulation, which totally real.
Except the difference is what they're doing is
pointing to regulations that strangle you and your
business and your small but then remove large
regulations that debt that help their billionaire buddies
and their large corporations continue to pollute your
water or steal from you or that that's
what is actually happening. Now maybe a little
bit of both, but the overarching point is
if you're gonna start to remove regulations for
what you know, like, think of the things
we talk about when it comes to health,
when it comes to pollution and big businesses
and and, you know, dioxins and PFAS and
all these things we're talking about. That's only
one side of a regulation conversation. There's plenty
of other ways to look at it. But,
nonetheless,
if you're going to remove something like that,
but allow the government to continue their, you
know, monopolistic
practices and continue their fascist overlap with these
companies, which we see, then all you're really
doing is
removing
some
even even though we don't I don't I
I don't think they actually care or there's
no enforcement really for these companies. But nonetheless,
you're just simply kind of putting into law
what already happens, which is what they they
don't care. They don't they're not gonna pollute.
They're gonna do what they want. And, you
know, it's all best for jobs and business
or whatever they're gonna say. But what I'm
talking about would be
actual theoretical. How about just the government goes
away? But see, that's just too much people
to drop their mind around. But the point
is you can't the middle ground
is how this tends to work, and they
do it in the benefit of their circle,
which is the government, the elitists, the oligarchy.
But that's what it says. The real threat
to democracy is the bureaucracy,
which I agree with.
And Elon says, we live in a bureaucracy,
not a democracy.
That will change if January 20th. Right? When
more unelected bureaucrats like Elon himself take more
power than ever, because that's gonna change it
all. Right?
It's just silly. It's these are words and
narratives.
Right now, there are more billionaires in than
ever in any his in any
it's a unprecedented how many billionaires are in
Trump's administration. There's never been with this many
billionaires. That's an oligarchy if I've ever seen
it wrapped up in a Zionist technocracy.
But to just look at that and realize
that you have foreign elements. You've got unelected
l you got I mean, it's just this
is the most obvious example of what we
like, think about how wild that is. That
you come out with a narrative that we're
gonna fight all of that, and then don't
even try to hide the exact opposite, and
still somehow it goes forward.
Because he says this, and that's all you
need apparently. I mean, I'm being facetious. I
don't think the majority is falling for it,
but that some are seeing it that way.
Now doctor Simon Goodeck points this out.
What's happening on this platform is absolutely insane,
he says. And I think this was Reese's
was the second, so it is today.
He says accounts opposing
an extremist political ideology in the Middle East
are being demonetized.
Those who openly call for genocide keep their
blue checks.
Right? So he's talking about Israel.
And it's not the only thing happening. Right?
But we can see, like, Jake Shields as
an example. He got demonetized. He got his
check removed.
I don't see Elon even giving you an
explanation about that even though he's a huge
account.
Interesting. But he that's the point. You got
but you got people out there who are
literally going, kill the children. There's nobody innocent.
Dancing around and having a gleeful moment about
how they're killing everybody.
I mean, this is not an opinion. This
is
everywhere. Like, you can't throw a stone right
now, even on this platform, without hitting somebody
praising genocide right now. Or maybe in I
mean, in some cases, explicitly.
But I mean, plenty of examples where they're
not going genocide good, but showing examples of
children starving
and laughing emojis or, you know, it's all
over the place. And I am not saying
that should be censored. That's their disgusting
free speech,
a lot whatever. That's that's their disgusting
that's what they're I can't I don't know
how I was gonna frame that. That is
what they're allowed
as anybody is within the rights of free
speech. Right? It is what you want to
say, however you think, bottom
line.
But that's what this platform is allowing.
A British journalist, he says, working for an
Israeli alternative news outlet in quotes, who only
opposes mass immigration when it involves Muslims,
is being elevated by major voices here.
Same ones we're talking
about. Despite supporting the slaughter of Palestinians and
having a story riddled with inconsistencies.
Right? But this, just like we're gonna get
into with the cars,
the truck driving, we now have examples I'm
sure you all have seen, and we'll get
to it about should the both individuals
connected to Fort Bragg. Both of them getting
the cars in the same place. Both both
of them are same company. Both of them
having EV cars.
Right? And and just before all that even
became
understood,
the immediate narrative was Islamic attack, Jihadist, you
know, is invading immigration
when almost none of that has a factor
in this. We're gonna get to the ISIS
flag and the lie and what that means
as we know what actually that represents and
who actually funds and controls that element. But
either way, that is interesting how that just
kinda got patched together still. And we're still
pushing that. Most of them, a lot of
them came out early and said like, because
Biden came out and said, white supremacy is
the biggest threat, which is you just fell
right for the bait as usual. Right? And,
obviously, that's not true. I mean, I I
think that's that's my whole point about how
30 seconds ago, a lot of you with
your red hats were being called white supremacists,
being called anti semites even by the Zionist
community.
And now they just turn right around and
shove you in the back, and you're calling
them anti semites. Funny how easy that is.
That's not the majority. I was taking talking
about team sport politics.
But interestingly, though, you can see how this
continues to work. Right? In this
point, about
I mean, all of this seems to be
driving the same idea despite how the narrative
falls apart afterward. The great like, to understand
the idea of weaponized migration, if you haven't
watched the show in the past, is
it's indisputably a real thing. It is historically
documented in many ways. Israel has been proven
to have done this in the past. I
think it's quite transparent that they're I mean,
they're basically openly saying it in many ways.
They're doing this now, both in Europe and
the United States, and you got the republican
elements of this pointing to anybody else. In
fact, pointing at the people they're telling you
are being used and saying they're the problem.
They're the they're they're
weaponizing themselves to get people to attack Muslim.
It doesn't make any sense.
Certainly, anything's possible. But in the case we're
seeing is that despite there being a white
man from Fort Bragg, which we'll get into
the the narratives and the possibilities of whether
he was used and so on,
but it it's ease that the narrative continues.
And my point was this, so Biden comes
out and says that about the white supremacy.
And many of these counts come out. So
but it's a ISIS flag, Jihadist terrorist attack.
Right? And all of a sudden, it's go,
oh, wait. One of them is a white
guy. Oh, wait. This guy seems has a
different name and is brown, but looks like
he comes from a military base. He was
born in the United States. Funny how that
changes the story, but the narrative continues.
We're we're being attacked by Iran. We're being
attacked by Palestinians
all over this conversation.
That's my point. And and and this is
interesting because he says, a British journalist who
is feigning to be in this in the
community fighting for the truth
opposes the same conversation only when it's Muslims.
That seems that, like, it matters. Right?
Because if it's really about just immigration, then
it wouldn't be a specific color. But see,
there is a a racist vein in a
lot of this conversation. I don't think it's
the majority.
He goes, many prominent accounts argue that being
demonetized is simply the natural consequence of holding
the wrong opinions about certain countries and ideologies.
Now look. I understand the idea of
of ads,
which, by the way, is exactly the point.
And I asked the same question about why
these same advertisers who work with YouTube and
every other choke point Rumble has, why they
don't seem to care about those kind of
ad conversations with Rumble.
Right? That's it's I I maybe they've got
their own deal. Maybe they've got some secret
way to stop them from sensor. I don't
know. But it is interesting to me that
you can have the same setup,
and yet it's a different world. Or YouTube's
over here going, we're not allowed, advertisers say,
which I don't think that's what's driving it
quite frankly. And I think that's what well,
I I just I worry that that's gonna
happen the same with a platform that has
all the same choke points. I hope not.
But the idea being that you understand why
an advertiser would be like, well, if they're
prerogative. Right? I don't want to advertise on
these things. Okay. Well, that doesn't mean you
have to demonetize. You can say, well, they're
gonna openly not choose you, and so you
might not get as much money, which is
basically what Rumble does for the most part.
It's very it's just all scattered, impossible to
know. I'll get a million views in a
video and get 10¢ from it. It's it's
quite frankly, I find it to be dishonest,
but that's my opinion. But overall,
you understand that. Advertisers can choose that. But
the difference is where the platform comes into
play. Right? And then now these people on
these platforms, like these larger accounts that are
clearly, I think have an agenda and all
of those are just going well, you know,
that's the way it works. You can't just
say what you want and expect to get
well, guys, how did we get here that
fast? The same people who are telling us
absolute free speech and he's saving it all
are now making excuses for censorship.
Whatever element of it you think it is.
Again, that's within the context I explained earlier
of the just the platform of what he
promised. That is not what he promised,
whether financial or not. And we all know
that.
He says this is clown world. You can
absolutely despise radical Islam and everything tied to
it,
but with even a basic understanding of history
and causality.
It's obvious that Muslims aren't behind the great
replacement theory, the endless wars in the Middle
East, woke culture, the LGBTQ
agenda, or the open border policies. I mean,
how could you even make that argument? See,
this is my point about the immigration point
where they point to the people coming in
and make the argument that these are people
that are like, the argument is that, I
guess, the general point about the great replacement
or whatever is that these people are being
used. Or even talk of weaponized migration. But
then these same accounts will turn around and
call them as they'll they'll
frame them as the problem.
Now in a way, you could say that
they're they're you know, that is the embodiment
of a problem, but they are individuals being
used even by your own narrative in other
context. So shouldn't we try to find out
who's playing them instead of blaming them? I
suppose, you know, which I think is part
of a racist element of the conversation.
I mean, either way, the bottom line is
I think you can prove that there is
something. And you could if you if it
makes you feel better,
talk about China.
Because that was a whole thing before all
of this. Michael Yohan and plenty of others,
justifiably so, talking about China's agendas and destabilizing
the country. And now we see things like
this start to happen. And what's the point?
What is what's the conversation?
Debate.
Muslims abating our country. And it's just like,
that's exactly what you were telling you get
it. It's just it doesn't I think that's
the problem is that now
the larger grouping of this is is seeing
what we're talking about. But you still have
these large influencers just direct dragging this dead
body along. And I think that's what we're
talking about earlier. They just
it's it's not working. Things are falling apart.
And I think that has to do with
a lot of different examples. COVID, Zionism falling
apart, the genocide, plenty of other things that
have kind of, 1 by 1, kind of
decoupled, derailed their control over these narratives.
He goes on to say, free speech and
open debate are are supposed to thrive on
this platform, but the reality is far from
it. Many accounts refuse,
and this is the important part, refuse to
criticize certain ideologies,
countries, or agendas,
not because they agree, but out of fear
they could be the next to face censorship
or demonetization.
Now not everybody doesn't have to have the
same mindset. I'm not gonna begrudge somebody for
wanting to make money with what they do.
But if you're out there per from
putting yourself forward as a free speech warrior
and you're fighting for then and then you
do that, well, that's that's hypocrisy.
I have a very low opinion of that
in general, obviously.
But if you go out there and you're
just having fun, talking about stuff, I mean,
you do what you want. If you wanna
that's it's not everyone's it's not everybody's job
to go out there and fight for what
they believe. I mean, I I'd like to
think that's the case, but I know it's
not. People some people just wanna have fun,
wanna do their thing. I'm not gonna begrudge
that. So that's the difference though. We know
there's people that are using this field or
the idea of fighting for these things to
then make money this way and then pulling
punches
everywhere. Frankly, I think that's half this deal
today.
And it says the climate of intimidation stifles
genuine discussion and turns debates into performative echo
chambers. And this is my point about what
they're doing with these platforms. This is by
design. We are being experimented on. It says,
if we can't speak freely without fearing financial
or social retro retaliation,
this platform has failed its most fundamental purpose.
Well put.
So here's an interesting thing
that I wanted to at least point to.
Now I'm gonna go through this further. I
think it's just an interesting conversation.
Teachers for Choice shared this saying this is
very, very important threat. Now if you remember,
let me see if they've gotten their stuff
back. It looks like so Stu Peters and
Laura Loomer. I mean, I just to be
honest, these are 2 of the people that
I have the lowest opinion of on this
platform for the most part, are are
they they have been demonetized,
and their blue checks have been removed. Well,
I let me say this. I know Laura's
been demonetized,
and her check's been removed. As far as
I know, Steve just has his check removed,
but I think it's kinda the same conversation.
Right?
Now what's interesting is in a space where
Laura was on where she basically was just
going, please tell me what to do so
I can get my stuff back. Just even
though they censored her, even though she's calling
them out, she goes in going, I want
back in. I just has to show you
who these people are. But they let go
in that conversation
that she had over 200,000
subscribers.
I mean, take a second and think about
that.
I mean, I think a dollar is the
minimal. Right? So at minimum, that's
$200,000
a month.
Just take a second to digest. That's crazy.
And what that means
is that these people are being paid
to essential and and, you know, through what
we just described. Right? So whether you even
realize it or not, your $200,000
paycheck is on the line, which is just
absolutely mind boggling to me. You are going
to fall in line when it matters.
Doesn't that seem wild?
I just think that just I mean, think
of can you imagine
what TLAB could be like today if we
had a fraction of that? But the point
is I would never compromise my integrity or
what we do and the objective nature of
it just to make money. Even if it
gave me the freedom to do more.
Because that is not what we it's not
what I believe in. And, frankly, I think
that is the death of what we do.
But it says, they're claiming their political speech
is being censored, which it is.
Simple.
It doesn't matter why. It doesn't matter the
context. Like, other again, other than violating terms
of service, which you could still argue they
can write in terms of service things that
would be anti free speech, and I think
that is already happening. But my point is
I don't think that's what's happening here. Even
though what they claim is is what we're
gonna gonna do next. So you can decide.
But regardless,
the h one b conversation comes out, and
then all this happens at the same time.
So we're really gonna believe that it's just
coincidental that Elon decided to enforce a certain
thing right after he got angry and went
on a tantrum and deleted a bunch of
people? I mean, that's just absurd. Obviously, they're
interconnected. I think these were the reasons he
came up with to justify what he did.
And by the way, Laura Loomer is back
on the platform. She was removed. Now, she's
back on. So if what we're gonna read
here is true,
I think it I think either way it
shows you that there's special treatment here. Right?
And if she eventually gets your check back,
which is what she was begging for in
that spaces, then it would show you that
other people lost their entire accounts for far
less. And they even said that in the
conversation. So why does she not get the
same treatment?
Because there's a clear slant to this, guys.
And it's not left and right in my
opinion. It's about something far different.
Oh, making sure, we cutting out.
Looks like it dropped out a little bit.
I'll keep going.
But so it goes on to say, and
the following threat claims that that's not why
they're being demonetized.
But remember, just like we just saw,
the the the arguments are clearly being kinda
patched together right now in what and provably
in ways that are not accurate in order
to kind of create a narrative that makes
this seem like it wasn't what everybody thought
or said. I disagree with that. But it
says according to the thread, there was a
wide network of conservative influencers
secretly funded by a Super PAC, thus violating
monetization policy. Now how much you wanna bet
that's, like, the vast majority of people in
their inner circle?
I mean, are we are we really gonna
not I mean, guys, that it's it is
so and it maybe it's just not on
paper somewhere. The reality is it's this is
I I frankly, I don't even know at
the end of the day, why that would
even make a difference?
I mean, there's so many interconnected political associations.
Like, that one matters, but not, like, being
I mean, you get what I'm saying. Like,
whether you're part of the current White House
inner circle, like, there's so many different points
to this.
The I mean, or that you have a
job that pays you that might influence what
you might say. I mean, it's the same
kind of thing. Like, I get it. That's
very clearly politically influencing what they might say.
But, nonetheless, the point is that I think
it's being selectively applied right now to make
a point even though there's probably a lot
more of that.
But aside from all of that, what this
really highlights is this same like, it's the
the Tenet Media point.
It's the what we just saw was the
other one. We just saw another one kind
of fizzle out.
But basically, where people are being exposed for
being funded
by political groups that are
essentially driving,
you know, agendas that aren't necessarily about everybody
just doing their job about, you know, informing
you of what's going on in the world.
And so this says and this is Greg
Boldine who did this breakdown. He says secret
payouts,
conservative pack bypasses transparency on x.
Now it says they this conservative OG account,
435,000
followers, has lost their organizational verification and exposed
their network.
It says, part 1,
polarizing and provocative social media influencer, Lumer, doxxed.
This is what the conversation is, this guy
apparently.
Now I listened to what they were saying,
and, ultimately, the point is that she did.
And everybody, including which, you know, whatever you
whether you think aunt Dittman or whatever is
Elon or not,
which, yeah, pretty much is exactly the same
speech impediments and and whatever. You kinda don't
even care. But the point though is that
he was speaking and and basically running the
space, which is about Elon and Twitter and
somehow has internal knowledge about how the process
would go and, you know, totally lined up.
But, anyway, the point is that's who she
was talking with. And, basically, they were just
calling her out. Like, you did this. We
know you did this. And she essentially
posted this guy's information and claims that she
kind of fogged it out or, you know,
made it blurry, but left in a huge
section that clearly showed personal information.
And so she and she goes, I didn't
mean to and I made a mistake. I
I don't believe it either. I don't frankly,
I know how dishonest she is. I don't
think that's the case. And then she wanted
this person to be attacked. And that's my
personal opinion, and I think it's the obvious
point is and this is after she was
making racial comments about Indians and so on.
I mean, this is all around this conversation.
And everyone being honest about it has seen
her make a 1000000 different very disgusting comments
about different people when she wanted to. Now
the point is you have the right to
say whatever you want. But they're saying she
doxed that person
and then says Donald Trump's pick for senior
policy adviser for artificial intelligence on Christmas day.
That's the job he got, which again, policy
adviser for AI and all different things. Just
where they're going is very transparent. It says
this post violated Twitter's policies and Lumer's verification
badge was removed.
Now it says this this is,
was it this,
I thought he had Lincoln here. Anyways, this
was the image of the space. It says
this spin
began quickly as the OG account and affiliates
realized their entire operation was compromised. Laura and
the affiliates began a space on Twitter to
discuss, this was December 27th,
blaming Elon for censorship over immigration
posts.
And he says this was dishonest representation.
He says the lapse in journalism in journalist
integrity exposed conservative an organization
holding Loomers and at least 50 other influencer
badges as their affiliate.
Now it says they took to Twitter and
created an h one b narrative and distracted
from the larger story.
Why did the organization and affiliates exist?
Now it says our basically, the point is
that there's this inner like, I don't think
there's anything wrong with people choosing to work
together. Right? But the end of the day,
it's not divulged.
Right? This is like a background interconnected kind
of and and what he's saying is funded
by some kind of super pac political. So,
look, you're not if you're being funded by
a political group and then writing about these
things, you're not a journalist. Right? That that
is you being paid or at at the
very least, you have conflicts of interest from
a political
agenda,
which very clearly then filters through her work.
I mean, this is what I think this
is more of what we're dealing with in
the very clearly the new mainstream alternative media.
But in even independent and everything else, I
think we're seeing a lot of this. And
I think the problem is a lot of
the the people that in, I would say,
the independent media itself,
you know, in this field, it's it's a
struggle every day to try to make this
work because you're constantly being stepped on. And
so I see the people then get offered
something they don't recognize. You know, it's easy
to fall into that trap, which is why
I'm so incredibly
skeptical of anything, like, coming like that where
I wanna know, you know, which again, Tim
Pool, I argue, just didn't care to look
or maybe did didn't care with the tenant
media point. But it's just that's the idea
that people just let it go and make
money. And the point is that that you
just choose to ignore it. But the point
on this is that it seems this was
a no a known influence.
Now it says this led many to question
how many influencers they had and what they
were paid to do.
Many looked for those who lost their verification
status. Names quickly emerged. Lumer was obvious, but
many others were not, such as Gavin Wax.
Gavin Mario Wax, it says, who got his
back, apparently.
Other accounts in the space are Owen Shroyer,
Chief Trumpster, or, that yeah. Chief chief Trump,
Trumpster,
Cassandra Rules,
Isabella Moody,
Jack Unheard, Rodney's alerts. It says, I discovered
more in the circle, previously fill previous affiliates
that ended their association and those rejected based
on their impressions. It says, this led to
the obvious question, who is conservative OG, and
why did they have affiliates like
Loomer and Isabella
Maria DeLuca,
and a, quote, journalism stable of influencers.
I mean, I find that also very interesting.
Not I I guess you could make an
argument where there you know, there's a world
where that's this is not deceptive. It's just
that they saw people they liked, they wanted
to fund them. I mean, that's certainly possible.
But I think it's important to think about
how clearly this is being done today, like
with the Tenant Media Overlap, where you can
see that there are organized efforts to sort
of cajcoral and control the narratives. I mean,
I think that's what Twitter and what they're
doing in a large way actually is, but
it's important to think about how much this
is taking over this conversation.
Now it just goes on to show money
and and oh, this is actually an interesting
point about this. Basically showing that the website,
conservative
OG is owned by this guy, Jake Little,
and cofounded by Gregory Diser. It says their
website
re redirects to a carry committee hype hybrid
super pack. The custodian of the record shows
Greg Diser as active treasurer. Donations came from
Conservative LLC.
And, you know,
$1,000, 500 dollars, and so on. Then it
says, and the ex expenditures money was funded
directly back
to Conservative LLC.
Well, that's interesting. And then it says, so
they're donating and then taken aback.
Sounds like like that that that seems like
an illusion. Now it says, in an election
year, how did this pack and others like
it influence messaging on social media, Twitter, Instagram?
Democrat influencers like
Harry Jissen Sissen, excuse me, were paid 13,000
by democrat
democracy defense action at 124 and previously were
paid by Midas,
Midas
Touch.
Midas Touch is another carry committee hybrid super
pack paying for democrat influence. So if hopefully,
you might at least consider what this might
begin to show, that we're seeing
these I mean, arguably, even the same thing
doing this on both sides of the paradigm.
That is wild. And it really does begin
to show you this very engineered controlled
I mean, everything.
Even the even the back left and right
back and forth, and they may not even
know that. But since the conservative influencers linked
to OG have been critical of the payment
for post to accounts like Sissen while hypocritically
facilitating the same culture. But maybe they don't
know that, which is certainly possible. But the
point is they're over here going, that's paid,
and she's being paid to do this, and
that's crazy, that's dishonest.
And some of them doing that were ones
that were in this conservative circle doing the
same thing.
Very important to think about. Now it says,
oh, I think that was it, really.
You could read on for more. That was
the main point that I wanted to make.
And then the point that I find it
really fascinating here that we have money going
in from the l s conservative LLC, and
then they take it back out and send
it back to themselves. Like, there's something very
strange going on here. I mean, that in
a way, you could argue that might look
like money laundering or something else. I don't
know. I'm not saying that's happening. And I'm
saying that that ultimate point is very it
it's a red flag. You know, why would
you donate yourself and then put it back
in your account and continue to do that?
It's very interesting. Now either way,
this
is
an interesting overlap. Now because over the point
being, if if Loomer and Peters and the
rest are doing something that arguably could violate
terms of service, even if they're not applying
it to everybody else who's probably doing the
same thing, I think that's that shows an
effort to find an excuse that might hold
water,
but you just got caught with everybody can
see doing exactly what we saw.
So it maybe it applies. Maybe they are.
I mean, that's what it seems to show
is they are part of this inner circle
that that would technically, by his point, violate
their monetization policy.
But are we really gonna pretend there's not
many other people right around Elon Musk that
are directly tied or funded by this group
or other super packs? I know I I
think we know that's not true.
Nonetheless,
interesting development. Right? Because now, Loomer and the
rest, especially if they don't get back their
information,
which their million follower which, by the way,
the fact that either of these people have
over a 1000000 followers just makes me sick,
or they hit 7 or 62. Not because
of anything other than I know they're deceiving
people. But at the end of the day,
that's a huge a lot amount of following.
That's a huge amount of influence that is
going to get more rabid the more that
they feel boxed out.
I think that's interesting, and it's gonna show
I mean, a lot will begin to develop,
I think.
Oh, and by the way, I just thought
this was interesting. And this is my my
the the thing I keep seeing about Twitter
in general, I think anyway, is that, like
I've said before,
I and to be clear, I I very
much do not think it's the majority. But
it's about trying to like, the pied piper
dynamic. I think it was clear that they
made they've laid out this narrative, just the
government,
about what you would be if Twitter was
owned by Elon. All this fear hype about
what it will be, how it will change
everything. Right? And I think the game was
about trying to literally do that. Like, drive
you to to be what they said you
would be. And in some cases, that's happening.
But I think people like this, possibly, like
a a Peters, for example. I think that's
what they're there to do.
To basically be like, so what we would
do in the independent media. Cover something objectively.
Right? And cover, like like, Zionism, for example.
And then yet you get the person like
this coming out and making the same narrative
or same argument at the top, and then
immediately making about Jewish people or whatever else.
Whatever topic you wanna take. Taking the real
point, but then, you know,
derailing it into something that caused it to
be ignored. You know, the frogs are gay
dynamic. Same thing. And I think that's what
these people are there for. That's my opinion.
And so my point is stuff like this.
So if we what did they say you'd
become? What what did they say you were
on this platform? A bunch of white supremacists
and Nazis and antisemites. Right? This is there
was a whole thing. And this is only
gonna get worse if we allow that to
be the case, which is not what's going
on in this platform. In fact, it is,
though, on the side of Zionist very clearly
being the exact same thing, even saying the
same things, but that's not we're not gonna
ignore we're gonna ignore all that. Here, you've
got Stu Peters posting this on you know,
today, in fact.
And it says, the Jefferson County Courthouse in
Birmingham, Alabama is the most based
courthouse in America. You know why he says
that? He goes in goes on to circle
swastikas that are on the post, which technically
are not actually what he thinks they are.
Even if that's what they meant when they
put them there, because I wouldn't be surprised
if Alabama put them there for obvious past
overlaps, but interesting.
So why so he says, look. There's swastikas.
That mean that's how cool they are. Like
I mean, I very genuinely don't think that's
even a
a large portion of this of the conservative
side of the conversation.
I think this is a very obvious way.
Like, we see with the Patriot Front and
these Nazi marches, probably the ADL, which is
what they've been caught doing in the past
in Chicago and elsewhere,
legitimately.
That these are people that are selling you
on this. Like, trying to drive people into
this, and they're the ones to trap you
in the false narratives. This is my opinion.
But I just think that's interesting, isn't it?
I mean, look, I'm getting very low engagement,
by the way. This is from earlier today.
57 or actually, let's let's let's update it.
Maybe we went up more.
141.
10000 views. Go look at anything else he
puts on this platform. Hell of a lot
more engagement.
Now it seems interesting to me. So what
is his objective here? So just think about
that, guys, as I think they're trying to
drive you in to being what they wanna
what they want to claim you are, and
you're not.
And I think a lot of the world
is beginning to come to terms with that.
Like, the the real like, even like, I
know a lot of people that would consider
themselves democrats,
but are still willing to hear what I
have to say, like a lot of conservatives.
But yet wait. And and you bring this
conversation up,
and they and they just don't even agree
with that. Like, they they know like I
would or anybody else would. They see the
examples, but they don't think just by and
large, the red hat mag or conservatives or
any element of it are just racist because
that's the group.
That's a that is the
inner, what would you call it? That that's
the group that gets highlighted on the news
and gets pointed out to you, get shoved
on social media. So you think that's everything.
Right? Oh, you get a bunch of
pedophile Democrats and a bunch of Nazi Republicans,
and that's all you get. That's the whole
picture. It's just
some people fall into that, but I really
don't think most people do. Now on that
note, since we brought it up about the
about that image, it's important just to know
these things. Right? The one on the left
is the Buddhist symbol.
Wait. One of example. I mean, I think,
historically, it's pretty much connected back to the
Buddhist example, but it's been used around the
world.
That go that very much predates the Nazi
example, which is on the right.
Now this the point is today that it's
basically
nobody knows the difference, so you'd just nobody
even dares to use it even for a
good reason be the one on the left
because it would be seen as an like,
the Stu Peters example, he not doesn't
whether or not LM wants to use it
for a negative thing, that he doesn't seem
to be aware that there's a difference. That's
exactly the point. But what's what the the
best way to look at it, this is
actually written out over here, is that the
the different direction.
Right? So if it's going counterclockwise,
that is the Buddhist example. If it's going
clockwise, that is the Nazi example. As well
as the cross
versus
the ax, or the,
cross versus the plus sign. So on the
Buddhist example,
right, because it's level, it's a plus.
On the Nazi example, it is at an
angle, so it makes a cross. And that's
the I know the whole iron the cross
example was the Nazi thing. Now, you can
look this up by the way, people would
know that. That's basically what it explains right
here. Now, I again, I would probably avoid
using it just because people wouldn't would not
be aware of that. Nonetheless,
that's just important to understand because facts matter,
the truth is important.
Now,
before we get past this, let's talk a
little bit about what the continue kinda like
the the I don't know what you would
call it. The devolution
rather just the the continued falling apart of
what is being seen with the Trump picks
and where they're going with this administration.
It's 1 by 1, the examples are being
shown that they are not it's just not
what's been promised, just like last time, by
the way. But here's World Ocean Media saying
Trump invited pandemic tyrant Scott Morrison to his
New Year party.
This is the guy who got camps built,
But keep burying your head in the sand.
Nothing to see here. I mean, you know,
it's it's a party. And, of course, there'll
be excuses for why that's just a party
and everyone could go. And but you know
as well as I if it was Biden
or Kamala. Everybody there would be an implication
to them, which I mean, both
both are the they're both sides of the
argument that matter.
That's all that's the objective reality. Him being
there might mean nothing. Maybe he just got
maybe invited everybody new or maybe that he
showed up and didn't get an invitation. But
at the same time, it should also be
considered that it matters. Right? Right? But it's
just funny how we know the partisan plays.
It matters if it or it doesn't based
on their choice. But it's important to recognize
the guy who still praises the shot to
this very day as being life saving, even
though it's killing people to this day,
invites the guy who did the same for
everybody in Australia. Right? And this is this
is what we continue to see. The opposite
of what we're being told.
And on that same note,
this is June 29th. Hope you saw this
already.
Representative Mike Johnson will be reelected as speaker
of the house, says representative Mike Lauer. Now
if you didn't know, Trump tapped him.
He's he's the he Trump is the one
who said, I want him to be that
position.
Now as I said, and Trump endorses, endorses
is a better word,
endorses him after all that happened with the
spending bill. How many more ways can you
be shown that you are being played? I
mean, I got they went to I mean,
I'm I'm talking pretty much ubiquitously. I mean,
I shouldn't say this. I mean, always different
opinions. But throughout the conservative conversation,
after the spending bill fiasco, it was like,
Mike just showed us who he is. It's
very transparent. Now we know. Let's move forward.
Let's pick somebody good. Go he's not MAGA.
He's a rhino. It was everywhere.
And yet, here we are.
So, I mean and, of course, the argument
is, well, you know, he knows something or
you know, so the point is it doesn't
really matter about principles or the facts or
what you believe. If Trump does it, we'll
make it make sense.
Same point for the other side. Right? This
is how it always goes.
Problem is this guy is I mean, before
even the spending bill, most of the inner
circle of the Trump conversation was saying this
guy is not real. This guy is a
problem.
Even though they were flying together and having
great times together
and then the same point. As Andrea Lynn
points out, and this is what we saw
after that. It says, we are so back.
The jab father, captain brain chip, and rhino
mic are the dream team. The deep state
is frightened. Hashtag make a Israel great again.
I just don't know why
those that are holding out can't see what
this shows them.
Now
after all that,
Pesobah comes out, like, after so it's it's
not just the censorship. It's not just all
that. Like, that's that's I think what triggered
this reaction. But it so it started to
really implode.
More than I've ever seen, major influential accounts
in conservative circles were saying, okay. That's we're
this is we we've been played. Elon is
censoring people. Trump is tapping this or join
with that. It it just very clearly starting
to the line had been crossed. I think
we all saw it.
And on top of that, the conversation is
about how people have been infiltrating this administration.
Technocrats, Zionists. I mean, we've been screaming. In
fact, we were saying this before this election.
And so all of a sudden, after this
really starts to implode,
mister intelligence comes out, Jack Posobiec, and says,
we're totally infiltrated.
Very insightful, Jack. I'm glad you're paying attention.
The point is I don't think that the
this is not an effort, in my opinion,
to highlight what we've all been very transparently
showing him and everybody else. It's about using
it now
as a stop gap, as a as a
band aid on a bullet hole. We gotta
stop the problem.
And I simply said, and now they pivot
to the next play. Funny how exactly what
many tried to call before attention to before
the election is now the rationale for why
we're here.
All while they ignore
the overt Zionist technocrat infiltrators still right in
front of them. So how much you wanna
bet they're gonna try to make it infiltrated
by something other than the obvious that doesn't
make Trump look bad? How much you wanna
bet? Either way, the point is that, clearly,
they're now showing you what we've all been
saying in order to, I think, justify something
or cover something or, like, to move who's
beyond what has been floating in front of
you right now. That's what I think.
As well as this.
This is January 1st.
It says, cut the BS, Jack writes. We
need to have serious plans for securing the
presidential inauguration,
including national guard deployment. This is beyond politics.
This is American lives. So but my point
is, he decides to tweet this out, like,
right in the middle of a massive conservative
meltdown conversation.
Like, everybody redirect. Democrats taking this and, you
know, that's that's that's been Alex Jones push.
Again, today, in fact. I can see war
emergency broadcast, like, every other day, and it's
coming. Democrats are their secret plan to destabilize
and their their they knew about the ISIS
attack and all these different things. Despite the
evidence of what ISIS really is, the Assad
and his and the United States government support
for it, using it in Syria. I mean,
guys, he sees this stuff. He knows this
stuff. They're just they've chosen a side. They
are gaslighting for Elon Trump. At this point,
how in the world you're gonna try to
pivot to something that we can't even prove
at this moment while you're watching this thing
fall apart? That is not by accident.
Quick. Quick. Democrats. Bad guy. Over there. Don't
pay attention to the man behind the curtain.
That is my belief.
So in that very conversation, right, as we're
seeing all this continue to fall apart,
I think what the the the the larger
point is where this is going and how
they're gonna begin to rationalize these steps. And
I think a lot of us have been
calling it out. A lot of conservatives are
seeing it. Leading report on the 30th. Trump
will bring back workplace raids for illegal immigrants
according to the border czar, Tom Homan.
It's it's just it's it's the entire conversation.
And so what this comes to is using,
which again is a very real conversation that
should matter. That is, in my opinion, being
very clearly driven by foreign by outside entities.
But then the point is how they choose
to deal with that or how they choose
to execute the mass deportation if that happens.
As he said, state of emergency, using the
military, maybe even from overseas, which that means
more than the National Guard.
He said those things.
But the point is that how do they
use that on top of all those dangerous
things?
Artificial intelligence,
biometric scans,
digital ID.
That's where this is going. And we all
know that because they're telling you that.
So I think this is very alarming. As
he's now telling you that they're gonna I
mean, even the idea of of of what?
So you're have a a suspicion of somebody
who might be a legal immigrant, so you
raid an entire business?
I mean, guys, I don't who in the
world, conservatives or otherwise, are gonna be okay
with the way that goes down? If we're
talking about the entire country in some mass
effort, you'll be destabilizing everything.
Now I'm in no way am I saying
like this, if if somebody's breaking the law,
that should matter.
But let's also realize there are elements like
with Rubio and others with the Venezuela side
of it that have also been driving the
same problem for their benefit. So it's not
unique to one side of this conversation either.
Now here's Michael Tracey pointing out something interesting.
This says, Trump reiterates his support of h
one b visas. You know, quote, he says,
we need a lot of people coming in,
which I've already gone over this. Now there
is a middle line to walk here where
he's simply talking about high you know, the
the point o 1%. Right?
And how he said but the point to
be clear as Tracy himself covered as most
honest people have seen, in the beginning, it
was no exceptions. Bad for everybody. This this
hurts them. No exceptions.
Yes. We can evolve our opinions. But the
interesting time timing is that he was pretty
clear on that right up until Elon went
the other direction, and then he came out
and said, I've always supported them. Well, that's
not true. That and and Alex Jones did
what he does and said, see? He's always
supported them and just really said what Trump
said. Yet, we can literally see him on
video and in statements written by his conversations.
No exceptions. Bad for everybody.
So he hasn't always supported them. That's just
partisan dishonesty
for clear personal agendas.
But regardless,
lie you know, the the lie about always
supporting and what he does about damn or
everything it seems aside,
the the point is that there's a conversation
about the top point on 1 percent versus
everybody or how they abuse it. But, see,
what's interesting is a lot of conservatives are
the ones now calling out that, or
more specifically, Elon Musk and his Tesla company
have abused this exact program and have continued
to do so. And yet, you have a
lot of high level Republicans who pretend like
that's not provable
because it hurts their agenda. And that is
the the the what I was talking about
earlier. Now you got conservatives that are like,
that I just can't handle that. That makes
me very uncomfortable, and so now I've got
a problem because it shows you something I
just didn't wanna see, the dishonesty at the
highest level,
when it should when they're the ones telling
you they're fighting people like that.
So as Tracy writes, isn't it odd that
Trump holds a position that is extremely an
anathema, the opposite of the exact diametric opposite
of too many right wing voters?
And it basically never came up in the
2024 campaign?
That is interesting.
Reason, he says, his opinion?
Right wing media is commercially dependent on kissing
Trump's butt,
such that his actual policy positions go unscrutinized.
Oh, yeah. I would completely agree as well
as with the left.
Now, as Tracy has his own blind spots
for the party he aligns with, same point.
But I would agree with this. And I
would say it's the exact same dynamic on
any side of this. It's just the way
your government operates and the political people that
it manipulates.
That's what I think. Either way, it's important
to highlight
that exact point,
that the people in these inner circles are
unwilling to challenge these things. We have to
be able to see that by now. Now,
this is what I genuinely think this leads
to. I'll include the articles from Derek. Federal
government watchdog warns the DHS
surveils Americans without a warrant using more than
20 technologies right now. This is written on
the 20th December.
And this this is drones, all the stuff
we're dealing with right now, as they're on
now trying to rush through as Rand Paul
covered
drone legislation.
That and and he makes the clear point
that under the guise of fighting whatever mysterious
drone thing they pushed on you that no
one seems to wanna talk about anymore without
any real explanation, which shows you that there's
a clear agenda around it from the partisan
side,
then ultimately, we're gonna fight them using Palantir
drones. Remember, they pushed out their tweets. They
played the advertisement during the navy game. Like,
it's just so coordinated.
But, ultimately, that he showed Rand Paul that
the bill
they could use these drones to scoop up
information from your phones, take biometric scans. How
is that fighting the drones?
See, they're using you, and the and the
the point is that even Rand Paul has
the ability to call that out. And we
have to see and the point was there's
a lot of people in this conversation that
were driving fear monger, fear based, unverified information,
and that's what it led to. And they
may not even know what they're doing. Maybe
they just want that Twitter paycheck.
Nonetheless, they have a right to do it,
but you need to see what's actually happening,
at least as I see it. And Derek
is gonna be following up this article. Apparently,
there's a development with the NSO Group. But
he says, meet the spyware companies preparing to
unleash their tech during Trump's 2nd term. It's
all being laid out. And right and this
is about spyware.
And this the clear point of this is
almost 50% of the market in the world
is Israeli spyware
directly connected to their intelligence apparatus. And these
things are rolled out like chickenpox across the
map in this country right now. Whether it's
the car buying examples
or the the,
what was it? The, which one?
And there's many examples of tech companies and
different overlaps. There's one Whitney was just talking
about. I'm trying to remember.
Hospitals was one of them during the COVID
19 dynamic. All these different very or nuclear
reactors discussions. I mean, these are not jokes,
by the way. Now it's not on the
paper that it's Israel, the government, but it
is without question these
tech start up entities
that are given this access even though on
the record as I've shown you in our
article,
the prince and the spy that Whitney highlights
from one of these articles, they state that
we act in the interest of the US
government even when we're beyond that that that
position.
And so now you have these people who
have influenced, should Israel decide to press that,
or maybe through long term efforts get some
kind of facade agent in the position of
that company. I mean, all of these are
very real things the c the CIA does
all around the world. And then what? Then
they have the ability
to shut down or even worse something with
a nuclear reactor or shut down your hospital
dynamics or, you know, suppress
911 call centers. I mean, all these things
are sound crazy to some people, but it's
certainly possible, and we've seen what they're capable
of. And the point
with this Zionist pact administration,
get ready for a second term
As well as the one we referenced earlier.
You can't hide was a direct quote from
the National Mechanics Office that Elon Musk through
SpaceX is working with to build the world's
largest spy satellite network. And he says verbatim,
quote,
now you can't hide
because you're constantly being looked at.
That's what they're building around you or the
world for that matter.
Why is that not alarming to conservatives who
thought they were fighting that?
And so this is it's just wild to
me. Now Conrad Misty makes a point. Oh,
I'll read what Kerry said first.
Lots of people are going on about January
20th. Can't come soon enough. How daddy Trump
is gonna fix it all when he takes
power.
Aside from mountains of evidence from Trump's first
administration
and current appointments suggesting he has no interest
in, quote, saving America, the mentality that some
politician and his lackeys are going to make
all your problems go away and magically make
government virtuous as is
and and magically make government virtuous is as
submissive, weak, and propagandized
as it gets.
I I it's I just I again, I'm
gonna before she's I'll read what's what's,
Misty says, I absolutely adore Carrie and all
that she does. I think she's fantastic.
And then she goes on and oh, I
think I have that right here.
Yeah. I'll go to that next. So, basically,
comrade Misty simply says, super grateful for Carrie
and others like Whitney.
Oh, and this is just a thought who
who's written for TLAB. Hopefully, she can write
some more. Derek Rose and TLAB. And she's,
I'm feeling like, I I I feel like
I'm living in an insane asylum at times.
And that's and that's I think it very
much by design. That's why and during COVID
19, if you remember, if you might have
crossed paths with us in in real in
real life, we made these bracelets that had
TLAB on them, but it simply said you're
not alone.
That was it. We were throwing those out
like candy to everybody we saw. And the
point is, you know, you're not alone and
and felt like that for some people because
they didn't have the circles.
You know? And they didn't realize. And I
still think it's transparently clear at this point.
The majority of people
saw it in some way or another. They
were uncomfortable with it, but most of that
group got forced back into it for some
reason, their job, threats, their children. But, nonetheless,
I think we can see nonpartisan.
People saw it.
And that's the thing is they want you
to think you're crazy. You're the only one.
You're the one. So don't say anything about
it because you'd be laughed at. It's just
not
true.
And so she goes on to say after
that, next 4 years, meme stolen from a
Twitter account. Can't remember which one. So let
me know if it's yours. And it says,
at least it's not democrats.
It's just the same old thing. At least
it's not democrats.
Right? That if that makes you happy, like,
your basically, your worldview has now become lesser
of evils in everything you do, well, get
ready for a non stop decline into evil
because that's what that creates.
Sure works out for evil though, doesn't it?
Now, let's talk about the fog conversation because
I think this is interesting. Now as I
mean, I haven't gotten this a lot because
I obviously
it's it I was talking about this,
it might have been on Steve's show. I
I forget. But my point that it's such
a
it is what it is because it's the
reality of the field right now. But it
is such a detriment. It's such a problem.
And I think I that is actually, I
think, by design because people don't wanna get
into it because it just seems so it's
a it's a cluster f, man. It is
all it is nonsense out there to try
to discern the truth on these platforms. But
that's what I do. It's what I'm, you
know, what you guys support me for. So
that's my job. You know? But
even myself, like, I like, so when this
started,
I see this story just and it's it's
the same way. If you if you're watching
this stuff the way if you have your
alerts or whatever else, you just see these
things just rip across the social media sphere
like wildfire in in hours,
and always the same usual suspect accounts. That
doesn't always mean it's fake, but it's interesting
when you see that. And then you have
other stories, like, for for example, Conyers, Georgia,
which it it seems to apparently have ended
up as the largest action release in history,
but we don't care about that because there's
no partisan draw.
Wild to me. Absolutely mind blowing.
But here we are where you get fog,
and it becomes this crazy story that takes
you over the conversation. And there's plenty of
reason, and I'll go through it, why you
should not just dismiss the story,
but it doesn't mean it's not just fog.
Like, it's very interesting. Now I I actually
wasn't able to find something that I wanted
to include today that I'm I'll I'll try
to find somewhere wherever I put it and
get him follow-up on it. And I'll just
say it now that, you know, there there's
very clear historic conversations about the this, like,
anomalous thing like this.
Of of essentially, long story short, examples that
go back into, like, the 1800 or or
well through or the UK and the United
States, where you have these examples of some
kind of mysterious fog that rolls in,
and then reports come around of people getting
sick from it. And, I mean, take it
for whatever that means, there are clear historical
examples of that. Now that doesn't that doesn't
have to mean that that's I mean, that
could still mean that's something being done to
you.
Hard to think of it going back that
far,
but who knows? I mean, the point is
that it's interesting nonetheless. So now that we
see this happening today,
just first point, obviously, it could be just
fog.
I've seen things that I think are oh,
actually, I I I got away from my
point I was making first. We'll get into
that. It could be this, could be that.
My point was that in in the field
where it's being so constantly muddied by old
videos, for example, some old video from 2
years ago that has no bearing on what's
going on now or some somebody throwing something
in the sky and using a flashlight and
then going, oh my god. What's happening? And
then people show it because people on these
accounts, as they know you know, are not
checking this stuff. They're scooping up every weird
video they have, putting in a compilation, and
going, look at what's going on with the
fog. Which, again,
maybe they don't care about the truth. Maybe
they're doing it because they're having fun. And
I'm not gonna begrudge somebody for that. It's
your prerogative.
But
you know there are people out there that
are we're the new media. They're just doing
the same thing. Scooping up whatever they can,
getting a lot of influence on it. And
in some in in many cases, as I
I actually saw one with, I think it's,
the,
something apes account, one of those great,
one of the main circle of Elon Musk
supporter type accounts who made a big post
about some of this stuff. It turned out
to be not the truth, then just deleted
it, which is what they do a lot.
And all of a sudden, there's no, you
know, it's it's not no addressing it. No
saying I was wrong about that
because that's how that works. Rapid fire, and
you ultimately just take what you get. I
mean, that that's propaganda
at the end of the day, especially because
you're not checking this stuff. So my point
of all that is to say that for
me, it becomes this kind of, like, even
when things feel like there's something to it,
I'm, like, more hesitant than ever because I'm
I feel like there's so much, like, deliberate
deception in order to try to trap people
into these narratives.
It is so knowing that is real because
it really is, it becomes x a lot
more difficult to
parse these things out. And so that think
about somebody, an average new person trying to
get into the field, just trying to figure
it out. Like, that's designed to be confusing.
And you know what that does? You fall
back into the general consensus. And that's what
Twitter is building right now more than ever
is the normal, loud opinion. Like, they're almost
shrinking the Overton window in a very interesting
way
while talking about crazy things, but still kind
of like this is where you're allowed to
it's very weird how this is working. But
so let's get into this in general again.
So the fog point. So obviously, first point
is it could just be fog. And then
my point reflects I said before that's just
kind of bolstered with a whole bunch of
fake information and and misinterpretations.
You know, in many cases, honest ones. Like,
they think this is crazy or, you know,
you hold a flashlight up to fog and
you never did before or look at all
these particles. Oh, guys. That's what fog looks
like with a flashlight. If you've never done
that before,
that might seem weird to you, especially when
you see some viral thing going around like
a you know, they call it social contagion,
where everyone starts doing it. And all of
a sudden, everyone's going, yeah. Look at that.
It takes you a day to realize that
that's actually just how mist looks in in
the white. But there are plenty of examples
of things that are not
mist.
Things that are, you know, at least reported.
That's the second layer of it that maybe
they don't maybe they're lying about it. Maybe
they don't know. Maybe they're misinterpreting something. But
something that doesn't involve moisture, which I'll show
you in a second. You can't have fog
without moisture. Period. That's pretty obvious. There's a
there's many different ways it can be created
and it doesn't just have to be what
we kind of generally accept as the normal.
But it needs moisture. And so if you're
in these positions where it's like a sunny
day, for example, which I saw in one
of those videos, and it just rolls out
and, you know, it it seems unlikely. And
then those, again, posting these and saying there's
no moisture,
I just don't I, you know, I wouldn't
just say that's not possible, but how do
we know? How do we verify that? Because
those are the only ones that, for me,
start to go, okay, if that's true, then
it opens the door to something pretty interesting.
But how do I know? Especially since, historically,
you see every time now, even sometimes stories
that just felt did kind of
just sim, fizzle out
and turn out to be completely false. And
so then you waste all your time on
it. You know, it's it's frustrating.
But so the other part of it, okay,
it could be something like an attack. Right?
This could be some new weapon. I don't
know why anybody would just dismiss things like
that. That seems irresponsible.
But we, of course, we wouldn't report that
until unless we had evidence to back it
up, which a lot of people are doing
as they report their half cock theories, which
again, that's your prerogative.
I, myself, like to air on the side
of facts and objectivity.
Or it could
be something as we're gonna get into if,
you know, just because it's important conversation, but
that would obviously overlap with something like this.
Some example of a nanotechnology discussion or a
smart dust. But my gut right now tells
me that this is a hype story
that is ultimately being used to water down
very real conversations.
You know, for example, like, a weaponized like,
for example, historically, Operation Sea Spray, if you
haven't looked it up before, is an example
of the US government. And we now know
it as a fact that's being reported plenty
times over, used,
a biological agent in order to test whether
or not we were susceptible to it. That's
their narrative anyway. Well, somebody died. Many people
got sick. They did it over San Francisco
Bay.
So I think it was there's a lot
of examples
of historically US government doing exactly that. So
it's not something to be dismissed.
But there's any number of other things you
could possibly, you know, think about right now.
But let's get into what we can see,
and you guys can decide for yourselves.
Now first, what I found very interesting.
So here is, NWS Tampa Bay. It says
fog,
and so as you can see Florida down
here, fog is the main weather impact expected
for tomorrow,
tonight and tomorrow. This was on the 30th.
So first point is just that I think
it's interesting that if it was some kind
of a thing, I find it hard to
believe that they would report that it was
coming.
But unless that is part of the plan,
they want you to talk about it, which
or just want you to expect it even
if it is a bad thing they're doing
to you. But also consider that this is
because they want you to think about it,
talk about it, hype it. That's possible too.
But just first point, they told you it
was coming.
Then, of course, when it was going on,
same thing.
Now weirdly enough, though, I keep looking at
what I can see in approvable database, and
I don't see it as much as it
keeps being described, like, covering the whole country.
It's definitely like you're seeing here. This is
forecast from Fox 4. Dense fog advisory to
start new in the new year on the
first.
Again, kind of priming you for it, which
I find interesting. Right? Now another point on
this,
this is from the exact same time. This
is January
last year.
Right? So right now, it is January 2,
2025.
This article is from January 23,
2024.
Look at the title.
Unusual, in quotes, dense fog nearly covers entire
span of the US. Okay. Well, I don't
remember a big discussion about it then about
some, you know, nanotech or whatever the big
weird hype through Twitter is. So that tells
you something. That whatever is going on now
is is a different it's different.
I think we're seeing the way Twitter is
being used. This is the whether it's real
based on something real or not, I think
Twitter is playing an element to this. That
they're
seeing how they can rapidly disperse these narratives
and how quickly they can get these you
know,
they're clearly controlling the flow of information
in a very socially engineering type of way.
Whether even if it's real, like, think about
that. And so what's fascinating to me is
the same thing happened last year,
but different conversation. And all but also the
point would be that if it was happening
the same way last year in a very
weird way, aside from whether, you know
the point being it may not have looked
the same if you take those videos at
face value or maybe it didn't. They just
weren't taking videos of it because they weren't
primed to do so by
social predictive programming.
All worth considering.
Now first, I'll just just I just picked
one of the one of them. The the
this girl just does a kind of a
quick breakdown, which I I kinda just let
her fun her her shtick is funny with
the whole kind of, curve with the frog
drink at the end. It's just kinda funny.
But so she's laying out that this one
I this is what I think after I've
looked at a lot of this, what's kinda
like the general
feeling about this, the general overlapping narrative. So
first, we'll start with that.
But I genuinely think in my opinion, this
whole construct is coming mostly
from just cult the kind of gathering the
narrative from Twitter, which doesn't mean false,
but very clearly can mean false or
you know, bolstered or emboldened or what's the
word I'm looking for? Embellished rather.
Right? Because she's gonna say, oh, they they
all getting sick and they're all dealing with
that. And the question is, are they, or
is that just what's being discussed?
So you're telling me that an abnormal fog
pops up all over the United States
and is being reported in Europe as well
with these particles that are flying around that
are not snow or moisture,
have a chemical smell and are leaving a
white residue in some areas.
And some people who have been exposed to
the fog are falling ill with the same
illness of inflamed sinuses,
can't sleep, loss of appetite, and people think
this is just a normal cold and flu
and has nothing to do with this abnormal
fog?
Okay.
It's just funny to me. You know, it's
just kinda classic meme style. But, you know,
so the point's the same. Like, I mean,
I I think there's like, first of all,
if if we I can get some kind
of demonstrated evidence that this is exactly what
we're seeing and it's not some social media
manipulation,
like, it's interesting to me. And I'm gonna
go into the exact like, if that is
the case, why it would be? We'll go
to that next.
In my opinion, this is the only objective
way to cover this kind of stuff because
we all know how much these things can
be manipulated these days or lied about or
become so you know, social contagion kind of
things. But the question is, you know, are
they all getting the same illness? Right? Are
they all smelling like chemicals? Is it not
I mean, I'm seeing mostly videos that don't
look like that. I've only seen a couple
of examples where it was this big, thick
example.
And the rest of them are what I
would argue, and I'll show you many of
them, and even Twitter fact checking them. That's
just what
fog looks like when you actually hold a
light to it.
So it's kinda getting mixed together, and if
you see any particles, it becomes that extreme
version.
And I think I I know I've seen
plenty of examples where they're not smelling chemicals,
but they're claiming, look at this weird fog.
So if it's all of the same thing,
why isn't there the same? You know, it's
like, these are questions we need to ask
that don't have to mean that it's all
not what they're saying. But
if you're objective, they should be asked. Right?
So here
is on the note of maybe a problem,
something that really does stand out. Now this
screenshot has been shared all over Twitter. It
seems like few actually take the dude the
time to find out if it's real or
not, a la Twitter files. Thank you for
that, guys.
This is from the Environmental Protection Commission from
Hillsborough County.
And this appears to be legit. This is
from
oh, wait a minute. See, I just did
the same thing. So I see, this is
so perfect. I wish I would've saved that
tweet.
Let's see. Let me do this real quick.
Here we go.
Okay. Do you see what do you see
what I just caught?
So right this is saying
December 31, 2024.
That is last year.
So that's actually interesting in the context of
the other fog. This is saying let me
read this first. So just to be clear,
this is not from this year. This is
from last year in January. It says air
pollution precaution effective immediately.
Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County is issuing
an air pollution precaution due to elevated levels
of particulate matter of 2.5 meters or less.
Now we'll go into this because it actually
makes a great explanation of how this can
just be a natural thing or not. And
I'm a again, don't please do not take
this. It's me just taking the narrative. I'm
gonna go into what the, one of the
at least proposed possibilities of I'm it's interesting
to me that smart dust gets brought into
this. Even though it's an obvious potential overlap.
I think there's a reason for it I'll
get into. I think it's becoming more and
more It's becoming impossible to ignore as I've
been screaming and ringing this bell for what,
a decade now? It's clear. I mean, getting
kicked ignored. Clearly, I think it's becoming something
they want to kind of disparage and I
think that might be why. But I'll go
back to this in a second. Let me
let me do this really quickly. We're gonna
do it live. It looks like Steve's not
coming back, by the way. Unfortunately, I think
he just had some Internet problems. But, let's
do this. I want I I wanna find
that screenshot
just to make this point even more clear.
Look at this. Okay.
So just again, to be objective, it's certainly
possible what he's showing you here could
be a video from this year.
This might be worth following up on, by
the way, because ultimately, if it did happen
the same way last year and we're seeing
the same kind of particulate particulate issue,
that may that would add more of a
credence to the fact that it might be
something that's a problem. Right? But I'm trying
to find here, let me just hold this
aside. I'll include this so you guys can
look for yourselves. So, anyway, for the podcast,
this guy is posting something from Florida, but
he's stating that it's the first of 2025,
but it's saying the exact same thing. The
Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County has issued
an air pollution
of this exact thing.
Here's another way to do this by the
way.
Let's just go back to this.
Let's do Hillsborough County.
I'll just do a whole thing. Let's see.
Because I don't see anything
in here. That this is actually how I
looked it up by the way. Because I
all I have is a screenshot. I looked
up this, I found Hillsborough County. I'll do
it by most recent,
And oh, god. Okay. That's this is interesting
to me, guys. I think that account's wrong
and maybe even lying about it, unless I'm
missing something. This is Environmental Protection Commission, Hillsborough
County. Okay? And this is the most recent
update,
12 2024. Okay?
See about see what I'm saying?
Unless somehow that's not listed. Okay? It's on
this website. Again, here's what he's saying. From
the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County.
He's saying they've issued an air pollution precaution
for fine particulates.
K? That's what this is.
But
I don't see that as 2025 anywhere on
their website.
Now, look. Just to be clear, maybe they
just don't maybe it doesn't show up on
this page until the day after. I mean,
who knows? There's always maybe an explanation. But
that's interesting. Because what I was actually gonna
get to is this larger point
about
this screenshot that you might have seen.
Of course, it doesn't pop up.
Let's just do this. This is I find
this to be very important if we can
actually find the screenshot because it was circulating
everywhere. I saw like 3 different tweets.
Are you kidding me?
How about this?
Anyway, the point is ultimately that this is
being shared as right now,
as this usually happens with independent mainstream alternative
media,
and ultimately claiming
that it's this year even though it's an
old image
from last year. I mean, guys, this is
this is
just to make sure
Let me know in the chat by the
way if you guys are seeing an update
because it's certainly possible. This is new. I'm
just not seeing it.
Let me see. Maybe I did this. Hold
on.
Nah, I'm not seeing it. Oh, well, I
don't wanna waste too much time on it.
If you guys see it online, let me
know because I find I think this is
very important. Let me just do this. One
more thing.
Let's just do fog. That's I think that's
what popped up last time.
I don't see it in there. Come on.
I know that was there. I was just
looking at it. Here we go. Found it.
Okay. So how do you get this? Here
we go.
Alright. Here's one of the examples. I saw
this all over the place.
This is doctor Lynn
Fine
Derella.
Updated air quality for the county. You sure
it's fog?
K. Just a screenshot, which is going around.
It's all it's all across Twitter right now,
but my point is that is the screenshot
from this page.
Oh, wait. Let's see if this one
no. That still says 2024. So how is
that up at the top
in red if it's giving you a link
to something that is 2024?
Am I am I missing something? You guys
tell me what you think. That's very interesting
to me.
Remember, important to be objective in this and
not jump to conclusions. That's why we're doing
this because the idea is that you could
always be wrong. That's the idea. You could
miss something.
Oh, you know what I'm doing? Okay. I
just realized what I'm doing. Never mind. I
take it all back. So see, this this
again, this is actually a perfect example of
how easy it is to make you know,
so if you are willing to jump to
conclusions or willing to kinda go with what
you want to see, it's very easy to
fall in these traps. So I'm gonna explain
what I just did right there. That was
a waste of time, by the way. So
bottom line is I was just looking at
the other page that was actually the older
one that was from the year before. But
my point is this and that was one,
so January.
What we're looking at I don't know how
I just made this mistake, by the way.
So now I take it all back. This
is this is from the day before. I
looked I thought it said 1:30, so it's
12:31.
So technically, this is the day before.
So take it all back. Just so we're
clear on that. So, anyway, the point being
now we're back to the original point despite
all that. So can what I planned on
doing was going through this because I thought
that was interesting. I thought it was an
old clip, not even just saying that it
wasn't happening now. Again, the point turns out
in real time, we just figured it out
even though I missed that, which is stupid,
that ultimately it is.
So all of that so again, back to
both of them, they were not wrong. Please
make sure you note that. They were not
wrong. They were not trying to lie. That
was exactly just they were just reporting the
new update. So
all that aside, I'll include all the links
for you. The reason I included it is
because the idea of whether there's a particulate
matter, an increase,
that would indicate a problem. Right? That would
indicate something other than just a fog being
misrepresented.
So that did stand out to me as
something that is like, okay. Well, that's problematic
right there. And so let me well, let
me read through what I was going to
do before before I went off on a
tangent and confused myself. That ultimately, what we're
talking about
is
2.5
micrometers
or less,
And it says, this precautionary statement is effective
immediately
as of, you know, 12/31/20/24.
There is a still a potential to reach
unhealthy levels for sensitive groups.
But then it says, due to fireworks
okay. So that's an interesting addition to this.
Right? So clearly, if we have people popping
off fireworks and then it becomes fog, well,
are you gonna see partial Helis in the
fog? Well, that's certainly possible. One of the
many things that we should consider without jumping
to a larger conclusion without evidence. Right? But
it goes on to say, regardless, let's just
take away the firework aspect.
It says, particulate matter is one of the
EPA's,
pollutant air pollutants
is one of the EPA criteria air pollutants
and has an established national ambient air quality
based on health criteria.
Particulate matter is the term for a mixture
of solid particulates and liquid droplets found in
the air.
So, and it goes on to say particulate
matter
can be defined as PM10, which are inhalable
particles of 10 micrometers or smaller, which are
inhalable particles of 2.5
micrometers smaller.
Or this is or PM 25.
Particulate matter can be emitted directly from a
source,
construction sites, unpaved roads, fires, etcetera, or can
be found formed in the atmosphere as a
result of complex reaction of chemicals such as
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.
So we could also be considering this as
some kind of geoengineering overlap. Right? That this
is a byproduct of something they're doing that
we don't want, Which, by the way, would
happen under Trump's suit just like it would
under Biden's as we've seen already in the
past. What's interesting though is that that then
changes the conversation away from something that is,
you know
let me put it this way. Smart dust
is not something or just nanotechnology that we
should be dismissing in any context. But to
take this and kind of jump into that
conversation without there being a point of evidence,
to me, seems like a white a a
diversion.
Like, in like, time 1, trying to bury
this in something people will dismiss, which is
always happening.
But trying to jump to something that is
a far stretch for most people when there's
don't seem to be a connected point other
than it could be.
So to me, that seems like they're trying
to hide something else.
So maybe that is just the idea, like,
we talk about with all this stuff. Whether
it's dioxins or whatever else, this is something
now happening because of a byproduct of what
they didn't expect or whatever, or it's an
experiment or whatever it is, and they just
don't want you thinking about that. No one
should dismiss stuff like that. And especially as
we're highlighting this as, you know, something that
is worthy of precaution,
but that they're saying could just be natural
complex reactions in the atmosphere.
So just here even if you dismiss that
as possible, what they're saying is what you're
seeing could be a natural thing
worth considering.
So again, one more reiteration on that. I
just apologize for making that mistake if somebody
heard that and isn't hearing the follow-up.
1231 2024.
I didn't say the name actually before but
so Supermaha
was correct. This is new, posted on the
first, as well as doctor Lynn Finturella.
And so she's saying basically, you're sure it's
fog? Which fair point to ask. If we're
seeing large particulates and they're warning about a
problem, well, yeah. It I would I'm considering
the same thing. Is that what we're dealing
with?
So here is just one of the other
posts, by the way, just, you know, saying
in the inform, it's saying nearly a third
of the US population. So these are points
I was saying before. Is that actually what
we're seeing? Like, even, like, the weather reports
and so on. Like, I've just not I
feel like this got like, some people say
it covered the whole country. To me, that
doesn't appear to be the full picture. But
it says spanning 27 states, you tell me
what we think about the overlap, is experiencing
an unprecedented wave of dense fog. Well, again,
doesn't appear to be unprecedented. Right? So that's
also interesting. And that tends to get more
enhanced. Right? Like, the partisan level of this,
it's all about making it some new, unprecedented
shock moment when a lot of cases, like
the drones, whatever else, it's been going on.
It's not new. It's been happening before. But
and you frame it like this new breaking
story,
which is what most of them do, it
gets more attention.
Like, by the way, like, for example, when
it became known that when we're gonna get
you in a second, the cyber truck and
newer you know, the both those attacks,
that ultimately, it was they're both from Fort
Bragg, for example.
What's funny is you can go look at
all of these major right wing influencers,
and every single one of them, despite reporting
at a different intervals over the last so
many hours,
major breaking news with big red flashing lights
even though I was like, well, they reported
that 5 hours ago. So it's not really
breaking. The point is it's breaking when they
say it, and it's about trying to guess.
It's a game, guys. It's all a shtick,
so I have to remember that. But so
here you have all these different examples. And
so this is the one that seems to
be shown more than anything.
Is this really but see, even right there,
like, how do we not know that's not
just somewhere where it's snowing?
We don't. It says Florida, but we don't
know this. My point is that even if
it's already been verified, I'm just making a
general point about how easy it is to
see something and kinda see what you want.
In many cases, it just does look like
a mist close with just realize the point
is if you've got like that right there,
that's what fog looks like with a flashlight.
That's not this is the one I thought
it was, by the way. I'll show you
the one I'm referencing. The point is that
that ultimately is what it will look like,
and there's even a fact check on one
of these pages.
This oh, and so this is in the
UK, just showing you massive fog rolling out,
which again is not that really unprecedented by
the way, especially in the UK, but overlapping
with this, interesting. Oh, here's some of these
different images.
To me, it's not really showing an entire
country being overlapped with fog, but these are
just the Florida ones.
Oh, you'll see the, latest, what it changed.
Not much really, it doesn't look like.
And everyone's saying the same things. Right? The
unexplained illness, the strange odors, but I mean,
how in the world has anybody verified all
that? They're not. They're just repeating what the
social media sphere is saying, which could be
true
or maybe not.
Super again saying, pay attention. Fog should have
moisture. 100% ripe. I just drove through thick
fog, which by definition is when water condenses
and creates tiny water droplets. All my life,
I had to use windshield wipers with fog.
Not anymore. This is dry chemical fog.
So that's again get to take it from
the fact that you don't know this person.
In person, you don't know what they've seen.
But, nonetheless, this is something I'm hearing as
well from plenty of people. And here's their
personal video, which to me does hold more
water than, you know,
on yeah. But the point being is, again,
you who knows for sure? They could be
somewhere else, but that they're showing you what
their experience is through their car window and
ultimately the same thing.
I mean, it's it's no it's just just
the video. It's all the fog. The point,
though, is that being that, you know, on
the window, there's no you know? But I
don't know. I I can't tell for sure,
but that does that
aligns with what other people are saying. Not
anymore. It says this dry chemical fog, driving
30 minutes. No in the fake fog, no
windshield wipers required.
But I you know, to be honest, I've
driven in fog before where my windshield did
not get completely wet.
But I think that it depends on the
particulate size and different things. But I would
agree that by and large, that wouldn't ultimately
be the way you'd expect it to react.
And I'll include these, just same thing. So
just basically what causes fog. And it goes
over all the different examples which are very
different.
There's many things, but, ultimately, the main point
is what you're saying, is that it absolutely
can't appear without moisture. So I would largely
agree that you if you would expect something.
But then you get things like this,
which are interesting. Sure. Especially when you don't
know
Like, for instance, I'm just coming off the
video I was planning about the the, self
assembling nanotechnology.
Right? And so, this guy goes, look at
what my dog's water bowl. I dumped it
yesterday and put fresh water. We had rain
this morning and a crazy fog for the
past week. This has never happened before. I've
never seen anything like it, and so on.
And so this is the video.
So you look closely. You see these weird
little things moving around, jumping together. And to
me, I'm like, that's where my mind went.
I just looked at it. Right? I'm like,
that's what that looks like. I'm like, well,
that's crazy.
But you don't know the context. You don't
know where he lives. You don't know what's
above the water bowl. You don't know any
of the re the information. Right? And so
ultimately, what mo what then he went like
then he said, I collected a sample using
tape. You know, very very scientific. And went
on to and basically showing things like this.
Now, obviously, I think most people can then
go, okay. Well, these these are larva. Right?
This is something that's obviously what that looks
like. But doesn't still doesn't mean that it
might not be in the fog. Who knows?
But even then, you can show examples of
historic examples of stuff like that where you
could have something that kind of hatches in
the in, you know, rainfall, for example. We
there there are weird examples of these things,
but I the point is it doesn't appear
to be connected with the fog. Many people
down below, I think it was next or
no. It was somewhere down here. Basically, many
people down below were showing examples of what
they could show in research. Like, for example,
right here. Same thing. See the video of
the image.
Right? Saying a word about the general appearance
biology of what they're calling springtails as most
of them are saying that live in the
area. That they are just larvae that that
it it falls and fall you know, the
wind and tree, whatever else. It says there
are 2 basic body types
saying like the jumping brisk bristle tail of
the recent BOTW fame, they wear their mouth
parts on their inside. This is rather than
the outside, which makes it impossible for springtails
to nibble on people despite anecdotes to the
contrary. They have antennae and and tiny simple
eyes. I mean, that's what this is. And
it you know, or at least what it
very clearly appears to be and what most
people down there are saying, yes. I get
this every season and whatever else. And so
if you don't know and you look without
any information, yeah, it looks pretty strange. But
if you then now with that information, you
look and realize they were talking about little
larvae bugs that have fallen from, you know,
wherever they grow and have
been windy and whatever else, the rain. And,
you know, I've I've had similar things that
I can see outside water bowls as well.
So my my point is to show that
it's easy to go it lines up with
what we're hearing
without really knowing what you're looking at. And
that's people that scoop all these things up.
I've already seen this video including one of
those compilation of 4 videos posts of somebody
saying, look at all that we're seeing from
the fog even though they don't know that.
So same thing, concerned citizen is one of
these that's, you know, really just been dumping
all this out. And he says, what the
f is this? Well, that's the guy saying
this. So you get an example of this
versus this guy making this video. Right? Sees
the Internet sensation, goes outside with his flashlight,
and goes, oh my god. I'm seeing it
too. Right? What is this? This isn't fog,
he says. And concerned citizens says people continue
to recognize a notable difference between whether they've
experienced all their lives in this current fog.
Well, the question is when when's the last
time they went out and did this with
a flashlight? Now many of us have done
that when you go out and let your
dog out and so on, but do you
really look? And the point is
maybe they've never done that before. And he
goes, not a coincidence. This is simultaneously happening
across both of the Atlantic. You know, so
feeding into that part of it. When you
really don't know what's happening, you're using something
you haven't verified to say, not a coincidence.
This is happening across
That's that's propaganda, guys, whether for clicks or
not. And even Wikipedia or rather Twitter using
Wikipedia says this is tiny water droplets suspended
in the air and viewed under brown light,
also known as fog. Now just because they
say that, doesn't mean that's what it is.
My point is even if that is, like,
you know, could be something, which is certainly
could be,
that is what either fog or the beginning
of what like, I live in Seattle for
a year or a little actually more than
that. But either way, when you live in
a place that's very has such common rainfall
or rather what's interesting about Seattle, which you
don't know, is that it actually doesn't rain
rain as much as they claim it does.
The vast majority is something like this, where
it gets this, like, misty
rain, kind of fog, kind of rain, where
you just get kind of wet over you
know, but you don't even notice it. But
it once it gets past a certain level
of of, like, moisture, they just deem they
it's technically rain. So that's why they say
rain is 9 month out of the year,
but it does rain a lot, but that's
more often than not what you get. But
my point is I I that's exactly what
it looks like. Even sometimes when it's, you
know, dusk where you could see it with
light or not with a flashlight, just sometimes
in the air, but the flashlight makes it
very clear. That's not to say that it
might not be something else. But it's interesting
how people can fall into something like that
and go, oh my god. This can't be.
Even though, yeah, it very exactly can be.
It's exactly what it would look like in
some cases.
So we just can't we I hope we
can all just see. Like, even if this
turns out to be smart dust,
how easy it
is for partisan momentum to just drive something.
And especially when you can see, hopefully, more
than ever now that you've got dishonest people
behind the, you know, behind the steering wheel
who might decide to turn it if they
want to based on certain indications, agendas, or
tantrums
that maybe we should ask whether that might
be happening more than we want it to
or realize.
Same thing. This person says, seriously, you tell
me this is all fog?
People came across
it says people across all the the world
all simultaneously reporting fog like they've never experienced.
Okay. Well, it's the same thing.
To me, that is like a very, very
obvious example of what fog looks like.
Always saying in the background, just goes, what
is that? That can't be. And then he
yells at his dog, get over here.
But to me, guys, that's just fair that's
most of that's not even particular. That's just
fog.
You see what I mean? But this is
being shared nonetheless because it is fog and
a flashlight, and it gets it gets reach.
500,000
shares.
Into Thin Air says, you won't believe this.
It seems that Iran
or a large portion of the Middle East
has removed the entire day of May 19th
from the weather charts.
Ah, okay. So Iran is doing it. That's,
you know, the secret implication that it's some
secret that they're hiding how it started from
Iran is
kinda the implication there. Or maybe he doesn't
mean to do that, but that's that's what
that seems to to bring around the conversation.
But it says, is this to stop people
from seeing the details about what caused the
fog? Well, actually, he pretty much did do
that. Came out of nowhere. It says, this
led to the helicopter crash of Iran's president.
What are they hiding? Satellite data? This was
was this weather created?
You know, I I've come to find less
interest in this plat this channel only because
a lot of this is how this tends
to go. Like, you know, framed of the
guys of just asking questions, which which later
kinda build into a narrative despite never actually
answering the question. That's same thing, my opinion,
under the guise of more objectivity. But it
basically comes down to these videos. But if
you actually look into this, and here's the
Earth map satellite map for yourself, you could
check it for yourself. It says, Zoom Earth
contains the weather information without interruption, including 19th
for the area. Nothing is missing.
But that's not as fun though, is it?
That's not as fun as leaning into the
partisan narrative, which gets 2.7000000
views.
And, of course,
when the usual suspects lean into it, that's
usually a good indication.
My opinion, this guy, by the way, who
is one of the most prolific and dishonest
people on the plot in the conversation, right?
There with Loomer and the rest, except far
worse because this is such a like, I
see this guy. This is TV TVP Sean,
who, by the way, has me blocked now.
Runs the people's voice, who by the way
pivoted away from, I think it was,
what was it? Jason,
Basler was just breaking this down for somebody.
It was,
one of these other other,
like like, notoriously fake platforms. Even even Twitter
and others have called this platform out for
being deliberately deceiving. Like, try to piggyback on
real information, like, I keep showing you fake
quotes and using, like, the
assumptive part of the narrative. Right? Like, leaning
into it as far as you can as
you know, because people didn't buy it because
that's what they do think is the case
even if we can't prove it. No. That's
dishonesty, guys. They're lying to you. They're they're
leaning into your biases in in to benefit
off of you. And that's this Sean guy.
He's dishonest, man. Here he comes in on
this conversation and says, chemtrails
pilot reveals
plot to blanket world in, quote, death fog
to kill 1,000,000,000
in 2025.
So I guess during Trump's administration, though. Right?
But, anyway, the point is that it's like
if you wanna take your time to look
into this, it is embarrassingly subjective. It is
a narrative patched together on the back of
another partisan narrative using a bunch of basically
subjective
grasping leaps,
fake quotes, and other misinformation
that tie back to things that you want
to believe because it taps into your biases.
That's what these people do
every time.
Well, just just kind of a joke. I
think even though I do think that there's
stuff that we should continue to investigate in
this.
Especially, maybe proving that we can actually
whether these things have sickness that are being
attached to it or smells that are chemical.
My point would be right now, if this
rapidly dissipates
without any real conversation about illness or anything
other than what we saw during these last
so many days,
then I think that it answers our question.
If there was a mass illness that rolled
out and I'm not talking about the corporate
side of it. They might wanna hide it
because they, you know, whatever the narrative is.
I'm talking about more conversation
of going, everyone in my town is sick
right now. Because that would be the point.
If that's the case and it's rolling out
and everyone's getting sick, well, you would have
undeniable evidence of that. You would have an
entire city or town or group or people
saying we're all sick. We all that's what
we're kind of hearing.
But my point is over the next week,
we will really be able to prove that
or not. So let's wait. Evidence matters. But
l Lyra making a joke about it, which
I do think is part of this, it
goes fog is the latest trend. H one
b v's are so yesterday.
Guys, that is kinda what this tends to
be, and we should at least consider that
it's just one more partisan hype story to
drive people to a certain position. Important to
think about.
Now, in the smart dust aspect of it
because it is very, very valid to ask
these questions.
Right? That that's always where we gotta draw
that line, though. Like, asking questions, hype whether
we could consider this or whether it might
be playing a role, always good to do.
But if we can't prove it, in my
opinion, you do what you want. But if
you wanna be you know, you're acting like
you're
media and, you know, we're fighting against the
narrative, trying to act like you're honest investigative
journalist kind of perspective, then you would wait.
Put down and say, we haven't proven that.
The moment we do, we'll have more for
you. At the moment, all we know is
it's fog and there's narratives and people saying
certain things and we're looking into it. Like,
that's what an honest investigator would do.
So my point, though, is that we have
the idea of Smart Dust as a separate
conversation that I've been talking about for a
very long time. And it is, in my
opinion, very real and very,
I mean, being built around you right now,
if not already there, and we just aren't
being told about it. Right? We don't have
a a partisan social contagion dynamic going, look
at this. Look at this. Even though, weirdly
enough, that did filter through the conversation. But
what do you notice?
You don't get certain groups talking about it.
Why not? It doesn't seem like smart dust
would be, like, the most like, it it
there's so many things that end up getting
grabbed onto.
In many ways, these kind of would be
perceived as these kind of bombastic claims and
crazy ideas, but this one doesn't at a
prime moment when clearly this is overlapping. You
know, some of them did, but you know
what I'm talking about. The ones that tend
to ultimately drive it into the real cover,
but not right now. Not when there's the
obvious opening. I find that to be relevant
in the case that they want this to
be buried under the idea that this is
the fake partisan hype on Twitter, but at
the same time, not really fleshing it out.
So you see what the narrative is the
truth behind that part of it is. You
see what I'm saying? That is actually pretty
interesting to me. So that's just this quick
clip that I've this is what I use
for an opening for the show. Just if
you don't remember.
So I did an article on this
entitled
where was it? Right here. Is smart dust
already in use in the population? Well, I
think the answer is yes. And was COVID
19 in quotes, an attempted experimental next step?
Valid question that I think we should be
asking right now.
And so this clip, I put out during
that recent spaces with that link and just
included this clip to show you from the
actual symposium. This was, actually, as I'll play,
this will bring up the the clip for
you. It's from an entire conference where they
talk about this. It's about 11 year old
conference. And in the conference, they're talking about
something, what I'm gonna show you, that is
10 years before that. So we're talking about
over 20 years ago.
What you're gonna see right here in a
quick clip was what DARPA was working on.
And don't forget the overlap with Elon Musk
and the direction of all this and where
it all seems to be going
and kind of the transition between what DARPA
does and what they present through people like
that. And what do you know? Here we
have with the nanotech injections and, you know,
even Elon working on this with micro factories
or the brain machine interface even though it's
way beyond the the cords and it's optogenetics
and magnetogenetics,
But it's all driving you in the direction
of that being the next step, even though
DARPA was completing these things
a long time ago. But you have that
intermittent point where they switch over, and now
it's the public version. That's what I see
happening.
You can literally scatter this stuff like dust
or embed it into a sheet of paper.
This was commercially released 10 years ago.
It's a tiny computer and it features data
processing,
data storage, wireless comms.
And it's probably as close to the true
SmartDAS vision from the early DARPA days as
we've come so far.
They're designed to harvest energy from the environment
around them and to communicate via mesh network.
Very important.
Communicate via mesh network, guys. That's what I
was just talking about. Like, not even getting
into the idea of, like, trying to through
nanotechnology,
essentially mesh
human brains and consciousness to help better better
map out their artificial intelligence, which is a
real conversation.
But just simply the idea of being able
to have the internet of nano bio things,
which means there are nanotechnology
things in your body that can interconnect with
the other aspects of this and have that
mesh. So you can then share, maybe without
your knowledge. Maybe that's already happening. Real time
information about what you are, what you're thinking,
what you're doing, what you're everything.
Again, I always know this is for some
people, this is so far beyond what they're
gonna accept.
But I hope you can understand though is
that it is being discussed and has been
for of of 2 decades, actually. A long
time.
And so what you can see on here
again is this,
the mew chip, that's a salt crystal next
to it. Okay? And then think about this.
If 20 years ago, this is the size
of it, and even today, they're showing you
big clunky things and saying this is the
future. Like, if this 20 years ago was
marked up, imagine what we're dealing with today.
We're talking about exactly to jump ahead, just
barely.
In 2 1011, Charles Lieber working on virus
sized transistors.
So actual nanobots,
nanotechnology
bots,
the size of a virus
in 2011.
And you read this as I pointed out
many times. He's in here talking about
using
a basically, coating it with a fatty lipid
layer in order to make it go into
the cell membrane.
So effectively doing so. Like, not like some
theoretical hype and, again, they could be lying.
Certainly possible.
But openly discussing in 2,011,
making virus sized transistors and using
lipids,
like lipid nanoparticle conversation to make it end
up going into the human cell. And and
it's saying in general that when you have
things as small as a virus or a
bacteria, whatever you think of those things, it
that things that are they're nanotech
behave the way biological structures do.
So is it also I have said this
in the beginning. Is it also not possible
that what we're dealing with in all this
is in fact one of these things? Maybe
by design. Maybe it went awry and they
lost control. Who knows? I'm not even saying
that means this could therefore, like, get you
sick. I'm saying we don't know. And this
is what they were building into a long
time ago.
And so, when we're talking about this stuff,
when 20 years ago, that's the mew chip
sized out of a salt crystal. I mean,
guys, we already know where this could get
to if that's all the way back then.
Now as well as
the the other one, which is as close
to the DARPA example he said, this is
a very, very, very zoomed in example.
I believe that's either a penny that it's
sitting on or or human skin. So it's
really, really tiny. The point is that this
runs on your own body's energy.
Two way communication.
Being meshed and it meshes with others.
20 years ago,
I just don't know how we don't have
these conversations. And this is exactly my point,
is that right now, even when there's an
opening for this that obviously gets like really
forced in by some of the conservative conversation,
none of the bigger accounts really pick it
up.
That seems to be very transparent to me.
Now, I just talked about this in the
context of the kind of make America healthy
again direction. I simply said make America healthy
again, end parenthesis, with GMOs, pharmaceuticals, AI, and
nanotech, which is really what they're doing. Just
in a very, you know, very thin veneer.
Basically, rolling out the all the same problems
in a little bit different slant.
Now here's an important clip that I think
relevant to this is here this is this
has been going around on social media, but
it's an older clip. This is actually from,
it's from 2018,
but this was posted by World, Ethical Data
Forum
on, February 20, 2024.
Now this is the full video. WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange's last interview before his arrest in
London. But I'm only gonna play you one
part of this.
Has to do with something you're probably gonna
wanna hear.
A little dust. 2
Scattered everywhere. Like like confetti in every 5117.
And I don't think by chopping out,
many of them or adding
kind of chaff,
cover,
that
you can make that much make that much
of a difference. And increasingly
increasingly, it's less.
And in terms of the Internet of Things,
there's research prototypes now, which I assume, but
are you being used by, intelligence agencies.
A very small electronic circuits,
that you can just
put in paper or put
and paint around
on the walls,
that are powered by the GSM stations.
And they they operate as the GSM radio
wave passes through them. It gives them enough
power for a very small amount of time
to do things.
So, obviously, that tendency is going to continue.
It's not the, like, the Internet of things.
It's it's, if you like,
intelligent evil dust.
Intelligent
evil dust.
I mean and quite frankly, my opinion of
what I can see based on the research
is that in 2018, they were well beyond
the idea of these short time frame dynamics.
Like, we like, like, we just heard from
a 20 year old device that could run
on your body's energy. Like, all he's talking
about things that exist, like, in paper or
on the wall. But if you have things
that can be put into your body, right,
your body has energy that can be done
it's very important to see how that works,
whether it's motion. Like, you know how you
have these watches and different things where your
your body's motion keeps them working? It's a
very similar thing like that, but overall, like,
that's part of it. He talks about that
in that larger oh, I forgot to grab
that, by the way. I'll grab that for
you right now. The the actual link to
that video.
But the point is that
let's see. Where is it?
There it is.
That that's one aspect that he talks about
in this discussion, but it's also just other
ways that he use your body's energy, like
heat and all sorts of things.
To the point that here is Julian Assange,
like, openly highlighting this in 2018,
and yet still we can't have the conversation.
This is alarming.
Especially since a couple of years later with
Trump's administration, they rolled out an injection that
was using nanotechnology.
And now we're finding out has all sorts
of unex unrevealed
contaminants,
if you wanna use that word. Maybe things
that were deliberate through there.
Scattered everywhere, like like confetti in everything.
So
I think it's
increasingly hard for human beings to work out
how to deal with that. Mhmm. And and
First step is acknowledging the reality.
The only way I the only way I
can see is that as
that
we've gotta securitize this problem. Computer security industry
is is you know, it's been engaged in
outrageous
securitization for a very long period of time.
I'm just I'm gonna leave there in general,
but that that's the main point. Just the
idea that, you know, it's just this side
point. And just because that's what's happening. You
know?
Absolutely mind blowing.
Here's the, MakerCon
video.
It's called Al, Alistar Allen and the inevitability
of smart dust.
And I mean and I'll I'll even grab
one more for you, by the way. This
one
I'll I'll you know what I'll do? I'll
include the actual
YouTube channel so you guys can look for
yourselves. There's only a few of them left
on there. It seems like most of it's
been removed. But both these two right here.
Now even this one, you can watch if
you I think it's right here. See that?
What is what do you what you're seeing
there when you kinda hover over that video
is he's demonstrating for you how this works.
He's literally talking about this. And this is
13 years ago. And the video itself is
not it's a it's a older video. Like,
so they posted this 30 years ago, but
it was even further than that. And he's
showing you right here. Look. Scattering it in
the air like dust.
That is what they were doing as he
tells you in the con in the video,
like, 15 years ago
in order to track ships overseas.
That's what they this is called dust networks.
So my point is they had, like, real
world examples of using this in real time.
How in the world are we gonna allow
smart dust to be used in the air
without having everybody understand that and being able
to, like, vote on it if we pretend
like it's somehow our choice, even though we
know that's not how this world actually works.
But think about that. On top of this
actually, I'll I'll let's see if I can
shoot. I know I always remember this as
Wells Fargo and then I forget
how it came up. Oh, maybe it is
this one.
I know. Oh, I know what it is.
It's financial smart dust.
Oh, no. Financial.
Shoot.
Oh, now I'm gonna forget it.
You got have give me the if you
remember the chat what the name of that
episode was.
Let me just do this.
Wells Fargo.
Oh, that one. There you go. Oh, that
actually, that's I think how I found it
last time I looked it up online
as opposed to my website.
Oh, no. There it is. I got it.
Just so that this way you guys actually
have the source material, which is what's important
to me so you can research for yourself.
And and it's really just the article. The
title on one part is smart dust. Oh,
what smart dust? Fart dust financial tracking. Now
if you remember,
this is a patent literally for Wells Fargo.
And thank you, doc. You what doc?
You see what I see? Or do you
see what I see? Sorry. He this he
includes the patent right there.
This is smart dust application for 2016
that has now been extended
to turn 2037.
And this is Wells Fargo
as you can see where is it?
Right there.
Wells Fargo Bank. Why did that move when
I put the s in there? That's weird.
Wells Fargo. So it says, systems and methods
of that facilitate authenticating a user making a
payment using
microelectro
mechanical systems or MEMs devices,
I e smart dust.
I mean, it's wild, guys. If you didn't
see this episode, they literally talk about how
the these things will pump out smart dust
to verify who you are. And then I
don't know if they just dissipate and go
into the world and be used elsewhere or
go back into the machine. I mean, it's
it's just absolutely mind blowing this is being
discussed, and we can't even acknowledge this is
real yet in this converse, like, in society.
Like, that's what scares me about where this
goes.
Like, I for example, Kim Iverson invited me
on, I don't know, a year ago to
talk about Smart Dust. And what's funny is
I can't even find the episode, not on
her any of her platforms. So maybe they
made her take it down for all we
know. But it's crazy because it was such
a you know, I'm glad she did it
because
at least she was willing to give a
platform for us to discuss this. But the
whole air was kinda, like, you know, skeptical
of the whole thing. And I'm just going,
like, man, we're I I'm so far past
the idea that we're, like, debate like, the
at the very least, they're telling you this
stuff is real and they're rolling out and
working with it. So that's where we need
to engage with this first to realize that
at least they're telling you that. As always,
they could be lying about it. But I
think
it's bigger than that, quite frankly, in in
obvious ways. Like, with the shots and the
overlaps they're in.
But here, I'll include Jason Basler, did a
great clip on the recent show we did.
Here's the, the one we just told you
about the,
make America great healthy again using these things.
And it's about this NPR article, like a
recent one. This is from 2021.
Hopefully, talking about flying microchips the size of
a sand grain, which at that time, I
could prove to you they had them far
smaller than that. Right? So it's my point
as usual. But great clip showing you all
this history of this stuff. It's very obvious
in the past show.
And here's a clip from concerned citizens. Same
kind of thing during all this time frame,
but pointing to something. I mean, this is
the World Economic Forum talking about this. The
point though is that this is it's just
the globalist lunatics want to control your very
thoughts. What's funny is that so do all
the rest of the people you're supporting, concerned
citizen. The people in Trump's immediate circle are
the ones literally building this stuff out. But,
of course, it's it's only when you can
make it about the World Economic Forum that
it becomes okay to talk about in these
circles. But it says these brain sensors that
are starting to be be embedded in everyday
devices.
Right? Like the shot Trump made. Oh, oh,
shit. Don't talk about that version.
Devices. So these are brain sensors,
that are starting to be embedded in everyday
devices, but until now have been a number
of niche companies that really have focused on
mindfulness
meditation. The use of, for example, brain centers
that can pick up electrical activity in the
brain at a pretty low resolution, but advances
in AI
have both improved what the signal is that
can come from the brain, and enable the
miniaturization,
of those products. So think about David Icke's
point. Right? So the overlap with the spy
satellite network that they're rapidly rolling out, so
that would be the energy or the influence.
So you you have the combination of all
of it. So what you're saying is they've
built rapidly to a point to where now
they can do this. What they need is
more like, well, let's do it again specifically.
That's really have focused to be embedded in
everyday devices, but in tone Which by the
way is already what we're talking about. Being
embedded or in, you know, in the in
in shots you're given or in things that
you're not being told about as far back
as you wanna look according to Julian Assange
and the paint, the wall, whatever else. Now
have been a number of niche companies that
really have focused on mindfulness and meditation.
Which is usually how this works. Right? So
it's something that we're using to say, look.
Like, with Elon Musk, for example, and we're
using this to help people walk again. You
know, something like that. In this case, well,
we just wanna make you we wanna see
if you can be more mindful and not
be stressed out from work all the time.
You know, because that would select the reverse
of what it Saint Clair was saying. You
censor the worst of them first. So everyone
goes, well, yes. That I I can't disagree
with that. Same point here. You roll it
out and be like, well, you don't want
kids to walk again? You know, it's like,
well, of course I do. You know? It's
like, except that's not what it's really about.
Use of, for example, brain sensors that can
pick up electrical activity in the brain. The
brain sensors that could pick up electrical activity.
Right? So now if you have something like,
I don't know, a very invasive satellite network
that can pick those things up, maybe influence
those things because of the implant. Like, you
see how these things interconnect. And David Icke
has been make very clearly talking about the,
like, the brain cloud idea for a long
time. I mean, it's terrifying stuff. And that
that's, like, the point I was making about
the mesh idea that but way further. And
the idea, like, going into, like, transhumanism
and these very wealthy oligarchs and technocrats
thinking that they can live forever if they
can just find a way to put their
consciousness on them on the cloud.
Even if you think it's not possible, even
if it's not possible, the question is if
they think they can or they're willing to
do whatever they can to do so.
At a pretty low resolution, but advances in
AI have both improved what the signal is
that can come from the brain, and enabled
the miniaturization,
of those products.
As And my point is what we can
improve that would be potentially the satellites and
so on that they're rolling out, but not
just improve it, but be able to influence
it. A lot of the major tech companies
start to invest,
in these brain sensors. It's a huge, I
think, untapped market in many ways of integrating
them into everyday devices. These And don't forget,
by the way, that she is the one
that was do giving you the wet the
World Economic Forum presentation
about
at your workplace, having brain sensors so your
boss could read your brain energy and decide
whether or not you were lying or tell
you you weren't working enough. Or you could
wear a scarf that had a light shock
to it. So if you fell asleep at
work, it would shock you back away. Not
a joke, by the way. Proudly. And telling
you this was the the not scary version.
Terrifying. And so here she is telling you
about the idea of these brain sensors in
untapped markets because
we want people to put things in all
of ours. I mean, where where it's crazy
that this conversation I mean, yeah, it's at
it's at the WEF. It's not probably maybe
they don't think it's gonna be heard by
everybody.
But, I mean, they're very aware. I mean,
they have discussions about how not to scare
you with these conversations. So the question is,
if this is the light version,
my question as usual is what's already happening?
In these brain sensors, it's a huge, I
think, untapped market in many ways of integrating
them into everyday devices. These are earbuds
or watches. Don't forget the patent art exists
for those earbuds that already can essentially use
this technology to influence your brainwaves.
That's I've I've talked about this many times.
Or headphones and the soft cups around the
ears, many of those products are hitting the
market this year, and others are hitting them
within the next 2 years such that people
can listen to music, a phone call, etcetera,
while having those devices in ears. Initially,
what they will be capable of doing is
very high level brain state reading. Things like,
are you tired? Are you paying attention? Is
your mind wandering? Are you happy or sad?
They maybe enable interaction like up, down, left,
right for interaction with other technologies.
Wow. And they're being embedded into things like,
visual,
virtual reality headset.
Yeah. Right. Exactly. Now, don't mind the the
eyes the the nose scrunching weird TikTok man
in the corner because they didn't add anything
to the video. I just I hate TikTok
in the way those things work. Maybe I'm
too old for it. But anyway, the point
is that this is very real. I mean,
that we've shown you then this is just
an article about it, but it's the first
thing that popped up when I typed at
the earbud thing. But we've gone we've gone
over the patent. The links to the patent
is in here. New Apple ear ear AirPods
patent can monitor the wearer's brainwaves and other
bio signals.
The patent is in here somewhere. I've ever
been going over this article before.
The point is that this is very real
conversation.
This is
very real
direction of this. Now, obviously, you could argue
that there's benefits or for your help or
for your best interest. But then you can
also, if you're just not if you're not
brain dead, recognize how this could be used
against you. Maybe by foreign government. Maybe by
the government that's putting them in your ears,
guys. But either way, it is seriously a
problem that we're not talking about this stuff.
Despite how obvious this is. And what she's
telling you. And my point is that as
they begin to float this out as what
we have to discuss,
historically, that means it's already in your ear.
It's already being jammed. I mean, that that's
how this tends to go.
I just want us to ask these questions.
Oh, wait. Let
me include that for you.
Now, again, this article, I hope you'll check
out or the show because this is dedicated
to that main point and you can see
again, look at this image. Now this is
a a a later version of the mute
chip. That is a human hair in that
picture.
That is one of the chips.
Like, literally, smaller
than the width of a human hair. And
this is this is older. This is this
I'm the the only first show is just,
like, 20 something years old now. This This
is maybe only so many years later.
Imagine where we are now.
That's what scares me. Look at the same
thing. Look at the image. Look at that
on the fingertip.
That's that is smart dust. Even at that
level that you could just blow in the
air,
And, again, referencing the point about the fog,
for example,
my point is obviously you wouldn't see huge
particulates like that if it was smart dust.
So but, nonetheless, consider the possibility.
And as well as consider that they just
shot off a bunch of fireworks, and it
was New Year's Eve or New Year's Day,
and maybe that a factor, at all possible
or rather overlapped all that time period.
But check this out. Include the including this
about the idea of virus sized transistors and
whether that is something that is
already going on from 2,011. And also the
point I didn't mention if you already don't
know this, Charles Lieber, who was the guy
in this conversation
at the time before he was arrested and
is now not arrested for unknown reasons, he
was arrested for treason. Right? Beginning of COVID
19 for working with China and people he
worked with were shaking blood material from Beth
Israel Hospital in their sock to China.
He gets arrested for basically under the guise
of treason. They claimed it was someone hiding
payments from China, and then nothing happens. The
guys literally and I can prove to you,
during the whole time frame they were supposedly
holding this guy for treason with China, he
was still working on scientific research with China
by with US grants.
Guys, that's that's ridiculous.
So my opinion, which I think is obvious,
is this guy was not actually in any
risk at all. I think it was a
red herring.
And the best the most important part to
this conversation,
at the time, and I think still today,
he was the leading scientist in the world
on nanotechnology.
And right before you rush out a nanotech
shot, this guy gets shuttled away from the
conversation. Seems pretty relevant to me.
Now can can kind of thinking of that
together with what later got jammed in everyone's
arms,
this goes back to a 2019 discussion from
DARPA. Now, again, don't forget the DARPA overlap
with Elon and all these different examples of
how they're just kind of continuing the public
face of these government military programs. Well, our,
for example, our interview with Destiny resent resent,
rendez or resendez.
I'm blank, and I I'll I'll just bring
it up.
Revent,
resendez. That's right. Okay. So the point is
that, you know, this
is another one of these examples. Right? So
right before this, we're talking about using
injections.
I'll just read it right from their quote.
That have virus carrying light sensitive sensors
that could do some things I'll read in
a second.
Right before they roll out in a shot
or before of course, before removing the nanotech
guy out of the way, and then they
roll out shots that involve nanotechnology that we're
now seeing are riddled with things that we
can't verify.
I just think that's wild. And we're gonna
get into the overlap of this with the
potential discussion of the Cybertruck just as a
point that I think overlaps before we kinda
finish out on that point.
Rather, I'm just using the Cybertruck as the
thing that comes to mind. It's really the
conversation of both examples of what happened.
But so this is fascinating to me, and
it's scary. So DARPA's new project is investing
1,000,000 in brain machine interface tech. So the
point that I was making before. So totally
not the same program
that got real quiet, and then Elon Musk
picks up the public face of it. Totally
not the same thing.
2019.
And we've mentioned James, Giordano before, and we're
gonna show you a clip in a second.
But it's talking about this idea of the
n three program, which stands for, what was
it? The
I'm trying to remember off the top of
my head. It's in here somewhere.
The next generation nonsurgical
neurotechnology
program or n three. DARPA's program. Which again,
basically, just became the direction of the vaccinology
field, and the tech field, and the biotech
field. They're all working together. Hard to see
that. Now what it says is in contrast
to invasive stuff. It says minutely invasive technologies.
And that's what they're discussing as
everything they're working on. The things that Lieber
and and Bob Langer and all these different
overlaps are working on. Right? Bob Langer being
the cofounder of the Moderna shot,
we're working on this kind of technology.
Minutely invasive technology, which allows scientists to deliver
nanotransducers
without surgery.
You know, for example, it says, an injection
of a virus carrying light sensitive sensor or
other chemical, biotech, or self assembled nanobots
that can reach individual neurons and control their
activity independently without damaging sensitive tissue.
The proposed use for these technologies isn't yet
well specified. But as animal experiments have shown,
controlling the activity
of single neurons at multiple points is sufficient
to program
artificial memories
of fear,
desire,
and experiences
directly into the brain.
Now
you may not wanna say mind control with
that, but it is. But I mean, in
the sense of, like, literally controlling actions, like,
that's what we're gonna show in a second
to that possible idea. But you realize that
I mean, this
is June 2019.
I mean, in some context, arguably, this was
already beginning to happen, like Canada or others
where they were saying you had evidence of
this back in 2019, whatever you wanna call
COVID or whatever the narrative became. But my
point is right here and into 2020,
well, they rolled out a rationale for giving
a bunch of people injections with genetic,
editing game therapy,
but that had nanotech
and literally a n one methylpseuduarity
RNA that deliver destructions for a spike protein
from what they're telling you is a virus.
And my point is that how can you
not see with now all of the interconnected
points
and historically what they've done,
or how could you not at least ask
whether this might have already been done?
And and then it's like everything they've been
working on in so many ways came together
for this thing. And clearly, I mean, are
we really still pretending like this was about
helping people?
Clearly, there was an experiment going on, guys.
And I think that's just hard to ignore
at this point.
And so what this overlaps with for me
is the so we'll just be clear. And
they by the way, here's the Destiny interview.
The military intelligence hidden hand driving the COVID
19 injections.
Is the idea of the ferritin overlap or
many other examples of this stuff. But this
is just one that is, as far as
I could tell, already being rolled out. I
mean, this was the this was back in
20 23 of May, and they were already
working on this ferritin nanoparticle universal flu injection.
They were literally testing it, which means too
late now. Even in the testing side of
it, this is already being put out there.
But the point is, if you remember the
article from The Guardian,
which was
genetically engineered
magneto protein, that's the ferritin protein, remotely controls
brain and behavior.
And there's also the Rockefeller,
I thought they had linked it in here.
Let me see if it pops up.
Yeah. Right there.
Rockefeller article about the same thing. It's called
flipping a switch inside the head from 2017.
With new technology, scientists are able to exert
wireless control over brain cells of mice with
just a push of the button.
The first thing they did was make mice
hungry.
Now it gets more specific about the insulin
levels and how they could literally decide to
drop it to nothing, which would kill you
or
do something, increase or change it to where
you drive you to wanna eat, or in
this case, actually.
Literally control their movement
or
real time relay their whatever they're seeing
back to their data source. All of it's
written here. This is the Rockefeller University. 2017.
Now of course, as always, they could just
be making it up for some objective.
But here, 2016,
a year before that, they're talking about the
same discussion though. Magnetoprotein
remotely controls brain and behavior.
And so that's what I was discussing in
this article.
And this is well this is 2,000 May
2023, and we're talking about, and the title
reads, the deadly lipid nanoparticle spike protein design
and the new modRNA
ferrit nanoparticle universal flu injection.
So all that means is they are literally
rolling out ferrit nanoparticle injections while over here
you have articles by The Guardian, by Rockefeller
University that say that's exactly how they can
use, or that's exactly what they can use
to do this.
That's all they need is that injection in
your body, and, ultimately, they can use outside
sources to have this effect.
Now, of course, they would never do that,
would they, guys?
Pearl clutching all day long. I would never
do exactly what they've already done a 1000000
times over that we can easily prove. Right?
That would never happen. Now I'm not saying
that it has.
But again, it's just terrifying how obvious this
is and why the question becomes, how have
they not with what they've done in so
many other examples?
Let me before I forget to save these
links, let me grab them for you real
quick. I'm always grabbing things I forget to
add in the beginning.
So, again, with the idea that in 2019
from DARPA and their direction, you know, but
you can debate I mean, even DARPA, don't
forget, as
this article goes into
Whitney wrote this for T Lab in, 2020.
Coronavirus gives the the a dangerous boost to
DARPA's darkest agenda.
I mean, and this this actually Whitney goes
into the n three program. Right? This is
actually where we were just talking about it
from. Right? This is the same quote right
there.
The point is that this is the
DARPA is in involved with the injection itself
as she highlights right here.
Alright? The the nano therapeutics and DARPA funded
gene vaccines, and how that became COVID 19
injections. And that all of this comes together.
So, again, the point being
that if we are literally watching this and
them telling you that if we need an
injection that can give you virus carrying
self assembly nanobots or biotech or whatever we're
talking or ferritin nanoparticles, whatever they wanna do.
Ultimately, the point is they could then use
that with outside effort to control influence. And
the it almost even more alarming to me
than controlling your motion, artificial memories of fear,
desire, and experience.
So keep that in your mind as we
go into what we're gonna talk about next.
But we're gonna play this clip first to
hear
directly from the state department,
the the James giard g, doctor Giordano. James
Giordano is directly connected to the government programs.
He's working with the state department and many
other military overlaps
for neuroscience,
which completely overlaps with nanotechnology
and everything we're talking about. And I've played
you many clips from him. This is just
one that inversionism has shared. And thank you
to Amanda for peace who was simply saying,
read my recent show here. Good overview of
some of the nanotech and neurotech, the psychopath
I've been working on.
We'll play you this clip. Shout out to
inversionism for continuing to highlight this stuff. And
I'll include some of the clips that he
shares and other tweets about, you know, other
things that you can watch if you wanna
take the time to watch these, which are,
you know, hours long. They're worth your time
though.
And my point is to consider
the idea of potentially
controlling or influencing or planting fake memories, experiences,
fears, desires in somebody's mind.
And these people want these are they'll tell
you this has been possible
far longer than you wanna admit.
And then ask what cay Cath Catherine Austin
Fitz is telling us that that's really going
on right now through your TV, through social
media, and ask whether that might be responsible
for, I don't know,
a high ranking military individual go doing some
kind of crazy act or any number of
other things or school shootings or things that
we should be willing to ask questions about
seeing as how it seems to, like, acknowledge
technologically
possible at this point. So first, James Giordano.
Moreover, you heard early about the idea of
nanoparticulate
matter that can be utilized in a weaponizable
way. And here too, we're looking very, very
strongly at what nanoparticulate matter can do to
the nervous system. Some ongoing studies with our
colleagues in the medical branches of NATO have
in fact shown that the use of nanoparticulate
matter in a scatter arrangement can be used
to incur what looks to be broad scale
epidemiological
stroke epidemics.
So what we're able to do here is
infiltrate the brain space with nanoparticulate matter that
aggregates in situ, on-site in the brain. And
there's one of 2 things. Either penetrates from
the vascular space,
gets in through the bloodstream,
gets in through the nose through the mucosa,
or infiltrates the vascular space and clogs it.
What is the result? What's called a nanoparticulate
stroke or a hemorrhagic diathesis, fancy word, for
it's a predisposition to individuals having brain bleeds.
Demonstrate it? Oh, absolutely.
Now think about this.
I wanna this is what's very important to
think about here is we're not even talking
about necessarily nanotechnology level. Like, he's just talking
about nanoparticulates.
For example, weirdly, like, people are pointing out
in this fog.
And the idea of being just a certain
level of particulate or certainly no. And and
maybe he's talking about the overlap with, like,
actual technology. But either way, very different than
what I'm getting into about smart dust in
the larger direction of actually influencing memory, which
he talks about. But simply the idea that
they already can do this
with just certain types of particulates.
Now, we have to, at that point, ask
ourselves with what we have just seen, even,
like, just even just over the last couple
year,
of what else they're responsible for. And maybe
not even through the White House. Maybe just
the
completely,
like, the CIA or unknown three letter agencies
that we don't even hear about that are
basically their own little country at this point.
They don't even, like, we have to realize
how far this has gotten out of control.
Nonetheless, whatever the reality of that is, the
point being that, like, we're looking at foreign
leaders or somebody that has a heart attack
or a stroke. We're like, we and they've
had the reality of a heart attack gun,
which by the way still gets dismissed by
the
screeching conspiracy theorist people that wanna call everything
a conspiracy even though almost all things they
call conspiracy theory are provable.
Like, they still pretend that fluoride your water
is a fake story or that rather than
if it's dangerous now, let's jump the narrative
or that geoengineering is fake because they you
know, even though they're doing programs of it,
you know, it's it's always the case.
But just can just this to me
is such an alarming reality because we know
what they're capable of. I mean, even they're
working with a genocidal state, like, is or
rather government like Israel that is testing on
things in Palestine,
in all this kind of stuff.
So when you see leaders collapse or, I
don't know,
massive things happening around the COVID 19 conversation
and they need, you know, things that people
falling over. I mean, who knows what was
used? Now all I'm trying to highlight is
the possibility and knowing that that the least
he's telling you that they're capable of this.
And then ask yourself whether or not you
think that that might be done to you
or might be tested on you.
Historically, the answer is yes. They would. We're
able to show animal models of same, and
the Italian group has done a fair amount
of work demonstrating
that nanoparticulate
matter can be highly disruptive, not only a
brain vascularity, but brain function. You may not
necessarily incur a stroke, which gonna begin to
disrupt the network properties of the brain. And
as a result, engage something more of a
long wars effect through the use of these
types of matters where you now begin to
influence the population in increasingly concentric circles of
expansion.
Now, guys, if you wanna have your mind
blown, like, if you haven't seen me already
go over this, like, watch the rest of
his content or past examples of us covering
this because it gets to he goes in
in in full confidence to the things that
in other ways you might go, I there's
no way that's true. Like, laugh out of
the conversation because even in our circles, and
it goes full on into it as if
we've been doing this for 40 years. Like,
crazy stuff. And I'm just kinda being hyperbolic,
like, more so that, you know, 10 year,
whatever. But talks about exactly what I'm highlighting
here, Using nanotech
to influence, to change memories, to even to,
obviously, to kill you or to influence action.
All of those things are things he has
talked about as real time,
real world aspects.
And it really has to wake us up
to where at least
I'm worried we might already be. Let's put
it that way. And I'll include both these
videos for you to watch.
So
keeping that in mind,
let's talk about this Cybertruck and and, you
know, both of, I guess, the the truck
as well as the
EV truck conversation.
Now I'm gonna play this just this clip
first because really the same kind of things
before. This is kind of what is the
general lie general narrative going around that seems
to be backed up by the evidence, but
it's just kind of the quick way to
say, here's what the most people are saying
before we get into the rest of it.
But think about as what right now already
seems to be the kind of generally accepted
reality that at first, of course, immigrants, jihad,
ISIS, you know, and many still going with
that direction because that's their shtick. But ultimately,
rapidly was shown to be 2 elements that
were connected to Fort Bragg. They both rented
from the same company. They both use EV
cars. You know, it's just everything about this
is becoming very clear
of all the evidence suggests that it is
some coordination to it. Now, again, to the
more of the the cut points about the
shooting where he was shot and so on.
But just ask yourself,
is it not possible that that what we
just were going over could have been why
this doesn't add up or why none of
the stories seem to add up? I mean,
we're not even talking about, like, long term
mentoring candidate kinda stuff, whatever you think. We're
talking about
somebody who has never been like, it's not
like the point is mentoring candidate is usually
associated with, like, a long term, like, MK
Ultra type thing, where it has been, like,
a long term program or they've been engineered
that way. The what he's talking about is
that you could be dumped with something in
your face, and within a certain mat short
matter of time, they could be able to
manipulate the way you see, think, feel, act.
That is what or or through noninvasive aspects
like we're talking about. Whether an injection or
as even Catherine goes to the level of
actual, like, programming, like, through
media. All these things are it's they're all
up in the air. But I think it's
obvious that we can consider how somebody, especially
in the military, who are you historically, the
most tested on might be an example of
that. So first, the overview.
These have uncovered a startling connection between these
two events.
The man responsible for the cyber truck explosion
outside Trump International Hotel
served at the same military base as the
New Orleans terrorist
according to a new report.
Law enforcement officers And they left out the
part that they're both connected to the same
Fort Bragg, by the way. Raided the home
of a 37 year old man identified as
Matthew Livelsberger.
The suspect served at the same base as
Shamsud Din Jabbar
who fatally ran down 15 people in a
rented car in New Orleans in the early
hours of New Year's Day.
The Tesla Cybertruck driver was the sole fatality
while 7 were injured.
Authorities largely credit Musk's hulking truck with preventing
further damage because it was able to contain
much of the explosion.
Charred fireworks, gas canisters, and camping fuel were
found in the bed of the truck. Now
I'm getting mixed reports on that. Like, apparently,
from what I can discern right now, that
seems to be the explosives,
which to me
does not make any sense. Like, that would
be some that would be designed. And by
the way, that's why I think you're seeing
all those weird cascading white things. I I
think I've got the explosion here somewhere, which
is it's weird. The explosion looks strange. It's
got all these weird, like, that but now
when you think of it overlap with fireworks,
that would actually make sense. But so that's
strange. Right? So that would tell me that
this wasn't an ex like, well, I almost
to that same point. And that's not even
who cares whether the Cybertruck is like, that
became a point for partisans. The truck is
good. No. The truck is bad. It's like,
guys, yours that's such a ridiculous deviation.
What who cares whether it's good or not
in this context? Good for him. Great truck.
Whatever. Who cares? The point though is that
if it was
fireworks and paint cans, well, then that doesn't
seem to add up. That it wasn't necessarily
some powerful thing that it was withholding. That's
not my point in that. But simply to
just say that, that does seem to add
interesting overlap to whether they claim that did
the thing it did or not. But to
me, it's more indicative of that doesn't seem
to be some big attack.
Right? It seems to be what would be
giving a better show, an illusion. And that
and and, you know, the way it looks,
which I you can read into it however
you think this lines up because I don't
think it's really defined right now. Because we'll
get into the point that where he was
shot in the head and
you that it's disputed whether that was him
doing it as he goes up or as
he hits or, you know, whatever it is
right before or that somebody killed him before
it happened. We'll go into that.
When authorities were finally able to put out
the fire,
law enforcement sources have since revealed the cars
used in both attacks were rented through Turo,
and they were both EVs,
prompting concerns they are linked.
Officers have also considered the driver may have
purposefully chosen to use a car owned by
Musk to send a message,
given Musk's newfound friendship with president-elect Donald Trump.
I pre I'm glad I I appreciate that
they added that because, you know, for you
you wonder whether it's gonna be sort of
like a partisan perspective. Like, that's interesting to
me. And and I think I the reason
I think that is because of what somebody
says right here. First of all, this is
the the quartering just simply saying cyber this
is one of the first thing that I
saw. Cybertruck just blew up in front of
Trump Tower. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
Right? Which is, you know, in indicating whatever
they think the direction is. You know, it's
typical. But
Loveless 2026,
interesting, says MAGA is sending a message to
Donald Trump.
And the message is drop Elon from the
team. Now there's no reason to think that's
that's just this one guy's opinion. But I
I all I'm pointing out is is interesting
to me that that is an opinion within
the MAGA circles.
I'm just yet again, highlighting this this very
clear breakdown. As much as they really try
to hide that from the mains which, you
know, what's interesting is you're getting a lot
of talk from the corporate media about some
of this stuff.
But don't you wouldn't you argue that you
would see a hell of a lot more
of it right now if it was really
the picture that we think that they're always
painting? You know, it's I think the ideas
I I don't know. I didn't go too
abstract on it. You know my opinion. I
don't think that I think the direction they're
going in is what the plan is. But
either way, it's interesting that this is coming
from these, you know,
Trump supporting accounts.
Now, I don't think that's what this necessarily
is, but who knows? It's certainly possible. But
it's that's interesting.
So here is what the,
what is it? The
Las Vegas police had to say about Matthew
Allen,
Littlesburger.
Now, remember, so both these people are from
Fort Bragg.
Right?
And rented from the same place,
rented EV cars,
and basically the similar time frames as well.
Now, this is where they report that this
guy
was shot in the head before this happened.
I'll let it speak for itself.
Now further complicating this
identification of this individual,
we also discovered through the coroner's office that
the individual
had sustained a gunshot wound to the head
prior to the detonation
of the vehicle.
Okay. So shot in the head prior to.
Now I guarantee, maybe already, but it usually
takes longer. If there's an autopsy done, which
they're I mean, depending on, I guess, what
happened with the explosion, which as as I
understand that is gonna make that very difficult.
Actually, I take that back. I would argue
that even if there was a body
that, you know, that that I think that
would make that probably impossible to be able
to tell because of the explosion. But my
point would be that
if there wasn't an autopsy done, if that
was an explosion, you'd be able to find
out the time of death comparable to the
actual incident. Right?
So I my point is they're I they're
not making clear if it's they probably don't
know. The point though is that it could
be that he that some that which which
is you're getting a lot of the conversation
of, which I think is being very readily
leaned into because it then changes the story
back to it still could be an ISIS
attack and an immigration focus as opposed to
a white man from Fort Bragg. You know
what I mean? Like, it it's just there's
very clear agendas to all this stuff. But
the point is he could have been shot
before. Somebody could have put him in there.
That's what that's what the kind of part
of this narrative is now. Or he could
have shot himself.
Like, why they would lean into one that
works for their narrative is obvious.
Right? But it's just as likely that he
shot himself and that, you know, whatever,
and then self drove the car into the
building. Because the argument is, well, they shot
and put it in and then self drove
the car to the building. Well, if that's
the argument, he could have just as easily
turned on self driving and then shot himself
as he was driving. Like, I don't know.
All that's possible as you know if you're
being objective.
But just nonetheless,
it's interesting by the way that you think
about the self driving car aspect of it
all. Right? And the idea that as as
Orwell pointed out to me, like, the alarming
aspect of how many cameras are on you
while you're in this car, which nobody seemed
to talk about. And so that's why they're
able to tell if you're aware or sleeping.
I just that's just why in the world
you would ever want that is absolutely crazy
to me. But let's get look. Sorry. I
I thought we're let me finish it. The
detonation
of the vehicle that the individual
had sustained a gunshot wound
to the head
prior to the detonation
of the vehicle.
What one of the handguns was found at
his feet inside of the of the vehicle.
Right. So, of course, if you want to
read this as you already know that he
was placed there, that becomes evidence that they
planted the gun, which is kinda what you
see. But at anybody honest would say, well,
he just as easily could have dropped the
gun after he shot himself or, you know,
whatever. It's dig in. The the makeup matters.
If it turns out the gun was, you
know,
some impossible place where he couldn't have dropped
it or maybe, you know, maybe where it
wouldn't have landed in the explosion or whatever,
that might change the conversation. But as of
right now, I think it's easy to see
that it's being the direction is being leaned
into by the partisan conversation because that better
aligns with how they can paint the story.
Doesn't mean it's false.
Important to point out. But I think that's
usually how this goes.
Now, next, you see the this is where
you're getting this kind of compilation.
So raw reporting says Matthew 37 identifies the
driver of the truck that exploded,
saying he had intelligence manager with special forces
experience.
And this person says, he was nothing more
than a corpse filling a seat. You know,
see how this works? Like, this guy now
knows. Right? Even though you don't. You don't
you know what? It's just an opinion. Probably
killed on some clandestine spook mission, which by
the way
is certainly possible.
Yeah. And like like I point down in
the past, like, this is what they like,
the plane the weird kind of consecutive air,
crashes and and helicopter crashes all right after
that bombing and they said everyone got traumatic
brain injuries when, like so a 100 brain
injuries but no one died. I just again,
I just don't well, I think that they
always do things like this and they just
kinda cover these things up. That's my opinion
about that. But my point is that if
I think that, then obviously, I wouldn't shy
away from the idea that this could be
done. But, you know, of course, from the
partisan side, this is done,
you know, by Biden or by the democrats.
I just don't
it just doesn't line up with any logical
outline as already right now, they seem to
be, despite all the narratives,
clearly going, let's work together or let's make
this peaceful. Like, I'm I'm I'm not saying
I believe that. But that's what's being presented
on the surface.
If something happens, we'll talk about it. But
I think the narrative about how they're secretly
planning to disrupt the inauguration, I just think
we're being played into some kind of action
that gets you to react a certain way.
Not to say that's not possible.
But it's saying and and, and the alphabet
boys thought it would be a riot to
put the body in the Cybertruck,
which is strange. Right? Because so now is
all the intelligence on the side of the
democrats or is the argument that I mean,
well, I thought the whole point before was
that Trump was more in line with a
lot of I mean, it's just interesting because
you you play it a lot of different
ways.
Either way,
if you wanna pretend that a person or
Elon the people that are in his circle
that are so aggressively
tapped into that same structure, but yet they're
gonna go out there. Thought it would be
fun to use the car of a guy
who literally works with them and is rolling
out their agendas. I mean, it just doesn't
line up when you think about at least
in my opinion.
And then remote detonated is what they say.
Now, this said this guy simply goes, well,
the simplest explanation to me is that the
batteries caught fire.
And you would you look at that? It
says, Tesla's quietly replacing every single Cybertruck battery
because, you know, a manufacturing defect increases risk
of fires.
Which, you know, he highlights the the they're
putting this out on the,
the kind of public reports. And it is
saying that.
So I think that's a valid point. Could
just be timing, could just be because, well,
here's a good opportunity to do it. But
seeing that timing,
very worth it's very you think about like
this. We've already seen this happen within the
Trump, Musk administration,
which is that they something like this happens
where it looks bad for them.
And instead of
saying, well, my truck just blew up and
it makes my truck look bad. You go,
it was an attack by the democrats, and
it's just very easy. Everyone lurches into that
and looks for any symbol. I'm not saying
that's what happened, but you'll know that's a
that is something that they've is easy because
it would be grabbed onto. Now I already
think there's more to the story clearly,
but it's interesting to think about how that
can work. Now, see, that's that's the kind
of stuff that always bothers some people.
My opinion is clear. I made it I've
laid it out. But it doesn't it shouldn't
stop you from considering
other perspectives.
Even just for thought experiments, that is what
helps you stay healthy and sane and not
fall into partisans' manipulations.
Now, Hotspot points out another element to this
is interesting. The uncle of the cyber truck
driver, bomber, Matthew Littlesberger,
says he had the skills to, quote, obliterate
half the building if he wanted to, but
was confused by the attack because he, quote,
loved Trump.
So, I mean, you could that adds a
a a
another element of that doesn't add up, which
might add more cream to the idea that
he was used like the guy was saying.
Or maybe he felt betrayed by Trump because
of what's been going on. You know, who
knows? I mean, we can always add into
it, but we shouldn't do that. Consider it,
but stay with what we can prove. He
loved Trump, he says, and he was always
a very, very patriotic soldier, a patriotic American.
It's one of the reasons he was in
special forces for so many years, which to
me, that just doesn't make sense then. Right?
If we've which I I don't know the
uncle, but you'd expect an uncle doesn't have.
It's easier to take a face value than
an average random person on the street. But
even then, still question it. Maybe he hates
him, you know, who knows? But either way,
that's interesting because that does make it make
it makes it a little bit more suspicious.
Unless something had rapidly changed, which kinda makes
sense to me with what's been going on.
I don't see him doing this. And I
said, some of it doesn't make sense when
he had the skills and ability to make
something more. Right? So it's filled with fireworks
and paint cans, and he had the ability
to do something big. That makes sense to
me. That doesn't light up.
He would it says, that's more efficient. And
he says he wouldn't have been able to
make more sophisticated explosives or he would have
been than using propane tanks and campaign camping
fuel or whatever it was back there. That's
a very good point.
Bennie Johnson simply going, here's what we know
on this is today,
about Matthew in particular. 37 year old army
veteran, 19 years of service in special forces
and intelligence. I think that's important.
Found deceased inside the Tesla Cybertruck he rented,
reportedly packed with fireworks and or bombs to
cause the blast.
Graduated summa cum laude from, Norwich University with
a degree in communications. Lived in Colorado Springs
where the FBI has executed a search warrant
for his home, reportedly served at the same
military base as,
Shamsoodin
Jabbar, the New Orleans attacker,
which as I understand it, despite his name
and different skin color as an American, born
in America, like, you know, so it's immediately
was pounced on by the certain people in
the certain circles despite the fact that that
doesn't seem to line up other than the
look. We'll show you in a second.
But what's interesting overall,
you know, certain things stand out, you know,
intelligence,
degree in communications. Like, I get this.
It'd be it no. It has hallmarks of
what what kind of person might be tapped
for something more than just military.
Special forces, but who knows?
The fact that he was used as a
patsy, if that's the case, wouldn't that make
that wouldn't line up that much.
But James Lee did a good job on
this. He says the and this is just
another side point. But simply asking with all
that we know
about what the FBI has done in the
past, is it not worth considering that this
also could have been a manufactured event? And
and by the way, maybe that went awry.
Maybe it was meant to be a different
thing and he something happened and he could
you know, it wasn't the way it was
supposed to go. Either way, I'm glad he
made this point because it's a it's a
contentious time to make this point, but it's
time to make it because it does matter.
New York Times is reporting that the suspect
who plowed through crowds in New Orleans today,
killing at least 15 people, was carrying an
ISIS flag and that the international terrorist group
may have played a role in the attack.
Reuters is reporting that this man, the suspect,
Shamsud din Jabbar,
quote, may have had help. Oh, what kind
of help could we be talking about? Could
it have been an elaborately orchestrated FBI sting
where the FBI provided all the necessary tools,
the weapons, the bomb, maybe some money? Could
it have been an entrapment operation gone wrong?
The FBI would never prey on vulnerable people
by luring them into fake terror plots.
Now for the podcast, he's doing the whole
TikTok thing and referencing to articles while he
says that. So for the podcast, I recommend
you watch the video for that point. But
if you aren't, he's just imagine he's pointing
you an article that makes the opposite point.
Right? They would never do the thing I'm
pointing to is what is what he's doing.
No way could undercover FBI agents help an
autistic teen plan a trip to join ISIS.
The US government would never spend $500,000,000
creating fake Al Qaeda propaganda videos. Would the
FBI have created an actual terrorist?
I'm obviously kinda half joking a little bit,
but the fact that I can semi legitimately
ask these questions with receipts
tells you everything that's wrong with the current
state of the FBI
and the US government.
Well said.
Here oh, it's, I'm gonna scroll down.
This is an article that was very popular
on this platform. It was actually originally for
the Free Thought Project.
Matt Ageris wrote it. If parents catch FBI
in plot to force mentally ill son to
be a right wing terrorist.
And just so it's clear, you know me.
I'm not partisan. I'm not fighting for one
side or the other. I don't slant things
to make it sound more better for this
is exactly what it sounds like. Like, exactly.
This kid was, this kid was mentally handicapped.
He was a slow kid to live with
his parents. They literally
read it. I mean, I I I always
wanna go into it because it's just it's
very transparent. The guy the kid has schizophrenia.
He wasn't able to do anything on his
own. He didn't have a house. He didn't
have a car. He, like, lived through his
parents. They tapped this kid
and and over the process of a very
long period of time, tried to coerce him
into doing tireless acts. The parents caught it.
And and they it's just and they still
tried to it's the same thing every time.
They still tried to go after the element
even though they're the ones providing everything. Here's
money. Here's a car. Here's where you should
go. We think you should do it. We'll
be your friend if you do it. Like,
that's not this kid is so desperate for
a friend. He finally thinks he found someone
that is his friend, which is the story.
That he's willing to go I mean, the
point is that what seems to, from my
opinion, is that he's willing to even pretend
to like these crazy things. Because ultimately, he
says he he pushes back. And that's when
they still they try that becomes very transparent.
But the kid just goes, yeah. Yeah. You
know, let's I just I like that you're
talking to me. I like that I have
somebody I can be you know? And and
they lean into it.
The point is, imagine if this kid had
blown himself up. We would never know. He
would always be that one kid. They never
they didn't you know, I knew him. He
was a nice kid. He didn't see I
never thought he would do something like that.
How many times we heard that?
That's not to say that all of them
are like that, guys, but just recognize what
James was highlighting right there. This is a
constant reality. The New York Times has written
an entire article way a while ago about
how the vast majority of what the FBI
breaks down are plots they have a hand
in manufacturing themselves.
It it The Intercept did a great article
about it as well. It's all very, very
clear that this is at least possible
to what we're talking about today.
Worth considering.
Now, Red just points out the obvious, you
know, kind of overlapping point that we have
2 American veterans.
Then he's saying are radicalized, it's kinda like
that's the narrative. Right? 2 American veterans are
radicalized to commit acts of terror
on the same day.
Got vehicles from the same company,
both served at the same military base, Fort
Bragg.
The same military base, he's he's saying that
Ryan Ruth
visited over a 100 times before he tried
to, quote, assassinate Trump.
So interesting to me because
I don't believe I the whole Ryan Ruth
thing
is ridiculous to me.
Like, the whole thing. Like, the the
over of more than a football field away
through trees at a public golf place where
they somehow were able to see a gun,
open fire first, by the way, which is
exactly the opposite of what we were told
at the first example that they weren't allowed
to do that because
I just I just don't buy it. I
think something about that or all of it
for that matter seems so wildly orchestrated, manipulated.
And then, by the way, there was, like,
2 other examples after that. When, oh, somebody
was at a thing and dropped a gun
and then, like, the Joneses of the world
were, like, assassination number 4s.
I don't I think all of it is
being very weirdly orchestrated. My point though, either
even whatever you think about Ryan Ruth and
what happened there, it is a real person,
a real story, and there was a lot
of weird connections to what he was and
military stuff. Weird, weird stuff. To me, it
felt very orchestrated. Right? So, again, almost as
to this point that this guy apparently visited
that place over a 100 times and it's
where these 2 both come from using the
same company and the same day. I mean,
come on. There's only so much that you
can see without just being, like,
it's just an objective reality. There's something connected
here. Right?
Now this is the the picture they're using
for him. Obviously, those versions they'll show you
that don't make him look like he's from
some Middle East area. Right? It's I think
there's basic efforts being done here.
Power points out. So we're to believe
the Vegas Cybertruck suspect's body was burnt beyond
recognition
to the point that they couldn't remove it
from the car,
and half of this Desert Eagle melted.
That's the picture you're seeing right here. Yet,
somehow, his ID came out barely singed enough
to be able to identify who he is.
Where have we seen that before?
Well, here's Jason Basler for the comic relief.
He goes, hi. I'm the FBI. You remember
me from such cover ups as, oops, Epstein's
jail cell camera malfunctioned, and 911 hijackers passport
found in the rubble. Well, get ready for
our latest unbelievable narrative exploding Tesla driver's ID
recovered at the scene. It's just like clockwork.
Well, well, of course, possible. I too think
that is pretty unlikely.
Candace Owens simply adds to it saying, the
New Orleans terrorist and the guy who blew
up the Tesla truck both had served at
the same army base.
Now do do you not pick up on
the same thing? I find that really, really
telling. But she says, given what we know
about the history of sadistic government programs in
our military,
this brings forth more questions than answers. Now
that is very important.
All she's saying is we at least should
consider
that this might be yet another example of
a sadistic government program being run by our
military. Yes.
Whether that's through other elements or just that
it's always obviously, something we should not dismiss.
But the way she says it first, the
New Orleans terrorist
okay. So the the brown guy
and the guy who blew up the Tesla
truck. Okay. So the other terrorist. Right? So
if we don't know for sure what's going
on here, it's very telling that you slant
one one way and one the other when
yet we don't know with a full picture
here. Like, that's, I think, only because whether
he's a white guy that is a military
Christian or whatever the narrative is
versus somebody who is another military entity but
just a different gun. The point is that
the argument about the might the,
was it I'm blanking on the first Michael,
the you know, the white guy. Is that
now it's being kind of it might be,
but it's kinda being patched up that he
was
used. Right? They planted him and so on.
Maybe that's why that's the way it's framed.
But either way, both of them are up
in the air. I personally find that to
be very telling. And I don't think for
her it's about racism. I think it's about
a, like, there seems to be this weird
kind of Christian divide for a lot of
these people that it seem to be, like,
one more I'm a Christian, but I don't
I just I think that's crazy. I think
at the end of the day,
I respect people's religions and their choices as
much as anything else. I think it's wild.
But anyway, this person says the terror attacks
were carried out by the by people who
sympathize
with the folks
who you think are the good guys in
the Middle East.
I mean, because she's literally this guy's literally
trying to tell you
that he thinks that it was,
in in one case, just anybody in the
Middle East or, I guess, he's simply saying
the Palestinians.
Really? I mean, this is my point about
how this partisan narrative goes. Despite all the
evidence we have, even telling you back to
Fort Bragg, this guy is literally suggesting that
it's the people she's like, while she's calling
out Israel,
which doesn't even necessarily mean she supports everybody
else, which is kind of his in for
even though she's been clearly supporting them. My
point is that it's clear that she's just
highlighting what Israel's doing.
And he simply says that the people that
you're supporting.
Because of an ISIS flag, we'll get into
that next. I mean, it's just lazy the
amount of the how much information is out
there that people choose to ignore because it's
what my I I it's immigrants.
Right? It's because it's legal immigration. It's because
it's the the people invading Israel. Like, whatever
lazy narrative you you you've kind of
they,
what's the word I'm looking for? I get
gleaned in a way, but it's not exactly
right. But, you know, just kinda scooped up
from what you glanced at instead of actually
looking into the information or realizing that just
does not line up. And this person says,
very Long Island Republican take right there. Jesse
would be proud.
I'm not even sure what that means. Jesse
who? But it is funny. But so Clint
Russell points out something that Kennedy had to
say here. And I you know, I think
I'm just gonna just for we're already past
3. I don't wanna be this long. He's
simply saying, sounds like senator Kennedy believes it
was an inside job. That's the general point.
Whitney simply says, well, Patel and Gabbard oh,
well, says, sounds like it's an inside job.
That Kennedy thinks that. And he goes, reminder,
senate con for confirmation hearings begin next week.
Cash and Tulsi want to reform the intel
agencies.
Timing is highly suspect, to put it mildly.
Well, I agree with the general timing of
it all, but it doesn't surprise me that
Clint would air, you know, kinda be like
the the Trump team,
good, and they're trying to stop that. And,
you know, that I don't believe for a
second that that's the reality. And that's she
says Patel and Gabbard are also overt Zionists
who will happily blame Al Qaeda
for whatever without noting that Al Qaeda is
obviously a US government creation handled by US
intelligence agencies.
Exactly what we keep saying. Alright? That that
is the I think a provable reality at
this point.
It's like the it's like knowing the injections
are the the COVID 19 inject injections, excuse
me, I got hiccups,
are killing people
despite people screaming the other, you know that's
the case. The evidence is true is showing
you that.
We need to stop mincing words around this.
We need to stop pretending we can't say
ISIS, Al Qaeda before it are
proxies of the US and Israeli
intelligence apparatus. It is is the whether it's
Ben Swann's, I always point these out, documentary,
or James Corbett's 3 part documentary around the
creation of Al Qaeda, and it is
nailed to the wall.
It's just it's just that simple. I mean,
here, I'll grab it again. I mean, a
point is that I could the basics are
easy to go through, but I've already gone
over the most of it, the reality of
the clear ties, the funding, the operation. Whether
it's like things like Azov Movement, right, to
go back to 1938, I think.
It's just it's it's transparent. Like, the Mujahideen,
the example in Afghanistan. Like, these are public
realities, guys. And from there, you can prove
how it continues in the same way or
the the Wahhabist Saudi Arabian element that very
clearly has been used. I mean, that's where
all this stems from. So the point is
I will show you or include
the j this is our watch along of
it, but the a secret history of Al
Qaeda
series from James Corbett,
which if you wanna just skip to just
the documentaries about the watch along, the links
are in there as well. That that, in
my opinion, are just you if you watch
this, you will not walk away from it
thinking anything other than that. Not because you
just follow along, but because everything he proves
to you in that is linked to source
material from the government, from plenty of other
things that prove these things to you.
So before we get into the finishing part
of the ISIS flag, which I think is
very relevant,
champagne Josh, champagne Joshy or or Josh Walcos
says something very important.
So here's DC Drano
saying, remember,
when former CIA agent TPA Sarah says, Al
Qaeda and ISIS were planning coordinated multi city
attacks in 2025
and how they have over a 1000 soldiers
already in the United States,
Look. She was looks like she was right.
While Biden's FBI was focused on peaceful January
6th protesters, see how this works, Al Qaeda
and ISIS were plotting.
Now they've started unleashing hell on America.
We make the obvious points, we're gonna go
into the next segment here to end, is
how obviously you can prove that that is
exactly what was going on
in Syria, in all sorts of other elements
during Trump's administration,
in Idlib, during Trump's administration. It's what they
it it's not just Trump. I'm just saying
that because the case that it seems to
be focused on everything against Trump.
It's all of them. It's Biden. It's Trump.
It's Obama. Guys, they are aware of what
this is. They have used these things. They've
used them in Syria. They've used them in
the Sudan. They've used them everywhere you're talking
about. We're now watching them used in Syria.
They're jumping these groups around. They've used them
in the Ukraine. I'll make these points next.
ISIS and Al Qaeda are a US Israeli
proxy. It's what it is.
And I mean, Julian Assange has called this
out. Plenty of people that have clear clout
to what they have to say, which you
should still bet for yourself, have been clear
about this over the years.
And so DC Draino is simply going, see,
CIA told us, and now it's here. Oh,
so the government said. Funny how the outsiders
behind the deep state are listening to what
the deep state tells you what's going on.
Right?
Josh says, I'd like to remind everyone who
is listening to the, quote, former CIA agents
telling us that we have been infiltrated by
Al Qaeda. That firstly,
there are no former CIA agents. And secondly,
the CIA, along with other western intelligence agencies,
created,
trained, funded, and armed Al Qaeda, which is
just one name for them. They have been
doing it since at least 19 fifties, and
now you are supposed to ignore these historical
facts and jump on the new patriotic bandwagon?
The infiltration is a deliberate black op designed
to destabilize the country, take away rights, and
control domestic and foreign policy indefinitely.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
It's exactly what we're talking about. Like, all
of this, guys,
is 5th generation warfare. We're watching this play
out in front of us, and it all
comes together. And it one of the final
aspects that or final, maybe not, but just
one of the main aspects is the political
destabilization. Getting the causing this this un
this this chaos. This point of where you
don't know what's going you don't even trust
your own party anymore. That's part of this.
But what he's highlighting in this very clear
point
is and this goes this is part of
that exact category, but this goes back a
long way.
This is what they have always been doing.
Funding the most radical elements of what they
claim they're fighting for many different agendas.
Now now before we go to the, overlap
the last part in regard to the other
discussion,
Shamsu Din Jabbar
is and he writes the New Orleans attacker.
His LinkedIn profile listed at least 9 jobs
within the US military.
Listed as current job at the time of
the profile's deletion, which by the way is
interestingly deleted so fast, was, quote, information technology
team chief
at US Army Reserve.
I find that also very interesting.
Now here is what the New York Post
wrote.
1st,
now this is from the 1st January.
New Orleans terror attack live updates.
FBI hunts terror cell in New Orleans, which
is interesting because what do you mean they
hunt the terror cell? Well, it turned out
not to be a terror cell, at least
what we're being told to try to be
an individual.
So what are you talking about? What cell
were they hunting? Or is this just more
New York Post pro Israel propaganda they continue
to push out? But it says they're hunting
the terror cell
as 3 men, one woman seen planting IEDs
around the city,
which by the way is apparently very rapidly
gone out of the conversation, which
to be clear,
especially with the New York Post who, like,
really, in my opinion, has been very, very,
very bad
after, you know, in the pro Israel propagandasphere.
But my point is that just like a
lot of past examples,
2 1 or 2 things can happen here.
1, which is where you have these narratives
that very they kinda whether it's about partisan
stuff or somebody was wrong or a misinterpreted
thing where you get these things that come
up. I saw 3 people. I saw a
guy in a military uniform, you know, that
that populates the early stages, but then very
quickly be shown to be either misinterpreted, wrong,
lies.
You know, that's one side of it where
it could be that way, or it could
be that that was the real story,
and then it gets rapidly hidden because of
an agenda. Both of those things are possible.
We've seen both of them. 911 is clear
examples. We've seen a lot of these different
overlaps. So my point is early on,
just because they post it, which is already
being shown by partisan accounts that see they're
already hiding it kind of thing. We don't
necessarily know that yet.
Could could just be that they were wrong
and they were the fog of breaking news
is the corporate media loves to call it,
which just means they rushed and didn't check
their facts.
Or didn't have the the ability to check
them and they rushed and put it out
anyway. All that's what happens. So interestingly enough
though, 3:11 PM, January 1st, that's what they're
reporting. So it's worth considering both sides of
that.
Now, they're saying acted alone.
So in same point. Right? So now and
it's not just maybe. Now they're saying he
acted alone, the FBI believes.
Which, again, when you're seeing all the moving
parts, it does start to feel a little
bit fishy, right, about the idea of the
FBI, what they might be involved in, how
they work before,
and inconsistent reports.
But as well as the other aspects of
this, the overlapping coincidence, if you wanna call
it that, the timing of it.
I just I don't see how there's not
more to the story. Let's put it that
way.
Now just to quickly go through this,
I found this interesting.
Just on that same note I was making.
Here is the
where was that? Right here.
I just kinda filmed it so I could
just kinda scroll through it. Here is
just looking at New Orleans terror kind of
looking for that post, and I I this
is
where is it? There we go.
I'm gonna read you some of the headlines
on their feed today. Now this is older.
I did this this was, maybe
4 hours ago.
And it says, New York City anti Israel
protesters
call for intifada revolution on the same day
as New Orleans' terror attacks. See how this
works?
Same old stupid game, and they give an
image of this one woman screaming in the
air. They want you to buy they they
are playing into your biases. They want you
to be like, terrorist because it's a a
woman with a Palestinian garb screaming into the
air. No. Guys, this is the same thing
that happens in every single one of these
these pro Palestinian
protests.
And and they say intifada revolution all the
time. All that mean basically, they're saying revolution
revolution. That's all that means.
And the reason they say intifada revolution is
because there's I've later learned there's a chant
that kinda rhymes with that. The point, because
I first kinda made fun of it, like,
I thought it was just redundant because it
is. But that's what that means. Intifada just
means revolution, resistance. That's all it means. You
could argue it means terrorism through your lens,
but that means you could argue revolution means
it in the same way.
It's like saying the American Revolution was terrorism
because you were on the British side. That's
all that means. Or the bottom line, though,
is there are people that might use the
word revolution and might be picturing terrorism.
That's always possible. In this case, it is
the same overlapping subjective narrative because they they
are playing on your biases against anybody who
is not who is brown, who comes from
the Middle East. And it's it's disgusting, and
it's constant. It's everywhere. I don't think it's
the majority.
My point though is that that's what you
get from these platforms. They're trying to drum
up this kind of reaction.
The next one says, inside terror, not all
of them are something. I just wanna point
about inside terrorist,
Shamsu Din Jabbar's home
in Houston. So this one was interesting for
another reason.
Think about this. So this is on
this was today.
So look at this, guys. It how you
ever how many times in the past? There
are a few of them
where a group like the New York Post
or other platforms I mean, usually, it's like
I I I take it back. It's a
a mainstream platform
that gets an insight to the home
of somebody who's, like, in the process of
being investigated.
Like, the you know what it reminds me
of?
Interestingly enough hold on. Was that even the
new was that hold on. Let me check
something real quick.
Yeah. That's interesting. I think it might have
also been New Orleans.
Hold on. This might be interesting. Now, if
you remember I don't know. I've I might
be wrong. One of the past events that
we've covered.
Damn it, I won't be able to find
it. Is the No, no, I remember. It's
not in our It's Orlando. That's what it
was.
Just since I brought it up, I'll I'll
grab it real quick. I'm pretty sure that's
what it was.
Another example of this exact yeah, right here.
This is this is this is actually perfectly
this article is exactly bright for this discussion
today because it references
the FBI. It's we went very deep into
that conversation then. Highlight the Intercepts article about
how the FBI may remember this about the
Pulse shooting? Let me see if I don't
think I have it on screen for you
guys.
Hold on.
There you go.
Orlando shooter's true motive finally revealed, but why
did the FBI try to hide it? Was
the was the title of the show. This
was alright. Was this oh, no. It was
an article. We have this with an article
at the time
written by Kerry Wedler.
And interestingly, as you remember, 2 things. The
idea that this dry I think it was
his passport was just, like, randomly sitting on
the counter. I was like, oh my god.
How coincidental?
But overall, that it was one of these
manufactured conversations. Right? The idea that
every element of what we're talking about was
very similar to this one. Right? But you're
not gonna get into it all. And even
the Muslim aspect, the shooter, the whole thing.
But what what's interesting though is the home
is remember, we saw the same thing where
they had this weird video
even while cops were investigating, where they were,
like, looking through the room and, like, moving
things on the counter. And my point was,
like, there's no way in hell that that
would be allowed if this was an ongoing
investigation.
I I think that's very interesting. I think
it's the same thing I'm seeing in this
one.
Let me save this real quick for you.
See, I even have a save under my
category of FBI creates terrorism.
But so back to this point.
Right? So you have them looking through this
guy's home. Like, as this is being investigated,
I just do not buy that.
You know how often we get told that
ongoing investigation, we can't even comment, but you're
gonna let the New York Post go through
and take video of the room that shows
things that may later be relevant? Come on.
To me, that is one of the major
points that screams this is something that's being
done. Like, like, this is a coordinated effort.
But which means your government is involved. Now
I'm not saying I'm stats what I'm saying
is absolute.
I I would say right now, it's still
up in the air. But to me, that
is what that indicates very clearly as one
of the like, that's where that points to
me. Now the next one says, Trump says
US is laughing stock after New Orleans terror
attack. Tesla's cyber truck explosion.
Know, they're always just trying to lean into
this for their own political benefit in every
way. Like, somehow, that's Biden's fault that it
happened, you know, because they x, y, and
z. Despite the fact that it could've obviously
happened the exact same way in Trump's administration,
as well as the fact that many conservatives
are saying it was done to make a
message to him. That's important to think about.
Next one says, the FBI confirms terror suspect
that the the, for the podcast, the one
in New Orleans, the, Shahsum,
Shamsu Din Jabbar, they say they confirmed he
was flying an ISIS flag from his truck.
I think there's only a couple more I
want to show. Next one says,
New Orleans attacker,
live update. Oh, and they're showing 1 of
the purse people that he killed.
Last one says, New Orleans terror suspect veteran
status may have contributed to his extremism.
Study says
I guess, it's ridiculous to me. The idea
that they're just simply saying because you're in
the military, that's why you might be turned
like I mean, well, I would I shouldn't
say ridiculous. I mean, it's just as possible
or has as much backing to it as
saying
people that are being flood the the country
being flooded with antidepressants and other psychological manipulation
drugs are causing or adding to this problem.
Right? I would actually say that's a very
valid point on top of the fact that
the military side of it or in addition
or rather, that in itself is a point
that's good or valid. Secondarily, the point about
the military aspect,
you can simply highlight the fact that being,
you know,
driven to do things that that later you
have nightmares about, which is not good for
anybody, whether that's just normal kinetic violence or
horrible things you're ordered to do as we
found out from Iraq, which are just horrible
and disgusting and not even worth bringing up.
Like, the worst things you could possibly imagine,
which have been brought out in court rooms
court courts of law being ordered by their
superiors to do the things you're seeing done
in Israel today or in Palestine rather.
My point though
is it's obvious to see how those things
could drive somebody to be, you know, to
break, to snap, to react, to respond to
somebody they feel responsible, whatever you wanna call
it. But overall,
I get the sense that that's meant to
say, like, military bad or rather that it's
like the the
the angle of the politics.
Now I'm not just based on the I'm
just giving you my thoughts and the the
overarching points here.
Yeah. I think that was it.
Okay. So let's
one last point. Oh, the one last point
here, and then we're gonna finish with the
Isis flag overlap, and, obviously, you know where
that goes.
I thought this was relevant. You can decide
for yourself. It's a completely subjective point. And,
obviously, the argument can always be made that
this guy's doing this because he has an
interest in in hiding the fact that a
Muslim was involved. But but if you're gonna
make that argument without any evidence other than
the subjective
over you know, the overview,
then you damn well better make that argument
when every Zionist speaks up about a Zionist
attack. But we know that doesn't happen. Okay?
So he says, I'm from HOU,
and I have been I've been active in
the Muslim community for years.
Neither I
nor anyone I know
has seen or heard of this man, which
doesn't mean that they maybe they just didn't
know him. Somehow, he's around, you know, their
circles. But he says, DWI in 2020, but
a religious Muslim? Now that is a good
point.
10 years US military, psyop? Why does ISIS
only show up around major political events
or to justify policy decisions?
Obviously, good points. Now I just think it's
worth worthy of pointing out this guy is
claiming and he he seems to be
writer, commentator.
We're gonna read that. Something else is reading,
like, seems to be prominent in the community
and so on. The point is ultimately that
he's claiming that I haven't seen him, which
doesn't have to prove anything. But I think
it's valid to to point that out.
And then somebody adds to it, says, and
this. This is the this is the same
guy. That's him right there. So
interesting how the images you've been seeing give
you a very clear feeling about the person
by design. That's what they want from it,
I would argue. Well, here's a not too
old video of him talking about his job.
Worthy of, you know, just can just take
a look at this and see if it
changes your your perspective at all.
Good evening. I'm Chamsuddin Jabbour, property manager with
Blue Metal Properties and team lead at the
Midas Group at Core Realty. I just wanna
say hello and let you know a little
bit about me. So I'm born and raised
in Beaumont, Texas, and now live in Houston.
And, I've been here all my life,
with the exception of traveling for the military
where I spent 10 years as a human
resources specialist and IT specialist, where I learned
the meaning of great service and what it
means to be responsive
and take everything seriously, dotting i's and crossing
t's to make sure that things go off
without a hitch. So I've taken those skills
and applied them to my, career as a
real estate agent where I feel like what
really sets me apart from other agents is
my ability to be able to 1, be
a fierce negotiator.
So not only do I
brilliantly market your property to make sure it
gets sold as quickly as possible, or gets
leased as quickly as possible, but I'm also
going to take every ounce of energy and
putting it into negotiating for you and for
your property to get the best deal that
you can possibly get for it. So once
we get to the closing table, all the
eyes are gonna be You get the point.
Now, again, just because somebody carries out an
act like that doesn't mean they can't seem
rational. Right? I mean, I've seen examples of
that. But nonetheless,
it it does add more context. Like, it
doesn't seem like somebody who's
crazy extreme.
Right? But that, again, doesn't have to mean
that it's not behind there. You just can't
see it. But to me, it just it
just kinda stands out as a little bit
contrary to way this is being presented. And
the people that are trying to make this
about one very clear vein, immigration, ISIS attacks,
jihad, coming you know, they're fighting Israel and
it's the same thing. Like, that's where this
is go is for a lot of this
conversation.
It doesn't make much sense when you realize
that the guy is, you know, not what
they present him as. At least in the,
you know, the the the way they're trying
to you know, like, for example, if if
all you see is that,
that's what they're putting out
versus
the way he looks here. All the And
the way you can hear him speak here,
and the fact that he's talking about his
service and his you know, it it just
it changes the picture a little bit.
Not that doesn't mean it's still couldn't be
just as capable. But does that line up
with what you would see as an extremist
that would join ISIS and carry out a
terrorist attack? Like, it just doesn't make much
sense. But sometimes that's the way it is.
But keep going back to the other point.
Think about somebody like this who play is
is a very obvious candidate for, I don't
know, if it was possible, if you think
it's possible, using neuroscience and neuroweapons to create
a guy that could be used as a
scapegoat.
Worth considering. Right?
So right now, you do have a very
clear effort. And so even this is even
even, an image from that's from the d
the, DUI.
Is that you have a clear effort here
of trying to paint this as the terrorist
attack.
And the reason is because apparently, as you
I thought there was the the image right
there.
Where was it?
Thought I really not grabbed the image. I
thought it well, it's it's irrelevant. Oh, I
do have one where it's laying on the
ground. But, ultimately, the point is that, yeah,
on the back of the on the truck,
it was driven, the EV the EV truck,
you had a flag that was wrapped. And
at first, I didn't even think it was
a flag by the way it looked. So,
I mean, again, I'll even say right now
that after it was laid on the ground,
to me, it doesn't look like the same
flag. But that just could be like, my
point is that the flag on the ground
looks like a pretty thin black flag. The
way it was wrapped up, it looked almost
like a a thicker material.
But as always, that could just be the
sun or the camera angle or whatever else.
I just wanna point out the first impression
I had.
So this is insider paper saying, breaking. The
suspect in New Orleans attack identified as 42
year old Shamsu Din Jabbar. The source said
he was carrying an ISIS flag in the
truck. What's the source? I you know? And
by the way, if it was on the
back of the truck, then it's not the
same as being carried in the truck.
But these are small, maybe just word differences,
but it does matter. These are all important
things to consider on how this ended up
developing. I simply said, if true,
same as those in Syria
and Ukraine, backed by the US and Israel.
Right?
We'll show you. I mean, it's it's not
that's not debatable. It's obvious that they're backed
by Israel and United States, and that they're
all sporting public examples of ISIS flags.
In fact, let me grab that really quickly.
I wanna show the examples from Ukraine. I
believe I've got it somewhere in here.
Maybe not.
I swear I grabbed that. I guess not.
I I I guarantee you, I could just
type in ISIS flag Ukraine. It would probably
pop up immediately.
Let me see if I grab anything else
I wanna use.
Perfect. We'll use a couple of these.
Forgot about these videos.
There's so much content back here. It's wild.
Oh, I think that is the one. Perfect.
You'll see in a second.
Alright. That's enough. Alright. So
Oh, of course, it won't let me share
it. Not even gonna get into that today.
Alright. So
the point is, clearly they're saying get a
flag, and my point is, well, let's look
elsewhere where we're seeing those flags. Now paper
Einstein paper goes on the second today to
say,
old citing CNN and their sources,
the New or the New Orleans attacker reportedly
made videos,
which I nobody seems to be able to
find or see, discussing his plan his plans
to murder his family
after his recent divorce, but then later indicated
that he had had dreams
telling him to change his mind and join
ISIS instead.
Because, yeah, that really makes sense.
It certainly sounds logical and and lined and
seems to represent the guy we just saw
in that video. Right?
Certainly could. I think it's possible. But to
me, that sounds like something pretty weird happened.
Something that jarringly just dislodged this man from
his life.
I'm not trying to make the case for
what I am considering as the possibility.
What I'm saying is that is what that
shows. Now you can think about
neuro manipulation or you could think about antidepressants
or some kind of drug overlap or he
broke because of the military. I mean, you
could think of anything. My point is it's
obvious to see that something clearly kind of
what happened here?
Right? What you don't just have a dream
and wake up, decide to join ISIS. Like,
that's just something weird is going on here.
That's my opinion.
And coming from CNN, for all we know,
it's completely manufactured.
Now Definell's point to another video. Here's here's
the same guy in a different different video.
And then, you know, clearly, it doesn't look
like the image they're showing. That's why they
don't use that image. It says, here's a
photo of him when he arrived when he
first served in the army. He served for
more than a decade and deployed to Afghanistan
before he carried out his ISIS inspired attack,
if that's what happened. What you know, same
kind of point, by the way, is you'll
see these same accounts. It allude to the
fact that we shouldn't, you know, maybe,
the one the other exam I keep forgetting
this, Michael.
The one in the Tesla truck.
You know, maybe he was tricked. Maybe he
was used. Maybe this. But, of course, this
one is just we didn't, you know, ice
attack and it seems he did it. Yeah.
Just it's interesting why they give the benefit
of the doubt of the other one and
not this guy. I think you know why.
But it says, according to sources,
police found videos Jabbar made where he referenced
the Quran.
He also traveled to Egypt last year. Now
Egypt
both of them, I can't seem to back
up. Either way,
referencing the Quran and all these different things.
I mean,
it's I've seen a lot. It's kinda like
the rest of these conversations.
One person says it because the source says,
another person says it as fact, and later
that day, it becomes fact across those partisan
media.
Maybe it is. I haven't seen it. I
looked. I can't find it. But that doesn't
mean it's not there. It says he left
the service at the rank of staff sergeant
according to the army, according to the New
York Post, which again, is
usually, right now, we should be like yeah.
Then, anyway, just question everything is the point.
Of course, Gert Wilders comes in the conversation
at member of parliament and comes out and
says, tennis and people killed. ISIS flag. Enough
is enough.
Which, of course, usually, when that you know,
these people from international aspects are leaning in
because there's an agenda here, in my opinion.
So
interesting that Gert didn't feel the need to
call out the gigantic ISIS flag on the
IDF wearing uniforms in Syria right now. I
wonder why.
And it's not about calling out the ISIS
flag. It's about calling out the ISIS flag
when it's useful, when when it's been used
in a way that's needed to call out
for an agenda you're all trying to accomplish.
In this case, this is a video that
you've all likely seen. I don't wanna play
it again just because it's very graphic, and
they execute these two people. But he's there
with his ISIS flag very transparently on his
chest.
Now the shihada flag is very different.
That's that's a bunch of white writing in
the center verse as opposed to the big
white circle with the writing. Right? That's very
different.
The shihada flag is simply a Muslim flag.
It's that's not the same as the ISIS
flag as much as most people in the
partisan field conflate the 2.
So my point here is ISIS patches on
full display on US Israeli Turkey backed terrorists
who are already killing religious minorities. Now more
we'll get in more in the next show.
It is
it's it's like wildfire. It has not stopped.
It's only gotten much worse. They are
actually, I'll show one more video in a
second.
But here's another example, by the way, with
that same shot right there. This used used
the reverse image. This image comes from Syria
recently.
And, literally, an ISIS flag right on display
on his patch, on his arm, just like
examples we've seen from Ukraine.
They all try to hide. It's because these
aren't different elements. This is the same sent
overlapping for yes. They are. There's different elements
of this l of this larger group or
larger agenda, I would say, that they use
from different places. My point, though, is when
you start to see the same ISIS patch
wearing elements dance around from Ukraine, from Syria,
to Afghanistan, to
Libya, to Sudan, like, wherever you end up
finding this stuff. It's obvious that they're all
interconnected
because of the central role we're seeing, and
I'll I'll make that point right here.
I simply so here is Saeed's Mohammed Mirandi
saying, NATO and Al Qaeda have freed Syria.
Here's another example of one of the many
religious persecutions taking place right now in Syria.
As this man gets tied to a tie
a pole,
they tape them they tape him to the
pole with his pants down.
Now as I'm guarantee most of you already
start recognizing where have we seen that before.
As and even then, remember, they tried to
deny it the whole time until it later
became undeniable
from the Azov movement.
And as I said, note the similarities between
what you see IDF doing to Palestinians,
similar examples of just that happening in in
Palestine
and Lebanon,
what you see US Israeli backed Azov Movement
Extremists doing to Ukrainians,
and now what you see US Israeli backed
Al Qaeda terrorists doing to Syrians.
So
standing back objectively,
what stands out to you as the common
thread?
In this case, quite obviously,
the US is really backing.
I don't know how you can deny that.
More more specifically, the IDF Association. Right? But
either way,
I don't know how we hide this. I
mean, it's just it's on the surface of
all of this.
And this is simply saying, and just like
that, ISIS suddenly start this is November 8,
2023.
The Cradle article, which of course is no
longer showing because Twitter is censorship, you know,
that's supposed to have metadata. That's how that
works.
See? That's what they're doing to my links
as well. That's not every time, but I
think it's what it need what it needs
to. That's This is just crazy. That's supposed
to have the information and it hides that.
The article says, ISIS conducts new attack on
army positions in Syria.
Well, as well as the one we just
saw. I thought I included that.
Right there.
On Iran.
Okay. Why does that make sense if we're
told they're the ones working with ISIS? Right?
Well, the point I said, and just like
that, ISIS suddenly starts attacking the enemies of
Israel and the US government again,
completely by coincidence, of course, as usual, after
being a 100% defeated a few times. And,
of course, the one the suddenly is right
when it's necessary for them and their agenda.
Right? This is post October 7th. That's the
point. And suddenly, the group that they're telling
you is a leading terrorist group in the
world starts going after the enemies of Israel
when they start engaging in warfare.
But don't don't don't engage with the obvious
that shows you. And, again, I include James
Corbett's work
And this one.
This is another time. So this is later.
This is January 7, 2024.
Report says ISIS claims responsibility for the deadliest
attack in Iran.
Oh, you mean what we're told is the
leading state sponsor of is of of ISIS?
ISIS attacked the people that fund them. Is
that what we're being told? Why can't the
I mean, a child could see beyond these
flimsy narratives. It says I said, how many
times exactly do we need to see ISIS
attack the enemies of Israel
at the peak of hostile rhetoric before we
truly understand what we're seeing.
It's ridiculous.
And these these points are only for people
that are still trying to grapple with this,
guys. This is undeniably proven.
As Adam points out, here's Express,
corporate media.
CIA created ISIS, says Julian Assange, as WikiLeaks
releases 500,000
US cables.
He says, never forget when WikiLeaks released over
half a 1000000 cables. Now going back to
1979, Julian Assange came to one showing conclusion.
The ISIS the CIA created ISIS. Now that's
and I argue in conjunction with Israel Mossad.
That's what I believe.
Here's an example of an art, a show
that I highly recommend you watch. If you
remember, this was during the,
well, it it was
what was the exact focal point? Forget the
location. But the point was ISIS k.
And it was about the and this was
like the Afghan Afghanistan
version of the my point is
you can prove that this is essentially an
element that if they they've been, like, cultivating.
That I argue might not even exist. It's
basically like this catchall that they point to
when they want to reference this, and it's
Israel making these arguments.
Becomes ISIS k, and I think you can
easily prove what this ultimately is. I mean,
the whole picture, but, specifically, ISIS k stands
out as, like, some new example of how
they're trying to keep this thing moving.
Whitney Webb says, if people can't figure out
that Al Qaeda works for the US government
to justify wars abroad
and rep and repression at home,
even with the US having overtly backed the
Al Qaeda branch that just took control of
Syria, they probably never will.
Amazing how successful the rebrand of NeoCon propaganda
has been.
Exactly.
I swear I shared that already.
Guess this means lots of false flags in
the future. Justify more wars for Israel and
the Middle East. People who hate the foreign
wars are more likely to surrender their critical
thinking if they are scared.
Scary transparent.
Patrick Huntington says thread. Okay. Recent New Orleans,
Vegas Cybertruck events may seem authentic ISIS attacks
for normie Twitter.
Know how you're being manipulated.
Some red pill post for you. And this
goes back to why this is 21st century
wire. FBI bogus counterterrorism racket staged terror in
USA. Guys, this is an age old story
that has been so documented even by corporate
media. It's embarrassing.
He says, we cover these events in granular
detail at a time when no one else
would.
Well, you know, we did too. The point
is a lot of, you know, up mainstream,
mainstream examples. But why says why? Because we
realized stage events were used to drive US
foreign policy.
FBI raided, abetted ISIS terrorist attacks at Mohammed
cartoon event in Garland, Texas.
You and he says unreal. This may be
the most un most obviously scripted and staged
managed event yet,
says Hebrew redo in Garland, Texas.
A Mohammed cartoon shooting reeks of a stage
fold flag.
I'm just you know, this it's just the
point is, historically, and this is the image
we'll show you in a second, it is
so transparent.
I might as well just read the rest
of them. He's saying, mind blowing.
Were these supposed dead gunmen part of the
drill, or were they paxi's handed handled by
a counterterrorism federal informant?
Garland shooter, Elton Simpson, handled by paid FBI
informant? Now these are all I'll just show
you one.
May 4, 2015.
You know, they've been going this it's there's
so many examples of these.
Now it goes it says learn to connect
the dots. Take the time to look into
these events as we have for over the
last 20 years, and then you see a
different picture than you than one force fed
to you by the mainstream media, government based
from alternative media, counter terror experts. If you
are not afraid to look, then start with
the work of Trevor Aronson.
Roughly 90% of all FBI's Islamic terror bus
in the US involved FBI handlers and information
informants directing the subjects.
And and this is so transparent too. And
he says, you know, by the way,
2 US military oh, and this is the
the same story he's getting into.
And he goes, and, yes,
who wouldn't love to be a fly on
the wall at the CIA FBI operations room
beforehand?
Look. Just make sure you get that money
shot at the end with the big Isis
flag unfurled in the street. Now my point
is if you look at that picture and
the way that it looked when it was
wrapped,
you tell me what you think. It just
it looks like a different flag. But I
mean, again, that it that things like that
can be explained away by any number of
things. Camera angles, light angles, you know, the
way that it might have been bundled together,
made it look bigger. That's all certainly possible.
Now Gerald Solante
and, well, here's actually senator Randy Feind who
Randy Feind, who we've mentioned many times, is
rapidly,
you know, cheering on the killing of Palestinians,
basically. He says, terror Muslim terror has attacked
the United States again.
The blood is on the hands of those
who refuse to acknowledge the worldwide
Muslim problem.
I literally hashtag Muslim problem. This guy is
disgusting. Now realize what he's saying if you
look at the conversations is all these people
are a problem. He is Laura Loomer with
short hair, and he says it is high
time to deal with this fundamentally broken and
dangerous culture. He's literally just saying Muslim culture
is bad. Guys, you have to realize how
disgustingly wrong, disgustingly
broad stroke that is. Especially, when the things
he's pointing at, you can prove, are being
cultivated by the government he works for
or is a part of. That's the crazy
part. I'm not saying there are not radical
elements, guys. That happens everywhere. I'm saying those
have been cultivated and driven into reality the
way they are today by the people claiming
to fight it.
And you could prove this.
And he says, they want you to hate
Muslims, so you agree to go to war
with Iran for Israel and AIPAC.
Despite the fact that there's I know. The
idea that they, you know, basically, just frame
all the Middle East as one thing despite
the complete ignorance around the differences of different
countries and their different religions and you know,
it's it's just it's it's playing on the
ignorance of everybody. Now to end,
we're gonna go war into Israel and the
foreign policy aspect of it in the next
show. But
rep, Thomas Massie
has recently exposed a bill
to protect Netanyahu
included in the house rules package.
Of course. Right?
Schedule for a vote immediately after the speaker
election.
Why in the world would you need a
bill to protect Netanyahu? Because
you gotta protect the person who pays you.
Right? You gotta protect the person who's that's
why, obviously, I'm kind of joking for the
but not in the real sense. Like, that
is absolutely what's happening.
But why they did that? I mean, the
point is that how long do we ever
gonna pretend
or how can an honest person look at
this and not go, how in the world
is that possible in a normal in a
normal world? Like, if what we pretend is
the reality, that you're gonna literally include
in something for
the the the spending package, the rule house
rules package, excuse me,
which they've gotta have they're all gonna have
to be gonna force through
that protects
a a a guy designated as a criminal
by the international community that do that demands
the rest warrants. So and not not only
you're not doing that, but now you're trying
to pass legislation that claims you have to
protect him. Like,
I don't if you can't see what that
shows you by now, the idea that they
not only don't care about the things they
enter into, the agreements they make with the
world, but they're willing to actually pass laws
or unjust legislation that challenges explicitly what they
sign to, what they claim they're gonna do.
It's just this they are dishonest at the
core of this, but that they are protecting
a genocidal maniac.
Does that sound like America first? Does that
sound like make America great again or do
anything for America? That sounds like whatever for
Israel at the expense of everything that America
wants.
And there are some people willing to call
this out. That's not about
Jewish people at large or Israelis at large.
It is about Zionism and its influence over
all of that as well as Christians as
well as anything else we're talking about.
Here's another example of a member of parliament,
which even in their parliament, even obviously in
Israel, the the pushback is growing.
It says in the Israeli Knesset,
Gilad,
Carvey
Kariv,
a rabbi and former IDF soldier,
condemns Israelis who have completely dehumanized 2,300,000
Palestinians
in the same ways our, quote, worst enemies
did to us,
in the process endorsing savagery, barbarism, and utter
disregard for human life.
And he's probably gonna be arrested after that
or, you know, removed from something. Like, it's
not that far out of reach. We've already
seen people arrested from the from the Knesset.
I forget his name, the one with the
glasses,
after he did something similar.
But what's interesting is to think about the
worst enemy did. Right? Because if you understand
the reality of Zionism
Now, it depends on what you're talking about.
If you're talking about the Jewish population, you're
talking about the Israeli population, which are different
things. Or are you talking about the government?
Because if we're talking about the government and
Zionism, which is the real real the reality
of that, they're not the enemy.
The truth is, as even,
what was it?
As even Dan Cohen highlights,
they align themselves
with Nazi Germany. And this is even documented
by Wikipedia for crying out loud.
They attempted to ally with Nazi Germany and
sought to to found and sought to found
a copycat fascist state. I went over this
on my show. Anne Cohen is a Jewish
investigative researcher.
And the reason now, only is gonna point
it out is because people would call anti
semitic for pointing these things out.
And the Lehigh party, which is the one
of the foundational elements of Zionism,
which they still give a Lehigh pin to
this very day. They didn't for a while
because they used to acknowledge that this was
disgusting, but this group was
the everything we know of the horror horrifying
reality of Zionism then to now is
what that was going on publicly praised. I
mean, you could listen to the people like
this guy right here
as react to 95 year old. This video
saying, kill them all. There's no one in
this end. They're all animals.
And he is one of these people that
goes back to that time frame. That there
they will there's documentaries where they're laughingly telling
you how they raped young girls during the
Nakba. It's horrifying, guys, and it's not a
secret.
The point is that Lehi group continued
to seek an ally with Nazi Germany even
after the final solution had begun.
Here's Herets
writing about that.
That means that during the what we'd understand
about the World War 2 dynamic, that what
they claim is what is what justifies their
existence,
the the Zionist organization was working with it.
How does that make sense? It doesn't, is
the point.
Most people just choose to look away because
they just don't wanna it's does it's too
contentious.
This is the truth.
And more than ever, people are beginning to
call it out.
And that's why that's just on that point
that, you know, maybe he doesn't know that.
Maybe he's under the I believe the point
is that we are finally becoming we're coming
to the the space where people are finding
the courage to finally acknowledge all of this.
Maybe we can see some change. Now, again,
what we're gonna do more,
just like every other day, January 2nd.
This is since the morning alone, and this
was early. This was just at 7:50 AM.
Israeli occupation forces have killed 61 people in
Gaza.
Innocent
civilians. Nonstop, constant. No one's even talking about
it anymore, it seems.
And 972 magazine, we'll talk more about this
for sure. With Gaza war and Trump's return,
Silicon Valley embraces a military renaissance.
Great.
Israel's 1st Defense Tech Summit, corporate leaders, and
army officials openly touted their partnership with AI
driven warfare and surveillance. Let's see if they
even list
Palantir. Of course, they do. Representatives from Palantir,
Sequoia Capital.
Right? Sequoia Capital, along with BlackRock, are 2
of which just reinvested 6,000,000,000 more dollars into
x AI through Twitter.
But don't worry about that because it's not
a problem as long as it's on the
republican side. Right?
But on top of that, this case, Palantir
and Sequoia Capital
are working with Israel for their genocide right
now, and they're now praising the AI driven
genocide.
That's the lavender program.
In case you wanna include that too. The
AI machine directing Israel's bombing spree in Gaza.
That is what I mean, Palantir is working
with Israel to effectively carry out genocide. Now
what they're doing in this article is discussing
how they are praising this. Or or we're
as they're saying they're Silicon Valley embraces this
in Israel. Clearly, there's a name for the
Zionist technocrat overlap is I mean, they might
be they think they're merging with 1 at
this point. And I think what's clear about
this
is that they're not only praising the AI
version or using what these people are going
through to map this out to train all
of this.
And, you know, the same what Elon Musk
is doing with XAI, using you to train
these things. That's what we're talking about. There
the what we've talked about for years, that
Israel will come to these things and sell
these weapons as battle tested,
which
I guarantee they're doing right now.
And battle tested means we killed Palestinian children
with these things.
We use them to implode, to shred, to
starve to death. Whatever you wanna we use
them in Palestine over the last year. Battle
tested.
It's not a joke.
Abby Martin and plenty of others have been
breaking this down for years.
So recognize where this all goes and where
that feeds back in to your country through
the Trump administration for the interest of technocracy
or whatever the narrative they spin. The reality
is this is coming.
I'm pleading with you to find the courage
to stand up and call it out.
Try to stop it because tell you what,
it's not going away.
We'll leave it there for today. Thank you
for tuning in, guys.
Had a good turnout today. I appreciate all
the support as usual. Make sure you support
Steve and what he's doing as well. I
know he he's going through his own little
struggle right now with the end with the
the, computer issue, which we all you know,
it's it's something that happens seem more often
it seems in the independent media, But ultimately,
that he he's kinda patched together with what
people sent him. So that's why I invite
him on to hopefully get some more conversation
today, but it looks like he lost his
connection. But, you know, reach out and wake
up's doing good work as well. Support him
if you can. But overall, guys, as I
mentioned earlier in the show, you know, it
it just seems like our problems continue to
compound.
I I'm, you know, just
as I said before, this is something I'm
always gonna do. I believe in this. It's
something that I'm I don't think I'm even
capable of not doing. The problem is they
ever as as this stuff continues to weigh
and pound, it just becomes more difficult to
get content down. I'm not gonna stop, bottom
line. But I'm already I'm already have to
to kinda cinch the belt even more as
I if you heard tuned it earlier, you
would have heard more of the information, but
bottom line is at least right now, and
it's gonna build. I've got I'm I'm getting
close to it right around, if not already
more after today, about $50,000
in bills just for the lawyer for just
the one case already. We've got 4 more
behind that right now. It's all lawfare. It's
all illegitimate cases. And this is just us
pushing back. It not even going to court
because that would cost even more. I mean,
it's just it's it's obscene.
But that's what that's that's what this is,
guys. That's the and whether that's because we're
that much of a threat, which I I
get the sense that's how this feels or
just because I mean, but again, I don't
see this happening to everybody else. So whatever
it is, guys, I think that we're over
the target. I think that the work is
important
and it's just it's they do not want
this happening. They're bringing people together, whether it's
the IMA and everything else. I mean, it's
just there's clear directions. Oh, on that note
by the way,
so as you guys know, Courtney got married
and she's been, she was on her honeymoon
and then kinda getting back in her regular
routine for her show and so on. We
haven't gotten to Pirate Stream for a minute
because of the the many different reasons but
that being a couple of them. We just
scheduled another pirate stream, so that'll be coming,
I forget the exact date, but it's this
coming up in a couple of weeks, I
think. More coming your way on that note
as well. But just
we're gonna keep working, guys. If you believe
in what we're doing, if you believe
in the work we put out for free,
show us
how you know, support us in that regard.
Show us why you think this is important.
And, again, I'll also note on the way
out that we have the the,
drop down.
I'll just, grab one of the thing real
quick here.
On any page here, you can see the
drop downs. Oh, can you see it? Oh,
no. Here.
For TLab apparel, right now, truth clothing is
on the way out, apparently, and we're just
trying to get rid of less the clothing.
Big frog clothing is now gonna take up
most of what we can do, and we're
hoping to repopulate some of the older designs,
maybe slightly different if we have to on
the new page. Either way, on both those,
you can buy tea lab shirts and stickers
and everything else if you'd like to go
in that route. We don't I mean, I
I should more quite frankly. I just I
hate doing marketing side of this stuff. I
just think it feels gross. Nonetheless, we we
need support. So if you wanna support us
that way, you can. There's a bunch of
ways to subscribe through substack, through you know,
donate through the website.
Up here, you can find, you know, you're
you're oh, by the way, that is one
thing I wanted to do.
Oh, shoot. I'll do it next show. I
don't want to wait time to find it,
but, oh, no. There it is.
I we I I opened a wallet for
Manero
because I do agree with Derek in the
regard in the idea that
if it opens, there we go, that ultimately
Monero is one of the you know, it's
it's private. Like, it is one of the
real examples of something that is legitimately private
even when it comes to, like, the hat
the crypto cash, like, it even, like, Bitcoin
only shows the account and the information. You
don't know who it is. This this is
none of that. Nothing. So if you'd like
to don't support the platform, that is one
way you can do it. And I'm gonna
give
you know, I'm gonna wait just next time.
So you have to wait for me to
fight to open this. I'll include this information
in the in, in the show notes below.
I'll try to add that late coming up
soon. But up top, as you can see,
Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum donation, subscribe star, Cash App.
You know, there's plenty of ways to donate.
Point is, if you like what we do,
if you support us, let us know. I'll
leave it there in general, and we got
plenty more coming your way, guys. Thank you
all for being here. I love you all.
As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
There is no doubt that the so called
rebel forces,
attacking the government in Syria are creatures of
the United States and of Israel.
There's been congressional
testimony
in the United States openly,
that the United States had spent
more than half a $1,000,000,000
on the
civilian rebel forces.
Thoughts and others,
you tell the story about how you try
to find out what the
what they call the Mossad when they deal
with, publicly? I thought it was a reasonable
question, but the trouble is, you can't pick
up the phone book. There's no, Langley in
in Israel as you can look up, you
know, CIA or in our case, the Mossad.
We thought we should ask,
what shall we call it in English? Which
can translate the Hebrew words. As I said,
Mossad is institute. But when they write a
letter to their friends in the CIA or
the British intelligence, what do they call themselves?
It took a while. It was a matter
of asking the prime minister's spokesman. The best
you could do because officially,
the Mossad is under the prime minister's office.
And, I think he sort of wondered why
he wanna know and all that, so we
explained. And he came up with, the Israeli
Secret Intelligence
Service. I mean, if it were to have
initials, it would be ISIS.
Just simple words like that. Interestingly enough, a
kind of a British model.