Welcome to the last American Vagabond. Joining me
today is Derek Bros to get caught up
on a lot of things. He's written a
lot of fantastic articles, as all of his
articles are, for The Last American Vagabond in
the last couple of weeks that have been
really profound, really important for a lot of
different topics. And in general, just always good
to touch base with his work and a
lot of the important things he's doing, like
the pyramid of power, for example, and the
up the updates on the fluoride investigation, the
trial. So I wanted to invite him on
today to get more into that, just kinda
get caught up with Derek in general. How
are you, brother? Welcome back.
Hey, man. I'm doing great. Thanks for having
me back on.
Yeah. Just a side note before we get
started today.
Teece is in here filming the documentary we've
been talking about, so you might see him
floating in the shot in case you guys
are curious about why this random man with
a camera is coming into the shot.
But you can look forward to that coming
out. I think it'll be it'll be kind
of, there's some that are already pieces of
different parts of it out, but I'm looking
forward to that coming together as something larger.
Derek, he was doing that with you as
well. I'm I'm that's correct. Right? Yeah. I've
had the fun experience of having Thies follow
me around back in January at the people's
reset.
Yeah. It's it's an interesting experience. I'll tell
you that out of the gate just having
to, you know,
try to be spontaneous in moments that aren't
which is difficult for those of us. We
were joking with when Steve was in here,
we were doing the recording, and it's like
this reflexive, like, stop telling me what to
do. You know? Stop telling me how to
act and what to say. Anyway, just funny.
But I I really am glad to talk
to you today, man, because we haven't got
a chance to connect, with with I think
the one that really stands out to me
is the the Doge technocracy overlap that I'm
I wanna touch on a little bit. But
I wanna start right out of the gate
with you today with some of the updates
you have around the fluoride investigation, the trial,
and kinda just your thoughts on where that's
going and some other kind of tangential points
we were talking about off air that I
think are relevant to bring in. But go
ahead and start with, you know, where you
are with that and what's what's going on
at the moment.
Yeah. So there's there's definitely some federal fluoride
news I wanna get into in a moment,
but I did wanna share just an update.
I've been telling you for a while, Ryan,
that I had, filed some open records request
with the city of Houston, which is where
I'm originally from,
and trying to figure out just details about
the current fluoride program. And this is because
I've been going to city council since 02/2012,
'2 thousand '13. I originally started a group
called fluoride for Houston way back then. So
over a decade ago, and we were going
to city council. We were, you know, trying
to get fluoride out of the water, and
and I was learning all about how city
government works and how corrupt it is even
on the local level. And,
we had some successes getting about five or
six council members interested, and they were like,
look. We hear you. This seems like a
concern. But at the time, I realized that,
the city of Houston, the mayor was actually,
like, the strongest mayor in the country and
that the council members are basically just figureheads
who have no power to you know, they
can be against anything they want, but they
can't put anything on the agenda. They can't
actually bring it to a vote. That's all
in the mayor's hands. So I'd kinda given
up on that effort years ago, but then,
obviously, fast forward more recently, the fluoride trial
starts in 2020.
You know, it came to a conclusion last
year with a a verdict against the EPA
and in favor of the fluoride action network.
And a lot of this has sort of,
like, reignited my interest in trying to,
get, you know, get fluoride out of the
water in Houston. Even though I don't live
there anymore just because my family's there, I
think it would be a good moral victory
to get the fourth largest city in the
country to, you know, say no to this.
So I started to,
when I ran for mayor in 2019 and
2023, I was talking about fluoride. I was
saying, hey. If you elect me, we're gonna
get fluoride out of the water, etcetera, etcetera.
And, obviously, this has become a national issue
now, which is, you know, good to see.
And so
I I think I last went to city
council in Houston in October
2024.
Same thing. Brought them the studies, brought them
the the conclusion of the lawsuit, the in
national toxicology program report, all the things we've
covered. I brought them all that data, emailed
them, etcetera.
And pretty much per usual was ignored, and
nobody said anything and kind of alright. Well
and then after doing that, I I started
to look on the city's website, and I
couldn't find anything in the budget. I couldn't
find you know, you would expect if governments
you give a crap about the people actually
being able to be informed.
You should have a simple website in 2025
where you can go and look through the
budget, line item, you know, word by word.
I could just keyword fluoride and find exactly
where the fluoride budget is. Right. But sure
enough, that is not the case. And in
fact, it's actually very difficult to find out
where you know, what the fluoride budget is,
where that program's been at. And the best
I could find is that they took it
from being just an obvious program, hid it
inside some sort of other special operations or
something within public works. Long story short, I
ended up finding, filing records requests, on the
city of Houston because
they that's I guess, that's just what you
gotta do. If you're just a regular person
and not a journalist and you don't have
money to file open records requests, well, then
you're out of luck. You're just not gonna
find that info. And even when I tried
to call them just being like you know,
sometimes I'll put the journalist hat on, sometimes
I take it off and just say, hey.
I'm just a concerned citizen. I'm just curious.
Can you tell me whether the city of
Houston's adding a fluoride to the water? Nobody
could give me any answers. Nobody knew where
to send me. It's just like a total
miss for the fourth largest city in The
United States.
And, I ended up having to file these
open records requests. I requested specifically emails from
I think I did the last three years,
three or four years. So 2024 to 2020,
I think. And specifically looking for emails, contracts,
memos,
etcetera, that contain hydrofluorosilicic
acid, fluoride, water fluoridation.
And I ended up getting 3,000 emails, and
I definitely haven't gone all of them, but
I've gone through a fat chunk of them.
And, I'm gonna be doing an an article
that'll kind of outline this more in detail.
But what I wanna share today is that
I can I could already I've had this
information for a couple of months, but I've
been kinda sitting on it because I wanted
to get more details? But I can confirm
for sure that the city of Houston is
not adding fluoride to their water.
That would make the city of Houston the
largest city in the country to not be
adding fluoride to the water. The the second
or the current, as far as we know,
biggest city is Albuquerque, New Mexico, which is
nowhere near as big as Houston. And so
that's, you know, it's, again, gonna be kind
of big news. And so I've kept that
in my back pocket while I've been digging
through these emails because I wanted to do
my journalistic due diligence and be able to
say, this is the exact date that the
water fluoridation program ended.
And, I haven't been able to find that,
unfortunately, but I did find one email where
this woman, her name is Joni Sinec, and
she is, in the Houston Public Works department.
And she received an email from another official
from a nearby town saying, hey. Can you
tell us the latest on your your water
fluoridation program? And in her own words, I
have the email, right here, and she said
the water, fluoridation she said something like, because
we have groundwater,
fluoride, you know, basically naturally occurring fluoride, the
city of Houston hasn't been adding fluoride to
the for five years. And this was October
2024. So that means since at least 2019,
according to this city of Houston employee, they
have not been adding, fluoride to the water,
which is, for me, kind of funny because
I'm like, okay. I was campaigning in 2019.
I've been to city council. And for mayor
again in 2023, nobody ever bothered saying, like,
hey. By the way, there's no more fluoride
in the water, which I have my theories
on and I'll share in a moment. But,
essentially, right before we recorded this interview, I
actually called this woman because she has been
kind enough to speak back and forth with
me. And, again, I I didn't have my
journalistic hat on because they tend to treat
you differently if they think you're a journalist
asking questions instead of just a curious citizen
saying, hey. I'm just, you know, trying to
figure out what the fluoride thing's about.
And, but I think by this point, she
knows who I am. And I I actually
after I got the initial email after I
did those initial files, I filed a whole
another open records request specifically for her emails
for the last five years because she seems
to be mentioned quite a bit in this,
And the city of Houston is now appealing
that to the state of Texas. They're trying
to deny me access to that for some
reason. So I think I'm on the track
of something. But right now, I have they've
sent a letter to the state attorney general
or the the attorney yeah. The AG of
the state saying, we should not have to
reveal this information because I asked for more
information about contracts
and specific details.
And not because I'm trying to really get
into their business. I just wanna know, like,
is there a date that you can give
me when this contract ended, when fluoride stopped
being added?
And, the city of Houston is trying to
deny that. So I was actually able to
get her on the phone, and I said,
hey. You probably know I filed the records
request
through your for your emails, and that's you
know, it's nothing against you. It's just because
I see you're mentioned quite a bit in
this. She told me she didn't start at
the city till 2021.
But as of just thirty minutes ago, she
told me her best guess that she was
able to figure out through her own research
is that the city of Houston stopped adding
fluoride to the water in 2018, '20 '19
kind of fiscal year.
And there was never any public announcement. There's
never been any media, any news reporting on
this.
I'm assuming it was probably a budget situation
because the city of Houston is, like, millions
of dollars in debt, like many major cities
in The US. And so it's been, like,
a huge issue in the city for years.
We're about to go off the fiscal cliff.
What are we gonna do? That was actually
why I was campaigning saying, Hey, if you
wanna save the city money, how about we
get rid of this million dollar a year
fluoride project? Program. Yeah. Exactly.
Thankfully, somebody did it, but
my interesting thing that I'm coming away with,
and I've even had some hesitance to report
on this because
at the moment, nobody in Houston knows that
there's not fluoride in the water. But, obviously,
because of RFK at the HHS, because of
the fluoride lawsuit, and I would argue because
of our reporting as well, fluoride has become
like a national topic again. So at the
moment, it's kinda like, hey. We're sort of
under the radar. I've been telling all my
friends, hey, guys. There's no fluoride in Houston,
by the way. But the moment we report
on this, and especially because I think that
the local media in Houston should take an
interest in this, like and I wanna kind
of send a letter to to the editor
to some of the biggest papers in in
the city and say, what have you guys
been doing? None of y'all paid attention. None
of y'all reported on this because they're really
falling down on their job. But my fear,
as well as the fears of some folks
that I've spoke to, including Michael Conant and
others at the Floyd Action Network, is that
by announcing this, we might actually
ignite some momentum under the pro fluoride activist,
and then all of a sudden you get
people fighting to get the fluoride back in
in the water. So as it stands, though,
we can say for sure, and I have
all of the monthly measurements too where they
go to check the water. As as we've
reported in the past,
the EPA, the CDC, etcetera, they've set a
target over the years for point seven milligram
milliliters
milligrams per liter. And, they
the city of Houston has been at point
3.4.
Now that may mean that this Houstonians are
kind of below the risk of IQ loss
and all these other things.
But, of course, the fact is that we
don't really know, and I and I talked
about this with my reporting in the trial.
They were never able to conclusively say when
exactly it starts. That's why Michael Conant, Floyd
Action Network, and others have been saying the
expert witnesses, the scientists have been saying, we
need to exercise the precautionary principle.
And, you know, since we can't pinpoint where
the harm starts, let's just get rid of
it. Right? We know that at some point
above or around point seven, harm seems to
begin,
and the government wants us to believe it's
totally safe at point seven. But, nevertheless, we
don't really know. So as of as of
2018,
'20 '19, and as of right now in
2025,
the city of Houston with three, four million
people in it is not being fluoridated. They
the the test that they show show levels
of point three, which is just naturally occurring
fluoride, which is different, I will say. Not
to say it's not harmful because some people,
they they fall into that trap thinking because
it's naturally occurring, it doesn't have the same,
harms, but it does. But the difference is
that it's not toxic sludge from aluminum mining
being added to the water. Right. But, nevertheless,
it's there is still some level of it
in there. So I kinda think of this
as a win. I'm like, oh, wow. This
is something I've been fighting for for over
a decade.
And it kind of happened quietly, and none
of us even realized it, and it hasn't
been reported anywhere.
Yeah. It's it's actually I mean, obviously, your
work is probably a foundational part of why
this you know, even secretly might have happened
if that is the reality of it. But
what's interesting to me, just for all the
things you laid out there, think about how
illogical it is to have you know, so,
like, it's completely safe and it's good. It's
actually for your benefit. But we're gonna do
everything we can to stop you from getting
the information about how that's happening. It's like,
okay. Well, that doesn't feel right. Something's you
know, they wouldn't if it was something that
was benign, they would be happy to display
this stuff, but it's interesting about how that's
my opinion anyway. But, you know, the interesting
part about that is that, you know, in
a way, you could you might even argue
that the that, you know, from your work
and others, that maybe there are peep because
I I'm always in the mind that there's
not much every person in every position of
authority is all part of the problem. I
think they're all part of the problem that
is the system, but not you know, we
know there are people that act within that
in some ways and good ways. And it
may be this whole effort allowed that foothold
by saying, okay. Well, they gave us a
number now. So now we can say because
we've got natural point three, which you pointed
out not everybody does, they could just say,
well, by adding that, then it'll be above
that number, and they get that's the the
logic they can use to push back on
it. Because, I mean, I we've have we've
seen pushback, you know, on whether that should
happen. But all said and done, I think
it's really important to see that this is
shifting, and I do think it's because of
work like yours and other and Conant and
the rest of it, and it's insane that
we're still talking about this. And how I
remember remember you and I talked about when
the trial was really kind of you know,
it was clearly coming out that they had
locked, that ultimately, it was gonna be now
a a decade long battle of them continuing
to fight to keep it in our water.
And that's essentially where we are, it seems.
But I'm glad to see that, at least
in some places that it's being removed. Now
one more thing I was gonna ask you.
Do you think that that are so you're
certain it's not there based on what you
see. Are you worried at all that that
that's just simply, like, another, like, compartmentalization
like you talked about where they just now
call it something else and we don't know
that it's on the docket and some other
name. But, again, you said they tested the
water, so give me your thought. I'm I
I I I would place, place my confidence
in this at 95 to a %, and
I say that because I have numerous,
you know, so they come and do, like,
monthly or or, you know, quarterly
testing of the water. And and so I
have those records where it shows, like, levels
of fluoride, and you can see it's, like,
below that. I have emails where they're talking.
I mean, I have a lot of interesting
emails, and this will be coming up in
a new article for the last American Vagabond,
of course. We're gonna include all these emails.
Nobody has to trust me, my word. You
can have access and read them yourself.
And the the other interesting thing is that
the city of Houston was obviously they were
keeping up with the trial too. They were
talking about the trial as it was going
on. There's even one email where they talk
about the judges. You know, they're sharing an
article about the judge's ruling, and some City
of Houston employee says, how is this going
to impact us and our fluoride program in
the long run or whatever? Which is interesting
because if if the fluoride wasn't there anymore,
you know, I don't know what to say.
But I will say I also have pictures
that these were in City of Houston,
presentations, like PowerPoints that they were sharing with
each other. And there's one picture I have.
There's a kind of a suburb of Houston
Northwest called Kingwood, and they have pictures of
the guys in the hazmat suits and everything
cleaning out the fluoride tanks because they're basically
getting rid of everything that's left. And so
they have I have pictures that with the
date saying like fluoride being removed from Kingwood
tanks.
So we have that. We have the water
test showing that it's at point 3.4, and
it says naturally occurring. So even if they
were adding it, they're not which I don't
think they are. They're not even anywhere near
the target level of the CDC.
And, and then, of course, I have the
email where, like I said, this city of
Houston officials specifically tells another official from a
smaller nearby town who's just asking questions about
the fluoride program saying, We have not been
adding fluoride for the last five years. So
at this point, and then again, after talking
with her this morning, now I feel confident
enough to report on it. This is kind
of why I have been sitting on it.
I didn't wanna, like, go forward without trying
to get some more official statement, if you
will, and then end up being, you know,
misquoted or something like that. But now I
feel pretty confident. I I am gonna continue
to dig through these emails. Like I said,
I got 3,000 of them. And,
you know, just and I'll make a side
note here just to pitch for why you
should continue to support TLab or, you know,
my work, both of us, is because these
are the kind of things that I do
journalistically.
That costs money. You know? That's, like, I
think, $60.70 dollars to request those files. Not
a huge amount of money, but that's what
it takes to actually get access to documents
if you want to instead of just talking
about it, but you actually wanna see them.
Same thing. I'll just mention, like, I've started
looking up the court records for this ongoing
immigration thing with the the gentleman from Maryland
who's been deported.
Instead of just talking about it and taking
the government's word for it, I, you know,
I have a PACER account. So I go
there and I pay a little bit of
money to get access to these files. This
is what I think it takes to do
real journalism, so please do continue to support
us. And, and yeah. So I now have
all those records. I'm gonna continue to pour
through those files just to make sure there's
nothing else that I'm missing. Like, maybe there's
even more, you know, another bombshell statement or
something. But right now, I've got a a
folder saved where all of the the spicier
stuff is being saved, and I will be
putting those in the next article for TLav.
And, of course, we'll upload the original emails
so people can check those out themselves. Yeah.
So I feel pretty good that it's it's
for sure that the city of Houston is
not Florida and hasn't been for at least
the last five years. And I think that's
the headline. And it for those who are
opponents and and, you know, advocates for getting
fluoride out of the water,
when we report on this, please take this
report and run with it. Because, again, if
if if you're in a smaller town
that can look and be like, oh, well,
if the city of Houston is doing this,
then maybe we can do it over here
with our smaller population of 20,000 people or
50,000 people, whatever. That was kind of always
my goal is that if we were able
to get fluoride out of the the city
of Houston's water,
that would be, like, a big step forward
because, you know, then you've got LA, you've
got New York, you've got
Chicago. Those cities are all fluoridated. And so
there's a pretty big jump from Albuquerque, New
Mexico to Houston, Texas. I think that is
a you know, for me, the the headline
I want people to take away. Whether or
not it came from them, you know, the
people voting and them saying, hey. This is
bad. We're gonna get rid of it. I
think it was more likely related to the
budget and the city being in debt.
We don't know those facts at the moment,
but, nevertheless, the fluoride's not in the water.
So, you know, I'll take that as a
win. Definitely. I think somebody should whether Houston
or the other city you mentioned, somebody should
be doing some studies 02/2019 forward. What's the
difference? Take a heavily fluorinated
a fluoridated population
and and and compare it to this. I
think that's an interesting comparison to see if
there's any major differences, and I think that
would be important.
It's it's it's interesting just real quick that
I if we do report on this again,
I'm and I'm not gonna hesitate because I
think the truth should be out regardless of
the consequences,
but I won't be surprised if we do
see
the fluoridation, pro fluoridation
activist from the American Dental Association, from the
fluoridation society, etcetera, these people who always pop
up,
that all of a sudden they pop up
and they start talking about how Houston's gonna
go into cavities and we're all everybody's gonna
end up getting, you know, bad
dental health if we don't have floor even
though it's been going on for five years
and nobody said anything about it.
Right. Or yeah. Exact what a great point
to make. Or the idea that let's pretend
like our government actually cares that we get
cavities as opposed to, you know, like, spending
money to care about your teeth. Or and,
again, just for the record, I know that
people are
record, I know that people our audience are
probably well aware, at least, of my opinion
on this, or you can speak for yourself
on it. I think you agree. Florida's bad
for you. It's dangerous. There in my opinion,
are no positive benefits for putting this in
any context. In your water and your toothpaste,
I think it's actually a detriment. I mean,
it's toxic, but I think that's for people
to read their own you know, look at
the science. That's important. And as I'm saying
that, all of these articles that Derek has
written, and this is just one page of,
what is it, of five different pages of
different
this is all from the fluoride trial forward,
and Derek has done a bunch more work
for that on the conscious resistance. But the
point is, all linked to source material, peer
reviewed science showing you this. Or the interviews
you've had with, I forget his name from
the WHO, that's an interesting last name, the
doctor who basically spoke out of that question.
Yeah. Doctor. Philippe Grandin. We talked to Doctor.
Who, we talked to,
the other ones escaped me. But the three
expert witnesses who were at the fluoride lawsuit.
Yeah. All of those interviews, and those are
all referenced in my articles
with the quotes from them directly. So you
don't have to take mine or Ryan's word
for it. You can hear it from the
people who are the lead experts on mercury,
on lead, who the US government, the EPA
themselves took their work and and used their
work to build their,
their thresholds for harm
for for lead and for mercury. And they
listened to them before, but they're ignoring them
or they have been ignoring them when it
comes to fluoride,
which I think leads us right into just
a little bit of an update on the
kind of the fluoride lawsuit things going on
right now. Mhmm.
For those who might not have seen just
yesterday as we're recording this, so on Monday,
the,
head of HHS, Robert F. Kennedy Junior, and
the head of the EPA,
Zeldren, I think Lee, something like that. Zeldren.
Yeah. They were in Utah to commemorate or
to, you know, celebrate Utah becoming the first
state to ban fluoride.
And at that press conference, which you can
see right there on my Twitter account,
Zeldin makes an announcement, says that the EPA
is going to expeditiously
review all the scientific data related to the,
fluoride and the water. And that link there
is the official,
EPA statement. People can find that on their
website. Now I want I want you to
highlight something here, Ryan. So this as you
see, I posted there. I said, hey. This
is a good move. Right? And, you know,
I'm gonna give credit where it's due. I
have all kinds of other issues with with
Robert f Kennedy as I know you do,
Ryan, with the antisemitism,
with the vaccines, etcetera.
But this, I was like, okay. Cool. Give
credit where it's due. I'll just say it's
a good move. Right? But if you go
to the first comment in there, I'm pretty
sure it's Michael Conant from the Floyd Action
Network. Mhmm. Yes. Go ahead and look at
Michael's comment because I think this is important
to highlight because Michael, for those who don't
know, he's the lead attorney who fought with
the Floyd Action Network. He's the one who,
along with his team, beat the a EPA
last year and had the judge say that,
you know, they need to act. And so
I'm gonna be including this this quote in
my article as well when I do one
about this. He said, I'm very wary of
EPA's announcement because Zelda never mentioned that the
EPA is already under the court order to
take regulatory action to address fluoridation's
unreasonable risk to human health. And he's talking
about the court order from last year. Again,
the lawsuit ended with judge Chen saying the
EPA must act. And then right in the
last days of the Biden administration, the Biden
administration announced that they were gonna appeal it.
Now so far, the Trump administration has not
rescinded that appeal, the new EPA under Trump.
They have till this Friday to do so.
So Michael says, under the court order, EPA
must initiate rule making proceedings under the TSCA
Toxic Substance Control Act to issue a rule
that will eliminate the risk related to fluoride.
Zeldin sidestep this current obligation and focused on
EPA doing another review of the science under
a separate statute because they specifically said we're
gonna review this because of the Safe Drinking
Water Act. But he's making the point that
they're kind of ignoring the ruling that's already
come down from the judge. Mhmm. Meanwhile, the
EPA is still moving forward with its appeal
of the court order, thereby delaying any actual
action the EPA will take to eliminate the
risk. EPA's deadline for filing its appeal is
this Friday, April 11. If the EPA files
the appeal as it looks like they will,
that will likely say more about the EPA's
true intentions with fluoride than a commitment to
do another review, especially because the EPA's reviews
on fluoride literature in the past have been
atrocious.
So Michael, the lead attorney who fought the
federal lawsuit against the EPA,
who I will say privately has had some
optimism with RFK being there and, like, hey.
Look. This might be the chance. You know,
we're actually gonna see it. We're three days
away from this. They have made no statements
about, you know, rescinding the appeal or what
you know, anything related to the lawsuit. They
haven't said anything. RFK hasn't said anything about
the lawsuit. They mentioned it in passing in
this press conference, but not in the sense
of, like, we're gonna stand by that court
ruling, and we're gonna start rulemaking to figure
out, you know, the harms of fluoride.
You know? So I think that that's an
important point. On one hand, they hold a
press conference where they're saying they're gonna review
all the fluoride science under the you know,
using the Safe Drinking Water Act, etcetera, but
no admission that the court a federal court
in San Francisco has already ordered the EPA
to initiate rulemaking
specifically about the harms of fluoride that were
found in this court case.
So the fact that, you know, I could
have my own skepticism, but I definitely would
give more weight to Michael Conant, the lead
attorney for the fluoride action network, saying that
he believes,
again, he says, and it looks like they
will, you know, file the appeal and continue
to appeal this decision.
And, of course, he doesn't have much confidence
in the EPA doing another review when we
already have so much data out there. So
on one hand, yes, it's a good move,
but let's also temper it with the reality
of what might be going on. Well and
let's not forget that this process has already
been like a seven stage process of five
new reports and new reviews from every element.
This has long since been done according to
the,
national toxicology program, DeConna himself. I mean, it's
it's obvious. Right? And that's
to me, in my opinion on this, I
look. The step is
highlighting this as good in and of itself.
But I think the problem with what we're
dealing with in everything today is that they're
aware that people are seeing these problems. And
so these things in a lot of way
are are are, you know, release valves in
order to, you know, to let people think
that there's momentum coming. And I hope this
continues in a positive way. But to to
overlap this with something you were highlighting around,
I mean, any number of these things or
even the point that I just saw around
about forever chemicals is there's a game that's
always played where you water it down in
a long term overwhelming investigation, and you you
make it so so nuanced and so complicated
that nothing ever really changes. But, you know,
you're sure as hell putting a lot of
action out there. A lot of things are
moving around, and it makes people think things
are changing. I hope this this is not
that, but it seems that Michael Conant seems
thinks that it is. To his point, you
wouldn't need to do anything else. That's everything's
already in front of you. The right action
is to take the information that's been presented
over and over and over from the very
government that we're talking about
and take the right action and remove this,
but they're not doing that. So I guess
they went to the eleventh to see. Yeah.
They if they wanted to, this press conference
could have said,
we are going to follow the decision of
the federal court that ruled last year that
the EPA should initiate rulemaking to figure out
what to do about the unreasonable risk of
fluoride and we're beginning that process now. Instead,
they, you know, kind of, as Michael said,
sidestep that and just focus on like, we're
gonna do an additional review under the, Safe
Water Act. So, yeah, we've got three days.
I'll probably wait till after Friday to do
an article on that. I'm gonna report on
the Houston situation before then,
and then we'll wait to see what happens
after Friday. And probably by next week, my
article will be focused on the fallout, whether
they do decide to follow through with the
court's ruling or if if it's another example
of how the the Trump administration
picks up what Biden did, in this case,
an appeal of the the the ruling against
the EPA and continues with that process.
Right. So another example of just a government.
Just continuation the linear progression of the agendas
through one government. Well, so what's interesting in
the overlap that I've we brought up before
him is and, again, one of the obvious
reasons that I am
already feeling like this is kinda obvious that
it's gonna go in the direction that I
hope it won't is every other thing we're
looking at. And I I just recently talked
about this. This just this is from, yeah,
this is from the fifth. Yesterday is there
was more kind of movement on this conversation.
Trump officials quietly moved to reverse bans on
toxic forever chemicals. So and you could argue
that my mindset would be that I don't
think the Biden administration truly wanted this to
stop either. That's the kind of that's the
way this goes. And I would even argue
that I'm willing to bet you that if
they go the wrong direction with the EPA
point around fluoride, that it'll probably flounder in
in
feigned direction and action and investigation until somebody
new takes over, and then it will get
mired in that as well, just like we're
seeing here where Biden kind of feigns potential,
you know, we're gonna stop these things that
we all know are bad, and now we
see them begin to walk it back. And
so what's problematic about this for me is
this is it's just whether the Guardian or
not, if you care, look into it because
it is very real, and the information is
out there from their own documentation.
But it says the Trump EPA
and the move involves changing the way the
agency carries out chemical risk evaluations. Again, this
is at a time, just like with the
fluoride point, where we are well established that
PFAS is dangerous. We don't need more investigation
or more abstract nuanced ways of looking at
the picture. You know? Oh, if you hold
it up and squint just right, it's totally
safe. You know? And it says, which would
also preempt state laws that offer the one,
the one a few meaningful checks on toxic
chemicals in consumer products. And here's the important
part. Trump's EPA's new rule would require the
agency to evaluate whether a chemical presents a
risk for each intended use. Not whether something's
dangerous, but knowing something's dangerous and finding out
if it's still dangerous if you use it
this way. It seems pretty stupid to me.
Formaldehyde, it says, for example, has 63 different
uses. The agency plans to claim most chemicals
do not present an unreasonable risk. You'll love
that. Right? That's the whole generally respect regarded
as safe. It's still risky, but it's re
acceptable risk in consumer goods because they make
up such a small part of the product.
So you could argue something's deadly, but as
long as it's a small part of a
larger idea, we're okay with that. So this
is my bigger point that I made yesterday
in regard to dioxins going back to the
nineties, which is at this time in the
nineties, even CNN was telling us dioxins were
a problem. They were dangerous. They were seeing
over a 50 times the allowed amount that
the EPA felt was safe in your Big
Macs and Pizza Hut. It's publicly reported. The
reason this never changed, at the very end,
it simply said, we're talking about hundreds of
chemicals,
and the chlorine industry believes each one of
them should be tested and judged separately. Now
that's what even that's a manipulation because what
it's really about is the the specific products
that lead to dioxins.
Not saying the individual things, but the one
thing that we know is bad, take that
out of it. And instead, we got mired
in a decades long process that I don't
think ever actually even started of them pretending
we need to look at each individual one,
which would be decades of research and finances,
and it never actually happened, and now nobody
talks about it anymore. So that long winded
point is simply to say that I think
with PFAS going the same direction, or they're
saying, wait. We'll we'll take this dangerous thing
and just new you know, muddy the waters
and investigate each little part of it. And
the same thing I argue is probably gonna
happen here with what we already know is
dangerous with fluoride. So I want your thoughts
on that. That's a that's a great point.
And that CNN article is, wow, man. It's
just it's so it always it's such a
crappy but not surprising feeling to look back
and that, wow. Some of this information was
out there back then and nobody did anything.
It's the same thing with fluoride fluoride scientists
warning since the nineties about the dangers and
then getting ignored.
And I also find it interesting that, like,
that's this like you were just saying, that's
the same, process they're gonna repeat now with
PFAS. So we're gonna have to look in
and study each individual chemical. And as that
CNN article said at the end, which will
take millions of dollars and multiple years to
do so, they just keep kicking the can
down the road. And I also agree with
you that this is just yet another example
of how the two parties passed the baton
back and forth. Right? I've written articles on
this before, how
Trump and his first administration,
at the end, some of the actions he
took related to the border and the biometric
security state, entry and exit program, that that
was setting the stage for then Biden to
come in and continue to expand that. And
the same thing, it's like, okay. Biden can
look good towards the end of his term
and say we're gonna ban PFAS,
maybe even full well knowing, okay. When Trump
and them get in, they're gonna undo it.
Don't worry, industry folks. Don't freak out. We're
gonna keep doing it. It's just we gotta
play this little game for a little bit,
and then Trump comes in and reverses it.
Right? It's it's just it's so emblematic of
the problem and the two the false binary,
and I wish more and more people could
see that because that's how these two parties
operate. And I you could you could get
mired in the two party paradigm and say,
oh, see. This is an example of how
Biden is better than Trump because Biden actually
was trying to do the PFAS, and now
Trump's undoing it. And there might be some
element of truth there. We know that big
oil was deep in Trump's first cabinet. I
reported that,
in the you know, during his first term
for TLAB.
But at the same time, I think the
bigger point is to not get sucked into
that, like, defending Biden, defending Trump, etcetera, and
just to see this is how the two
parties will collaborate and keep moving the ball
down the field towards their goal, which, ultimately,
I think here is to be, you know,
obedient to the corporations and,
folks at that. And then, of course, others
would argue this might be part of these
slow kill eugenic methods as well.
Yeah. I mean, Catherine Austin Fitts, the great
poisoning. I mean, I don't know how we
disregard that. I mean, whether whether it's by
accident,
by, you know, you know,
an add on to something else, it's very
clearly happening. And, you know, I think that's
such a
it's it's profoundly clear. Like, you can see
the different aspects of the GMOs, the COVID
nineteen shots. I mean, even, like, the COVID
point alone, the shot we've talked about many
times, it's like you couldn't like, almost, like,
statistically impossible to accidentally get that many things
wrong in a consistent way that all hurt
you in very similar ways. It's like that
seems almost impossible. And so if you then
you stand back even further and go, then
take that and look at GMOs and the
food supply and the water. It's like, to
me,
you if either we have to recognize that
we live under one of the most incompetently
stupid governments in history that only does the
wrong thing all the time or maybe they
don't really care about us. You know, it's
a little more complicated than that, but I
think it's a good way to look at
all of this. And all these different examples
go in the same direction, man. And I
you know, I what you were saying, I
do this is my opinion, but I very
much think that's the case. I think these
things are coordinated
whether the Bidens and Trumps are aware of
it or not
to, like like, the way Corbett explained it
the other day in the show is that,
you know, these these like you were just
saying, these administrations are building blocks. Right? And
they set this tone. There's all sorts of
noise on the sides of these tangential issues,
but the core idea continues to to expand.
And I think we can see that going
back decades, the linear agenda that never really
falters regardless of the ongoing screaming. You know?
And that's our hope. I I actually truly
think more people are seeing that than ever
for because of work like you're doing here.
I hope that's the case.
Well, I think it it also it leads
us into the I know you wanted to
cover just briefly on my story and the
digital IDs and the real ID because that's
another one that has been started with the
Bush administration post 09/11.
And, yeah, there's been some states resisting it
here and there, but now the deadline's coming
up. We're less than thirty days or maybe
exactly thirty days away from,
when the Real ID,
you know, Real ID,
IDs are gonna be required all around The
United States to get into federal buildings to
fly. And, you know, they're Even differently.
Yeah. It just even to travel around. And
they represent, like, maybe in some way, like,
minor changes. I see some people saying, oh,
Derek. Well, real ID isn't digital ID yet.
It's just like a little star on your
ID or things like that. But as debatable,
though. That's debatable. Well, and I think that
is debatable. And as I point out in
this article that actually if you look at,
because I've been reporting on mobile's driver's licenses
for the last couple years, and those are
becoming in vogue. And now people are getting
through the Apple Wallet and Google Wallet, etcetera,
just having a digital ID on the phone.
And I even show in the article that
the TSA has already got a page on
their website dedicated to digital ID, showing how
you can use digital ID to get in,
and part of that is related to real
ID. Because what do they say is a
a real ID, you know, efficient,
you know, it qualifies as real ID, either
your passport,
the new IDs, like so if you've got
an old one, you need to go you
know, you're supposed to go in and get
a new ID, and it's gonna have, like,
a a little symbol on it. They're supposed
to be harder to counterfeit, etcetera. But the
real point, I argue, is that it's all
about pushing people closer to digital IDs because
the other thing that they say they'll accept
is these mobile driver's licenses or just simply
digital driver's licenses.
And this is the, again, the app on
the phone. Some states are starting to have
their own apps. Some of them are letting
people use Apple and Google and others. But
the point is that there are companies, and
we've reported on this over the years, like
the Thales Group and other big companies, IDEMIA,
around the world who are pushing this concept
of mobile driver's licenses, and it ties directly
into this rollout of the Real ID program.
It took them twenty years to get to
this point, which I think in some instance
you could argue that that's a testament to
the American people's
resistance
to this idea of a national ID card
because that's the other thing. For people who
are like, oh, I don't care, Derek. I've
already given Twitter and all these other people
my ID, and, you know, they've got my
face print from whenever I signed up for
driver's license. I see these kind of arguments.
For one, I think we should defend and
protect against all encroachments on our privacy.
But the other thing is that it is
really about pushing the the digital ID program,
and it's also about establishing a national ID
card. That was really the main resistance. If
you go back to the post 09/11 era
when they first started talking about this, it
was the nine eleven commission report that recommended
there be some sort of national ID card.
And the reason it's taken so long is
because a lot of different states were like,
screw that. We're not gonna participate in this
national ID program. That's one more step towards
tyranny if the government can just track us
everywhere we go instead of just having a,
you know, an ID from your state or
whatever.
And it's taken twenty years, but in that
time, they have worn the people down. And
a lot less people care about privacy now
than they did in the post nine eleven
world. And most people are just you know,
as we saw during COVID, they're gonna do
whatever they gotta do to to just comply
so they can keep flying, so they can
keep driving, whatever else.
And this is also kind of going along
with I know you reported on this a
while back, but facial recognition rolling out at
sports stadiums. I've had friends telling me they
can't even go to a basketball game or
a a baseball game anymore without some sort
of digital thing. They don't even sell digital
cards anymore. Ticketmaster doesn't let you do that.
You have to sign up for this digital
app. So all of these are generally a
push towards digital IDs, national ID cards, less
privacy, less freedom, more tracking and tracing you
everywhere you go. Yeah. It's incremental steps, spoiling
frog, totalitarian tiptoe. Right? You choose your analogy.
It's it's clearly or your metaphor. It's clearly
just the the the slow building
and getting you in the right place. You
know? So you like, I mean,
post nine elevens and shootings and whatever
else that are happening, like, every one of
those. And you can whether or not those
things in your mind are false flags manufactured
or just things that happen that we're taking
advantage of, it is always the same step.
Right? We'll take advantage of this. We'll use
this moment to get one more step closer
to that idea. And what the who knows
whether that's even what everybody in positions of
power actually are aware of or not. But
so I what I what I think is
important to what you were saying. My idea
with this, which I just I talked about
this the, Save Act from July 9, which
is about trying to force this in in
real ID compliance in regard to the under
the guise of the border conversation. This is
not dead, by the way. They're just gonna
find another narrative to make this make sense.
What's interesting to me, the point you made
about the mobile driver's license, if you remember
the the Save Act, the same argument was
like, well, it's not there's other options on
there. And fair enough. Right? There was, I
think, a birth certificate, passport. The argument was
that even at this time, they were already
arguing that at some point, those were gonna
be,
you know, no longer valid. And that then
on the side of the Biden conversation so
you had the Republicans really leaning into this
and the Biden side of it, the Democrat
side of it, and then Biden's administration were
really pushing the mobile driver's license. Now one
of the things, if you read into the
mobile driver's license part of it, that could
happen once that was beginning to become a,
like, a national point, at first, it's it's
as always, it's something you can do when
you get a benefit, Then it's you do
it or you don't get a benefit. And
then, eventually, you have to or your grandma's
gonna die. You know, it's the same kind
of thing. But the point is that you
get in that position where, just lost the
thread on that. Oh, that the mobile driver's
license. You know, once that becomes something that
they tell you is the plan, well, they
make it clear. Well, eventually, that will mean
that these physical things are no longer valid.
Right? And so if you combine those two
things, you can clearly see how this it's
the same two party side of it. Both
of them will point at the other as
the responsible one for why digital IDs became
the reality, but both pieces are why it
happened, and they come together to make that
a reality because the mobile driver's license part
removes the others, and then Real ID compliant
is all that's there. And they even just
recently put out the Real ID compliant thing
again to the Trump administration. You know? So
this is not a joke, and I think
it's obvious Right. They announced the rule. Right?
Is the Trump administration
the final rule? And at back in my
article, there's a section where I I'm talking
about the facial recognition, how that ties into
the digital ID.
And the point you were just making is
a % since stands. The former now former
TSA administrator who was there before Trump came
in, David Pokoski, I believe,
he actually in 2023 or 2024, he was
speaking at the South by Southwest,
music festival, kind of big event in Austin,
Texas. And they have all kinds of politicians
and different people, little TED Talks and stuff
like that. And he was there as part
of some panel, and he specifically said
that it's temporary right now. It's or it's
it's a it's a option right now, but
that it's eventually going to be mandatory. Like,
that was his own words. And in fact,
some of the senators, both Democrats and Republicans,
sent a letter to the TSA after that
and said, hey. Your administrator himself is out
here in the public saying that this is
gonna be permanent eventually and that people won't
have the option to opt out of,
the the facial recognition. Because digital IDs is
one step, but ultimately, the goal is to
just use your face. Like, you don't even
need, like, once they get you from, like,
yeah, you don't need that old, you know,
out of date
ID card or birth certificate paper, all the
things you said they're gonna give you options.
Eventually, it's gonna be like, no. It's so
convenient. Just use your phone. But then, eventually,
it'll just be you don't even need that.
You just walk into the airport and it
scans your face, and we know who's supposed
to be there. And we, you know, we
log you in, and you could just walk
through it so quick and fast. It'll save
you the lines, etcetera. And they've been testing
that out for years.
Exactly. They've been testing this out for years
with, like, the TSA precheck and the some
of these other things. They start with, like
you said, with, COVID, they incentivize people. Hey.
This is faster. It's better. And then, eventually,
that becomes the norm, and then you no
longer have an option to do anything but
that. And that's what this is really about
going towards. So the Real ID coming into
enforcement in the next thirty days here and
then mobile driver's licenses, and then we should
expect to see more types of digital ID.
This is all part of the national digital
ID card, and then, eventually, they will be,
I think, eliminated,
or at least the next option would be
just use your face. You don't even need
the digital ID anymore. And and just to
kinda go back to all this, you remember,
like, it's all the and this was really
seen at the beginning of the COVID illusion,
but funny enough, all of a sudden, the
same agendas were rationalized by something else before
are now being rationalized by COVID. And now
we're past that in a way, and the
same agendas are still there, and there's another
rationale for why that's the most important thing.
It's all you know, it just shows you
the agenda is what really matters. And, you
know, digital ID, remember, they were really pushing.
We can't touch things because viruses, and, you
know, we can't do all that. And now
there's just it's now because people are coming
across the border, and now we need to
look at your biometrics.
You know, it's just I don't know how
that's not the most obvious thing in the
world. Clearly, you can make an argument for
why those things can benefit in some way.
But we and and right now, there's this
massive battle in Americans' minds about what is
important around, you know, our rights and our
privacy and our liberty if it bumps up
against what we think the government agenda the
side of the government we believe in if
they, you know, their agenda, if that somehow
comes up against that. And I think this
is causing a lot of friction in in
a lot of these political fields, and I
think that that is you know, I think
this is one of the biggest fights of
our time right now. And, I mean, we
can kind of spend the last so many
minutes here talking about, you know, just give
me your thoughts on this and where it's
going. And, hopefully, you've read this amazing article
that Derek wrote called Doge, Is Efficiency a
Gateway to Technocracy?
Going into tail Taylorism, you know, the efficiency
movement, these precursors to Technocracy.
And I wrote I I made I basically
put Elon's face on on the founder of
Taylorism there. That's a real picture, by the
way, of that that and this was way
back before even, like, the technological side of
it, but it was the same mindset, you
know, really in a eugenics kind of way.
So give me your thoughts on that and,
you know, where do you see all this
going with the Trump administration and the overlap
of this idea?
So I I kinda feel like some of
my most recent articles,
have which have been related to Technocracy and,
Doge and Trump and Peter Thiel are sort
of a collection of articles. I almost wanna
put them together. And and I would say,
like, if you people were to go back
to yeah. Including that that documentary, which is
based on a lot of my my articles
that I've been doing over the last six
months or so, meet the man whose philosophy
has influenced Peter Thiel. So we first start
out looking at, like, Peter Thiel himself and
how many Peter Thiel acolytes are inside the
Trump administration. And there's even more than I
put in that article that I've learned about
since then. And then I wanted to look
behind Peter Thiel. It's like, well, who are
the people who's actually influencing Peter Thiel and
David Andreessen and some of these folks who
are deep in there, David Sacks, etcetera. Right?
So these kind of build on top of
each other. You can find the evidence that's
clear that Trump's administration
is full
of Bilderbergers and World Economic Forum members and
young global leaders, and I can't believe people
don't make a bigger deal about that. It's
just it's mind blowing to me. But then
I wanted to look at the background of
Peter Thiel, and then you could even go
back a few months to this article I
wrote called you can't hide about, Elon Musk
building the the the satellite network, etcetera.
And so I feel like those are all
kind of inter interrelated. And with the Doge
article,
I was trying to do the same thing.
Well, like, let's look behind this whole idea.
I've kind of alluded to it in a
few articles just referencing the efficiency movement, but
I wanted to do a deeper dive.
And as with some of these things, like,
you might have an intuition that there's a
thread there to pull and you start pulling
it, and you're like, wow. This is deeper
than I even thought. That's basically what I
landed on, and I do encourage people to
read it because there's a lot of history
in there that I I won't have time
to cover here. But when you look at
the Technoxie movement, which we know started in
the nineteen thirties, '19 forties, we know that
Elon Musk's grandfather,
Joshua Halemann, was involved in that in Canada,
elsewhere.
And, you know, there's also this huge South
African connection that I wanna explore in the
future. Like, why is it that Peter Thiel,
David Sachs, Elon Musk all come from
from South Africa or spent time there, and
they all seem to be on the same
thread. I think that they're interested in some
sort of technocratic apart
apartheid, like, you know, sort of movement Yep.
That they might be trying to build here.
But I wanted to look further into into
what was the movements that influenced Technocracy. And
sure enough, you find a movement called the
efficiency movement. And even the fact that there
was they had bureaus of efficiency. Like, you
know, it was it didn't start with Doge.
It didn't start with the Department of Government
Efficiency. There was a department, I think it
was under Wilson, that was also about efficiency.
And this kind of comes out of the
progressive movement originally.
And
in some cases, it wasn't as deep as
technocracy, but you can see the seeds of
it where people started to literally study, like,
how do people work in the, you know,
in factories? This is the industrial age. So
a lot of people are working factory jobs.
How can we make the workplace more effective,
more efficient? And then and that movement was
funded by the Carnegies, by the Rockefellers, and
others.
And then as I looked into that, I
discovered this man, Frederick Winslow Taylor, and he
was kind of part of the efficiency movement,
but also sort of, like, standing on his
own. In fact, his philosophy got the nickname
Taylorism or as he called it scientific management.
And this guy was, like, some kind of,
like, character out of a cartoon or something.
Like, he apparently walked around with a stopwatch
watch everywhere Right. And, like, was literally always
just logging, like, the the you know, like,
we could have saved two seconds here. You
know, we could be more efficient.
And even studied, like, workers, like, let's say
you're on assembly line and you're moving a
box from one place to the next. He
started thinking, like, okay. Well, if they move
to the left instead of the right, they
can save three seconds, and we could save
x amount of dollars. Like, this is how,
like, micromanaging
this guy's mind
was. And so he wrote books called the
principles of scientific management.
And, of course, this influenced the efficiency movement.
This ended up influencing technocracy.
But what I find found really interesting as
I dug into this,
Frederick Winslow Taylor and another man, he used
to work at the steel company. That's where
he started developing his ideas of how to
make steel more efficient and that whole industry.
And he went to this fair and, you
know, they used to have world fairs and
stuff like that. And he went to this
nineteen o one exposition in Paris
where he was showing his, you know, his
ideas as well as how he could make
steel production more efficient.
And at that event, there was these German
engineers who end up being very influential in
the German, World War one fight as well
as in some level up to World War
two and Hitler and the Reich. Not trying
to say that, you know, these guys weren't
that Winslow was a Nazi or anything like
that. But his
his ideas absolutely influenced it. I found books
specifically referencing how these engineers
witnessed his work
at the fair, went back to Germany, translated
his books into German, and they became very
popular influence like the technocratic, the technicians, and
engineer class. And I also found that even
Vladimir Lenin, who's, of course, the revolutionary,
you know, end up becoming a dictator under
the beginning of what is now the Soviet
you you know, the the Federation Of Russia,
what would become the Soviet Union,
the Bolsheviks.
Back in 1917,
they had their revolution, October two October 1917.
Within six months of that revolution,
Lenin is quoting from,
Taylor specifically and saying, like, we need to
take his ideas and sort of create some
sort of
socialist
Taylorist movement, socialist efficiency movement. And because he
saw the potential, you know, Winslow may have
just been Taylor may have just been literally
thinking, like, this could make the workplace more
efficient, but what they saw was if you
take these ideas and you apply them to
an entire society,
then you can micromanage everything. You can you
know, you you and they were talking about
the machines, of course, what we would call
AI right now. And so it's just very
interesting
that when you trace the origins of what
Musk clearly is embracing with this technocracy and
what his grandfather was up to and so
many of these ideas. And you look at
the precursors to that because all philosophies build
on top of each other. You know? It
didn't just come out of nowhere for the
most part. It was kind of building on
the time of the great depression. People are
looking for new ideas. People are looking to
make government and workplaces more efficient. But it's
just interesting that two of the groups that
ended up taking these ideas,
the Germans during World War one and then
eventually the Nazis, and then also the communist
right from the beginning, the Bolshevik revolution, they
were like, look. Let's take these ideas and
let's embrace them and and apply them to
our entire society.
And then that goes on to influence the
efficiency movement, that goes on to influence technocracy,
and here we are a hundred years later
with the Department of Government Efficiency.
Right. And what a cosmic joke it is
to have the Republican Party running out this
old progressive idea. Like, this is this kind
of, like, this cycle around or whatever you
would call that, you know, socialist background. It's
just it's kinda just almost hilarious, but alarming
and sad at the same time. But, yeah,
I mean, it it's so interesting to see
this web
of how long this has influenced. And, you
know, I mean, even going back to, like,
South Africa, for example. Like and and, look,
it's not just to make it about one
thing in general. Like, you you've taken even
Zionism, for example. You could argue that these
things, like, David Icke would point to Saboteanism
and, like, these these precursors to what it
is. And it's just interesting you can see
these direct threads, and it's just as if
like, even back to the the point of
the current two party illusion and the idea
that they think they're fighting communism and it's,
like, essentially rolling out a weird technocratic version
of exactly that. It just it it just
you wonder how this is not more obvious.
You know? But I I think that you
can see this kind of central evil, if
you can call it whatever you want, that
seems to be this continuing
influential factor in all of these different problems.
Like, the reason I bring in Zionism to
that is because it's clear, I was just
talking about earlier today, of how obvious you
can see its tendrils around all these different
horrible things going back over the last hundred
years. And so it's like to disregard that
is just irresponsible. And so to make the
same point here, we can see where this
stems from. We can see that and and
to your point, this is not even just
like a, you know, it looks the same.
There's direct connections even just to his grandfather
for crying out loud. You know, I think
this is a monumentally important reality, and I
think that this kind of background work is
truly opening people's minds to whether they think
Elon, the rest, or whoever they're pointing to
is a problem or not or on their
side or not, that what they're seeing happen.
You know, the same thing we're talking about
with, like, the great reset coming out of
this administration. It's like, stop looking at what
they're telling you, what they want you to
think they're trying to do. Just look at
what's actually happening. And I think that a
point applies right here, that this is exactly
what you're highlighting. And I think that this
is, I would argue, not making the world
a better place. It's the it's the bastardized
version of, let's use this to better control
people for our benefit. That's how I see
this in Portugal. Absolutely. I I don't even
I I wouldn't argue that Taylor
was, you know, creating his ideas or come
up with these ideas so that dictators could
later use them.
But that's just you know, once you come
up with an idea, that's how philosophy works.
It's out there into the human consciousness, and
people will take it and twist it however
they want. And, I I definitely think, though,
it's important to study that background, so I
encourage people to check that out.
Yeah. Definitely, brother. Well, thank thanks for,
coming in today and and chatting. I think
we should do this more often. I always
like to talk with you, and I think
your work is is profound. Make sure you
guys check out the conscious resistance as well.
Is you know, he does amazing work for
t lab, but he also has his own
platform, consciousresistantnetworkor.com.
And I'll include that. And I do eventually
wanna do some more in-depth work with you
on, you know, interviews and whatnot about your
your peer in power. I think it's important
that you guys check out his work on
that and a lot of other things. But
anything else to add? To you about that.
Yeah. I was just I would love to
talk with you about that in the future.
I'm I'm as soon as we end here,
I'm getting back into my script. I'm finishing
the seventeenth chapter right now, and I'll have
a lot more to share on that,
very soon. So I would definitely look forward
to coming back and sharing about the pyramid
of power. People can find it at thepyramidofpower.net.
All the current 16 episodes are available there
for free. And I'll that'll be included in
the show notes for everyone to check out.
And, definitely, we should make sure that happens.
But, thanks for taking the time, Derek. And
as always, everybody out there, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.