Welcome to the last American Vagabond. Joining me
today, once again, for our kind of recurring
planned podcast going forward is Charlie Robinson to
talk about, as I titled today, what the
hell is happening,
aptly because we've been talking about this kind
of jokingly, a lot of us have, around
how ridiculous and rapid
rapid the news cycle is, whatever that even
means today. And, funny enough, as we were
talking last time and briefly, I think at
the end of last discussion we had, you
know, we're saying we'll kinda just touch base
on some of the crazy things that are
happening. And then I reached out recently and
said, hey. Let's connect. In my mind, thinking
of something, oh, we're gonna have to talk
about that. And then I was getting ready
for the show today going, I don't even
remember what it was that I was reaching
out about. And it was so profound in
the moment, then I'm laughing to myself because
there's just so much to get into, not
a profound thought. But today, we'll go into
what the hell's happening today and what you
know, different pieces of the partisan dynamic of
politics of as a real political machinations, foreign
policy,
all sorts of things, and no one better
to talk about with about those things with
than Charlie Robinson. How are you, brother? I'm
good. How are you?
Frustrated.
Before we get started, I I'm dealing with
all sorts of wild, ridiculous technological things in
the background, but not to get into that
right now.
Browser shutting down and so on, but that
is the the world that we're entering into.
But, you know, it's we were also kinda
briefly talking about how, you know, it's it's
it's it's,
frustrating. You know? It will
personally drive you crazy. It will cause you
to get frustrated. You know? And I think
that's a lot of what this is about
if that is what's happening. We do know
to some degree that is going on in
the world, but, you know, I I wanted
to start today with sort of,
you know, what's up well, actually, one thing
I wanna start with before we got into
that, I want to ask you what's on
your mind. Before I go into what I'm
thinking about and what I see, I wanna
see what stands out to you the most.
But randomly wanted to get your thought on
this before we get into it. I was
getting show ready for the show today, and
I and I don't know if you've been
following Rockfin and and what's been going on
with that, you know, like the kinda just
the shift they've done away from independent media
and the kind of different changes that have
been made. I noticed today, and I was
talking with Steve about this yesterday, I'm not
even given an option anymore to make this
free,
which is strange to me seeing as how
Steve is still able to as you saw
yesterday. So I don't know if that's just
me being boxed out of being able to
make this a free
show on Rockfin. But I just want your
general thoughts around that because that's interesting that
we've all in a or a lot of
ways, we, you know, we we talked about
Rockfin
being a kind of an alternative
to a lot of different platforms out there,
and that's kinda shifted. I wonder your thoughts
on just generally where that's going, you know,
with that. And then if, you know, whether
that's something you're seeing as well on the
free versus not.
Yeah. I gave up on Rock. I still
post there, but I really gave up on
them after they did the price hike
back in the
tail end of twenty twenty two
when they
bumped their prices up by 50%.
Mhmm. And I watched my
revenue fall off by 90%.
People just left. Just didn't wanna have anything
to do it. And, you know, they give
you in the analytics, you can what it's
a nice little bar chart. So it's a
visual representation
of exactly what's going on.
And and you know
the difference between when you've got a %
versus 10% of of the revenue that's supposed
to come. So I I got frustrated with
that. I see what they're doing now. They're
they're they're trying they don't want us there
anymore. They they don't
view us
as moneymakers for them. I think they wanna
focus on wrestling and and college athletics, and
that's fine. That's what they that's what they
started with.
But the the treatment has been
not the best. The communication is absolutely
Yeah. Abysmal. They could write
they could do, you know, college courses on
how not to
communicate, you know, how how to not run
a business. And Rockfin has dropped the ball
on a a variety of different ways.
You know, and we used to have an
open line of of dialogue with Martin and
with the guys over there, and that's turned
off. Yep. They don't wanna hear from us
anymore. So I'm I'm I'm not surprised
that you're having an issue like that. I
think, ultimately, they would just prefer that we
went away. You know, if that's exactly where
mine was going, is that it's like, I
I I at first, I was kinda like,
you know, I maybe I won't wanna use
them anymore because that doesn't align, but then
I'm starting to feel like we're being, you
know, the contrary in nature from the you
know, as we're being pushed away from the
platform. Like, well well, screw that. I'm I'm
not gonna be pushed away from the platform
either. And I just think that's what's happening
for me is, you know, I was I
remember when right right in the beginning, I
believe I was even the first
early aspect of Brockfin or person they brought
on that they allowed to do free because
it was built around the premium dynamic. And
I said, well, I don't wanna do that.
And so they they allowed it to be
the you know, all free content through us,
and then a lot of other people, you
know, like Steve and others, are doing the
same thing. And so that's been kind of
the market for this is for us that
are on there that just wanna use the
mechanism to help, you know, donations and so
on. And for them to remove that, just
seems like that's, like, the final straw, like,
just hoping that I'll jump off the platform.
It's frustrating because, I mean, everyone out there
listening, if you wanna keep using Rockfin, feel
free. I I just don't think you have
to pay for this content. It's free everywhere
else. You know? And I don't like promoting
platforms that do that, but you're right. It
it's been very you know, I yeah. Same
kind of point. I feel like the it
was they decided at one point that we
were no longer in their interest, and instead
of handling that in a mature nature, they
just boxed us out in hopes that we
would just, you know the thing is is
they know that there's no real representation for
people like us in this field out there.
They leaned into the mainstream. You know? And
that's, right, that's their prerogative. It's the way
that it went down. They left a bad
taste in my mouth as well. So it's
very frustrating. There's a lot of good plotters
out there. You know? Odyssey and Bitshoot and
plenty of others that are really striving to
do better every day.
Yep. Yep. But let let's, I want you
oh, go ahead. Sorry. Go ahead. Your comments
are No. No. No. It's we we yeah.
It's just Rockfin being Rockfin.
Yeah. Unfortunately. Unfortunately. But so I wanna start
with what's what's, you know, before I go
into plenty of things that I I think
we're all you and I probably have similar,
you know, large topics that stand out what's
going on today. But if I asked you
at the start of the show, you know,
what's go what's on your mind right now?
Like, right there. What would be the first
thing that jumps to your mind right now
today with what's going on? Let's talk about
that.
Well,
I I'm in agreement with you. I feel
like I need an entire wall size dry
erase board to just write all of the
current things that are going on. Unfortunately, none
of them would really get erased because
they don't ever the problems never seem to
get solved, but it's just the frustration of
the week. I if you had to ask
me what what stands out, oh, I don't
know. The self immolation
of Kash Patel and Dan Bongino
talking about We'll start with that. Talking about
Jeffrey Epstein and everything. I mean,
I get the feeling, and I have no
particular inside information to this, but I get
the feeling that they were instructed. You're gonna
go out there and say he killed himself.
You're you're or or, you know, and you're
gonna go out there and you're gonna sell
this this story, and and they well, nobody's
gonna believe us. And he said, well, that's
the point.
That's the point, actually. It's for you to
go out there and look the camera, look
look the people right in the eye in
the camera, and then just blatantly lie to
them so that everybody understands that you have
no credibility,
nothing's changed, you're not gonna get to the
bottom of the deep state, you're not fixing
the FBI. None of that stuff is happening.
None of this. And then the the the
follow-up to that, which was a a a
Bongino interview today, which was saying, yeah, actually,
there's a there's a video and we're gonna
release it. Oh, you do that. You go
ahead and do that. And just watch the
rest of your credibility completely evaporate because
everybody knows that you're lying,
including them, and it's
I think it's,
you know, I think it's performative. You know?
Obviously, they're gonna go out there and talk
about how they're they're changing things. But,
to me, that's been
just it's just such an obvious lie.
A lie that
really didn't need to be told. And and,
of course, when they when they put the
video out, everyone will run it through AI
filters and see what it says. And my
guess is that it's going to be very
high quality, but it'll still be a fake.
And that these people are never to be
believed under any circumstances. If you think Dan
Bongino is coming to save you, you're deluded.
Okay? This is not the type of guy
who this guy is a he is he
is with
the state.
That is his entire career. He came up
through the the the Fox News media apparatus,
and now he's in the FBI. I mean,
you don't get much more of a statist
than that. So the the idea that this
guy is gonna get to the bottom of
it is laughable, and I think only a
very small
segment of the population actually believes
that. I also wonder if this messaging is
even for us. You know, I mean, they
know that we're gonna see this and go,
get out of here. This is nonsense. You
know? So I wonder if it's if this
is for the,
you know, the
40%
of the population. They were just asleep at
the wheel, and they just go, oh, okay.
It turns out that I saw a headline
that said that it was, you know, that
Epstein Epstein really did kill himself and that
and that there's a video. That's all I
need to know, and boom, they go off
about their day. And in their mind,
case closed, problem solved, we figured it out.
Whereas the rest of us that actually
sift through this information and and give it
a critical eye, we look at this and
we go, this is
nonsense. It's not a it's not a it's
not reality. So I I just wonder if,
and maybe two things can be true at
the same time. The messaging
can be for
a dumbed down segment of the population that
has no no real knowledge of the case,
and also sort of a middle finger to
the rest of us that says, oh, you
thought we were here to help you? No.
Here's the messaging that we're giving you. Case
closed, Everything's been solved.
Don't worry about your conspiracy theories. And and
then that you see, like, a I don't
know if you ever if you saw this
tweet. It was embarrassing on its face, but
it was Juanita Broderick, who should know better,
saying
in what felt to me like almost like
a hostage situation where she retweeted the Bongino
and Cash,
interview, and she said, well,
if they said it's true, then it's true.
Wow. Case closed in my mind. Mind goes
followers.
Yeah. That's dangerous. That's a dangerous way of
living your life. So I don't know. It's
been that's been on my radar recently. Or
the litany of people that came out and
were like like, couldn't like, mental gymnastics for
the first half of, like, a 14 paragraph
tweet that's like, they're doing great and they're
wonderful. And here's what they but now let's
get into why I think they might be
lying. It's like, you didn't need all that
fluff. You know, it shows you that they're
really not trying to get to the bottom
of it. They want you to think that
they care about the lies that we all
see. You know, it's all there's so many
people out there that are operating in, like,
this you know, they're just trying to maintain
their business. You know what I mean? And
the and the business right now is, you
know, biz
what's the the phrase?
I can't think of it. You know, business
is doing well under this dynamic, and so
they wanna just maintain that. But it's funny
you bring it up because that was the
first few things that I had lined up
today. And what's interesting rather, before I go
to my thoughts, you know, what you're saying
right there
is interesting. Do you what do you think
the outcome is, though? Like, what is the
so if you if what you're saying is
correct and they really you know, anyone is
just theorizing, but they're saying that they want
to or that you're you're hypothesizing that they
want to put this out there to
even though we all see it, knowing that
even those that are following it might push
back, what's the what's their objective, though? You
know? Because wouldn't you think to some degree
that they want to fool at least their
supporters into thinking that this is their team
still winning? Because that seems like at least
a clumsy part of it, but I think
you're right. I don't I see more conservatives
at this point calling this out than anybody.
So I just you know, what do you
think their objective is in your opinion? Like,
with this play, is it trying to show
them that they're being lied to or, you
know, how do you see it?
I think it's part part of it is
just also a reminder to us that nothing
is ever gonna change and a demoralization
tactic. Okay. That's what I'm getting at. Out
there.
Okay.
We're we're we're gonna stand up there, look
you in the eyes, and lie to your
face about something that you know we're lying
about, about something that everybody knows isn't true.
We're gonna tell you we're gonna tell you
that the sky is green, and you're gonna
like it. You know? It it it's a
there you know, you would think
that that the messaging would be, well, we
gotta convince these people that we're telling the
truth. I I mean, I wonder whether that's
what they're trying to do and just failing.
You know? Like, then we and we said
to give them a little bit too much,
you know, sometimes they really are just incompetent.
You know? Like, there's a lot of them
like that. You know?
Totally possible. For sure. Yeah. That that that
they're just bad at this or that it's
arrogance that Bongino goes, listen. I'm a go
up there. You put me in front of
that camera. I'll sell it. Don't worry about
anything. I'm the best. I'm the best liar
you've ever seen. I've been working in the
media, I've been working for the cops, I've
worked for the FBI. If anyone's a liar,
it's me. Right? I can get out there,
look them in the eye and tell them,
you know, and and give them the story
that we've agreed upon.
But the expressions
on Kash Patel's face kinda said it all
to me. I mean, that guy
part of it, you know, felt like a
hostage video. You know, like, there's somebody off
camera
with a gun to your kid's head and
he's like, you're gonna go up there and
you're gonna sell this turd to the American
public and you better do a good job
of it. You know? So it it it's
it's
just another example
of how
those people who
think that the cavalry is coming to save
them are going to be disappointed
once again. But I'll tell you, it better
to be disappointed now in the beginning of
this administration and then understand what you're what
you're up against for the next three and
a half years than to have some sort
of hopium and think that Donald j Trump
is coming to save you. There's there's no
evidence to to support that and that the
FBI is gonna magically all of a sudden
get to the bottom of things. That's just
not how it works. People need to understand
what these systems are in place to do.
They're not in they're not the FBI is
not there to get justice for the American
people.
That's the sales pitch. The FBI is there
to spy
on the corporations
or on behalf of the banks,
to
contain
narratives,
to run blackmail entrapment operations.
They're gangsters. They're not they're not the good
cop coming to save you. They're all the
bad cops. And Dan Bongino is a perfect
example of this. There's nothing about that guy
that should set your mind at ease at
all.
I've never seen anything about him that made
me think that he's he's,
some sort of champion for truth and justice
in the American way. It just feels like
a gigantic
phony sales pitch by a bunch of sociopaths.
And,
but, of course, I'm not disappointed by this.
I and and I know you're not disappointed
by this either. We knew that this was
going to happen. I think that the MAGA
people out there that maybe thought that, you
know, this time is different. I'm not gonna
win the fall for fell for it again
award,
but they fell for it again. Mhmm. When
you trust when you when you attempt to
trust these people, you will be disappointed
over and over and over again if you're
paying attention. So,
better now than later, I suppose, for the
MAGA people and better that they just wake
up to the lies, you know, because because
this delusion
that that the the white hats are in
charge, trust the plan,
patriots in control, all that you cue to
electric boogaloo. You know, it's all it's all
coming back to me again. How dangerous the
MAGA crowd could be. We saw we know
how what the leftist will do when left
unchecked. The the they'll burn your city down
and transition your kids. You know what I
mean? They're they're unhinged.
But the the MAGA delusion is a little
different
because they genuinely believe that somebody good is
coming to save them.
And so I feel it's better that they
get disappointed early than, you know, than than
have to figure this out in year three.
I'm but I I agree with you entirely,
but I see it as the same. I
mean, it's just a you're right. But just
a different flavor. Right? Because if you look
at it from the other side, it's the
same idea as you got the left that's
really arguing that there's certain parts of the
it's their different part of the government that
they think needs to save us from the
other part. It's the opposite version of the
same problem. So my opinion, I think we've
agreed on this, is just partisanship.
It's just partisanship, not, you know, one they're
equally dangerous in very different ways, and I
think that's very much by design. But so
so you're but I agree with you. But
so back to the point about this whole
thing, it's I and I agree with you
on that too, but it's interesting on the
why of it is what gets me. It's
so fascinating to look at this because I
guess you're right. It could just be that
they chose these people because they're incompetent or
because they want you to know that we're
lying and that you're and that that's like,
you're just supposed to accept that, get past
the fact that we're lying and you know
we're lying and that you weren't in control.
Like, that does possibly feel like that makes
sense. But the other side of that, another
alternative could be that they are like you're
saying, maybe it is a hostage video because
maybe a foreign power has completely taken control
of what's going on. That's not a crazy
thing to think right now from an Israeli
perspective. Or, you know, maybe these people are
just that incompetent. And I think we've been
driven into that by a lot of things,
and they think as you're saying, hubris. So
it's just hard to tell exactly why. But
let's go let's go to the clips that
we'll go over the clips where you were
talking about and and discuss what they're saying.
And I think, to
me, I get the sense that from the
MAGA side of this, rather than just the
Republican partisan side, it's important that these people
continue to think that they're winning. I do
think that's a part of this from some
people's perspective. And so if there's a part
of it that is meant to be, we're
showing you we're lying, I just that worries
me. What that either means that there's an
endgame coming soon or that, you know, another
shoe is gonna drop. That's what I worry
about, though, that that sentiment. So let let's
watch some of these clips really quickly, and
and we'll see.
Now this one was oh, I was this
is this was my tweet about it. I'm
I'm laughing at the the cheerleading of this,
and this is Bennie Johnson sharing it, where
ultimately, it was
he said FBI, director Kash Patel confirms the
definitive answer on whether FBI sources were present
during January 6. We'll come back to that
one. That this one will start with
the Epstein point. So under that interview, he
also pointed out that the Epstein killed himself
point, and this is just a short one.
Importantly,
people have had questions about January 6 and
whether or not they were That's alright. That's
the wrong one. This one. But there is
a lot of conspiracy theories out there. There
are. The Epstein thing, you dealt with Maria.
You said,
as far as you know, he killed himself.
I'm telling you, he killed himself. The other
thing on the So that's just that. Shall
we hear that? That's very clear. Right? So
here's the one with Bongino
pointing out that there's a video. Now this
is what I really wanna get, and this
is fascinating because we know, at least,
what we're told,
all of the cameras
were off or broken or whatever the narrative
was. It's all it was all, you know,
kind of mixed up. People were on break
and whatever else. And I also wanna make
sure we don't forget who was president when
this was happening. Who was running the FBI
when this is the Donald Trump administration two
thousand nineteen? So it's interesting that if you're
gonna start claiming that, you know, that he
is somehow has access to something they that
they was there, that they lied about then,
there's no way you miss that and understand
what administration was covering that up. And and,
again, for those listening, it's I don't think
there's difference in the partisan sides. It's just
as Charlie's pointing out, some people seem to
think that one side is about to save
them. So here's that clip. Those two cases
obviously are of significant public interest. I'm just
telling you what we see in the file.
I am I just wanna be crystal clear
on this. I am not asking anyone to
believe me. I'm telling you what's there and
what isn't. Right. There is nothing in the
file at this point on the Epstein case,
and there's gonna be a disclosure on this
coming shortly. We are working through some there
is video.
That is something the public There's a video
of him killing himself. No. No. Not fit
not the actual act, but the the entire,
MCC Bay, it was only one camera. There
were other there's video that when you look
at the video, and we will release. That's
what's taken a while on this. We are
working on cleaning it up to make sure
you have an enhanced I And we're gonna
give the original so you don't think I
thought those aren't words that make you feel
good about come we're gonna clean it up
for you. But the FBI is gonna clean
it up, you say. Yeah. Yeah. Shenanigans.
You're gonna see there's no one there but
him. Right. There's just nobody there. So I
say to people all the time, if you
have a tip, let us know. But there's
no DNA, There's no audio. There's no fingerprints.
There's no suspects. There's no accomplices. There's no
tips. There is nothing. If you have it,
I'm happy to see it. There's video clear
as day. He's the only person in there
and the only person coming out. You can
see it. So
Your thoughts.
Well, he's lying.
He's he's just lying. He's a liar.
That's what he does for a living. He
defends narratives.
He goes out there. He's comfortable around those
people. He used to work there. Mhmm.
We need you to go out there and
sell this
story to the American people, Dan.
You know? Well, it's it's just a it's
a
weird evolution of the story. Right? Like I
said, if so if you somehow have video,
how in the world has that not been
released by now through multiple administrations, including president
Trump's from the last time. Right? Or the
idea that you clearly just said you don't
have a video of the event.
So how the how are we supposed to
think that you like, if you show us
this weird video that's of everything other the
moment than when he dies, how are we
supposed to let that let it why would
we think that that proves that he didn't
kill himself if you have the one moment
that we need in all that? You know?
That seems like a weird,
glaring red flag.
If if Dan Bongino had you in a
interrogation room
and you changed your story like he just
did Mhmm. Because the story was all the
cameras are broken. There's no evidence of this.
And then all of a sudden you say,
well, actually,
there was
camera footage and then you go, well, why
didn't you tell us this from the beginning?
Sounds like you have something to hide. You
know, if you were the one that that
was doing this Right. Halfway through, you know,
your story changed and it it then they
would say, oh, we've got a huge problem
here here because you just told one set
of of
facts, air quotes, facts,
back in 2019, and now you've got a
different set of them. So somebody's lying here.
Who was it? And you said, no. No.
It's just a misunderstanding.
You don't understand. Well,
explain it to me then. This this guy
is a cop.
He understands that you change your story midway
through, you're hiding something. Right. And to your
point, just wait. What just popped in my
mind when you said that is is even
recently though. Right? So why didn't this get
brought up in the beginning? Are you telling
us that this one video that had the
main thing was you're only just finding out
that it was there? You know what I
mean? Like, there's nothing about this that lines
up in any logical way. But, you know,
like, that's we it's we'll have to wait
and see when this video comes out if
it ever does. Well, there's the first thing
right there. Do you think that's ever gonna
happen? It would not surprise me in the
least if it just literally never came out.
That's how things seem to go today. What
do you think? I wouldn't be surprised. There
will there will be a a ton of
people reminding them about this. And if it
comes out, my guess is that it'll be
completely doctored. I agree. What what was the
the term he used? Cleaned up.
Cleaned up. It'll be cleaned up a little
bit. You know? What does that even mean?
We we can't you can't shoot the the
footage with, like, a Bigfoot resolution camera, like
a one megapixel. We gotta clean it up.
We gotta, you know, sharpen it, make it
look nice and pretty for you. Another word
for that is edit.
Edit.
Cleaned up. Yeah. So the the thing that
goes to my mind is the deepfake point.
Like, we've talked about this in the past.
Like, I've been saying this for the longest
time. Like, when is like, obviously, we all
know deepfakes are there. It it becomes this
weird kind of comical, you know, Obama fake
video on a show one day, and then,
like, just gets dropped. You know, it's like
this I I I'm of the mind that
is probably radically affecting things and has been
for a long time and, like, archives, and
we don't even know what's happening. Right? Like,
the to a level we don't even understand.
And so I've been waiting for, like, the
actual shoe to drop. Like, the big the
case we're all supposed to see. Right? And
I've always wondered whether it was gonna be
somebody being accused of something they actually didn't
do, and they claim it's a deepfake, but
they say they're guilty or vice versa where
they are guilty, but, you know, Trump's like,
it was a deepfake. I wasn't me. And
then all of his audience goes along with
that. And so I'm that's what I think
this might be. It feels like it has
those kind of remnants to it to where
it comes out or not remnants, but, markings,
to where it comes out as the Epstein
video, which not of the event apparently, but
it shows him, I guess, being alone is
his point. And then you wonder whether that
is simply altered, like you said. We'll be
checking that. But has that become kind of
the conversation starter for that very point? I
don't know. It's interesting. But or or as
somebody pointed out in the chat on top
of that, well, a lot of us are
arguing we have been from the beginning. What
if he wasn't dead in the first place?
What if he was shuttled away somewhere because
he has too much information or, you know,
whatever, which doesn't seem likely. Why wouldn't they
just kill him? But if he's still alive,
wouldn't that add a whole other layer to
whether they could
manufacture a new video? You know? Interesting thought.
Somebody shared that in the chat.
I'd I I'll tell you what. If I
were
if I were I'm not trying to give
these lunatics any ideas, but if if I
were the Trump administration,
I would save that
that deep fake
excuse for a much bigger scandal. This
is six years ago. We've already litigated it.
The common you know, everyone has a thought
on it. There's nothing new. I would wait
for something else that came up,
and, of course, there will be. And then,
you know, if he's let's just say he's
Trump is doing something he shouldn't be doing,
and then it comes up and and then
he wants to hide behind the deep fake.
Oh, that was not me as a deep
fake. I do that with something else. This
seems like Yep. No sense in diffusing the
Jeffrey Epstein bomb after it's already gone off
six years ago. You know what I mean?
It seems like a a waste to do
that. But we all know that I mean,
when the video comes out, it's not if
it comes out,
it's not gonna set anybody's minds at ease.
You're everyone's gonna have the exact same thought.
This is probably fake.
I mean, be because it's coming from the
FBI
who has a long and storied track record
of pathologically
lying about the things that they're doing.
So it's one of those things where you
it it also the with the deep fake
technology,
the the excuse of is gonna also kind
of take into account the credibility of the
person who's who it's being turned against too.
If you have
a long track record of lying, like the
FBI, and then they cut you put a
video out or or something comes out and
someone says, oh, it's deep fake, and they
say, no, it's not. You know, we're the
FBI. We wouldn't lie about that. The answer
is, yeah, you would. You lie about everything.
You you would you would most definitely lie
about it. But if you're somebody who
doesn't have a repute let's just some movie
star comes out, gets busted, and they say,
well, I was raped by this movie star,
and here's the footage from the security. And
the person
genuinely
has never been in trouble for anything, and
they come out and say, I think this
was a deep fake video. I wasn't there.
I didn't do it. That we have a
a possibility of saying, well, maybe. Let's talk
about this. Maybe he wasn't there. Let's have
the conversation.
The Trump administration, Trump's got a long reputation
of being a liar.
The FBI, same with them. They're the wrong
people to to start the, oh, I can't
believe that you would use a deep fake
against me, you know, sort of crowd. They
they they are they're the last people to
be in a position to to claim that
something is fake when they've been lying their
entire lives about just about everything. So
I think that,
we are in a post truth world. These
videos are going to be increasingly more difficult
to,
to differentiate real from fake. And my guess
is that in some of the cases, they'll
they'll they'll they'll use it as bait to
get people saying, you know, they'll maybe I
could envision the Israelis
doing something where there's a video of, you
know, one of like, a drone bombing, like
you've just seen recently with the Ukrainian drone
that hovers next to that Russian guy. His
head who's sitting down and then it blows
up and everything. I could envision a scenario
where Israel puts out a fake video like
that, and then they go, this was a
deep fake. See, here's the proof. You guys
it was all fake. Do you try to
make us look bad? And then they say,
all those videos that you see of Israel
are all deep fakes. Right? They're all deep.
If one is, then all of them could
be. And so I could see them using
that as a tactic to try and discredit
things moving forward. But, as far as the
Epstein
case goes,
you know, the FBI would have an easier
time of getting the general public to believe
them if they didn't have a storied history
of lying to the public every time they
get a chance to. So I mean, even
the New York Times, for for take it
for what you will, wrote a while back
about how the vast majority of the cases
they break down that they have a hand
in starting themselves. Right? That was New York
Times. The Intercept has done great work around
that. There's a it's as you said, it's
very documented
that whether it's they, you know, end up
arming, funding, nudging
the guy they say is a terrorist and
doing a thing, or he ends up being
nudged to the point and then doesn't do
it at the last moment, they still arrest
him anyway. Like, there's so many of those
cases over and over, and it's like the
question becomes, like, well, would they have done
any of that if you didn't force them
or pressure them into it? You know, there's
a a case like actually, the Free Thought
Project cover that I report that I posted
back in the day when they were,
talking about it was a case of a
mentally,
handicapped kid. It was, like, a 17, 16
year old kid who
they basically tried to commit tried to manipulate
into being a right wing terrorist. And that
it's it's documented. They caught it in the
act, and we've talked about this possibly, I
think. And he he was, the parents caught
it. They so it didn't happen, but the
parents exposed it. I mean, the documents are
all very clear. And it's like, you know,
the idea is that you're taking advantage of
some kid who just wants a friend, who's
willing to go, yeah. I'll do whatever you
say that. What as long as you keep
calling me on the phone. You know? Like,
that's the thing. People they take advantage of,
and that happens all over the place. So
I'm with you, man. I don't think we
should trust a word they're saying. But I
think the Israel influence on the Epstein story
and just obviously the influence on this country
right now makes you wonder whether there's another
interest at play other than what's best for
Donald Trump's administration or even The US Government.
Yeah. I always wanna point that out because
sometimes these things, you just it's anomalous. Like,
you just go, how does that make sense?
Like, there's no interest, but there is if
you understand that it's, like, to the detriment
of this country. Like, to literally bring this
country down to its knees, and I do
think there's a part of that happening right
now. I think that's worth pointing out.
Yeah. And I've and I've I've described from,
like, an
astronomy perspective when they say, how do we
discover black holes if you can't see them?
You said, well, what you you're you're not
looking for the black hole. What you're doing
is you're looking for stars that have that
there's an unusual effect on a star. A
star is doing something that it normally doesn't
do and then you have to deduct that
there's an unseen
influence
acting upon that star to make it do
something that it doesn't normally do. Therefore, we've
conducted we've decided that there must be a
black hole somewhere nearby.
Israel is the black hole.
Yeah. They're in
yeah.
Their influence on people they are unseen
in a lot of these cases, but you
you know they're there based on the influence
they exert on people that are visible. So
somebody like Bongino, you go, why would you
ever go in front of those cameras and
say that the Epstein stuff was was all
true and then there's nothing there? And you
go, it must be
something we know you know it's not true,
Dan.
So how are you being made to say
it? Well, there must be an undue influence.
There must be a black hole nearby that's
pulling on you and forcing you to do
that. And I would assume,
considering Jeffrey Epstein's ties to Israel among other
places, I would assume that the black hole
in this situation is most definitely Israel. So,
I mean, I don't know how how you
could,
I mean, I don't know who else would
be responsible for it. I don't know who
else has more to to lose. It's not
it it it would have to be an
outside. It it'd be Israel. Mhmm. Well, I
mean, I think Saudi Arabia. Yeah. You know
what I mean? It's not they're not doing
it. It's that's a really great analogy, by
the way. And I think the point regardless
I'm I completely agree with you. But just
be objective. The point regardless is just take
note that there is something. There's an anomaly
taking place here that is driving people to
act outside their interests. I I I Catherine's
talked about that. And, of course, terrifyingly, she
overlaps that with the possibility or she thinks
very clearly that it is happening of, like,
neuroscience,
like, through technology, like, making you act against
your own interest, which is a terrifying thought.
I don't even know how to begin to
tackle because how do you fight something like
that? But that there that's where we're the
point the same is take note of people
that stand out and then, you know, don't
try to box it into the way we
see the world. Think about outside possibilities. Now
January 6 is an interesting overlap to all
of that because it's a really interesting kind
of convergence of events that started kinda before
you know, let's just say building up to
a lot of the larger things happening right
now. And let's not you know, if we're
being honest about this and just acknowledging blatantly
proven evidence, we know that there were multiple
examples of authority, FBI,
even military intelligence that were there. Right? And
so this was documented in the beginning of
this conversation, well past kind of this weird,
like, revelation now where they go, we're about
to prove that there were FBI there. It's
like, well, that's does anybody I mean, they
said that in public in congress by now.
Jimmy Doar points that all the time. Right?
So it's it's that was one part of
it. Then we have the aspect of, like,
the Antifa.
You know, we're there. We got them to
do these things. That's on video. We have
the Ukrainian influence, the Azov movement. We've got,
what's his name, Sergey Beninin who's or Benin,
who's on video screaming things in Russian saying,
let's go. And then, you know, the and
then proving that he's tied to a Ukrainian
entity that is bonded by Israel and the
CIA. Like, these things matter. You know? There's
a worldwide thing that was happening there. Now
with what we've seen, it's hard not to
think about consider the possibility that that was
at least maybe that was an attempt to
do what they're beginning to do now, and
it didn't it failed, or maybe it was
a de destabilization
effort. Maybe it was about more censorship. But
let's go back to the the clip from
Cash and listen to what he has to
say about January 6, then we could talk
about more of those points.
Importantly,
people had questions about January 6 and whether
or not there were FBI sources, not agents,
sources
on the ground during January 6. And I
told you I would get you the definitive
answer to that, and we have. And we
are in the process again of working with
our partners to divulge that information, and it
is coming. And I will tell you this.
You have.
The answer to that question will surprise and
shock people because of what To me, like
with Donald Trump going, which by the way,
I don't think we ever really identified what
the big announcement was. We all have different
opinions about it, which suggests it wasn't really
a big announcement. That he's like, this is
gonna be the bombshell world changing announcement that
comes in the next couple of days. And
then everyone's like, well, which one was it?
You know? It's like, I think it's about
telling you how you're supposed to respond. That's
what I get like like this. And why
wouldn't you just go, well, there were agents
there. We're gonna tell you soon whether or
not. You know what I mean? It seems
very contrived to me. Any comment before I
keep playing?
Well, I was pretty sure Trump Trump's big
announcement was gonna be that he was bringing
the McRib back.
Yeah. Probably what it really was.
Yeah.
Something something that they're gonna run. About. Yeah.
Okay. Former FBI director Chris Wray eventually admitted
to congress there were 26 FBI
confidential human sources Not in around the Capitol
Mhmm. January 6, but not actual agents.
Can you
say that's true? Are there more than that?
What what you're learning from that? I can
say that that is definitely a piece of
the truth.
Why it took
a a ton of time for,
and questioning in congress
for the director to get that point is
what I'm trying to eliminate from the FBI.
If Congress asks you a question under oath,
whether or not there were sources
in around January 6 at the Capitol, you
as the director of the FBI need to
know that and not deflect
and give a DC answer. You have You
mean, like, literally every member of your current
administration that will not answer any question regarding
habeas corpus or constitutional rights? And I don't
know if you've seen some of those clips.
They're just infuriating.
And it's not new to it's not part
I mean, and it's just partisan. Either side
in front of congress just never seem to
answer any questions. They just kinda grandstand forever.
Such it's always the other in these conversations.
You know? To be prepared I love that
he criticizes answer.
Yeah. But he criticizes, given a DC answer
while he's in the process of giving a
DC answer.
Exactly. Well said. Forgiving. That's the answer Chris
Ray should have given. And, eventually, everybody's gonna
know
the whole picture. Yeah. Because the American people
deserve that. And and look, no one's more
frustrated than me. Remember, I was chief of
staff at the Department of Defense on January
6. We said
that we were ready, and the president had
previously authorized
the National Guard to be there days in
advance. I spent two years, a small fortune,
grand juries
to testify to the truth. And what happens
now years later, we were right. Bowser and
Pelosi rejected that offer.
And instead
of figuring out how to prevent security lapses
like that ever again, the American public spent
tens of millions of dollars and countless hours
on TV
listening to conspiracy theories
because those in positions of leadership
failed to tell the American public the truth.
So now in the conspiracy theory, I mean,
is this just the new mainstream? You know
what I mean? Like, you're just taking the
other side. Like, the the the point for
people like us is always that, you know,
there's it wasn't by it was it was
the government. You know what I mean? Like,
with Pelosi and the overlap, I mean, the
idea that this was something that was one-sided
is just kind of insane to argue today.
But, you know, what what are your thoughts
on what he said?
It's I'm I'm embarrassed on his behalf
that he's standing up there lying like that
so brazenly. I mean,
we're never going to get the
we're not gonna get the truth from the
FBI about what was going on January 6
because they were involved in the operation. They're
not going to tell on themselves.
So,
what what about the what about the the
car bomb that was found that was planted?
You know, what about that? How come we're
not talking about that? How come that footage
wasn't released until recently, and
and we have real questions about who is
involved in in in I mean, the whole
my first
comment with regard to the January 6,
situation
is and and and I was I always
wanna start with this.
Don't
walk into traps,
period.
This was an obvious trap from the beginning.
I I can't stress that enough. Like, the
people that actually physically went there,
you just have to know better. I'm not
saying that you did anything wrong. I'm not
saying that they should have done what they
did to the j six people because they
shouldn't have or anything like that. I mean,
it was the most
coordinated and organized
insurrection I've ever seen. They're going in through
the
following the rope stanchions and, like, walking in
like they're on a guided tour. So the
whole thing was nonsensical. But still, even if
you're just there to take pictures, even if
you're just there for the pageantry
of it all or just to say that
you were there, in the future, when they
have events like this, don't show up. You're
walking into a trap. Your cell phone is
being monitored. They're taking pictures of everybody who's
there. I mean,
this is but,
you know,
besides that,
you're you're dealing with a monolithic government
that might pretend from time to time that
it's red team versus blue team to keep
you distracted. But when it really matters, the
FBI
is
deeply ingrained. It's not gonna be removed. It
doesn't it is part of the permanent state.
Yes? Mhmm. Republicans come into office, then Democrats
come into office, and they change the heads
of the FBI and all that stuff. But
the the agents and the inside the agency,
they remain.
Nothing changes there. So this,
this notion that Cash Patel is gonna come
in and fix the FBI is
is is just magical thinking Yeah. That MAGA
wants to hear
because they know that it should
be reformed, and it should be gutted and
taken down to the studs and rebuilt or,
frankly, should be abolished altogether. But
but even the the MAGA people would say,
well, we need it because, you know, there's
bad guys and terrorists out there, and we
we just want an FBI that runs correctly,
that does things by the book. And it's
like, there's never been an FBI that does
things by the book. Don't you understand what
that like, J. Edgar Hoover was
was was as big of a gangster as
anybody else that he was allegedly going out
there trying to prosecute. So
this is
this is organized
crime
Right. Known as the government. It's just that
in in the movies,
we're trained to think that organized crime is,
Italian mafioso smoking cigars and, you know, at
a pizzeria somewhere,
and and and, you know, shaking down the
local residents for protection money. No. Organized crime
is the FBI.
It's the largest domestic terrorist organization
in The United States.
Absolutely. So
the idea that it's gonna get turned around
is is is is wishful thinking, and I
I wish people would focus on on on
other things. Well, this is why they've adapted
the the argument. And, I mean, what I
saw well, I think we this has been
building for a while, you know, where you
saw suddenly the the new argument that, well,
you know, we're not we're not left right.
We see beyond it. We're patriots. I said,
okay. Well, are you voting for republicans? Okay.
So you're still you're still taking a side.
And the argument is because, well, those are
all rhinos.
Right? So all you really did was go,
you're all, you know, you're democrats and rhinos,
so there's one side, and now we're patriots.
So you still have a two party illusion.
You're still doing the exact same thing. But
it allowed them to think that, oh, yeah.
Two party illusion. We're with you. You know
what I mean? Like, it was it was
an evolution of that. And now you've got
the problem where people and look. I I
will I will point out. I don't think
there's anything wrong with hoping the outcome goes
the way you want it to. But like
you're saying, hopium is the problem, is you
need to hope or want or, you know,
wish for the best thing, but criticize everything,
hold them to account. You know? But yeah.
So they they evolved it into the point
to where now today, like you're seeing, it's
that
this is, like you said, the white hat
part of it that's fighting all of them,
the government, everybody, left and right, all of
congress. You know? And, hey. I like I
said, that's why I said that. I I
hope that happens. But I think as you
pointed out, there's already a very clear track
record just from this administration forward that shows
you they're already lying to you. You know?
It's like, let's just be real about what's
happening in front of us. So the the
January 6 point all is also,
this is also a tweet, that same conversation
in regard to,
Kash Patel telling Fox News last week that
his investigation at July 13. Trump assassination attempt
was closed. And so I these are all
kind of my mind the same wheelhouse because
there are they're interesting points that I think
we've all identified
or other events that are manipulated
In some way or another, whether false flags,
you know, whatever else you wanna call it,
it's pretty clear that most, in particularly on
the Republican side, think that there was at
least more than one shooter, which I think
is flatly obvious, quite frankly, based on the
evidence. But they've closed it
and are arguing there was only one shooter.
And it says, when he said that, I
immediately filed a FOIA request. This is Ken
Silva
of, not familiar with his platform, but just
he pointed this out. And I you follow
him, but I forget how I know him.
I overlap for something else. Libertarian Institute, it
looks like. We do a contributor and editor.
It says, when he heard him say that,
he immediately filed a FOIA request for all
FBI interviews, reports from the investigation. Today, he
was denied that request on the grounds that
the case was still open. So they're saying
they closed the case, but they're denying grounds
on FOIA requests because they're saying the case
is still open. So, I mean, it's things
exactly like this that show you there's a
lot more going on where they want you
to think. That's why I was asking at
the beginning that I still feel like they're
genuinely trying to clumsily
hope that people think they're doing the right
thing, and I think that just shows that
they're desperate.
Which, maybe that's hopium for me, but I
do think that's clearly what they it feels
like they're scrambling to try to make this
make sense. Or maybe you're right, maybe it's
about trying to, you know, I guess,
manufacture learned helplessness. Right? Get us to just
sit back and go, Oh, well. I guess
that's the way it is. But, unless you
wanna comment on that, I was just adding
to what we talked about. I do find
that interesting, though. It's a great thing. It
it could it could be it could be
learned helpless. And I mean, they they could
it's important with when dealing with these people
to understand that there's there's two things that
they do. There's what they say,
and then there's what they do. Mhmm. And
so when they say the case is closed,
that's why you need to pull the foyer
and say, like, I want all the and
then they said, well, actually, the case is
open. So the case is open still. But
you said it was closed. So it's like
you cannot trust these people
at all for anything. I wouldn't trust Cas
Patel to tell me what he had for
breakfast this morning because I just think that
lying is so ingrained. You don't it's not
that you become the FBI
head and then
they teach you how to lie.
It's that you are a pathological
liar
at your core. That's the reason why you
are put in a position like that. Some
are better at it than others. 19%.
James Comey was was great at it. James
Comey could sit there and just look at
you and and and and tell a lie
without without cracking it. I look at Cash.
Cash looks like an amateur. He's looking all
over the place. It feels very uncomfortable.
James Comey was a stone cold killer. You
know what I mean? He'll tell you Obama.
Was one of the most dangerous that we've
ever had because he was one of the
best making you feel like he wasn't lying.
He was one of the most dangerous we've
had.
Yes. He did there there is a it's
a talent. It's a skill, and you can
you can improve upon it. You can get
better at it, but some people have it.
Some people have that ability. I mean,
Barack Obama is is, in my opinion, one
of the most dangerous people around there in
part because the vast majority of people don't
think he's dangerous. They think the only bad
day he had was that he wore a
tan suit one time.
They think he didn't kill people. They think
he wasn't drone bombing people. They don't they
don't know any of that. They because it's
they see the smile and he like, hey,
listen to me. And he likes basketball. He's
just like me, you know. And and they
do all those things and and a skilled
I mean, you gotta give credit where credit
is due.
Barack Obama could could could
lie right to your face, and most people
that didn't know any better would,
wouldn't be able to distinguish the lies from
the truth. But,
but somebody like Trump, Trump is a different
form of liar, you know. He he's,
he's the ringleader of the circus, you know.
He's just step right up. You're about to
see the most amazing thing you've ever seen
in your life. Well, that's a lie.
Well, could be. For somebody, it could be
true. For somebody's gonna see the most amazing
thing they ever saw in there. So it's
like, it's a different
style.
See, well, this is interesting. Let let's focus
on this for a second because this is,
generally want your thought on on why you
think it like, so clearly, I agree. Like,
there's a different thing happening right now where
it's gone from, you know or even just
a comparative point between the two. Like, that
adds to what you're saying earlier. Do they
really just want us to see how bad
this is? Maybe that's a foreign policy thing
or foreign government thing. You know? But but
so on that overlapping point, you know, you
can clearly see that shift into, at least
as the way I've I've framed it as
nuance.
Right? Where you have a difference of opinion
based on the facts we're seeing. That's how
it always felt to me in the past
where you get both sides telling you different
stories, but really trying to root it around
the general facts, but they're lying to you
about them in a way. Right? Now we've
gotten this point to where nobody in the
partisan field ever has really cared about the
facts. But now you've got this situation where
you've got the current leadership and have the
same thing I building I saw during Biden,
whoever's currently in power, not having a nuance
around the facts but just coming out and
going two plus two equals five. And and
that's some philosophical
conversation about maybe math doesn't exist. No. They're
going, I'm entering two plus two. My calculator
is says five. And you're like, but that's
not true. You know? So how do you
even combat with that? You know? That's the
difference to me, and I I wonder why
that shift has happened. It's interesting.
Yeah. It it certainly has happened. The you
the brazen,
nature of their lives are it's it's,
terrifying, frankly. Yeah. Actually, I I think it's
I think it's a sign of impending doom,
to be honest with you, because at least
while they're trying to lie to you and
trying to tell you to paint a different
story, that that at least feels like they're
trying to cover up their tracks. When you
get to around a person who doesn't even
feel the need
to to give you the backstory
or they just say, two plus two equals
five. And if you have a problem with
it, that's your problem, buddy. That's a dangerous
person. That's somebody who is doesn't even wanna
play the game of trying to,
you know,
mislead you with a story or anything like
that. They
and again, I feel like these are two
separate messages
for for people. You know, you when you
when you tell somebody two plus two equals
five,
then
you you get a certain segment of the
population that says, okay. I guess that's what
we're doing now, and they get on board.
And then you have a smaller segment that
says,
yeah. But I know that two plus two
equals four. And their response is is and
yet we're still telling you that two plus
two equals five. So you're not gonna be
able to do anything about it. That's just
the way it is right now. So it's
a d it demoralizes
people that wanna hold them accountable
because they're telling you right to your face,
you're not gonna hold me accountable. If I
was if I thought that I needed to
be held accountable, I would tell you that
two plus two equals four.
Right? Well, that's why I am blatantly lying
to you shows that there's nothing you're gonna
do about it, at least in their mind.
That that that they're that they're not even
worried about getting caught anymore.
That's the learned helplessness in a way too.
And I think the other part of it
is you do have the ones you're talking
about that maybe really do want to argue.
Right? But then they sit back and they
go, well and they've been trained this way
for the last four years that, well, you
know, maybe a two plus two does equal
four, but but they would have made it
two plus two equals six. So I'm gonna
go with five because it's closer to my
lie. You know? Like, that's that's the weird
place we're at where they just rationalized
why the lie is still better than the
other lie. You know? It's it's frustrating, but
it is having a clear effect. You know?
And and it's it's just an interesting dynamic
where the well, I will add to it
actually too where it's not just two plus
two equals five and too bad, you just
deal with it. It's just that you come
out and say the opposite, two plus two
equals four, and then they remove your bank
account and send you El Salvador. That's that's
right. Beginning to go. It's like, woah. Maybe
I'll just say two plus two equals five.
And I think that's what's alarming is that
learned not helplessness in this case, but, like,
adherence, you know, where people go along to
get along. And and people that wouldn't otherwise
do that might be more willing to if
they recognize the consequences are very real. Like,
not just to call you out, lose your
platform, but maybe there's actual con maybe you
go to prison for saying the truth. You
know, that's the dangerous path we're on.
It's it's funny that you chose the two
plus two equals five metaphor because in my
Octopus
book that I wrote in 2017, there's a
quote I have in there from a lady
named Amanda August, and she was the curriculum
coordinator for common core. And she's talking about
three times four equally in 11.
And she was saying that that because they
wound up on a conversation where she was
explaining
that they're not really concerned if the if
the child puts three times four,
equals 11,
what she really wanted to see was them
show their work, how they got to that
number, and then they would get partial credit
for it. And she was saying, if you
just put three times four equals 12, I
mean, how do I know that you even
know what you're doing? Sure. It's the right
answer, but I don't know how you know
that. So
she was saying, we're more we're not interested
so much in the final answer. We're interested
in the how and the why and how
you came to that conclusion. It's like,
the answer is wrong.
The answer is blatantly incorrect.
Who cares how you came up with it?
The other answer is correct. Why won't you
go with that? And that's like the common
core philosophy is like a perfect encapsulation of
this because it's like, it doesn't matter if
you're blatantly wrong. As long as you can
bullshit your teacher well enough, you'll get partial
credit.
Yeah. And look, this is important though. Is
it's also so it's it's this is how,
like,
like, matter like, there's a lot of multiple
levels to this. Right? So I would argue
though, first of all, first and foremost, you
don't get partial credit for being wrong. I
think that's absurd. I think that's training the
idea into you that, you know, it's like
it's like the participation medal in math. Right?
It's the same kind of thing. Right?
Or or ribbon or whatever. But but what's
interesting is I do argue that it would
be important to not just memorize
the outcome. Like, with doctors just being told
you get this, here's your pill. Like, they're
an automaton. Instead, to understand how you did
that so you could better understand it. That
is important. So it's like we've played this
where, you know, it's it's it's it shouldn't
just be memorization to learn these numbers, do
that, but to understand how you got there.
That would make a person smarter. But not
to walk it back to where all we
care about is whether or not you
even incorrectly like, I don't I can't even
wrap my mind around that. How so you
can incorrectly show your math and still gain
points? It just seems ridiculous. But so this
is where we end up where now the
overreaction is, well, no. It's like we're leaning
in. It's a small point in regard to
memorization, but I do think that's interesting. Right?
That I well, I think we probably both
agreed that they should understand how the math
works, but, obviously,
the outcome of that math problem is all
that really matters, you know, in in the
point of understand you know? Yeah. Go ahead.
Why why do I need to show my
work that three times four is 12? I
learned that three years ago.
You know what I mean? Like, I don't
so I need to show my work on
every single thing I do because but, like,
some of this, I already you know, why
do I have to show
the the math on this? It's so simple.
We did it a long time ago. There's
no need to show my work in the
fact that that Because of, you know Yeah.
Well, it's just common core absurd, and we
all, like, like I mean, I funny you
bring it up. I'm like, whatever happened to
that? Is that even still going on? Like,
it that was an early example of them
trying to kinda rewire the way people see
things. And it's we're seeing it happen that
right now as well. But, I mean, yeah,
flatly, obviously, that is absurd and manipulative.
And it's interesting that, you know, the way
we deal with these things though and and
where that came from. You know, why do
we continue to allow these same
billionaire social engineers to constantly stick their fingers
in things left and right? You know? And,
like, my point with, like, GMO and Bill
Gates, for example, how do we not continue
to acknowledge the utter spectacular
failure that was the GMO food push for
India and the rest and that never stopped.
Or the GMO vaccines are now a thing.
You know? And it's like, we we have
the the clear visible example that that is
not successful, that they tested on your lives,
and yet we just still keep going, you
know, even despite the obvious focus on Bill
Gates. You know, just show that we're we're
I think we're wrapped up in, like, the
theater of the partisan game, and we miss
the forest for the trees on almost all
of these topics, like, in a real big
sense, I think.
Yeah. Well, the oligarch
class, the,
you know,
the
Rockefellers and Carnegies and Bill Gates, you know,
of the world have you know, once you
get to a point where you have
bought everything with a price tag on it,
you start looking for things that aren't available
for sale, like the education system, like the
schooling system. Like, you you wanna be you
wanna be you're an industrialist. You wanna create
the school system so that people are more
better suited for the for the world in
which you're creating for them, which is sitting
at a you know, and sitting in rows
at the factory,
sewing buttons on blouses and waiting for the
bell to ring to tell you that it's
time to go. I mean, it's the same
thing you get in schools. Right? So they
design the schools to mimic the future. And
so with Bill Gates, you have to ask
the question, like, what future are you planning?
Are you getting kids ready for when you're
you're telling them that three times four does
equal 11 as long as you can show
your work? It can't be engineering. You can't
build a bridge that people are gonna drive
across for that sort of math. You get
people into into their freshman year of college
and if they've come through common core, the
education system in college is saying,
you're two full years behind entry level college
math, which means your freshman and sophomore year,
you have to take math classes
just to be able to get to the
math class that you should have been taking
when you were a freshman, but you can't
because you're you're still, you know,
trying to explain why three times four equals
11. So we've set the entire education system
back by a number of years, and the
under the guise of of what?
Not making Bill Gates angry? I mean and
and, again, we've since we mentioned Obama, I
mean, Obama
dangled the carrot and told everybody that they
had to sign on. All the states had
to sign on to this abomination before they
even had the curriculum written. Then you see
the curriculum and you Exactly. Hear the guys
talking about it saying, you know, think of
a think of an idea on a napkin.
Think of nothing. Think of that's what we
had when we started. It's like, oh my
god. Why are you saying this out in
general public? We already think your program's trash.
You shouldn't be talking about how how we
we came up with the idea for common
core on a on a cocktail napkin. That
you're you're not Google
developing search engines on your cocktail, and that
was the the greatest business plan ever. You're
destroying
an entire generation of children who are scared
and terrified of math
because you've made it impossible for them to
figure it out. Meanwhile, you find the videos
of the peep the kids in China that
are working on their dry erase board and
they can solve it in, like, four seconds.
They answer and then you've got American kids
going one, two, three, you know, counting on
their on their fingers. It's it's embarrassing, and
it's,
that's a it's it it should be viewed
as a crime against,
against our children. But, unfortunately,
Bill Gates spends a lot of money on
on PR
and, you know, reminding everybody that the MS
and MSNBC
stands for Microsoft,
you know, and that was a deal that
they put in place,
a long time ago since expired, but I
think the the sentiment still remains.
Yeah. Well, I mean, it's it's the we
I mean, I haven't talked about this in
a while, but we used to talk a
lot about the the, like, deliberate dumbing down
of this country, you know, whether through the
schooling system, the Prussian based, you know, automaton
based school system, or any number of other
things where, you know, we have been clearly
I mean, my first thought a long time
ago and still obviously stands is dumber people
are easier to control. That makes sense to
me. You know? But it's hard not to
see, as I was talking about earlier, that
all these things converge around very clear agendas
that, you know, like like, from the Republican
side of it, and rightly so, we should
be on guard and considering any foreign government
trying to do what we're seeing today, that
the Republican side of this had has long
been going, ew, China is trying to infiltrate
our country. Right? And so it's interesting that
for the first time in a long time,
we've got the most evidence I've ever seen
of of of foreign influence, and it obviously
just doesn't get discussed because it's the wrong
entity. You know? So I I just wonder,
just pointing that out, whether these things have
been long term agendas to sort of, you
know, destroy this country. Because, I mean, I
think right now it's worth pointing out that
the Israeli government, and at least some of
the more fanatical elements, are openly discussing sort
of the fall of the West and the
end times coming on. I mean, there are
people like,
Waltz and others in The US Administration
are, like, are are religious Zionists. Like, they're
obsessive about the end times, and that means
they have the mindset that this country, the
West, has to basically be brought down for
this to end up happening. And they're I
mean, I just it's lunacy to understand that
those people are in positions of power right
now. So that all comes to the point
about whether or not this might add to
that. Maybe there's a reason this is going
that direction. I just always think that's worth
pointing out. You know? Very alarming stuff. Well,
if you if you wanted to destroy a
nation, you would you would do it in
in a you know, it's not the the
days of dropping a a nuclear bomb on
a country to destroy it. That's that's antiquated.
You you would do it from inside. You
would you would
you would do you know, you could
people could go watch those Yuri Bezmenov interviews
or those speeches that he gives. You listen
to the you know, back in the eighties.
It's fascinating. You you you see that there
is a a plan for ideological
subversion,
that that,
that has been
run on America for a very long time.
And and you once you understand how it
can happen, you take a look at the
the evidence that Besanov and people like that
layout, you just go, oh, boy. I mean,
they might have run this on us on
they might have given us two two full
revolutions. Right? He says, well, you need twenty
years to it's like, well, maybe they've done
it twice in the last four years. It
certainly feels like that. Yeah. I agree.
Well, one last point on the partisan side
of this, and we feel the things to
to wanna touch on, is the Elon Musk
point. Now I just I just wanna show
the the caption Elizabeth Warren shared, but I
think it's interesting the the, you know, the
partisan game in all this. And and Elon
Musk, if you I'm I don't know. I'm
I think you've probably seen that he is
well, first, he he kinda floated. He was
backing away from politics, but now he posted
officially. He says, as my scheduled
time as a special government employee comes to
an end, I would like to thank Donald
Trump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending.
Weirdly enough, he just recently
stated that Trump's big bill
undermines what he did with those. It's all
fascinating to me. And who knows what the
agenda is? That's kinda one of your reading
the tea leaves here. You know? So Elon
Musk leaving, what does that mean for Doge?
What do you think the whole plan was?
Did did they did they fail? Is this
trying to get Musk out of the way
because he's destroying it and making it all
look stupid? I mean, you know, what do
you think? Warren simply said good riddance, but
Musk isn't off the hook for his chaos
and corruption. We must hold him accountable,
which I agree with. But the funny thing
is is Warren and Trump and, you know,
Pelosi and all of them are all guilty
for a thousand different things. So, yeah, accountability
would be great, but let's start from all
of them. But, anyway, what are your thoughts
on that? Elon Musk leaving and everything.
With regard to Elizabeth Warren, every accusation is
a confession. Yeah. So, I mean, she she
is telling on herself here in a big
way. I I think Elon accomplished I mean,
I I guess the question is,
what does success look like?
Because he got all his PayPal guys in
there. They're all working on a
AI government?
Life enslavement program for humanity. I mean, it
so he he went in and, you know,
put his had his nerds go in there
and and and hook up their programs to,
a bunch of different departments.
So I I don't I don't know I
don't know what his plan was going in.
I mean, I think I think everybody sort
of knows or maybe if they were being
honest with themselves,
a Donald Trump,
Elon Musk marriage is gonna end in divorce
at some point. It just it's just a
matter of time. Those are two personalities that
I don't think would would go well with
each other That's me too. Over the long
term.
I think that there's maybe a case to
be made that Elon took one look and
said,
you know, like, the waste is everywhere. Yeah.
The fraud is overwhelming.
It's almost hard the the hardest part is
knowing where to even start with all of
this. Mhmm. And yet
and and the goal with the goal being,
let's reduce the spending here. And then the
next thing you know, he the the big
beautiful bill comes out and it's it's way
more spending than they even thought.
I would throw my hands up and go,
good luck. You know what? You guys are
on your own. If I were in in
a situation like that, if you brought me
in to actually fix it, now case could
be made that they did not bring him
in to actually fix it. But but if
if you believed that you were being brought
in to actually fix it because you're smart
and organized and you know how to do
these things, and then you get in there
and you say, this is what I do
at all my other companies.
We identify waste. We send emails to see
if people are actually really working remotely or
if they're just deleting their you know what
I mean? You gotta respond. Tell me what
five things you did this week. That was
All these things. You you you lay out
all these things. You and you go, there's
a ton of inefficiency here. We can cut
all these people. We can cut all these
departments,
divisions, everything. We can get rid of all
of them, and then we can,
button all this stuff up. And and then
your boss goes, that's great. Thanks for working
on all that for me. We'll make sure
to do none of this. You go, then
why am I here? Right? That would be
my response would be, then what am I
doing here? But maybe what he's doing maybe
he's already, you know, there there's nobody saying
that he only had one mission there. Maybe
his job was to reduce waste, but while
also
enabling this technocracy
that's coming in from Silicon Valley that is
extremely
dangerous. And, yes, you can get rid of
the Department of Education, fire everybody there, fire
everybody at USAID
and and and all these groups and
and and take a victory lap for that.
But what kind of victory is it? Because
because you brought in all the technocrats
that you all know
those people are unnecessary and they are redundant
in this system anyway.
We don't need it's not so much that
we're gonna remove these agencies and then all
those things are gonna go away. We're just
gonna automate it.
We're just gonna make sure that I don't
even need the approval of all these human
beings to do,
x, y, and z. We've got the system
in place that'll do it for us. So
so I think that you could you could
sort of disguise
the automation
of the government, the pivot into an AI
government.
You could disguise that by saying, we're getting
rid of all these government
workers who are
not showing up for their shifts or doing
remote work. They're not doing anything. They're lazy.
Nothing gets done. And there'd be a real
appetite for that. Right? Let's fire all these
people. But it and and you could be
justified in doing that because you could say,
look. This is they don't do anything. They're
useless eaters, you know, as the globalists call
us. These people are all useless. Let's get
rid of them. Great.
But
the problem is you just have now created
a new problem, which is it's all create
it's all controlled tech
the control was centralized into the hands of
these technocrats
who wrote the program and he who writes
the code
runs it. Right? So if they know how
to do it,
then,
then you haven't necessarily solved the problem. You've
just created a a bigger problem, which is
now there's no humans
overseeing, no checks and balances, no good guys
that might be trapped in a bad system.
There's just nobody.
And the system is run by computers,
and that, of course, is something that they've
dreamed of since the Technocracy movement almost a
hundred years ago.
They're they're they're making moves, you know, to
when we talking about Greenland, talking about Canada,
talking about
all of, you know, connecting these together and
you go, I wonder where they got that
idea from.
Technocracy,
1932,
maybe. I don't know. You go look through
the book and you go, oh, wait a
second. It looks like they're running this playbook
a hundred years later, you know, when it's
actually feasible.
Right. Yeah. Well, I mean, so, obviously, I
mean, I agree.
What you said there is obviously one of
the possible, you know, mindsets. Who really knows
what he thinks and what his intentions are.
Right? That's that's but what's interesting to me
is, like, from my perspective,
I don't the second part about the AI
government, I think, is flatly obvious. I think
they're now actually rolling this out. We already
have the GSA iBot they're using in the
general service administration.
I'll play let's go next to the AI
government point since we talked about that in
one of our last discussions
and how this plays out with the bill,
which is very interesting.
And you should probably seen the no
oversight on AI for ten years, which is
just mind blowing that anybody think but there's
more than that that somebody's pointing out. I'll
show you in a second. But first, Elon.
My mindset is that I don't think he
was coming with I don't think you know,
the way that's framing, which is certainly possible,
is that he was almost used in a
way. Right? That they he came in with
this intention to do this and reduce waste
and has now realized that was never the
plan, but I don't feel that's the case.
I think Elon Musk, if not more than
Trump, the rest, is one of the main
players in all of this. And I think
that he is like, the idea was to
frame this as cutting waste so that you
had the excuse. Always blaming the Democrats or
somebody else, a holdover from the other side,
why it didn't happen. Oh, we really wanted
to, you know, that kind of thing. And
then, of course, falling back to the true
trillion of 150,000,000,000,
but then the point is you could prove
that even that wasn't true. You know? I
mean and I I went through this not
just because reports were coming out. I saw
this myself even before it being reported on
corporate media. And, of course, the overarching point
that you can show all the different manipulations
that were happening, all the different I mean,
there's all these weird things that were happening
in the background. And at the end of
the day, as we know, we've now spent
more the government has spent more to this
point than the previous administration. So
objectively, regardless of the narrative, they failed, which
is obvious in regard but the point being
made today is that that wasn't his fault.
That was the Republicans in congress seems to
be the partisan argument right now. You know,
the bill and whatever else, they're the ones
that didn't let this happen or allowed this
to go more spending or the you know,
all the different arguments. To me, I think
that was always the plan, which all I
want people out listening is just consider both
of those, right? Whether or not this is
something that, you know, spun out, which does
seem likely in a lot of ways that
you and I think talked about the same,
about whether these two big
personalities would, I mean, quite obviously butt heads
at some point, which Trump seemed to do
with everybody in his circle at some point.
And so, big alpha males in the circle
are gonna have that kind of problem. But
I think that he was involved with building
out this AI direction, and my gut tells
me he's being pushed aside because he's too
conspicuous.
Because,
you know, as Matt Ehret discusses, the technocrats
are now stepping back out of the shadows.
And I think they but maybe a little
bit too quick, and maybe Elon was a
bad choice. You know, that that's the thought
process. Either way, I think, overall, it's pretty
clear that this is going in a dangerous
direction in regard to technocracy. And so do
you have any comments on the Elon point
before we go to the AI point in
case you wanna add some to that? Because,
you know, it we can't know for sure.
It's all about what we can see.
Yeah. It does kinda remind me of the
magician who's who's asking you to look at
what he's got in his hand, which is
Elon. Come on. Pay attention to Elon while
there's something going on. You know, you you
really need to be watching what he's doing
with his other hand because it's somewhere else.
So so they know that the cameras will
follow that. Elon's obviously a polarizing figure,
for a variety of reasons. He's been embraced
by the right,
as as some guy who's coming in to
to save everything.
And now,
yeah, I think I think a case can
be made that that
look. If you want to
push through this technocratic agenda, you gotta have
some technocrats in there who know how to
make the system work.
The problem is you've got a guy who
sucks all the oxygen out of the room,
an Elon Musk, who draws a ton of
attention. And as you to your point, maybe
too much attention
to all of this at at the same
time. So,
he's,
he'll be, you know there'll be another one.
There'll be another guy that gets sucked into
Trump's orbit
a year from now and his buddy buddy
and his his best friend and talks about
how he loves him, and then and then
he'll be discarded as well because that's what
Trump does. Even if he throws you overboard
early on, he may swing back by in
his boat and rescue you like Marco Rubio.
I mean, he he
Right. Obliterated that guy in a in in
debates and called him little Marco and, you
know, and insulted him and rightly so, made
fun of how he drinks. You know, he's
drinking water during his debate. All the crazy
stuff. Right? Just humiliated the guy and then
makes him a secretary of state.
And more. Yeah. Got what? Three jobs now?
More. Exactly. Yeah. Well, yeah, I agree. I
I think it's interesting to see that that
it's, you know, that what's that speaks to
me to there there's a larger thing at
play. Right? That they're willing to put aside
their hatred for each other as long as
they get tapped by the right people. You
know? And I think that's whether that's outside
this country or the same old people we
talk about in this country. You know, the
wealthy families or maybe it's Palantir for all
we know. You know? It's like, who knows?
But I think it shows you like you
said, that's the black hole example. There's something
doing that. Like like, I mean, if you
look at the whole inner circle, from Gabbard
to
RK
to Vance to I mean, all of them.
Right before this, we're like, Trump's an idiot.
He's be you know, he's blustering and he's
always lying. And then all of a sudden,
we're like, now we're the best team. You
know? That shows you something. So on on
the point of AI, the reason I think
this is so relevant, and this is what
I might the article the show we did
on this, the impending future of AI government,
but the point being, but who controls the
AI? You know, that really does make a
difference. The reason this is relevant to me
is what we just talked about is, okay.
So if the consideration is that Elon
you know, like, we both agree, it seems,
that he is a major part of rolling
out this technocratic agenda, which is just transparent.
It is the great reset from a red
republican side, rebuilding back better in the same
way. You know, it's the same thing, in
my opinion, but I think that's obvious. And
so if we know that or if we
agree that Elon was that was his agenda
to help roll this out,
and the idea is that this bill, which
will I'll play this clip next, is driving
that into reality, the AI government, the AI
oversight, that that whole thing. And then that's
the argument for why Doge didn't succeed the
bill. It seems as if it's a circular
logic. Like, the point would be that if
that failed, it's because of the agenda that
he was a part of. You see what
I'm saying? And so it it seems to
suggest that he was never really intent on
doing that in the first place. But, you
know, you tell me what you think. Let
me play this clip first, then we can,
we can talk about this. This is interesting.
This is just somebody that I saw releasing
this. The point is that we all saw
the bill about the oversight. He points to
the bill in which is in the bill
you can read for yourself about the about
the idea of,
you know, more GSAI bots is the most
objective way to put it, which just means
more artificial intelligence running different parts of the
government and then makes you wonder at what
point, if not already, are we just going
to AI government, like, as a whole. And
I think the whole Amy Gleason Doge thing
is is worth talking about. So we'll come
back to that.
Today, we're gonna go down one of the
largest rabbit holes I've ever found, and this
is the replacement of the government with AI,
and that's what's in this bill. Let's talk
about it.
So in section four three two zero one,
it talks about replacing the Department of Commerce
with AI. Now the question comes with, what
else do they replace with AI? And here's
where it gets really strange. It talks about
in this section below that no politician or
governing body may stop AI for the next
ten years or enforce any laws or regulations
regulating artificial intelligence models. Wow. That's Silicon Valley
owning the government.
Then we find Silicon Valley manipulating the weather.
Then Then it gets weirder when we find
AI and Silicon Valley entering the health care
system to control all of that, and you
can't sue any of these companies. Isn't that
odd?
And this kinda reminds me of the vaccine
protection act signed by Reagan in 1986,
protecting all the vaccine companies from damages. There
were so many lawsuits that they were actually
gonna go out of business, but the government
protected them.
And it gets even deeper when we find
Billy boy Clinton in the telecommunication
act of 1996. He passed a bill so
if they put a cell phone tower in
front of your house, you can't sue for
any damages.
Do you see how the government is kinda
setting this up, and then they're gonna replace
the government with AI?
It's kinda Now aside from his which I
actually agree with that that's the direction. But
aside from his conclusion on it and maybe
the the weather add in,
I think he makes very excellent points here
about the kind of manufacturing idea whether the
like, the vaccine discussion where they just create
a situation where you can't sue them and
now they're essentially doing the same thing with
what may be your next government or however
you wanna frame that. But the overlap with
that help that part. And then considering that
Stargate is an AI health driven vaccine, you
know, therapeutic direction, you know, that's wild. But
so all those points start where you want.
I think that's very important stuff.
Your thoughts? The the ten year,
no,
ability to modify, stop, or
in any way,
Hornets AI to to to keep it in
line is terrifying. How is that even?
And and you you read that and you
go, I mean, I don't know a reasonable
person that would read that and and think
anything other than, woah. That sounds like a
really bad idea. But, of course, the government
is filled with bad ideas, and if and
and it might be the setup.
It might be the equivalent of that 1986
vaccine protection act because
they know
the they know what's really going on. They
the the vaccine, the pharmaceutical companies, they knew
what was going on. They knew they needed
help.
The
AI companies,
they can extrapolate out where this is going.
If you intend to be doing a lot
of harm to the general public,
then it would behoove you to set up
the foundation
beforehand
to immunize yourself, not in a vaccine sort
of way, but in a legal sort of
way, like, from lawsuits and the like.
And so I wonder if that is I
wonder if this is the beginning
of of some sort
of hands off my AI. You can't get
in there and sue. We all know that
there's a problem. You're I mean, there might
be the equivalent of a Verisk court for
AI. Oh, you were harmed by AI? Well,
you're gonna have to jump through all these
flaming hoops, and we'll settle maybe one percent
of the actual cases that are brought against
you. But, again, it'll be like the vaccines,
which is
they set the schedule where there's a you
know, you take eight shots over the course
of, say, a two year period, and then
you come down with a with a problem,
and you go before the court and you
say, my kid has a problem because of
the vaccines, and they say, yes. But which
one?
You go, I don't know. It's one of
them. And you go, well, my client is
this vaccine,
and and I think it's reasonable that the
other seven may have been the ones that
gave your kid autism and not and not
our clients. Right? So if you can't prove
which one it is, then you can't prove
anything and it gets thrown out. So, again,
in an AI world,
I was harmed by the AI, and I
want I want justice and you go through
some court. Which AI harmed you? Which one
of them did it? And it's like, well
Right. They're all blurred together, so I don't
know exactly which one did it, but I
just know that
some one of them did it, and they
go, yeah. But my client isn't the one
that harmed you. It could have been the
other clients. And so the blurring of this
also makes me
very concerned. Of course, as you mentioned, the
operation or the, the the AI component to,
you know, with Larry Ellison and Sam Altman
talking about this weaponizing vaccines and, oh, we'll
have a rush to market experimental vaccine. I
guess, Wellcome Trust wanted to put it together
in a hundred days. I think AI or
Sam Altman and Larry Ellison
have much different visions on that. I think
they said two days, you know, turnaround and
and and have the code sent to someone
where they can make a a a personalized
customized vaccine specific for you. Oh, yeah. What
could
possibly go wrong with that? Right? So there
we are in
a very dangerous
precipice here, of and we all see it.
Right. And it's tough to know
it's tough to know what I mean, it's
it's one thing if you say, well, we've
got problems with the vaccines. You go, well,
don't get your kid vaccinated. Right? So so,
okay. That's the solution.
But if it's like we have problems with
AI, well, don't get your kid
AI'd.
Don't get yourself a how do we wait?
How do we even do this? How do
I remove myself from this new world that's
being Ubiquitous. Hoisted upon me, which I have
no control over?
Yeah. It's it's
that that really put a fine point and
that's terrifying. Because AI, the way it's being
applied is, you know, ubiquitous. It's in everything.
It's doing everything. It's reading everything. And so
at the end of the day, let's just
say
it you know, which inevitably seems to be
the way it's going, goes into direction where
there's a problem because of it or, you
know, some kind of Skynet dynamic. Well, there's
no going back after that. Right? That's the
point a lot of us are making is
there's no, like, well, we'll just roll it
back. That's not how that works at this
point. And it it's so obvious that these
problems are not being heard.
Rather that they just could care less about
the out the downside, it's about trying to
take control or, you know, how that's how
I see it anyway. And it really is
quite alarming to see how
in you know, all encompassing, as I said,
this is with things like this. Leak reveals
that Sam Altman and Johnny Ive are cooking
up a hundred million AI companion devices. You
know? Know? And these are the kind of
things I'm willing to bet you that'll be
used in elementary school. Remember how we got
the Apple computers and everything when you're in
school and in Oregon Trail and, you know,
getting you worked in? Like, that's I get
I'm willing to bet you that we see
something like that being rolled out for, you
know, your AI companion while you're going through
school or something like that, which is kind
of the way I
the the normalization of that,
I guess, never ending spy. You know? Think
about, like, your phone, where we we laugh
about in the past where all of us
you know, they said, wait. You wanna spy
on everybody, and then they got you to
put a phone in your pocket. So you
now can always listen to what you have
to say. It's like that seems like that
obvious next step, and that does concern me.
Or Israel seeks funding for a plan to
require facial recognition exchange for food in Gaza.
So one building step on that, and it's
just using the world's plights to drive us
into this biometric hellscape that's being built. But,
yeah, the AI thing I think is a
central part one of the central concerns of
our time, in my opinion, that we need
to do something about this or stop falling
for this partisan, well, China's doing it first,
so we have to rush as fast as
we can headlong into this thing. Kind of
the same thing with COVID nineteen. Right? Like,
the rush to see something, to prove something,
to make an injection,
never at the you know, always at the
expense of the American people or the people
in general.
Well, Ryan, we need the good brain chips
to fight the bad brain chips. You know?
That's what Elon told us. Always binary, man.
That's always how it goes. You know? It's
like but, you know, I am of the
mind that most people are beginning to see
through this and have been for a long
time. And I honestly think that it comes
back to the bun you know, the blunder
that was the COVID nineteen response.
So we we can end on this point
and talk about this because it overlaps kind
of back with the first point we started
with. Because here's Dan Bongino saying, as we
read and process reports of a new COVID
strain oh, here we go. I want you
to know that we are actively investigating in
multiple field offices the cover up of the
origin of the COVID virus. We're still there.
You know? They're just it seems like in
every way, everything they're doing is trying to
direct you back to things that are largely
already acknowledged, largely already flushed out, but to
go back to some kind of partisan or,
you know, binary division point. And it says,
along with associated matters requiring our attention, you
deserve answers.
So this was wait. Did I go back?
Okay. That was the right one. And so
I just want your, I thought I had
a tweet there.
That's weird. But so on the point of
the COVID nineteen strain, in which you wanna
see in this was going around, The US
sees cases of a new COVID variant linked
to the surge in China. It seems to
kinda like the same building points. But Dan
Bongino, the origin of COVID, you know, why
would the resources be focused on that? And
I just want your thoughts on where this
goes with the kind of new building
COVID nineteen,
you know, whether just, let's just say, the
pathogen WHO kind of hype virus dynamic that
seems to still be building. Regardless of the
narrative, you know, with the pandemic accord was
going despite The US not being technically a
part of the WHO, you know, where do
you see all that going in that general?
And we can talk about the Moderna thing
at the end.
Yeah. It's funny. They're gonna get into the
origins of COVID. Who was the president when
COVID came out? Oh, it was Donald Trump.
Oh, yeah. That's interesting. So you're gonna go
investigate your boss? Who's Hardly.
What let's let's have Dan Bongino talk about
event two zero one and drag all the
people that participated in that, put them in
handcuffs, and and drag them down to the
police station and start interrogating them about things,
about advanced knowledge.
So
it's a limited hangout, I think. Yep. You
know, the the idea that we're gonna litigate
what well, it's Wuhan. We gotta go get
the Chinese, and they did all this stuff.
It's like,
the Chinese didn't
bulldoze sand into the skate parks and arrest
surfers for not wearing a mask. That wasn't
the Chinese government that did that. That was
our government. That was our disgusting government that
did all those things. So I I again,
Dan Bongino, boy.
What an utter fraud he is. And and
the idea that there's people out there that
that think that he's gonna come in and
get to the bottom of things is
but, I mean, it's just it's just cue
at first far as the eye can see.
You're that guy as far as I'm concerned.
I I think the
you know, it it's
as it's been said before, COVID was an
IQ test. It was a it was a
test to see who was paying attention.
It was, it was a
a drill to find out who's good at
following orders and who isn't.
Mhmm. It it was a
psychological
operation to break people down, you know, and
back to Besanoff when he talks about the
four steps four stages of ideological subversion, third
step is introduce a crisis.
It has to last at least six weeks,
but then in the after after I after
you go through the crisis, I can shower
them with authentic information and it won't change
their mind. They are broken. They are demoralized.
So again, I think that there is a
segment of the population
who got broken by COVID. I think there's
also a segment
who woke up because of it and they
went, woah.
Yeah. There's a lot of nonsense going on
here. The media is lying to me.
The stories are inconsistent.
My experiences with it, you know, I mean,
I was told there was gonna be a
there was a pandemic and that it was
going to kill millions and millions. There should
be people stacked up
corpses on my sidewalk except I walk through
and I don't see anybody and then I
go turn on my
my social media, and I see a bunch
of dancing nurses that are clearly not working.
They're not doing anything. What am I how
am I supposed to to internalize this? So
if they wanna try and push COVID a
second time,
good luck to them. You know, I mean,
I just I I feel
that that is
probably not the best strategy. I don't know.
Again, I'm not trying to give these people
ideas, but I I just would think that
you would pivot to something else. I mean,
we know that they're trying to launch bird
flu. They've been trying to do that for
twenty five years. I mean, they they try
it in Asia every decade or so. It
doesn't really go anywhere.
So and we saw recently, I think, in
the paper yesterday talking about a $700,000,000
deal that just got ripped up that was
for bird flu. But don't worry. It'll just
pivot into a different type of vaccine for
for bird flu. It'll be mRNA
with AI component. You're on it. So it's
so
it's not it's,
I guess, I take
a little bit of solace in knowing that
there that a segment in the population woke
up to it during during the scam, whether
it was the messaging that was wonky, whether
it was their eyeballs, it didn't pass the
test, whether they saw the authoritarians come out,
whether they saw their neighbor, you know, their
neighbor calling the police because there's too many
cars in the driveway on Thanksgiving and they
think there's a super spreader event. It was
revealing
about the character of a lot of people
in The United States. There are people, you
know, there you'd you'd heard the things well
off the if I were alive in in
Germany, I would have hid Anne Anne Frank
in my attic. I would have I would
have never,
you know, partnered up with these Nazis and
goose stepped down the down the street.
Yes. You would. Yes. You would. Because you
called the police on your neighbor for having
too many cars in your parking lot. You
most definitely would have participated in this. People
are weak. People are especially weak when they
think that they that all they have to
do is comply, and then Mhmm. They're protected.
There's
a huge rush. To do. Right? They they
passed on. I must say, no. That's the
good thing. You're supposed to tell on your
neighbor. Sorry. Keep going. I just think that's
important. Sure. Yeah. I mean, if you see
something, say something. That's what Janet Napolitano told
us. Right? Except, well, I I see something
all the time. And whenever I say it,
it's funny. I get banned from social media.
Apparently, it's a one way street on the
things that they want you to to talk
about. But,
it's been,
you know, it was a a big unmasking
the last five years with regard to COVID.
It it showed the the media for who
they really are. It showed the pharmaceutical industry
for being a bunch of convicted
criminals.
They're all felon convicted felons for their crimes
that they've committed over the years that they've
been in business.
It was it was an indictment on weak
people, and and it showed that, the pharmaceutical
industry has still has a ton of power.
Hopefully, some of that goes away. I think
I think I I think I would love
to see I mean, I have my expectations
for RFK junior are extremely low. I don't
think he is,
I don't think he is in a position
even if he wanted to change the world,
I don't think he can. I think he's
too
compromised.
But, you know, the the idea that that,
that he could come out
and maybe end the direct to consumer advertising
on the mainstream media. That would be a
victory, I think, because if he if he
did that,
I think the following day, CNN and MSNBC
would file for bankruptcy. They would just or
their parent companies would zero them out and
write them off as a tax loss and
then close them down. Because when you get
60% of your ad revenue from the pharmaceutical
industry in The United States as we do,
no more Skyrizi commercials anymore. You know? No
more no none of that. None of that
stuff that that was clogging up your television.
You're gonna have have media companies that don't
have any revenue coming in any longer. So
I have no expectations for a guy like
that getting in there and and doing anything
the next time COVID comes around. However,
if there's one if I could wave a
magic wand and get him to accomplish one
thing, it would be to end that
that, direct to consumer advertising because it's a
two for one.
You you simultaneously
get those ads off of TV while
destroying the mainstream media in the process. Because
none of us are taking advert advertising revenue
from Pfizer or Merck or Moderna or anything
like that. They are. Mainstream media is nobody's
offering,
to sponsor act activist post with the Moderna
ads. You know, not that I would take
their money anyway, but it's it's not gonna
impact my revenue,
but it would for them. And so, hopefully,
something like that would happen.
Okay. But you might also notice, I'm not
holding my breath either
because that guy has promised quite a bit.
And so far, I haven't seen much. So,
it would be nice, but that that might
just me be me, fantasizing.
Well, I mean, we should all hope for
that. Definitely. Right? But I but I think
that the
the concern is based on the track record
thus far. And, again, whether it's blackmailed, whether
it's that he's never been on it, you
know, whatever it is, clearly something there's a
black hole there. Clearly, we could see something
shifting. You know? Is if that was going
to happen, I'd be willing to bet you
the establishment that clearly is still in control
would not allow there be some kind of
pivot, whether it's gonna be APAC funding all
of a sudden or, you know, whatever it
is. My mind jumps to that, but anything.
You know? The funding will be replaced. I
don't think
that they would allow that propaganda
network to go away. It's I mean, we
all know it's they're all subsidized by this
point. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, they'd fail right
now if it wasn't for this, you know,
propped up dynamic. You know? But I still
would hope to see that. I still think
that will be a positive step. Also a
positive step, and I I think it was,
I guess, feigned step, the idea of the
removal of the,
COVID shot for for,
you know, basically saying that they if they're
they're not gonna recommend it anymore. They didn't
remove it from the schedule. They're not gonna
recommend it for people in certain categories anymore,
which is still a positive inching forward, but
they're still allowing the shots to be given,
which we all know are deadly, that he
told us are deadly. And, you know, the
thing is frustrating. A lot of people are
calling it out. Danny Rand coup, Talley Beaudin,
different people are standing up and saying, that
doesn't make any sense. You know they're deadly.
You said that before. You know? But, again,
it's still one little step further. But the
point is you're still telling people that they
should take them in certain circumstances, which is
insane to me. But I wanna bring that
up because, still, that's also somewhat in that
direction, and I'll overlap that with this to
end. And to your point about the COVID
thing, I agree with you. And I've been
saying the same thing about
it doesn't make sense. Like, clearly, going in
the same direction again doesn't seem to add
up. However, the one way I think it
would, which I know we all see does
work today to some degree, would be them
to say, you know, through Trump, have Donald
Trump come out through that administration and say,
this one's real, though. Right? This is what's
happening. This is a you know, Democrats lied
to you, but I can prove this to
you right now. And and we are making
a good one this time. This is a
good shot that we've changed. I how on
you how much you wanna bet most of
them would probably fall in line, which is
terrifying. You know? And that that scares me.
But I agree with you. I don't think
that's the way it's gonna go. And that's
why I think it's interesting that the COVID
shot is probably not even what they're interested
in anymore. Right? So moving that off the
schedule entirely even would still be a win,
but I don't think that's where they're aiming.
I mean, Stargate's an mRNA platform. Right? They've
got all sorts of mRNA shots that they're
working with. Now to that point,
this is recent news, which I I saw
this. I said good because I was worried
about this. The this is the bird flu
shot that was approved under Biden at the
very end of his administration that has carried
through. And you could already prove that they
did continue this, but now it seems they've
canceled. At least they've announced that. I'm gonna
look more into this in today and tomorrow.
But so the report was Trump canceled $766,000,000
Moderna contract to fight pandemic flu. What I
found interesting was here's what CNN reported.
HHS cancels $590,000,000
contract. Here's what, where is the other one?
Here's what, oh, that closed it on accident?
That was too bad. There was another one.
There there there was three, articles. All had
a different number. I think that's hilarious.
Corporate media. They didn't really know what they're
talking about. I believe it's around I think
it's $7.66 with the with the accurate full
picture. My point was, just because they're pulling
back on the mRNA shot or excuse me,
the bird flu shot from before of the
before this that carried over, as you likely
know, that's why I said you're on it,
they're still rolling this one out.
MRNA vaccine candidate, which was the self amplifying
mRNA shot for the same thing, for bird
flu.
So it's sort of a bait and switch,
and it always seems to be the case
because you're getting a lot of cheering, which
I agree with is good to stop this
contract. But as if that means, c, they
don't really want this to happen. They don't
believe in these things, but they do. And
they're leaning into mRNA shots all over the
place, including the central
hanging, which is the Stargate platform. You know?
It's it's all right in front of us,
and so it really worries me. And I'll
also highlight this one I've talked about, the
Aerovacs, which is an aerosolized version of these
same things. Right. You know? So I just
see where all this is going, and I
really just hope we can continue to be,
you know, as we said earlier, skeptical, especially
to those that you believe in, because maybe
they're being played. Right? You should be holding
their feet to the fire more than anybody.
But final thoughts on this and where it
goes, COVID or whatever else, Charlie. Always fun
to talk to you, man.
I'm just envisioning this aerosolized
vaccine being sprayed all over San Francisco like
they did back in the, what, fifties, sixties,
operation
sea spray? Yeah. Yeah. After doing that, we're
just testing it out. We'll see if, you
know, what what happens. It's it's a dangerous
time to be
paying attention, but I'd rather be paying attention
than asleep at the wheel and walking into
these traps, and it seems like we're gonna
have our hands full moving forward because if
you wanna convince the Trump you know, if
you wanna convince the Trump people to operate
against their own best interest, you have to
have a a guy like Trump in there
to do it. You know? That's that's so
I I the the people on the right
side of the aisle, they need to have
their eyes open. They think they're safe because
their guy is in there. No. No. No.
You're the crosshairs are squarely on you
because your guy is in there, because they
know he will be able to get to
you in a way that that Kamala Harris
and that administration
never could. He'll be able to reach you
because you have let your guard down because
you secretly you're you've
you've come to believe that Donald Trump is
is there to help you. So,
same old thing. Right? If you wanna get
the right to to get involved in it,
get a Republican president
in there. Now you've got Trump. So then
for the next couple of years, it's gonna
be a war against them. They won't see
it. They won't believe it. They can't believe
it. They can't allow themselves to to believe
that Donald Trump is is who he is.
But I will remind everybody what Steve Poikin
and always reminds me. And that is that
Donald Trump
has is in the world wrestling entertainment
hall of fame. Right. As a
professional
wrestler. And when you watch his administration,
the only thing missing is to hits hitting
some guy in the head with a folding
chair at this point because I've watched him
do it with Zelensky. We watched him do
it with the guy in South Africa. He
brings him in for these struggle sessions. It
feels very inauthentic, and I'm just waiting for
him to get up on the top turnbuckle
and go do a flying leap on some
guy at some point because it all feels
very cartoonish to me. Yeah. Yeah. I agree.
You know? And I I think that
I mean,
it's obvious that people fall for this stuff.
You know? But I I think that, clearly,
it it it it's not it's it's partisanship.
Just like with COVID nineteen, the left very
clearly didn't want to believe that their part
of the team was gonna allow this to
happen. You know? And people
ignore
what is obviously,
you know, not in their interest. They they
rather, they would ignore what the governments are
doing that are hurting them in real time
because they wanna take a side. You know?
And I think the the problem is clearly
for them that, as you said earlier, people
are just no longer really falling in line
as much as they were. And I think
that's what a lot of this comes back
to. And as you said as well, I
don't think it's gonna be the same thing.
I think what they're doing is gonna be
a different flavor
of a similar dynamic. And and and to
your last point, Brad Binkley said this recently
on a show he invited me on for
interview. And I same thing you were just
saying. I really think this is a profound
but simple thing to think about, That if
a anybody but an authority, a government, was
gonna manipulate you, they're not gonna choose the
person that you hate to deliver the message.
They're gonna choose someone that you'll be open
to, somebody that you'll be interested in listening
to. And so it's it doesn't mean that
everyone you trust is therefore not on your
side, but that should be the number one
consideration
about whether that might be the case. And
that's just being objective. Question everything, right, while
considering all possibilities.
So thank you again, brother. I'm sure we'll
do this again soon. What the hell is
happening?
Oh, good. Yeah. Go ahead. I've got one
last thing to add since we're since since
we're we're on a live show. Any of
you in
the Phoenix area
this weekend, Saturday night, I will be there
for the premiere the world premiere of the
new movie Barnum World, which is brought to
you by the guys who did Jones Plantation.
The same director and, the same star, mister
Jones. You'll know him on Twitter as legal
man.
Star in Barnum World. I am also sort
of in the movie. I'm the voice over.
I'm the narrator, and I'm the off camera
interviewer who's interviewing the guy. So you never
actually see me in the movie, but,
but I'm in it. So, we'll be in
Tempe, Arizona,
Saturday Night, May 30 First. If you're interested
in getting tickets to the premiere, you can
go to Eventbrite. Just type in Barnum World.
That's the name of the movie,
and then it'll be available to the general
public the following week. I think he's gonna
put it on YouTube. It'll be free for
everybody. But if you happen to be in
Phoenix and you're looking for something to do
on on Saturday night, you can come to
the world premiere of Barnum World. Should be
fun. We'll all be there.
And, and once that movie's out, I'll,
I'll send it I'll send it to you.
I'll come back on. We'll talk about it.
Absolutely, man. Looking forward to it. Yeah. If
you're out there, show some support, guys. People
in the in this field need it more
than usual. So
thanks again, brother. And I'll I'll end with
this clip of my interview with, with,
now I'm blanking on his name all of
a sudden, doctor Martin, doctor David Martin and
his point just about, you know, who was
responsible for COVID. I think it's important to
hear this again so we understand where, you
know, a patent based, fact based understanding of
where these things were made is pretty obvious
right now. So thanks again, brother. Looking forward
to the next one. And as always, everybody
out there, question everything. Come to your own
conclusions. Stay vigilant.
We should be having a public dialogue, and
it should be something that rises to the
level of legislation. We should not allow the
National Institutes of Health or the Department of
Defense
to allocate funding to amplify these agents
so that, allegedly, we can study them in
the case that they fall into the hands
of bad people. Because the evidence
has shown us
that the bad people who actually have unleashed
these pathogens
since 1991,
And by the way, if you go to
miscellaneous memorandum seven and other documents, we can
go back to the nineteen fifties.
The bad people who unleashed these things on
the population
are us.
It is The US who's doing it.