This engine, a high bypass turbofan jet engine,
this is the engine that is on all
military takers and all commercial carriers. It's in
essence a jet powered fan. 90% of the
air that moves through this engine is noncombusted.
This engine by design is nearly incapable of
producing any condensation trail except under rare and
extreme circumstances. And again,
we have film footage of aircraft flying at
altitude with nozzles visible,
turning on and off.
That is the end of the argument.
Since even before man could fly,
there was an effort to try to modify
the weather.
We have
weather modification patents going back a hundred years
plus.
It starts with a simple question
and ends in objective reality.
Through our journey from there to here,
we find one another
and ourselves.
And as the next twenty four hours
breaks free from our last,
we gaze onward in reflection of the day.
Help your own influence. Help your own influence.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
Monday, 07/07/2025.
Thank you so much for joining me today.
Interesting discussion today. I stumbled across something
that
I'm well versed on when it comes to
the overlap of a few different conversations. Geoengineering,
weather modification,
cloud seeding, all could be perceived as different
things or overlapping conversations.
But this discussion that they kind of came
off the typical partisan kind of throwing out,
you know, things that aren't necessarily verified in
the moment to, in some cases, cover up
something that was wrong or something that didn't
happen.
Overall, something that nonetheless has always, as we've
discussed at the time,
been something you could prove to some degree
or another. And we've talked about geoengineering, weather
modification, going back a very long time on
this platform.
One one of the things we say about
this all the time or plenty of topics
we discuss
is
there's mountains of evidence to show you that
this is something that has been tested, worked
on, to the point to where we're we
talked about,
Brandon, I believe, speaking at the,
oh, what was that again?
I think it was the CFR. I forget
the exact location, but Brandon speaking 2018 about
a geoengineering program or Harvard doing their own.
And it's interesting the way people still regard
that. The point is that these things are
very real in my opinion because the evidence
shows that. It doesn't stop them from being
used or lied about, manipulated
to alter the way people perceive things or
use it at times to distract. I'm only
saying that to to discuss it in the
way that it's applied in the partisan field
today.
Now when we discussed the
predictions around January 4, for example, and we
the storm happened on Texas, a lot of
people started talking about the potential of weather
modification.
I felt that was sort of a way
to distract from the fact that a lot
of other predictions didn't take place. As I
said at
the time, at that moment, as I said,
we pointed to it, and I what I
was looking at at the evidence
did not in any way indicate that I
that you could prove at that moment that
you could see that there was weather modification.
But as you know, as I do, in
anything, even things that I'm look
in in everything we look at, I will
take as far as I can to try
to find evidence, try to find something that
backs it up. And I found something very
interesting that goes back a while, connects to
a lot of things we've talked about, whether
Peter Thiel or, I mean, just about everything
we're discussing today, which I don't wanna jump
the gun because AI is where this is
going. It overlaps with this very interesting conversation.
I found something that people are discussing quite
broadly, but not getting as much reach as
it should around a group called a a
company called Rainmaker and something that is working
on cloud seeding.
And it turns out there's clear evidence that
he's working in Texas
and had been doing this. Now the question
of whether this was done on the July
overlap, he's denied that, will go into the
evidence. But what I'm the reason I'm discussing
this today is not just that story because
I feel like we've covered pretty extensively that
whether modification is real, and it's interesting we
still have to debate that.
And and, of course, we've seen it thrown
out at times when there's not much evidence
to back it up, but it's still interesting
and worth considering. But then when I got
saw this other part of the story
around something that I wasn't even that well
aware of about how much water
artificial intelligence or rather more specifically just data
centers, but largely AI data centers today, how
much they consume
in order to
answer Grok's question, for example. Or that's not
the best way to frame that. But when
you ask and when Grok is engaging and
you ask and it responds, the amount of
water that's used, hype the question being and
we can go over the facts of the
info that we're seeing today. It's disputed. The
the the water that's used, fresh water in
order to just
have that process happen.
I was kinda blown away by this. And
so then when I start standing back and
looking at a couple different pictures, like
the water conversation, which we've talked about a
long time. It's not really that I think
everyone's considered whether water or will or when
it will become sort of the next
disputed or or, you know, war,
you know, whether when the water wars, when
we'll start fighting over control of water because
it becomes a a resource that nobody that,
diminishing resource rather. You know, that that thought
is not new.
And when that and if and when that
will come to pass. But this starts to
overlap. The reason I said that is because
looking at past actions of government and what
they've done around the control of water and
why that was always,
you know, control you you know, being able
to
have water that others need. It made sense.
But then when you look at the bigger
picture around something like this, you start to
wonder,
was this always part of this kind of
plan? Things like Flint, for example, or Nestle,
or the Texas conversation in general in a
different context around the people who own large
the the majority of the freshwater.
All of these things started to become a
lot more relevant. And I just wanted to
consider it in that picture today and talk
about, one, the alarming reality of what's happening
in that AI direction,
water that we currently have on the planet.
It's a very interesting thought. Now as always,
we'll theorize about anything. Now regardless of how
It's a very interesting thought. Now as always,
we'll theorize about anything. Now regardless of how
people might think, you know, reflexively call something
crazy,
we're not if and when we can prove
something, then we'll make the claim. But up
until then, we of course, we can consider
these things. But what I thought was fascinating
is going back to the Texas point.
It is interesting to find the person that
seems to have been involved there. And thanks
to people online who are pointing these things
out, which is where I found it, that
this person's connected and back to Peter Thiel
and back to artificial intelligence. And it's worth
investigating.
So that trust me. That's just whetting your
appetite. Stay tuned today to watch all this
because there are some things that are I
mean, including the the Rainmaker company and the
of course, on none other than Sean Ryan's
podcast, having a conversation
about weather modification and literally mentions Texas and
cloud seeding. And so there's it's not disputed
whether they're claiming they've done this in Texas,
whether or not it happened right around that
time frame. And why wouldn't it be if
it's something that's been ongoing? And why then
would he say online that that's not the
case? It's worth considering and very interesting, but
it goes into a lot of different avenues.
So stay tuned. I think you're gonna find
this very interesting. And it's not some,
you know, frivolous kind of random conversation that's
rooted in nothing but hype there's facts today
that are very interesting that I think are
worth your time. So let's start with a
couple of points
that I wanted to show you that aren't
necessarily the focus of today,
but I wanted you to see just so
we didn't lose them because it's important, you
know, just so you don't miss it in
all that's going on today. I will be
talking about this in the next show,
but this was yet another whistleblower,
an IDF member who spoke up. An Israeli
reservist who served in Gaza has told Sky
News IDF troops killed Palestinian civilians at Rand.
Now this shouldn't be that shocking if you
watch this show, if you have eyes, if
you're objective and honest. Most of the people
still have trouble out there about this obvious
conversation, but especially since there's been numerous other
whistleblowers in the IDF who have already come
out and said, yes. That's what's happening or
we have the recent Harrettes article saying they
were ordered to shoot innocent people and civilians.
So let me play this just to so
you don't miss that. I have two other
points on this opening thing that relate to
Epstein and a couple of things we're gonna
get to because we are gonna talk about
Epstein, obviously. The the reality of how
it's just I mean, you know what? It's
funny. I didn't even get into it just
right there to start. It it just seems
like it's probably the least important story,
not the Epstein story, but the fact that
we they lied about it like we knew
they would is probably the least important thing
to discuss today. But it's clearly overtaking the
conversation, but it's worth pointing out for a
couple of reasons. And we'll show you some
of the things that I do think are
relevant and how it does tie back to
Israel and even possibly to the larger conversation
today. But we will talk about it because
it's relevant, and it's interesting to see what's
developed around that.
But one once we get past that, we'll
be talking about the rest of it today.
But I'm including this because I think it's
important to connect, you know, the you you
can't decouple the Epstein conversation from Israel.
But
this there's been many examples like this. So
I'm gonna play this and then show you
the points that relate to Israel before we
get into the Epstein overlap.
An Israeli reservist who served in Gaza has
told Sky News IDF troops killed Palestinian civilians
at random with orders to shoot sometimes dependent
on the mood of the commander. The IDF
strongly denies the claim, saying it operates against
military targets, not civilians.
Our international correspondent, Alex Rossi, has the story
for us.
I think everything in a war is, kind
of, messes you up. It is rare to
hear Israeli soldiers speak openly about their time
in Gaza.
But after three tours of duty, this reservist
says his conscience
won't let him stay silent.
Every commander,
can choose for himself
what he does, so it's kind of like
wild west. And
so some commanders can really decide to do
war crimes and do bad things and
and, like, don't have very consequences
of that.
He agreed to talk on condition of anonymity,
fearing he could be labeled a traitor or
ostracized at home.
These photos were taken while he was serving
in Gaza,
where he was stationed
in the homes of displaced Palestinians.
I think,
you can't be in this scenario for so
long
and not, like, normalize it and not,
like, kind of,
you you lose your mind and,
and then,
killing is
more and more normalized and you you you
don't
you can't see the problem in it. Kind
of, feel
like I took part of something bad.
And,
so I think it's like
I need
to counter it
with something, good that I do. And I
hope that by
speaking of it, it,
can change, like, how things are being done.
And I think a lot of people, if
they knew
exactly what's happening,
they wouldn't,
it it wouldn't go down
very good for them, and they won't,
agree with it.
Alex Rossi, Sky News.
Now what's crazy to me and and, obviously,
the reason I'm playing this to start, obviously,
I didn't have to include this today is
because it's important that we make sure we
don't lose sight of this. Right? It's considered
eating your vegetables in the conversation today. Like,
it's we have to understand how important this
is and how much this is not slowing
down. It it's worthy of notation every single
day, if not the focal point. But what's
crazy is that, you know, even the way
he's discussing that, it's like it's like even
and may you know, maybe it's just that
it's
I don't know how you can talk about
committing genocide or murdering innocent people with such
a blithe tone. I don't know. It's hard
for me not to hear that. But at
least he's coming up and speaking about it
and telling people about it, but it just
is kinda crazy to think about what this
what's been done to this society. Now just
really quickly, this part is just another this
is what the sixth one. This is the
one I've been playing for a while. This
goes back to, what, six months ago? Do
you think that you witnessed
war crimes taking place?
Probably.
The ground assumption is that they are Hamas.
And then if you go this way, you're
bound to kill people that are not.
Now in a rare interview,
one soldier tells us about And it goes
on. The point, guys, I just how we
can still pretend like we don't all know.
And I think we all know and we
all aren't pretending that. What's crazy is that
it's becoming evident, like, self evident that literally
everybody sees what's happening, and that still has
no effect on whether your governments do what
they want. Make of that what you will.
And whether they're being influenced, told, blackmailed with
the conversation today by some other entity. It's
just absolutely insane that this is still happening
the way it is. Plenty of more to
go over that topic. We'll come back under
under the show and get into it in-depth,
but it just doesn't slow down, guys. And
I'm including this as well we just showed
in a recent show from Harats in case
you missed it directly from the IDF. It's
a killing field, that direct quote from the
IDF. Soldiers ordered to shoot deliberately at unarmed
Gazans waiting for food. Everywhere you can see
this, but all these governments still act like
we're just not sure
because they're disgusting. They're liars. They're dishonest, or
they're completely blackmailed. Frankly, at this point, I
don't really care anymore. I don't have any
concern about how you got yourself into a
backward, you know, into a corner position where
you're being blackmailed. I mean, it's just it's
a point of just getting tired of having
to act like this is not obvious. I
said, yet another whistleblower telling you what is
self evident at this point. Israel's murdering the
unarmed innocent people. Israel's committing a genocide. That's
what's happening. Now
Kivork El Masian, to add to this point,
in case you didn't see this, this was
today.
This this was the date. It was June
23, but this is making the rounds today.
While we're busy chasing the Epstein client list
that they'll never give to us that does
exist, here's what you missed. The Trump administration
has revoked the foreign terrorist organization designation from
Al Qaeda. Hi. It's Yerushal. This is the
same not like, it's literally
AKA al Musa fraud AKA Al Qaeda's branch
in Syria. Gee, can you can you piece
together why? Because they now are working with
that group with Israel to control what's going
on in the ground. So Israel is working
with a terrorist group. The US is working
with a terrorist group. Surprise, surprise, we've always
been telling you that. They're a proxy element
of The US and Israel. It's funny how
it's all clicking into place,
yet still people will tell us we're crazy
for saying that for the last decade. Here
we are one more time. But on top
of that, don't forget, as we get into
the Epstein point, here's Dan Bongino being asked,
what is dear to your heart? Do you
remember what he said?
What what cause is dear to your heart?
Cause is dear to my Israel
the fence of Israel.
What is number one? Yeah.
Didn't even didn't even take a beat.
Kinda I kind of, you know, makes sense
when you really break it down. Now before
we get into it all, I just think
it's worth pointing out. I mean, the the
obvious, by the way, Whitney's work,
monumentally important that everyone should be going through
first to understand how long this has been
obvious. And I mean, I don't even just
mean the fact that it's been I mean,
everything. I mean, just how far she's ahead
of this and how obviously that upsets other
people who want to be known for that,
who were not doing such as the kind
of work that Whitney was. But Epstein this
was from 12/04/2018.
Epstein avoids trial. And just, you know, we're
the point is we're covering this like like
a lot of us were, but in-depth and
understanding the things that are now drifting through
partisan conversation
as we were, as we are with every
story, doing our best to give you the
facts. But the point what I'm making with
this is this conversation,
Acosta and Epstein, you know, that a lot
of people still grapple with. It was obvious
then. It's obvious now what Acosta said. I'll
show you in a second. And the reality
that this is a joint I mean, it's
kinda obvious to me, and this is my
opinion, that it's Israel in control of a
lot of what's happening. People dispute it back
and forth that they say it's US and
Israel is the one following along. You can
decide for yourself. I think it's the former.
But the point is to show you here
that Acosta said both. Right? Intelligence and then
later, you know, insinuates mentions more ways than
one CIA and Mossad. And I'll show you
that. But here's also just the tag for
Epstein
to look at all the work we've done
over the years talking about this. Here's even
the comp that one that Derek put out.
Oh, I'm sorry. This was,
that's crazy. I thought for some reason, I
was thinking Darren Whitney put out. This is
for TeaLab,
02/02/2021.
Biden's nominee for new cabinet level science position
is Epstein linked geneticist,
showing you that we're not about one party,
the other guy. We're we're I'm not about
one party or the other guys. We're about
the facts.
Always have been, which is what really irks
some of these partisan
screamers out there that try to tell you
we are black pill, purity test maniacs now
that everything's coming to pass the way we
said it would or predicted because we were
looking at the facts as well. Now there's
another narrative, but let's talk about this.
Axios,
twenty two hours ago, DOJ, FBI
conclude
Epstein had no client list, died by suicide,
and, of course, that if you believe this,
that there was no blackmail involved.
I mean, I you know, the the first
and most important again, no. Let's say this.
The first point to make,
arguably whether what's more important is up for
you to decide. But first thing to think
about, before we get into the actual, you
know, what's happening, first of all, they is
that they said a lot of things. They
being the government, both left and right, Biden's
administration, now Trump's administration, that they're now
I mean, on full display,
at least claiming
the reason I say that is because we
have to ask whether they're lying with this,
maybe this is AI video and all these
different questions, but that they're displaying
that they lied to
you. Right? Either they made this up now,
which shows you they're lying to you now,
or they're saying, here's cameras that we told
you weren't there. Right? Or that no no
blackmail,
no list. I mean, you've all said these
things, whether Bonnie said list, we'll go over
that. Or the idea that there's blackmail, which
you've all said, and yet now the argument's
different. Now they're all lockstep telling you we
never said those things. Now we're trying to
walk back what Bonnie said. So you just
have to be really obvious and honest with
yourself. Whatever side you think you're on, hopefully,
just the truth that these people lie either
lied to you then or lying to you
now. There's really not no other way to
see this. But so that we can go
the article is really just bullet points, and
I'll include the I won't read the, the
document for you real quick.
But they're
simply doing what a lot of us predicted,
lying to you.
That's what I think the evidence backs up.
We'll go through it. Here is, as always,
downloaded onto my our server so you doesn't
disappear somewhere.
As part of our commitment this is from
US justice the the,
Department of Justice, FBI.
As part of our commitment to transparency,
pause for laughter, the Department of Justice and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation
have concluded an exhaustive review of investigative holdings
related to Jeffrey Epstein. To ensure
that the review was thorough, the FBI conducted
digital searches of its databases, hard drives, and
network drives as well
as physical searches of squad areas,
locked cabinets,
desks and closets and stuff, and other areas
where responsive material may have been sorted. Now
am I crazy, or does that just sound
like that's not true?
Are we to believe that they just went
through and searched every desk drawer in every
building that they I mean, does that not
sound dumb to you? Like, I mean, they
wanted it to sound like it was really
exhaustive, or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they literally
went to every single desk drawer and every
single,
squad area and cabinet. Every single one. I
mean, do you realize how insane that sounds
with what we're talk and why would it
be I mean, you could simply just argue
that they just wanted to sound thorough, and
they searched a lot of areas, but then
included things that weren't true. You know? I
what do you think about that? I just
don't find it even plausible that they went
and searched every desk drawer, even in every
area that this might have been conducted in
because that sounds a little bit insane to
me. And then that point is why would
there be Epstein files lingering in cabinets and
desk drawers? I just it feels like they
didn't think that through. I'm just gonna put
that out there. Then it went on to
say, and, hey, if we've
seen what Cash and Bongino have been doing,
the it it's like everything else a part
of this current administration, Noam and Bondi. These
people seem like they're out of their depth,
to say it very nicely.
These searches uncovered a significant amount of material,
including more than 300 gigabytes of data and
physical evidence.
Now even that makes it sound like they
somehow scooped it together from multiple sources. I
just find that to be an odd way
to look at that. The files relating to
Epstein include a large volume of images of
Epstein,
images and videos of victims who are either
minors or appear to be minors, and over
10,000
downloaded videos and images of illegal child sex
abuse material and other pornography.
Now even that alone,
there's not a single person, an actionable thing
in there to get somebody charged with a
crime or arrested.
Maybe it's all just camera forward.
And even that though, it's like, I'm not
saying anybody should have to look at this
or prove but, I mean, we know this
stuff exists. We don't need to see
horrible things like this to prove that that's
existing or that's what Epstein was involved in.
But they keep making a lot of big
claims like Bondi and saying all the things
they were like, read the next paragraph, and
you'll get more what I'm saying. Teams of
agents, analysts, attorneys,
and privacy and civil liberties experts combed through
the digital and documentary evidence
with the aim of providing as much information
as possible to the public while simultaneously protecting
victims. That's really the argument, which everyone understands
for why some things don't get shown because
we gotta protect the victims, which is true.
But, you know, it's it's a it's a
it's a gap where people that are usually
dishonest can be dishonest. Now it says much
of the material is subject to court ordered
sealing.
Only a fraction of this material would have
been aired publicly by and had Epstein gone
to trial as the seal even that, you
know, it's like they're already defensive. It's a
weird way to write that. As the seal
served only to protect victims and did not
expose any additional third parties to allegations of
illegal wrongdoing.
Through this review, we found no basis to
revisit the disclosure of these those materials and
will not permit the release of child pornography,
which, again, no one's asking them to do
that. But there's a lot of in between
things going on in there.
The point is with all of that we
just read, are you to believe that there's
not a single piece of evidence that shows
you another person that, like, the the clay
that we'll get to the clientless point in
a second because they're kind of overlapping right
here, which is that not a single person
who allegedly like, how do you know they're
trafficking in sex then? How do you know
they're doing anything with children? If we don't
have a client, then there was, you know,
there's nothing the crimes aren't there other than
just possession, right, which is obviously a crime,
but that's not what they're claiming. They claim
they have more. But where are the clients
then?
Well, there's a lot of things that you
think right there, what we've discussed, maybe because
there are a lot of high level clients,
which is what this was. And they don't
want them put them in jail, but they
want this to go to bed. I mean,
it their point is whatever it is in
between all this, there's something not connecting, and
I think we all recognize that. And it
says, this systematic review revealed no incriminating client
list.
We'll come back to that. You mean despite
Pam Bondi saying explicitly that that was on
her desk? They're trying to claim she meant
something else, but she was asked point blank.
We'll play you in a second. There was
also and by the way, she also said
the same thing in interview after that. In
fact, three times really, but the two we'll
show you today, which are undeniable.
There was also no credible evidence found that
Epstein blackmailed
prominent individuals.
I mean, that's gotta be the most prominent
claim in this whole thing that I think
every one of them have made claims about.
And it says as part of his actions.
The whole thing for me, that's the central
issue
in regard to what the political issue is.
Who is being blackmailed and and who's involved
in that? I think you know where we're
going with that. We did not uncover evidence
that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third
parties. How about just a second party?
Who I mean, where where is the third
when we're talking about Epstein here,
Jane Jane Maxwell is arrested for what? What
is this idea that there's something else involved
that they're not showing you is really hard.
You can't miss it right now. Consistent with
prior disclosures, this review confirmed that Epstein harmed
over 1,000
victims.
I mean, even that right there. So so
in so are we just literally trying to
make this about Epstein individually
hurt hurting every single person, which is not
that outside? It's not impossible.
But, again, I'm not gonna over labor the
belabor the point. I just want it to
be very clear. The idea that they keep
telling you that there's something else there, people
they're working with, and now it's they're putting
a pin in this and claiming that's not
the case. You know, they really let a
lot of people on in this movement as
if there was gonna be this bombshell and
now pulling it back.
You should ask yourself whether that whole claim,
even though they might they knew they wouldn't
show you, what it was that for? Why
would they why would they now make themselves
look bad? Because they needed you looking somewhere
else then. That's what I would argue.
Each suffered unique trauma
in regard to the thousand victims. Sensitive information
relating to these victims is intertwined throughout the
materials.
This includes oh, I'll add one more thing.
Thousands of victims. Right?
Many of those victims will testify that he
was not the one doing stuff to them,
that they're not the only one, that there
were other people involved, which we've heard. And
I'll show you a brief list of the
people they have the names of in regard
to which in a way serves as its
own list, to be honest, but it's about,
you know, they can't prove they're involved with
crimes. They were just overlapping.
It's kinda the same thing. But why aren't
those people where the charges? You know, and
these are coming from firsthand testimony. Each suffered
unique trauma. Sensitive information relating to these victims
is intertwined throughout the material.
That you know, so that's how they're saying.
We can't show you anything because it's all
intertwined. This includes specific details such as victim
names, likeness, physical descriptions, places of birth, associates,
employment history. One of our highest priorities is
combating child exploitation and bringing justice to victims.
Perpetuating unfounded theories about Epstein serves neither of
those ends.
Don't keep talking about this is what they're
saying. To that end, while we have labored
to provide the public with maximum information regarding
Epstein and ensured examination of any evidence in
the government's possession,
wink wink, it is the determination of the
Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate
or warranted.
After a thorough investigation, FBI investigators concluded that
Epstein committed suicide
in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center
in New York on 08/10/2019.
This conclusion is consistent with previous findings, including
the 2019 autopsy from the New York City
office,
New York City office of the chief medical
examiner. Now remember, the what the one of
the the I think the first and the
main autopsy, the guy was very clear about
the with the hyoid bone and the way
that that happened. His expert opinion is just
not possible.
They don't care about that. They don't even
it's not even included in here. Or any
number of the other obvious absurdities around how
he's capable of killing himself in a place
designed to stop you from killing yourself.
We've gone over all of this.
And it says and,
and, the
the November 2019 position of the US attorney's
office for in which they claimed the same
thing, that he didn't that he killed himself,
and the Jew and the June 2023 conclusions
of the DOJ. So all the governments that
people involved claim that nothing happened. Don't look
you know, nothing to see here. The conclusion
that Epstein died by suicide is further supported
by video footage,
here we go, of the common area. You
know, the the video that they've all told
you up until now just didn't exist until,
oops, yes, we have it now. And guess
what? It just so happens to they claim
disprove what you're claiming is possible even though
the video in no way does that. And
in fact and I mean, we'll go over
it. Not only does it open up a
gigantic a hell of a lot more questions,
there's a there's a gap. There's a minute
that just just that's just not there that
no one's really addressing except online. There's all
sorts of I mean, the idea that this
is even look even proving anything,
that it's not even looking directly where you'd
think or the idea like, we just told
you. Or the fact that James Lee says
when he looked it up, they the the
the program said it was AI. It just
the bottom line is in no way does
this
resolve the situation, and I'll show you why.
Just because they say it is, I think
they're hoping that they can just say this
is everything you should want. I think like
some mind Jedi and just all of a
sudden, the Republicans go, this is everything we
ever wanted. I I don't I think it's
not working. I'm seeing more Republicans right now
screaming about this than anybody else.
It says
yeah. The the the video footage they claim
from the special housing unit where he was
housed, that's what they're claiming proves that. And
the DOJ inspector general
explained in 2023,
anyone entering or attempting to enter the tier
where Epstein's cell was located,
would have been captured by the footage. The
FBI's independent review of the footage confirmed
that from the time he was locked in
a cell until
the time he wasn't, that nobody entered.
And this is from 10:40PM
to 06:30AM the next day.
During this review, the FBI enhanced the relevant
relevant footage by increasing its contrast, balancing the
color, and improving its sharpness.
So altered the video that makes you feel
comfortable. But
here's Pam Bonnie. We'll start with this. Just
the basic thing that she said this. No.
Good. It's it's you don't have to turn
this into that means they're hiding the list.
It's one of the obvious questions. It could
simply just be that Bondi is a dishonest
person like they've been the entire time. Noem
and Bondi and Trump and all of them.
No different than the left. They are here
because they want power, and they're here to
lie to you about what they're doing. No.
He's he's MS 13, rapist, terrorist murderer. Oh,
not at all, but let's just keep pretending
that. Or any number of other things that
they've lied about. I mean, you could go
down the entire list. So maybe she just
said this because that's what she thought you
wanted to hear. I don't think that. I
think there's more to it, but I just
it's important that we're objective and we ask
you know? I wanna point out that these
people would lie about anything. That's obviously important
to this conversation.
Now your appearance at CPAC with Ben and
and with Ted Cruz,
and one of the things that you've alluded
to, and this is something Donald Trump has
talked about, the DOJ may be releasing the
list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really
happen?
Jeffrey Epstein's client, the list. He didn't ask
about anything else. May be releasing the list
of clients. Here's a response.
It's sitting on my desk right now to
review.
You
No. Yeah. I mean, you could argue she
just meant the entire file, but that's not
really what she said and not really what
he asked.
So that that you know, you can't really
you have to be if you're honest, she
very well could have meant the list right
there. That's been a directive, by president It
most likely did because of the question. Trump.
I'm reviewing that. I'm reviewing
JFK files, MLK files. That's all in the
process of being reviewed because Also, she said
more than once about this massive trove she
was going through of all these different things.
And then after that came out and said,
what video? There's no video in regard to
and she she has gone back and forth
more than once. Again, Republicans are calling this
stuff out.
So here that's the first part. Oh, and
here's the other here's the article. This one's
for February 27 where it says oh, I
had it right here.
I didn't take a picture. It's right here.
Saying, Bondi was asked during a broadcast. The
Department of Justice may be releasing the list
of Epstein clients. I guess this is just
the same reporting of it. It's sitting on
my desk right now to review. The point
is there's at least three examples that you
can find where she was discussing this in
that kind of context. But none of them
are, you know I mean, it's hard not
to call that explicit. It's exactly what's being
asked. But here is the response of leave
it
about this today
in regard to
the list and whether she was asked that.
And, you know, that's the it's the answer
you expect. This is but Primo Radical simply
says this is the most repugnant, low IQ,
non answer, and deflection possible. Is anyone falling
for this?
The FBI looks at the circumstances surrounding the
death of Jeffrey Jeffrey Epstein.
According to the report,
this systematic review revealed no incriminating client list.
So what happened to the Epstein client list
that the attorney general said
she had on her desk? Well, see, even
he's asking it exactly like that. Now, again,
it looks like this video is getting all
wonky for me for some reason.
Yeah. Just our it's the way the world
is gonna be for us in the tech
hopefully hopefully not. I mean,
the technocratic post world we're living in, but
I'm trying to hopefully pause it. It'll get
back on track. But forgive me for having
it be out of sync. It's really not
up to me these days. But so the
point was that Ducey is his name. Right?
He asked it exactly like that because why
would you assume otherwise? It's exactly what she
was asked.
Client list.
So what happened to the Epstein client list
that the attorney general said
she had on her desk? Well, I think
if you go back and look at what
the attorney general said in that interview, which
was on your network on Fox News quote.
Go ahead. Roberts said DOJ may be releasing
the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that
really happen? And she said, it's sitting on
my desk right now to review.
Yes. She was saying the entirety of all
of the paperwork, all of the paper in
relation
to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. That's what the attorney
general was referring to, and I'll let her
speak for that. But, again, when it comes
to the FBI and the Department of Justice,
they are more than committed to ensuring that
bad people are put behind. And we're so
great, and we fight crime, and we're the
best, and we fight for you, and we'll
always tell the truth and blah blah blah.
You know, whatever the everything and whenever they
get into that, it's not that
it's not that it's always false, but it's
just what they want you to think. It's
just so funny that that's not what he
asked. You know? The idea that they have
to regurgitate those, the the narrative around it
all is just so it's just tired. We
all you know, everyone tunes out when that
happens. But, obviously,
that's
not what anybody thought. Now we got the
video. Okay? So let's go through this information.
We're not gonna it's it's, what, ten hours
long? We're not gonna go through it all,
but I will show you right out of
the gate the one thing that I think
is, you know, being called out across the
board but very conspicuous.
Note down here,
it is at 11:58
fifty four.
Hopefully, that goes away in time. I think
it's just you'll see it skip right before
it goes to twelve.
Watch that. 5859.
Boop. See that? See that little jump right
there? That's a cut, guys. There's no way
around that.
I can see it's hard. It's so long.
You have to get it right. Here we
go. So pull it off for a second.
So what what you'll see is it goes
from and I went to wait the whole
time, but from 11:58,
it comes down to the end, and it
just kinda blips out. And you have to
realize there's a whole the whole minute right
there. We're talking about a minute,
which is more than enough for something to
happen.
So you I mean, think about how insane
that is to put out this whole this
very long thing, twelve hours, I guess, or
ten hours, whatever it is. And I mean,
it's right here. It's actually ten hours and
fifty two minutes. To put this
out, claiming this this it puts it to
bed, and then there's an there's an undeniable
gap of a minute missing in the conversation.
Is that not the most stupid thing in
the world? I mean, how everyone. Do you
don't think they I mean, obviously, they would
address that. Right? If if it was something
that they oh, boy. There was a minute
right there, but that will explain why. Because,
obviously, we're gonna call it out.
Might as well play it again. We're here.
54555657115859.
Boom. 12. A whole minute goes away. That's
just ridiculous, guys.
So and or either they wanted there to
be this unspoken or this, you know, this
question. Right? There's overhanging thing that maybe they
did it right there,
or they're trying to hide it from you
or they're trying to hide something right there.
I just don't know how else to view
this.
Now, here,
Adam Cochrane, who I started following because of
this, I wasn't familiar with before, does a
really great breakdown of all this.
Now even right now, I'm thinking like, god,
I really don't wanna spend an hour talking
about this conversation, but it's interesting and it's
definitely
just mostly because
it shows you and hopefully reaches people that
need to hear it more than anybody that
this administration is no different than the other,
that they're all part of the same problem.
So Adam Cochran, he says, well, I'm finally
now on team Epstein didn't kill himself after
the mistakes they made in this release. Let's
break it down. One, this ten hour video
does not show Epstein's cell. And you the
what you're gonna see here, and I can
just bring this back up, as I understand
that it's right oh, here actually, he's got
the map right here.
So it doesn't show his cell. What it
shows is this view from outside and around.
So there's the camera you're looking at. Right?
That's the camera they're the view they're showing
you. What apparently, the view
is around the, like, around the the shot
from it. So it's not even so all
you get is, like, this corner
shot, like, right here or right there right
there by the stairs.
So he says, it's across the entire hall
from the Epstein section, which is which is
broken down. I mean, so I I guess
what their argument would be if pushed, and
this is my opinion, is that that's you
know, this is the one that they found.
You know? The one over there was broken.
That's why we didn't get to see right
by his door. But this one we later
realized was, and, oh, it took you years
to tell us that. But the point is,
it still does not prove. Like I said,
if it doesn't show exact even if the
idea is even if it did show that
whatever they said was happening, we would question
whether they made it up, which is we'll
get to in a second with James Lee
and the AI discussion.
But now they give you something that doesn't
even fully show you, like, the real time
frame or, like, what in and out or,
like,
showing him in the room hating himself would
be an would be even then, we should
question it, but that's the kind of thing
where we'd be like, okay. Clearly, there it
is. He killed himself.
Without showing that, for all we know, somebody
get put something in there. Somebody
did something to him while he was in
there. Somebody snuck it, you know, before, was
in there the whole time they came out
afterward, or that they were involved. It's not
that far outside their own possibility with all
that we've seen. Everyone off do it, you
know, sleeping or suddenly the cameras all don't
work and all these like, the 17 different
things that show you something went down.
So this does not put this to bed,
and you'll see why. Here's the breaking down
one post. He says only a tiny sliver
of staircase,
staircase leading to Epstein's wing can be seen.
This is why they argue they argue it
proves no one approached his cell that night,
despite it being almost entirely out of frame.
Stairway L stairway to l tier, it says
in the second image, is what leads to
his block. Oh, there's there's a better one
for the whole thing right here.
So there's a good overview. Take a screenshot.
That's where there's the the kind of breakdown
of the space, and each one of these
represent little stairs going up.
Now it says in each of the tier
is eight cells with up to two inmates.
Epstein is l tier in view of the
guards, which is where the circles are. See?
Right here. Like, that's where the guards are,
who is directly diagonal to the camera. It
says the first red flag is that this
footage exists at all, right? Which we've all
picked up on
Because we know from or I shouldn't say
we he wrote. We know. My point is
they claimed
that from from OIG report that most cameras
were not recording that day, which makes no
sense to me, except for the one in
the stairway, the well, and this camera.
But we frequently had conflicting stories about which
footage still exists to suddenly have ten hours
released. It's not just odd. It's ridiculous.
We've been told there is no footage. It
was and now it is. You know, it's
just how anybody takes that at face value
is beyond me, but they do exist. And
you know who they're you know who they
are out there either trying to pretend like
this puts it to bed, which is embarrassing,
or, you know, like, oh, it's not that
important. This Epstein's you know, it's a story,
but it's not the most focus on. You
know, those kind of people. But it says,
the first red flag oh, this and it
goes on to say, but we frequently had
yeah. That's the one we just talked about.
And it goes on to say, multiple entrances.
As I watched the video, I noticed he
this is him speaking. Multiple people enter from
the right hand side of the lower level.
As it turns out, Door 46 leads to
Floor 10. He says both the primary and
secondary,
the special Housing Unit 9, enterages are on
the lower level on the right hand side.
And here's the map again demonstrating what he's
talking about.
And it says, this means it's easy to
enter and go up the staircase
to l tier,
keeping to the right of the staircase
and not be seen.
So so even then, it there's the idea
being that this is no way putting an
end to this at all. That there's ways
around that, let alone the video barely even
showing you what they claim it does. For
example, it says, here's a screenshot
for the podcast. I'm going through the screenshots
on this thread.
She has a screenshot we'll talk about later
of two people rushing up the stairs, and
you can still barely see them.
Lockdown time. The next oddity is the lockdown
time according to the official report. All inmates
were locked in their cells around 8PM, which
my opinion is we can never trust these
official reports, but they become
that that becomes a problem when they've got
inmates visible on camera at 08:23.
See if we can do it quickly.
It's hard to get this date exact the
time because it's so long.
Right here. Went too far.
There.
So right there. See them going up and
down the stairs?
In the back in the in the you've
looked all the way in the back, there's
one person going up, and you'll see a
couple people in orange.
Here we go. 55.
And you see, ask yourself how do you
think this
dispels anything? That this that this far away,
this corner shot, it just doesn't make any
sense.
It's gosh, it's kinda like thirties. Oh, there.
Right there. See? There you go. Okay.
Showing them in the pictures.
And he goes, that becomes a whole problem.
Stupid platform.
That becomes a whole problem when we've got
inmates visible on camera at 08:23.
Persons unknown. It says we we then have
a series of people move through the building
that are not recorded on their reports,
which is not supposed to happen in such
a secure location. Somebody then either removed them
or they weren't being identified when they were
there in the first place. Very suspicious with
what we know was happening here. The first
two are likely nonsuspicious in this person's opinion,
but oddly not covered in interaction reports. That's
more than odd. That's
highly suspicious. And it says the first one,
the first odd one takes place at seventeen
twenty eight, then a black male CEO retrieves
a paper that was slipped under Door 46.
At first, I assumed this was material
one material handler Thomas from the reports, but
he didn't start his shift until midnight. So
he says, I I assume this may be
evening watch officer in charge who is unnamed
in the report. Also strange.
This may be standard comms protocol, but the
fact it wasn't outlined in the report which
documented all their procedures is odd. And it
says the next oddity is the man who
leaves through Door 46 at midnight. Unlike everyone
else who carefully closes the security door, he
flung it wide open, left it open, and
had to return to close it,
which I mean, see, by that kind of
thing, it leaves opening for something to accidentally
make its way through. Given the inexperience and
time stamp, this could be material I'll handle
with Thomas. He goes, next up, I call
Hatman.
Hatman seems to do laundry service. He throws
the old linen bags out into the hall
and brings new ones in, but there's a
problem.
Hat Man doesn't leave, then the linens
leave then linens and go back out the
door. He first, he pushes the empty garbage
can a bit to the right, obstructing the
view of downstairs.
Then he walks down to the lower level
with a fresh linens and out the view
to the right hand side.
This is the first time in the video
we see, a, someone could enter exit from
the lower level as hat man isn't seen
again, or, b, you can reach the l
tier stairs out of view, Simply showing you
that none of this proves anything. But also
keep the orange linens in mind is coming
back to that. Lastly, we've got these two
characters on these two characters unknown.
The first one, someone collecting reports, but the
second person wearing a black hoodie with their
hood up who leaves for twenty minutes and
returns at between 05:38,
05:50AM
with no record. That's forty minutes before they
come and find allegedly Epstein killed himself.
When did Epstein get locked down? This is
the next next is the problem of when
Epstein was in his cell. The initial report
tells us that he was allowed to make
an unscheduled phone call at 7PM,
which lasted until 07:19,
and he walked back to his cell. Who
he talked to? Interesting timing of all of
that. What orders were given? What happened? Was
he threatened? Was he blackmailed? You know, all
these things matter. I mean, one of the
possibilities is that somebody gave him something that
gave him the ability to do that and
said do it or we're gonna do something
else. All these are up in the air.
And the idea that we just put it
to bed and killed himself is just, you
know, even that right there could mean, yes,
maybe he did that, but who drove that
to reality? Who gave the materials to allow
that to happen?
It's clear this is a cover up. That's
my opinion. I think the evidence more than
backs that up. However, later, that same report
said he was housed between 10:40PM
and 06:30AM when he was found,
but not if he was able to come
out and make a phone call and talk
to somebody. At that
time kept coming, and that time kept coming
up. In another statement, they said no one
checked on him since 10:40PM.
It says, but it and there he's including
the screenshots of the the the document,
which is below. But it was but it
was today's FBI press release that I think
made the big mistake.
It said
Epstein was locked in his cell at around
10:40PM,
which was weird because all inmates were supposedly
locked down in some time just after 8PM
with no record of other treatment.
So he says, in fact, the original release
statement claimed that in the video, the reason
we started at 07:40
is because this gray haired man is supposedly
Epstein being walked to his cell.
So what happened to 10:40PM?
Simple point is inconsistency.
Maybe it's a mistake.
Certainly could be.
But we all know that it could be
something else too, which is covering up the
the timing of all this. What happened in
that time frame? Who did he talk to?
It says, what happened at 10:40PM?
It's incredibly hard to see. But if you
look at the frames one by one, then
you'll see 10:39
forty, empty empty stairs. 10:39 forty two, an
orange blur on the left of the l
stair stairs,
l tier stairs. 103946,
a more visible orange sleeve at the top
of the stairs. So let's look. 103940.
Let's see. Ten thirty nine. So we I
think we just missed that first one.
Shoot. So hard to get close.
We'll do there and we'll
reflect on
this. So the point is is that town
stat counts down,
ten thirty nine forty.
So it's empty stairs, but then at 10:39
forty two, an an orange blur, the left
side of the stairs.
That's gonna be a while. Damn it. Well,
you guys get I I just I like
to give you guys, you know, the illustrative.
He's got the images right here, and we've
got the video for you to watch after
the fact, but just, you know, as always,
good to do it live if we can.
10:39
forty two.
That's gonna take too long. It's a whole
minute. If I try to move it, it's
gonna take too far. But so as you
can see here,
there, the the orange that flashes by maybe
I'll jump back if we can catch it
on time.
Thirty nine forty two. Okay. About a minute
from now. But so continuing.
He says,
so at 10:39,
for reasons unknown,
undocumented and suppressed, Epstein was out of his
cell. At least by the information that we
have based on what they're claiming. But, again,
it could simply be they're lying or it
could be a mistake. Consider that. Well, you
know, don't use their cover story as absolute
fact either. Right? They could be lying about
every any number of these things.
Thirty eight forty six. Did I how'd that
pop it seemed like it stopped.
Oh, it does stop. Damn it. It stops
playing when I jump away. That's stupid. Oh,
well. But it says, for reasons unknown, and
then it goes, despite every statement claiming he
had been locked down for hours. The initial
OIG report claims officers checked on him in
his cell at that time, which was a
lie.
Yeah. It's weird.
Let me do this actually. I think I
can pull it
off. I just pulled it off the the
thread and see if that will keep going
even if I'm away from it.
Sorry. Experimenting as we go. There we go.
Nice.
Okay. I'll let it count down in the
background. Alright. So it says the guard station
that the officer sat
sat at was close to Epstein's cell so
that the guards could carefully monitor him. In
fact, it was the only cell where guards
had direct line of sight and could have
easily heard movement in. And that's this is
something we talked about well before. The the
idea that they weren't able to see this
or what you know, it I forget what
they said. What they were either on break
or they were sleeping. I think it was
sleeping is what they said. But there's inconsistency
even those reports.
There we go. So thirty nine forty.
Right there.
Right? See the see the orange right there?
Definitely there.
So, I mean, guys, there's something going on
here. I actually can't believe that they put
this out
with how many open holes are in this,
how many inconsistencies, how many new questions it
an it brings up.
I find that really interesting.
So he says, despite this, the guards claim
to have not done their rounds or checked
on him and to have fallen asleep at
their desks for hours.
One problem, though, there isn't any multi hour
span in which they weren't seen walking around
on camera.
See?
It's like they didn't either think this through
or somebody wants this to be exposed.
That's certainly possible. But here, enter the queue
conversation where it's gonna be somehow this is
their secret plan to expose the crime and
that we're you know, they're trapping them and
it just never seems to come to pass,
which only works if you pretend there's one
good guy side in the broken dynamic of
our government, which clearly does not seem to
be the case.
But that's wild. Right? That they can claim
they missed it because they were sleeping, but
you can see because the video that they
were doing their rounds, and that's not the
case. There was not a long enough period.
Now it says finding Epstein.
They found Epstein at 06:30AM,
as we're told, and they've when they've delivered
food. The food delivery makes it upstairs to
the cell without ever appearing on camera, showing
how useless this angle is.
Before they lied about that, which I they
I'd imagine they always they bring food that
seems normal. Right? But it just simply either
shows you that they you can't see everything
or that they would just lie about what
happened then. They found him at 06:30. It
says they find Epstein hung, in quotes, I
would add, using an excessive amount of linens.
But as far as I was and I
report this from their own information. We're told
that these sheets are designed to where they're
not even strong enough to be able to
withhold that, that they would tear because the
you're in a cell design does not allow
you to kill yourself.
Now it says, note how he didn't you
this actually these are this is from their
report, guys. This is really interesting. I hadn't
seen this.
Note how he didn't use the electrical wire
from the two CPAP machines in his room,
which makes no sense at all. But instead,
apparently, the small single strip of cloth that
we were told isn't ape capable of doing
that, but to to hang himself, but also
didn't even knock over the bottle that was
sitting there.
It's so obvious we're being lied to. And
perhaps most curious of all, when crime scene
photos from the OIG were taken in a
prison that's known for its disrepair,
nearly all the railings were painted black except
for the j tier.
But in the video,
the l tier, the railing
is unpainted.
What do you know about that? Suggesting either
the camera is not positioned where the report
claims or what I'm leaning toward, the crime
scene photos were taken at the different time.
For some reason,
I mean or or it's a cover up.
Maybe in that scene that that image, there's
something much more relevant that shows you something
you're not supposed to see. So they took
an they use an old image. I mean,
there are any number of things to possibly
think
while doing a high murder profile case in
a prison that is set to be shut
down, they painted the railings. But in this
photo, you there there the the railing is
not. So clearly, they're either took an old
photo or they I mean, that's the only
way I can think that makes sense. It's
old, which will be covering up something that
was in the new scene. That's it's so
many inconsistencies.
Now it says, no matter what you make
of that, here is what we know.
The FBI claimed no one was approaching a
cell block, and that's wrong.
Five or six people visibly
were near those stairs that night and could
have went up without being on camera as
he clearly demonstrated.
Both entrances to that cell block were out
of view and could access those stairs.
There are multiple conflicting times in which Epstein
was supposedly locked down for the night. For
some unknown reason, a prisoner, likely Epstein, is
out of his cell at 10:40 with no
record. The officers doing rounds claim to fall
asleep at their desks for hours.
But with people coming and going and then
walking around, we know it's not true. Epstein
had an unreasonable amount of linens in his
room, but reports from the day say he
had the room checked and cleared.
Fresh linens, which is one, it kinda conflicts
with the other things, but one possible
point leaning towards somebody,
you know, forced him
told him to. Right? Gave him that to,
you know, you're gonna be disgraced or we're
gonna do something to your family. Who knows
what could drive someone like that to do
it? But that that would lean in that
direction.
And it says fresh linens were brought into
the special housing unit that night by Hat
Man. So what was in those special linens?
Right?
No prisoners claimed to hear commotion.
Yet Epstein supposedly hung himself on a single
shred of linen so low on the bed
frame that he strangled himself only an inch
off the ground and yet didn't knock over
the pill bottle. And on top of that,
experts will tell you it's very unlikely
impossible that somebody's even able to kill themselves
because of just you know, you have to
lean. Like, you know, it it's the same
thing with, like, the the Anthony,
Bourdain conversation
on a doorknob with a it just it
just it doesn't make much sense. You know,
I I guess the argument is unless they
were just determined to kill themselves, but it
doesn't line up.
Now it says most of this camera most
of the cameras in that area failed that
night and footage was supposedly lost, but now
we have it. For some reason, officer Tova
specifically looks at the one working camera
on at least three occasions that night. Even
before you get into the inconsistencies with claims
that he did or did not have a
list or the fact that ex experts dispute
that hanging with linen would result in the
kind of breaks found in the autopsy, I
think the hyoid bone, it seems pretty damn
clear. Epstein didn't kill himself. The victims deserve
truth, honesty, and justice, and they don't get
that if powerful people sell this lie.
Well said. Well said. And he goes, I
should also add I'm happy and well adjusted
and plan to be tweeting for a long
time to come. Right? Let's all say it
together. You know? Ryan's not I am not
suicidal. It's the same thing he's doing right
there. If I'd he said, if I still
disappear or fall out a window or something,
we know that I know I really nailed
this threat.
Oh, he adds he adds something at the
end here. I don't think I saw this.
He says, another damning moment of the footage
that I missed that I had missed in
in first. It's been cut. Oh, that was
the point we went over. Yeah. So that's
the the the blip in all of it.
So it's funny how that's one of the
most important points, And yet yet everything he
already showed you is more than enough to
show you that we're being lied to. I
think anyway,
it's very wild.
Now, as Grace rightly points out very gracefully,
little,
literally one of the first things reported was
the cameras were down. It's just it's just
how stupid this gets. Right? And they think
you're gonna fall for it.
James Lee posted this out, and I you
know, you can do it for yourself. I
mean, what I what I get is inconsistency,
which is just the way these things are
today. You know, some I but most of
them seem to suggest that, but you get
the ones that say not. His point was
I posted the video on FBI
posted the video the FBI released as evidence
that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide on TikTok, and
the app immediately
flagged it as AI generated.
That is that's just special in and of
itself. I find that ridiculous.
Now
the point about Acosta, I think, is very
relevant to this conversation. And this is just
the one of the many, but you I
you know what's funny? I had a video
of this that for some reason I can't
find now. Not not suggesting
any, like, foul play. I just that I'm
frustrated that we had the video where he
literally stood there. I think it was a
Donald Trump,
press press conference.
And he said exactly this for those that
might not believe it. You know? But it
it I personally saw this, but you can
look it up for yourself. He says, I
was told Epstein belonged to intelligence and to
leave it alone.
So isn't this shockingly relevant to what's going
on? The bigger part of this is
says, you know, is the Epstein case gonna
be a problem for confirmation hearings? Acosta had
been asked. Right? Because he was gonna work
with Trump's administration.
Acosta had
explained, breezily, they write, apparently, that back in
the day, he just had one meeting on
the Epstein case. One, he says, and this
is directly from the article, he cut the
non prosecution
deal
with one of Epstein's attorneys,
which is insane that even happened, a non
prosecution for the guy that they knew was
guilty.
And it says and remember people that would
say, we all knew what he was doing.
Like, it's just it's obvious.
But it says they've cut the non prosecution
deal with one of his lawyers, Epstein's lawyers,
because he had, quote,
been told to back off, that Epstein was
above his pay grade.
Quote, I was told Epstein belonged to intelligence
and to leave it alone.
He told his interviewers in the Trump administration,
who evidently thought that was sufficient answer and
went ahead and hired
him. Well, that only really makes sense when
you understand, in my opinion, the Israel infiltration
and all of this. How are you gonna
let someone work in your administration who has
an answer like that? That I mean, well,
I guess I could take it one more
way because he knows what he he'll follow
orders even if he's lying, which is something
they clearly want to this government. But, guys,
the idea that we know this more than
just this though because of many other examples
because of you and Barack or it's different.
There's been so many different examples of people
admitting this overlap.
And so that has to ring true with
what we're seeing today, or we'll understand why
they would lie about it. And I think
it's
more than not right now because of the
Israel connection and what they're doing with this.
But it's just they would just as likely
cover up for a CIA operative, which I
argue it's both. I think that's very clear
in the information.
Now Carrie Wetler adds to this. She says,
I don't feel the need to do the
I told you so dance about Epstein betrayal,
but I will say I'm glad I didn't
allow myself to be gaslit into believing a
bunch of ruling class politicians, propagandists, and authoritarians
that they cared about exposing ruling class politicians,
propagandists, and authoritarians.
Well put as always.
Now Derek adds to this
and says one year ago, Trump said he'd
likely would not release the Epstein files. Promises
made, promises kept.
People think that one way to build trust
is to declassify things that everyone's talking about.
I know you talked earlier about it. I
don't wanna be a conspiracy theorist.
So if you were president, would you declassify
you can answer yes or no to this.
Would you declassify the nine eleven,
files? Yeah. Would you declassify JFK files? Yeah.
Would you I did I did a lot
of it. Would you declassify the Epstein files?
Yeah. Yeah. I would. Alright. I guess I
would. I think that less so because, you
know, you don't know it. You don't want
to affect people's lives if it's phony stuff
in there because there's a lot of phony
stuff with that whole world.
Oh, wow.
That's not a very convincing answer, is it?
Is that what 99%
of his base thinks?
But I think I would or at least
I Do you think that would restore trust?
Help restore trust? Yeah. I I don't know
about Epstein so much as I do the
others. Certainly about the way he died, it'd
be interesting to find out what happened there
because that was Or covered up. The weird
situation and the cameras didn't happen to be
working, etcetera, etcetera.
So here's what's interesting. Just like we always
point out, now you could argue that something
changed and now he sees the truth and
he didn't know then, blah blah blah, which
is certainly possible. But recognize, guys, in my
opinion that they're all involved with the lie
left and right, that he said this the
time. Even though he he very clearly suggested
not, he gave you the bone. We wanna
find out whether he killed himself because we're
interested because he knew that was the thing.
That was the destiny. He didn't kill himself.
Right? They tap into the memes.
They they say what you even though he
already said probably not, he gives you the
thing that makes you go wink, wink. He
secretly is going to, and he doesn't want
them to know he's going to.
It it they they know how to play
you. They know exactly what the lowest common
denominator wants.
So consider that today with what's going on
with what or when Trump runs in the
first place and says nine eleven, lock her
up, the fed. And and none of these
even gets discussed in his administration.
He he tapped into the
what he knew was the majority, and they
still do. I think that's very important. But
you had to go a long way toward
that one. The other stuff, I would. I
would definitely do the January 6 because
Mhmm.
Beyond all of them.
Well, that's very revealing.
And and, this was just his post on
June 5 saying Trump expresses doubt about releasing
them. Oh, good on him for calling that
out.
Now, of course, here's an over here's another
angle. Here's Libs of TikTok saying, Trump says
he'll release the Epstein client list if elected.
The Democrat elites are shaking right now.
Funny how well these things age these days.
But, of course, they're never gonna pull they're
they're gonna keep running with whatever. They're the
team right now somehow trying to gaslight a
unit thinking that what happened is good, and
then it's all over, and it was never
that big in the first place. Right? These
people who want you to believe it's all
about the democrat deep state pedophiles, which
point there's some level of truth to that
and it goes across both parties. The idea
that now after there are no Democrats being
arrested, that they would act like this all
is put to bed. It's pretty damn embarrassing.
And as Michael Tracy says, 2024 was a
masterful innovation in GOP campaign propaganda,
leveraging
ascendant alt media into a hugely potent asset.
Imagine telling these podcasters last fall that by
07/01/2025,
Trump would bomb Iran, terminate the Epstein files,
and become bitter political enemies with Musk. That
is wild. Here's what this clip says.
But a lot of big
people went to that island.
Like you. But fortunately, I was not one
of them. It's just very strange for a
lot of people that,
the list of clients that went to the
island has not been made public.
Yeah. It's it's very interesting, isn't it? Look
at the way he's even speaking, by the
way. Personal opinion, completely my opinion. He's got
a very weird look and feel to him
right now. Like, it's I don't know. Just
the way he squint the way he's talking,
like, you know, I just I get the
sense of dishonesty. My point my opinion.
Interesting, isn't it? Probably will be, by the
way. Possibly. So if you're able to, you'll
be Yeah. Certainly take a look at it.
Now Kennedy's in And there's that. See how
this works?
I they it's the same every time. So
they take I'll take a look at it
and claim he's gonna do it. The democrats
are fierce. You know, they're terrified. And all
he really did was give you right down
the middle non answer, and they know their
marching orders. How embarrassing for them. But they
are not they don't even are these people
aren't even seemingly capable of recognizing how stupid
they look or maybe they just don't care.
Interesting because it's so many years ago.
You know? They do that for danger too
because, you know, it endangers certain people, etcetera,
etcetera. Yeah. Yeah. Saying we're already making it
clear even in this video that she tells
you is for sure that he's kinda not
gonna do it. So Kennedy,
is very different from
the Epstein thing. He didn't even ask about
Kennedy, did he? But, yeah, I'd be inclined
to do the Epstein. I'd have no problem
with it. See? That's not an answer. I'll
look at it. I'd be inclined to oh,
yeah. But that's and then now. But the
point is
middle down the middle. It's it's an art
form. It does it pretty well, to be
honest, but it's it only really works when
you've got blind sycophants that will cheer on
whatever they want to believe you might have
said.
Trump was says he'll release the no. He
didn't. The Epstein
elites or the Epstein the Democrat elites are
shaking right
now. Well, Jack Posobiec comes out and says,
I see the libs are up to their
old talking point. So in any whenever there's
something that's not working for the partisan game
on either side, the respond the they they
shove out their maniac, their their screamers to
come out and say, damn damn the the
liberalist. Liberalist. I can't even talk. Democrats and
liberals, they're the ones. They did something stupid.
Everybody point at the other side because it's
the only thing that works still. Right? For
the people that need to go the other
side, they're the bad guys. No matter how
bad our thing is, they're worse, so we
can ignore it right now. It's sad. It's
childish. It is it's paternalism at the end
of the day. He says, I see the
libs are up to their own talking points,
so I have to post us again.
If Trump was in the Epstein files, why
would Biden and Garland
have released it? Why wouldn't they have released
it?
Gee, that's a Gordian knot I mean, maybe
because partisanship's in a losing, Jack. But you
know this, it's your whole shtick. And I
put out an old meme that we have
from KeyLab back in the day. Don't get
caught up in picking sides. Get educated and
research issues.
The more people play favorites and stay loyal
to their team, the more the deep state
will continue to volley society back and forth
through illusionary illusory partisan politics.
Right? Look how consistent we've been with our
poll our principles. Like, that's, like, 2016
we made that.
The bottom line, guys, he knows the answer.
That doesn't mean I that doesn't mean it
doesn't mean that is the truth, but clearly,
there's an answer to your question if and
why. Well, because the partisan's
an illusion. They're all on the same team
because they're all on the list. I mean,
there's so many possible things, but he just
wants to float it like it's somehow this
sage wisdom. Clearly, we know it's only the
deep state Democrat pedophiles.
Lazy, guys. Jack Wiessobic is in of itself,
you know, stems from Israeli
or slippery slope or just a slip, but
the intelligence. Right? That's these people know what
they're doing. Now that doesn't have to mean
that you're on some operation, but the guy
knows how to play people using operations, and
the guy is very actively pro Trump no
matter what all the time, like all of
them are. How do you trust someone like
that? When you can like a cat turd
that says, I'll never defy Trump. Always on
Trump's side. Well, okay. Then you're literally telling
us that you'll lie for him. You'll do
whatever he says. You'll cheer it on even
if it's bad. Yeah. We've all seen that.
So how can you even take someone like
that seriously?
Well, Charlie Kirk making that point says, if
Trump was on the Epstein list, why didn't
Biden release that info and stop him from
being president? Well, almost like they've all gotten
the same talking point. Right?
Maybe because they're all on the list, Charlie.
It's just it's just lazy.
Here is a clip from Catherine Austin Fitts
giving you her opinion
whether Trump is on these files.
Trump's
Epstein file is bigger than the Encyclopedia Britannicus
the way I would describe it. So you
being from The Netherlands might not not know
the Encyclopedia Britannica, but it's a huge you
know, when we were kids, we had a,
you know, like, 25 volume Encyclopedia Britannica. So
yeah.
So he and Epstein were best friends.
Trump? Yeah. Yeah. Right? Yeah. For a long
time. Well, you could see the pictures everywhere.
Well, the one I love
is,
so so Epstein was basically part of the,
Lex
West,
Lex Wexner
operation,
and Wexner bought him a house on East
70 First Street. So I used to live
where was my I had an apartment on
East 60 Fourth when I first got to
New York, so it was my neighborhood. Anyway,
so he bought him a house on East
70 First Street, and then,
after a relatively short time, he
moved him next door to a much bigger
house, which is the one you always see
in the pictures of of Epstein's house.
The first house he sold to Howard Lutnick,
who's the secretary of commerce and co chairman
of
the transition team. Right?
So,
so Lutnick for many years was
Epstein's next door neighbor, which to me intuitively
makes a lot of sense because Epstein was
primarily a money laundering network in my opinion.
And so having a primary dealer
you know, there are only 24 primary dealers
in the New York Fed, and so having
a primary dealer
who's running the market in treasury securities is
a logical person to next put next door.
I'm assuming
Wexner probably had tunnels spilled underneath.
So,
anyway, so so you I mean, the whole
administration is full of Epstein people. So
Now I I imagine she was making a
joke right there, but, you know, joke but
not kinda thing. But
in regard to the tunnels, by the way,
but the the the thing is just so
I mean, there's so many connections. Right? I
I again, we'll reckon recommend Whitney's work around
not just the Epstein point as it relates
to this discussion, but, like, the deeper
eugenicist, transhumanist, technocratic overlap of of what he
was working on in regard to the eugenics
aspect of, like, seeding his, you know, his
his seed to the world. Epstein had this
really weird, you know, wanting to populate the
world with his children or the idea of
the technocratic Harvard overlap and the work being
done there in that direction. But, you know,
the point is with Lutnick and the rest,
it's it it you you have to really
consider how this played a role, not just
with Israel and blackmail or the CIA and
sexual blackmail, but the bigger picture of what
was being driven in like, what we're dealing
with today and how it does interconnect. Lutnick
is an obvious example of that, but it's
a lot more than just Lutnick. The fact
that it was next door neighbor is just
I mean, you gotta really start piecing these
things together and see that this is not
all coincidence.
These people are here in these positions for
a reason, guys.
Here is Midas touch simply pointing out some
of the different compilations of Trump and Epstein.
There's a there there are a lot of
them. Again, my point is not to say
that you could, you know, question everything. Maybe
maybe he's telling the truth, but realize
if the same thing. If if if this
was Biden or anybody, a nameless democrat that
had the same amount of overlap, you know
what these people would be saying. Libs of
TikTok would say there's no, 100% guilty. We
know for sure. And the same the same
question. If you're objective, you wouldn't say that
in either case. But you know as well
as I that there's a lot of evidence
to back this up. And, you know, people
like Catherine, their their opinion matters. I think
they have a lot of weight, but the
evidence, I think, speaks for itself.
Just that Jeffrey Epstein was running a sex
trafficking ring in the early two thousands that
included underage girls as young as 14 years
old. Donald Trump in 2002 said of Epstein,
he's a lot of fun to be with.
It's even said that he likes beautiful women
as much as I do, and many of
them are on the younger side. He routinely
spoke fawningly of Jeffrey. He admired Epstein's lifestyle.
Your daughter, she's beautiful.
Can I say this? A piece of ass,
yeah. She's actually always been very voluptuous. What
does Tiffany have with Marlon? She's got Marlon's
legs.
We don't know whether or not she's got
this pregnant. You were playing tennis and you
came off the court. Quote, look at that
piece of I would love some of that.
It so happened that Trump was referring to
Cohen's then 15 year old daughter, Snow. I
had the impression that he was interested in
younger women and that, you know, women would
age out for him. Miss Teen Universe?
Yeah. That's like giving Jeffrey Dahmer a cooking
show.
I'll go backstage before a show, and everyone's
getting dressed and ready and everything else. And
I'm allowed to go in because I'm the
owner of the pageant, and therefore, I'm inspecting
it. I stayed in there with no sweat.
Donald Trump is heard making questionable comments
about a young girl. You're going up the
escalator?
I'm gonna be dating her in ten years.
A lawsuit against the presumptive GOP nominee alleges
he raped a girl when she was 13
years old. Prince Andrew answering questions for the
first time about his friendship with convicted sex
offender Jeffrey Epstein. I don't know prince Andrew,
but it's, it's a tough story. Trump has
been photographed with prince Andrew as far back
as the year February. Ghislaine Maxwell is accused
of helping Epstein sexually abuse underage girls. I've
met her numerous times over the years, especially
since I lived in Palm Beach, and I
guess they lived in Palm Beach, But I
wish her well. You you know about sexual
predators and things like that. I mean, You
are one. Alright. But I wasn't gonna say
that. But that is true.
Now,
obviously, to be objective, the simple point to
make, whether true or not, is that you
know as well as I that people would
lie about that for their own benefit. Right?
Whether Democrat, Republican, or just people that don't
like him, people that want power or money.
The obvious point is it's possible that that
could have been an an association, but nothing
more, and that people wanna lie about that.
You know? The this is what you're gonna
get the argument from. The Trump derangement, the
democrats hate him. He's he's trying to save
the country, and they wanna serve whatever it
is. Certainly possible. Consider all of that, but
also consider the evidence. And consider that there's
not much on the other side of that
to argue against why that's happening other than,
you know, they just would like to do
that to hurt him, which sure matters.
But I think the evidence also matters more.
And I think what we can see is
if, you know, outside of, like, tangible, provable
you're going to prison evidence, every other conversation
they have about these types of overlaps or
any number of overlaps with this kind of
conversation.
Far less evidence is enough to con like,
in the public in the court of public
opinion,
the same people would go after people relentlessly.
Now never that point is never made to
say that that's why we should say he's
guilty. It's simply meant to show you the
hypocrisy
of people that will go after one, not
the other, which is just opening the door.
Basically, that's meant to make you, you know,
make sure you see those arguments of why
you should ignore it in the right light
and look at the evidence and come to
your own conclusions about what that shows you.
Here's what Trump put out,
today. I just think it's relevant to think
about what he's saying while this is all
happening. Right? So I mean, let's be clear
again.
The amount of Republicans who are, like, seething
about this right now, it's wild. It's overtaking
Twitter and every other conversation that I can
see. He put this out today. The FBI,
under the direction of Cash and Don Gino,
is back to the basics,
locking up criminals, clearing up American streets, I
guess, after this long investigation of Epstein. Right?
We have the greatest law enforcement professionals professionals
in the world, but politics in quotes, and
corrupt leaders often prevent them from doing their
job. That is no longer the case. And
now they have been unleashed to do their
jobs, and they're doing it just that. Keep
it up. Make America safe again.
Right? So what this is meant to be
is a not so subtle direction point talking
or, you know, marching orders. That's where you
should be looking. Right? Don't let's pretend like
that's now done. We're looking forward to the
future. Make it all great again. Stop focusing
on the nuance and the details.
That's how I read that. Funny. I respond,
Hong Kong with clown world down at the
bottom. So because that's what somebody Orwell and
I were talking about that. And the point
being though,
this
is like tone deaf to what is happening
in the conversation right now. And I didn't
see anything else about it.
So we get people like this who see
the direction like they do, and they dutifully
follow it like the sycophants do.
I'm not saying we need to move on
from Epstein, says Insurrection Barbie. I wanna see
accountability for everything.
What I'm saying is that Epstein is not
the end all be all defining moment of
Trump presidency like people on here are making
it out to be. So you can sell
do you so you can sell you some
more rage and make money.
Wow.
It's not the reason why I support Trump
or or support president Trump.
I would support or not support Trump. It's
important, but so so is a 100,000 other
things.
R. So r.
What I am saying is that perspective, nuance,
patience, and common sense need to make a
comeback fast.
Can you imagine that?
Think about what they've been saying this whole
time. And that's your response to people now
going, but now it didn't what you kept
telling us was going to be the bombshell
didn't happen, and so now you're chastising people
for making too much out of it?
I mean, how is that just not the
most embarrassingly desperate thing you've ever seen? But
they keep doing this. All of them. All
the people we talk about, these these highly
screaming partisan level.
It's embarrassing.
I mean, here's people will also say, glad
to see you're totally fine with Trump administration
covering for satanic pedophiles. But is is that
what they were telling us? You know, it's
just it's it's why it shows you that
they don't even care about the things they
profess to care about, at least when it
comes up against Trump's direction or, you know,
pro a Trump first direction as opposed to
America first.
Now Spiro rightfully points out a point that
we haven't even gone over, which I think
is relevant to mention all this as it
also actually relates to Twitter
AI, xAI, and AI in general.
Spiro says both found to be not guilty
in the same week, back to sleep. And
it's a picture of Epstein and p Diddy.
Now I I don't think you could say
that Epstein was found not guilty, but the
the point is ultimately that, you know, you're
you're
not doing the the the point is made,
I think. He's trying to make a point.
And the idea that Diddy in this is
an interesting overlap. Same kind of point though
for both angles. The the the interconnective
interconnectivity of all this, but also the fact
that this guy is a part owner of
Twitter.
Can you say same old thing? Imagine if
there was a bunch of d's next to
the name. It was a democrat running Twitter,
and he was a democrat that got caught.
And they would oh my god. Twitter was
a human trafficking platform. No. With no evidence
as they usually do in partisanship, but it's
funny to see how they react and don't
react when it's something that's on their side
or not.
But with the point,
here's Elon Musk back in 2024.
How many people in music industry knew about
this? About Pete Diddy being accused
accused
of of,
what is it? Abusing nine year old boy.
And I'm not even getting into yes or
no. And I'm just making a point about
about the connection to Elon in the conversation
of today. Liz Crokin rightly points out, Elon,
you've admitted that he's your friend and and
that he's investor in Twitter. So act like
you didn't you know, it's a weird way
to frame that, especially when, again, the point
was you're being accused of it. Not even
held found guilty yet. And let's not forget
that, yes, here is USA Today. Sean Denny
Combs is one of the,
owners of the background of Twitter.
Investors owners, like, he owns a part of
Twitter. I just find it to be wild
that no one wants to talk about that
in the side that usually talks about that.
You know where I'm going with that.
Now, Elon Musk comes out around I think
there's overlapping points that you can go in
even further than that, but we're not focused
on him today other than the part we
might end with if we have time about
the party.
He says on he says it's today. Elon
Musk puts this out, that the image saying
the official Jeffrey Epstein pedophile arrest counter, and
it says zero. He says, what's the time?
Oh, look. It's no one has been arrested
o'clock again.
You know, it's just so think about the
amount of criticism he's coming at. We or
or the
you were just like a hero. You were
part of this team twenty seconds ago, telling
us they were gonna save the world, and
now suddenly you're accusing them of covering up
for pedophiles?
That escalated quickly. I mean, it just needs
to show you as always that either they
were always lying to you before, you know,
or the simple point is that if he's
now doing this, that means he was either
covering for them before or somehow was unaware
of all the things that you can see
and now is willing to call them out.
You know, it's like the people that covered
up for Epstein until later it came out,
and they said, oh, we all knew. Well,
that's him right here. In regard to everything
else we're talking about, government corruption, Israeli influence,
all the things that he was seeing there,
all the lies about doves they were spinning.
Now he wants to call it all out.
Now he wants you to believe there's only
there's only a one party system, which we
should all know. But then why were you
telling us the Republicans were gonna save the
world twenty seconds ago? Guys, we got it's
just insane. And this is why everybody, I
think, whether they like what they're saying or
not, are being forced to come to terms
with this right now. Thank god. Two party
illusion, guys. False binary. You've been played a
long time. We all were at some point.
Don't feel bad about it. Just start doing
the right thing. Start calling it all out
like a lot of people are.
Elon Musk and, again, this is like we
talked about oh, I had a good conversation
on fine points this morning. We talked about
this in particular. And and the same kind
of point is, you know, Elon Musk comes
out and says, you know, the bill is
bad, lots of spending and, you know, all
the and he's right.
That it's going to increase the it's gonna
hurt our country in a lot of ways.
The point though is that people didn't go
after it because now Elon's on the other
side. So now it becomes he said the
thing, now it's false. It's basic, but false
binary,
partisan thinking. The point is he is correct,
but he's all my point, I also think
he's lying or rather using that to manipulate
you, using the truth. That's my opinion. I
will I might not get it today, but
if at the end, maybe, but if not
the next show. I I think very clearly
that I briefly touched on it before. The
America party dynamic feels very contrived, expected,
and we should very much consider whether or
not this was all the plan or even
because of this is now part of the
new plan. I mean, that can question at
all, guys.
But my point in saying that is that
whether he's lying to you or not or
playing you or not, the truth is the
truth no matter who says it. He says
Elon Musk or the the article says Elon
Musk reacts to Epstein List report, says final
straw.
Musk, after the Axios report, said that the
DOJ and the FBI have concluded that there
were no evidence, Epstein client list, that they
said that was the final straw, he said.
He says, so, then what is Ghislaine Maxwell
in prison for? He says Musk posted, which
is, you know, he'd probably gleaned that off
someone online. Musk posted to his ex platform
referring to Epstein's former girlfriend and associate who
procured underage girls from boobies
and facilitated to somebody, which is the point.
You can't have the crime if you're not
you know, who is the who is selling
these things or rather who is the one
buying these things? He says stuff like this
does not improve people's faith in government,
which maybe just be leading you all into
his arms after he just got caught lying
or savage. You know, it seems crazy that
you would go to him again.
But the point is not that
like I said before, having child pornography on
your computer is a very serious crime, and
they should be held accountable for it, having
material like that. But it's not the fact
that that's all that they're the fact is
they told you there was trafficking.
That's the point to make. They told you
that was the allegation, which you can't have
the crime of trafficking
if you're not in the if you're not,
you know, trafficking them. Right? They're they're the
idea that these people are being sold to
somebody else is where the crime is committed.
And they're hiding that from you is the
point. Now
a lot of people are conversing about this
right now. This is today, July 7, after
spending weeks and months and years
gaslighting you into supporting what this or, you
know, this this grouping, acting like we were
gonna be saved by all of this. They
were gonna release the Epstein files. They were
gonna stop the globalist world or, you know,
all those things that are currently happening.
This says exclusive analysis. Was Epstein video evidence
destroyed by the Biden administration?
And you see where this goes.
Coping. Endless amounts of coping right now from
the partisan liars. The idea that somehow we
the only thing you can consider is maybe
the Biden team lied about okay. Well, then
why are they lying to you about that?
Wouldn't they come out and say Biden deleted
it all and that proves everything?
The amount of coping going on is just
embarrassing.
Roger Stone claims Cash Patel is telling the
truth, not covering up the crimes because they
were no longer there.
Ah, I see. So they're also kind of
lying to you by omission? That's the that's
the positive story, and why would they why
would they cover for the Biden administration?
You can't because it it just doesn't make
sense no matter how you spin it. But
this is what it looks like to try
to gaslight and cope and cover for the
team you're on.
Here, David Ike or Michael actually, Michael Tracy
says Joe and says, meet the old boss,
same as the old boss. Now by coming
in and being part of the cover up,
the Trump administration has become part of it.
You can't see it any other way.
Well, yeah. You know? And that that's important
to point out. Then when you go on
to continue to support that team and continue
to tell people they should and act like
they're somehow lying here, but still the right
side to support because they're the other side
is worse, you're obviously part of the binary
lie.
As Tracy says, the inevitable result of online
conspiracy merchants becoming GOP flunkies. Here's what David
Icke says. How did they get Trump and
the DOJ to do that, Alex? Come on,
mate. You've been pro promoting a blatant deep
state owned fraud like the rest of the
MAGA media, and Trump did this in a
desperate attempt to save his own ASS. That's
his opinion.
I I mean, I I think this is
about well, I guess the way he's probably
framing that is to release something that's a
false story to hide that he is on
that list.
I agree with David. There's something else for
sure, but the coping
is just insane. It really is. It's not
hard to see what's going on here. And
what they were at the very least, the
level one point in this is that we're
being deceived.
Not to to figure out why they're secretly
the Democrats that are responsible.
That's just exactly what it sounds like.
Now,
miss, Q Universe says, DOJ says Epstein killed
himself, and there's no client list. Trump's ex
labor secretary, Acosta,
federal immunity, which we all know, no clients,
no operations. So what were they conspiring to
do? Host a bake sale? And people are
all calling us out. Queue and, you know,
other people from every every
direction. David Icke says, well, well, and this
is just kind of summing it up. An
investigation cover up by Trump appointees finds there
are no Epstein client list and there was
no arrests, or there will be no arrests.
This by design puts Trump in the clear
for now despite Epstein calling him my closest
friend for ten years.
This has this has
desperation stamped all over it. And will it
even dawn on the MAGA media that you
campaign to power the same mentality
that you once claimed to oppose.
The deep state I I do think they're
beginning to recognize this, the ones that are
honest anyway. The deep state with its signature
cover ups and suppression of information
was not replaced in the White House in
January 2025. It just changed its personnel. The
Trump DOJ, Bondi,
and FBI, Patel and Bongino, which by the
way asked why yourself why Bondi is not
out there defending these conversations right now,
says there's no credible evidence that Epstein blackmailed
prominent individuals and no evidence that could predicate
an investigation against uncharged third parties.
Embarrassing.
You wonder if Trump is going to make
it to the end of his presidency for
many reasons. Maybe he will. But is that
teal own Vance doing warm ups?
Right. Even if he gets removed, Vance is
an obvious replacement for the same team.
Now here's what Zionist Miller put out. Top
White House adviser touts historic string of promises
kept. He put that out today. Of course.
Right? Because you gotta do you gotta do
the rounds. Right? Trump and everyone else. The
FBI is moving forward. We're all on the
right page. Everyone's happy, and we're all on
the same page because we're happy, and we're
not upset. Right? Just tell you what you're
supposed to think. He comes out and goes
promises kept all the time. Even
Republicans are calling this out when he does
this on Twitter. What about the JFK file?
It's just very clear what's going on here,
guys. Now let's not forget to connect this
to the next conversation.
This is from 08/30/2023.
Epstein's calendar contained multiple meetings with Peter Thiel.
Shouldn't be surprising when we see how this
all comes together. Now we're gonna get into
the next part about AI, artificial intelligence,
weather modification,
Texas,
and how some of this might play into
each other.
There's also this report, recent, from 06/04/2025.
Jeffrey Epstein invested with Peter Thiel, and his
estate is reaping millions.
Investing, overlapped, meaning, clearly,
you could argue it's just money, but we
the more you can see this network, the
more you begin to see that there's something
much bigger. Epstein was one part of what
this is.
Now quickly a point about a XAI
that overlaps with the conversation we're about to
get into. We're gonna talk about the
you know, like I said in the beginning,
let's go over it all again. Geo geoengineering,
weather modification, the idea of Texas, the possible
flying, the water conversation for AI, why that
might be relevant to kind of the circle
that goes around all that. But, CJ, we
might have seen people, which, again, is kind
of a cope, which is funny. The the
usual suspects out there going,
Catcher being one of them. Grok is suddenly
all woke. What's going on? Which, you know,
is funny is
they call it woke when they just when
they get something that challenges what they want
to be the reality, which is just hilarious
to me. It's if it's woke and that's
that's your team, guys. That's x AI. That's
Elon Musk. That's the same thing. But what
we all know for not being children is
that it's not about woke one way or
the other. It's about controlling the information. It's
about identity politics. It's about censorship under the
guise of hate speech. Whatever side you wanna
play, woke left, woke right, bro flakes, snowflakes.
This is a point that makes I'm what
I'm getting to is that I think this
is kind of why suddenly everyone's like, it's
woke and flying. Well, guess what Grok recently
talked about, which is making a lot of
attention. This person says, Grok, is America independent
from Israel? I think it was under an
Elon Musk post.
And it literally responded by saying, no. The
US is not fully independent from Israel. Billions
in annual aid and powerful lobbies like APAC
heavily shape US foreign policy, often prioritizing
Israeli interests over broader American ones. As seen
in consistent UN vetoes and military support, true
sovereignty requires untangling this influence.
Wow. Yeah. Meaning, you're not sovereign because of
Israel's influence over this country. That's what Grok
said. You can decide if you believe that
or not, but that is not okay for
people that wanna control this conversation. And so
suddenly, Grok is woke. You know, Grok is
the left all of a sudden. Where? He
must be a d holdover from the left.
I've seen all of those floating around.
I didn't see this
one. I just asked when it will be
free from Israel. Not relevant for the point
now. But
this is relevant for a couple reasons just
to open the door to the overlap, but
also the idea that let's not forget, guys,
that XAI,
Elon Musk, as well I've talked about here,
this was a DARPA program, guys. It literally
ended just before he took up x turned
it into XAI and supposedly started this new
thing. It is a DARPA program. A just
like total information awareness became Palantir. That's it's
a government overlap. It is the lie. K?
So what we're talking about here is it
involves Palantir, involves all of this, is the
beginning of this new AI direction through this
all of it coming together. I mean, there's
so many angles to talk about. Just to
take too long with Doge or the government,
the AI government involved with the actual administrations
or rather,
you know, the different, you know, the
the GSA and the different locations of different,
you know, where they're basically turning it into
AI run government. That's their own statement. The
leaked plan, in fact, came out. I might
probably grab that since we're making the point.
I think it was this one? I don't
know. I sent the wrong one.
Well, here's the, oops.
Here's the show, which I'll have the link
included.
And I guess since we're talking about this,
I'll grab this one too.
Now these are when when I do this,
guys, it's only just because I wanna have
that on in the notes if in case
you wanna look back for the previous shows
that connect to it. We did this one
on March 8, the impending future of AI
government, but who controls the AI,
as well as the one I just discussed,
which is the
which is proven. It's a verifiable reality. Right?
That the leaked,
which has now been proven, that the Trump
administration had plans that got leaked
on GitHub that were about turning all of
government into AI. It's exactly what we're talking
about. That's not a secret at this point.
So the point though, is all that overlap
where this goes and realizing that not just
the interconnected between all that, but also the
funding and the people around it, like BlackRock,
we've talked about. And how interesting it was
that BlackRock can literally fund
Twitter, and that doesn't become the big deal.
But if it's even slightly connected to anything
Democrat, it's the end all be all story.
It should matter equally on all of them
because it is concerning. BlackRock is concerning. Maybe
I'll grab those too because BlackRock is interconnected
to a lot of very alarming things.
We've talked about this back in the COVID
conversation, the black the we called it the,
BlackRock takeover of The United States, the COVID
coup, which is where they took over the
treasury. I mean, there's a lot of different
examples, and I'll grab this one too.
BlackRock's Panama Canal, just other articles discussing this
as this is the one I was gonna
grab too,
if it's in there.
Oh, yeah. Look at BlackRock invested in masks.
There's one I was gonna grab that Josh
Walcos where that's not popping up, but he
did a great overview on BlackRock in general.
Anyway,
all these are relevant for you to understand
that BlackRock is interconnected with them near everything.
Right? It is I mean, they call they
call themselves a shadow government. That's rather that's
what they're called. It's the public's public discussion
because it's
behind the behind the scenes pulling the strings.
So my point is this is not new.
You know this because we've talked about it
plenty of times that the idea
that XAI
got funding from BlackRock. It was publicly discussed.
We covered this on in January.
So this person comes out who we've already
shown in the past, you know,
doing things that were, you know, deserve to
be called out, being wrong about
things. Grack just exposed itself by fund saying
it funded by BlackRock. Well, you know, so
this is what's so frustrating is this is
a public story, but it becomes like this
massive thing as if it was just uncovered
and inserted. Well, good. I'm glad people see
it. But isn't it weird the way this
all works, the flow of information? Grack says
XAI, which built me, received funding from BlackRock
in a series c round. Very public. It's
very public. It's literally posted publicly back in
January, December 2024. We covered it publicly. A
lot of people talked about it online.
But weird that it gets it becomes like
this breaking story and makes me wonder what
why Twitter wants that for some reason or
why somebody does or maybe not. Maybe it
just happens to break through. But I said
old news, if you've been following TLAB reporting,
you've known this since the beginning of the
year. And not because Grok says so, but
because source material included within the TLAB article
below as always
demonstrating our value for you. You would have
already known this and had the material to
prove it, not just that Grok said, which
I think is a relevant point to make.
Now what's interesting,
it appears that that tweet was deleted,
which I just think adds a lot more
to the point here. Here, here's just what
I got what it was it showed up
in what it got sent to me as,
like, in my, you know, signal got sent
to me. And it says this right there.
What's the same post he was just showing?
XAI received investment from BlackRock.
This is the link. You can see it.
It says Grok right there. Why would they
delete that? I think that screams exactly what
you think, that somebody wanted that to be
deleted. But so then it comes the question
is asked, why then? If it's a publicly
reported story that gets pointed to,
why is it deleted by Grock? I just
think there's so many weird things going on,
guys. I just wanted to point that out
because I do think that's relevant.
This is the article where we cover this.
Twitter's free speech facade crumbles as technocratic agenda
takes center stage.
Oh, hold on. Let me grab all these.
How do I not save these?
There we go.
So
keeping that in mind,
the I the AI, BlackRock, you know, my
point in that part, which it'll make more
sense if we go through it, is really
to highlight for everybody the interconnectivity, like, the
the larger agenda. BlackRock is involved with a
ton of the larger globalist kind of overlapping
points and technocracy,
globalism.
So
if BlackRock's invested in this AI side of
it, that means they have a very clear
interest with massive, massive amounts of money, more
than almost anybody, and to put toward these
things. So let's talk about the geoengineering part
of this. Rather, geoengineering, weather modification, just briefly
and overlap this with the conversation in Texas,
which I think is gonna even those that
understand the story, what we're gonna show you,
which is also public, and I'm by by
no means breaking this story, is probably gonna
be pretty wild for most people that don't
know this.
Now this I just I wanna just demonstrate,
or include some articles or shows we did
with Dan Wiggin Dane Wigginton. Excuse me. This
one was from, 02/26/2024.
Geoengineering, Nanotech, and Biocarrier Platforms for Pathogen Dispersion.
This is the one we did not too
long ago from the,
oh, wait. Did I have that backwards?
Oh, I did. That's interesting. I thought I
did so this is the newer one. This
is the older one
called geoengineering and climate change, gambling with the
human species. And then this one was the
last one about the pathogen dispersion.
And I'm gonna play that, briefly again just
to show you
two things. The clip I played in the
beginning.
First,
note that this patent he shows you in
1914
says Rainmaker, which might just be a coincidence
seeing as how it's in kind of on
the nose we're discussing. But that is the
name of the company we're gonna talk about.
Not that there's any necessarily connection because it's
from 1914.
But just quickly to show you this again,
you know, what he goes over in this,
and this is these are direct patents, showing
you exactly what people, in many cases, still
pretend isn't real. The actual patents for geoengineering,
for
stratospheric aerosol injection, you know, which are all
different different layers and areas of the same
general conversation.
Cloud seeding being a very simplistic version of
something in the general realm of this, which
people try to act like is totally not
the same thing. It very much is. We're
talking about manipulating the weather to cause weather
to do what you want it to. Right?
Now the difference is you're going to a
whole new level when you get to things
like stratospheric aerosol injection.
But it is in the same umbrella, guys.
It's the same conversation.
But he goes through all these patents, goes
through how clear it is, how they're used
on planes. It's very easy to look up.
And I thought the the most important part
is this, just he's right. That this there's
so much evidence like this. This shows you
you could see them starting and stopping the
technology.
For those that wanna pretend we're talking about
contrails. Right? Very, very clear. So that being
said,
there was a massive, you know, weather event
that happened in Texas. Death toll in devastating
Central Texas, flash floods, climbs to at least
ninety five.
Dozens still missing.
And in general, I think I have those
right here asking just people about what they
saw.
You know, here, where was it? So here
here is what tinfoil,
tinfoil hat girl had to say. Friend of
the show. She says, I lived in San
Antonio for three years. Never saw anything like
what they're what they were seeing and what
they saw. We flooded, but never like that.
I lived in, Midland Odessa for over two
years.
Also, never I mean, not not that it's
even the same location, but I I mean,
I saw off the same with them. Never
what they're showing there
for for what that's worth. So here, she's
adding to that for her personal perspective. We'll
come back to the tweet that it's showing.
So first, just the fact that it's pretty
severe. Right? So anytime there's something like this
that happens, it's not the idea that you
should feel like you're not allowed to ask
certain questions is so stupid to me. And
it's so it is it is designed to
stop people from being critical
inquisitive.
But as always,
because
don't
I would argue it's irresponsible to go forward
with what you assume with no evidence. Right?
So be better than that. The point is
that they try to scare you away from
asking these questions. But like I said earlier,
there are plenty of people in the field
that want to use the truth or use
the the idea that that is possible to
use it in times where they wanna manipulate
you. Also consider that. Right? So, my point
was at the time, on July 4, I
I could see no evidence that this was
for sure happening. Just like I can argue
today that UNICEF still can't prove that we
saw something happen on the fourth.
But I think we can prove at this
point that there has been cloud seeding that
took place in Texas at least before
or possibly after
that. That is relevant to me. But so
you would still be objective and honest enough
to say that we still don't know for
absolute certain that this was done on that
day. But maybe it's not necessary. Maybe you
could do it a week before. Right? It's
all that's worth considering. And that's all to
say again that there are people that would
push this out without knowing that for their
own purposes. Even just to guess at it,
maybe get right. Facts matter to me. So
serious event.
Brian Gamble, who I'm not familiar with, put
this out.
This is on July 5.
Having an old document, here's the actual,
account, Rainmaker Technology Core.
The name of the person is Augustus Dorico,
who's the owner. Another one of these, he
even calls himself a tech bro. Another one
of these, like,
I'm blanking on his name, Anduril
Lucky Palmer types. Right? Like, this is, like,
this very, like, carved out version of what
they want the new technocrat
leadership to look like. It's just very strange
to me. And you'll see what I mean
when I play it. This young kid with
a mullet, you know, it's just very weird.
The point though is that Brian Gamble has
a has a document he shared, which I
can't verify, but post this on here, showing
a document where they claim to have been
hired to, which I'm gonna get to proving
that they are doing this in Texas,
in Pecos, Texas
for what they do, for cloud seeding. Rainmaker
technology. Right? Now this was you can go
through it, but it's not it's not the
right date, though. The date for this,
03/15/2025.
Expected termination,
10/31/2025.
So, arguably,
it could have been taking place in there.
Right? But the the ones you can prove
from before, bottom line, it's up in the
air. So we can see that it's happening,
but we don't know whether it's there, which
is why they ask for public accountability. Can
you confirm
with transparency whether you were doing this
on July.
Now I would I would argue the range
could be pulled out a little at least
another day to argue whether, you know, maybe
the second could still have the same effect.
But nonetheless, the point is, were you doing
this on these days? And then, you know,
give us material information and so on. So
good on Brian for calling this out.
Here's the document included, at least the screenshot
of it. Question it all. Now here is
what's interesting. Gen Mike, gen general Mike Flynn
comes out and says, I'd love to see
the response in regard to asking that, which
probably got him to answer. Now, here is
DeRico saying, the natural disaster in the Texas
Hill Country is a tragedy.
My prayers are with Texas. Rainmaker did not
operate in the affected area
on the third or fourth
or contribute to the flood that occurred over
the region. Well,
that's a big statement to make if you're,
you know, let's say you did it on
the second.
Right? He's saying or contribute to them in
any way. So basically saying that whatever we
did didn't do that. Well, if you are
cloud sitting in the area, it's worth considering
that. But it's also not fair to assume
we know for sure, blame him without knowing
for sure. Right? Be objective. Rainmaker will always
be fully transparent, he says. He goes, a
review of the timeline of events.
Overnight, from July,
most moisture surged in the hill country
hill country from
into the hill country from the Pacific as
remnants of tropical storm berry moved across the
region. At 1AM on July 4, National Weather
Service, which we work closely with to maintain
awareness of the severe weather systems, issued a
flood warning. Note, summer collected cloud seeding operations
in Texas do not occur during overnight hours.
So even right there, you can see that
they are cloud seeding in this area.
And and I'll prove this to you more
as we go forward. At 4AM on July
4, they issued a life
the life threatening emergency warning for floods.
Did Raymaker conduct any operations that occur that
could have impacted the floods? He simply says
no. The last seeding mission
prior to July 4 was during the early
afternoon of July 2. Look at that. When
a brief cloud seeding mission was flown over
the eastern portions of Central Texas.
Let me I actually, was it was interesting
as we see if this was no. It
was pretty consistent afterward. I was seeing how
long it took him to write these out.
And he says, and two clouds were seeded.
Very clear. These clouds persisted for about two
hours after c after seeding before dissipating between
3PM and 4PM.
Natural clouds typically have lifespans of thirty minutes.
Now, here's here's where we get into
how do we, you know,
in regard to the natural one thing, but
how do we know the real ins and
outs of what your stuff does and what
you're actually doing? We don't really. Wait. There's
a level of of expert know how. Somebody
could probably tell whether or not, you know,
it's possible or not. But even then, you
know, we don't really know the level of
what's being used.
We know what he's claiming.
But with the level about the level of
technology today, what's possible, my point is we
just question it. Question whether there's more to
the answer that could have caused us to,
you know,
be not what he's claiming, not to jump
in any assumptions.
The clouds, and he goes on to say,
even with the most persistent storm systems, rarely
maintain the same cloud structure for more than
twelve to eighteen hours. The clouds that were
seeded on July 2 dissipated over twenty four
hours prior to developing the storm complex. Okay.
Well, my question would be,
if the clouds went away, is it possible
for whatever you did in the atmosphere to
have some kind of effect over the next
couple of days to a week? I think
that is possible. I think based on other
things that could come into play, maybe even
as it's designed, I do think that's possible.
A senior metro,
meteorologist
observed an unusually high moisture content prior to
the event. So, yeah, couldn't that be something
that you, your actions cause even inadvertently?
I think that's possible. It was at the
same point our meteorologist determined that we would
suspend future operations indefinitely.
Well, look at that.
Very interesting timing. As you can see, we
suspended. So, literally suspended this indefinitely
on the second, two days before this happened.
Seems like an important kind of timing and
why would they stop indefinitely right before an
unprecedented
flooding? That seems interesting.
To ensure safety and prevent any risk of
flooding from cloud seeding, they I mean, I
guess you could to be to be objective,
you could argue that they saw the storm
building, you know, the weather, the moisture building,
and they said, okay, we're done. But why
indefinitely?
You know, it just seems like an odd
thing.
It says the suspended operations accordance with Texas
Department of Licensing
listed below with the document. I encourage the
meteorology community to ask questions and scrutinize our
claims. Alright. You know? Again,
be objective
as much as it's easy to fall in
line and go after especially somebody like him
who
landed a Thiel fellowship.
Right? So at least overlaps in very prominent
ways with the Thiel, you know, the the
Palantir Anduril kind of universe that we're talking
about. You got a 100 but but all
he got was a $100,000 in a two
year networking mentorship program, but with Thiel. And,
so I think we all know that it's
much more than that when these things happen.
So
here's a video of him
from 06/09/2025,
right before all of this, which I just
think, of course, with Sean Ryan. I think
that's CIA Sean Ryan. I think it's I
mean, are we are we really gonna not
we have to remember
the very big
mistake that was made when they tried to
push that story on you, and it turned
out that the emails they were claiming was
proven to actually have been typed, they either
I mean, that is shocking. Either they lied
and were involved with making those fake emails
or were that bad at doing even the
smallest due diligence to verify
something coming from the CIA. Come on, guys.
I think we I think most people got
a very clear insight into what things like
this are. But let me go through some
of these clips for you.
I actually have the video right here.
So let's go to some of these spots
that I have pulled aside.
Oh, you can't see it, but here, let
me go. So I've got the
time is on here. So we're gonna start
with
07:43.
Is in The union. They've been cloud seeding
for the longest amount of time or they've
they've experimented with with with it the most
because they need the water most desperately. You
know? So Colorado
and California, Texas, and Idaho, they all have
weather modification programs that That seems simple enough.
Now look. He said it publicly, but I
do think this is relevant just to hear
with his own words. Not that this is
you know, it it's it's a public thing.
So this is not some big bombshell, but
it's interesting in relation to what happened
and, you know, and definitely stopping on the
second. You know, it's it's very it's very
interesting. I mean, it definitely peaked my curiosity.
So here is the next one.
Starting at fifty o two, it looks like.
And there's a oops.
I'm on full screen accidentally. There's a lot
in here that's worth listening to other than
that. Take, you know, since you wanna tough
out listening to Sean Ryan. 50 o two.
Well, first of all, the Western States aren't
doing this. They're not doing it because they're
so desperate for water that they're
seriously willing to hear out the case for
cloud seeding. Right? Like So remember, jumping ahead
just slightly, the conversation of how much water
is needed for the, not just the future,
the current AI
direction, what they're currently doing, but also where
they want to build it out to. So
whether this is just more manufacturing of consent
for this direction and how much of that
is being done now or, you know, is
experimentation? Has it gone out of control? You
know, all these different questions. Just remember that
there's there's when you ask about, like, who
benefits,
right, or why the intent, which we can
never really prove. It's hard to you can't
prove what someone's thinking and what they feel.
Right? But to know that there is a
real obvious motive, profit and otherwise, with this
direction to do any of these things, I
think just adds more context to contextualize the
whole point. Montana proposed legislation to ban all
weather modification and geoengineering.
They still ban geoengineering, but they carved out
cloud seeding because they know it'll be good
for their cattle and for their farms and
for their municipal water supplies and for their
aquifers. Texas did the same thing.
Ah, okay. Very interesting. And this goes this
is not just about we're still past proving
that it's happening in Texas in general. We'll
we'll get make a few as we go
along. But the point there
is the the manipulation. We see this in
Tennessee where they go, we banned the stop
staying our skies bill, and then just spray
a little bit higher elevation, which technically is
not then considered what they banned. That's what's
happening. You know? And so they're still spraying.
They just go, well, which I will still
argue, and I agree with Catherine on this
and and the the work that was done
by the politicians there as much as I
will still always doubt them, and I'm a
pessimist when it comes to politicians, that what
they did there did take a step in
the right direction. Now and so there's a
specific area there that they are at least
allegedly, they probably still don't care, but are
legally not supposed to spray. So that's one
step. Let's do the next one. Right? But
that's where it stalls usually because people think
it's all over. They are still spraying in
Tennessee. But if you can somehow box out
just any number of ways they can spray,
that would be the real goal. My point
though is that if you can say we're
making it illegal to do geoengineering
and then act like cloud seeding is not
really just a simplified version of the same
direction, you know, and and allow that.
Now, again, I'm not trying to oversimplify. They're
not exactly there's very big differences, but it
is what we're talking from an average person's
perspective,
we don't want the government
putting things in the sky that are not
healthy for you for whatever end agenda, because
that's I mean, that's the point, people.
Despite the technical nuance, that's what we're talking
about. Whether it is barium and aluminum sprayed
for a plane or whatever other variation we're
talking about, I think most Americans are on
the same page with this. So pointing out
that they have a a weird
language manipulation. So they you think they're not
doing it, but they are allowing allowing cloud
seeding. And how long until, if not already,
have they just altered the definition of cloud
seeding to be whatever, you know, almost encapsulate
everything?
You see what I'm saying? That's always what
they do. You know, gain of function becomes
EPPP as the same thing or if not
worse.
So that's one fifty two thirty three.
I was gonna bring I don't wanna cut
you off. Go ahead. Well, no. No. Please.
I was gonna bring that up because
in his interview, we and I did I
don't remember
the chemical or whatever it is that they're
using to he he was talking about how
Elon Musk wanted
to use this thing where, basically, he put
some type of
a additive and and
a sponge like substance, and you run fans
on it, and it produces all this water.
Mhmm. Mhmm.
And that Elon wanted to use it to
to cool his, rocket pads Mhmm. Down there
and
got denied because
Texas was like,
we don't know how to tax you on
this. Yeah. Yeah. Ah, okay. That's an interesting
overlap. Just hypothetical. Right? The idea that maybe
that's what we're talking about. What what maybe
he something he wanted, the most bill the
most you know, allegedly, the richest person in
the world who seems to be able to
at least thinks he can do whatever he
want, wherever he wants at any moment in
time and coerce things into reality. Maybe the
this is something that he was doing or
wants it to happen or, you know, all
these possibilities, but we don't have any evidence
other than that statement, so we wouldn't argue
we know that. The point is simple, that
there's a lot of different moving parts of
why people might
drive something like this to reality. Right? That's
the only point being made today, really, is
that this is something we shouldn't allow that
could have been responsible for that. That's the
truth. But the story in and of itself
is that this is still going on, that
they still pretend to somehow often, like,
they often tell you it's not even real.
That's just wild. As we get into the
AI point, I think it makes it very
clear that this is something,
not whether these events are that or not,
that I argue we're driving into. And it's
not just water. We'll talk about the different
even just I mean, every element of this,
we're we're driving in a position where they're
creating
scarcity for things that don't necessarily need it
because of what they want to accomplish.
So then he had to use all of
the regular water, which which seemed like
a huge misstep on Texas for for
not allowing him to do that and sucking
up all that water. And Oh, yeah. It's
Texas' fault to stop him from taking all
their water because that makes sense. Of course.
Because, you know, this is you know, these
people are all statists, but, you know, they're
pro power structure
whether they claim that way or not. But
it's interesting. Right? So he ends up taking
all the water or and, you know, it's
just there's always you could see this playing
out. A dry state. Mhmm. Here. Let's go
to the next one.
Okay.
That means that the cloud has to be
cold enough
for you to freeze it in the first
place, which generally means that it's cold beneath
the cloud too.
Now with respect I'm sorry for that. I
figured you guys probably picked up on it
yourselves. This guy is the guy we're talking
about right here. He's got the rainmaker on
his shirt right there. His name is
Augustus DeRico.
Rain.
We're operating in Utah, Colorado,
Oregon,
California, and Texas.
It's all rain in Texas. So we've we've
been in our own rain there,
out in West Texas and the Trans Picas.
Yeah. And if you need any more any
more obvious, we've made our own rain there.
He said it right there about Texas. That's
not hard to wrap your mind around. And
then there are still people who wanna pretend
like even this is not possible.
Last one.
For that matter.
Mullet Man,
Tech bro does not play very well in
the state legislature here.
But,
we operate in
Utah with their Department of Natural Resources,
Colorado with their Department of Natural Resources.
We're about to begin in Idaho and Wyoming,
Oregon,
California,
Texas.
We just started this week our first deployment
in Latin America. So we just Texas is
the focal point for this overlap. But, guys,
how are we allowing all of this? Why
is this is that what you want being
done in your skies? Do you want that
to be I mean, I'm not gonna get
into the, maybe we'll, you know, in a
future show, go over what they claim they're
doing and the potential risks. You know? It's
for me, it's about the idea of playing
god and what they don't. But whether it's
even dangerous, which it almost always is, what
they're using and what they do, there are
all I mean, whether it's the aluminum bearing
point and reflecting sunlight or any number of
things, different conversations. Right? But that there's they
rarely take into consideration what's healthy for you.
My point is about what the side effects
are, what this can do. Like, we've seen
with any number of these conversations where there
are lasting repercussions based on manipulating a system
against what it normally does. I mean, it's
obvious to me.
But as always, come to your conclusions about
it. Don't take my word for it alone.
So all that
oh, and let's not forget the the Derek's
article about this. Meet Pete the Peter Thiel
acolytes in Trump's second administration. They seem to
be not just in this administration. This seems
to be a building out scenario as they
literally take positions in the military.
You forgot about that. Like, this is all
happening very rapidly, isn't it?
Attachment two zero one, as I called Technocracy
in uniform, as the CTO of Palantir and
Meta and OpenAI
be get sworn in as lieutenant colonels
in the military.
Because that's not incredibly terrifying.
But beef initiative
comes out with another document. Now this one
is from the sixth, which again, I think
we all very clearly can see that that
there was seeding going on. But he says
federal agencies paid a private call seeding company
to spray Texas skies two days before the
floods, which is what we just confirmed for
you using his statements, using what his own
article said, and everything else we can see.
So thank you to beef beef initiative for
staying up on this and calling this out.
He says call it weather modification, call it
a conspiracy, but it's happening.
So
interesting. Right? Just in and of itself, like,
the fact that that's just debated that people
debate these things, but it's a very public
and easily proven conversation.
Now the question still is whether or not
that was responsible for what happened. And look,
you know as well as I that you
can't just you we can say we think
that. We think the evidence suggests that. I
would even say that it's almost likely that
the action taken on the second could have
some kind of overlap with what happened there.
But we can't say we know that for
sure, as far as I could tell, unless
you've got more evidence. Now here's where I
find this to be very interesting.
The bigger point of why that might be
the case if that's what happened or just
in general, why they might be doing this
at a global scale
to create more water for what they see
becoming an obvious problem.
Now over another point to make, and this
is just one, but there's a ton of
them. This is an image from July 6
from North Carolina,
which was also experiencing some pretty extreme flooding,
which when you start to stand back and
look, whether it was Texas on the fourth
of this and that, it apparently, a lot
of places right now around the world, but
in The United States in particular, are experiencing
record rough flooding and rainfall.
So that then kind
of removes the extreme point of only Texas
if it seems to be happening all over
the place. Right? So it kind of removes
the focal point of why just Texas when
what seemed that adds to the thing we're
gonna get into next. That it seems to
be more of a kind of larger issue.
Now some people would scream climate change, which
I think we can all collectively laugh at
the stupidity of the argument they keep putting
forward despite the fact that we know that
we are that human species is straight up
destroying this planet. That's not the same argument.
Clearly, what the people doing it more than
anybody are the governments and everything they're doing
and masks and gloves and all things we're
doing. And that's not about carbon. We're being
lied to in my opinion. Do your own
research. The point though
is clearly there's a lot going on more
than just this one location.
Here is an interesting video. I'll play, just
some of it, not to necessarily endorse every
claim made in this, but just to show
this video the guy did overlapping some the
kind of the same premise here. One, showing
you a lot of different record rainfall flooding
going on across the country, but also interestingly
overlap
with locations of major data centers,
as well as the fact that we see
the need for AI in the water point,
which we'll get into more after this video,
like proving to you these statements coming from
a lot of different things.
Great Lakes become a data center hub. AI
water usage impact remains unknown. It is wild,
by the way, how much water it seems
that they use for these things. So first,
here's this video.
At GBT your request. That's due COVID of
pouring out a bottle of water and powering
a light bulb for fifteen minutes. Artificial intelligence,
requires
servers to run much hotter. Water cooling will
be necessary. Where will that water come from?
Where will that water come from?
I don't know. Maybe from record breaking storms.
Okay. So I'm telling you right now, you
do not want to miss this video, so
just stick around with me for ten minutes.
If you do not have the time right
now for a ten minute video, bookmark it,
save it for later. So with that being
said, as we heard with the original clip,
AI takes a lot of water to run
the data centers. As we can see right
here from this warning from a TED talk
about AI's hidden water costs, whereas we know
huge volumes of water is used to keep
computer processing centers cool. As we know, AI
is transforming industries, but its environmental impact is
often overlooked. You don't say. As we just
heard, AI consumes a lot of water. Wren
explained how the growing demand for AI powered
computing is driving significant water usage, particularly in
cloud based data centers. Such facilities can require
millions of liters of water to cool the
servers that power AI models, often straining the
local water supplies. Now as we can clearly
see, there is article after article about this
issue. Issue. And again, that is because AI
data centers rely on water cold systems, where
the cooling process involves water evaporation such as
cooling towers that convert fresh water into steam
and then releasing it into the atmosphere for
cooling. So every time that you ask an
AI chatbot a question, you are consuming water.
And as we can see down here, AI's
water Isn't that in and of itself wild?
And I looked in I was looking over
this today, and I I have this is
not even a new conversation, but I was
really getting into this today. Like, in regard
to the number that is being claimed, it
just seems ridiculous.
And as far as I can tell, it's
it's disputed about the amount,
but it's effort pretty consistently that it's just
a lot amount a lot of water that
when you're just simply going, grok, what about
x, y, and z? That you're literally
evaporating a ton of water with that one
back and forth.
It seems hard to wrap your mind around,
but it it makes sense when you look
it through. And so this needs to start
building into the possibility. Even if everything we're
talking about about whether it's been done is
a no. The idea that we're inevitably going
in a direction right now where this will
be
required
based on basic math and what we have
and what we're you know, basically, what they're
gonna continue to utilize will cause the shortage
without question, unless they create more is the
argument anyway.
Our consumption is called blue water, which is
water from rivers, lakes, and groundwater sources. Now
I'm not sure about you guys. Oh, and
just in case you missed that, the point
is that I find on top of it
very interesting, and I'll play it again really
quickly, is that it's not just any water.
It apparently has to be, like, fresh, clean
water, which just adds to the craziness of
it all. Right? The idea that that's, you
know, the one source. Like, so
the idea that this would be more important
than,
I don't know, people, in the world that
don't have any water and they're struggling.
You know, yeah, that's that's a point that
many people won't care about, you know, that
who why should we care about, you know,
with a lot of compassion
leaving the world today, but just the idea
that the clean water in and of itself.
And so then the question arises, are we
being, are we, you know, are they using
natural water sources to the point where it's
being depleted and removed? Are they using aquifers?
Are they using you know, is this my
point large point going back how let's put
it this way. How long have they been
mind aware of this? How long has this
been in the in the crosshairs?
And does that play a factor on things
like Flint, Michigan?
You know, these different water conversations we've had
over the years where with Flint, for example,
they decide to shift to a different water
source.
I think that Mary at least worth considering
whether this has been a long time coming.
Millions of liters of water to cool the
servers that power AI models, often straining the
local water supplies. Now as we can clearly
see, there is article after article about this
issue. And again, that is because AI data
centers rely on water cold systems, where the
cooling process involves water evaporation such as cooling
towers that convert fresh water into steam and
then releasing it into the atmosphere for cooling.
So every time that you ask an AI
chatbot a question, you are consuming water. And
as we can see down here, AI's water
consumption is called blue water, which is water
from rivers, lakes, and groundwater sources. Now I'm
not sure about you guys, but AI water
usage is not the only thing stressing the
local water supplies. Whereas of right now, we
are witnessing mass flooding in Texas, and we
also saw Tennessee being hit with record rainfall
this year. Let's not forget about North Carolina
last year with record rainfall. We're also witnessing
record amounts of atmospheric moisture fueling heavy rainfall
in Western Pennsylvania
and Northern West Virginia. While we're talking about
states here in America, we also can't forget
about earlier this year in May, Kentucky experiencing
record rainfall. Now it's not just states here
in The US facing this. We also saw
last year of 2024
where The UAE faces record rainfall and flooding.
Now what do all these areas have in
common? Oh, yeah. That's right. They all either
have or they are planning on having AI
data centers. Now, I will add to this
that you could find an exception, right? You
can find areas that have had incredible flooding
or rainfall with without any at least immediately
in the center of it, a data center.
The point is still relevant, Right? And that
they're and and I would even add that
whether or not they have data centers is
sort of largely
is irrelevant in the long in the long
term because
rainfall anywhere will add to excess of water
that could be used in some way. But
it makes it easier, obviously, if it's right
in your backyard.
But I do agree with the logic of
what's being outlined here, but not that we're
just blindly you know, the evidence is always
needs to be there.
But I think if we can prove that
we know and we do we can prove
that weather weather modification
is real, I think it's obvious. Even that
seems to be a a hard a stretch
for some people. The evidence is there. It's
I mean, I'll get I'll get off on
a tangent. And so that's clear, in my
opinion.
And the evidence shows. And so if that's
the case, then why wouldn't they? Why wouldn't
they try to do this if they're already
flirting and manipulating things around climate change, which
isn't even the real conversation reflecting sunlight, why
wouldn't they have been doing this for a
very long time? I mean, to me, that's
not the you shouldn't use that to say
we know, but that's to me, it just
makes more sense than anything. How many times
our government's experimented on us for a certain
end without even our even asking? You know,
compulsory moral bio enhancement, all these different points
that this would logically already be happening, and
that they don't need it to be in
every exact location, but just rapidly increase over
the country more rainfall. Worth considering. As we
can see right here, Amazon expands AI footprint
with $10,000,000,000
data center investment in North Carolina. No wild
coincidence. You have the xAI data center in
Memphis, Tennessee, which just so happens to be
the world's biggest supercomputer. I'm sure it's just
a coincidence. There's also Stargate's first AI data
center in Texas. As we can see right
here, Stargate's 500,000,000,000
AI push begins in Texas. Whereas we can
see Austin, Texas is experiencing a surge in
AI driven data center development. Now I will
just add to make his more to his
point. Because I didn't I don't wanna make
a his point is very I think it's
solid,
but just that you could find a new
one. You could find an ex an example
of, you know, a data center that in
an area that hasn't had, right, for example.
But
what he's really doing there is showing you
the most prominent examples, XAI, Stargate. And I
think each one of these major things just
so happen to have on, you know, record
rainfall, right, in these areas. I do find
that that, you know, mathematically is a little
bit hard to wrap your mind around.
Where they have the demand for AI infrastructure
and cloud computing, but also raises concerns about
the strain on the local power grid and
also water supply and land use. Oh, you
don't say? What a wild coincidence. Kinda seems
like the lack of water won't be an
issue. But hey, what do I know? And
as we can see, West Virginia passes new
data center development bill, where this bill aims
to usher in an increase of data center
development, where we can see West Virginia is
actively positioning itself as a hub for AI
data centers. What a coincidence. While we're at
it, look at that. Amazon plans to invest
$20,000,000,000
in Pennsylvania
to expand
cloud computing infrastructure
and advance AI innovation. You don't say. Now
we can also see developers unveil plans for
large tech data center in Louisville, Kentucky. Oh,
look at that. How much rain did Louisville,
Kentucky get during this historic flooding event? See,
it's the historic that you can't really miss.
Now, of course, you could say they'd be
lying, right? But look for yourself. These places
have levels that they've never seen. So that
is why it becomes hard to it's it's
a mathematical thing. What's the likelihood that every
one of the locations that are major data
centers for the major AI push happened to
each have
record rainfall? I mean, it's ever.
That's I just think that's think about that
for a second. That seems like a very
hard
certainly possible, but very, very unlikely to happen,
you know, when they need to do at
the right moment. It's mathematically hard to wrap
your mind around. Back in April, Kentucky
experiences
record rainfall according to Kentucky Climate Center. You
don't say. Now outside of The United States,
we have the president in Abu Dhabi inking
partnership to build massive AI data center complex
in The UAE. As we can see, White
House announces AI data center campus partnership with
The UAE. Well, wouldn't you know? Look at
this wild article that came out February twenty
fourth of this year. Stuck in eternal drought.
UAE turns to AI to make it rain.
As we can see in this article how
The UAE has struggled with droughts in the
past, but Abu Dhabi officials are holding out
new hope. And that So the point simply
being that they're openly telling you that we're
using AI,
which is kind of like an interesting circle
back to the same point to cause rain
for the AI. Right? So it's it's, you
know, the idea being that they're using this
to, you know
you could you don't have to make an
AI to to use cloud seeding and and
geoengineering,
but it's interesting to see that come full
circle. But it's all right on the surface
for you guys. It's all very public. I
mean, if you look for it, it's not
being discussed on Fox and CNN, that's for
sure. Because they are harnessing artificial intelligence to
wring more moisture out of often cloudless skies.
Whereas we can see among the initiatives is
an AI system to improve cloud seeding.
Now if you're using AI to take water
out of something that's, you know, cloudless skies,
like, can't you at least you know, I'm
not an expert on this,
But can't you at least consider that that
could cause some kind of side effect, a
repercussion
that causes the system itself, like the at
the atmosphere to go I mean, we've already
seen and let's not forget the actual point
of the cloud,
reflecting the sunlight point, Bill Gates and all
that, to fight climate change. They made the
argument that if they go forward with that,
even though I think they're already doing it,
that it creates a situation where if they
ever stop in the future, it'll get way
worse. But they argue that's okay because it's
already gonna get really bad. We're all gonna
die if we don't do it now, which
I don't agree with. Like, it's just it's
so insane to see. My point in that
all that is that they're doing things that
do have repercussions.
I just don't like the idea that people
like this are playing god that have effects
on your life and your family and your
backyard. You know? It's like it's it's something
we need to stand up and push back
about. Not violence. Stand up, push back. The
practice of using planes to fire salt or
other chemicals into clouds to increase rain. Wait
a second. I thought that was just a
crazy theory by people who wear tinfoil hats.
Well, to people's amazement, it is not just
some crazy theory. As we can see right
here, a new company that was formed this
year called Rainmaker. Whereas we can see, they
have the goal of solving water scarcity. What
a wild turn of events. Look who's funding
this Rainmaker Technology Corporation, which is a cloud
seeding startup based in The US, which as
we can see was founded by Augustus
who received
a fellowship grant from an individual. I can't
say here because I've had my videos taken
down before, but I just call him PT.
So Apparently, you're not able to say Peter
Thiel on TikTok or at least he feels
that way. It's interesting. A,
fellowship grant from PT's Foundation. And as we
can see down here, this indicates a direct
connection between PT
through his foundation
and the founding of Rainmaker Technology. If this
was all not a wild coincidence enough for
you guys, it seems pretty wild to me
how all these areas that we see these
mass floodings and devastation
also possibly
have plans for these types of cities to
be implemented. Texas,
Dallas, and Santa asked the question, hey, Grok.
Is this true? And while the earth dwellers
go on with their idolatry
ignoring
there's there's more. I was I was trying
to get to the right spot, but
the simple reality is that that is
hard to hard to ignore.
Right? Now, again, the idea of cloud seeding
is is is not it's it's no way
are we saying it's the same thing it
can depending on how they're using it, but
the simple idea is that this is a
more simplified it arguably, in some cases, more
natural version, but it's the same point I'm
making and doesn't always have to be since
we don't really know what they're doing, that
it's
playing god. I think that's a problem.
So here's another video, misleaning points out. Same
thing,
increasing,
or this is yeah. This this is another
video. Same thing increasing our electric bill in
the South, these damn data centers and their
AI.
So here's a video that came out where
they're talking about one specific location.
This woman lives near a meta, you
know, Zuckerberg Facebook data center. It's gigantic.
And what it's doing, just in a general
sense to their water, to the area,
and this is just one location.
This is my cold water pressure in the
kitchen.
This is where I fill up water for
storage.
Those are the things we have to fill
up to flush the toilets.
So you can see the sediment from the
data center.
Wow. And that's just from the water coming
out of your faucet. Yeah. And this is
what's in all pipes.
It's overwhelming
because
you you really feel like you are up
against
this
huge
wall that you can't penetrate. There's nothing that
that you can do, and they don't care.
I'm here in Mansfield, Georgia driving by Meta's
new 2,000,000
square foot data center facility.
Facilities like this are being used to power
things like chat g b t and other
AI tools that are becoming integrated
into our daily life.
Data centers, it's gonna be a very hot
item. This entire supercomputer
is built to power GROT. We see data
centers as the most exciting,
asset class. Meta is building a two gigawatt
plus data center that is so large, it
would cover a significant part
of Manhattan.
But data centers come with big costs. From
light and noise pollution to the environmental impacts,
to the potential rising costs of energy bills,
these facilities put extraordinary
demand on the power grid and require entirely
new infrastructure.
Oh my God. They should be responsible
for that, not us. Search the internet for
profits that Meta has made, Amazon, Microsoft.
They can afford to pay for their own
generation.
The house is here, and the data center
is right there. It's less than 400 yards.
Beverly and Jeff Morris bought their home an
hour's drive from Downtown Atlanta in 2016,
but their roots in the community run much
deeper.
Being in the country has always just been
my peace and my therapy.
When we found this place, we decided that
this was it. It was perfect. I was
actually raised probably five miles from here. It
felt like coming home.
The data center that's now the Morris' next
door neighbor happens to be owned by Meta,
the company you know for Facebook and Instagram,
but has also been breaking into artificial intelligence.
They started construction on this data center campus
in 2018.
Definitely changed everything. They destroyed the environment,
taken down all the trees
across the road. Beautiful pines, beautiful forest. The
light pollution is You don't have to have
a nightlight in the house. You can walk
around the house at night and see everything
is that bright.
So the point is just simply recognizing the
repercussions. Water is just one one major part
of it, but, you know, we we here's
actually this it reminds me of this clip,
the very quick version of it, of what
Fort Detrick did to the the the surrounding
area. You know? It's just it's this is
not unique. This is what governments and corporations
have been doing as far as I've ever
covered this stuff. We have over 1,300
documented
cancer
victims right now just in a one mile
radius. I'll be quite honest with you. It's
changed my life so radically. Sometimes I don't
even know who I am.
1,300 people in a one mile radius.
What's causing so much sickness?
It turns out all these victims have one
thing in common. They live next to a
military base called Fort Detrick.
Now I'm I'm going to bet you in
some point in the future, there's gonna be
similar things that we find around this kind
of conversation for whatever any number of reasons,
not least of which are the what they're
doing, the environment in in the area or
the lack of water or, you know, there's
a lot of other points to get into.
But so this is where it becomes really
interesting.
So this is an individual article about one
one specific area about the Great Lakes. And
the title is this is from June twenty
seventh
of the of twenty twenty five. It says,
as the Great Lakes become a data center
hub,
AI's water usage impact remains unknown.
AI data centers pose a threat to groundwater.
It says artificial intelligence is becoming hard to
avoid.
ChatGPT
is becoming more popular than Wikipedia.
Horrifyingly enough, Google and Microsoft
have built AI into their products.
AI has even made its way into Cleveland
classrooms
and the Cleveland Clinic. We have even discussed
how Cleveland Magazine
plans to explore the capabilities of AI. That's
this that's this platform.
What is unknown to most is that a
finite resource powers AI,
clean water.
AI data centers consume
massive amounts of water, both directly to cool
their servers
and indirectly for electricity generation.
A critical issue for the Great Lakes is
that governments lack precise information. I bet you
they know and don't wanna admit it. They
lack precise information on how much water these
centers are already withdrawing
from the lakes and what future withdrawals will
be like. Why are they even allowed to
pull water,
a resource, from a natural resource for the
shouldn't they be paying for that? I mean,
maybe they are, and I don't see that.
But either way, that seems like that shouldn't
be something they allow.
The New York State's sustainable data center act,
if passed, would require data centers to power
in this area, New York State, power their
operations with 100%
renewable energy by 2050 in the state while
also establishing reporting requirements for the amount of
energy and water they consume. Now I added
that because
just first, the word sustainable is gonna cause
people to go, that's a woke democrat thing
despite regardless of the politics, it should matter
that this place is extorting and using your
resources for its benefit, not for your as
a company. It's not a government entity. Right?
But on top of that, the idea of
renewable energy. Now you could argue that means
windmills in this, which is probably what some
people want from it, but simply just in
this case, I would argue not using the
clean water the resource that will be depleted.
You see? So it's funny that you can
see that through the realm of the woke
left democrat versus right dynamic, or you could
just acknowledge that
politics aside, we should want sustainable and not
using finite resources to power a company. Seems
like a logical point. But it says, it's
not just AI data centers.
Other data centers that drive our digital world
rely on water. See, I wasn't really aware
of the of the the how
the amount,
you know, and not just that they you
know, I was aware that, for example, you
use water to cool a number of things,
machinery, you know, or or servers. But in
this case,
or not or of, the
the other one they mentioned up here. I'm
blanking on the term.
To like, oh, like through like running through
things to cause it to turn and cause,
you know, both steam but also just motion.
But the point is that the that I
was aware that is a case that is
used that way but the amount and how
much is wasted
just for like an exchange with grok. I
mean, I don't even know how we can
rationalize this.
Unless it's like again, unless it's something that
they're, you know, either using something like I
mean, basically, just something that's not taking water
away from a finite resource, an area that
were innocent people use it, or rather just
people use it.
It goes on to say,
other ones rely on water as well. In
the great Greater Cleveland area alone, there are
about 20 data centers.
20.
Two of which were recently converted from office
spaces to data centers. That's where this is
going. And we're gonna get into the point
I've mentioned in the past of spruce pines.
And the weird kind of overlooking of that
point, which is shockingly more relevant now, isn't
it, when everyone focused on lithium,
when this was at the focal point of
the epicenter. We'll come back to that. It's
about the crystal that was for AI that
was there in that one location.
I think we've been playing a lot, especially
in this last kind of mainstream alternative media
administration.
But it says a megawatt
is equal to 1,000,000 watts.
A watt is the rate at which energy
is used and produced.
For example, a 100 watt light bulb uses
a 100 watt hours,
whereas one megawatt
could light two sixty watt light bulbs nonstop
for a year or run two fridges for
a whole year.
In 2021,
The United States used 11,595
gallons of water per megawatt hour
for cooling power plants.
Oh, according to US in in Energy Information
Administration. Let me say that again. This is
2021.
11/1995
gallons of water per megawatt
hour.
Apparently nonstop.
Sam Altman, cofounder of the CEO of OpenAI,
claimed in a recent blog post without providing
evidence that each chat GPT prompt a person
enters uses point three four,
point three four watt hours
and what he describes as roughly one fifteenth
of a teaspoon of water.
Okay. And the article was on argue that
that doesn't seem to be backed up by
facts. But think about even just before he
tells you the amount of water. If you're
telling us that it takes it it it
it prompt a a chat GPT prompt a
person enters uses point three four watt hours.
And we just read up there according to
The US owned data that
11,595
gallons per one megawatt hour. So by that
same argument, you're talking about basically 6,000
gallons
for one question.
That's based on The US's own data. Now
there there's possibly more information that we're not
seeing or a no process. Okay. Just considering,
comparing.
But then so he says roughly that point
three four is one fifteenth a teaspoon of
water. Now recent studies show different results. So
we all know why a person involved in
the company doing something people don't want them
to do would fudge the truth. Happens every
day. Not to say we know that for
sure, but the science,
take it for what you will,
says otherwise.
A 2023 study conducted by the University of
California, Riverside, and the Washington Post found that
using ChatGPT
to write a 100 word email consumes more
than 17 ounces of water.
Very
different than, excuse
me, than the amount of what hours we're
talking about. Just simply saying, writing a 100
word email uses 17 ounces of water.
Right? Whether that could mean that could probably
take you five minutes.
Right? But think about this. You're talking about
100
word email, and that's consuming 17 ounces of
clean, fresh water.
Imagine how many people are using these things
and how many be the world around.
I just don't even know how it's sustainable,
guys. And it says that same study claims
that if one out of 10 working Americans
prompts that weekly for a year,
so just once a week for a year,
it equals almost 436,000,000
liters of water, which is essentially the amount
of water consumed by all the households of
Rhode Island in one and a half days.
I mean, this is just mind blowing to
me.
So
here are
the articles I've shown you in the past.
This is back remember, this is from the
North Carolina
hurricane.
And everybody was focused in on the lithium
conversation, which I ended up showing you was
not even really there. Not not I mean,
the lithium was there and their mining was
there. But as we when we dug in,
it was pretty clear that they had already
like, basically, what the story turned out to
be is they didn't need that storm. They
already had control of the area. So the
partisan screaming about how they did this to
take the lithium and many some people just
considered that, which is fair.
Others, as you well know, screamed over the
top that we knew it, weather wars, and
we know what's happening when despite again, the
fact that there are is weather modification. This
is my point before about lying but using
truth. Right? My point is that you could
clearly see that they didn't need this storm
to do what they already were doing. So
it felt that didn't make any sense. However,
in if you look at the map of
where the storm hit,
the lithium part was kind of like in
the secondary area. If you look at the
epicenter of the storm,
right smack dab in the center. Again, if
you wanna consider whether the storm was done
for a reason. I'm not saying that's the
case. It could be. The point is that
right in the center of that storm, you
found Spruce Pines.
Spruce Pine, excuse me.
As this article writes in Daily Mail, tiny
backwater town, North Carolina
will help fuel the world's AI revolution
with enough quartz to power an entire $530,000,000,000
semiconductor
global industry.
Think about that. Now, this this is another
article. We this is the one we covered
on the show at the time. Spruce Pines
Quartz Mine starts production
after Helene hits North Carolina mountains.
People across the world rely on this just
this small town, guys,
even if they don't realize
it. The
area
Well, that doesn't surprise me. Does it surprise
you?
Let me get let me get organized again.
We just got kicked out of the show.
Let me know in the chat where, where
you last heard me talking.
So we were discussing.
It doesn't matter what I do. It's just
so crazy. Whether I try to use a
different browser.
It happens. It's I don't know anybody else
that deals with this stuff in the regular.
Like, it's just not like this.
Doesn't surprise me.
So
let me know in the chat, you know,
give me somebody chime in. What's the last
thing you heard? Just give me something to
go off of.
Let me put these back in real quick.
Where were we?
Just, I think, two last videos we're gonna
play.
Presenting the town.
Excuse me. Okay. Well, that look, then it's
pretty much right here. I think we don't
I know we missed that much.
I wanna make sure that this sounds good.
Watch the audio will be bad. Yep. So
here, the bad audio right now is what
it reverts to without you knowing.
Now watch now hopefully, you can hear the
difference right there. That's what it should sound
like. This is this just forces me into
these things without asking.
Fantastic.
Okay. So the point here, guys, to pretty
much wrap up on this point and two
last things at the end,
is the idea that this was in the
epicenter of the storm. Right? This was important
for the AI revolution,
one place in the world,
and this idea that this town is now
that was the the last part was one
thing we covered that was,
you know, that's now relevant with a much
bigger story is that this town was being
completely overtaken.
Like, the town if you read both these
articles, in fact, both have mentioned it. The
idea that these towns were being
like, they were losing
the town because these these massive data centers
were moving in,
not you know, they always claim we're gonna
bring jobs. No. They almost always outsource or
use AI for their own things, and then
so there's no jobs. And so what
outsource or use AI for their own things,
and then so there's no jobs. And so
what do they say in these articles? Well,
they've watched all of their stores shut down.
Nope. There's no malls. Everything's closing.
And so, eventually, they're gonna have to leave
too because they can't buy food from a
data center. Right? So they're gonna get pushed
and pushed and pushed. And these these these
data centers are choosing these locations, in my
opinion, because of that. Because there's nobody in
these towns. There's nobody there's no massive money
interest that care about standing up and defending
that you're basically
slowly starving a town to death.
So arguably, you can have complete access to
the resources in these areas for you,
like the courts.
I just find it to be shockingly relevant
to what we're talking about today.
And, of course,
Trump's $500,000,000,000
Stargate program, which is one of these many
different massive programs that are happening, and that's
in Texas.
So doc this this is where I saw
this part of it. Thank you too. I'm
I'm I'm from just not familiar with the
work. Just saw this today. She put this
on the July 1. Doctor name is doctor
Roche Rochechanak.
She says, what is what is AI's dirty
little secret?
She says, clean water. ChatGPT is becoming more
popular. Wikipedia, Google, and Microsoft have built AI
into their products. What is unknown
to most is that the finite resource powers
AI is clean water. AI data centers consume
massive amounts of water both directly to cool
their servers and for electricity generation.
Now I'll overlap with a bunch of these
articles we can talk include from before.
This is back Jordan was talking about this
back when the Flint crisis was hap this
was on,
12/20/2018.
You know my criticism of him since.
Flint water but this he did great work
on this. Flint Water tests were doctored, covered
up, and media refused to report it. Oh,
you know what? I forgot. This is an
old one. When I get done, I'm gonna
go back and readd the I think probably
the bit shoot in there, seeing as how
this just had the YouTube back then. If
you're new and up and coming in this
field, guys, don't rely on YouTube or any
one platform. You'll get screwed by it. It's
like this.
But I'll include this or you can look
for other platforms. The point is to see
that they chose this.
Like, it shows and and to be clear,
when we covered this, it was well after
the fact. We should start covering up of
the proof or rather the covering the cover
up of the proof.
The idea that this is something that, you
know, they switched away from water source and
and then switched to a source that was
compromised.
Now I it could be just a overlap,
but it could to think about whether, you
know, how long they've known this is coming.
How long have even they signaled that AI
was the future? So how long have they
been aware of this? And have there been
subtle moves or not so subtle moves to
prepare for this? It's worth asking.
Here's an example. This is from 04/16/2018.
How The US occupied the 30% of Syria's
contain 30% of Syria that just so happened
to contain most of its water and oil
and gas, but, you know, maybe there's a
reason for that. Again, I'm just these are
just
articles that popped up considering past actions. Maybe
it has nothing to do with it. But,
you know, the idea that water would eventually
become this important, I think, is quite obvious.
Here's one from 2018 as well. Genocide? As
Gaza dries out, Israel turns off the freshwater
spigot. Now, that's really just about them turning
off their freshwater, but just, you know, these
different thoughts about whether there's more playing a
role in the coveting of this water.
As well as the gin the bigger picture
before we finish with another point that's probably
gonna add more to this that's more alarming
is the idea that we already live in
a position right now where our water is
compromised. Derek's been covering this for a very
long time, well beyond the fluoride point. This
is Derek's article back before we were even
working together. I think I was covering it
from his platform.
Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this was when
we were working together. I forget. Forget when
we started the overlap. But but either way,
Derek's work alone, regardless of where it is,
is worth your time. Twenty seventeen, why the
media why is the media ignoring America's drinking
water crisis? I mean and it's shocking. It's
not just Flint. The amount of lead in
water across this country or other things, it's
ridiculous.
This one was from 2017 report. Nearly all
US drinking water contaminated with cancer causing chemicals.
That's the PFAS and plenty of others. We
knew about it back then. We still pretend
like it doesn't matter now. They do anyway.
This one, 2018.
Are you one of the 170,000,000
Americans drinking radioactive tap water? Now these aren't
fake things, guys. You can read this report
right there.
But it's it's just people don't talk about
this stuff.
Here, this is from 2017.
Whitney Webb wrote this, war, corporate profiteering among
factors pushing over 2,000,000,000
people in the world
to lack safe drinking water. So just showing
you it's not even just The United States.
I mean, we know there are plenty of
places that stop this struggle, but from a
worldwide perspective,
have we been watching a shift?
It's worth considering.
This is from 2017,
also showing you that the bottled side of
this, in a lot of ways, is no
is not much better. Study finds more than
24,000
chemicals in bottled water. Which ones are harming
you? Also, somebody pointed out to me a
long time ago their their their their
opinion, their logic on it. But the argument
being that if the if government or somebody
else wanted
to contaminate water to go out the most
people, they'd go after bottled water was the
argument anyway. Now even I at the time
was arguing, I think, no, I think more
people drink tap water. But he argued that
the stats at the time were showing that
most people would in in in all things
considered, more often drink from a bottled water.
I thought that was interesting. And so just
consider that in, you know, future points.
Now, this is the added points as well.
So beyond just the water,
just the idea of the AI or just
data centers in general and electricity and usage
and so on. In any way that that's
being these are there's a lot of resources
being used. This is from a b, this
is,
what's a a b b? Not familiar with
the group. I just saw saw this when
I was searching around. And this
is from July 3. And it says,
artificial intelligence is projected to drive a 160%
increase in data center demand
over the next five years. They're they're about
technology and stuff. And it says, we are
helping data center operators overcome today's most urgent
challenges. The point,
not only are they using massive amounts of
water, but what they're telling you is they're
right now with the direction they're building in,
whether we like it or not, are projecting
to drive to a 160%
increase in the demand for those data centers.
So you can see how quickly exponentially this
will compound.
How about this?
Mike Zaccardi points out,
he's a financial writer, we're going to need
bigger data centers. AI CapEx CapEx from the
hyperscalers
is going huge.
He simply says that because of where this
is going, you're gonna start to need bigger
and bigger data centers. So you can see
that you see what I'm talking about? You
you're gonna you see the a 160
increased need for data centers. And as they
continue to need them, they're gonna need them
bigger.
And it's it's just a self fulfilling prophecy.
It's this seems to be inevitable if we
keep going in this direction.
Maybe that's the point. Maybe once you create
a dangerously finite resource with something literally everybody
needs, you're the most powerful thing in the
world. I hate to be so dark about
it, but let's realize what governments truly need,
control over you.
The IMF says, the AI boom, this was
posted on the sixth, means the world's data
centers are more elect need
use excuse me.
The app boom means the world's data centers
use more electricity than almost every other
country.
So we're not even just talking about water.
The idea that an individual
data center
or rather the way they say it, the
world's collective data centers use more than an
in than every country.
I mean, I don't see how this is
even sustainable with where we're going in all
this, but, you know, you guys can consider
for yourselves.
Here's a clip that I'll get into. I'll
I'll play a little bit of this clip
actually, and then we'll finish off with a
couple points that seven c's made. And I
think we'll come back to the party conversation
later. Some good points you made in about
that, but this is seems to be a
good focal point to end on. So here's
this clip. This is from Gen X Girl,
and it says, this is bad. So the
reason AI computers are companies
that
had that ridiculous,
ten year more ban on on states regulating
AI, which at the moment is pulled out,
I'll touch on in a second, is because
the massive data centers they're building all over
the country use major fresh water, use major
electricity,
and dump pollutants everywhere. All three of which
we've addressed on this show today.
Play a little bit of this clip. Now
remember, the point about the bill
has not technically happened. Like, right now, there's
still an opening.
They've removed the ten year moratorium. There's inconsistencies
between both sides. And the point, as far
as I can tell, is that they could
still arguably add something back in, whether it's
a the five year, which they floated in
between. Now, unless I'm missing something and it's
already beyond that point today, then you let
me know in the chat. But as far
as I can tell right now,
should they want to, when we're focused on
other things, there could still be the added
somewhat idea of the moratorium with all of
this we're talking about.
So think about that. Now even if it
doesn't happen with this bill, it's just it's
like they do every other time, right? When
they see that they're failing, they pull back,
they reorganize, they come at it from a
different angle. That's what they've always done. So
stay vigilant is the point, right? Well, here's
here's this clip.
Endgame mentality of let's just let these companies
run rampant around the world so that ultimately
whatever their assets are become our assets is
leading the Trump administration to have a completely
hands off approach to AI regulation.
Her point in case you missed that is
to say that like a t a Palantir.
Now, of course, she seems to view this
from the idea that the government is more
in control, which maybe it is. But the
idea that she's made point she's making is
that, let's just say, Palantir or any number
of these companies,
basically like in Honduras, right? That I make
that point about them just with Prospera,
just seizing territory. It's like, it's it's crazy.
It might as well be the military. Hey,
they are now a military. The point is
that they for her arguments from the government's
perspective is, well, let them run rampant. They'll
seize things and take what they want, and
it kinda becomes ours that we control. Right?
Maybe you're maybe, you know, maybe they think
that way, and maybe they're unaware that they're
the ones being used and controlled at this
point, you know, or she's just simply wrong
about who's in control. But the point is
the same, that they are doing that. And
they are. Basically, it this is a technocratic
overtaking of our world, what it feels like
right now. They're quite literally they proposed the
big beautiful bill, which passed the house and
is now going up to the senate with
a clause that would, if implemented,
put a ten year moratorium on AI regulation
at the state level, which is usually the
state level is usually where regulation sensible regulation
happens in The US. So they're doing all
of these actions
now
with wide ranging
repercussions that will be very difficult to unwind
in the name of this idea that maybe
if they just allow these companies to act
with total impunity, that it will ultimately benefit
the nation state. How do people like Sam
Altman look at the rest of the world
outside The US?
These kind of tech leaders and how do
they look at Little Britain and Italy and
how do they look at us? What do
they think about us? You know, you've you've
Little Britain?
That's not very accurate. Britain is a leading
manipulator in the conversation.
You've been inside their minds.
It's it's yeah. I mean, they see them
as resources. They see different territories as different
types of resources,
which, I mean, is
what older empires did. You know, they would
look at a map and just draw out
the resources that they could acquire in each.
That's where we're going back to, I think.
Geography.
We we're gonna go here and acquire the
labor. We're gonna go here and acquire the
lands. We're gonna go here and acquire the
minerals. I mean, that's literally how they talk.
Like,
when I was talking with some OpenAI researchers
about their data center expansion, you know, there
was this one OpenAI employee who said, we're
running out of land and water. And he
was just saying, yeah, we're just, like, trying
to we're just trying to look at the
whole world and see where else we can
place these things. Where what other geographies
can we find all the conditions that we
need to build more data centers?
Land without earthquakes, without floods, without tornadoes, hurricanes,
all these natural disasters, and can deliver massive
amounts of energy to a single point and
can cool those systems. And when they they
are they they're looking at that level of
abstraction
to what are the different pieces of territory
and resources that we need to acquire. I
mean, think about that picture.
And, you know, and then the and then
explains itself for why they need to stand
up and go freedom and liberty and MAGA
and America first. Well, they don't care about
any of it. None of them. Right? I
mean, it's just it's and literally just seizing
what they can through I mean, again, I
can't help but see the overlap of the
Israeli Zionist agenda through this, whether that's because
they see an opportunity to take power or
because they're behind you you can decide for
yourself. But you have to recognize that there's
there are multiple things happening at once. One
of them we're discussing today is very clear.
Well, there's also government elements and, you know,
the different power structures that want their piece
of the pie.
But the point is that you can see
this, that this is just rolling out in
front of us and that they're just seizing
what they can, where they can. And I
think we're gonna if if we don't do
something about this, not to make this as
as alarming, but we're gonna wake up like
I keep talking about, and it'll be we'll
be in it.
You know, it'll just be a snap of
the fingers and all of a sudden, the
curtain puts pulled back. That's what I literally
see building in front of me, and I
hope I'm wrong every single day.
And that includes other parts of the West?
Yeah. That's what that's not just the global
South. No. It includes other parts of the
West as well. Yeah. So there have been
rapid data center expansion in rural communities in
both The US and The UK. Mhmm. And
they it always ends up in economically vulnerable
communities because those are the communities that often
actually opt in to the data center development
initially because they are not informed about what
it will ultimately cost them Right. And for
how long.
And so I spoke with this one Arizona
legislator who said, I didn't know it had
to use fresh water. And for The UK
audience, Arizona is a desert territory. There is
no there's a there's a very, very stringent
budget on fresh water.
And
after that
legislator found out, she was like, I would
have never voted for having this data center
in. But the problem is that there are
so few independent experts
for these legislators, city council members to consult
that they're the only people that they rely
on for the information about what the impact
of this is gonna be are the companies,
and all the companies ever say is we're
gonna invest millions of dollars.
We're going to create a bunch of construction
jobs upfront, and it's gonna be great for
your economy. And whose fault is all of
that?
The ridiculous politicians who think they can trust
a company who totally won't try to take
from them. You know, again, I don't you
could argue I mean, look, there's one or
two things there. They're either that completely naive
and incompetent and inept,
or they know well that they're selling their
own people out for a little bit of
money. That's probably some both both in some
cases. But I just I cannot stand her
giving them that benefit of the doubt. That's
insane. Nick, you you didn't know they were
gonna do this? Well, okay. If you didn't
know the full repercussions, then why would you
ever vote for it? Money.
Because there are a a job on the
way out. Revolving door politics. Like, that's that's
the reality of how this world operates.
So in her good intentioned argument, here's what
it feels like. Maybe Maybe she doesn't wanna
believe the world's that dark. Sorry. It is.
And we have to be real about that,
especially as we fight to make it less
dark, which is what we're trying to do.
But just
it kills me to act like it's not
somehow that they're just they got that they
got played by the big company.
Yeah. And if that is the case, it's
because they've been systematically placed in the position
so to be played by many many different
factors and players.
Yeah. I mean, that's all we hear about
data since in this country. And it's a
great it's a great top line for the
chancellor and the prime minister because they can
say tens of billions of pounds worth of
investment. Okay. But in terms of long term
jobs, how many? And also, by the way,
for that rural community and god knows where,
you know, the Northeast Of England or whatever
Yeah. You're not telling them that actually they
can't use their hose pipes for three months
a year because all the water's going to
that local data center. Exactly. And
it's quite extraordinary. And and the and the
most scary thing about all of it is
in The UK at least, the politicians don't
know any of that. I sincerely don't think
the chancellor knows any of that, and there's
no real I mean, even if you use
the prism of colonialism, imperialism with regards to
explosive economic relations between The United States and
other parts of the world, they think you're
a atrocious.
Yeah. Right? That's that's that's the crazy things.
They can't even look after their own people.
Because if looking after your own people boils
down to being too left wing. Well, I
think part of it is awesome if they
don't really And that then some cases, it
can be. Some cases, there can be in
a secret one's left or right agenda behind
what makes sense. But, nonetheless, the point is
arguing what they're doing is wrong and arguing
we should try to stop it from this
level is argue like, it's the same thing
we may talk about every day in this
conversation. That you treat you like I just
said about sustainability, which is not good or
sustainability is a positive thing in a general
sense, not the lie they sell you and
claim it's sustainable when they're doing something else.
The problem though is that people now get
trapped in this broken logic of that's a
left wing thing. And so you then you
end up opposing something that's good for everybody
in the general idea of being sustainable.
Same thing here. You know, that plenty of
people will push back on this idea as
being a lefty when in reality, you're just
highlighting this this vulture you know, this company
who is just taking advantage of everybody. And
I don't think these politicians are I think
they know they're, you know, they're playing dumb.
They'd always be rather be seen as incompetent
than criminal.
Remember that.
They realize that it's literally happening
in The UK. So they so to connect
it to The UK,
data center development along the M 4 Corridor
is has literally already led to a ban
in construction of new housing in certain communities
that desperately need more affordable housing. And it's
because you cannot build new housing when you
cannot guarantee deliveries of fresh water or electricity
to that housing. And it was due to
the massive electricity consumption of the data centers
being built in that corridor that led to
that ban. That's nuts. And that's the most
valuable real estate for housing in in the
country then for.
Yeah. And do you think UK politicians are
aware of that contradiction, or is that just
that's I mean, you know, I don't know
if
they are aware if maybe they're they don't
have awareness, or maybe they are aware, and
they're also thinking of other trade offs. I
mean, now in The UK and and in
the EU at large, there's just this huge
conversation around data sovereignty and, of course, technology
sovereignty. There's this whole concept of developing the
EU stock, and why is it that we
don't have any of our tech giants? Why
don't we have any of this infrastructure?
And like here Sarmer just said this week
during London Tech Week, we wanna be AI
creators, not AI consumers.
So I think in their minds, maybe this
is a viable trade off. We we skimp
a little bit on housing for the ability.
I just can't stomach that. I mean, I
know it's it's it's a fair statement. It's
objective to consider that possibility, but I just
don't believe that. I think it's very obvious
what they know what they're doing and they're
simply selling you out.
Call me a pessimist. I think we have
a reason to be. Now a couple of
overlapping points that are interesting.
Seven c said, I made this video back
in January based on the research I was
doing last year to tell everyone that all
nuclear powered AI data centers would be coming.
He says, and that would and that they
would be they would all roll into a
queen bee
along with global satellite connections,
a global cloud of interconnected cloud servers, AI
cryptocurrency, and more. He says the queen bee
is shaping up to be Palantir.
He said, I believe and which makes perfect
sense with what with what we know and
what we can prove. Right? That this as
Derek wrote, welcome to the Palantir world order.
It's not hard to see.
And he goes, I believe that that once
all of these systems are integrated and and
operating as desired, that will be the third
temple. Now you could take take you know,
re watch his work, look at the connections.
I think it's very valid. And I think
the point is, you know, you could we
could guess at what the intentions are, who
what the might outcome might be. The point
is to see the kind of one, two,
three step into this direction, and he simply
shows this down here. New Palantir partners with
the nuclear company.
You know, may maybe maybe it's something else.
But I do find that to be interesting,
at least for the thought of an alternative
potential power source.
Now alternative in the sense of something new,
but, like, you know, just other than creating
more power sources for what they wanna accomplish.
Now he also added
this.
I'm sure I didn't lose that. There we
go. He also added this. And this he
says, in January, I made a video outlining
the coming technocracy.
I dedicated a portion of that to nuclear
powered AI data centers and nuclear energy exports.
Today, and this was on the May 23,
Trump signed an executive order, and you probably
remember this, to speed up the approval process
for nuclear reactors and AI data centers.
Coming right back around. Right? And so we
you've been able to see this coming and
what they're building towards. And the nuclear aspect
of it is additionally important, I think. But
clearly, the point is it's all going in
this direction. Maybe this is just another bolstering
of that direction to make sure.
Now I'll I'll come back to this. We'll
we'll discuss this next show. I just think
it's interesting about the the third the
the America party direction and what that shows
us. I just what I was what I
what I just said here was I I
this is my general sentiment on this right
now. I say it seems clear that the
usual partisan lines and media government control over
the narrative has completely collapsed. I know you
guys all see it. I said, so I
think what we're seeing right now,
I e, Elon's new party, Tucker Carlson, the
whole weird ship, you know, Tucker's like, everyone's
like, now you're pro Iran and now you're
on, you know, it's like Elon and Musk
or or Elon and, Tucker and, like, a
couple others. Like, it seems like they're at,
like, almost like they're being forced into the
same team. And I think that's kind of
by design, my opinion, is a rapid I
said, just say it again. So I think
what we're seeing right now is a rapid
and seemingly desperate reordering, reorganizing
of the system that they know they've lost
control of.
And this is what's funny. I said, surprised
to find out that right now, if you
type in question everything into the GIF search
bar on Twitter,
that this this GIF pops up, which I
just typed that in to put something in
there. I was like, oh, look at that.
I jokingly said, we've finally made it. That's
that's the I I put that on, T
Lab website under my bio, and find it.
Somebody, I guess, grabbed it and put it
on on Twitter, and now it's a a
GIF. I love it. I use it everywhere.
Now I'll also include this. We'll talk about
it when we get into it more. Our,
buddy Craig Pasta was on,
our RT talking about this and does think
it's largely publicity stunt but has some good
thoughts on it. I'll include it in the
show notes, but we'll go over this in
the next show when we talk about this
topic in general. And, really, the interesting point
that Elon Musk doesn't seem to be doing
anything about this party, which, you know, it's
early. Like I said, somebody else, it's, like,
three and a half, like, three years now
of promising, promising, promising. So it'll be no
like, a long time before you ever see
them deliver, which I I'm willing to bet
you already. They'll be just like everything else.
Promises, promises, then shifting, you know, based on
whatever the narrative becomes for why they couldn't
do x, y, and z, or somehow at
the same time promised everything and delivered everything
even they didn't. My my point is not
a lot of action.
You've seen some campaigning conversations. You've seen support
of different politicians, but nothing official.
Worth pointing out.
And I'll read this post from Trump as
we get to it later. And I'll leave
you with this. Jack Posobiec says,
the same point. Oh, that was that's right.
I was just sharing the meme here to
end with. He just had point from Epstein.
If Trump was in the Epstein files, why
wouldn't they put because
partisanship is a lie. Don't get caught up
in picking sides.
Get educated,
research issues.
The more people play favorites and stay loyal
to their team, the more the deep state
will continue to Volley society back and forth
through illusory partisan politics.
Oh, nice. So gregcom Greg Reese commented under
Jack said, it's called deception. The art of
convincing one or many of of recipients of
untrue information.
It's it's just funny. Queer politic agenda
queer political agendas,
Excuse me. Clear political agents like you do
it twenty four seven. Perfect.
I'll include that one too.
We'll leave it there today, guys.
Hope you gain something from this. I found
I I found this to be very, very
interesting.
Again, you know, as you as you saw,
a lot of it is, you know, just
conversation about possibilities with, you know, always starting
with something we can prove. You know, I
would I would add on the way out.
That's the big difference right there. I will
I will well, I should say rarely. I'm
I've said there's some examples in the past
where I might have done this, but very
rarely will I take something that is completely
unverified, something that is not proven, like, no
part of it, and then build a a
narrative around what might be happening with something
we can't prove. What we will do
is take something like weather engineer, weather modification,
geoengineering
that we I argue can prove
that I think the evidence backs up. And
then if there's conversations about whether it happened
in a certain location, well, like we did
today. Well, let's discuss the validity of the
thing, and then here's the evidence we can
see around that. And, usually, with those cases,
it ends up where we don't know because
we don't.
So think about that with the kind of
people that will build into something based on
literally nothing because it works for the agenda,
and it's it's everywhere today.
So if you if you appreciate platforms like
ours that care about what's factual, care about
what we can, you know, we can prove
principles, integrity, guide the conversation,
then
you will wanna watch our future shows. You'll
wanna support the Independent Media Alliance, which we
have a show coming a a panel coming
out tomorrow
with,
basically, the we wanted to re kind of
do a couple more after this as well,
sort of the, the conversation of the the
building,
control grid, as Catherine calls it, and the
steps that have been taken thus far. So
we had one recently, and a lot has
happened since then. So we'll be talking about
this with Catherine tomorrow about the the steps
taken thus far. It will be on this
platform, but still eagerly awaiting the odyssey kinda
completion of the portal so we can
TLAB because I don't want it to be
seen as an only TLAB thing. It's really
not. And I just so point is if
you want more of that, that higher group
will bring it for you. But if you
believe in what we're doing,
do you believe in the work? If you
appreciate the work coming out for free, show
us what it means to you down below
because we can't do this without you.
Thank you all for being here. I love
you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Hold
on. I had a sneaking feeling that there
was something I was going to play on
the way out, but doesn't look like I
have it. Any requests?
Or think of something oh, you know what?
I was gonna play this one
a few shows ago that I just think
is actually relevant. I'll end with this one.
But thank you all for being here. I
love you all. As always, question
everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant. Anyway, welcome to the state department.
I think we have some interns in the
back. Welcome.
Good to see you
in this,
exercise in transparency and democracy.
Is that what it is?
Sorry. I thought it was a I didn't
mean to break it. I thought it was
an exercise
in an exercise in
spin and obfuscation.
Alright. Can you tell this is my last
briefing before vacation?