Welcome to the last American Vagabond. Joining me
once again in studio is Brad Miller, and
I'll use his bio to introduce happily resigned
former army officer, Christ Truth, Courage, Freedom. We've
had a lot of great discussions in the
past, Brad and I, and we're following up
today to discuss the last point we left
off on. And we discussed in the last
interview, which was entitled,
Brad Miller interview a declaration of military accountability
and foreign influence over US policy. And so
I really wanted to start today with that
point and what we what we've you know,
what's happened since then. And I was reaching
out earlier because I've been noticing a lot
of the a lot of stuff he's been
posting and talking about, and I think there's
you know, it's a rapidly growing number of
people who are becoming aware of what I
think is happening, but it just seems Brad
really has an insight on what's going on
for a lot of different reasons. So it's
an honor to have you back in studio,
brother. How are you? First of all, great.
Thanks again for having me back. We have
had some great conversations.
I think we've done two conversations previously. This
would be the third, the second in studio.
You know, it's funny you say that. I
thought there might have been three, and I
wasn't able to grab the other one, but
it could just be a tagging issue. Yeah.
But one was that one I just mentioned,
and then there was the first one where
we discussed the, you know, just your the
the courage
about resigning regarding the gunshot.
Yeah. So, you know, we've always had some,
some fantastic conversations before.
So, yeah, looking to get back into it.
Yeah. Well, thanks for joining me, man. And,
you know, obviously, you've got some insights that
most people don't have. You know, just and
things that probably more than you even let
on on your on your accounts, what you're
talking about. You know? So I'd like to
get into this stuff with you on how
you perceive these things, you know, with the
different fields of war,
Epstein, you know, how this all evolving. And
one thing most important is, you know, your
view of Donald Trump, the two party illusion,
how all this is evolving in a really
I mean, in a way, an entertaining way
right now, in a very wild and which
is one of the most alarming things for
me is that people are gonna get lost
in, like, this like, this reality TV version
of what it is. Sure. But it is
pretty chaotic, which makes me wonder whether, as
we were briefly talking about off air, you
know, who's really calling these shots if they
seem to be sort of destroying
what was you know, what they built. But
before we get to all of that, I'd
like to start on on the,
declaration of military accountability and and our last
discussion about that and your your substack post
and, you know, what you know, actually, let's
start with, you know, your brief introduction of,
you know, maybe the brief, background military COVID
point and then that declaration, and let's go
on to what has happened since then in
case they didn't, see the last interviews.
Yeah. So,
you know, the abridged version of what has
happened in, in the last couple of years.
So
I served for nineteen years in the military,
and I spent a little bit more than
nineteen years in the army on active duty.
I attained the rank of lieutenant colonel. I
was a battalion commander in the hundred and
first airborne division at the time that the,
COVID shot mandate went into effect.
Long story short, I was never gonna comply
with the mandate for for a variety of
reasons.
One being my own health. Mhmm. But a
lot of people think that that's the only
reason it's not. There was a much larger,
more important reason. So, of course, I didn't
wanna take the shot for my own health,
but there was a bigger reason, is that
I knew that this was an operation. Mhmm.
I knew that this was to target the
American people, if not people across the globe,
and I wasn't gonna go along with it.
Right. And I did even in 2021.
I thought that to go along with it
would be to comply with treason or at
least to to kind of involve oneself in
what was a deliberately planned and executed
treasonous operation. I wasn't gonna go along with
that. So I was fired from command,
and,
shortly thereafter,
I decided to resign altogether from the army,
after a little bit more than nineteen years
of service, which means I did not hit
the twenty year benchmark
to qualify for retirement pension, etcetera. So I've
been out of the army now for almost
three years. In September, it'll be three years.
And since that time, I have continued to
I don't know, what do you wanna call
it, be a voice of reason or or
talk about government overreach or try here's what
I would probably say.
Try to get people to to think more
deeply Right. And conduct their own personal strategic
assessment
of the environment and exactly what's happening. Because
I I think a lot of people
fail to do that. So,
here's the other thing, and this is where
I think
a a military background can be a little
bit of a double edged sword. Mhmm. So
I like to think that my military experience
gives me
a framework
to to think about these problems,
a
a vocabulary
to be able to
communicate these ideas to myself and understand them,
and then be able to share them with
other people in a way that hopefully makes
sense. Because at the end of the day,
we're all in a war. Right. And if
you think that you're not a combatant in
that war, think again, because those who are
trying to fight against us very much view
all of us as combatants. Right. So you
might as well just understand that out the
gate. It's just that this war may look
a little bit different than the way that
we typically think about, you know, war.
Now, with that said,
so I have a good buddy of mine
who is still currently serving in the Navy.
His name is Rob Green. He's a commander
in the Navy, which would be the equivalent
of a lieutenant colonel in the Army, which
is the rank that I held before I
left the Army, and, he is still currently
serving. Now in 2023, he wrote a book
called Defending the Constitution Behind Enemy Lines,
And that book kinda detailed what was happening
in the military
with regard to these policies that were enacted
in 2020, 2021,
etcetera,
mostly focusing on the COVID shot mandate, but
it did go deeper than there were other
policies the military enacted
during that time period besides just the COVID
shot mandate.
That book, Defending the Constitution Behind Enemy Lines,
was published by Rob Green
in on July
4.
Mhmm. So fast forward a couple of months,
and on New Year's Day of twenty twenty
four,
a group of us put out this document,
which consisted of an open letter to the
American public
that basically said,
we and then there were 231
individuals who who who signed on to this
letter.
The 231
of us are not going to stand by
and allow senior military leaders
to destroy the armed forces. Mhmm. And so
there were a group of us that were
that were, behind that document, but the one
who wrote the initial draft, who had the
idea and wrote the initial draft, was Rob
Green. So in some ways,
that open letter to the American public, which
we came to call the declaration of military
accountability,
in some ways, it was this continuation of
Mhmm. His book that had been published a
couple of months prior.
Anyway, so his book comes out.
He's very
he's first of all, he publishes the book
as a
as an active duty officer.
He doesn't publish it anonymously. He doesn't publish
it under a pen name. He publishes it
in his own name. Mhmm. So what's the
reaction from senior military leadership?
Silence. Now why? I mean, I would assume
it's because they knew that we don't even
wanna touch this. Mhmm. As soon as we
try to refute it, we're already lending it
credibility. So don't touch it.
So six months later, when our our declaration
of military accountability comes out,
which, oh, by the way, we we emailed
I emailed on 01/01/2024.
I emailed to senior Pentagon officials
early in the morning on New Year's Day.
What was the response?
Silence.
So it's it's weird because, again, it was
as if they knew
just don't even engage with that because as
soon as you engage with it, you're you're
lending credibility to the message that these guys
are are putting forward.
Well, now fast forward another year and a
half. So 2024
was our major push for,
substantive reform in the military. Did we get
there? No. Does that mean that we accomplished
nothing? Well, no. That's not necessarily true either.
And we brought a lot of awareness to
these issues.
So then what happens? You know, Trump comes
into office. I'm sure we'll talk about that.
There's a new secretary of defense. Some superficial
changes have been made in the military, and
we can talk about that. I would say
they haven't gone nearly,
far enough.
And now, just recently, within the last maybe
ten days or so,
we've come to find out that Rob Green,
who wrote the book that I mentioned Mhmm.
And then was the primary author behind the
Declaration of Military Accountability,
he is still serving in the Navy. Well,
now the Navy has opened up an investigation
into him
for some language that he has used
on his, publicly in which he has referred
to certain senior military officials as
domestic enemies of the constitution.
And so Wow. What I would say is,
yeah. Okay. That's that's pretty strong language,
but it's also true. Mhmm. It's also 100%
true. But the other thing is is that
he has been very consistent in his message.
This is the same message that was in
his book. It's the same message that we
talk about in the declaration of military accountability
Right. Or that we have mentioned in many
interviews that we have given.
So nothing's changed, but now they've gone after
him, and they have opened up this investigation
into him. So on the front of all
things military accountability,
I would just use this as a as
an example to show that
we we are still very much in the
trenches
in that fight. Yeah. Oh, definitely. I mean,
what I'm what comes to my mind is
obviously, what do you think changed? Now before
you answer, I mean, it's interesting that,
you know, my thought on why, let's say,
in in in, I guess, during the Biden
administration, there was no, you know, silence, there's
no response. I think, you know, regardless of
whether it was Trump or Biden or anybody
else, at that moment, I think just like
you're highlighting or insinuate or, you know, hinting
at is that they didn't want anyone
they didn't want, you know, whether Streisand effect
or anything else. They didn't want this to
get attention in any way because I think
they recognize as we did, everyone did, that
we're at a moment right there where people
were more willing. I and I think it's
gotten
better in the way I see it, worse
for them now. But despite their efforts, the
people were willing to start asking certain questions.
We were willing to look into these things
we hadn't in the past, and so I
think they were just trying to get away
from that. Now I want your thought on
why you think because in my opinion, the
the the circumstances are even worse for them
right now. Why do you think during Trump's
administration now, are they deciding to go after
him? What what changed? Yeah. Well, if we
talk about under the Biden administration, now the
first thing that I would say here is,
I and and I know you know this,
but just for those out there who are
listening,
and I'm I'm assuming much of your audience
already gets this, but just to say it,
just to map this out. So,
ultimately, I I believe that, you know, Trump
and Biden still take their orders from the
same networks, of course, but they do have
but they do play different roles, and they
have different scripts. Mhmm. And so
but a lot of people within the public,
to include within the military, unfortunately enough, they
don't necessarily see that. Right. So during the
Biden administration or when Lloyd Austin was the
secretary of defense, if you were on our
side,
you felt that you were within a hostile
environment because you believe that this administration, meaning
the Biden administration,
or this secretary of defense, meaning Lloyd Austin,
they're hostile to the constitution. They are hostile
to the rights of service members,
etcetera. Mhmm. But But then there may be
this assumption that that's gonna change with the
new administration. Okay. You know, with Trump in
office
or or with, Pete Hegseth. There are a
lot of people within the military accountability movement
and within the public at large that just
assumed
things would change. Mhmm. And and now they
haven't necessarily changed.
But what what did anything change? Well, yeah,
I would say there were some superficial changes
that have happened. So, for example,
on January 20, so during his inauguration speech,
Trump did include some language in that speech
in which he mentioned, you know, bringing back
these service members whose careers were harmed,
because the COVID shot mandate.
Within a week, there was an executive order
that was published
that basically said the same thing.
So then, you know, now Pete Hegseth is
in the driver's seat in the Pentagon, you
know, as the secretary of defense. The secretary
of defense, you know, his office starts putting
out more memos,
and they put together this process Mhmm. To
bring people back into the service who left
over the COVID shot military
or the COVID shot mandate,
those who left either voluntarily or involuntarily.
Mhmm. Now what I would say is
the process that they have put in place
is
is, somewhat well, first of all, it's very
incomplete. Mhmm. And the rhetoric around what they
have supposedly done is quite hollow.
Mhmm. So they're saying they've done much more
than they've actually done, but they have Will
you flush that out for me? In what
way are are they lying? So
so have they put together a process to
allow people who lost their careers to the
COVID shot mandate to come back? Yes. Now,
what does that look like? Mhmm. So if
you let's say you're you're me, and you
and I let's say I were to say,
okay. Let me go back and let me
finish out my time in the military. What
do I have to do?
So there is a process that I can
apply for
and try to get accepted back into the
military.
But there are a couple of things we
gotta take into consideration. So first of all,
they're gonna look at me and they're gonna
say,
did you leave voluntarily
or involuntarily?
Okay. Okay?
Well,
good question. Mhmm. Because
what about unlawful coercion? Yeah. You know? So
what if you were coerced out, but you
voluntarily left? So I resigned,
but I resigned after being relieved of command.
Mhmm. Well, now the secretary of defense has
actually come out and said that the COVID
shot mandate, which he characterizes as, you know,
having been implemented by the previous administration, which
technically is true, but whatever. Mhmm. He has
said that that mandate was implemented unlawfully.
Right. So it shouldn't matter. But but I
was relieved of command. Unlawful it means I
was relieved of command unlawfully,
but I resigned.
Okay. But why was I why was I
backed into a corner to where I had
to either comply with an unlawful command Mhmm.
Give an unlawful command to my subordinates,
or resign. Why was I ever placed in
that situation? So according to the military,
I left voluntarily,
not involuntarily. Mhmm. And so the DOD wants
to focus on this number of
about 8,600. So so DOD will tell you,
hey. There were about 8,600
service members who were kicked out against their
will.
And for those 8,600,
they will offer them
back
pay, and then also also they will credit
them as time served,
the time lost between the day that they
left service and the day that they would
be reinstated. Okay. So if that's a three
year time period, they would credit them. First
of all, they would pay them for those
three years Mhmm. And then credit them towards
retirement or whatever,
those three years as if they had been
served. Now that's a great thing. Yeah. But
you're making a dis you're making this very
clear distinction between
those who were voluntarily kicked out Mhmm. Which
is only 8,600,
and then the 100 k plus that were
voluntarily kicked out. You know, you're you're kinda
you're drawing that distinction where I think that
that distinction is not quite as clear as
you wanna make it. So
and the other thing is even when they
try to give the back pay to this
group that they consider to be those that
were involuntarily kicked out,
they're doing a bunch of of calculations to
try and and determine what salary offsets they
should be to decrease the actual back pay
that they're gonna give you. You know? Right.
So all told,
are are people
banging on the door of the of of
the military to get back in? No. Right.
No. They don't wanna enter back into that
abusive relationship.
And then, also
so we have about we have if you
if you count all of our active duty
troops
and your guard troops and your reserve troops,
it's over 2,000,000. Mhmm. So 8,600
out of 2,000,000 doesn't seem like a very
large number. Right. But one but but it
again, that's the number DOD wants you to
focus on because that is the number of
troops that were kicked out against their own
will. Right. This number of 100 k, which
may be a conservative estimate. I imagine. Yeah.
Well, obviously, that's a much larger percentage of
the overall force. Right. But even that
so so of that number, how many have
come back into the military so far? 13.
Wow.
So 13 out of 8,600
is a tiny percentage.
13 out of 100 k is a much,
much, much smaller percentage. I think see, my
I mean, tell me if you if you
share this view. It seems obvious that if
you look at the real main distinction between
those two groups, it's one of them that
seems to act
there's plenty I it it's hard to decide.
If somebody wanted to stay and stick it
out to make a point, there's there's something
to be said about that. But the people
that decided to resign,
there's principle in that. Yeah. You know, that
you're saying, I'm I'm willing to sacrifice my
everything in order to stand with this principle.
That terrifies
a dishonest, unjust system. Right? And I think
that's where it really comes down to, or
just a financial motive to recognize, hey. If
we lean into this number, we can pretend,
like, you know, save all of the effort
that might you know, those are my opinions
on it. I I would agree with both
of those. Mhmm. Yeah. So
so how do you
create action
and then make it look like you're doing
more than you are? Oh, look at this
process we put in. Look at all these
overtures that we're making to these people that
were wronged. Mhmm. But they're not actually doing
nearly as much as they as as they
want you to believe that they're doing. And
I believe I bet you they knew they
wouldn't come back as well because of the
obvious reasons. Of course. Of course. And then
also from the perspective of DOD, they also
I think they don't they don't really want
you back. Right. And so
why?
Because the military is not done doing
the type of unjust actions that they did
over the last couple of years. That that
hasn't ended.
Right. You know? Because it's not it doesn't
change based on partisanship with something that we
don't
share. Right. Well, so in regard to the
declaration, the, of accountability.
Mhmm. So you pretty much already touched on
it, but is there any other way that
you think so, basically, you you described it
as there's a group of people in there
that that really want this and believe in
it, but that at least in the beginning
felt that Trump's administration
would would be the thing that brought that
change on. First part of it, do you
are they
where do you feel they are right now?
Are they starting to feel disillusioned by that,
and have there been any positive
movements from that? Yeah. Yeah. So
so the the whole military accountability
was more of an effort than an actual
organization.
Mhmm. Okay? And a lot of people would
sometimes they would come to me or whomever,
and they would say, hey, you guys should
create some sort of, you know, organization. And
we
we never quite went that route because
for you know, people are busy. They got
other endeavors they're they're, they're involved in. But
also,
we all
we didn't even 100%
agree on this issue. Now, here's where we
did agree.
We knew that what was happening was wrong,
and we largely shared
a lot of the same goals that we
wanted to see achieved.
We did not necessarily agree, though, in in
our entire strategic picture of the environment
or the pathway to achieve those goals. Right.
That's what you started to have. That's right.
That's where you started to have some, some,
kind of some strategic differences of agreement. Mhmm.
And and that's okay. Right. But
but that can also create some tension. Now
a little bit of tension could be healthy.
Mhmm. A little bit more than what is
healthy can be, you know, slightly disruptive. And
so, you know, within our
within our groups, there would, you know, there
would be some conversations, tense
as to kind of, not necessarily
the goals, but kind of the strategic read
on what exactly is happening. Mhmm.
Who are the
who are
the influencers or the interlocutors
that we should be engaging with in dialogue
to try and achieve this or this? Because
here's what was happening during that same time
period.
We had people giving
a lot of interviews, even on some pretty
big platforms.
We had people who were writing op eds
or writing
subset posts. We had people who were in
DC engaging with members of Congress, which which
achieved very, very little, by the way. Tends
to. Yeah. There were,
court cases,
which, I don't wanna say achieved zero ground.
Some of them
some of them were helpful. There there were
some victories, but on the whole, it was
very little.
So you get to a point where it's
like,
okay. We've approached the we we've approached within
DOD,
haven't gotten a lot of support.
Certainly didn't get a lot of support from
the president, meaning Biden. I would say we
still haven't gotten a lot of support from
Trump.
We haven't gotten a lot of support from
the legislature
or from the judicial branch. So
where do you go? In fact, this was
Rob Green's assessment
when he decided to
write a letter to the American people, hence
the declaration of military accountability. We can't get
any help from any of the branches of
government. Mhmm. How do you appeal higher? Well,
you take it to We the People. That
was Right. That was the driving idea behind
this open letter to the public, you know,
the declaration of military accountability.
So so where are we now?
Yeah. You're the
yeah. And and I can only kinda speak
for myself, but I know that there are
I know some people within this, this basic
effort have some some slightly different opinions than
I do, and that's okay. But I do
think that
people are starting to maybe reassess
their read on the strategic environment and and
at least say,
hey.
Maybe things aren't quite the way that I
thought they were gonna be. And it's just
very healthy and positive. You know? And it's
and I get it. I mean, I get
and completely understand why somebody would want to
hope for the best outcome. And we should
always do that. Right? Just don't let that
completely overtake what's actually happening. And I think
that now is a very clear time. It
was plenty of we'll we'll go over some
of them in a moment. Yeah. There's plenty
of indications that this is just not that
there's a lot of
narrative statements that just don't match what's actually
happening. Yeah. So I'm glad I'm I mean,
I'm I'm hoping that people are starting to
see that because the I'm glad you didn't
do it in organization direction. I do I
think that right now, it's very easy for
these these things to get co opted, especially
with something that large. Yep. Right? I think
reaching out to the American people, I think
we said in the last interview Yep. Was
the right way to go because that's where
the change is happening. Yeah. That's So so
you you said something very important that I
actually wanna touch on.
Mhmm. So
I
from day one, which would be 01/01/2024,
I mean, that's the day that our our,
declaration of military accountability, which we call the
DMA Mhmm. The day that it hit the
streets.
And it
was,
it created a lot of momentum
immediately. Mhmm.
And I remember thinking on that very day,
there there there's a risk here.
Because
if you if you wanna look at this
as a partisan issue, which I don't, but
a lot of people do,
if you wanna look at this as a
partisan issue,
we have just given you fodder that reinforces
that. Now we were very much trying to
keep ourselves
kinda apolitical because a lot of the people
that signed this document were still currently serving.
Okay. So so the document
on its face had nothing to do with
one political party or the other. Mhmm. It
was it was very neutral, very apolitical in
that regard.
But people are people,
and even people who serve in the military,
I mean, they still vote. They still have
you you they may still be affiliated with
one party or another or whatever.
And so
when you look at the environment and you
say, you know what?
Even if it was unintentional,
we have put some fuel into this engine
that reinforces
this kind of two party dynamic. You mean
because you released it under one administration, so
the perception is that it's against one person
together? Could be that this was was anti
Biden, which we which we never said. Mhmm.
I I would never say that anyway because
I think the problem is much broader. Mhmm.
But even those who might have felt that
way wouldn't have necessarily said that. So so
this would be unintentional, but here's where you
run the risk, though, of being potentially co
opted even if you don't mean to. Right.
And this is something that I think happens
all the time, is people
people are sincere,
but their effort that they are involved in
can be twisted to serve a certain purpose.
I think that's most of what's happening today.
Sure. Absolutely. I really do. And so this
is something that I realized. I remember thinking
about this on the evening of 01/01/2024
because we held so,
I sent so what happened on that day
was I I took the DMA, which is
a one pager.
People can find it, by the way, at
militaryaccountability.net.
It'll be included in the show notes so
you can check it out. And,
so so I took that document,
and I emailed it
to, I can't remember exactly how many, 12
or 15 senior military officers. Mhmm. Some of
whom are are named
in the DMA specifically because of the egregious
actions they had committed. Right. Now this document
is not addressed to them. It's addressed to
the American public. Right. But we sent it
to these senior military leaders,
basically,
to say,
hey. We've written this document.
We've signed it. This document is about ready
to hit the streets, just so you know.
Right. And I sent that. Now why did
I send it?
Well, Rob and I spoke about this, and
and and we agreed that
even though a bunch of us have signed
it, you know, Rob is the primary author,
but but a lot of us had a
hand in kind of the final revisions, etcetera.
But that I might be the best candidate
to
to put it out there because I was
no longer serving. So I'm less of a
target. I'm not in uniform. Yeah. And because,
you know, maybe I had a little bit
of street cred because I've been a battalion
commander Mhmm. Who had been fired and then
had had resigned at nineteen years. Hundred and
first, no less. I mean, that that has
prominence. So so in any case,
I was like, yeah. I'll I'll I'll put
it out there. I will be the one
to send an email to, the chairman of
the joint chiefs, you know, the highest ranking
uniformed officer, and other generals and admirals,
and say, hey. Heads up. This is about
ready to hit the streets. So I did
that at 4AM
DC time, 01/01/2024,
when most of America was was either asleep
or or still partying from, you know, New
Year's Eve.
And,
I turned right around, and then on my,
you know, my Twitter and my ex account,
I made a post within a couple of
minutes, and I put a screenshot of the
DMA.
And that post in the last year and
a half has had almost 5,000,000 views. Yeah.
But that is the exact moment that that
that that document
would have been publicly visible for the first
time.
And then we took it, we hung it
on a website, and and, you know, and
then we we further socialized it from there.
Real quick. 5,000,000 views. Mhmm. I mean, this
is that's viral. I mean, the the world
saw that. You know? And that mean and
5,000,000 views are just just that means far
more than that actually digested that, saw that,
shared that, took screenshots of themselves and shared
it. My what I'm saying is that it's
really interesting to see how that can happen,
and that's the point that that's where the
change is happening. People wanted this. They know
that, and I think it's such an important
line to show that I mean, it shows
you the government does not represent the American
people in a very clear way. That's right.
That's right. And at the time,
I think at that time, I had,
maybe,
I wanna say less than than than,
than 5,000 followers. I had a pretty small
following on Twitter this time. Oh, god. That's
crazy. And it but it generated that. And,
I mean, it it started immediately. So that
night at, like, I don't know, 8PM eastern,
you know, if I put it out at
4AM, so, you know, roughly at 8PM eastern,
right, the same day. So sixteen hours later,
we held a we held a a Twitter
space that just had
a ton
of people get involved and speak with members
of congress in there. It was really crazy.
Nice. But this is when
I realized,
if we're not careful,
this could be used in a way to
reinforce some ideas
that I'm not out there trying to trying
to promote. Now, at the same time, I
had to I had to also say,
yep. There are people who can use this
to reinforce this two party dynamic, you know,
the the elephant versus donkey smokescreen. Mhmm.
But but I can't let that affect what
I am trying to do because I do
believe that there should be military accountability. Mhmm.
I don't wanna use it to try and
paint Democrats as bad and therefore Republicans as
good. Right. That's not helpful either.
But and I don't want people to take
what we're doing and try and do that,
but I can't not do it just because
somebody might take our words Mhmm. And twist
them to to mean something that we're not
actually saying. Mhmm. Well, that you have to.
I mean, that that's about principle. You know?
And so but, nonetheless,
even though well, that always happens as you
know. Yep. Always always. And remember what movement
you look at, there's always some element to
co opt it, whether from government or something
else. But it still has a you know,
the positive effect is still there, which I
think, especially when you have an administration
shooting themselves in both feet, it makes it
easier for people to see, even if they
first accepted it as that's the one side
bad. Now they're seeing the other side of
it. You know? And so this that's why
this is so important to keep this momentum
going because maybe people will stumble back through
this and recognize now even the full picture
as opposed to only half of it the
first time. So so it's interesting because
so fast forward, and we get closer to,
you know, to election season. Now, do I
believe that
elections are free and fair? No. Of course
not. Did I did I vote in a
twenty twenty four presidential election? No. Right. Did
I vote in 2020?
No. Did I vote in 2016?
No.
So so
it's kinda funny because, like, I've never been
to Trump. I've never voted for Trump. Mhmm.
But I've also never voted against Trump. You
know? Anyway so anyway yeah. So so whatever.
But,
and and I will also say, because I
get called a Trump hater a lot. Yeah.
But if you forced me if you forced
me to pick in the last three elections
between Trump and any of his opponents, I
would have picked Trump all three times. You
know, I had a similar conversation with Catherine
Austin Fitts for similar reasons, and I you
know, there's there's an argument that could be
made is the way I framed it then.
If you're looking at objectively at what we
have only right in front of us, then
yeah. But my point is the same is
that that's that is operating within the broken
game. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly.
Or to win is not to play. Yeah.
That's right. Yeah. I don't play rigged games.
Right. Right.
But but the reason I say that is
because so
so take what I just said about the
DMA and and and my realization,
you know, within the strategic environment,
hey, there there is a risk here that
we at least have to manage. You know?
So fast forward, and and now we're in
kind of kinda deep into campaign season. Mhmm.
And people were coming at me, and they
were saying, how come you're always so critical
of Trump? You never you never criticize Biden
or Kamala.
And so I I put out a couple
of posts on, on x about this because
I was like,
because I I thought I was very, very
convinced that they were gonna put Trump back
in. Mhmm. I'm not saying I necessarily realized
that a year out, but I would say
seven or eight months out, I was I
was convinced they were gonna put I think
we shared the same thought in that last
interview. I mean, it I thought the point
was or when time went the timing of
the time, my timing might be right. But
the point is I think we've shared this
thought that
not like we're psychic, but that it makes
sense that Trump would be, like, with the
COVID point, that he's gonna allow the right
like, give the people the excuse to dismiss
what's happening. That's right. That's right. And I
I also and I said this on the
day of, so July 13 in in Butler,
Pennsylvania. Mhmm. Yeah. I mean, I thought that
was I thought that was staged. I still
think it's staged. I said that the day
of. Yeah. So that day, I knew for
sure. Mhmm. Oh, they're they're they're going with
they're going with Trump. Mhmm.
I also thought that I mean, there's been
some theatrics with Elon now, you know, in
the last month or so. But
but they also weren't gonna have Elon because
Elon is such a a pivotal player as
well in this whole game. Yeah. For the
They're not gonna have Elon yeah. They're not
gonna have Elon back the guy that's gonna
come out on the wrong end of the
election. Mhmm. So anyway but people would say,
why why do you criticize Trump and you
don't criticize Biden or Kamala? And I would
say, well,
I think Kamala is running a so first
of all, Biden was a stooge all along.
He was supposed to be a stooge. Mhmm.
He was playing his role.
Whether he was doing that deliberately or whether
that just is whatever. Yeah. Whatever.
And I think,
Kamala, I don't even think, put together a
real campaign. Yeah. Yeah. I agree. I don't
think she was running to win. Yeah. She
probably knew. So so in my mind, it
was
if I expend a lot of energy
on her when she's basically a decoy Mhmm.
But expending energy on her is to basically
push in the direction of the PSIOP. Right.
Whereas to push back against Trump is to
push against the direction of the psyop. Even
though if you were to ask me between
the two of them, which I prefer, I
prefer Trump a 100 times over. But but
I don't have to pick between the two
of them. Right. But by design is your
point. That's exactly how it's going to work.
Yes. And, you know, and, obviously, feel free
to question this. So we're not psychic, but
the obvious point is that it's just logic.
And you can see the way this goes.
Why what suits
if we're correct about the bigger picture, what
best suits the empire. Right? And this is
exactly what seems to line up. But I
would even more so add to that that
your criticisms are aimed not I mean, I
can't speak to everything you've said, but not
at Trump as a person, but at Trump
who is running the government. Right? So it's
it's regard whether her or him, I bet
your criticism would have been the same. That's
right. That's how it came. Exactly. You know,
so,
I there's this idea that I've been communicating,
you know, and thinking a lot about recently,
and I I even did a a video
about it recently. But,
but it kinda boils down to,
principles first and then people. And so what
I mean by that is, not that people
aren't important, of course, but figure out what
your principles are. And then as you stand
on your principles and as you live in
alignment with those principles, you will naturally find
the people
who are similarly minded. I love it. But
when you
when you seek to congregate with certain people
first Mhmm. What happens when you then realize
their principles aren't your principles? So now take
that one step further. What can you extrapolate
from that? So think about
this is why populism is so dangerous as
a political movement. Right? Mhmm. Because
it's not that charisma is bad, but there's
gotta be some character behind the charisma. Substance.
Yeah. Otherwise, yeah, you may you might be
an inspirational person, but what are you inspiring
people to do? Are you inspiring them to
do something that is is great and noble,
helpful for themselves and helpful for others, or
are you just inspiring them to do something
that
that pushes things along in a predetermined way
Right. But has nothing to do with, you
know, the interest of the American people. And
so,
you know, so, you know, you take you
take a populist,
movement or something, and
you take that to its extreme, and you
have demagoguery, or you have a cult of
personality, and people are so wrapped up in
the personality of this figure,
and then there's no there's no guiding philosophy
there. Mhmm. There's no bedrock of values
that some guiding policy is rooted
within. It's exactly what we're dealing with, which
I know we agree on. You know? It
is it is I mean, and it's not
a secret. I mean, even right now, I
think the Trump MAGA movement, whatever, is grappling
with this, the honest elements in there, which
I thought I think there's largely majority. I
think most people have were tricked into thinking
that's what they wanted. You know? Yep. And
now they're grappling with this. The the very
clear many characters we could call out by
name if we wanted to, they're just blind
support Trump. We'll change what they said yesterday
if Trump tells them to that day. Yeah.
And that's terrifying.
But let let's let's get into some overlapping
points. I'll I'll let you decide right now.
Do you you wanna go in the direction
because I'm enjoying the conversation we're having at
sort of a higher view of the the
psyop, right, and and how it's being played
bigger than partisanship. So do you wanna get
into some some foreign policy discussion about military
locations, or you want you wanted to get
into Epstein and, you know, the different parts
of who Trump is? What what would what'd
you rather talk about? Let's talk about,
kind of in in line with what we've
been talking about the last couple of minutes.
Yeah. Let's maybe talk about this supposed twelve
day war between Israel and Iran. Okay. If
you wanna talk about that. So I got
some thoughts, and then we can go wherever.
Mhmm. So,
so first of all, even if you just
take what we've been told, even just in
in mainstream sources or whatever.
So
Israel conducts a strike,
which they call preemptive or whatever, but they
conduct a strike. Now there is
retaliation coming from Iran, which results in this
twelve day war. But in the midst of
this twelve day war,
there are strikes performed by US service members,
you know? And so,
which makes us completely a belligerent
Oh, yeah. In that war.
So there's a lot there. There's a lot
to unpack. I also believe that and we're
still under a ceasefire, but I saw yesterday
that, that Israel was striking Syria. So Yep.
Yep. We can talk about that today too
if you want. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So
I first of all, I don't in any
way think that we've seen the end of
this. Yeah. I agree. I also think
from a big picture geopolitically,
we're gonna continue to see the stage set
for war. Mhmm.
I would also say,
if you look at
what is the domestic counterpart
to the push for war abroad,
and I would say that is increased surveillance
here at home. Yeah. And so when you
think about just the digital control grid, when
you think about the way in which
AI can,
can increase the sophistication
of the digital control grid Mhmm. Then I
think those are things that we have to
worry about. It so you mean in the
overlap being that one are they just two
parts of the same agenda or that the
war is there to justify that? How do
you see them connected? Yeah. Exactly. So, like,
so let's just use a a a very
simple example. Mhmm.
So the border.
So
immigration.
Okay? But then, also, you hear these stories,
and it's it's, like, 2003 all over again.
But you hear these stories about supposed sleeper
cells that can infiltrate through our border because
our border is so porous, etcetera. So first
and foremost,
and this is something we have to we
have to realize, is that
when you think about problems and solutions kind
of in the Hegelian sense,
just because you recognize that the problem has
been engineered
to lead towards a predetermined solution, doesn't mean
that the problem isn't a problem. Yes. Yes.
Important point. Yeah. Right. So so
if I if I think that there is
some complexity behind the the the border issue,
I'm not saying
that the border is not a problem. Right.
It is. What I'm saying is
the same people that are causing the problem
are trying to give you a solution. Right.
Right. And maybe we should be cautious about
that. But anyway Mhmm. But but if we
set that aside and we just think about
if if if we have some sort of
adversary that we have painted up as, hey,
that's the new boogeyman. In this case, you
know, let's just say Iran. Mhmm.
Then that can certainly be used
to try and scare the people into accepting
new increased security measures back home. And and
both being very real.
That's right. That's right. That's right. That's right.
Yeah. Well, I mean, I I call them,
like, a a landmine, like, like, in a
in a hypothetical or a metaphorical sense where,
you know, people will like, same thing, like,
with the two party illusion or anything for
that matter is that people tend to break
away. There's these moments of awareness, and there
are just landmines and traps laid for them
that they fall right into in thinking they've
discovered the new thing. QAnon was like that.
Mhmm. Right? Where people thought, oh, they discovered
Q. Now they can see everything, and they
even though that was just the first trap
laid the moment you pull your head out
of the problem. Yep. I think that's what
a lot of this stuff is, is they
they want to
believe that, you know, like, for my point
is with that's the point you made is
that the landmine there being, you know, the
idea that that's fake as opposed to recognizing
that, yes, that's a real problem, but they're
using it to trap you here. They set
that there so they dismiss the whole thing.
That's right. That's right. That's right. Manipulation. And
I think it is wildly present right now,
but, again, I think people are starting to
sort of, like, awaken from that. So right
now, on that same point, look out for
those minds I'm talking about because they're laid
everywhere to trap you right back into it.
So, you know, I I put a social
media post out, I don't know, a couple
weeks ago, and I said,
and and this will resonate with people who
have done their homework into,
like, fundamentalist Islamic terror. Right? And I and
I I said something like,
scratch an Islamic terrorist, and you'll you'll find
the CIA or Mossad beneath. Right. Keep scratching,
and you'll find MI six. Because
if you look into the history of that,
you know, a lot of so the CIA
and Mossad, a lot of them kinda learned
their dirty tricks from, from MI six. You
know, MI six does not get enough attention
for how intertwined I mean, it's funny because,
Matt Ehret's a writer for TLab, and he's
he's done a lot of work and has
opened my eyes to that deeper background. I
don't think that's hard to tell in any
one of the situations sometimes or often which
one is the real. Like, people discuss whether
it's Israel controlling The US or US controlling
Israel. It's that kind of dynamic. And I
think MI six just has a tendency to
not be involved in that thought process, which
is a problem. Mhmm. They're very prevalent. Yeah.
So I I will tell you my thought
on that. Mhmm. Because I sometimes push back
a little bit against people who say
Israel controls The United States. So here's what
I would say. I'm not maybe I'm wrong.
But I would say
it's not so much that Israel controls The
United States as it is that Israel and
The United States are both controlled by
Yeah. Some network that that is out there.
And I tend to think a lot of
that goes back to
to MI six and kind of the British
establishment. And by that, I don't necessarily mean
the the monarchy per se, but more like
the city of London
and this nexus of More of a globalist
idea. Yeah. International finance, corporations,
even secret societies, etcetera. Yeah. You know? But
anyway yeah. No. I mean, that's an important
so is that what you mean when you
the background, or were you referencing something else?
Like, what's what do we see behind that,
like, calling those shots? Is that what you
meant? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So just you
know, because
right now, I I think there is this
idea that
that Israel is the center of the
the the globalist empire. Mhmm. Okay. And I
I would say
I think it's more maybe an avatar Yeah.
Of the globalist empire. Well, the easiest way
to make that clear for somebody who's only
just stepped into this is that that, really,
if you the point is about Zionism, not
the state of Israel, which we agree on.
Mhmm. But the to your point, Zionism was
you know, existed, but the Balfour declaration from
The UK, that's what started Israel. So you
can clearly see that there's more going on
there. The hard part is that people, like,
especially today,
you know, there's a lot of, you know,
people seeking awareness and information, but they kind
of woke up, like, 02/2020,
and they don't really dive into the background.
I mean, myself, everyone, I think, does that.
Like, even myself, I find things that I
stumble into that kind of were, like, before
where I started doing this work. Yeah. And
you go, wow. I didn't even, like, you
still have this weird framing of that that
you didn't even question because it's from a
different time. And we all are going through
that. You know? The cognitive dissonance is a
hard problem with theirs. People
wanna run away from it when it becomes
contradictory. You know? Yeah. But, yeah, the bigger
problem, I think, comes down to whoever's driving
that bus. I would argue that I do
think Zionism is one of the chief issues
of our time. Yeah. Yeah.
Totally. Totally. And I think that it is
alive and well. Yeah. You know, so you
mentioned the Balfour Declaration, which goes all the
way back to World War one times 1917.
But some of these ideas already preexisted that.
You know, you got Theodor Herzl, and, I
mean, you got the,
the Scofield reference Bible, because, obviously, there's a
huge,
there's a huge movement
of Christian Zionism within a lot of the
evangelical churches, which are very influential in The
United States. Yeah. And so and it's a
lot of and and I mean, I say
this as a as a Christian, but just
within within,
greater Christianity and those who profess to be
Christians here in the West, but primarily in
The United States,
you have a lot of,
mostly Protestants, and within that kind of large
umbrella, mostly evangelical dispensationalist Protestants Mhmm. That they
believe they have a moral obligation
to unconditionally
support
this Middle Eastern state that, you know, has
been around for, you know, eighty years.
It's wild. It it it is wild. Inherently
contradictory when you look at the basic facts.
It is it is historically
so it
that
that thought, that idea,
I would say, is historically and geopolitically
illiterate. Mhmm. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And biblically, for
those who who wanna go there too, because
I would say that too. 100% agree. Yeah.
Well, so this thought stems through a lot
of what we're gonna talk about. So taking
it back to Iran since you were you
started with that point. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The
what I'm showing on on the screen is
just Iran faces this is a recent article
from yesterday. Iran faces August deadline to accept
comprehensive
nuclear deal or face renewed UN sanctions. So
in a at a finer point, where do
you see this going? Because it's, I mean,
you're well versed on this. It's absurd, in
my opinion, to think that Iran in any
way takes what The US or Israel is
putting forward as serious. They violated everything they've
ever done and every one of these dynamics,
including with Iran. So, again, with this kind
of floated, like, you better do what we
ask or, you know, which is framed as
negotiation
before this deadline. So just where do you
see this going? You know, what do you
think is gonna happen next? You latest the
la you left off with kind of the
the bombing of the cutter base, then they
at this point, they've been doing little bombings
here and there, which aren't really getting much
coverage or excluded. So where do you see
it going? Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, there
were these
supposed strikes that,
that US service members, you know, engaged in
and the three supposed nuclear sites within Iran.
Real quickly, I just saw a report saying
two of the three are now shown to
completely not be destroyed.
One of the planes Obliterated?
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, remember
that? So, anyway,
so then so there was a response. There
was an Iranian response supposedly with, some US
bases. In Qatar, they supposed to call it
ahead. It was just maybe one of these
face saving
measures. That's what I thought. Yeah.
So
then there's this ceasefire. Right? And now we're
we're however many weeks, I don't know, three
weeks or so into the into the ceasefire.
Will that hold? And and no. I don't
think it will. Mhmm. So how will it
be broken? And will we potentially see a
false flag
used as a pretext to potentially break the
ceasefire? I don't know, but it's something we
always have to be aware of. Absolutely. You
know? Absolutely. The other thing that I think
is interesting is
and I know people have differing opinions on
this, but it it it bears some discussion
or at least people
kind of, you know, parsing through this in
their own mind. So
when we think about the globalist,
whatever the structure of the globalist empire is
Mhmm.
You know, does that is that largely a
a western
construct,
or is it more
global?
And are countries that are considered to be
antagonistic to the West,
are they are they are they foils to
this empire, or are they part of it?
Now I'll tell you my my assumption. I'm
not saying I I know for sure. Mhmm.
But I tend my read currently is I
tend to think they're part of it. Mhmm.
So I tend to think that Iran or
China
or Russia, maybe in North Korea, that they
are part of this, but that they have
a role to play. And that and that
within that, they are supposed to appear, you
know, antagonistic to the West. Interesting thought. I
mean, I think it's an important thought to
consider because one here's a way I look
at it from, like, the COVID overlap is
that you
very clearly, we saw
a lot of supposedly adversarial countries
lockstep in the agenda. Right? But I that
doesn't necessarily have to prove that they are
not adversarial in other ways. You know, my
mind was, I think all of these governments,
I have a very poor opinion of governments
in general Yep. Would be willing to do
their many things to better have control over
our lives in of their peoples, in respectively.
Yep. But and so they're all going, yes.
We'll accept this you know, we'll all go
in this direction, but then still didn't agree
at certain points, still vied, you know, back
behind the scenes about different
many different points. Yep. And so that's what
I see it as, is they're willing to
come together if they can use that to
control us, but at the end of the
day, they're not really on the same team,
and they might not be. Mhmm. So I
I do agree that that makes sense within
that possible cost. And and and I do
think that it it doesn't have to be
a clean
either or. So either
either China and Russia and Iran
take their orders from the same, you know,
party that gives, you know, the orders to
Trump, for example. Mhmm.
Or they're they're totally antagonistic. I don't know
that it necessarily has to be that cleanly
either. Right. I think they'll take what they
can when they can. I think they're both
governments. But I but I do think that
they are
they are within the globalist spheres of influence
to to some degree. Right. To what degree,
I'm not exactly sure, but I do think
that Iran, therefore, may have a role to
play. Now do they
maybe push back against that role? Yeah.
Sure. Maybe. Mhmm. But I also think that
from the globalist perspective, I think they want
war. I think we're kind of seeing
the winds blow in that direction, which is
unfortunate, but I think that means that we
just maybe have to be, you know, prepared
for that. Yeah. I agree. I mean, the
main point that I think a lot of
people,
Jason Baster, for example, and Mhmm. They're basically
just saying, you know, in a larger kind
of sprawling sense, I support the peoples of
Iran. I support the peoples of Syria. Yeah.
Sure. Yeah. Right. Right. The governments of any
of these places. Yeah. Yeah. And that's kind
of the distinction we need to start making.
You know? Take fighting it for act act
take action that is in the interest of
the peoples of these places, not the government
structures. But our government, like all of them,
have framed this in a way that, you
know, that that is the representation of the
people, and that's just not the truth. Yeah.
So so two points on that because that
that is that
should be the way that we almost look
at all geopolitical situations. Mhmm. Mhmm. And so
when we saw this twelve day war between
Israel and Iran, which largely
and I I don't wanna so I I
think when things like that happen,
the because some people don't. But I think
the missiles are largely real. Some people don't.
Some people think that that. And and I
also think that there is
there is a,
I think atrocity propaganda can be a real
thing. Absolutely. So so you can take something
that happens,
and then you can amplify it Mhmm. And
you can can compound the effects of a
true atrocity that occurred Oh, yeah. And you
can you can maximize it. You know? And
just be honest and absolutely faking entire events.
So that that we nobody should be deplo
pretending like we don't have historical evidence of
that happening. It's real. That's right. That's right.
So,
yeah, Gulf Of Tonka, of course, is a
is an is an event that didn't happen.
Anyway I agree. No. No. I was just
gonna say just so it was clear. I
know way am I suggesting that, that everything
you know, there's plenty of atrocities happening that
we can prove. That's right. It's just considering
that possibility is always important. That's right. So
people who who question these events Mhmm. I
get why they're questioning them. Right. But I
also think it's dangerous to assume that every
time there's a there's a supposed missile exchange
between two countries that it's always fake. Yeah.
Just don't I we shouldn't assume anything. That's
that's the point. It's just consider these thoughts,
but facts are what matter. You know? And
and so to that point so during this
twelve day war Mhmm. You know, and I
would have this discussion with friends of mine,
and I would say, you know, you don't
you don't have to pick a side between
Israel and Iran. Right. You don't have to.
You know? But you can side with the
people. Mhmm. You can
you can express solidarity or whether you wanna
call it, you know, sympathy or whatever
with the people on both sides that are
being impacted by what is happening. Definitely. Yeah.
I mean, that's where we need to stand
with this. And, you know, people will always
have different
perspectives inside in different ways. But if we
start putting our lot in, you know, in
the flag next to your bio, you know,
we're we're falling into the psyop. I mean,
that's what I really think it is. You
are. You are. But but your point is
important about the bigger picture, about whether they
have another role, whether it's Iran or somebody
else. And we definitely should consider that because
it's easy to fall into, you know, Iran's
the one pushing back against the one we
see committing genocide, so they're the ones on
the good guy side. I it's just it's
a dangerous assumption to make.
Side. I it's just it's a dangerous assumption
to make. So it was It is a
yeah. It is a dangerous assumption.
And you can also
you could reinforce that dialectical engine Mhmm. By
pushing hard against
Israel because all you're doing you you're you're
still fueling the dialectical engine between, in this
case, Israel and Iran. Mhmm. And and I
think a lot of times,
the best way to deal with those types
of situations is to remove yourself from from
that unnecessary dialectic. Yeah. Right. Right. Right. That's
exactly oh, you're being you're being forced it's
the false binary. It's the false binary. It's
the false binary. Choice. Right? You don't feel
like you have to. Yeah. Yeah. You don't
have to. Right.
But so on on the Syria point, because,
I mean, all of these are interconnected. I
mean, let's put it this way. My opinion
is this is the extension of the greater
Israel genocide. I mean, that's what this really
comes down to is these are obvious agendas
of Israel in the context of invest direct
point. But so is I I'm showing an
article I put out or show about Israel
in regard to Syria. Mhmm. As Israel further
occupies Syria, western backed ISIS patch wearing terrorists
begin executions.
It's amazing that anybody can even try to
dismiss that at this point because it's live
streamed like everywhere else, and ISIS patches and
all. But so right now, what I think
is interesting is we're seeing the extension of
this. And now, you mentioned the recent bombings.
We're seeing it's they're claiming now Syria's or
Israel's now occupying certain areas even though, in
my opinion, they've already pretty much occupied most
of Syria. Mhmm. It's like this weird kind
of narrative on top of what's already been
going on. They play a clip really quickly
of Netanyahu, and then we can comment on
what's happening. Yeah. Yeah. Solomon Ahmed frames it
as Netanyahu announces Israel is going to occupy
Southern Syria. Netanyahu announces occupation from the Golan
Heights to the Druze Mountain area. Welcome to
Greater Israel. I agree with that.
So what's frustrating for me on that is,
first of all, the idea of occupying, which
they're already doing. But interesting point of always
seemingly using the Druze population as, like, this,
we're saving them when they themselves will speak
up and say we want nothing to do
with Israel. Mhmm. But just your thoughts on
the larger point here on on the narrative
as always that we're coming in to save
the day and, you know, what's Israel doing
with Syria. Give me your your big picture
view on this. Yeah. So okay. So we
mentioned false flags a few minutes ago. But
what is a false flag? I'm not saying
this is a false flag, but what I'm
saying is a false flag is just one
type
of invented pretext. Mhmm. So you you find
a pretext or you invent a pretext
to supposedly create a justification for you to,
you know, engage in some action.
So and I I think that's kind of
what we see here. Mhmm. Oh, look at
what's going on with the Druze. We, Israel,
we've gotta get
involved. And so whether it's a false flag
but because we've seen this type of pretext
used before as well, where,
you'll have some country who says,
hey. We've got
we have ethnic brothers. In this case, I
think he uses the term brothers of our
brothers. But anyway,
we have we have ethnic brothers that are
being,
you know, genocided or being repressed by this
other country. Now we've gotta get involved. Right.
So in any case, it's a it's a
pretext that is either identified
or invented
to justify then, you know, some action. What
do you think their objective is? Whether Israel
or The United States involved with Syria,
you know, outside of the Russia dynamic, which
seems to still be present, but now that
Assad has gone diminished, but what do you
think their objective is? Well, I I do
think that your assessment about the greater Israel,
that is something that,
I think we all have to have our
eyes on. Because when you look at
the the modern borders of Israel,
compared to what greater Israel would look like
Mhmm. It is first of all, it's eye
opening. Now you just mentioned Russia. So
here's the other thing about Israel.
So whether it's geographically,
whether it is culturally,
it's kind of this,
it's a hinge between the East and the
West. Okay. Yeah. And one of the things
that we have seen
is
we have we've almost started to see some,
some tensions that look a lot like old
cold war tensions that have started to reemerge,
you know, where Yeah. That those antagonistic feelings
between the East and the West are kinda
starting to reemerge. Now,
we're talking about Israel right now and Syria,
but you did just mention Russia.
But we're three and a half years into
what's going on in Ukraine. But, of course,
a lot of the tension in Ukraine didn't
start in 2022.
Right. We don't have to go
back that far before we start talking about
what happened in 2014.
Mhmm. The West was very involved in, you
know, all all the actions, you know, around
Maidan, etcetera. Right.
And
it to some degree, I I do believe
that what is happening in Israel
is related to the Greater Israel Project, but
I also, in my mind, I see that
itself
as a component
in potentially a larger strategy as well Mhmm.
To increase the tensions between the East and
the West. Right. Yeah. I mean, it does
seem that that war and conflict is is
a clear outcome in all this or a
goal. I brought up the map for people
to see it. And and we should remember
too that the the the patch that they're
wearing this is not some old concept. They
have patches to this day. They're being worn
as they kill people in Gaza. They show
the greater Israel map on on their patch.
So this is a very Smotrich
Ben Gavir. These are people that are very
forward about it, and they're proudly telling people
this is what they're doing. And it's weird
how the West just pretends like this is
not the most obvious thing in the world.
Yeah. You know? And you can see all
of them from Iraq to Syria to you
know, to it's everything. I mean and and
it's all coming to pass. Well, yeah. So,
in the last
recently,
last couple of weeks, there have also been
some increasing tensions between Azerbaijan and Russia. Okay.
And so this is interesting because a lot
of Americans probably do not think a lot
about Azerbaijan.
Right.
But Azerbaijan is a key player. First of
all, it's
in kind of this Southern Caucasus region that
is very strategically important because it lies between
the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. So
you've got Azerbaijan,
you have Armenia,
to the direct west. You've got Georgia. You
know, Turkey's kind of right there as well
in that region.
And then,
but Azerbaijan
also, you know, shares a border with Iran.
Mhmm. So
very close ally with Turkey, Azerbaijan is. And
Azerbaijan has had a series of wars that
it has fought with Armenia.
So they had a a war in the
nineties.
They had another war in 2020.
And so and the reason I share this
is because I do think that this is
also somewhere we kinda have to keep our
eyes on. That's not Azerbaijan's not exactly in
the in the Middle East, but it's in
kind of that that greater
region there in the South Caucasus that is
not that far away, but is also potentially
being used as
as a point of leverage
to cause tensions to flare between the East
and the West. Now at this if if
I remember correctly, Robert in Lokesh has spoke
about,
groups that Azerbaijani groups that exist in Iran.
Mhmm. Right? That are that are very prominent
that he worries might be a a point
of manipulation from Israel's perspective to use some
of his groups from within Iran. And we
recently just saw whether it's Azerbaijani or not,
but groups that were in Iran that were,
like, cells, these sleeper cells that came up
and you and they conducted those attacks from
within Iran. Yeah. And so that's I that
just adds to that point that maybe that
could be something Israel uses as well to
create a false flag. That that is a
so I I think that's a that's a
real point. That's kinda what I'm driving at
too because
Azerbaijan has demonstrated a closeness to Israel Mhmm.
And and tensions with Iran.
But they are interesting because so they're they're
very closely allied with Turkey. In fact, they
they almost consider themselves to be,
you know, one people, two nations. Mhmm.
Primarily a Muslim nation. Mhmm. And but it's
really weird. If you look at the map
of Azerbaijan,
up until recently,
they used to have an enclave within their
borders
called called, Nagorno Karabakh, which was
comprised of a bunch of Armenians
that lived in this area within the Azerbaijani
borders
that Armenia claimed. And, of course, they they
had several wars over that. And in the
most recent
conflict between the two,
Azerbaijan has basically taken over that entire area.
But in addition to that enclave within their
borders
of Armenians Nagorno Karabakh,
they also have this other, like, exclave, I
guess, that is,
that is,
another portion of their territory
that is not contiguously,
linked to the rest of the country, and
it's on the far side of Armenia. So
Armenia is kind of in between the greater
portion of army of, Azerbaijan here and then
this tiny portion of of, Azerbaijan
to Armenia's West. So a really fascinating country
even if you just look at it in
terms of the map. And then, it's right
on the sea of I mean, it's right
on the coast of the Caspian Sea. There's
a huge pipeline
that runs through that South Caucasus region. Seems
strategically important. It is strategically important, but pipelines
also,
first of all, they're they're they're economically
vital. Mhmm. But pipelines are also often
targets of terrorist activities and, therefore, could potentially
be used in even in a false flag
scenario as well. Yeah. Definitely. I mean, I
think I think all you know, as we
say, stay vigilant because clearly, I think I
agree with you. I think that the logical
outcome here is that Israel will do something
to rat to justify what it's I mean,
it's not a secret. They've been screaming about
wanting this and having The US be the
group to carry it out for them for
for decades, I mean, on the surface. So
we should be definitely be keeping an eye
on that. Now the overlapping point of this,
obviously, is what's going on with Gaza. You
know, that clearly this I genuinely think that
because of the way they conducted this, this
is why the narrative is collapsing. Yeah. And
it's been coming for a long time, but
I think they shot themselves in both feet,
as we said earlier,
by conducting this in the most belligerent Columbia
office way ever. Yeah. Yeah. So, show a
couple of things for the audience to get
this is just as of today. This is,
antiwar.com.
Every day, they're doing these reports now, and
it's almost the same every day. Israeli tanks,
tanks strikes Gaza's only Catholic church, killing three,
injuring a priest. And this and what's interesting
is the it's a a priest that the
pope has been calling daily, and now they
struck this church and and and, you know,
apparently, it's causing this, rightly so, a huge
international thing. Israel spoke up and said, oh,
it was an accident because people you know,
when it happens that it gets enough tension,
they they respond to it. You know?
BBC reporting at least twenty killed in another
incident at the bat at the GHF food
lines in every day that's happening, and ninety
three killed in just last twenty four hours.
So, you know, what are your thoughts on
on, you know, what's going on with that?
What how it's possible that it can keep
continuing for a year even though we see
it? It's a crazy scenario. Yeah. So this
whole situation with Gaza,
has been
and this goes back to what we were
talking about with Zionism. Mhmm. And and so
what is incredible to me is
the degree to which you have to perform
some pretty complex mental gymnastics
to defend Israel's actions. Yep. But we have
people that have have felt a moral obligation
to do so because they do believe they
have to unconditionally support Israel in whatever Israel
does. Mhmm.
The second thing, and I can't remember who
first said this,
but somebody wrote a piece, and I don't
remember who it was now,
but I agree with the assertion that
Gaza
represents a method.
And so I do believe that on a
global scale,
we may all find ourselves Ghazans at some
point. I just I can't remember who who
originally wrote a piece in which they said
that. But,
and and that that to me was impactful
when I first came across, you know, someone
said that. I think I may have even
read the piece. I just don't remember when
it was.
Because
when you look at
the
the way in which Gazans have been treated,
and the way in which many people across
the globe have turned a blind eye to
it Mhmm. Or have
tried to contextualize it in some way in
which you make it either less horrific or
or you even justify it,
has been as, as sick as it is
also just kind of in some ways, like,
darkly insightful. And I say insightful because
not insightful in a good way, but that's
why I say darkly insightful because insightful that
you can make good people
rationalize some some pretty dark things if you
if you, you know, find a way to
do it. You know? I took that in
the sense that it's in I mean, it's
hard not to acknowledge what who these people
are. Mhmm. The insight you know, to be
able to have the, you know, insight on
the reality of what you know, just this
I mean,
I rarely would use something like the word
evil Mhmm. Because it's just not not an
objective term. Mhmm. But I don't know what
else to call something like this, you know,
and how anybody can be you know, tell
them I'm a I'm a call themselves a
Christian Zionist or any religion or have any
belief in these things and then turn around
and in any way. I don't care if
every single thing they've ever said about Palestine
is true. Rationalize killing this many children in
any way. You know? I don't care if
they are holding 75 guns each. It doesn't
matter that you know, it's it's a it
is counter to their belief structure. Mhmm. And
so that's where I think is causing one
of the biggest risks within that part of
the community. Sure. Is they're just going like,
you know, I could've gone along with you
if you had been doing this. Here's an
interesting point that I think Dave Smith made
in the,
debate a while back Mhmm. Is that
had Israel,
October,
went right to the UN, which, you know,
like, history they've never really done, but just
decided, you know what? We're gonna play this
differently, right to the UN and said, we
were attacked. We wanna go through the right
channels. They would have never needed support for
the rest of their life. I mean, it
would have it it's so and then they
could have gone on bombing and killing. Right?
But just going to them and acting like
they're going through the process, instead, they went
right genocide, right out of the gate, started
murdering children on day in daylight, and people
expecting the same old thing and people looking
the other way, but it just jarred people.
You know? And so had they gone the
right path, they clearly it they I they
would have succeeded incredibly. You know? But the
point is it just it jarred these people
to the point to where they can't keep
ignoring their the moral,
you know, absence. Yeah. So
it kinda reminds me of what we were
just talking about with the situation in Syria
or with the Druze, etcetera. So
and then I mentioned Azerbaijan. So we may
start to see
two blocks
kinda start to form. Right?
And I wonder if maybe what's going on
in Syria is so
have we have we are we now witnessing
Israel
break the ceasefire without breaking the ceasefire? So
in other words, we're going to initiate hostilities,
but we're not gonna do it directly against
Iran. Mhmm.
But we are gonna reinitiate hostilities,
and those hostilities eventually are going to spread.
Yeah. They did it in Lebanon. They do
it I mean, Craig Murray was highlighting that
from day one, the supposed ceasefire at Lebanon.
They broke that every day going forward. No
one even talks about that, and they still
never stopped it. But then the same with
God, so they broke that every time. But
so, like, you're saying, create having the conflict
kinda drive out from other points so it's
like they didn't break the ceasefire? Yeah. Yeah.
Exactly. So they haven't launched
new
missiles at Iran. Now they may. I mean,
just for all the
reasons you just said, like in fact, I
was gonna say earlier in the discussion, if
we see the the ceasefire broken,
I think there's a a much greater likelihood
that it would be broken by Israel. Yeah.
But
what could be happening is that Israel is
basically breaking it now. They're just not they're
not technically breaking it because they're not launching
Israel's or or, missiles at Iran,
but they're engaging in hostilities
that they know that some of their
historic enemies are going to react to And
perceive that way. And that's right. And they
are eliciting that reaction Right. Without launching missiles
directly at Iran. There's also the point you
made about,
reports. That's why I'm I briefly mentioned earlier
that I can't verify, I don't think anyone
has yet, that there's been events that have
happened since that, ceasefire,
bombings in certain areas that get dispute. Even
by I think even Iran has an interest
in going well either way, we're we're gonna
claim it's not them. Right? Right. Right. But
very well, I I feel makes sense. Even
the way it went down was one more
of these sleeper cells. And so your point
being from Iran's perspective, Israel never stopped attacking
them. Yeah. So I get that that makes
sense. But I don't think hit Iran has
been very I mean, they've shown restraint in
more ways than I could imagine going from
Syria, you know, any different many dynamics worth
basically showing that they will not react the
way that they want them to. They're not
gonna be belligerent. They'll wait, like you mentioned,
with the kind of possible back channel conversation.
They they, you know, let them move things
out of Cutter. They bomb Cutter afterward. You
know? I think that they won't is what
I'm getting at. I think that they're so
restrained enough. Now, one thing that I have
heard,
Colonel Douglas McGregor say in various and he's
given a lot of interviews the last couple
of weeks. Now,
I I I find myself listening to him,
a little bit more than I used to.
I used to because
I think from a military perspective,
he is very smart, and he knows exactly
what he's talking about, and he probably has
a lot of connections.
I sometimes have felt that his overall geopolitical
understanding has been a little bit lacking. Mhmm.
And I would attribute that to,
when you spend a long time in the
military,
you start to see things and this kinda
goes back to the the way that I
opened up the discussion, is that a lot
of times military service can actually,
negatively impact the way that you see the
world. Because you get locked into this geopolitical
construct in which the dominant actors on the
stage are sovereign nations. Mhmm. And and you
don't tend to think of, well, who's pulling
the strings behind these different nations? And even
if two nations go to war, is somebody
pulling the strings of the leaders of both
nations, you know, etcetera? Right. The the the
military tend because you are
you're an agent of your own government. I
mean, for nineteen plus years, I wore a
uniform that said US army. Right. It had
a US flag on it. I mean, I
mean, agent of the US government.
So you tend to think of,
well, The US does this, and our allies
do this, and we have adversaries out there
that do this. Mhmm. But I think that's
kind of a simplistic
geopolitical
construct. Definitely. So you you kinda have to
get away from that. So you have to
if you can use your military experience, or
I would say the same thing if somebody
worked in in other parts of the government
for a long time. If you can use
that to
inform the way in which you see things,
give you a a framework to perhaps interpret
them, but get rid of the baggage that
that
forces you or can,
suggest that you see things in a very
limited way. So, anyway, with with,
McGregor, there are times in which I felt
like,
he's still kinda he he has his his
geopolitical
view here is is still a little bit
limited. But more recently, I've actually
been more appreciative of some of the things
that he said. I feel like he's kinda
come out of that a little bit. I
think partisanship plays a factor. Sure. Yeah. But
in any case, I do think that one
thing that he has been saying recently that
I that I do think has been insightful
is,
Israel depleted a lot of their assets of
missiles. Mhmm. Okay? So it's so it's a
resource game. And at the end of the
day, you know, it's a math problem. Mhmm.
If I'm launching this number of missiles
and you can launch more back at me
Mhmm. Then I may run out of missiles
before before you do. You know, if you
have stockpiles that are larger than mine
so
what he was suggesting is
there may be a a a couple so
let's just say, perhaps there will be a
period of a couple of months that actually
gives Israel time to replenish their stockpiles. I
agree with that. Yeah. That I saw the
thought circulating as well, and I do I
think that's a at least a major part
of what happened. Mhmm. I also think that
it just was kind of a wake up
moment. I don't think Israel expected
Mhmm. Both things. I don't think they expected
as much
they didn't the the attack didn't succeed the
way they wanted it to. And that's, again,
assuming that then maybe that's the way it
was supposed to go. We consider that as
well. But I also don't think that if
this was just a genuine back and forth
that they expected the kind of response they
got or the ability to get through their
defenses. I think Iran completely
I mean,
if if their reports are true, I mean,
the Mossad headquarters, like, a couple of different
places, they claim they bombed Israel disputes. But
it seems as if the way they responded,
it was both the depletion but also just
that unless we get more support, we're not
gonna win this. And I think that's what
a lot of very educated military minds have
been saying that they unless Israel can't win
this. And I mean, arguably, even The US
wouldn't be able to with everyone else involved.
You know? Yeah. And so so if let's
just assume that is true for a moment.
And I'm not saying it's not, but let's
just go with that for a moment.
So here's what that means.
So Israel's own government or Netanyahu, whatever you
wanna call it, but if that's true and
we look at it that way,
then they engaged in some sort of strategic
brinkmanship
that took their country to the very edge,
to the brink.
Mhmm. And and kind of basically, they backed
themselves into a corner so The United States
would have to get involved. That's what it
feels like. But there are plenty of people
who who say that is exactly what happened.
Yeah. Well, I mean, that that's a very
plausible outcome. Yeah. It is plausible. It does
make sense, especially when you look at what
they've been doing over the last seventy years.
You know? And clearly, they
probably even less than that depending on when
that started, but just trying to drive The
United States against Iran in a thousand different
ways. So it does make sense. Now there's
another way to look at this too.
Now I understand there there there are debates
going on right now, and I I I
don't have an opinion on this one way
or the other, but,
there are people out there that dispute the
existence of nuclear weapons. You know? Okay. It's
an interesting thought. I've heard that Yeah. Logically.
I I don't know. Mhmm. Okay. So let's
just let's just assume they're a thing. You
know, they're real for a moment.
So if Israel gets into a war with
Iran or with any of its neighbors that
are much, much, much larger Mhmm. That Israel
can't defeat
in a conventional war, then their threshold in
which they have to go nuclear
could be lower. Mhmm. You know? And so
that's just another it's just another dynamic that
is part of this this scenario as well.
Well, again, with the with the, you know,
asterisk of of the asterisk of the possibility
that those don't exist, the idea,
is the Samson option. You've I'm sure you're
familiar with. You know? And the idea being
if you're not, we I Seymour Hersh wrote
a book about it. The point being that
Israel will there's different disputes on overall, but
launch nuclear weapons against everybody, including their allies,
should they recognize they were about to fall.
Mhmm. You know? And that's just and I've
heard that supported, but even just for, like,
a Wilkerson who, you know, has insight or
a,
I'm blanking on his name. Somebody's been making
the rounds, a former CIA
saying the same thing. John Kurukau. You know
what I'm saying? I've I've seen these people.
I've watched the way their intelligence operates. I
mean, there's some dark things they'll tell you,
you know? Yeah. And so it just makes
sense with larger pictures. But, yeah, question it
all. We definitely should. But all that being
said, I it makes sense to me that
this is about them trying to drive this
into reality. I think largely, my gut tells
tells me because they recognize that's where they're
inching toward. The Zionism has lost its influence.
People are questioning it like never before. Mhmm.
And I think they feel they need something
serious and jarring
to maybe shake us away from that. Sure.
Yeah. That terrifies me. It it is. It
is. I mean, the whole idea of the
Samsung auction auction is is is terrifying.
Nuclear weapons,
again, assuming they exist. And this is I
find that fascinating,
but I haven't looked into it enough to
to, you know, to make a determination one
way or the other. Mhmm. But I understand
why people so
I'm assuming this holds true for you too,
but I am
I'm I'm far enough down this road. I've
been playing this game long enough because I've
been researching this type of stuff for,
I I don't know, since, like, 02/2007. Mhmm.
So
I I no longer dismiss things just because
they sound farfetched. Yeah. That's Because they're not
called that intelligence. Yeah. There are too many
things
that are pretty crazy that I've come to
believe. So anyway Or that you could prove,
I would say too. Yeah. So, like,
with the whole nuclear weapons thing, just because
it's kind kind of fun. I mean, not
that nukes are fun, but just the idea.
Right? Right. Because on the one hand, I
could totally see
how
they're not real
and they've been used
to create I mean, the existence of nuclear
weapons was a huge pillar in the entire
geopolitical construct
that existed during, the Cold War. Yeah. But,
you know, mutually assured destruction and the fact
that, you know, The United States and The
Soviet Union are both, you know, nuclear powers,
etcetera.
So I could kinda see
why that,
that veneer
would would need to be there in order
to kinda prop up that It makes sense.
Construct. Yeah. You can see I mean, you
know, you could see an easy you know,
based on what we're even seeing today, a
world in which you have the Soviet Union
and United States who recognize that they're the
two pillar powers of the moment Yeah. Yeah.
And say, look. What if we just make
an agreement, you know, like, to create this
construct that will allow us to essentially rule
over everybody? I mean, that's not that a
farfetched word about the mind around. It's not.
But it comes down to the technology, which
I think is definitely worth everyone's time. You
know, everyone watching the show question everything. Right?
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. There's some interesting points that
are made. There's some very, very intelligent people
over the years that have done rounds and
talks everywhere where they're arguing, like, look. We
can prove this is not x, y, and
z. You know? And for me, it it's
hard. The only thing is there's of, like,
Pearl Harbor for a rather World War two
in general, the dropping of the bombs. You
know? That there's evidence that people point to,
but then there's the arguments of the the
like, here's a good point to make. There's
so many point directions to go in that,
like, you can look at, Hiroshima, and that
it's not
it's people things are growing back, and it's
okay. My point is, well, okay. You could
argue that means that it doesn't it's not
real, or you could argue that they we
just don't understand the repercussions, or maybe we've
under overestimated
it. You know? It's just that there's so
many nuance points to it. But what do
you think about it? Yeah. So there are
two books,
which I have not had a chance to
dig into Mhmm. Yet. But, one of them
is, which I have the book. I've acquired
the book. I just haven't I I just
got I haven't read it yet, but it's
by Michael Palmer, who I believe is a
German MD. Mhmm. And I think it's called
Hiroshima Revisited. It's it's I think it's Hiroshima
Revisited.
But
so from an MD's eyes, he looks at
kinda what happened in Hiroshima. Mhmm. Okay.
And then there's another one by a Japanese
author.
And again, I I haven't read the book
yet, but I'm aware of it. Trying to
get the book. I do wanna read it.
I think his name is Akio
Nakatani, maybe.
And that one is called,
Death Object, and then there's a subtitle, which
I don't recall off the top of my
head. But he also questions
whether or not nukes were used, in Japan.
So
I'm not saying they don't exist Mhmm. But
I am aware that there is an argument
out there being made by intelligent people that,
you know, that maybe they don't or or
or they don't or whatever.
But there's also
so even if they do exist, you know,
technology has advanced so far
in the last however many decades. Right? Mhmm.
That there are also devastating weapons that are
non nuclear. There are types of kinetic weapons
now that, you know, governments have that are
very, very powerful
and,
and should be taken into consideration when we
think of, like, a threshold
that could be met, you know, in a
in a conventional war where that war then
passes into a new phase and very devastating
weapons are used even if non nuclear. Yeah.
Well, I mean, there I mean, going back
to your point about, I forget which part.
We're talking about Gaza and well, just getting
a general point about testing and manipulation that
in Gaza, it's often used as a test
bed for new weaponry. Right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
They call it battle tested, and they sell
it. They're killing innocent people with it. You
know, the the argument being that there's been,
again, the question of whether that's what it
was or not, but,
what do they call them? Low yield or
tactical nukes Mhmm. That were tested in these
areas.
For example, the explosion that happened in Lebanon,
in Beirut. People argue that might have been
something like that, that they said was fertilizer,
which I find impossible to believe. But there's
a lot of different elements of that possibility.
But to your point, just this I mean,
at one at some point, a large enough
bomb, you know, it's it's about the fallout
that we're debating Yeah. Because there's large enough
bombs that, you know, that kill a lot
of people or even the point of, like,
a chemical or biological weapon Yeah. Which can
kill a hell of a lot more people
if it's done in a certain way. You
know? So the the the kinetic violence and
damage is still there either way, I think.
Yeah. I mean, there are weapons like the,
what they call the rod from God, which
is, like, basically Right. Yeah. Yeah. So, I
mean, it's like a like a telephone pole
made of tungsten.
That's crazy. You know? Yeah. I mean, it's,
you know, fired. I'm only right about that.
Anyway, yeah. So so its its impact is,
the force created by the impact is is
just incredibly devastating, but it's but it's not
nuclear. And it's just an object. Right? It's
just a, like, propelled yeah. That's that's interesting.
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So So, anyway, people can
look into that. But, yeah, it's just colloquially
called the the rod from god.
But I was gonna say, so
the so looking at weapons or or other
technology,
so I do think this is important.
So the military industrial complex. So this term
has been around for over sixty years. Right?
And, generally, when people think of the military
industrial complex, they think of these
large corporations
that create military hardware. I mean, someone's gotta
create tanks and bombs and aircraft carriers and
fighter
jets, you know, munitions,
you know, who builds submarines, etcetera. Right?
And I think that's all important. And if
we end up in a very large war,
military hardware will continue to be very important.
However,
we do need to update our understanding of
what the military industrial complex is. Agreed. Because
in 2025,
it you gotta understand the importance of data
and metadata. And so, it's not just Lockheed
Martin,
Raytheon,
but it's also Palantir that has, you know,
gained so much notoriety recently.
Anduril, there are other companies out there, you
know, like Oracle or whatever, but there, you
know, there there are some of these that
are very powerful, and these are,
make no mistake, these are a crucial part
of the military industrial complex nowadays.
Absolutely. I mean, I think that's where it's
all going, quite frankly. And and it's such
an important point to make right now that,
you know, I even I even make kind
of a similar point in the in the
point of, like, surveillance that a lot of
people are stuck with, like, you know, listening
devices and cameras, and we are so far
beyond that. Yeah. Yeah. It's, like, almost irrelevant.
You know, your phone is right there, or
it's, like, Wi Fi mapping your house. We're
so far beyond this. That same kind of
thing is that, you know, we're focusing on
the kinetic side of it, but people are
arguing that even today that we're sort of
beyond that. Or even the idea of, like
like you mentioned earlier, fifth generation warfare as
opposed to even, like, deploying soldiers where it's
just, like, higher or drones. You know, we're
gonna do a whole new level of this
where we can, like, fundamentally change the way
we perceive how these work. And point being,
we can be played
with those things. You know, like you're talking
about, we could be looking at something else
while the real thing's happening over here. I
think it's a big part of that. So,
you've probably heard maybe you've even commented on,
the, the AI system that the Israelis use
called Lavender? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Or Havsora. They
they used to see. Okay. So so you're
so you're aware of that. Maybe even your
audience has heard you talk about it, or
they've heard others comment on it. And there's
a lot of information out there that people
can just search, and they'll find about that.
So
so
two things that I I I wanna mention.
One of them is is this is a
lot of conjecture on my part,
but I'm still gonna mention it.
So the Department of Defense,
I don't know, maybe five or six weeks
ago,
they made an announcement that they were going
to decrease
the number of generals and admirals that we
have at the top. Now just so people
know, we have a large military. I said
earlier, if you take into account all the
guard and reserve troops, it's over 2,000,000. So
it's we have a large force. Mhmm.
So we maintain billets. Just on the active
duty side, we maintain billets across all services
for a total of about 600 generals and
admirals. Sometimes we go above that number,
but they're they're we maintain about 600 billets
for generals or admirals, one to four star.
What's a billet? It's like a position. Okay.
So, like, positions for about 600. Okay. Generals
or admirals, one to four star. Okay. Active
duty. That's including an army, navy, all of
them. You know, a total of about 600
guys,
whether they're a one star, two star, three
star, four star. Okay. That's a lot.
People have said,
rightfully so,
hey. Our military during World War two was
much larger, and we had less generals and
admirals at the top. Maybe we're too top
heavy. Okay. Great. Maybe we are. Mhmm. So
so
a couple of weeks ago, whenever it was
five or six weeks ago,
DOD came out and said, we're gonna relook
this. We're gonna we're gonna decrease the number
of generals and admirals we have at the
top.
Now maybe that's a good thing. Maybe maybe
that should happen. Maybe it should happen a
long time ago. Mhmm. But there's a part
of me that says,
okay.
Maybe we should is there another reason that
they're doing this? Mhmm. And
is it because we're gonna get to a
point where we need less
human decision makers at the top? Yes. Now
that's conjecture on my part. Yeah. But those
are the types of questions that we at
least need to entertain. I 100% agree with
that. I mean, right now, it's very obvious
that that's the direction that the world is
going in, that The US and China seem
to be driving everyone towards. Right? Clearly, and
a lot of other groups too. But so
the obvious point is that
they're gonna have less need for people in
those positions. Israel's demonstrating that right now. They're
showing that, you know, in the background in
in in other conversations.
But I agree with you, and I think
that that's whether or not that's why that's
happening Yep. I absolutely agree that's where we're
going. And I think that right now,
you know, it's also I mean, one other
thought I would add to it is that
it also might just be that there are
people with certain mindsets
in leadership that might be a problem with
where things go. Yeah. That'd be my conjecture
added. So I'm I'm I I totally understand
all of the, quote, unquote, normal and maybe
even positive reasons as to why you might
reduce the the top heaviness
of our force. I totally get it. And
maybe that's all it is. Mhmm.
But because I trust so little of what
the government does, which is with the military
Yeah. I I have to ask, you know,
some of these these hard questions of, okay.
But is there because it's easy for them
to sell the idea. They can easily sell
the idea. Or to your point, it could
be both. It could be both. Right. But
here's another dot. So, also a couple of
weeks ago,
the army put out
that there were four guys
from the tech world, but specifically AI Mhmm.
That they were going to bring into the
military.
And they,
and these four guys, no military experience, no
prior military experience,
they all come from, you know, important
AI corporations,
and these guys have been commissioned
as lieutenant colonels in the army reserves.
Now, for those who aren't familiar with the
military, let me explain why this is so
weird. Okay?
So
DOD so the terms DOD, the Department of
Defense, and the military,
they're they're, like, mostly synonymous. You can kinda
use them interchangeably,
but they're not exact synonyms. Mhmm. And DOD
is technically larger than the military. Okay? Because
you have a lot of civilians that work
for
DOD. So even I sometimes use the the
terms
interchangeably, but they're not exactly synonymous.
And you can you can be a civilian
who works for DOD. There are many civilians
who do work for DOD. Mhmm. So do
we have engineers that work in research and
development? Yeah. Sure. Do we have other
scientists or other guys that come from, from
a very technically nuanced background
that are employed by DOD? They're they've they
work full time for DOD. Yes. Of course.
Mhmm.
You know, people know about DARPA. Right. Or
anyway. Okay.
My point is,
if you want to bring let's assume that
you think,
well, we have to be on the cutting
edge of AI because our adversaries are whatever.
Let's assume we accept that argument. Right?
And then I can understand why you would
say
within the DOD apparatus,
we need smart guys that are on the
cutting edge of AI.
Okay?
But why do they why do they have
to have
ranks? Why do they have to wear the
uniform? Right. So here is the one thing
that I can think of, and I'm I
I know I'm not the only person to
say this.
There may be other reasons, but the one
thing that stands out at me is
guys who are in the military
are now in the structure of giving and
receiving orders,
and so they can now give orders. Right.
Now they're they're not active duty. They're in
the reserves.
But in terms of being a lieutenant colonel,
the way the military looks at that is
if you're a lieutenant colonel, you're a lieutenant
colonel. Right. Doesn't matter whether you're in the
reserves, whether you're in the guard, or whether
you're active duty. And so, like, I was
a lieutenant colonel, and I served for nineteen
years and four years at West Point before
that. Mhmm. And it took me
so it took me seventeen years to to
to make lieutenant colonel,
and these guys have made it with with
no military experience whatsoever. Mhmm. And so now
they're at a,
so if you're in the army and you're
a lieutenant colonel, what does that mean? That
means you outrank far, far more people than
than outrank you. Yeah. The only people who
outrank you are generals, you know, one to
four star, or colonels.
So anyway so again,
I think this is something that we we
we gotta keep an eye on. Like, what's
going on here? I I 100% agree. It's
funny that you that that was gonna be
the point that I wanted to finish up.
So this is I'm glad you bring it
up. And, honestly, we already pretty much went
over the the that general point. And I
I did a show on this. I simply
called it detachment two zero one, technocracy in
uniform. Yeah. Right? That's how I see this.
Is it really I mean, we've all been
talking I mean, you mentioned Palantir, you know,
the idea of you know, even if you
don't like the word technocracy, just an idea
of, like, these technological the way they view
themselves elites Yeah. Technological elitists who think that
they know better. You know? And there's a
whole weird overlap with Eugenics to all this.
The point is that, you know, as you're
highlighting, you have Palantir's
CTO, Meta, and OpenAI, right, becoming lieutenant colonels.
It blew my mind. That was the point
that I highlighted as well. Military uniform. I
mean, this this is the exact thing that
I've been watching for is the transition
away from the current structure into, you know,
people like this being actual whether politicians
or actual military enforcers. I mean, that's where
we are now. Yeah. And so I'm very
worried about where this is going and whether
we're watching let's just end on this point.
Do you think that this is bigger than
just a transition and more so about some
kind of a coup?
That's an interesting question. Okay. Let let me
ask what you mean a coup by whom
against whom? Well, it's again just one thought
of it. I the way I framed it
in a recent show was the Zionist technocratic
coup of the United States. Mhmm. So I
see a multifaceted kind of a thing going
on with again, as we kinda discussed earlier,
that there a lot of these things are
in line, but not all in the same
line with everything. Right? But I would argue
if we're talking about it specifically in that
point, it would be some kind of technocratist,
elitist structure. Yeah. In this case, I could
see a Palantir overlap that the Marc Andreessen's
and Carps and and Anduril, these kind of
groups that are, you know, in a for
a very long time, have had a hell
of a lot of influence on politics, who
have, for whatever reason, decided they have enough
momentum, enough control, and influence to just essentially
take over. And so what I'm seeing is
the Elon Musk representation
as well as OpenAI, but then Palantir, JD
Vance, like, through this administration. Yeah. And I
add Zionism because I think it's part and
parcel with this. It's it's, you know, same
with the globalist idea. But that general structure
sort of taking this like, this is the
administration where there's shifting into place. That's how
I would look at it. But in a
broad way, it's hard to Yeah. Yeah. It's
a good question. So here's what I would
say. A couple thoughts.
I don't entirely disagree. I think it's a
good question. I there there are maybe some
points of that I might quibble with. Mhmm.
So,
and the reason I asked the question, a
coup by whom, against whom, and even with
that, the important part of that is the
against whom. So I kinda think
that we have been
undergoing, like, a coup arc for a for
a long period of time. Mhmm. And I
think that that coup arc
is
is punctuated
by certain discrete events
that occur along that arc. Mhmm. We could
look at, you know, obviously, the COVID operation.
We could look at nine eleven.
We could look at even things like,
like the assassination of JFK. If you wanna
go back further, you could look at things
like, you know, 1913 and the Fed, you
know, etcetera, etcetera. Right. But there are these
so the coup arc has been around for
a long time, but then there are these
discrete events that, like, move us into a
new phase of the arc. Mhmm. So in
that regard,
I don't know if I would necessarily characterize
this. I mean, you might be right, but
I'm just I'm just thinking where I might
quibble a little bit is I don't know
if I would characterize this as a kind
of a a one and done type coup.
Mhmm. But it could definitely be
another one of these events
along an already existing coup arc that takes
us into a news a new phase. Yeah.
And and that I would not disagree with
because I do believe that we're we are
moving into
a phase of technocracy. And you mentioned, hey.
Maybe people out there take issue with the
word technocracy, and maybe they do, but I
don't. Yeah. That's a word that I use.
Right. I mean, they're self avowed techno it's
more about maybe people maybe don't understand what
it means in the explosive sense, you know,
or that it that we've been propagandized against
it. Yeah. But I think that's obviously a
very real thing with tonight Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
I mean, they you know, like I said,
many of them self describe. Mhmm. Mhmm. And
I also think that there is this
that technocracy
and
transhumanism,
that there there is an inextricable
link between those two. Yeah. I agree. And
in fact,
just by way of maybe kinda wrapping up
this whole discussion, I'll give a I'll give
a book recommendation out there for people. And
it's it's actually a work of fiction.
So people,
I I have long said people gotta read.
Like, Americans, we don't read enough. Yes. And,
also,
when you read,
you can't just read articles. And I'm not
saying articles are bad. I mean, I I
write a lot of Substack posts and people
write great op eds. That's not my point.
Mhmm.
But you have to read books because a
book is different than even a very scholarly,
well defended article. Because the argumentation that you
put into place in a 300 page book
or whatever, right, compared to even a very
dense,
information rich, very well put together article, it's
still very different. Mhmm. And as Americans,
a lot of people are losing the intellectual
stamina
to read a book. Wow. And I, for
a long time, was reading almost exclusively nonfiction.
Mhmm. And I still read more nonfiction than
fiction. Mhmm.
But I've started to go back and read
more fiction. I think there's a lot that
you can read in fiction that will supplement
what you're reading in nonfiction. Yeah. I agree
with that. So,
recently, over the last two years or so,
I've been reading a lot of the dystopian
literature. Now I had read nineteen eighty four
previously. Okay?
But I but and and that's, like, the
granddaddy of the dystopian works. Right? Okay.
So if you haven't read nineteen eighty four,
read nineteen eighty four, but that's not actually
my book recommendation.
I'm I'm I'm I'm, I'm building up to
it. If you haven't read Brave New World
Mhmm. Read that one too because you need
to understand, like, the hard approach and the
soft approach. Now there are and and and
Brave New World represents that kind of soft
approach, you know, where you you grow to
love your servitude. Right. Right. Now there are
people who will tell you that, you know,
George Orwell, whose real name was Eric Blair,
or Aldous Huxley, they will tell you, hey.
These guys aren't so much warning you as
much as they are. They are globalists, and
they're telling you the insider plan. Right.
Not my point. Regardless Mhmm. They are still
very, very valuable. Right. Right. Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit
four fifty one. Mhmm. You know, a great
book. In fact, of those three, that one's
probably my favorite. Oh, yeah. But there is
another one that people are less familiar with,
and it came out of Russia in the
nineteen twenties. It's a 100 year old novel,
and it's called We, w e. I've heard
of that. Okay? So so here's there are
a couple reasons why I would recommend that
people read it, and particularly right now.
So it predates
1980 well, both Brave New World and and
1984. Mhmm. So I think Brave New World
was published in 1932, and,
1984 was either in '48 or '49. I
forget. Yeah. But,
and then,
Fahrenheit April was in the early fifties, maybe
'53.
But
we is from the early twenties. I think
it was published in 1924.
Interesting. So it was written
in
the the, like, in the Russian revolution during
that time period by a Russian author named
Yevgeny Zamiatin,
and the manuscript
was smuggled out of the Soviet Union and
was actually published first in The United States,
I think, in 1924. It's funny. I've only
I think I've only heard this once, but
it's it's ringing true. I've heard this vague
story. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. This out. So
so I'll explain why it's important. So
so then the so first of all, it's
written kind of in these early years of
what would become the Soviet Union. Mhmm. And
in fact,
supposedly, it was the first work that was
actually censored by the Soviet Union. So, obviously,
the manuscript is written in Russian, but it's
first published in English.
And I believe, if I remember this correctly,
the first copies in Russian of the novel
weren't from the original manuscript, but they were
Russian translations
of the English translation
of the original manuscript. It it it'd be
interesting to compare those two in Russian. Anyway
Interesting. It would not actually be published in
The Soviet Union until the eighties. So, you
know, sixty years after it was written. Mhmm.
But why is this so important? So first
of all,
George Orwell
said that he was influenced heavily by this
novel. Mhmm. And and the two plot lines
are actually quite similar.
But
the novel, what it posits is a a
a futuristic society. It's called One State. Mhmm.
But it is
it is ruled by
basically math, like mathematical principles.
Okay?
So in that way, what you would say
is it's it's it is a society
kind of as utilitarian as you could get
Mhmm. As rationalistic as you could get,
and,
mathematically optimized. Mhmm. You know? And so the
the, the protagonist in the novel who has
no name,
he goes by d five zero three. So
all the characters in the novel, they don't
have names. They just go by, like, a
combination of letters and numbers. Oh, interesting. And
he's d five zero three. He is a
mathematician, but more specifically, he is a, he's
a spaceship engineer.
Okay?
Anyway, I'm not gonna tell any more about
the plot,
just because I do think people should read
it. But
but this novel is a 100 years old,
and and there are moments in the novel
that are quite philosophical, where you start talking
about the importance of math and what it
means to
regiment a society along mathematical principles. Mhmm. But
if you were to update that thought Mhmm.
Modernize that thought by a century, and you
look at where we're at now,
well, we would call that governance by
algorithm or governance by AI. I mean, that
is that is where we are headed. You
know? What does the algorithm tell
the state that it should do, etcetera. So
anyway Very interesting.
You know, these are some 100 year old
ideas that that I I I think
should resonate with us now. So, anyway, so
I
I offer that out there for everybody listening.
So Yevgeny Zamiatan is the author. You can
easily find it. The name of the novel,
again, is We. Well, thanks for recommendation. I'm
definitely gonna check that out. A couple ending
thoughts.
Derek wrote an article called Doge, is efficiency
a gateway to technocracy?
I used Elon Musk's face over,
I forget his first name. Name was Taylor.
He was responsible what's called Taylorism, which was
a precursor to technocracy and the efficiency movement.
And so it's interesting if you look back
to that point, it's the same idea. It's
about he carried a pocket watch. It would
walk around, like, timing people and just trying
to shave off seconds, and it's kind of
an interesting overlap as well as, the point
just to give someone
an article or rather a show to watch
based on that last point. James Corbett did
a show called called Algocracy
government for the new world order. Right. Right.
And it's just about governments by algorithm. That's
right. I recently actually did a show too
called,
a, it was called the impending future of
AI government, but then the kind of additional
point behind it was but who controls the
AI. Sure. Right? Sure. So it's just yeah.
I'm with you, man. We're going in a
very dangerous direction, and it seems that regardless
of the flavor, all the power structures are
going in that that direction. You know? So
that's kind of the larger point again than
it seems like we're just being played off
each other to get to a point to
the the power structures you want. That's right.
That's right. But it's just it's such an
insightful conversation, man. I always enjoy talking with
you. I think that this, you know, gives
people kind of a glimpse into the way
you see the world and and, you know,
you see things and have understood things and
been involved with things that a lot of
people haven't. And so I really appreciate you
giving us that insight, having this conversation. We
should definitely do it again. Anything else you
wanna leave anybody with before we wrap up
today? Yeah. I just the last thing I'll
say just as we talk about that is,
you know, with this novel, we, it's what
you you you can't argue against math. Yeah.
You know, math is immutable. Right. And you
can already see people are making the same
arguments now, but you you can already see
how the narrative writes itself.
You can't you can't argue against the AI.
Right. You know? So,
it is a brave new world that we
are we are moving into. I have heard
that term algocracy that you mentioned that, that
Corbett had used. So, yeah, we gotta keep
our eyes open. It's important that we're constantly
refining our strategic assessments Mhmm. So that we
can because things are moving really fast. Yeah.
And I don't think they're gonna slow down.
So, anyway, thanks for inviting me. Glad to
be here in studio with you once again,
and, thanks for all you do, brother. Thanks,
man. And I'll I'll leave us with a
thought then. And feel free to comment since
that we didn't get into this of Elon's
America party and kind of that direction and
people are already going, like AI algorithm. Like,
they, you know, that maybe that's where they
go with that because Yeah. You could see
a portion of the population that would base
just like we were saying before because they're
only focused on the current problems, go like,
yes. That seems like a solution to our
deal dealing with right now. Yeah. Yeah. So
that's, you know as always, guys, question everything.
We have to be in a position where
we are critical of everything, including what we
think we know. And, you know, this is
just why it's important. And I'm glad that,
you know, you've been on this path for
a long time, brother, and I'm honored to
be here talking with you. So thanks again.
Likewise. Thanks, man. As always, question everything. Come
to your own conclusions. Stay vigilant.
We annually spend on military
security alone
more than the net income of all United
States corporations.
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment
and a large arms industry is new in
the American experience.
The total influence,
economic,
political,
even spiritual,
is felt in every city,
every state house, every office of the federal
government.
We recognize the imperative need for this development,
yet we must not fail to comprehend
its grave implications.
Our toil,
resources, and livelihood are all involved.
So is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government,
we must car guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence
whether sought or unsought
by the military industrial complex.
The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced
power exists
and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this
combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
We should take nothing for granted,
only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry
can compel
the proper meshing of the huge industrial and
military machinery of defense
with our peaceful methods and goals,
so that security and liberty may prosper together.
As we peer into society's future,
we,
you and I,
and our government
must avoid the impulse to live only for
today,
plundering for our own ease and convenience
the precious resources of tomorrow.
We cannot mortgage
the material assets of our grandchildren
without risking the loss also of their political
and spiritual heritage.
We want democracy to survive for all generations
to come,
not to become the insolvent fan of tomorrow.