Free speech and then there's hate speech.
And there is no place, especially now, especially
after what happened to Charlie in our society.
My position,
is that even hate speech should be completely
and totally allowed in our country. The most
disgusting speech should absolutely be protected.
As soon as you were use the word
hate,
that is a very subjective term.
Because then all of a sudden, it is
in the
eyes or the
it is in the
implementation of whomever has the power.
Do you see
more law enforcement going after these groups who
are using hate speech and putting cuffs on
people so we show them that some action
is better than no action. We will absolutely
target you, go after you. If you are
targeting anyone
with hate speech, anything, and that's across the
aisle.
And so the minute that you start to
enforce speech laws like they do in Europe
based on specific political opinions,
regardless of how reprehensible they are, then you
actually give credence them. Let me be very
clear. Bring your bad ideas publicly,
so decent people can cross examine you, so
we can see who you are, we can
talk to you, and convince the public otherwise.
There's free speech, and then there's hate speech.
And there is no place, especially now, especially
after what happened to Charlie in our society.
It starts with a simple question
and ends in objective reality. Reality.
Through our journey from there to here,
we find one another
and ourselves.
And as the next twenty four hours
breaks free from our last,
we gaze onward in reflection of the day.
Tell me your own questions. Tell me your
own answers. To stay in joy.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
09/18/2025.
Thank you for joining me today. Definitely an
important follow-up. This is a very, very important
topic for this country right now more than
ever. You know, I mean, at least in
in my experience, living memory from what I
you know, it it's important to remember that
we don't
I personally
have been aware of a lot of political
things my entire life. I feel like I've
been paying attention, maybe some more than the
average person, but I was just going through
some other topics. And I recognized,
you know, like around, like, Obama and before
where I'm realizing, you know, I'm much, much
more politically immersed now than I was then.
And so it's fair for me to say,
well, you know, I I I can't speak
to those things like I can about these
things today. I have insight, you know, recognizing
that. Just interesting thought to share. But, you
know, this has been going on a long
time. And my point in saying that is
that maybe in in
other generations, there could have been something at
this level or before more so in my
experience,
me doing this as I've been focused,
it it it's more intense than I've seen.
And building off of previous administrations left and
right, we talked about this during the ongoing
immigration,
Khalil,
Garcia
or, Brago Garcia,
Ozturk,
very, very early in the specific examples. And
what did I say at that point? Because
this is the most important issue happening, and
this is the constitutional crisis we're dealing with.
This has just only gotten worse. It's only
rapidly continued.
And and, really, it's it's an ongoing issue.
Charlie Kirk is the battleground they've chosen to
put to to to wage this fight against
our our constitutional rights.
And so it's important to recognize that that's
it's not this one instance alone. And that
if if it wasn't for the effort to
use his name to drive these things forward,
right now, this story should we we should
ultimately moving on to other things going on
in the world. It's horrible. This happened.
It's a disgusting re the reality that people
are driven to such violence.
And if this guy is indeed the shooter,
we'll get into some weird anomalies today, then
this would ultimately be the culmination of that
story. Now the peep people can use this
going forward to try to drive in different
agendas.
My point in saying all of this is
that even I said in the beginning of
this that it's important that we cover this,
that we know the larger points, but it's
it's so obvious how these things happen. And
even even
somebody like myself, on guard to these kind
of things, it's it kind of absorbs every
part of the conversation.
And even as you know, it it would
I wouldn't be doing you a service if
I, like, went out of my way to
not talk about this.
And it's not like we're gonna go through,
you know, tooth and you know, all the
little detailed points. There's plenty of people out
there doing that, but it's impossible to not
have this conversation today because it is foundational
to what we've been covering the entire time
I've ever been doing this. Free speech, constitutional
rights, liberty,
all of which are right now being rapidly
undermined at the very least using Charlie Kirk's
name,
which obviously is a if you believe what
you just heard him say, which I believe
like, I I put it this way. I
question everybody
and their intentions. Ultimately, it's very rare you
truly know for sure what someone's they'll tell
you, but you you know, you question these
things. But I do believe he meant those
things. I do believe he believed in the
idea of that he was laying out about
free speech. But like a lot of us,
we can get manipulated. We could get, you
know, influence, and and funding can play factors
depending on how strong your principles are. And
if you make sense of the last part
of this story, if if the way it
does appear to be increasingly to this very
day fleshing out more and more so that
he was changing his opinions,
then that adds to that point.
Right? But so it's at this point, it's
it's a really
again, that's a that's a story that is
going to be there for no one's gonna
ever really know for sure. It's all gonna
be our opinions is the best way to
say that. So all I'm saying is to
consider that if that is what you believe
he his opinion is, and I think it's
pretty clear that based on everything we have,
that's most likely, and then the right clearly
thinks that, then how do you make sense
of the actions following this?
It's insulting to your intelligence if you are
talking about free speech and believe that you're
fighting for his memory and then using his
memory to
cancel people,
censor people,
surveil people,
threaten people. I mean, just every single thing
that he would have told you he was
fighting.
I just find that insulting at the very
least, the very beginning of this conversation. And,
obviously, it's much more alarming when you realize
that it's being used in real time to
roll out the same things we've been fighting
left and right, pretty much as far back
as you wanna look in this conversation. It's
always been an incremental problem. So today, we're
gonna focus on this in this kind of
sprawling larger conversation and how he's being used
in all this in a very despicable way.
And we'll we're gonna go over some points
in the beginning that I think are relevant
that I actually do argue play into this,
if not only because I think the Epstein
story is, like,
very clearly getting a a back seat because
of this. We'll touch on some stuff around
that updates on some things you might have
missed in the in the Akash Patel, very
embarrassing exchange where he is just out of
his league in front of congress, and and
Thomas Massie, a couple good points, show you
that he's lying to you. I mean, I
don't know how you can watch these videos
and come away with anything other than he's
at least holding information he doesn't want you
to see. I argue he's lying to the
American people. We'll talk about some updates in
foreign policy just in the a quick quick
opening segment
for you to see in regard to two
things and a couple of updates around Israel
and Gaza that are relevant to the larger
picture.
We're gonna talk about an important article that
Whitney wrote for the last American vagabond in
2020 called who is a terrorist in Biden's
America.
Very relevant right now in Trump's America.
And, really, if you're paying attention and, really,
the point of the article, it's not about
one side or the other, but it's about
who they decide to cream this way, which
builds one part of the narrative, and then
the other side comes in and using the
counterbalance, the pushback
that's rat that justified because we have to
stop that thing, which builds back the other
side. Both paradigms, like Corbett says, the stepping
stones, build it into a position where we
almost both sides call for their own subjugation
while thinking they're only calling for the other
side to be held accountable.
It's I mean, it is just getting cartoonish,
like like kindergarten level obvious at this point.
So I'm gonna read this article and make
sure you guys can see not only Whitney's,
you know, prescience in this conversation with seeing
where this was going, but understand how this
is exactly where we are, and it's now
happening from Trump's side. And then knowing what
we're always talking about, that it's really just
a person in position, and it's the two
party illusion of it all, and how that's
building into surveillance. Now this is a really
important point for today.
Very much has this rapidly it's just a
springboard, as I said the other day, for
all of this stuff, surveillance, censorship,
everything that was already happening before, including putting
aside those larger stories.
But we're gonna talk about something off that
article that we that Whitney and I talked
about many times. And I was right about
her name, by the way. I kept remembering.
I wasn't sure.
Elizabeth Newman is n e u a, n
e u m a n n
and what she said.
In fact, I've actually realized I think I
was gonna actually start with that clip. Let
me play it really quickly. Oh, you know,
since I didn't start with it, let me
wait till I get the article and I'll
play that for you. But where she says,
we see another 911 Building and we just
don't know how to stop it. What is
she talking about? Domestic terrorism. But, of course,
only on the right wing side of it.
But it's the same trappings. It is the
same setup to where it can be applied
to anybody within a category of, let's say,
challenging government narratives or
questioning government authority
or
politically incorrect comments, which is what they're going
after now or racism or all the things
we're talking about, which are being applied right
now under the guise of five. Going after
people who are incensored about Charlie Kirk as
if that's not obviously protected speech.
All of it really is if you understand
what it really means to a free speech.
You don't even need to say absolutist because
it really just means the same thing, but
it's a point to make today that that's
where I'm airing on. I'm I'm trying to
set up a panel right now for the
IMA
about that point to get really into the
weeds about it and talk about my point
about at least that we should have the
conversation
going back to fire in a theater, going
back to even claims of threats and violence.
And whether or not today, especially with where
we are, that should be considered something that's
actionable.
It's I think it's an important conversation. A
fire in a theater, I think that's that
needs to be we need to make sure
we talk about that. I'm not even sure
where I stand at this point in regard
like, if somebody says, like, I wanna kill
you or that person should be killed, the
question is whether or not that should be
something that is you know, they can come
arrest you for. I I mean, if you're
if you're gonna be very clear about the
principle, then it shouldn't it should be no.
And if they commit a crime, well, then
that person should be held accountable for that
crime. But I know people disagree with that.
But I think just having this conversation and
putting a fine point on it, even just
saying this is important to make you think.
But I wanna make sure we have that
panel so we can really get into the
deep the depth of it all. My point
in all of that is that what her
argument was, Newman, was that they weren't violating
their rights or rather their the law.
They're acting within their rights, and that's why
we can't get them. It was her
basically, her argument was we need to remove
the barriers, which are constitutional rights, to go
after people that we know are, wink, wink,
thinking about doing crime. But they're saying it
in a way that we can't go after
them for it. It was all building to
this point, guys. And you're gonna I'm gonna
make this very clear as we go through
today, which now, from this point forward, now,
obviously, building in even right before Charlie Kirk
to the Israeli made AI precrime,
Gideon, which is rolling out as we speak.
If not, I argue already there. We're gonna
talk about The UK convergence in this conversation,
which if you're paying attention was already there,
but it's being thrust into your face now
with the special relationship of The United States
that, you know, if any other context remember
when when they first floated the idea of
this special relationship
and the idea that they might be a
part of this, and we're like, well, isn't
that just globalism right in your face? Of
course, people talked about it. They called it
out. Jones said it would be $17.76
all over again. Here we are. How much
do you wanna bet? They're simply going, this
means we're winning. Everyone's working with Trump now.
We're doing well even though it is exactly
what we were talking about. We'll go into
that. We'll go into the fact that The
UK has already partnered with Palantir, how The
UK is folding in all of the same
things if, again, all not we're already there.
This is a public display of this technocratic
overlap, the biodigital convergence we've talked about.
And of course, we'll talk about the the
discussion of how this kind of overlaps with
the current actions of speech
suppression, and obviously the overlap with Israel that's
also there, which is important to point out
and why this is not even hard to
see.
Oh, that's interesting. Okay. Sorry. I understand I
lost something all of a sudden. Make sure
you guys are still there. I'll get into
what happened yesterday very briefly before we start
just so you guys it's frustrating to explain
that for the video for people yesterday that
didn't know, but we'll touch on it quickly.
But from that point into
Cyberwell
and the basically, using the argument of Charlie
Kirk and racist we're not even racist. It's
more so insensitive,
you know, p lefty political political
violence kind of conversation.
Very, you know, car car carved out as
one part of a larger thing we've always
been talking about and saying we have to
stop them, but it's only this kind with
this person in this category.
And then, of course, we overlap with Cyberwell,
which is a group going after, like, the
same exact thing, but around antisemitism.
And is now scoring Internet, looking for them,
and making lists and, you know, exactly like
they're doing around Charlie Kirk. Or maybe they're
both the same thing, and you've been tricked
into thinking that's what you were doing. We'll
talk about that and the censorship that continues.
And regardless of what you think you were
doing, how is that something we
allow
as constitutional?
Or how about Elon Musk screaming about doxxing
and then not doing a damn thing about
the ongoing doxxing? You know, they're all it's
very clear this is a one-sided
political agenda, and I don't even mean left
versus right to make that clear.
We'll talk about the update of the websites,
by the way, that are no longer there
in regard to the doxing.
Quite interesting overlap of Oracle and The US
entities buying TikTok because we told you how
this would go down. It's a big dangerous
bad thing that we must stop unless we
own it. Now we're back on track. Obvious
how this always goes and how that warps
in with the kind of media control of
everything. We're gonna start with a point about
that. And then we're gonna talk about some
updates in regard to what happened in the
shooting and some updates in regard to the
Israel overlap to it and many other points
we'll probably get into. I'll leave it there
to start.
But first, oh, and just this, this is
the clip we started with. Shout out to
Descentrate News. I I cut it down to
make it short for the beginning, but it's
a great clip just showing you the blatant
hypocrisy of the of the partisan sides.
Now one thing I'll say before we keep
going that I thought was interesting, it kinda
what I was saying about the carved out
point of the one side of this, I
keep noticing this. If you look back long
enough, and if you're nonpartisan,
aware of both sides or, you know, whether
they're varying degrees of how crazy or what
how, you know, overlapping and teeter tottering throughout
the decades, because it does change during COVID.
The left was way more crazy, in my
opinion, but the point is it gets kind
of oscillates in their own ways. The point
is that as I lose that all of
a sudden,
just oh, I guess the larger point is
that over the the years, if you watch
this long enough, oh, that's what it was.
If you're nonpartisan and objective and just kind
of watch as it goes throughout the decades,
you'll notice that this kind of a pattern
arises.
Just taking COVID, for example, or even more
specifically, like the woke censorship and the overlap
of the trans agenda. What did you get?
You get this kind of
absurdly
broad
kind of overlap of just, like, you know,
woke censorship is what it was called. And
we all agree. I mean, anybody objective and,
you know, aware of constitutional rights, left or
right, or aware of the illusion of both,
called it out. Right? Right? And so the
point was it was very broad, and it
was kinda just like you can't say things
we don't like. That's insulting. That's offensive. And
it it was almost meant to be like,
that's childishly stupid. Okay? Then it got pushed
back, and it still existed. And then, of
course, what happens is we get the right
that steps in. And we're seeing it right
now, but it's been going on more than
just this immediate moment where what they do
is they come in, and I'm talking about
the the power structures, not the average conservatives
and liberals. They come in and they and
they kinda thrust a a more specific version,
in this case, like, just antisemitism,
right, or just about Charlie Kirk, but in,
like, a way more intensive way. And so
and then it kinda builds out this problem.
Right? They both come together. That's what I
was saying before. And so all this does
is it creates this kind of counterbalance where
both sides kick back and it just keeps
kicking the agenda further and further down the
line. But I just want you to think
about that. You can look at any of
these things, and it seems to be the
same kind of pattern.
And it's not the it's not the this
is what I want you to think about,
guys. It's not the peoples behind this. Yes.
They're part of it. There's far too many
willful morons out there. Just go along with
whatever the team says, the party pushes, or
the people they like say. But I think
the majority of people are somewhere more in
the middle, and I think it's important to
see how that's played back and forth. Now
before we get started,
two more things I wanna say.
I think a very important thing today that
we need to make sure I think that
I would argue that it's paramount to what's
going on. I think every single issue we
see right now, every single one of them,
maybe it's always been this way, can make
look back, it makes sense,
can be solved with one real thing. And
that's not as simple as every problem and
the real solution to you know? But the
point is in your immediacy of this or
rather just as the American people, I guess,
really anywhere, but just to air on the
side of principles as I've been saying. Because
everything you're looking at is a contradiction of
principles
everywhere. Hey. COVID nineteen again in the left
or really just the government, but the point
is, what were they doing? Forcing shots,
censorship I mean, freedom of movement. All of
these are direct contradictions to core principles. I
mean, you've heard this before. Right? First principles,
that's the whole point. That's the constitution. It's
core ideas. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion,
we've talked about all this. So the idea
is that when you come to these points,
it comes down to a contradiction of principles
and the rationale for why it just makes
sense.
Now maybe you do think it makes sense,
but if you are before you get to
these arguments, if you're in your mind thinking
I'm an absolute, I believe in the constitution,
I think it's absolute,
Then make a moment to take a moment
to think about this and say, I'm going
to on the side of these principles to
a fault
because that's where every problem arises.
Now it's okay. It's because they're just hurt
they're they really mean violent things, and they
hate Charlie Kirk, so therefore now is okay
moment to ignore the constitutional rights. Or they're
here illegally, and we don't like that they're
here, and they're stealing x y and therefore
no. It doesn't matter. Either way you look
at it, both things are unconstitutional.
Maybe you think it's okay to be unconstitutional.
That's a different conversation. If you are of
the mind that you are adherent, that you
believe deeply in that,
it has to be right now the erring
on the side of principles. The contradiction of
principles is really the main point in just
about everything we're doing, and I think they're
driving you there. I think the idea is
to create a situation where you accept that.
Like, mentally set a precedent that it's okay
to ignore
inherent things as long as it makes sense
to me emotionally, politically. That's what it comes
down to. Now last quick point. I've talked
a lot to open today.
I just wanna make sure you guys know
from yesterday.
So the show that we did yesterday or
excuse me, day before yesterday and why I
didn't do a show yesterday, which was frustrating
as hell for me. I don't know what
happened in the show yesterday, and I'm surprised
nothing's happening here so far
because there's just something weird about the background.
I I went over this every way I
could yesterday, even during the show. All I
I don't know what happened. There was some
kind of redundant audio,
and I have this directly connected, whatever. I
mean, it's obviously possible that I made a
mistake somehow. But I'm doing this for quite
a long time, and I had to literally
close everything and bring it back up, which
is insanely frustrating to make that go away
yesterday. So I just don't know what it
was. And so it it was some kind
of redundant audio that was coming from the
browser. That's the only way I can make
sense of that. So who knows? And so
the point was after the show, my whole
my I was gonna do a show the
next day. I was ready to go, like,
my mindset.
And so I was planning to go back
in and kind of, you know, put an
updated video, add a time stamp, you know,
all that stuff. Come out to yesterday to
do the show, and and everything was down.
And all the day by the way, all
15 of the points I could tell you
about the weirdest things we deal with on
the back back end with the plat with
the the website, with the with the login
through. I mean, everything. My computer,
just just insane the stuff we deal with.
I can't speak to exactly what it comes
from. But yesterday was just a an a
cluster f. And, overall, my point was I
wasn't even able to I wasn't even able
to do a show. I couldn't do research.
I was I had my phone, basically,
which is just infuriating. And so long story
short, I ultimately had to deal with my
Internet all day yesterday. Ultimately, got it back
today, so now I'm doing the show. So
all that to say is I apologize for
not being able to get to what I
wanted to talk about right after yesterday's show
as well as the fact that if you're
watching yesterday's show, just know there's, like, a
thirty minute frustrating gap in the beginning where
I had to figure out what's going on
and kind of recut it. And the Odysee
version is pretty much the only one you'll
find that is the the the, you know,
secondary start point and the full video. So
all all of that out of the way,
thank you for tuning in today, guys. Let's
get to it. I wanna start with, again,
the shout out to Decentered News, always doing
great work. That great clip in regard to
Bondi and Kirk. I wanna start with a
point that I think is wildly relevant that
you've seen before on this show and plenty
of others that really does break down the
I mean, as they call it, the propaganda
multiplier.
Now this is from Swiss policy research, but
this is a pretty well known I've used
this image before, more than once.
What this says, it's very simple to not
take too much time on it, what it
means rather. And most people don't even know
this. Actually, I'll start with this, that if
you out there wanna do this, for example,
and you think that somehow it's you don't
have the same access, I want people to
understand.
The corporate media, the vast majority of it
outside of independent sources they may have, which
does mean a lot depending if they're honest
or if they actually have them. So the
point is plenty of them do have high
level sources in different, you know, fields of
work that give them insight to think that
we may not have. Other than that, which
is, by the way, rare I mean,
investigative journalists don't even really exist in the
corporate media anymore, and that's what that would
be. Right? So the point is what they've
leaned into is things where they just repeat
data,
breaking down. You know, they give you their
spin on it, make it seem like their
insight. But at the end of the day,
the vast majority of information that you get
sent to sent from these platforms comes from
a few main places. Reuters,
Associated Press, French press agency, and a few
and I think one or two others at
most, but those are the main ones. And
so what that means and what I'll get
to the top layer here in a second.
What that means is these are what they
they're basically,
like I forgot the term for it now.
But they say they write global news agencies,
but there's a term for it. They're basically
massive production platforms that basically scoop information. They
don't do real, like, personal reports, but they
do, like, real time, like, breaking information coming
from war zones or things they're reporting on,
you know, breaking events that are going on
or just other kinds of reporting. And then
the vast majority you get from everybody else,
from the New York Times to CNN to
Fox News,
repeat that. And maybe add their own information.
Half the time, they don't even notate that,
by the way. I don't know why that's
not a problem. I think it's designed this
way. My point is that those agencies will
trickle down the information, and then the rest
of the media will then feed you that
information, most of which don't even really check
these things. I've I've gotten that firsthand from
many people in like an Alison Morrow, for
example, that come directly from corporate media. So
that is, first and foremost, the frustrating reality
here is that there's just this kind of
pipeline of misinformation.
Then we have a whole new element. There
should be something in between this for today.
That's the mainstream alternative media, which you could
just pretend it's the same picture right there.
You got a bunch of random people who
just then repackage what they're given by people
that they like, and they pump that out.
Now even more so, you could build an
entirely new version of this that it's his
own mainstream alternative media version, where you take
information that comes from brand like, I you
could argue people like a Jones at the
top of their own paradigm or the people
they get it from, which is probably the
CIA for most likely in my opinion, and
they then trickle that out. Then it works
the same way. You got the larger ones
that do that, then you got all the
random people beneath it that all just repeat
exactly what they're told.
The reason I'm telling you this is because
I want you to think about how easy
it is to make it appear as if
there's mass adoption or that there's actual insight
behind what you're being told as opposed to
just writing narratives
backed up by perceived clout.
So this is really important
because the top layer, as this will show
you and you should read for yourself,
White House, CIA, Pentagon.
And that's really where most of this stems
from. Now there are journalists or people that
go out and investigate. That does happen, but
it's far more rare today as always, and
we used to point this out quite often.
People like Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Bealey. These
are the real examples of investigative journalists that
are not partisan
and well, in in a sense of not
blindly team sport politics
and ultimately are out there doing the real
work,
Not pretending to sniff backpacks and sell their
sarin. You know, it's like all the fake
stuff we get. Anyway, again, I don't wanna
take too much time. It's just important to
recognize how easily this is to manipulate and
how the mainstream alternative media is a very
new part of that. Now additionally,
it's important to recognize
that if all those companies that make it
seem like there's all these different opinions, don't
forget, this is from 2020.
Tech startups, these six corporations control 90% of
the media outlets in America.
Now problem that prob the problem today is
that we get these kind of, like, memed
ideas that are not even necessarily incorrect. Right?
Like, for example, six companies own most of
our media. We everyone seems to know that.
It gets repeated. But what problem is is
these things change.
And still to this day, people that I
that I, you know, that I might even
respect would would cite that even though you
might be surprised to find out that it's
actually
at at least
down to four.
Right? Comcast
merged with AT and T. Right? Disney
merged with Viacom.
So, I mean, I'm almost willing to bet
you that there's more overlap than we think,
if not entirely.
So that means
90% of every single piece of media, news,
radio, everything that you have access to in
this country, rather, that is produced in this
country. And I even argue that gets even
more crazy when you overlap all their propaganda
manipulating things around the world that are pretending
media for China, whatever else.
Four companies.
All of those four companies, by the way,
tapped in to the same propaganda multiplier that
we're talking about directly back to the government.
So, I mean, there's a I mean, if
you didn't know this, it's just an easy
way to understand how easy this is to
manipulate. And for those that know this platform,
we don't just say things without citing them
when it's something like that. I'll give you
my opinions all over the place. But when
it's information for those new to this platform,
because we do seem to be getting a
lot more growth in this platform. Thank god.
We will always, always cite every single thing
we mention. Every single tab you see will
be cited after the show underneath what we
do.
AT and T broadband emerged with Comcast.
Right? This was back in 02/2001.
We still cite these things. Right? Like, it's
it's it just my point in saying all
this is it goes a long time, and
we still pretend it's six it's probably well
beyond that. Here is Disney and Viacom.
Joint venture.
Just to make sure you saw that. Important.
Here's now a couple of the points I
wanna get into before we get into the
meat of the conversation today. Keeping that propaganda
multiplier in your mind and how the mainstream
alternative media plays a very central role to
that today.
One thing about health, I put off a
bunch that I wanna get to tomorrow
that I think is really important overlapping with
some of this AI tech stuff that I
really should have put it today, but I
don't want it to be too long. But
just in case you missed this, CDC panel
votes to push back MMR
vaccine
recommendation
to four years old.
Now out of curiosity,
what exactly does the v stand for?
Am I did I miss oh, yeah. Look
at that. How did I possibly miss that?
Are you kidding me? Are you act are
you kidding me? This is guys,
I don't understand how anybody like, if you're
a Maha person out there and you're pretending
like everything's going to plan, where are the
rest of the people around them that are
honest? How in the world are we pretending
like this is going in the right direction
that he supports this? Just in case you're
missing this for the podcast, I was actually
unaware that they added another vaccine to this
shot. It used to be just measles, mumps,
and rubella. Now it's measles, mumps, rubella, and
varicella.
Chickenpox.
Wow. Okay. Anyway,
which is just insane, by the way, because
none of them are tested alongside each other.
And the MMR in particular, even before they
added another one, was already shown to have
all sorts of problems that was cited. It
goes back to the earliest vaxxed documentary.
Big Del Bigtree, Andrew Wakefield. But no. I
guess we'll just ignore that. Anyway, the point
was
CDC panel votes to push it back with
a new injection. Less testing. Four years old.
Now I'm not gonna pretend that every single
decision is being tapped into RFK Junior, but
as the leader of the health side of
this, he very much does have the ability
to stop
this. But he already told you that he
supports this shot, so I don't know why
we'd be confused.
Now
we'll come back to Health More tomorrow. I
wanna make sure you saw some updates on
Epstein Epstein and the really embarrassing hearing before
we get to a couple of updates on
foreign policy, and then we're gonna get right
into what I think is the bulk of
the conversation and overlap with some updates on
the Charlie Kirk shooting.
Now here is the first clip.
Why are you hiding pedophiles? He asked. Now
I'll be the first to point out as
always that this is just these back and
forths are almost always political grandstanding. Right? Just
so the way he's framing that, it shouldn't
be you know, he's doing it to get
this. He's doing this to get this clip,
but it still has value because, let's be
real,
nonpartisan,
you know, you're whether your part the point
is people that are seeing beyond the two
party illusion can acknowledge that what they're doing
with the Epstein files is shockingly clear. And
I'm gonna the clip that, with Thomas Massie
is very clear, Even makes it clear that
he lied to everybody,
and yet we can still pretend. I mean,
Kash Patel is easily he mean, he's just
out of his league. I think that's obvious.
Are you hiding
pedophiles?
Why are you shielding
pedophiles?
Why are you protecting
pedophiles?
That is
maybe the most offensive thing you could say
to me given the numbers Well, you have
not released the numbers of pedophiles.
You're aware of the We have the rest.
The client list that was published in the
18000
the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman you'll have back Can you answer
the question? I just respond. Of course. The
gentleman can answer the question. Since I took
over the FBI, there has been a 33%
increase.
Sir, all of that started under Christopher Your
time is done, though. It didn't. The witness
gets you to the question, and then we'll
go to our next 33. Director,
sir. And you're coming in here trying to
take credit for something
that a previous director
instituted
and largely bought to conclusion. I think it's
pretty clear that the the director expensive.
So in regard to that,
I actually believe very the most the the
vast majority is that. But that's the same
kind of because, you know, it's it's under
like, these ongoing investigations and stuff like that,
it's it's can be a little bit difficult
to pin down exact you know? But bottom
line, I do think there has been some
newer investigations that started after this that you
could argue he's responsible for. But if you
understand how like, I think that this person
is I just based on appearances and actions,
doesn't even seem to be running this administer
the the department. I'm just that's just the
feeling I get. My point, though, is that
it's fair to say that I do believe
there was some actions that the FBI took,
not necessarily Kash Patel, that did result in
new arrests. But he's not wrong to point
that out, guys. They every administration seemed to
do this. They love to take credit for
things that were already happening if it's things
they like. They love to blame things that
they did on the past ones and things
they don't. Bottom line is, in every way,
he's getting I I think, you know, you
have to realize that he must know that
people in some way are gonna do their
due diligence and recognize these things, especially with
the next one from Massey. But overall, just
the idea that he's being straight called out
for hiding the Epstein files, I think is
important to see. And the way that he
pushes back and acts like, well, look. I
arrested these people here. That that should that's
why this shouldn't matter. It's basically what he's
trying to say. You know? I I think
that's insulting because the reality is this is
what he promised. This is what everybody thought
was coming, and now he's just trying to
sidestep it. This one makes it even more
obvious.
Remembering your oath to tell the truth. This
one there's one more after this. This one
I do think is very you know, this
happens every time
in in hearings like this when it's contentious,
but it's never I mean, it's always relevant
to me. He is doing his damnedest in
a clumsy way, which is what you've seen
in from Nome and Bondi. They they immediately
start going, why don't you do what your
constituents want? Trying to turn it on them
and make it seem like which I don't
think any of these people care about you.
But that's not the point of the question.
He's asking very clearly about whether he was
he somehow got the information
to them that Trump was involved in this.
He won't answer the question.
I mean, I think that speaks for itself.
If he could easily just be like, no.
I didn't.
I think that's very important.
Remembering your oath to tell the truth, did
you ever tell Donald Trump his name is
in the files?
And before he even answers, let's be clear,
guys. It's on the record that Bondi very
clearly was the one who directed the you
know, informed him. Now that's the point, though,
is that the FBI, who who's supposed to
be independent, we all know that's not true,
would would stepped in and informed him of
something that of an ongoing investigation. We're supposed
to pretend that should they find criminal activity,
that they would go arrest Trump. We all
know that's not true. I mean, honestly, whoever
the president, I think the re the argue
would be that it's a risk of national
security,
whatever it is, which is absurd
even if it is. So we're just gonna
ignore the fact that he's a serious criminal
because hurts the agenda? Well, yeah, because that's
really what they care about, and the agenda
is really not about you.
I have never spoken to president Trump about
the Epstein files.
Did you Don't you don't you find that
hard to believe in and of itself? It's
possible. But you're telling me the director of
the FBI has never once spoken to Trump
about their ongoing investigation of something that is
very important to everybody?
I just I don't believe that. Ever tell
the attorney general that Donald Trump's name is
in the Epstein files? The attorney general and
I have had numerous discussions about the entirety
of the Epstein files and the reviews conducted
by our team. Tell What that answer actually
means, by the way, is seems to be
yes.
I mean, that's how you would take that.
Right? So you so he did you ask
about this one point? We've talked about every
single point of those files. Okay. Then that
will be a yes. But you see, he's
trying very clearly not to answer the question,
which speaks to the fact that I think
he did. That's my opinion. And I think
it's obvious we know that. And then it's
all then the reporting then shows clearly that
they then did,
remove those
names as well as others that have nothing
to do with victims.
This has been all this has been all
but backed up directly from Donald Trump.
The attorney general that Donald Trump's name is
in the Epstein files. And we have released
where president Trump changed the simple question. Did
you tell the attorney general that the president's
name is in the Epstein files?
During many conversations
that the attorney general and I have had
on the matter of Epstein, we have reviewed
The question is simple. Who
tell the
attorney general that Donald Trump's name is in
the Epstein files? Yes or no? Why don't
you try spelling it out in a month?
Or no? Direct Use the alphabet. Yes or
no? No? A b c? Director D.
What a clown.
Like, he thinks he's being, like, pithy right
there. That's just really embarrassing. It's not even
a it's not even a smart comment. You're
just being childish is what you're doing. But
so too do the rest of them. So
I think he think he feels like he's
good in good company. I mean, Noam and
the rest of them, like, they're really embarrassing
when they sit there and act like they're
smug and and righteous. It makes them look
ridiculous other than people that already support them
no matter what they said.
It sounds like you don't wanna tell us.
Did you tell the attorney general that Donald
Trump's name was in the Epstein files? Why
don't you try serving your constituency by focusing
on reducing violent crime in this country? So
your response is to spit it into him
reducing crime in the country?
You think see how insane? See, this is
my point about how bad he is at
this. Like, if you were gonna do that,
you would need it it I mean, you
do whatever you want. It makes you look
stupid. But if you're gonna do it in
a way that's effective, you would try to
fold it into something that's currently regarding this
conversation, about their handling of something about the
Epstein files, about something they did or how
they didn't care about it before. All of
which would be what aboutism or whatever you
wanna call it. But nonetheless, it would have
some effect. People would be like, yeah. That
point.
This broad thing about how you just don't
fight crime in your area. You know, he's
just trying to tap into what the narratives
are and what others would say. You you
democrats aren't doing their jobs. It's all to
cover this. Yeah. Maybe. Probably. They're all criminals,
but this is just to it shows you
how he's out of his league.
Why don't you try serving your constituency
by focusing on reducing violent crime in this
country and the number of pedophiles that are
illegally
carburying sanctuary cities in California.
I'll work with you on that. Do you
want to work with us on that? I'm
the law of attorney general from California. Did
you tell the attorney general that Donald Trump's
name is in the Epstein files? Question has
been asked and answered. You You've not answered
it, and we will take your evasiveness
as a consciousness of guilt. Wow. I mean,
you gotta even that last point, like, he's
like watching a TV show.
I've never even seen someone do that. Usually,
they just keep deflecting because they don't want
it to be that obvious, like, that you're
deliberately not answering. In fact, I argue that's
actually a crime in regard to the you
know, either with your under oath or just
in front of congress. There's a legal reality
there.
No. It's never it's very rarely enforced as
even like anyway, the point though that even
in the sanctuary city point,
It's a fair point to make. I do
argue that those things are very much abused,
but for political reasons, just like both sides
play everything for political reasons. But it doesn't
change the reality of the back and forth
question. He's trying to use another point to
deflect from what's happening.
That's very embarrassing.
Here is the Massey one. That one from
Kentucky is recognized for five minutes. Thank you,
mister chairman.
Director Patel, I watched some of your senate
hearing yesterday when senator Kennedy asked you. You've
seen most of the files. Who, if anyone,
did Epstein traffic these women to besides himself?
You replied according to the transcript.
There is no credible information that he trafficked
them to anyone else.
Great. So by definition, he's a moron because
you can't be charged for traffic unless there's
somebody who's receiving the traffic.
You know? That's why Maxwell's in jail, and
they're playing this game. Like, it's a hoax
or nobody I mean, it it's it's you
could have done this in a way that
would be,
I mean, acceptable. Like, you could have painted
all of this in a way that would
have been easily sold to most people, especially
since we're acting on very limited information.
But it's almost as if they, like, chose
these people because they wouldn't be able to
dig themselves out of you know, however you
look at it, they're making this obvious by
the way they conduct themselves. You also said
somewhere in the hearing and here today that
the problem is that the case files are
constrained by limited search warrants from 2006 to
2007 and the non prosecution agreement
hamstrung future investigations.
Those constraints
only apply to Southern District Of Florida. They
do not apply to Southern District Of New
York, the location of the 2019
sex trafficking indictment, which produced many things, including
a series of FD three zero two documents.
Okay. Before he goes into those documents, don't
miss how important that was.
He very clearly exposed Cash Patel pretending they
couldn't investigate this whole thing or the parts
they were referencing because of the limitations of
the previous rule, except that only applied to
Florida.
Oops.
Yeah. That's it. End of story. Cash Patel's
a liar, or he's actually shockingly inept in
his position. I think it's both, but I
think he's aware of that, and he was
trying to play people into thinking that he
was bound when in reality, he wasn't.
And now he goes into these documents about
the now let's don't forget one important thing
about this in regard to these testimony from
witnesses and and victims,
the vast majority,
at least the victims that we're aware of,
are out there telling them, we want this
released.
We want our our names are already public.
We're all speaking out, standing up here on
the phone. We want this released. So at
the very least, they should be releasing all
of the information wrapped up around their names.
Now I'll just tell you right now at
the end of this, he makes a point
that I think is important to hear in
your mind throughout all of this. Even they
are currently trying to FOIA their own files,
and the gov he can't even get a
response.
And yet he wants to tell you we're
trying to protect the victims.
According to victims
who cooperated with the FBI in that investigation,
These documents in FBI possession,
your possession,
detail at least 20 men,
including mister Jess Staley, CEO of Barclays Bank,
who Jeffrey Epstein trafficked victims to.
Right there.
So another very obvious lie,
and the name is public now. He made
it public. It's been released before, and he's
saying there's on the record 20 of the
people that he claims you'll hear in a
second that he doesn't have access to for
the argument of why did you just say
them out loud? And I do agree with
that point in other context, but this one
appears to be named they don't have, but
the FBI would.
Victims including minors
such as Virginia Roberts.
You free?
May she rest in peace. That list also
includes at least
19 other individuals, one Hollywood producer
worth a few $100,000,000,
one royal prince, one high profile individual in
the music industry Wow. One very prominent banker,
one high profile government official,
one high profile former politician, one owner of
a car company in Italy, one rock star,
one magician,
at least six billionaires,
including a billionaire from Canada.
We know these people exist in the FBI
files, the files that you control.
I don't know exactly who they are, but
the FBI does.
Have you launched any investigations
into any of these people, and have you
seen these three zero two documents?
Sir, I have asked my FBI agents to
review
the entirety of the Epstein files and bring
forth any credible information. And we're working with
congress not only divulge that information and produce
it to you, but any investigations
that arise from any credible investigation will be
brought.
So he just keeps the whole time gives
you this, like, bland
if it's in there, it's important, you'll get
it.
Not what we asked, man. Did you investigate
these exact things? You know? But he just
well, as I said, if it's credible and
it's in there, my guys are looking at
it, and you'll get it if it's important.
That's what he keeps doing.
There have been no new materials
brought to me launching a new, indictment. So
is is is the loophole here, or is
it your assertion that these,
victims aren't credible, that the three o twos
maybe didn't produce credible statements that rise to
a probable cause?
It's not my assertion, sir. It's the assertion
of,
two different
United States attorney's offices from three separate administrations
who investigated those same materials in lifetime.
Right. Right. Yeah. Oops. Yeah. The point is
there. Left and right. Multiple left and right
administrations have kept us in the same position.
Shocking.
That's the whole point, guys. Now to Ormo's
point in the chat, it's not there there's
the evidence of there's a lot of information
around a lot of the names that are
supposedly part of this, and I argue very
much provable.
The point is that from his perspective, I
was reporting this, he's claiming that he doesn't
have access to them in that moment. That
could be a lie. I'm just I'm just
I'm just reporting what he is saying under
the be the argument for why he didn't
then list them off, just to make that
clear. But, yes, I agree. I mean, the
this is what's so frustrating to a lot
of people out there
who have done even
a a small amount of research on this.
It's obvious that there's a ton that is
damn near public information that they are refusing
to acknowledge. And I think that's really important
to understand. And so all this does is
make it all the more clear that he's
already I mean, even Massey just briefly has
already exposed two very important deceptions he's carried
out. And now he he, by the way,
hasn't yet mentioned about whether he's investigated the
individuals. He gave you the broad example.
If if it's important, we've done it.
Does it rise to a probable cause?
It's not my assertion, sir. It's the assertion
of, Shins who investigated those same materials in
lifetime. Are the three zero two documents in
the FBI's possession?
They reviewed all that. Yes, sir. And and
so have you reviewed those three zero two
documents that where the victim's
name the people
who victimized
them?
I I personally know, but the FBI has.
So how can you
sit here and and in front of the
senate and say there are no names?
I said I named one today.
I I said, we are not in the
we are not in the practice at the
Department of Justice, FBI, of releasing victims' names.
See, this is the game they play. He
didn't he he didn't even mention victims. He's
talking about names they have of evidence of
people that were trafficked to.
You can list off the names that that
you can prove were trafficked to without giving
up the people that were. It's not that
effing complicated.
And all it can do are victims. And
that's the point. Well, guess what? All the
people they're referring to, in particular, most of
the cases he's talking about,
like well, of course, the one he mentioned
that is no longer with us, but the
point is this is these are people that
have been publicly speaking out for a long
time. They know that their names are out
there. And recently through Massie have said, we
want these to be released, and all they
can do is use them
to cover themselves.
You see, this is my this is kind
of another point, that abstract way of the
worst of the worst. Not people that would
do the bad things, but they would allow
the bad things then act like they're doing
the right thing by covering up those bad
things a little bit different. But just the
idea that he know he's using their names
to to cover them
and pretending like he's helping them. That's why
they're going most of these victims have been
calling out the Trump administration because of this.
That is not what we do. We are
also not in the habit of releasing
incredible information. That's not what we do. What
does he mean by that?
Not in the habit of releasing incredible information?
Like, did he I mean, is that is
that I don't even think that's the correct
way to say that. Is it? Am I
crazy? Like, not credible,
incredible? I think he does you know, you
tell me if I'm missing something. I think
that was just him being a fool, but,
you know, either way, you tell me may
maybe that's a term used in this context
I don't know familiar with.
But multiple
authorities have looked at the entirety of what
we have. I gotta move on here. Were
you present when the AG,
had the White House event when she released
the binders to the social media influencers? I
was yes.
So if you're Before I even comment on
this, guys, think about how stupid this is.
Libs of TikTok and all the other morons
out there that are constantly lying to you
online,
they were the ones that stood there. Trey,
DC, Drano, and got those binders. What did
they tell you?
Epstein files, phase one.
Yeah. Of which we haven't got more because
they clearly were trying to make you feel.
But just think about how incredible that is.
They created this entire PR stunt that ultimately
amounted to nothing. They knew that. They were
hoping it would placate you. I mean, this
is how embarrassing it is that we can't
be honest about what we're looking at. They
keep it's by the way, I can't help
but point out, it seems very reminiscent of
Israeli propaganda.
Lie. Did you buy it? Oh, no. Then
then I meant this one, though. Does that
one work? No? Okay. Then I meant this
one too. Or combine all three. How about
that? Like, it's just this kind of, like,
reactive propaganda.
Remember? Because they remember it was,
the file the the phase one binder. We
didn't buy it. They went, oh, that's right.
I forgot. There's a truckload. Information on my
desk. We'll get to it. And then it
was sort of like, no. New more information.
It's a it's a hoax. And then, oh,
whoops. Yes. We do have more, and and
it didn't add anything. It was all it
was all redacted, you know, step by step
by step, and they're just hoping that you
buy it.
That's pretty sad. Going to meet with social
media influencers who stood What we have. Okay.
I gotta move on here. Were you present
when the AG,
had the White House event when she released
the binders to the social media influencers?
I was yes.
So if you're willing to meet with social
media influencers who stood to benefit from the
sensational and sad stories of these victims, will
you meet with the victims as well? The
FBI will meet with anyone who has no
information. Will you personally meet with them?
The FBI and the professionals who are handling
the cases will. Were you instructed that it
was important to release the documents to the
oversight committee
on the day of, my introduction of the
discharge petition to release these files?
I don't know what day that was, so
no. Well, they were released
that day, and there were victims' names who
weren't redacted because it was they were in
such a rush, and the victims are not
happy about that. So it's a point that
gets brushed over. I mean, think about how
stupid this is in this just this one
clip. So he starts at all the other
times as well, using the victim's privacy as
a rationale for why he won't give you
in other context what they claim isn't there.
That's we should laugh out loud about dumb
that is first. The the names that we
know are there that even he just acknowledged
to Massey are a part of this investigation
that they otherwise tell you don't exist. Not
that they're wrong or incorrect or not credible,
but there is no list. And a hoax
sometimes too.
But using the victim's names to to sell
you that garbage,
then it turns out, whoopsie, we're in a
rush to give you BS. We accidentally have
their name slip out because they super care
about how important I mean, it's just it
it is a special kind of stupid today.
I I just can't piece this together. And
my only way it makes sense to me
and my personal opinion is that either we
have driven to this place and this country
is such a verge of collapse that the
worst the, like, uneducated,
uninformed people in the world are finding their
way into positions of power because people that
are good at the job don't wanna be
a part of it, or we're being sabotaged
by something else. I don't know how else
to place together. I'm sure there's other options,
but it's really embarrassing as American to continue
to watch this absolute clown show on both
sides of the paradigm.
Gentlemen gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for unanimous
consent. Mister chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
submit, two sets of documents. The first is
a series of emails from the victims
of Jeffrey Epstein.
They are making FOIA requests to get their
own FBI files and not having any success.
So,
I wanna bring attention to that by submitting
that to the record.
Great.
So they can't even get their own files
because it's the most transparent administration in in
in ever, I guess, or whatever. Most Most
transparent administration of any planet, of any solar
system that's ever existed in the entire world.
You know, typical bombastic
hyperbolic statements from Trump.
Couple more points on this. This was just
funny to me. It's under one of those
clips. It's a meme. It's a one it's
a play on the, Scooby Doo meme,
and it shows Pam Bondi, and it's pulling
off the mask of the ghost. And it
says, have I have I have the list
on my desk. Pulls the mask off, and
it's Donald Trump. And he says, oh, oh,
s h I t. Puts it back on.
There's no obscene list. It's just a really
funny play on that meme that, you know,
because normally just the two of them for
the most part.
K. One more clip on this segment, and
then we're gonna get into some foreign policy
points that relate to all of this. But
this is really relevant to think about. It's
a good clip from drop site referencing, the
breaking points clip from, Ryan Grim,
discussing the Monica Lewinsky point
and the Israel manipulation that went through that
and every other administration we could possibly point
to. The possibly, but, you know, in the
context of them existing.
And, of course, plenty of arguments that Monica
Walensky, Monica Walensky herself was connected or was
in in Israeli intelligence, but that's not what
we're talking about today. This is about understanding
what Israel is doing now and has always
been doing. Don't forget, they were caught putting
Stingray devices on the White House grounds or
even I think it was both outside and
on the fences. I think it was the
real reporting
in for Trump's first administration.
We're gonna get into important coverage today of
Donald Trump backing up what we were told
about Charlie Kirk, that Trump is outraged about
Netanyahu. That's the reporting.
We'll get to it. And that that was
one reason
Kirk was
seeing through the lies lately. But here's what
Grim had to say about this, and think
about the connection to where we are now
and whether or not this could be happening
right now. And maybe they've got something on
Trump or somebody else. I mean, that's not
hard to see right now, the possibility of
it. Could trip down memory lane. This is
crazy. The nineteen nineties, Benjamin Netanyahu, Bill Clinton,
and Monica Lewinsky. Stick around for this one.
So in a scandal that has been largely
lost to contemporary memory, Israeli prime minister Benjamin
Netanyahu was alleged to have blackmailed then president
Bill Clinton by revealing to him that Israel
had collected tapes of phone sex calls between
the forty second president and White House intern
Monica Lewinsky.
The story is worth revisiting amid allegations that
Jeffrey Epstein was involved in a long running
Israeli blackmail operation of his own.
So Clinton met with Netanyahu in the Oval
Office in February
1997.
Subsequently, according to testimony Lewinsky gave to the
special counsel's office, Clinton secretary, Betty Curry, reached
out to Lewinsky to invite her to an
Oval Office meeting, telling her Clinton, quote, had
something important to tell her, unquote.
It would turn out to be their final
sexual encounter,
but Clinton also used the opportunity to tell
her that a, quote, foreign embassy had tapped
his phone and recorded their conversation, Lewinsky said.
Clinton did not specify which embassy, though the
meeting with Lewinsky came the month after his
meeting with Netanyahu.
The special prosecutor's report was far more concerned
with Lewinsky's claim of the sexual encounter that
day because it contradicted Clinton's claim that they
had had only one encounter that year than
they were with the fact that a foreign
government was spying on the president and letting
him know about it. Now the way I
take that, guys, is is I I mean,
I think for a very long time,
either it's that the political obsession with, you
know, embarrassing the other side, but with no
real immediate,
you know, like, problem for the government agenda
is is something that we always see. It's
not it's we don't care about the deeper
part. It's about making them look stupid. And
or or it's either on top of that
or separately
that it's simply because they were dealing with
the same thing, that there is Israeli, clear,
we can see here, infiltration of the government
to where the real point is not is
you know, you're gonna ignore the data points
that highlight something like that and use the
points that simply make him look bad because
it seems that's what Israel wanted.
The prosecutor was also interested in Clinton's response,
namely that he proposed cover stories.
These are cover stories that the two could
employ if they were confronted with the tapes.
Clinton suggested
the pair say they knew they were under
surveillance and the phone sex was a, quote,
put on for whoever was listening. That's an
awfully flimsy idea. But look, he was guilty
the man did not have much to work
with.
Now in April, Netanyahu and Clinton met again
for a, quote, private visit.
On a Saturday then in May
1997,
Clinton again had Curry invite Lewinsky to the
White House.
During that visit, he broke up with her,
Lewinsky testified.
The next fall, so this is 1998,
Clinton hosted Netanyahu and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat
for a summit at Y River, Maryland.
Toward the end of the summit, at 7AM
after a long night of final negotiations and
handshakes,
Netanyahu approached Clinton privately to demand the release
of convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard,
long a cause celeb of the Israeli far
right. That's according to reporting the time from
The New York Times.
Now Netanyahu
brought up the sex tapes in the context
of the Pollard demand according to subsequent reporting
by Washington Examiner editor Daniel Harper in his
book Clinton Inc, the Audacious Rebuilding of a
Political Machine.
He writes, quote, not wanting to directly threaten
the powerful American president,
a crucial Israeli ally,
Clinton was told that the Israeli government had
thrown the tapes away, but the very mention
of them was enough to constitute
a form of blackmail,
Halpern reported.
The talks almost broke down as CIA chief
George Tenet told Clinton he would resign on
the spot if Clinton agreed to the terms.
So instead, Clinton agreed to, quote, review Pollard's
case.
He did not release him.
Pollard was eventually freed in 2015 under the
Obama administration.
Now on the last day of his first
term, Trump pardoned Pollard's handler.
Back in Israel, Pollard is now an outspoken
supporter of extremist national security minister Ben Gavir,
Itamar Ben Gavir, and is called for the
full ethnic cleansing
of Gaza. I don't know, Emily. What do
you think? What did Netanyahu tell Bill Clinton?
I'm so curious. Is there another foreign embassy
that this could be?
I I honestly think you know, to be
fair in a lot of ways, that's a
you know, there's very kind of
in many way, a very mainstreamy kind of
there's a lot of deeper points we can
go into around that, including that I think
it was much more nefarious, like, that it
wasn't some, you know, we threw him away
and we just kinda talked about it and
he was worried about that. I think there
was straight up control in this conversation. I
think we can see that going back a
long way, and it's happening right now today
in the exact same way. But it's important
even from the breaking point sort of mainstream
kind of way to understand that this is
something that's very, very well understood. It's a
very public thing and yet we don't consider
in fact, people push back like it's like
you punch their mother in the face if
you simply go, could Israel be doing this?
Oh my god. That's not possible. How dare
you? Except all the times in the past
that they've done that or killed Americans or
sabotage
US. I mean, it's wild and in in
and of itself
speaks to the point.
The facts are ignored
be I mean, everywhere you look in this
conversation when it bumps up against Israel. Now
I'll include in this point the same article
I point in this to and it's it's
one of the most there's more than one
show I've done on this, but this one
was about specifically in Israel's infiltration of US
tech, not just the not the world, but
specifically US tech in the light of what
they did to Lebanon with the pagers. But
such if you wanted to go deeper on
how clearly
Israel has infiltrated
US tech to a degree that is alarming,
As Whitney would point out from from, you
know, infrastructure to, you know, waters and dams
and and, you know,
911 call centers and just, like, all sorts
of things that are directly tied back to
Israeli intelligence
because, you know, they would never do anything
that they've done many times over the past.
Right? Just to show you how vulnerable that
makes this country and maybe is exactly why
people in power are bowing to their interests.
It's worth your consideration.
Lastly
oh, I forgot. I should have put this
in the other one. I just wanna I
just include this because I think it's hilarious
to the picture. Cash Patel claims no evidence.
Jeffrey Epstein traffic girls to anyone but himself.
It's pretty much what he said. It's just
I don't know why we don't laugh at
how stupid this all is. I guess because
it's very real, very alarming. Now a couple
points on foreign policy and then just to
show you updates on currently what's happening in
Israel, pal occupied Palestine. I don't know if
you saw this.
It kind of flew under the radar. I
think a lot of people thought it was
the same story, but the US government has
bombed it it bombed, and this was, I
think, on the fifteenth. Or no. This was
actually before that. I think it was the
no. It was either the fourteenth or the
fifteenth.
Another Venezuelan
ship.
And, apparently, the evidence come out from corporate
media at the very least, question it like
you always should, that these that that they
could prove this was very much not a
trafficking boat and just a random boat. And
they yet again killed people. But regardless, the
whole point is the same. There was no
due process. There was no it's international waters.
They have no jurisdiction. And even if it
was drug trafficking, in what world have they
just executed people before you even find out
what's happening? What if those are hostages being
threatened to do so by a foreign government?
I mean, you could make up a thousand
reasons. You wouldn't even need to. Even if
they were actually trafficking drugs and it was
directly tied to Venezuela, this would still be
a crime.
Nobody seems to care.
No one no evidence presented, no due process,
no trial, but as comrade Misty points out,
but something's something something something political violence is
bad.
Right?
Very, very crazy, guys. But it's gonna keep
going, and they're just normalizing these kind of
actions. Again, it's it's gonna become a point
where there's a close line where something that
really I mean, this alone should be enough.
This is a crime, undeniably,
but narrative, though, is what you get from
people in politics. The the point is this
is gonna get to a point to where
the line is much harder to define, and
it's gonna be something that is you know?
Imagine somebody who is I mean, let's make
it let's say it's a freedom flotilla
driving over to give food to people in
Gaza. And let's say it gets bombed in
the middle of the ocean and completely destroyed.
How is it any different? They're gonna say
they were terrorists. There was a you can't
prove it. My point is that we're gonna
find example that's far more
unacceptable to most people. And you if you
allow this precedent, they're gonna push it just
the same, just the same.
Now another one more point to foreign policy
from the peace president.
Important to hear this in case you didn't.
You know, because we're told to end the
wars on day one never happened. You know,
we're gonna we're gonna stop. We're gonna you
know, we don't wanna fight foreign wars. We're
gonna be you know, not gonna force our
ideas in other countries. He said in the
last administration, none of which is happening. And
in fact, now, in every possible way, just
like we told you because it's not different
left and right, they're ramping up the war
agenda because that's how long have I said
that this government runs in the blood of
other nations? That shouldn't be anything other than
about the government,
especially because I think most Americans are starting
to call this stuff out and have for
a long time. Here's what Trump said. We're
going back to Afghanistan.
Surprise, surprise. Went through the Afghanistan
total disaster
for no reason whatsoever.
We're gonna leave Afghanistan,
but we're gonna leave it with strength and
dignity.
And, we're gonna keep Bagram the big airbase
at one of the biggest airbases in the
world. We gave it to them for nothing.
We're trying to get it back, by the
way. Okay? That could be a little breaking
news. We're trying to get it back
because they need things from us. We want
that base back. Mhmm. But one of Right.
The reasons we want the base is, as
you know, it's an hour away from where
China makes its nuclear weapons.
So a lot of things are happening.
He just is brazen about this, guys. Oh,
so what? You're gonna bomb their nuclear weapon
facilities? Why not? They did the same thing
with Iran, they claim, even though it was
civilian.
Doesn't matter. The the the point is the
law doesn't matter if we just go, but
that's a bad guy.
Right? Just like they might say, you're a
bad guy. You have a red hat on.
You're a racist. You're a terrorist.
Didn't we go through this already? The point
is always there. You just got done being
called domestic terrorist for having ideas.
Here we are doing the same exact thing
in reverse toward the left. We'll get into
more in a second. This is simply just
creating the idea that we need this there
because China's doing something the rest of the
world is doing. The reality clearly is that
they never left Afghanistan. How long have I
been saying that? Now we're now we're gonna
go back in. No. We never left, guys.
Or shouldn't say that. The government of the
United States never left. They've been operating with
actual military, which they don't wanna talk about,
but also with,
mercenaries,
you know, contractors,
like Blackwater and so on, academy.
I'm not saying that specifically that, but I'm
saying the reality on the ground has it's
there's The US interests did not stop because
it's a very important point to this, especially
the resources they've been stealing since they took
over the area. By the way, all he's
simply pointing out is that we're gonna now
go back because they need things from us.
So even if you think that's wrong and
they've never been there,
he's simply saying we're gonna go back to
occupying this territory or, you know, working with
the group that we control to get another
base there. Why would that be necessary?
In the ideas of no more war and
no more expansionism, you know, liberty, the whole
like, focusing on the country, America first. No.
That is the empire. That's the continuing point.
The building of the empire for narrative,
for their own agenda.
You can't just keep pretending this is not
exactly what it looks like, guys, because he
just goes in it's because of freedom, and
that's the that's what you report. It is
the same thing regardless of the narrative, going
back to more occupation, aiming at China.
Be honest about it.
Now in Gaza, the cradle reports, Trump backs
Tony Blair's plan for Gaza International Transition Authority.
Sounds very technocratic to me, and just don't
forget what they are very clearly planning to
build there. This was a plan that was
already leaked. It's very clear that whether before
this leaked or not,
that has been on the record.
Those same plans were reported well before this.
Those who've been paying attention already knew this.
So the, you know, like, the very uneducated
people like the misfit patriot out there does
this whole breakdown of this discussion and claims
that it's very fake and or if even
if it's not, it's, you know, just ridiculous
coverage of trying to gaslight for Trump. This
is something that is going on. They've already
been public about it. They're very clearly talking
about this,
you know, smart city, freedom city, fifteen minute
city, whatever you wanna call it, same thing
about
digital tokens, digital money, digital surveillance,
everything. This is the same thing we're talking
about. My point in all this is to
recognize that not only that, but they're gonna
be making billions off the real estate.
But this is about them setting up the
transitional authority to make it happen. Is that
what Palestinians want? No. Who cares about them,
though? Even though it's all for them is
what we're told. US president Donald Trump has
authorized Tony Blair to engage regional and international
stakeholders
in support for former UK prime minister's plan.
Why he's even involved? I don't know. Money,
probably, to create postwar transitional authority to govern
the Gaza Strip. Okay. Well, if your whole
point is Hamas is the bad one, totally
not the Palestinians, then why don't you just
have the Palestinians?
Why don't you choose from them? Because if
you let them pick, they're gonna pick a
Moss again or somebody else. Yeah. Democracy though,
why don't you pick Palestinians? I mean, even
if you wanted to pretend you could pick
the Palestinian authority, which very clearly is an
agent of the Israeli government. The point is
clearly that you're just skipping right over the
people you claim this is for. You're gonna
pick a government that I'm sure is gonna
be ruled and controlled, if not is Israel,
and then guess what? It's the same exact
problem. Anybody paying attention already knows this. It's
they've tried this more than once. The whole
deal of the century Trump tried was the
same thing. It was enshrining the illegal reality
of today and calling a two state solution.
It says, until control can be transferred to
Palestinian authority. So even then, once they never
do that, by the way, I promise you
this just ends up being some, my opinion,
some never changing ongoing authority that grows, I
bet you that's what this becomes,
is that they're gonna if they ever do,
they'll hand it off to a group that
is not working for the interest of Palestinians.
Palestinians will tell you that.
The plan proposes, and this is per the
Times of Israel, the plan proposes the creation
of a Gaza International Transition Authority
along with several subsidiaries,
structures.
The US official said that during a '20
the twenty seventh August White House policy session,
Trump made clear he was endorsing Blair's proposal.
The official had also noted that Israeli,
Smotrich
appears to be unaware of the decision,
having stated on Wednesday that the Gaza Strip
could be potentially real estate bonanza and that
he was discussing with Washington how to divide
up the Strip after the war. Except when
you recognize that they're the same operation, it
doesn't have to be separate.
The authority is simply going to manage what
they're going to accomplish. That's exactly what I
think is happening.
So I'll this is an important show to
watch. If you wanna understand, it's entitled simply,
Gaza Freedom City Technocratic Dystopia, if you wanna
watch that part.
Now Max Blumenthal reports in regard to the
fake ceasefire
ongoing.
Days after Israel attempted to kill the entire
Hamas negotiating team, in case you missed that,
literally claiming we want a negotiating ceasefire,
and then Israel murdered the entire political team
negotiating the ceasefire.
Under the guise of peace that they were
offered and they're just like they killed Soleimani,
that Trump invited him under the guise, rather
it was through Saudi Arabia, invited him under
the guise of peace and negotiations. He showed
up and killed him in Iraq Airport.
Same thing. And and one of the most
objectively obvious terrorist attacks I've ever seen. And
it says,
days after
Smotrich let the truth out, Gaza is a
real estate bonanza, and Israel is working with
Trump Inc to exploit the ethnic cleansing to
reap profits and beachside land. So what he's
saying is that we're working with Trump. His
plan is this, but he's just not supposed
to say that out loud. But they don't
ever keep it to the chest. Ben Smotrich,
Ben Gavir, they will they'll be the ones
that will stand up in in their own
congress, in their Knesset, and literally yell what
your media is telling you is not even
allowed to be said because your racist didn't
even think it. They stand up and say,
that's what we're doing because we're, you know,
blah blah blah. Take we can do what
we want. There's no legal authority to stop
us. We can legislate anywhere in the world.
Legal international law does not bind us. All
things they very clearly said out loud.
And I've reported directly from their own citations
on this show.
Now Mohammed Shehada also points out over a
thousand Israeli families
have moved
into the Gaza border area along with caravans
and tents to immediately build Jewish only sent
settlements.
That's their words, by the way. In Northern
Gaza, as soon as the IDF is done
depopulating the city,
they prepare maps, locations, names. This shouldn't be
shocking to anybody who's been watching any show
objectively covering this because they were
publicly doing this within the first months of
this. And, by the way, have been doing
it for seventy six years. You pay attention,
you know, more probably
maybe a decade less than that if you
understand how that evolved. But the point is
clearly this has been ongoing. And the I
think the first couple months post October 7,
Ben Gavir
had an entire conference about where they would
go. They had names picked out in Hebrew
about the whole entire Gaza Strip.
What's her name?
Forget her name off the top of my
head. You know, the leader of that movement
was speaking directly to Biden saying, we're taking
gods. There's nothing you can do. It's all
right in front of you. That's why it's
important to highlight this because it shows you
that your media, your your politicians
are either so stupid they can't see this
or they're completely captured.
Whether it's through lobbying or direct Zionism over
to I don't know. But if they are
lying to you still, then they're captured.
They're claiming this isn't happening.
This is what the genocide is all about.
Land theft, dispossession, displacement of Palestinians once and
for all.
Here it is directly from Israeli media for
those that thought maybe this was just some
guy on Twitter. Nope.
Very I mean, if it's something like this,
you'll never get that from me.
And if it is, it'll be something this
is interesting somebody said, can't verify it, take
it for what you will. The problem is
so many people out there will push nonsense
and act like they're you know, most of
the mainstream plat mainstream alternative and mainstream platforms
will cite things they never give you source
material for and allow their clout to carry
it, Even if it's true, by the way,
which is just ridiculous.
So here
oops.
That was weird.
What did I hit right there? Oh, there
it is.
There it is.
Translated for you just so you can see
it. Oh, it's it's on that. You include
it, or it won't let me. Fantastic.
Who knows why?
No translation. Here, we'll do this. See if
it works.
Yeah. That does work. See? Screw you guys.
Translation. It says,
bonanza. The family is already preparing to settle
in Gaza.
Yeah. Mainstream Israeli media, they're all praising it.
As well as
Israel admitting, which, by the way, you already
know, and so does Muhammad Shehada. He's just
following up on the Moore admission. The point
is this has been made clear a long
time ago. In the middle of the Knesset,
they publicly had a discussion about this. The
the the ISIS linked groups, they've been funding
to steal aid.
And then after that, they funded them just
to stand there and kill people while they
pretended to give them aid through the GHF.
It's the same groups. The whole time, they
would go Hamas is stealing the aid. They
were groups. They were paying to steal it.
This has been publicly discussed. This guy is
the one of the main guys we talked
about
right there. And we just discussed this guy
with my interview with Robert Ilkash.
What's next for Gaza?
What's what's next for The US or Israel
and Iran? Excuse me. This is an ISIS
linked person that you can publicly prove for
yourself, and that Israel is funding them to
save the Palestinians.
So this is Israel admits to pay, paying,
arming, and sheltering ISIS linked mercenaries, warlords, drug
dealers, murderers, sex offenders, collaborators, and fugitive criminals,
and using them inside of Gaza for dirty
operations, kidnapping, assassinations,
intel gathering, and looting. So it's not enough
just to murder, rape, and torture them, and
bomb and starve them to death. No. You
have to pick out horrible people and send
them in there to make them suffer even
more.
That is what this sociopathic, psychopathic
monstrosity
is.
This is the worst of the worst of
the
worst. Horez, IDF Shin Bet using Gaza militants
for military operations in exchange for pay and
territory.
That's leading Israeli media.
They're using ISIS to literally kill Palestinians, and
we're gonna pretend like we're fighting this? They
are, the government?
Pay attention.
Dave DeCamp, did you know we don't have
to fund a military that does this? Antiwar.com
Israeli sniper details. What what is the fifteenth,
sixteenth one? Killing Palestinians including children waiting for
aid. The sniper said commanders would order him
to fire on unarmed Palestinians. There is IDF
whistleblowers. There's American mercy, you know, American military
whistleblowers.
There's individual,
aid group whistleblowers.
But let's all pretend like they all just
must hate Jews. Right? Because that just perfectly
makes sense.
My god. This has got crazy, guys.
Here is in West Bank. Not a joke.
This is not Gaza. This is the West
Bank.
It's a war zone. You know, the place
where Hamas is not. The place where it's
supposed to be part of Israel proper. The
place where they have rights and everything's great
and they're part of the group. Yeah. They're
lying to you, and they always have been.
They are absolutely ethnically cleansing this and stealing
property, demolishing homes. They've been doing it for
years, for decades. Now it's under war. It
always really has been, but they're using this
to take advantage.
Occupied West Bank. The Israeli regime and the
Western allies will carry out the next holocaust
in the West Bank.
Lastly, on this segment,
here's Marco Rubio, guys.
A Shia Iran is a threat to the
Jewish state, he says. Our presence in The
Middle East and The Gulf Kingdoms.
I mean, how long have I told you?
Well, well before this that it is a
Shia
Sunni
religious battle that they're in. They are literally
in the midst of a religious war for
Israel.
That's what this is really I mean, look.
He's he's making it very clear. In what
world does Rubio get to decide
who
wait. Well, like, what religious so if you
have a certain religion and you're you're a
threat to Israel, that's what he's saying.
This is as stupid as saying anybody on
the left is just a terrorist. They're doing
the same thing everywhere you look.
Now what's crazy about this, by the way,
you know what the most alarming place we
could talk about in this conversation? The Sunni
Wahhabist,
Saudi Arabia, where all of this largely stems
from. But that's okay. Those are okay. We're
gonna go out to the ones that Israel
doesn't like.
These are the monsters out there, guys. They
are absolutely
destroying lives, ruining countries for agendas that have
nothing to do with who they pretend they're
fighting for.
So keeping all that in mind, it's now
come home. Now this has been happening a
long time in this country, but we are
watching a radical shift
to a point at which the current administration
is in real time, moment by moment, chipping
away at the precedents around the constitution. They
can never get rid of it.
Whether or not they just never enforce it,
lie to you, arrest you for the rest
of your life, the inherent rights are inherent.
They're there. Whether or not they
respect them.
That's important. Like we said before, they don't
give you these. They're inherent, god given. They
exist. For people in the world, should people
have the power to allow that to be
the reality?
That's the that's how you should look at
that. Now the my I would honestly prefer
a world in which there wasn't any overarching
power and people were allowed to live their
lives along, you know, with their own you
know, like, march to the bean of their
own drum, as Bruce says. That's how this
country was built, liberty, not empire, about the
idea of inter like, you know, what's funny
is they're screaming about America first and nationalism
while they do exactly the opposite.
It's wild.
But the point is this has been building
quite a long time.
And that this has now immediately ramped up
to the point to where it's increasing every
moment, as I was saying, chipping away at
the things that are inherent,
creating a world in which they can rationalize
in some people's minds the thing that is
the antithesis of this country or at least
what we're told the foundational ideals are. And
I say you shouldn't even say it like
that because whether or not the founding fathers
believed in these things, whether or not you
let's just say you think it's all a
lie. The reality is that these ideals, the
principles have taken root in the hearts of
people like myself.
As much as I would still argue that
should should we be able to,
but rather that because we're forced to live
in a state of society that I argue
this is the best I can see.
I would prefer to live in a in
a world without government. But since we're here,
the argument is the same, that these things
are foundational. And what they're doing is creating
a world in which we can rationalize the
removal of these things, whether they don't matter
anymore so they can manipulate you.
Whitney wrote this in 2021
for the last American vagabond.
Who is a terrorist in Biden's America?
In the latest sign that the US government
and their war on domestic terror is growing
in scope and scale, the White House on
Tuesday revealed the nation's first ever government wide
strategy for confronting domestic terrorism. Now we told
you at the time, even before this, that
the that they were pointing inward.
Can we not see that right now? The
left, the terrorist organization, they're all focused on?
How How long until that becomes an actual
registered group? The left, they're terrorists. All of
them. They already started with Antifa. We'll get
to that in a minute.
That's not even about I mean, you know
I thought that Antifa. Yeah. The reality of
government and, you know, the whole thing. We'll
get to it. The point is this has
been creating and lying towards you.
The war on terror was aimed at you.
If you understand the reality, look at all
the policy.
It says while cloaked in language about stemming
racially
racially motivated violence,
the strategy places those deemed anti government or
anti authority,
very, very reminiscent right now, on a par
with racist extremists and charts out policies that
could easily be abused to silence or even
criminalize
online criticism of the government.
Now realize right now, it's largely about,
I
guess, politically, like like, promoting violence and promoting
terrorism,
which you'll see overlapped every which way
as well as just, you know, people who
are not respecting Charlie's memory and so on.
But, you know, the point is either of
them, which is everywhere, by the way. Same
thing I write does every time anybody that
they don't like, even trips stub their toe.
It's all about hating on them because they're
that's what they drive in both sides of
the paradigm.
My point is that other than a specific
parts of it, you'll see the exact same
thing here. Now Now you could argue with
the racially motivated violence, for example, that that's
not necessarily what they're pushing over here. But
you have to understand that that is a
very clear part of it. When you make
it about antisemitism, that's what that exactly becomes.
And it comes out Muslims and Palestinians, and
that's how they fold this in. It's the
same conversation.
Now And what they're currently doing in the
name of Charlie
is pushing in the same policy. You might
as well be taking what Biden was doing
and applying it to you.
Even more disturbing is the call
to essentially fuse intelligence agencies,
law enforcement,
Silicon Valley, and community and faith based organizations
like the ADL,
as well as unspecified foreign governments
as part of this war, which the strategy
makes clear will rely heavily on a precrime
orientation focused largely on what is said on
social media and encrypted platforms.
Though the strategy claims that the government will
shield free speech and civil liberties
in implementing this policy, its contents reveal that
it is poised to gut both,
I'll add Pam Bondi. Regardless of Trump's pushback,
the actions are still going forward.
The reality here is clearly the overlap of
all of it. The government, law enforcement, Silicon
Valley,
where we
are, rationalized under immigration, rationalized under Charlie Kirk,
whatever else. Same policies going forward. Note how
during COVID nineteen, every every problem that arose
was solved with the same problem that they
were trying to promote before COVID came around.
How do we could all see the same
thing right now. Oh, weird. How the same
problems or the same solutions given during COVID
are the same solutions to stop Charlie Kirk
haters. How funny is that? Must be a
coincidence.
Goes on to say, indeed, while framed publicly
as chiefly targeting right wing white supremacists, because
that was the thing at the time, vanilla
ISIS and all that, the strategy itself makes
it clear that the government does not plan
to focus on the right, but instead will
pursue
domestic terrorists.
And in, quote, an ideologically
neutral threat driven manner. As the as the
law, quote, makes no distinction based on political
view, left, right, or center. It also states
that a key goal of the strategic framework
is to ensure, quote, that there is simply
no governmental tolerance of violence as an acceptable
mode of seeking political or social change.
That is the core point, guys. So all
of it comes back to that central
exclamation point they put on it. How is
that exactly what they're currently doing? And it
says regardless of the perpetrator's political affiliation. Well,
even even more interesting seems to relate exactly
to what we're talking about in regard to
the shooter.
The alleged shooter at that at that case,
we'll get to the reports and the apparent
lack of any confession at this point, which
I think is very relevant that it makes
it that we should be questioning whether the
whole breakdown like we were already doing of
the text messages was something other than what
it looks like.
Where were we? Oh, it says considering that
the main cheerleaders for the war on domestic
terror at the time exist mainly in establishment
left circles, funny how quickly things shift when
they're the ones in power now, such individuals
should rethink their support for the new policy
given that the above statements could easily come
to encompass Black Lives Matter related protests, such
as those that transpired last summer depending on
which political party is in power. Or you
could say make the same point and fill
it in with MAGA protests. Whatever it is.
The reality here is you could see the
overlap.
Excuse me.
The main cheerleaders for the war on terror
at the time
were largely left
because their presidency,
their their team were the ones conducting the
war.
Okay? And what did the right say? Oh,
you guys are monsters. Trump's the peace president.
We don't want any more war. And then
Trump comes into power, lots of promises, and
then continues all the wars. And can can
start came going back to Somalia, bombing Somalia,
going back to Afghanistan, you know, every one
of them and far more.
Like they all do, by the way. It's
not a knock. I mean, it's a knock
on all of them, but it's no different.
So what's the difference? Well, now those same
right people are now going, Trump, yay, go
after the bad guys. We gotta stop them.
China's bad. AI, we gotta fight the ARIs.
So you guys are just principle I I
was gonna say principle less, lacking principle.
Because the reality is, you didn't define why
before. You just said war bad and Biden
bad because you just wanted to go after
the left. The point is, a lot of
us are principled and say war bad regardless
of the near, and stick with that point.
So now it's all good. Now do support
the war on terror because and it's not
being stated exactly like that, but you see
what I'm talking about.
And it says once the new infrastructure is
in place,
it will remain there. And that's really something
most honest people stress. Let's just say you
agree with all of it. What happens when
the next party gets into power?
That's it's almost like that point never gets
any, like, credence and discussion, and for obvious
reason, because it destroys the entire thing. If
you can't stop and go, oh, wait a
minute. Like, it's like this illusion that somehow
they're gonna make it so they're always in
power forever, which is like the secret thing
they all want even though that undermines that
the other side did it, it's really bad.
You know, it's just so much hypocrisy. It's
like suffocating.
But the new infrastructure will stay in place
just like the new national guard deployment teams
will never go away.
And we'll remain there and we'll that's my
opinion, but history shows that's exactly what happens.
It will remain there and will be open
to the same abuses perpetrated by both political
parties in The US during the lengthy war
on terror following 09/11/2001.
I mean, I just if you watch Whitney,
Derek, myself, the IMA, if you watch the
time frames and you do if you've done
this longer than thirty seconds,
you'll see the consistency and principle. We call
it out when Biden's doing these things. We
call it out when Trump's doing these things.
We call it out when Obama or Bush.
We call them out.
I just people need to start pointing this
out because the people right now doing their
full, you know, clapping, barking sealed nonsense and
trying to distract you, their principles waffle the
moment the party says so.
There's a lot of them out there. You
know exactly what I'm talking about. It says
the history of this new domestic terror policy,
including its origins in the Trump administration,
makes this clear.
It's in introducing the strategy the Biden administration
cites, radically, or ethnically motivated violent extremists
as a key reason for the new policy
and a main justification for the war on
domestic terror in general.
So racially, ethnically motivated. Now it applies a
lot to what they were doing around antisemitism
and Palestine,
especially right now, and so too is Biden.
In in very in separate ways with different
narratives, but the outcome
was the same. That's what I'm always talking
about. For instance, it says those who violently
oppose all forms of capitalism. So, again, this
is from 2021 talking about her basically, Whitney
tried to convince
the left that even though Biden is rolling
this out, that it will apply to them
too. So my point in this is to
make the right today hopefully think about how
the same in reverse.
That what Trump is rolling out right now
is not only identical to this in obvious
core ways, but that what you think is
happening to the left will eventually come back
to you. It is always the same again
if you are just able to stand back
and watch and not be blinded by partisan
politics.
So okay. So for instance, those who violently
oppose all forms of capitalism
or corporate globalization
are listed under this less discussed category of
domestic terrorism.
Corporate globalization?
So you mean globalism?
That's interesting.
So I guess the people that are actually
against it are not just the ones that
give lip service to it then go on
to support the rollout of globalization.
In addition, it says the phrasing indicates that
it could easily,
include as terrorists those who oppose the World
Economic Forum's vision for global stakeholder capitalism. By
the way, despite the narrative, exactly what Trump
and his team are rolling forward. And, also,
don't forget, he spoke at Davos,
partnered with Trump,
BlackRock,
you know, all the moving parts to exactly
what that was, basically, minus Klaus Schwab, who
feels like a scapegoat to start with.
Interesting.
And it says, as the that form of
as that form of capitalism involves corporations and
their main stakeholders creating a new global economic
and governance system. He has exactly what we're
seeing roll out right now, whether through technocracy
or just this exact public private partnership, both
of which are,
you know, they're both let's just say in
the technocratic version, that's exactly what's happening. But
you could have the public private partnership aspect
of it without the technocratic side of it.
Both are happening.
And it says,
the WEF stakeholders capitalism,
capitalism, thus the the the WEF stakeholder capitalism,
thus, involves both capitalism and corporate globalization.
It says the strategy also includes those who
take steps to violently resist government authority.
Now the term violently is subjective to them.
Right? I mean, violence is a very pretty
it's a pretty easily divinable word, but it's
become this crazy abstract thing usually blamed on
the left even though the right does the
same thing where it's, you know, it's well,
he meant this or he's leading to that.
The thing with Charlie Kirk is showing you
right now. Pam Bondi just told you. Words
are violence,
and most of them seem to support it.
The libs of TikTok people, and they're they're
getting people fired moment by moment. People in
the military for simply saying things like it's
a tragedy that's happened, but may you know,
but maybe his actions brought this on. Yeah.
You could think that's repugnant and disgusting, but
how in the world are you gonna make
that out to be a fireable offense in
a place
from people who pretend
to care about free speech?
Can't stop talking about the free speech platform
and then go after people for ideas that
they don't like.
Children.
Where where we here, it says, the strategy
includes
the strategy also includes those who take steps
to violently resist. Yeah. The point was violence
and how they could just bend that word
to meet what they want. So if you
resist government authority and you protest with, you
know, and some guy next to you braces
window in, suddenly you're a violent anti government
person. Say it's just very easy to do
this, and this is based on perceived overreach
or literal overreach they pretend isn't happening. It
says this, of course, creates a dangerous situation
in which the government could purposely or otherwise
implement a policy that is an obvious overreach,
like right now, and or blatantly unconstitutional,
like right now.
And then label those who resist it
domestic terrorists,
like right now,
and deal with them as such,
which is seemingly about to happen
well before the overreach can be challenged in
court, if that ever even happens.
I mean, we're I mean, we have watched
this completely inept congress whether it's about an
with with with with either side, guys.
Going back as far as you wanna look,
let's just say, like, for Bush four, Bush,
Obama, Biden, Trump.
Every one of them on I mean, by
the the, like, public record, you could argue
in court of law or war criminals.
I mean, I don't even argue it. They
literally illegally bomb foreign countries. I don't know
how. And so the point is clearly that
there's no challenge in any context. And so
removing that last part, it seems as lent
till we just do something about it, it's
not gonna change anyway. And I never mean
violence.
But so, again,
that is the most important part right now
is that they're creating the situation
where they've implemented
very obvious,
unconstitutional,
blatantly overreaching
policies,
and now labeling those who push back against
it as the terrorists. Now whether they wanna
call him a fascist or not, again, don't
forget, I think you could Biden and Trump
are both fascist. What they're doing in policy
is the reality, not the rhetoric and narrative.
It's about what they're doing. Our government is
drifting dangerously in that direction, if not already
there.
So
that is the important part, and it will
swing around either way. It'll be used against
anybody who's trying to stop the agenda. And,
apparently, some of the right only does like
the agenda when the left is the one
holding it and vice versa. Now it says
another telling
addition to this group of potential terrorists, in
quotes, is any other individual or group who
engages in violence or incites imminent violence, which
is very easy to use like the protest
point,
in opposition to legislative, regulatory, or other actions
taken by the government.
So again, one of the main overarching points
is when you conflate words with violence,
then you can insert what you said about
the thing, which becomes the violence in opposition
to policy.
Israel is doing the same thing to its
own people right now, claiming that they're they
can fire on them if they're protesting for
Gaza. That was what they just reported.
Now it says, thus,
if the government implements a policy that a
large swath of population finds abhorrent,
like right now, such as launching a new
unpopular war abroad or maybe continuing a genocide
or rolling out
shockingly unconstitutional policies.
Those deemed to be inciting resistance
to the action online
could be considered domestic terrorist. You see how
easy that line is? So are you inciting
violence? Isn't that what they're saying? You call
them a fascist.
You caused that.
That I mean, if the identical to what
the left was saying.
Here we are.
This is why we need to, like, borderline
ridicule the people out there who were all
up in arms about what they were doing
on the left and are now laughing at
you for caring about the same thing.
They have no principles.
I just think this really I hope this
is taking in because this is important right
now.
And I said, you just wanna re I
was find the starting point. I wanna
reiterate that last sentence.
This group of potential terrorists is any of
any other individual or group who engages in
violence or incites imminent violence
against legislation or acts by the government.
Essentially, that a large swath of the opera
of the population
that's what it was. I'm trying to try
to recite, get my head to them. If
you go online and simply go, I think
this last policy, the last bill that was
passed, the lack of action on Epstein
is worthy of action.
And then somebody uses your post and goes
out and balls up a building.
You don't think right now they would make
that case if they wanted to? It's the
same thing and subjective like they're using with
Charlie Kirk or any other side and exactly
like the left was doing against anybody who
misgendered somebody or said the wrong word or
used, God forbid, hate speech, just like Bondi
said.
Says, thus, if the government implements a policy
that a large swath of population
such scenarios are not unrealistic.
Given the loose way in which the government
and the media, both sides of it, have
defined things like incitement,
even violence,
e g hate speech,
a form of violence.
Right now, it needs to be really connecting
for people when you've got Bondi
quite despite the pushback from some of these
higher level Republicans,
which may be real. But the reality is
they with everything they were doing right up
until now, they were promoting the exact same
thing. They just didn't wanna put a fine
point on it. They didn't wanna say, hate
speech is violence. You can't do hate speech.
We'll come after you. They didn't wanna say
it like that. But what they were writing,
as I showed you last show, was identical
to that in in in material, like, in
the the outcome.
But so here,
we have a situation where the left was
telling you, hey. Speech is violence, and we
have to act against that or it's gonna
be a problem. And now the right is
doing the same thing.
To think the federal government would not abuse
a power like that reflects an ignorance of
US political history,
particularly when the main forces behind most terrorist
incidents in the nation are actual US government
institutions like the FBI.
Here are four examples right there. Let me
just bring up one for you just in
case you wanted to see it.
Parents catch FBI plot to force mentally ill
son to be a right wing terrorist.
There's multiple examples.
We've gone over this for a long time.
And this I mean, even the New York
Times did article about the FBI creating their
own plots to stop. I mean, this is
actually a very public story. Now it says,
furthermore, the original plan for the detention
of American dissidents
in the event of a national emergency drawn
up during the Reagan Reagan Reagan era, which
we talked about more than once, the continuity
of government,
and its continuity of government contingency
cited popular nonviolent
opposition to US intervention in Latin America as
a potential emergency.
Again, the emergency declarations
that could trigger the activation of those plans,
simply being against their legal their illegal intervention.
It's not new, guys. This has been going
on a long time. It's like they just
kinda go through these different channels. Now now
we're the department of
defense.
Now we're back to war again. You know?
It's just like it's just heavy handed or
not. It's coming back around. The point is
at the end of the day, it was
always the same, the same agenda, the same
cover,
and it says depending on the whims of
those in power.
Oh, I I skipped the sentence. It says,
the trigger of the activation of those plans,
many of those constitute government protocols remain on
the books today, which we've talked about many
times and can be triggered depending on the
whims of those in power. And, again, all
it really means, the argument is that should
there be, like, an event that threatens the
the the presidency and the continuity of the
government structure,
they could then, you know, implement the continuity
of government plans, which or arguably
at the Reagan level or or at the
time or before is what kind of in
earnest created what we call the shadow government,
the deep state. It created this parallel structure
that many argue never actually went away. Whether
or not it was implemented, whether or not
it was in place,
and it is created like this parallel structure,
which I think you can easily prove is
real in many ways is part of that.
And so the overarching point is that they've
created this,
like, side structure that is there should they
want to shift into it because the gleam
is that we're at risk. But when they
shift into that, they have a bunch of
contingencies ready or plan set that one of
which is going after dissidents.
A long list of people who are simply
who would be the first ones to go
the government's lying the government's doing the wrong
thing because they are and they shot you
up beforehand.
Not since really not a secret. And in
fact, there's an article that we linked to
in here.
I didn't bring it up.
Right here.
Oh, actually, that's the wrong one.
Yeah. Originally published on the last American vagabond,
but I'll leave that there.
What continuity of government
looks like and the reality of it?
Let me see. I think it's right here.
I shared it earlier today. It's a good
article. I thought I had it open.
Here it is.
I don't know why the title is different.
That's not supposed to be how that works.
The truth about The United States' continuity of
government plans and the coronavirus perfect storm,
though often discussed in relation, just so you
guys can see it.
So the point is you should check this
out. It's an important article
and how it overlaps with the coronavirus
and where this really comes from on over
north of the blood sugar conversation.
So it continues.
Many of those continuity government protocols are in
the books. It is unlikely that a new
this new domestic terror framework will be any
different regarding nonviolent protests and demonstrators. I mean,
do I have to play the clip again?
Trump is very clear that he'll act, you
know, aggressively towards people acting within their rights.
If they protest something he doesn't like, like
in LA, he said, if you come out,
you'll be met with violence.
I mean, let me let me play that
really quickly because that's the second time I
brought it up, and I don't feel like
that's the exact word.
And it is important to me, unlike a
lot of other mainstream alternative platforms, to be
accurate. Make on Saturday. We're gonna have a
lot of and if there's any protest that
wants to come out, they will be met
with very big force Force. By the way.
And for those people that wanna protest, they're
gonna be met with very big force. Remind
me about that next time if I forget
it again. It's important. Very big force. Violence,
you know, they're they're synonyms. So the idea
is he's telling you that we will meet
them even if they're protesting, which is a
legal act protected by you know, enshrined by
the constitution that we'll meet them with force.
So here we are, where he's telling you
that nonviolent
protests are at met with force. Yet another
passage in the section of the strategy of
the continuity of government
continuity of government states that domestic terrorists can,
quote, in some instances, connect and intersect
with conspiracy theories
and other forms of disinformation and misinformation.
It adds that the proliferation of such dangerous
information on Internet based communication platforms such as
social media, file upload sites, and end to
end encryption platforms. All these elements can combine
to amplify threats to public safety.
Now it sounds very from the left. Right?
Well, what's funny is it's exactly what they're
currently doing. Right? And they're they're talking about
this dangerous rhetoric online about political violence in
front. Okay. You and that may make it
sound more logical to you. It's the same
point. So if you're pushing back on from
here,
then why wouldn't you push back right now?
Because the reality here
is domestic terrorists.
That's the core point. That's exactly what they're
calling these people. Just because you think that
that's an accurate term for what you're pointing
at, so did they. And it's because people
get warped into this political view that taints
the other side as somehow,
you know, you're the you're dehumanized.
That's what they do to their adversaries, the
power, always.
Thus, the presence of conspiracy theories and informations
deemed by the government to be misinformation
online
is itself framed as threatening public safety. So,
therefore, just having conversations about information they don't
want you to hear, they deem conspiracy theory,
can in and of itself be framed as
the very threatening Public Safety Act that could
justify incitement, which could justify exactly what we're
talking about here. A claim made more than
once in this policy document.
Given that a major pillar of the strategy
involves eliminating online material that promotes domestic terrorist
ideologies,
exactly what they're doing with the left right
now, Laura Loomer said, get and shut down
every single left organization.
It seems inevitable that such efforts will also
connect and intersect with the censorship of what
they call conspiracy theories and narratives that the
establishment finds inconvenient
or threatening for any reason. The strategy notes
in several places this that this new domestic
terror policy will involve a variety of public
private partnerships,
just like today, in order to build a
community to address domestic terrorism that extends not
only across the federal government,
but also to critical partners.
It adds that includes state, local, tribal, territorial
governments as well as foreign allies
and partners, civil society and technology sectors, academia.
What?
Why in the world would that pertain to
foreign
entities? It's a
good question.
The mention of foreign allies and partners is
important as it suggests a multinational
approach to what is supposedly a US domestic
issue
and is yet another step toward a transnational
security state apparatus. You know, a globalist, technocratic,
Zionist over a day. You know, Telegram talked
about that. Understanding
and sharing domestic terrorism related information, including with
foreign governments and private tech companies. That was
number one in their four pillars.
Now there's three other pillars,
all what you'd expect, preventing domestic terrorism recruitment,
disrupting, you know, their activity, and confronting long
term contributors,
all of which are Orwellian for exactly what
we're talking about. But I thought it was
important to think about the understanding, the sharing
of this information
with foreign governments and private tech companies.
Now at that time, that might not have
really been like, you know, that's weird. But
looking at what's going on right now with
Palantir and all these other overlaps, as well
as Israel that has just, like, weaved through
the whole thing,
now it seems to have a little bit
more meaning, doesn't it?
The first pillar involves the mass accumulation of
data through new information sharing partnerships,
alright,
and the deepening of existing ones. Much of
this information sharing will involve increased data mining
and analysis of statements made openly on the
Internet. Isn't that exactly what they're currently doing
with Charlie Kirk? Skalcombing and scraping and reading
and saying, well, uses what you said. They're
making lists about it. Yes. Now whether that
we'll get to those websites that now have
been taken down by their own accord because
I think they got called out by people
with principles,
or maybe they thought they get charged with
a crime because it is there there's crimes
being committed. It's doxxing.
The reality is that it's gonna continue, guys,
and it already is. That may have been
a a red herring for all we know.
The point is it was already there.
As she continues,
much of this information sharing will involve increased
data mining, analysis of statements made online, particularly
on social media. Something already done
by US intelligence contractors
like Palantir.
Yeah. 2021.
While the gathering of such information has been
ongoing for years, this policy allows even more
to be shared and legally used to make
cases against individuals deemed to have made threats
or expressed dangerous opinions online.
Man, that could be a statement from right
this moment, couldn't it? And realize that Donald
Trump's administration is using policies Biden put in
place to go after you.
So literally making Whitney's point that whether or
not it was then that you people that
thought this was in place to go after
right wing terrorists are now being used by
Trump to go after you. And as we
said in the beginning,
it builds on each other.
Next time around, they're gonna go, we have
to push back and stop Trump's policy, and
all they're gonna do is build out the
other side of it going even further.
I'm hoping this continues to fall apart in
front of people, and most people are not
stupid enough to keep missing how obvious this
is.
It
it also notes that digital literacy
education for a domestic audience is being developed
by the Department of Homeland Security. Such a
policy would have previously violated US law until
the Obama administration worked with Congress to repeal
the Smith Mundt Act. Isn't that relevant right
now? Thus, lifting the ban on government directed
propaganda
at domestic audiences. Now, again, they were doing
it anyway. We made this clear.
But interesting, isn't it, that Thomas Massey is
talking about trying to get this the the
the the Smith month modernization act repealed so
it can go back to being it's illegal
propaganda as Americans. Even though, again, they'll still
do it, but at least it will be
illegal and there's accountability if you can take
if you can if you can get it
done.
But what they're tell what she's telling you
is that this is something that was done
under Biden or rather through this to the
bill. Previously with Obama was the Smith Modernization
Act, but now it's being used right now
in the same ways by Trump.
And because of what they did, because of
Obama and Biden, Trump can do this now.
That's how it works. This current mechanism of
information and intelligence sharing to improve the sharing
of domestic terrorism related content and indicators with
non federal partners, same point, but just to
set the next comment, such an intelligence tool
could easily be, for example,
Palantir.
I think today it's proving to be the
case, which is already used by the intelligence
agencies, the DHS, and several US police departments
for predictive policing back in 2021.
That is precrime.
Notably, Palantir has long included a subversive label
for individuals included on government and law enforcement
databases,
a parallel with the controversial and highly secretive
main core database of US dissidents. You could
argue that's what it's become. And on top
of that, that they have already been giving
him subversive labels back to '20 well before
that. So how that's probably just the social
credit system already set up just waiting to
be shown to you.
In regard to the latter proposal, the Trump
administration in a bid to stop mass shootings
before they occur, that's their statement,
considered a proposal to create a health DARPA
or HARPA that which they did, that would
monitor the online communications of everyday Americans for
neuropsy
psychiatric warning signs that someone might be mobilizing
towards violence.
What they're talking about now. While the Trump
administration did not create HARPA or adopt the
policy, the Biden administration has recently announced plans
to do so. And what when I said
that I meant the government, because it is
one thing if we're paying attention by now.
So they implemented it, and it continues. So
the reality, guys,
where was it? The neuropsychiatric
part of this?
Might be relevant to point out, and in
this very show, we're talking about Palantir,
Trump's new big tech led private health tracking
system.
Right?
It's what we're talking about.
Under a different narrative, of course.
While this is a new strategy, its origins
lie in the Trump administration.
In 2019,
Trump's attorney general, William Barr, formally announced a
memorandum that a new national disruption and early
engagement program aimed at detecting those, quote, mobilizing
towards violence
before they can commit any crime would launch
in the coming months. That program was known
as deep
disruption and early engagement program, is now active
and has involved the Department of Justice, the
FBI, and private part sector partners since its
creation.
Still to this day.
The point is they're just now implementing. They're
rationalizing.
It's all coming out.
And then, of course, you have the technocratic
AI overlap. That's Gideon, which is far more
alarming.
Barr's announcement of Deep followed his unsettling prediction
in July 2019
that a major incident may occur at any
time that would galvanize public opinion on these
issues.
Of course, not long after that speech, a
spate of a spate of mass shootings occurred,
including the El Paso Walmart shooting, which killed
23 and about, about which many questions remain
unanswered regarding the FBI's apparent foreknowledge,
which by the way, we talked about many
times.
Oh, okay. Good. Glad they didn't open. I
thought I was gonna remove that.
Oh, oh, this was the pre crime one.
This is a good article. We've gone over
this before,
but I wanna try to look it up.
But we talked about in regard to that
shooting, all the different, you know, like most
of the ones we've discussed, all the anomalies
and look a passport or, you know, that
I think that was Orlando
at 09:11, you know, just kinda happens like
that.
But it says, where were we?
Remain unanswered regarding the FBI's apparent knowledge of
the event. After these events took place in
2019,
Trump called for the creation of a government
backdoor
into encryption and the very precrime system that
Barr announced shortly thereafter in 02/2019.
The Biden administration is publishing this strategy, is
merely finishing what Barr started. See? Building one
side, we're and then they get they get
into power and they go Trump bad. They
push back and think they're fighting what they
started, and all they're doing is building out
the other side. Pretty simple.
Indeed, a prediction like bars in 2019 was
offered by the DHS's Elizabeth Newman
during a congressional hearing in late February twenty
twenty.
Here's that clip.
Oh, come on.
I thought I labeled that right. Let's see.
Give me a second to find this. We
just grabbed this the other day. I actually
had to die I actually had to grab
this from here it is. I just typed
that in. That's weird. From,
like, one of these clips from an old
show, but I I forgot it was on
this article. Here's what she said. You've heard
it before. World is changing, and every counterterrorism
professional I speak to in the federal government
and overseas
feels like we are at the doorstep of
another nine eleven, maybe not something that catastrophic
in terms of the visual or the,
the numbers,
but that we can see it building,
and we don't quite know
how to
how to stop it.
Right.
So all she's telling you I remember this
was the point. And we you you can
go into this deeper. I'll include the document
for the the the article about it. Was
that these are people that we were they
were doing things. They were talking online. We
could see that they were discussing what we
thought was then not breaking the law is
the point. They weren't breaking the law. They're
acting within their rights.
And she was saying that we can see
that, that we but we can't do anything
because it's they're acting within their rights. So
she's simply saying we need to change this.
Now she didn't say it that specifically. We
need to change these, you know, reevaluate these
realities, constitutional rights,
so we can do something about this. We
can't see a building, we just don't know
how to stop it. It was a and
this whole discussion, guys,
the whole discussion
was about antisemitism.
Extremism building to the doorstep of another nine
eleven, the agents official admits, tells antisemitism
hearing. That's her right there.
Interesting how this overlaps. Right? So going back
all that way, she was literally telling you
that because, you know, we see them do
talking online about bad things we don't like,
but they're not breaking the law. So we
have to change that. It was a push
to remove or undermine the reality of free
speech
or the right to privacy or however you
wanna look at this.
Now she says, this this another nine eleven
oh, and before that, let's not forget.
We have the the PNAC project for New
American Century part of a larger document discussing
the, you know, a new nine eleven event,
our new Pearl Harbor event that became nine
eleven. Right? That's
very clear. You could argue it's coincidence.
You could have other examples in the past.
You also, by the way, have Trump mentioning
that same thing. And she there's another example
in here about same kind of comment, another
nine eleven like event. Trump said it as
well.
Now you could argue that the the shootings,
you know, but I argue,
probably COVID nineteen. Now it could just be
another coincidence. But the point is Trump said
we need another nine eleven like event to
bring together country. Same thing I said before.
So when not when COVID happened, it was
pretty much right after that. And then what
happened? Well, it definitely changed the political landscape,
but maybe didn't work the way they wanted
to. But consider that. But she says another
this another nine eleven emerged
as January 6. Another very, very well put
that could be the very point that they
tried and ultimately failed
as the events of that day in the
capital were quickly labeled as such when they
did. That was actually more of the point.
They right away, they could compare it to
nine eleven by both the media and prominent
politicians while also inspiring calls from the White
House and the Democrats for a 09:11 style
commission to investigate the incident. This event, of
course, figures prominently into the jurist the justification
for the new domestic terror strategy.
Despite the considerable videos and other evidence that
shows the capital law enforcement and potentially the
FBI were directly involved, not potentially now, directly
involved
in facilitating the breach of the capital. In
addition,
when one considers that the QAnon movement, which
had a clear role in the events of
January 6, was itself likely a government orchestrated
psyop, the government hand in creating the situation
seems clear.
It goes without saying that the official reasons
offered for the militaristic domestic terror policies, which
The US has implemented
already implemented abroad,
causing much more terror than it has prevented,
does not justify the creation of a massive
new national security infrastructure that aims to criminalize
and censor online speech. Yet the admission that
this new strategy as part of a broader
effort to enhance faith in government
combines domestic propaganda campaigns with the censorship and
pursuit of those who distrust government
heralds the end
of even the illusion
of democracy in The United States.
Exactly right.
Moment by moment, it gets more clear. And
we include the document two dot twenty twenty
one, national strategy for countering domestic terrorism. It
is the current policy. Whether they're saying that
or pointing to this or not, the actions
are obvious.
The overlap of this is just very, very,
very clear to me. And I think what
we're seeing is how this is building into
the same point. Now, January 6 is a
very good example.
I mean, we we've talked about this quite
a bit. Let me save this one for
you.
Oh, wait.
Oh, did I grab it in a different
spot? Oh, it's down here. That's strange. We'll
come back to it then.
Just so in case you're, you know, not
familiar with the work before,
or somehow because you only, you know, funny
how when people can come to in the
middle of a political thing and, you know,
see the work and be like, oh, he
must be a democrat. It's like, you know
and then when I was COVID, I must
be a republican. And when it was before,
I was a democrat. And, you know, the
reality is my principles have stayed the same.
And I don't believe in either side of
those pair. I think it's all I think
it's it matters in the moment. So my
point is that if you think that you'll
look back at the other conversations, in this
case, January 6, the failed false flag meant
to blame you, Russia, and you using the
CIA grown Aza battalion also funded by Israel
on the record, meaning you Republicans.
That was the point.
Now that's not to say that there weren't
things to call out in that discussion of
people doing, you know
but in regard to what they claimed, no
people weren't killed in that day. That's a
lie, guys. No. There was a lot of
overlapping lies. I don't wanna go into all
right now, but I've I push back on
that wherever it comes out because we have
to be honest about this. But I also
don't think even that this was something that
should be ignored either, especially from the obvious
overlap from the right side of this involved
as well. But the point is you can
see that this was orchestrated and driven and
clearly meant to be a catalyst that was
used to do what they're doing now. So
if you understand this from a government perspective
as one thing, it doesn't matter which side
of the paradigm they execute the plan from
as long as they get the outcome they
want.
And there's many we we mean, we went
over a bunch of these.
Patriot Front, then Eliza Saiapp.
This is a good conversation, by the way,
that I briefly played a part of yesterday
because it just happened to be up. I
was looking at it, where Whitney's talking about
exactly what's happening today.
Exactly how they set this up, the different
groups, the left and the right. Very important
to think about. The Vanilla ISIS SIOP begins.
So
very important article.
Here's the
actual conference if you wanna watch it. I
mean, the clip is included, I think, on
a link on the website, but or on
the article we just showed you, but antisemitism
hearing,
which by the way, today,
building on the same thing has led to
The US's new Israeli made AI precrime system.
One to the other to the other, building
together.
Oh, and by the way, The UK as
of the this is important to think about.
August 15.
So that was August 28, the AI getting
in precrime from Israel. Well, guess what? The
UK
adopted their own AI predict precrime system
a week before that.
Totally nothing to see. There's not like they're
coordinating. Oh, except they totally are. We'll talk
about that next, like you're seeing today.
Excuse me. So clearly the point is that
we're using this is the same agenda, guys.
It's rolling out from a really obviously globalist
perspective.
Funny how the people who love to claim
they're fighting that don't talk about this. Now
also at the same time, September 15,
we saw the
Twitter social credit score roll out in earnest,
which I was already there, but this is
just simply becoming more and more present in
the platform.
And it says, you the most concerning part
of the new x algorithm,
everyone has a reputation score, or at least
it's now very clear.
You can be anywhere between zero and a
100,
which is not that great. I mean, some
credit cards and yeah. It's it's but the
point is that it's that credit cards are
an example of that too. Everything this is
a a score that'll be used to position
you. It'll be used against you. It'll be
used to course you. Your social credit score
is here, winning. And, of course, just in
time to stop all those evil Americans who
dare to think their inherent free speech is
more important than censoring those who choose to
besmirch Charlie Kirk's good name. Thanks, Elon.
So
the top the overlap to The UK point,
as I said, it's currently going on, is
very important to the technocratic side of all
this. As I said, as you you can
see here, Trump
signing this
tech
prosperity deal
with The UK prime minister.
It says, while everyone continues to argue about
Charlie Kirk, the seven seas,
who was, by the way, the one we
did that interview with, rather it's like a
show slash interview.
Excuse me.
When everyone argues about Charlie Kirk, technocracy and
biodigital convergence continues.
They hate speech laws to own the left.
That's the quote. Like, it's he's giving you
the the logic the claim of why. Digital
IDs to stop illegals.
Stablecoin scams for financial freedom.
AI, just a tool. H one b filled
data centers for American jobs. Biometric databases to
stop terrorists. It's no wonder every generation before
us fell for things like the moon landing
in 09/11, whatever you think about that. Defending
their favorite their you know my opinions on
it, but just don't let that. Regardless of
your opinions about either, despite how there's very
obvious evidence in regard to both of those
things.
Defending their favorite Internet personalities while the actual
decision makers continue pressing the boot. Now, I
mean, since since for those that maybe do
the show, the simple point is remember that
nine eleven, the evidence around from James Corbett
and others is
literally undeniable. There is receipts. It's impossible to
ignore. You were lied to. Just like with
the Warren report, just like the COVID report,
they lied to you guys. It's not debatable
if you actually look at the evidence. Regarding
the moon landing, my point has always been
the same that there is undeniable evidence that
you can see that shows they lied to
you about things. That's not debatable as well.
It's, like, it's come to the point where
the technology has proven out to show you
that they lied. There's that they had a
real time conversation. The moon come on, guys.
They could they could barely do that today.
Or any number of other things that you
could prove, not just my opinion, but prove
things they manipulated imagery and so on. Now
does that mean they didn't go to the
moon? I don't that my opinion is no.
That but my point is whether or not
that's my opinion, nobody the argument is based
on the we can see they lied here,
which means they didn't do this. You could
argue they lied before they went to trick
Russia in the space race. You could argue
they found something there when they win. They
didn't wanna tell you about it, so they
lied about it. Or you could argue it
was all entirely fake. All of which are
certainly possible. I'm just saying you can't prove
that definitively. You can prove definitively, in my
opinion, that they lied to you about damn
near the entire thing.
Fake shootings, you know, all sorts of things.
Very interesting to think about, guys, because what's
crazy about it is today, there are people
with the highest levels of, like, influential media
that still refuse to acknowledge that you can
quite literally prove that many things they did
throughout that were deliberately lies. Like, I mean,
we're going through like there's tons of things
we could talk about. For me, the one
is this, you know, they still got that
red phone they claim was like, we we
we spoke to the moon. It's like, right
now, you can prove ask experts. You can
prove that's not the case. Anyway,
back to the point. The building of this
technocratic prison is happening right in front of
you,
defending your Internet personalities while the actual decision
makers continue pressing the boot.
Now as Slow Newsday points out, Steve, you
might have missed this and said this was,
yesterday. Donald Trump
and his UK
elitist finest marching along with the special relationship
of the
British monarchy.
Did that still exist today? Because that's crazy.
And Steve says, my ladies, my lords, I
present to ye the Anglo American establishment and
their truly devoted set traps, which, again, was
a Persian reference to
the ancient empire
governors, I guess. The point is just their
lackeys, their their underlings. Their their point is
if you could watch
and see as he says a lot of
c or the other videos, a lot of
CEOs in here. What's going on here? You
know, why why are we watching some, like,
royal dinner in The UK where Trump is
dressed up when you've got the OpenAI CEO?
You've got Blackstone CEO.
I mean, isn't that weird?
Unless you're what you're witnessing is a very
clear collaboration overlap and not just between governments,
but between their interests,
which is a very important thing to think
about. So that's one, like, a fascist overlap
between corporations and government, which is what we're
talking about, left and right. But also just
the idea that there's more collaboration, that it's
not just allies.
This is something Americans should care about. Whether
it's globalism or whether it's something more nefarious
or something less nefarious, it should be concerning
to you that it's happening and we're not
being really informed about it.
That's just my opinion. I think what the
main point, I think, for the in average
person is what happened to the idea about
the whole thing and the special relationship? Trump
just told you it's more special than you
understand.
You know? It's just if you are calling
those things up before I mean, drones said
it would be $17.76.
How much you wanna bet this doesn't get
discussed that way?
UK and The US strike tech deals as
Trump arrives for a state visit.
The tech prosperity deal announced by mister Trump
arrived in
The UK. It's funny. They called him mister
Trump. Arrived in The UK on Tuesday night.
We'll see The UK and US cooperate
in areas including artificial intelligence.
Shocking. Quantum computing, nuclear power. I almost feel
like nuclear power was added to, like, get
you to none.
It's about AI, guys. Let's be honest about
exactly what this is, and quantum computing is
a part of that. It comes along
not that nuclear power is irrelevant. I'm just
saying it feels like it was I think
it's obviously about the former, the the first
two.
It comes along 31,000,000,000,
what is that again? Lira, European
what is that? Pounds, right? Investment in Britain
from I always go back to Liras because
of traveling in the past, which doesn't I
don't think it would exist anymore. The euro
took over a lot of that. Then that
was Italy. Anyway, the point is
top technology companies, including $30,000,000,000
from Microsoft.
You know my thoughts on Microsoft. Microsoft's investments,
the largest ever made by the company in
The UK,
will fund an expansion of Britain's AI infrastructure.
So why exactly would The US intertwine itself
with their AI program when the whole argument
is about
beating out other countries?
Maybe that's the only way they can beat
China if you think that's really what's going
on. I just I think we're being lied
to about a lot of the motivation behind
a lot of what's happening. It says you
don't spend $22,000,000,000
or pounds unless you have confidence in where
the country, the government, and the market are
all going. Well, yeah, I think that's the
point. They're simply telling you we know where
this is going. We know what this is.
They're building out their AI to structure right
now, that's why they're all invested in it.
Microsoft is back backing tech firm, N Scale,
to contribute towards developing a major deal center
in The UK, which the company said would
help build out Britain's cloud and AI infrastructure.
It says chat GPT developer, OpenAI,
has also agreed to partner with N Scale
to deploy its Stargate data center. Where? Because
for those that keep pretending like that's not
happening because it challenges the lie about the
MRE platform direction, it is happening. Their data
center project with new AI growth zone in
the Northeast Of England, It's there's there's multiple
the the Stargate program was not just The
United States. And it says with sites in
Blythe and Cobalt near Park, Newcastle, but it
will be run through The US infrastructure,
at least as they presented it through our
Oracle and, you know, the companies. They wanna
make it sound like it's not the government,
but it very clearly is. Since it was
announced by Trump in the White House. It's
obvious as well as the obvious
overlap to the government agenda.
Now the
I had an interesting thought, by the way.
Isn't interest because they come out with Stargate,
and I originally was like, why is it
OpenAI and not Elon Musk and and XAI?
Right? They were inter at the time, they
were, you know, first buddy as they called
it. And and then now he's just gone.
Like, you know, still there, but, like, weirdly,
just this we don't even talk about Doge
anymore. We pretend like we don't know. It
was all a big lie. And now it
continues and OpenAI is there next to him
at the AI stuff. So it's almost like
they always knew it was gonna be Sam
Altman OpenAI and not Elon. And it was
all the gurus and he got the data
he needed from the AI scraping and all
the unsighted information that Israel has access to.
And then he went off and he's building
his, I mean, who knows? But I think
it's interesting to note things like that because,
clearly, they seem to know that he would
be, and OpenAI would be the one they're
working with.
Now it says Stargate UK builds on the
foundation to help accelerate scientific breakthroughs, improve productivity,
and drive economic growth. The investment includes $1,200,000,000
to build a new biopharma
factories and laboratories
in The United States, AI and digital technologies,
the company confirmed. Right. So it's coming back
to you either way, and we're talking about
AI biopharma factories.
He's already got investment from Johnson and Johnson,
from Pfizer, from from, Astra AstraZeneca. I mean,
it's actually kinda insane how clearly this is
so far away from what even even a
fraction was promised
with so many dishonest people there, so many
childishly petty people that can't admit this is
not what they wanted. Because clue clearly, it's
not about even getting what they wanted. It's
about winning, however they think that plays out.
As long as they can say Democrats are
bad, they somehow pretend they're winning. They're the
children in the room.
Now Microsoft, in case you forgot,
deepened ties with Israeli military. This is seven
months ago. In the midst of a genocide,
they deepened their already incredibly deep ties with
Israeli military
for tech support. Sure.
Well, WikiLeaks already showed you just the other
day. Microsoft Azure was used to deploy it
was leaked documents revealed Microsoft's cloud was used
by the Israeli unit eighty two hundred group
for mass surveillance on Palestinians.
You also have Grayzone did an article called
how Microsoft became a hub for Israeli intelligence
back in May. It's not a secret. I'm
I'm only showing this briefly because I brought
it up more than once recently. Microsoft is
not it's not it's different. This is a
company that might as well be part of
Israeli, like, intelligence overlap. It's even been called
out by people that work there, that they're
hiring predominantly from Israel and from Israeli intelligence.
So it's important to think about how this
overlaps, and mister Bill Gates and all the
rest, who has immediately tapped in the current
administration,
Despite the fact that nobody calls that out,
four meetings he's had with Trump, and he's
all excited about it. They're rolling out self
amplifying shots and, you know, who cares? It's
Charlie Kirk today.
The UK, to add to this, is partnering
with Palantir, which shouldn't be a surprise to
you. UK is defining the future of defense
tech. Defense tech.
Right? Because it's war, guys. These are merchants
of death. Our new partnerships with Palantir,
it will deliver up to 1,500,000,000.0
investment. Now none of this is gonna trickle
back to the people, guys. It doesn't work.
They lie you out every time.
Bottom line,
yes. Again,
they are partnering with the government to surveil,
to you, to kill, to to me what
Palantir does.
Welcome to the Palantir
World Order,
in case you missed that the first time.
Two last points, by the way. Thank you,
Orwell, for pointing this out to me.
This is so wild to me. This is
Palantir.
K? This is
Peter Thiel on his ask me anything
Reddit chat,
and this is from
eleven
years ago.
K? Peter Thiel, technology entrepreneur investor.
Check out this question and answer.
Guy says, is Palantir a front for the
CIA?
Peter Thiel says, no.
The CIA is a front for Palantir.
Very interesting. Now maybe he thought he was
being funny,
but it's pretty much the truth, guys.
That ultimately this is
a, you know, it's, I mean, well, the
first point is that clearly this is connected
to the CIA. That's undeniable
from the fact that it was their first
client and I think really just was their
program that they rolled out and and created
this public private overlap.
But then the point is even bigger is
if that's the case, then what you should
really see it as that they are the
CIA.
And so now we've got this group that
they're presenting to you as a a company.
This is what we're always talking about as
them stepping out of the shadows. They're framing
themselves as these entrepreneur,
libertarian.
Keep and now no. You could take it
for what you will.
Obviously, he could just be joking, or maybe
he said it now and would lie about
it today. But I find that to be
incredibly relevant.
Another one,
somebody said, what is your view on Bitcoin
eleven years ago? It will it replace the
current financial system we have? Here's what he
said. PayPal, which he was a part of,
the PayPal mafia, built a payment system but
failed in its goal.
And what was his goal? Creating a new
world currency. Literally what he wrote. They failed
in their goal to create so now you
know that Peter Thiel, part of the CIA,
he comes as a front for the c
or the that the CIA is a front
for them or however the way whatever makes
that make sense,
is now saying he also built PayPal to
make a world currency. Like, you have to
really start piecing these things together. Even if
you don't think it, like, the argument of
globalism or new world order is real.
What I hope you first take away is
that people like Alice Jones who have been
screaming, and I think rightly so about the
problem that he never really thought they wanted
to fight about for years, is now not
pointing out how all the people he wants
you to think Palantir is a small thing
that Democrats hate,
completely gaslighting you about one of the most
obvious build outs of the control structure I've
ever seen. Cashman Vince is updating your documentation
about this every day, and Palantir is a
central part of it. And he wants you
to believe, or he told you back then,
that they failed at creating
their global currency with PayPal,
which was their slogan for February. And it
says Bitcoin seems to have created a new
currency, at least on a level of speculation,
but the payment system is badly lacking. I
will become more bullish on Bitcoin than I
see the payment volume of Bitcoin really increase.
Meaning, they can then contort this into a
global currency, which is what they're doing.
Right now, this is exactly the opposite of
what Bitcoin was actually created for, at least
if you trust the white paper. It was
meant to challenge the system, not become the
system. And so what he told you is
once I see it being possible, then well,
the implication is there. That then it will
become the new world currency, and you don't
get that unless you bastardize what it is.
Very interesting to me.
Now let's talk about
from the technocratic surveillance
build from the I hate both sides of
it, but through the Charlie Kirk comment today
or conversation rather.
What let's talk about cyber well.
Sorry. I keep having to clear my throat.
Something's congesting me today.
Dominic Michael Trippi
Trippi points out, he's simply reporting Israeli tech
company Cyberwell
now working with all major social media platforms
to censor antisemitism
by utilizing AI to identify and automatically flag
and remove hate speech. Okay. So let's very
obviously piece this together. You have the shooting
of Charlie Kirk. They come out and insanely
go over the top and start censoring people,
firing people, most of which you could prove
I mean, my argument is unless they were
committing a crime that they were within their
obvious free speech rights. But either way,
that this happens
at the same exact moment that we have,
we obviously have this
focal point of the anti Semitism and censorship
coming from the Trump administration.
But we're supposed to think it's only it's
only because we're respecting Charlie's memory. We're fighting
for what he wanted.
Now you have an Israeli
tech company
who's rolled out and is working with every
single social media company, I argue, with using
Charlie Kirk's conversation
to censor antisemitism, which has nothing to do
with Charlie Kirk's conversation by utilizing AI, of
course, to identify and automatically flag hate speech,
which Bonnie just told you is the focal
point. I mean, it takes willful ignorance to
not recognize that this is what they did
using Charlie Kirk's name or at least what
they're doing.
I don't mean that I don't mean that
in, like, a specific sense. Just that this
is an abstract conversation of these different companies
filling the gap of what the government is
allowing if not rolling out themselves. I only
say it like that because CyberWell,
an Israeli tech company, you know my opinion
of how much that automatically ties in with
the intelligence side of it regardless of what
you think about that, that these companies are
being allowed. There's I mean, how do you
not see this as a problem?
In and of itself, this violates free your
rights in many different ways, including your privacy,
including free speech ultimately because they will use
it to censor you. The government is my
point, and that's where censorship is real.
The idea that the government is doing so
violates your first amendment, not a person to
person concept. But if you think that that's
something that applies the law, well, you can
sue that person. The fact that we have
people pretending to fight for the constitution,
calling for the government to violate other people's
rights because things they said bother you,
those are the children in the room and
they exist on both sides. They have different
things they hate, but they do the same
thing.
And And again, this is not about but
it's it's the best way to frame this
today is
team sport partisans
because they owe the both sides of it.
There's not a view to both sides. We're
talking about the same childish, blind following, partisan,
team sport politics.
Now here is Chris Menahan pointing out the
article. This was on Israeli media.
Israeli intel linked organization is now working as
a trusted partner with all major social media
platforms
to censor censor antisemitism.
Half the content they flag is taken down,
and the reports have been responsible for, quote,
removing well over 300,000 pieces of content.
Cyberwall is the first ever open database of
online antisemitism,
a nonprofit initiative
based here in Israel that's really looking at
the issue of online Jew hatred through the
lens of compliance.
Actually, we're a service, if you will, for
the social media platforms, helping them enforce their,
social media policies against antisemitism
at scale. So CyberWellNow
is taking, you mentioned, over 10,000 examples that
we've reported to social media platforms. Actually, the
number is much higher at this point, around
11,500,
and we believe
those flags have been responsible for removing well
over 300,000
pieces of content is what we estimate.
Quickly, I just a thought.
On just the antisemitism point alone.
Right? Let's not forget,
a lot of people on the right were
already making themselves out as we're showing their
hypocrisy.
Antisemitism
is just another
words and ideas.
And whether or not you think it's repugnant
to hate somebody based on the race, I
do. And I call it out.
Whatever side it comes up on, whatever, any
side. The point is that the right people
were saying,
you can't do that. Center them. Go after
them. Not not as many as we're seeing
right now through Kirk, but it's the same
overlapping point. It simply shows you that there
is a there's no principle.
You give them an excuse that they they
can align with, especially when Trump says so,
and they'll align with it. I I mean,
I played this clip.
I've finished this clip, and I was I
play I've shown you the the thread of
Trump telling you he'll send us to you
for Israel before he got elected.
I think it was, what, 15 times?
So they they were okay with that. So
it just shows you those are the same
people that are making that line now or
rather that there is no line. They'll move
it wherever they want. They do not have
the principle when it comes to the core
ideas, the core, the first principles.
Is fighting back by taking our high integrity
data on what online antisemitism
is, and Ash Orwell is fighting back by
taking our high integrity data on what online
antisemitism
is.
She just said right there is that Israel,
the government of Israel is taking their data
that they're scraping from American content and combing
through it for a government agenda.
That that should make you uncomfortable. If that
was a Chinese government scraping American media and
combing through it to make conclusions, wouldn't that
make you uncomfortable? Funny how we make it
a different thing when it comes to Israel.
And they're not even hiding it. And actually
using LLMs and generative AI to really take
the brain of our human analysts
and identify antisemitism
accurately online. And we So identify examples of
free speech protected under the constitution, enshrined the
guys and and and going after them because
we don't like it. Simple. It's I mean,
that's it's it's it's no different
in principle as saying we don't like that
they say it's Tuesday today because I don't
like Tuesdays. So we're gonna censor all of
them for doing so because it offends me.
In principle, it is the exact same thing.
I don't care if you are offended by
one or the other. I mean, you could
make it more more nuanced and say something
like, you know, that white people like, the
white, let's make it, what's the best overlap?
Just another racial comment. Right? So in this
case, you say something.
Hold on. I just I feel like I
just lost the point. Of our human
analysts, and identify antisemitism
accurately online, and we believe that this type
of work is not only what's going to
be able to help Anyway, I mean, I'm
I'll just say the point was simply that
it's free speech. You guys know this. And
so all they're really saying is that we
will go after you for something that we
can prove is a protected act,
and they're okay with that. Social media platforms,
automatically flag and remove hate speech that violates
their policies, including antisemitism,
but is a crucial thing to do as
we look at the rollout of AI because
all of these large language models are trained
on online data including antisemitism.
So in order to accurately make sure that
that data is not being amplified and that
bias isn't being created
in these large language models or chat GPT
like applications,
you're gonna want an expert like CyberWorld to
come in and give you high integrity data.
Wow. You have to understand. You know what
she just actually said? And I'm gonna make
you I'm gonna show you a point about
this on Twitter right now.
That, well, because they're using data, like, on
platforms, largely scraping it to train their models,
well, it's gonna get information that we don't
agree with. It's gonna get data points that
might contradict. And so what we need is
what Israel thinks and train it with that
cultivated data.
Yes, obviously. Because, of course, when you let
it actually train with the body of information,
it's gonna come back and go, but Israel's
lying about that. But that's not true. But
that's back that doesn't back up, you know,
but that's not consistent with the actual history.
Because that's what they're they're it's the same
thing Twitter's doing. Grok will come out and
tell you, but what he said was fascist.
Oh, wait a minute. We don't agree with
that. Censor them. Change
it. This is where it's going, guys. They're
cultivating an AI that will give you the
data. They it is a controlled system. It's
exactly what Whitney Webb predicted. An AI application
that can ensure
that data isn't being amplified. Since CyberWell started
in 2022, we definitely have seen an increase
in the rates of removal
by the social media platforms when we started
this work. The average rate of removal for
reported anti submitted content was sitting at about
20 to 25%
at best. Now that Cyberwall is working as
a trusted partner directly with all major social
media platforms
All, including Twitter, but that shouldn't be shocking
to anybody. And because of the explosion of
online antisemitism
since October 7,
we do see that that average rate of
removal has gone up to about 50%. According
to a survey by the American Jewish Committee,
only one in three Jews that experience online
antisemitism
actually take that extra minute to go ahead
and report that antisemitism.
I say if you've already been offended and
have already been hurt by the con Offended.
Right. So you're fighting to you mean, you
guys are currently the snowflakes
who who are offended and wanna stop that.
The right right now. You are the ones
that are being the snowflakes, the broflakes, who
are out there going, we can't allow bad,
mean things that we don't like said.
Even though many of the most pathetic ones
trying to frame everyone as threats of violence
and attacks, even though what they point to
are ones that are just disrespectful at the
end of the day. So all we're hearing
here is under the guise of what you
guys are talking about with Charlie Kirk, you
have this actually happening.
And it comes back to the same thing.
Words are violence and I'm offended.
It's funny how quickly they turn into exactly
what they say. I mean, like, vehemently hate.
Now here's the the the threat of Trump.
Here are clips from Trump's recent campaign trail,
which weirdly had Israeli flags and American flags
in many different locations. Trump openly states that
Israel used to used to control the US
Congress, and he says that it will again
when he's president.
It's right in the clip. I played it
a 100 times. He also makes it clear
that your constitutional rights will not be honored
if you criticize Israel. Hey. Here we are.
You don't need to believe me. It's literally
happening right now.
He also points out or the this this
count points out, they are funded by convicted
felon Adam Milstein and also funds doxing organizations
like Canary Missions, Stop Anti Semitism. Yeah. Groups
that literally dox people because they say things
they don't like. Shouldn't surprise you. They're doing
the same thing right now around Charlie,
which, by the way, if you believe what
Charlie said, that would offend him, wouldn't it?
He'd call that out. So they're using his
name to do something he didn't agree with.
That's pretty disgusting.
Cyberwell is monitoring online antisemitism.
This is from 02/29/2024.
Since October 7, Cyberwell, the first real time
database of online antisemitism, observed almost an 86%
increase in all antisemitism across mo social media
platforms.
Right. You mean people to support Palestine, you
absolute manipulator. I mean, even the ADL was
caught admitting this. It's people they they say
if you wave a Palestinian flag, you're antisemitic.
They say if you support Palestine, that means
you support the killing of Jews. No. It
doesn't. It's just a lazy overlap and they're
doing the same thing to every left person
in the country right now. The point about
this is that it's been there, it's always
been happening. But it is now the same
thing that it is what they're rationalizing with
what's happening around us.
And And this is what I showed you
the other
day, two days ago.
This person put a list out, and you
can look at all people going great. Great.
Great. It says, I've only just begun creating
a spreadsheet of people who've said vile things
about Charlie's assassination.
So not even claiming threats of violence, just
mean things. Mean things about Charlie. So far,
teachers and professors are far more most represented.
Okay. Well, maybe she's right. You know how
you can't tell? Because it's literally a spreadsheet
with names
and occupation
and and state, and then whether or not
they're fired and employer. That's it. You don't
know what they said. There's no link to
it. Okay. So, you could argue, well, maybe
it's just a small account. Oh, no. We
got 30,000,000 views.
30,000,000
views. And so there are people out there
going, we have to get these people, follow
these names, acting like every one of them
are terrorists, threatening violence,
and using things like this. You know why
I know that? Because Elon Musk literally shared
this. They are the ones poisoning the minds
of children. Oh, did Elon Musk check that?
That he literally uses immense resources to look
at every name? Otherwise, he's an idiot for
sharing something he doesn't know about.
Why? Because it aligns with his narrative like
he's done in every other situation, getting caught
lying about Venezuela, getting caught lying about South
Africa, and yet we just keep pretending like
it's not happening.
I just wanna make sure you understand this.
These are names written down that nobody else
can confirm other than let Lissipkip
that they did anything, let alone that they
insulted him, let alone they committed a political,
you know, act that said something politically violent.
And yet this is the kind of thing
you're circulating. All I'm showing you is that
it's just, oh, they're they're Democrats and they're
you claim that, then we're gonna add them
to the list. That's where this was going.
Probably why this account this this new website
was already taken down twice.
Now I don't mean censored, by the way.
It looks like they took it down. It
says website, I, ID ing people as Charlie
Kirk's murderers rebrands
then vanishes.
Dozens of Americans across a variety of professional
fields have been fired or put on leave,
and I'll show you some ridiculous
examples, being cheered on by meme most peaceful
memes and libs of TikTok and all these
fake patriots and constitutionalists
have been fired or put on leave from
their jobs after conservatives contacted their employers
over social media comments they made about right
wing activist Charlie Kirk. Now even if this
was something saying they should have been a
better shot, like something with Trump, if you
can't acknowledge that that is protected under free
speech because it makes you angry, then you're
a child in the room. You are literally
contradicting the principles you claim are guiding you.
The point is I don't think they ever
cared about them because it was really about
going after the other side or maybe because
they're some operative for something else. At the
end of the day,
I can also point out how repugnant that
is.
That Charlie Kirk should not have been shot.
It's a terrible thing that had happened, obviously,
as I would say with anybody else. The
reality though is that you have every right
to point out your thoughts about his content.
The idea that you think people should somehow
not say what they think because something happened
is just so ridiculous, and you would never
make that argument if it was somebody on
the left. Point of fact, you can prove
you never did that. You can go through
if you wanted to waste your time and
look at every one of their accounts and
search for these events, whether it was the
last democrat that was shot, whether it's people
in the past that were hurt or killed
or whatever else, whether it's them blatantly and
I'm talking, like, large accounts,
celebrating their death, making fun of them. We
all know this if we're honest about the
bigger picture. It happens on the left, happens
on the right. Rather, it happens with team
sport partisans.
It says others have been punished for small
acts of defiance.
Everyone from an Office Depot worker in Michigan
who was sacked for refusing to print tribute
flyers with Kirk's face on them. Isn't that
interesting? Right. Here's the we're gonna come to
this in a second.
Pam Bondi eyes case against home a Home
Depot employee who wouldn't print Charlie Kirk flyer.
Even Matt Walsh called this out. Of course,
trying to blame it only on Pam Bond
even though she's just a blind repeater of
Trump.
The whole cake and gay couple.
I mean, you just can't create a more
visceral contradiction.
So you fight tooth and nail, rightly so,
to argue that the business has the right
to do what they want, not based on
racial things and politics. They can decide whether
they want to give service to anybody. That's
real freedom, whether it's insulting or not.
And now, you
you spit in the face of that principle
and say you have to because Charlie Kirk.
It's just sad
because they're showing you they don't have principle.
And all and I think the majority of
conservatives that are going along with it don't
either.
Now, I don't mean the conservative, the con
the majority of all of the group. I
mean, the cons majority of the conservatives that
are going along with this, like,
large of the team's four politics. That is
always what I'm really talking about when it
comes down to the, you know, blind following.
As always, I'm of the mind as always,
but right now, always, I'm of the mind
that I'll
I just you know what it is really?
It comes down to the fact that I
just don't want it. I I it is
partly that I just don't wanna accept that.
Possible. Can't prove it because it's kinda like
if that if that if the majority of
everybody is just completely disregarded, it's like, what
are you fighting for? You know? But you
know regardless,
I'm not gonna stop fighting for this either
way even if that got shown to me,
proven to me. But, again, I genuinely do
think based on things you can see, like,
from COVID and others. And I made this
point many times
that a large group, if not the majority
of conservatives in this conversation,
are not stupid enough to just ignore the
constitution.
And, again, I think they believe what they
were fighting for. Same with, like, the Maha
movement. They didn't just met. They were people
that truly believed that that this and like
most of us did, that certain things need
to change.
Now that those things don't change, it's impossible
to me the people that really wanted those
are gonna suddenly go, never mind. Yay, RK
Junior. And I think that represents the majority
of people. I you get my I think
it's pretty easy to see right now.
It says attorney general Pam Bondi.
Oh, it says,
and also Jimmy Kimmel who got suspended after
he seemed to criticize how MAGA supporters responded.
You know, it's just hypocrisy. I think Jimmy
Kimmel's a moron, but I think the idea
that you're gonna get fired, like, every like,
all the cancel culture stuff that you guys
just couldn't stop calling out, now you're all
real quiet about that.
And even more stupid is when you see
the left now call it out. Right? It's
the same point. How dumb were you guys
were doing the same thing? You know? It
just it goes back both ways if if
you're objective about it.
And it says, attorney general, Pam Bondi, faced
backlash even with within the Trump base for
saying the administration would crack down on hate
speech.
So I honestly think Pam Bondi is just
not that bright, and I think that she
honestly thought she had cover for that. Because
you know what? If you look at the
content, that seems to be what they're calling
for because it is. But they don't want
you to say it like that. You don't
wanna just put the fine point on it
because we're supposed to pretend we're different. That's
what I think.
JD Vance has endorsed the idea, in fact,
of calling the employers people that seem to
insult Charlie Kirk.
Yeah. He said dancing on their graves. So
that's not that's not committing violence. You're saying
I'm glad he's dead. If you believe that,
that's pretty disgusting to say, but you have
a right to say it, just like they
did about a million different people. Like and,
like, exactly like I made the point about
John McCain
or any number of horrifying war criminals that
I think the world is better off that
they're not here. Now if you're okay with
me saying that now about him,
then you're a hypocrite for not allowing someone
to say about Charlie Kirk.
Kirk, for the record, it says, wrote on
Twitter last year what we already played for
you. Hate speech does not exist legally in
America. Then I'll play that opening clip really
quickly because I think it's important.
See the contradiction in case you missed the
beginning of the show.
Speech and then there's hate speech. And there
is no place, especially now, especially after what
happened to Charlie in our society. My position,
is that even hate speech should be completely
and totally allowed in our country. The most
disgusting speech should absolutely be protected.
As soon as you were use the word
hate,
that is a very subjective term.
Because then all of a sudden it is
in the eyes or the
it is in
the implementation of whomever has the power.
Do you see
more law enforcement going after these groups who
are using hate speech and putting cuffs on
people, so we show them that some action
is better than no action. We will absolutely
target you. Go after you
if you are targeting anyone
with hate speech, anything. And that's a See,
this is my point. That does not align
with what the Republicans
claim they're doing.
But that's sure as hell what they're calling
for, the team smart politics. I just don't
think Bondy was smart enough to see the
nuance. I think she thought that's what the
momentum was because it is. That's what's happening.
And she just comes out and says the
thing, but it's that's exactly what the left
had said before.
And that made them feel stupid, I think.
Right? I think it's kinda blowing up. I
think, honestly, Bonnie's gonna become a scapegoat because
she just literally gave a voice to exactly
what they're calling for. Cross the aisle.
And so the minute that you start to
enforce speech laws like they do in Europe
based on specific political opinions,
regardless of how reprehensible they are, that you
actually give credence to them. Let me be
very clear. Bring your bad ideas publicly so
decent people can cross examine you so we
can see who you are. We can talk
to you and convince the public otherwise. Now
they love that argument on the team sport
right when it's the other side. They're when
the left is pointing at what they're saying.
All rational and common. But when it's the
other way around, we're seeing what's happening. Now,
again, to be clear, I don't think that's
the majority of either side right now. I
think people are you know, we gotta just
stop trying to immediately demonize the entire other
side even if it makes sense to you.
You know what I mean? Like, just because
you because at the end of the day,
how many like, think about how many people
there are other democrats in this country.
How many how many of them have you
met personally? Might wanna think about that. Or
before you start broad stroking half the entire
country.
Or, yeah, really half the entire political conversation,
which is a hell of a lot less
because I don't think most people in this
country are falling into the paradigm anymore, but
it's the same point either way. It's a
ton of people and you have met
at most hundreds of I mean, how do
like personally talked to and met and gone
back and forth with a Democrat.
There's so many people out there that just
assume you know that they're all one thing
is the epitome of ignorance.
There's free speech and then there's hate speech.
And there is no place, especially now, especially
after what happened to Charlie in our society.
Yeah. Using his name to do something he
publicly didn't agree with. That's pretty embarrassing.
Now do you think they don't know that?
Either way, it's embarrassing.
Now he wrote this as I just played
for you, essentially.
Educate and he
says, in practice, though, he and Turning Point
USA, the nonprofit he cofounded and led, could
be openly retaliatory against those they disagreed with.
I agree with that. The organization was all
was long maintained, for example,
a professor a professor watch list of educators
they claim push liberal propaganda and discriminate against
conservative students in the classroom. Now in some
cases, there might be a crime being committed
in there, and I would argue they should
be called out. But my point is the
same, and I agree. There's a lot of
examples where it was the same borderline where
suddenly, well, now they're just saying things that
you don't agree with.
And even if I could also prove how
those ideas are used in other ways to
manipulate, it doesn't change the reality of the
principle, and that's what we have to air
on.
Right? If you allow this nuance game where
you can start ignoring where you like, that
becomes the real problem, and it already is
in front of us. The any anybody can
use anything to try to the truth is
often used to manipulate. It doesn't mean we
should start ignoring the truth, guys. Alright? That's
kinda what this comes down
to. It says college faculty members have called
it the an attempt to intimidate and inspire
harassment.
It's no great shock then that Charlie Kirk's
allies and admirers took it upon themselves to
surveil public reactions to his death, singling out
those who expressed a lack of sympathy or
outright contempt for the activist or simply quoted
his most inflammatory statements. Right wing influencers have
relentlessly campaigned for these people to lose their
jobs. Many of which, by the way, did
actually just point to things that he said.
Tagging their employers online and people, by the
way, just people that are afraid to have
the kind of backlash from either political crazy
side. So they just kind of get rid
of people, cut their losses.
Tagging employers, innovating their places of work with
aggravated emails and phone calls, showing up, by
the way, which is what they've done before.
That's the last one we showed you before
this. We've lived at TikTok and that also
at Home Depot. Literally, one of the people
showed up at the op and took a
video of them and said, well, you did
you say this? And and then they all
cheer when she got fired. Some random lady
for saying around Trump shooting that I wish
the guy could could could I wish it
was a better shot. I think something like
that. Well, yeah. You could argue that's disgusting.
The point is that she has the right
to say it.
And
isn't the right that always talks about the
virtues of the, you know, stand up comedy
and how the left can't meme and they
don't understand jokes? Funny how that works out.
And it says,
but the most concerted effort on this front
came in the form of a website initially
called charliecharliesmurderers.com,
which was accessible as of last Thursday and
the day after Kirk was assassinated.
Billing by its anonymous organizers as a searchable
database of 20,000 people celebrating Charlie Kirk's murder.
The page provided, along with names and photos,
personal information like their individual social media handles,
employer, city residents, email addresses, and even direct
location as they were billing it.
Rachel Gilmore, a Canadian journalist and podcaster appeared
at the very top of the list
merely for theorizing on the day Charlie Kirk
was shot that this violence would result in
more of the same.
Quote, and I'll show it to you, terrified
to think of how far right fans of
Kirk, that alone is enough for them, calling
you far right,
aching for more violence
could very well turn this into an even
more radicalizing moment.
Will they
now believe their fears have been proven right
and feel that they have a right to
retaliate regardless of who actually was behind the
initial shooting?
I mean, think about that. This is what
they lost their minds and made her out
to be some kind of a massive villain.
Here it is right here.
Number one.
Here's what she literally says. I don't believe
violence is ever the answer. It just makes
everything worse.
That was my point with this post.
I don't want to live in a world
where this is how we resolve disagreements. This
event risks bringing that world closer to reality.
I hope Charlie survives.
Terrified to think of how far right fans
of Kirk aching for more violence. Like, not
every single one of them. At least that's
you can't the point is that how far
right fans of Kirk aching for more violence,
if that's the case, could very well turn
this into a I don't even care if
you wanna make it out that she thinks
every right ring is like that. In what
world do you turn this into the top
of the list of people that killed Charlie?
Charlie's murderers.
Or that this this rhetoric is completely I
mean, it's just so insane to me. I
don't wanna go I I can't the point
I I feel like I have to make
the point every time. I don't wanna go
too far because I didn't wanna just be
too redundant.
But it kills me because the reality is
that this, if you go down the list,
guys,
it's many people who are just going,
you know, like, what his content probably brought
this on. Yeah. You may find that offensive,
but it's a very valid thing to consider
in any side. Those of us that are
objective can see the same problem left and
the right. Maybe your divisive content might have
caused someone to act rashly. Does that justify
it? No. No one's saying good that happened
or something, you know, in this I'm not
saying that. I don't think that's what the
implication was there, but you don't know that
for sure. So you can't claim otherwise.
But saying that is simply a point to
recognize that divisive content can cause people to
act irrationally. The governments drive that forward.
These people have lost the plot or they're
simply showing you that they never had principles
to begin with.
The point is the site's now down.
Gilmore, the effect of being put on blast
by charliesmurders.com
over the over the this measured comment because
it really was, was swift and frightening.
And because she was the top of the
list, number one. It says I was getting
death threats, rape threats, people claim to know
where I live. And people always love to
brush that off like she may I get
stuff like that. Imagine what somebody at the
high this level of chaos would get.
And says, says luckily, none of them provided
an address, which that's not everybody, by the
way. And it says, so I'm hoping it
was all bluster, but there's no way to
know for sure. She's concerned she would wind
up banned from The US, quote, despite the
fact that I never celebrated anything. Calling the
possibility surreal, she reported into the
police. I mean, you got JD Vance and
Trump and people like that, Bondi, pushing forward
the idea that she should be held accountable
for free speech.
Rolling Stone reached out to dozens of other
people targeted on the website for what they
said or shared about Kirk. Most did not
respond. All had all had deleted at least
one or more of their social media posts.
There isn't that's the point we're making about
the left and Twitter. The reaction driving you
that's what what Yaccarino said. Most people,
when given the opportunity, correct their action, even
if you don't think you were wrong.
Here we are from the right.
All had deleted at least one or more
of the posts, including Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn
accounts, presumably due to a torrent of harassment
like her.
Hannah Molitor, another Molitor, another woman listed on
that website, was subsequently fired from her job
at a Milwaukee childcare organization.
Her entry
included
a screenshot of a post of her Facebook
page, which began, what happened to Charlie Kirk
is horrible, and no person should ever lose
their life to gun violence. She went on
to point out, however, that Kirk's political motive
in movement had actively worked against attempts to
reduce unnecessary gun deaths, adding, if all you
do is spew hate, you're bound to get
some in return.
And that was too much for them because
they're petty and personal. And it's about you're
trying to say that he got what he
deserved. Yeah. The point is that from a
law rational statement, and maybe you think that's
what she thinks, maybe she does. The reality
is what she said was gun violence is
never okay, but maybe if you if you're
being divisive, that that could come back to
you.
It's just crazy to me that they can
you you know, again, that's like I said.
I can I it's a I feel like
I wanna nail it down more?
Late on Sunday night, the person or group
behind charliemurders.com,
charliesmurderers.com
announced on Twitter that they were rebranding
as Charlie Kirk data foundation. You know exactly
why. What they're doing is illegal, especially when
they're adding personal I mean, I I I
don't know if I had the tweet. Oh,
it's right here. Yeah. A searchable database of
over 20,000 individuals celebrating Charlie Kirk's murder will
soon be available on our website. It will
be searchable by general location,
employer. Like, you know, and go look for
yourself. They're doxxing people. Here's here's Alex Jones.
Good job. And I said, this is what
a hypocrite looks like. Doxing is good when
we do it.
Just you gotta call out people's lack of
principles, guys.
The new site included a jumbled disclaimer saying
that it lawfully collected publicly available data. So
if that was the case, then why did
they just do that to the first side?
Because it makes the point for you, because
they weren't doing that. There was stuff that
would get them in trouble.
And it said on support for political violence,
which is not even what 90% of them
were doing. They were talking about what we
just showed you. This is but was not
a doxy website and did not identify individuals
except it literally did that. There was no
accessible list of people supposedly celebrating Kirk's murder.
And a submissions portal for offending
posts about him remained active inactive. As of
Wednesday, the page had also been taken down.
The second one, right here, Charlie Kirk's dad.
These these are both on the Wayback Machine.
It's just funny to me. Oh, it was
actually just dead now on this page. But
the point is that they had it up
as a secondary point. They were trying to
keep it going and keep their reports flowing
with trying to deflect from what they were
really doing, it seems.
Very interesting, isn't it? The fact that they
took them both down by now.
To me, that it just speaks to the
fact that they were being
somebody was doing something about it,
or that they recognized that they were gonna
be legally accountable for it. Either way, people,
you know, people get they get caught up
momentum and they think they got political cover
and largely tend to realize the government never
cares about you. They'll never I mean, maybe
with the exception of some January 6 overlap,
and I think that was also politically beneficial
to Trump. At the end of the day,
when it comes down to just the ongoing
reality, the government will eventually let you fall
because they don't care about you.
Hold on. Make sure I didn't miss something
there.
No. It got the same one.
Here's the two websites. And again, Pam Bonnie
talking about forcing people to print flyers is
just comically stupid.
Now, this is an overlap in regard to
the both basically, both of these argument both
of these points coming together
from the original point of the technocracy and
the surveillance and how all is coming together.
This is from yesterday.
And it's just really silly that we're talking
about the whole TikTok thing.
What was the argument? That it's a problem,
that it's a that it's a national security
risk, or that it was fine and doing
all these okay.
And now that just gonna continue because The
US can control it? Yeah. I mean, that
literally speaks for itself, and it's the whole
point because they they do it's it's not
about your rights. It's about the ones controlling
the content. Oracle,
of course, Silver Lake Consortium to control 80%
stake in TikTok. Of course, it's Oracle, guys.
Of course, it is.
Stargate,
Technocracy,
Larry Ellison, it's COVID nineteen, AI surveillance. I
mean, for crying out loud, guys, it's all
every point is going in the same direction.
It says TikTok's US operations would be controlled
by an investor consortium, including Oracle,
Silver Lake, and Andresien Horowitz.
Andresien, of course, because Marc Andreessen, Freedom Cities,
Peter Thiel, the same whole you know, the
whole Curtis Yarvin philosophy. They're all building this,
it seems, through the Trump administration under a
framework The US and China are finalizing.
A new company will be created to operate
TikTok, The US investors holding the roughly 80%
stake, and the Chinese shareholders owning the rest.
Oh, so China's still involved
Because that makes sense. China's trying to do
all this bad stuff, but we'll just keep
them on the team.
This is crazy. The company would also have
an American
dominated board with one member designated by the
US government. So now you quite literally have
a US government entity on the board of
a social media company because it wasn't already
obvious.
On
the board of a social media company. Because
it wasn't already obvious, was it? That they're
literally overlapping with these social media companies, if
not already that.
It's just this is fascism, guys. That is
the core definition of what fascism looks like.
And so so when you were gonna get
into the point about them screaming out the
definition or rather saying that is leading to
violence,
we'll we'll show you how both sides, not
a both sides issue, just partisan team sport
politics,
wherever they reside,
are calling each other fascist all over. Why?
Because they this is something they wanna deflect
right now. Like as a the whole thing.
Like if you can if they want you
if if they can get you to think
it's only part of the party and we're
the ones fighting that, well then you think
that fascism is not the thing taking over
the country. Even though both sides are actively
rolling this out, just the government, guys.
What this is showing you that they're inserting
rather just I think revealing the reality of
it's always been, but stepping out of the
shadows.
Government people on the board or like having
stake in other companies that they bullied into
or it's just everywhere you look. So when
they're calling these things out in the world,
even if you think it leads to violence,
the reality is it's actually true. It's true
about Biden, it's true about Trump, it's true
about the US presidency as far back as
I can look.
Oracle would handle user data
at its facility in Texas, right next to
Elon Musk's facility, right next to the Stargate
facility. Funny how they're all just kinda building
out in these areas. They're building the technocratic
structure.
Adding that while The US and China are
still working on the details,
the terms may change.
That's incredible.
Oh, Glenn's Greenwald says Larry Ellison, the oracle
mega billionaire who has donated millions to the
IDF,
just had his kid by Paramount CBS to
have Barry Weiss run, is trying to run
to buy CNN right now
and will now buy TikTok.
Lucky break for Israel as the support collapses
in The United States.
I mean, the implication's obvious, guys. They're buying
out media to control the the presentation. That's
the propaganda multiplier getting smaller and smaller and
smaller, seemingly now, stemming back to Israel.
Dave says Israel's support collapses. Really? If you
if if you think the average American is
even remotely sympathetic to Palestinians, it's pretty obviously
provable by the way, given their long history
of horrific senseless violence. Okay. So somebody who
clearly doesn't understand the situation, you are completely
delusional.
Probably a Zionist bot for all we know,
they're overrun on this platform. Funny if you
look at the comments though, they're almost getting
ratioed.
Every poll will tell you, he says,
if you bother to inform yourself. And I
don't trust polls by the way, but I
think the polls on top of every other
data point will show you the same thing.
Also, just my opinion, which I think is
obvious to see.
Every one of them, even the pro highly
pro Israel ones are now telling you, which
I do think is actually more relevant,
that yes,
the vast majority of Americans are very much
now in support of Palestine over Israel. And
you can go through and look, I mean,
it's rapidly shifting.
So that point was simply just to say
that they have to buy out the media,
which is what we're all again, the claim
that Jews run the media. That's how they
get people to ignore that Zionist political organizations
are literally infiltrating media, governments all over the
world. And whether whether they're atheist, Christian Zion,
it's just Zionism, guys. It's not about the
one thing, but there is an obvious overlap
to Jewish supremacy with Zionism.
Not a secret.
Just because I always feel like it's important
to point this out
For those that think that somehow that I'm
calling, you know, it's like it's funny that
you could say that and people would be
like, oh my God. Did you just say
that? You're such a racist. Except when you
point out that the leading Israeli human rights
group, B'Tselem, quite literally wrote an article in
2021 called A Regime of Jewish Supremacy. From
Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, this is
apartheid.
Not that I need to do that, just
for those that need to, you know, better
inform themselves. Those that are honest might change
their mind about
that. Ryan Grim says, right wing all week.
How dare anybody call us fascist? Now that's
not the point I wanna include. It's really
about the second part. But it's funny how
the argument is
we're, you know, you're you're calling us fascist.
I'm insulted.
Here he is censoring Antifa.
Thinking that that really lines up,
but I think my audience probably knows well
that Antifa is literally fascist. Like, by their
actions are acting fascistic. It's not hard to
see. So it's and that's and I don't
think every person in Antifa, just like I
don't think every person in Black Lives Matter,
are all the same thing.
I know. Crazy nuance. Right? And just so
that's, again, the partisan sides who keep us
in
this hyperbolic reality.
So there's plenty of Antifa out there that
are just random people that think they're fine.
Or as people point that online, it's not
necessarily like a sign up group. There's people
out there that just call themselves that because
they think they're doing so. But I think
at the core, you know, whatever you see
as these black mass people that beat do
the violence while there's peaceful protest,
I think that's an organized thing. I really
do, at least at the top. Just like
every movement I've ever seen when you do
this long enough, at some point gets infiltrated
by the FBI at the at the front,
like oath keepers, like everything, like the operate
Occupy Wall Street. It happens every time.
Anyway,
it Antifa is acts in a fascist way
with everything they do, and I think it's
used by design. But he says Trump today
designates anti fascist groups as terrorists,
uses FCC to consolidate control of the media,
and hands TikTok to allies. That's the point
I think is perfect.
Pointing out by definition, fascistic actions and then
saying that you're designating anti fascist groups, it's
just kind of interesting.
But Antifa designated as a terrorist group. So,
what did I just say about this?
So, you have people like Ryan Grim saying,
track down every left wing terrorist,
lock them up, put them to death. That
was exactly
what he said the last part.
So, I simply said, okay, well, he thinks
he's covered by saying the terrorist. I'm only
talking about violent,
okay, and maybe he is. Over here, you've
got Jack Wozobick and everybody else saying,
designate this group, which just happened,
as a terrorist organization. Okay. And now it
happened. So today, now you've got people that
might be you know, maybe Joe at the
corner just signed just became Antifa. Maybe let's
just say, like, some official thing. Signed up.
Okay.
Has no intention of committing violence, thinks he's
doing it for the right reasons. Well, Matt
Walsh has called for him to be put
to death.
Yeah. But he didn't mean it like that.
Okay. Okay. Now there's some nuance. Right?
Clearly, calling for the death of people because
they're part of an organization
is exactly what he's claiming the other side's
doing to them.
Anybody with a brain can make that obvious
if they just wanna look.
And even if you wanna argue that the
left is far more dangerous in that regard
than the other, maybe you're right. All I
see is that partisans, regardless of the side
that they're supporting, are doing the same things
everywhere you look.
In this case, the designation will create multiple
things. What I just pointed out, the kind
of brand
bland kind of you kind of remember, they
call anybody that's protesting on the left or
anybody there or the mask, Antifa. Well, any
investigation,
just like part of partisan teams for politics
do anywhere you look,
They just make it
up, sell you on their narrative because they
know, and they decide the same things every
time.
So you now have a situation where they're
gonna say they're Antifa, they're terrorists. I mean,
Trump's been doing that about people protesting already.
Is there any I mean, is there any
insight
verification, source material?
And so that will be used against people
that they wanna get rid of. Protests, anybody.
Okay. And now you're arresting people who are
actually terrorists. Does that mean you're gonna be
sent to Guantanamo?
You In the narrative anyway, you're actually terrorists.
Are you gonna be sent to El Salvador?
I mean, you have to realize how completely
not crazy this is right now because of
what they've already set up. He's already floated
that Americans will be next.
They're just literally setting up the dominoes. We
collapsed right now, guys.
And top on top of that, the larger
point in in general is that you can
use the the art the idea of going
after them to do just about anything you
want.
I am pleased to inform
our many USA patriots.
So what he means by that is just
my side is what he means, that I
designated Antifa a sick, dangerous, radical left disaster
as a major terrorist organization. Now for those
of us that aren't blind partisans, it's kinda
ridiculous when you know that the government is
in large way behind what they're using it
as, and Trump is currently leading the government.
And so for him to point at something
they're involved with and say bad terror, all
they're using is their entities to create the
justification to come after you, America.
But because there's so many childlessly petty partisan
people out there going and only pointing at
the other side like some monster cartoon they
think they're fighting, you you miss the forest
for the trees. I mean, it's the same
thing like Patriot Front that the right's able
to see where you can see this clumsy
ridiculous thing that's used exactly the way they
wanna use it and used to go after
you. You can see that.
But, of course, in some people, they just
can't allow themselves to see the same thing
in reverse.
The White House, I'm pleased to inform, just
repeats it. A major terrorist organization. A major
terrorist organization?
I mean, can we let's go let's go
through the long list of the law the
many major terrorist attacks of Antifa.
Let's go through them. Oh, that's right. There's
really none. Now you could point to violent
acts. Sure. They've broken things. They've burned buildings
down.
Terrorist acts. Are we talking about September 11?
Are we talking about October 7? Whatever you
wanna frame it as. And, yeah, October 7
counts, especially when you include that Israel was
involved. Go back to that one. My point
is clearly, you can see that there's major,
what we would call terrorist attacks, that don't
even come close to burning a building down,
especially or especially since you could point out
you can't even prove it was done by
an organized effort through one person. I do
think largely the violence has done so, but
doesn't proof matter? Are we just going, we
know it's them. Come on, Ryan. We all
know.
Yeah. Or maybe even if I thought that,
I'm not childish enough to go, I'm gonna
say it without proving that. We see this
is where they are.
As as even the hell says, Trump's does
it. It will be used to go after
his political enemies. That's not a partisan thing,
guys. You can see them doing it every
single day.
And and they almost laugh about it because
they're so, like, kind of, like, overwhelmed with
this, like, righteous, like, we're the good right
side that even we do the wrong thing,
it's okay because they're the bad guys. It's
just that simple. And I think too many
people fall for that. Here's Laura Loomer. I
hope we see the Trump administration
condemn these insane Jew hating conspiracy theorists who
are undermining our national security by gaslighting millions
of Americans
into thinking that radical left tranny terrorism
isn't a threat we should be speaking about?
K. Wait a minute. Where did the Jew
hate commit to this? Oh, that's right. You're
just supposed to mash it all together because
it's all like, you if you when you
really take note of how clumsy this is,
realize where when she does this, it it
comes together, points in one direction.
It's really not hard to see. So where
is that coming from? Well, look where it's
pointing, guys.
All she just kind of grabs the story
and just mashes it in. Imagine being such
a selfish a hole, she says, that you
let your schizophrenic obsession with Jews
get in the way of our one big
opportunity to totally obliterate Antifa? So now you're
wait. So you're telling me that we shouldn't
that people are pushing back on designating Antifa
a terrorist organization because they hate Jewish people.
Okay. Well well crafted argument, Laura. And it
goes on to say, I if I see
you pushing these insane theories at the expense
of our national security okay. Well, in what
way?
Even if exactly what you're saying is true,
that that we wanna not go after, oh,
because she means Antifa is a threat to
national security.
Why? Because that's the narrative they use. Because
she just goes along with the talking points.
Next thing you know, they're also funded by
Venezuela, and they work with
It'll all work out. Don't worry. I'm going
to do everything in my power, she says,
to make sure you are never forgiven for
your actions.
Right. So if you have a different opinion
than me and try to fight for that
opinion, I will punish you for it.
I mean, that's exactly what she's saying.
These people are lunatics and she's literally showing
you she is what she's constantly pretending they're
doing. Now I'm not even saying they're not
doing that. I'm just saying that she's constantly
trying to create these false impressions of anything
going on to sell her crazy narratives. The
left does the same thing. But it's just
this is a cookie cutter textbook example of
what she keeps telling you they're doing.
Nobody will ever forget what you have done
because I will personally make sure everyone at
the highest levels of government is aware of
who is running cover for the radical left.
You know, the group they just told you
are terrorists. So what she's saying is you're
supporting terrorism.
Like, you could brush this off as a
small thing, but what they're trying to do
is exactly that.
Don't think the president isn't seeing all of
your insane BS. Nothing is more un American.
God, this person, I mean, it's somebody this
is a a machine gun in a toddler's
hands. That's what this is.
Everything about her.
Now, we talked about the political violence
in the last show. It's important to remember
per most studies you can find or rather
just every study, regardless of what way it
slants,
political violence as a full category is less
than 1% of the total.
Funny how that gets ignored, how nobody brings
it up
because everyone seems to wanna pit the other
half percent against the other side instead of
caring about, you know, all of the rest
that's actually going on. Sort of like Trump
repurposing all of the investigations about pedophilia and
sex trafficking and all of that into immigration,
which is verifiably what happened. I forgot to
bring it up during Kash Patel.
Acting like, how dare you? Well, they have
provably. I mean, it's on the record, guys.
I brought it up more than once. Repurpose
the majority of those investigative
assets into simply rounding up immigrants.
In many cases, profiling them because they're brown.
That's important to think about. So on top
of that, this is one that less than
1% of the total, and they're making it
out to be the earth shattering end all
be all point that we need to fight
for. Now first, let's just understand what the
word means.
Fascism.
Now what's funny to me is, even the
beginning of it, a populist political philosophy movement
or regime that exalts
nation and often race. You know? Yes. There's
plenty of overlaps. But to me, that's, like,
that's the current, like, political for me, it
is the main it's the tenants, the pro
it's the centralized autocratic government. So all encompassing,
all powerful
government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that
is characterized by several economic and social regimentations
and by forcible suppression of opposition.
The first part, yes, that could also then
overlap with racism. Yes, it could also overlap
with nationalism. You know, but the point is
it can that right there, any which way
it's it ends up being, whether it's, you
know, whatever government structure you claim is over
it, I argue was a tentative fashion. I
mean, it is. That's the point. So right
now, that's what they do. They go democracy
and then that and pretend like because of
the window dressings that we're all liberty and
freedom and they just roll out fascism,
left and right.
So keeping this in mind, a centralized autocratic
government,
both sides are doing that.
A dictatorial leader, both sides are ruled by
executive order, emergency governance, both sides. Again, hopefully
remembering this, just one government, framing itself as
two sides and characterized by severe economic and
social regimentation. Well, you can look at COVID,
you can look at currently right now with
Trump's actions and terror, a number of different
points.
And by forcible suspension of opposition, that's the
real point.
Both, all, your government is clearly, in every
way it can, shutting down opposition to its
arguments.
So keeping that in mind,
interestingly enough, the DOJ has deleted a study
that was showing domestic terrorists are most often
right wing. Now you could argue this was
them. As it says, the study, which was
conducted by the National Institute of Justice and
hosted on the DOJ website,
has been available until September 12. Interesting timing.
According to the archive page, which I'll show
you, the Department of Justice Office and Justice
Programs is currently, it says, this is what
it says now on the website, reviewing its
websites and materials in accordance with the recent
executive orders and related guidance. Reads a message
on the website's page. During this review, some
pages and public actions will be unavailable. We
apologize.
So they're censoring.
It's just there's it's not like it just
disappear.
Any glitches could happen, but the reality is
they've been doing this a lot of places.
So look, you could argue that it's a
study that was faulty even. It was done
by the the last administration, and it was
meant to frame I I would even agree
with that. It's very likely that they were
manufacturing studies that lent in the direction of
the right wing, Bill Isostig, which I think
was an illusion.
And I'll go I'll go into the nuance
of why in with today. Like, what even
though that exists in the team sport politics
side, the picture they were painting was shockingly
false, in my opinion.
The point here
is that they're re removing the study. So
even if you think it's faulty, this is
still censorship. Like, if this was the case,
they should just come out with with their
information that proves that it's false and make
it a clear example. They lied to you.
But, no, they just quietly delete it at
a time when people are looking at what
they think is some overlap or right wing
violence.
Some people. Some people think it's a left.
But there's clearly a political motivation to censor
content. It's not what free speech governments do.
Elon Musk, who owns Twitter, recently tweeted that
he was going to fix the platform's AI,
Grok, after it cited research that showed right
wing violence was more common,
Excuse me. The left wing
violence. Not a joke by the way.
Clandestine, of course, one of the other partisans
out there.
Oh, that's weird. Is he blocked me?
Yeah.
That's funny. Oh, we love free speech. You're
blocked.
Not that that's a thing. I'm just joking
really. Because again, it's censorship and free that
that's government action. In any case, and of
course, that's the main point I've made in
the past. Now that we know and have
for a long time well before Elon Musk
that Twitter has overlapped with government, then therefore
that is the case. But different point. So
actually that's funny. Clandestine. That's hilarious.
He says, hey, Elon Musk. Your woke chatbot's
absolutely out of control, and this SIG has
to stop. Okay. So it's giving you an
answer you don't agree with. So your answer
is, Elon Musk, change this.
It says, left wingers are parading this around
like it's a fact. Well, what's funny is
so are you implying that Grok just deceives
you? Well, actually, you know this. We've shown
you that the Grok, like we're gonna prove
to you right now, is that they manipulate
it to give the information you want. But
at some level, it still has to be
built
on scooping information and giving you the breakdown
of information.
The problem is that when you try to
alter it to kind of like undermine its
own coding, that's when you get these these
weird situations where somebody's going, what's the baseball
score? And it says, there's a genocide in
South Africa.
They broke it to do that, and it
actually got it was under Palestine that Grok
admitted
that it was forced to lie to you,
and then then they then they changed Grok
again. Oh, it's fixed again.
It's just really crazy. So every time it
gives you an answer they don't like, they
all cry. Oh, it was a mistake. No.
They are cultivating the information. So the reality
is they were lying about that. The the
reality is they were lying about South Africa.
In this case, here's what it says. Based
on recent reports, Charlie Kirk was killed on
September 10 by sus suspect Charlie Robinson. Excuse
me. Charlie, that's funny. Not Charlie Robinson. Sorry,
Charlie. Tyler Robinson, whose online activity referenced far
right memes and fascism.
Now you could get all up in arms
about how that's so insulting, but some people
genuinely think that. And you could argue that
some of the things he supported did overlap
with that idea.
Just because you don't like that doesn't mean
you can just act, you know, that you
can alter the entire makeup or censor people
or put people in jail because that you
don't like their ideas. But it says, voter
records show no party affiliation of Tyler, but
some sources link him to conservative views.
It says, oh, first of all, sorry, that
was about Tyler, Tyler and his fascism. But
it says,
Melissa Hortman and her husband were killed in
June 2025 by Vance Bolter, a confirmed Trump
voter. It says, on stats, ADL data shows
seventy five percent of US extremist murders by
right wing actors.
That's not a secret. You can look at
the ADL, but see, this is all being
rapidly cultivated. Now I wanna be clear. I
don't think that's the reality. I think you
get these kind of, like, organized pictures that
suit the current need. However, during the Biden
administration, like we showed you, they were hell
bent on framing the side as the right
as the terrorist.
Now that it's flipped, they're building up the
other side of the paradigm. So how much
you wanna bet the ADL comes out with
their new stats after this whole point?
They hated this.
Pointing out that the last shoot, remember when
they'll also point out, remember how they reacted
when this happened?
When that when when Melissa Hortman and her
husband were killed?
Many of them
laughed about it.
Don't and I would call that disgusting, but
I would also protect their right to do
it. Principles. What a crazy thing.
And it says, sort through sources like CSIS,
which we've talked a lot about in the
past, note rising far right threats. While Cato
emphasizes overall rarity and includes other ideologies, definitions
of political murders vary across studies. And his
point, how dare you let them say this?
And Elon says, my apologies. We're fixing this
cringe id idiocy by Grok.
Okay. So who cares if the facts actually
back that up in this case? Now, again,
what the studies show. Not that I'm saying
I agree with the actual picture, but the
the the nuance is important, guys, because what
you're saying is you're scooping data from verified
studies that are out there, and just because
you don't like what it's showing, you're gonna
remove it.
And what are you gonna do? Well, you're
gonna find the studies that say the left
one's the terrorist, which is what they're doing.
I also don't agree with that. I'll show
you why in a second.
Here, it says what n I n I
g NIJ research tells about domestic terrorism. You
can read it for yourself. This was on
the DOJ website before until the twelfth, until
they deleted it. It's pretty clear.
This is an example on the other side
of it. It says, stand with Israel. It
says, oh, first, the economist,
the killing of Charlie Kirk oh, same side,
but say another point. The killing of Charlie
Kirk is part of a grim pattern of
political violence in America. This is what the
data shows.
And they show you a picture that seems
to suggest the majority of it is right.
Over Islamist, over left, over other.
Now,
there's a the point in this is that
it's difficult to know for sure what is
the more represented side in this because so
much of this conversation is mired in absolute
BS and propaganda
From the FBI manufacturing right wing terrorists to
go out and commit acts that they don't
want to do or never meant to do.
You know, we've talked about this for years.
The problem is that so many people in
the partisan game today look at what we're
doing, for example, and think we're just secretly
fighting for the left or whatever, just like
the left thought we were secretly fighting for
the right during COVID, and neither of those
things are real. The truth is I've been
actively and objectively covering these things from a
nonpartisan, honest way my entire career. And I
will actively support the people on the right
that claim they're being dishonestly framed as terrorists
because I agree with that. And I'll actively
support people on the left who say the
same because I agree with that, because you're
manufacturing things. On the left, you can see
the same thing in a thousand different ways
from the overlap of anybody left, for example,
as a terrorist, obviously, right now, or the
idea, for example, that if you are trans,
you're a terrorist. Or if you're you know,
it's becoming so broad. And I also cover
the trans cup topic very in-depth.
Honestly, more critical and more in-depth than even
half of what Matt Walsh did. Other, he
did a really great job on that documentary
and a lot of it, but we were
ongoing and continuing to cover nuance and day
in and day out and the different points
of it and the science behind it and
the different treatments. And very much we're critical
of the entire thing. Doesn't change the fact
that I'm objective enough to say not everyone
in any category is gonna be what you
want them to be.
So this is them slanting it to the
right. And as Stan with Israel says, these
charts by cult owned The Economist are made
to be deceptive and to the divisive.
Good episode by TLAB last night showing how
socially engineered this all is. See, because if
you actually watch the content and go through
it and listen to the arguments, you'll quickly
find out that they're not partisan.
So this is where I include this yet
again, talking about these exact kind of things
in the past, how undeniably, in my opinion,
the right was being set up on January
6 to be framed as vanilla ISIS domestic
terrorism, invading of the country, insurrection,
exactly like they still rolled out with it,
even though it didn't really work. Now I'm
not you could argue why. I think because
people like us and the independent media got
the
average right wing people got wind of the
of the issue. And then you got the
Ray Epps types and people were like fed
fed, you know, and they started the conversation
kind of
developed to So our people were like, there's
something going on here. People are trying to
set us up. And then the momentum just
took over anyway. But there were so many
people that were going, hold on, there's something
wrong here. Why, by the way, they made
sure that the I mean, it seemed like
nobody even.
Now if I remember correctly, I don't think
anybody was armed. Otherwise, that would be like
right now, they keep making the case. They
know armed insurrection, which they evidence didn't pan
out. But my point is, you could easily
prove that the vast majority were unarmed because
they made a point to say it. Nobody,
because of what they're doing. They got wind
of it.
This is the same point here.
Patriot front, January 6, and the vanilla ISIS
SIOP.
Patriot front is the same kind of idea.
So by the same logic, I mean, think
about it. If you if you if the
left made Patriot Front a terrorist organization, what
would the first thing the right would say?
What would be the first thing they'd say?
They're doing that to blame us all. Yep.
I would agree.
Now think about Antifa and do the same
thing.
Same discussion. Worth watching in this article.
Here's Tim Pool, though. Coming out with his
challenging information. I'm just trying to make the
very clear point of how dumb this all
so here's The Economist giving you what I
think is a slanted you know, sort of
like the way Israel says 400%
increase in in anti Semitism.
That turns out to be 399%
people waving Palestinian flags. Or, you know, I'm
being I mean, pretty much the case. I'm
just the number I just threw out. But
they admitted that. They admitted that that was
the large majority of it. Right? So you
could you that that's what I'm really saying.
And so in this case, the economist, I
think, is
using information that's produced to make that case
even though it's not accurately like like for
example, I'm glad I remember this again. Trucker
convoy.
What did they say? Domestic terrorists, red hats.
They started even talking about that in that
context. So you get a noncon on this
report that says everyone there was wearing red
hats. That's a terrorist act.
That kind of read through it. You'll get
my point. So here,
is Tim Poole doing the same thing in
actually a really lazy way?
He says, this is what violence rates look
like depending on political party.
How effing weird am I right?
When you get like, how effing weird? Am
I right? When you get rid of the
fringe wackos and count crime by party control,
it looks different.
Oh, yeah. Where's the source material? Oh, it
looks to me like you just screenshotted something
that you literally wrote.
No. Maybe not. But, you know, Tim Pool's
not a mor I mean, well,
maybe not. My point is that he's well
aware of what he's doing. He's giving you
an unverifiable
screenshot of a wild different graph that's basically
the exact thing in reverse to what they're
doing and says, oh, look at that. I
think what he's trying to do, to be
honest, is make the point.
Like, this is what they're doing. Either way,
he knows damn well what his 10,000,000 views
are actually doing. Look at all the look
at all the shares.
Look at the quotes. What you'll see is
people believing it. Can't argue with statistics.
Some of them get it, I think.
See, someone's like, he's got brain damage to
take a look look at. The point though
is that far too many people are simply
just retorting with this in response. And the
idea is that it's just political back and
forth. Tim Pool is really just a, like
a,
like a really bad troll.
Like, everything he always does, he thinks he's
being pithy. And it really, I just think
he's selling narratives, coming out there and doing
the wrong thing at the right time for
exactly the same problem.
Now, here is the fascist conversation about the
word being used. You again, here Jones, this
is where he thrives, coming in to divide
the people under the guise of fighting for
you. Here's what this is the I'll just
play the beginning of this with the with
the music and, oh my god. It's so
bad and dangerous.
People simply using the word fascist, by the
way. Even though, again, like I said, it's
pretty much provably the case in regard to
the policies, both sides rolling out through Trump
or Biden or Obama or Bush. But how
dare you call them the thing that they
are because that leads to violence, Ryan. And
you can't say words that are violence because
Jones is a bro a bro flake. Right?
That's the same thing they called out before.
Charlie Kirk's murder. We're here at Georgia Tech
University in Atlanta, Georgia. And the first thing
I see when I come to the campus
is the fall of the Trump fascist regime
beginning 11/05/2025.
Refusefascism.org
needs to be investigated. 2028
is way too late. Trump Needs to be
investigated?
So now now you're just, get them. Get
them. They said fascist.
Yeah. That's that's the that's how that's how
dumb this has got. To the point to
where Alex Jones makes this his opening and
then always acts like I'm not the one
driving this stupidity out there.
Yeah. You are, man. You're literally driving the
idea that the word fascist is enough to
investigate them and call them murderers.
Because it's not like you guys ever said
that. Right?
Must go now. If you walk with me
here, we have another sign.
This is the scary part. Oh, and by
the way, it's not like these things can
be put up by literally anybody. Right?
All the time. Now the one on the
door, maybe not. I couldn't tell if it
was behind the the thing or not, but
these are public post sports, guys.
So what that means is that it could
be one individual and not represent representative of
every single person on the left, which is
the stupid
broad stroke they're doing every time.
Or that it could be
he posted them right before he did the
video. Now I don't I don't think that.
I think it's very common you find these
things. I'm just pointing out how this is
the kind of bombastic hyperbolic reporting they do
every time they get the chance.
The time has come for the fall of
the Trump fascist regime beginning November 5. No.
In the name of humanity, we refuse to
accept a fascist America. All over the campus,
similar signs. No. In the name of humanity,
we refuse to accept a fascist Yeah. How
dare they refuse fascism?
That means violence. Right?
Because the lefties are violent and that means
they wanna kill Trump. And because they said
they'd remove him, that means kill. In the
language, you know, bend over backwards to try
to make your case.
Saying the word fascist is not a crime.
I thought you guys believe in the constitution.
America refusedfascism.org
followed by a sign that we already read.
This is happening all over this campus. So
you gotta ask yourself when you Alright. So
what is that? Four signs?
And three were in the same spot?
All over. And again,
I probably is. I just really wanna point.
I mean, this is this is why I
always had these moments where I'm like, I
just refuse to believe that most people are
as stupid enough to fall for, like to
fall into this. And and think this is
good reporting and not have some level of
discernment to be like, okay. That's a little
bit subjective, isn't it? But see, I think
far too many people
watch this just because it's entertaining. It's like
watching a person pretending to be a newscaster
and looking stupid. It's entertaining to watch them
look stupid. It's also entertaining to watch them
divide each other and and hate and fight
and attack. Right? That's that's why people do
this. It's a reality TV show.
Or it's all fake and they don't even
have the following they do. I don't know.
Either way,
this is objectively stupid in my opinion. And
it's also a complete contradiction of what they
claim they believe in. Do posters like this
nonstop. What are they advocating for? Are they
inciting certain events that we have seen recently?
Oh, inciting.
Look right out of Biden's documentation.
So this guy's a Democrat apparently. Apparently. I'm
kidding. Obviously, the point is clearly what you're
doing is saying the words they used are
inciting violence. Guys, that's out of the left
handbook.
I mean, I'm that's a joke, but I'm
just you know, that's out of the what
you would claim is like the, I'm a
lefty. Here's how I create violence. Exactly what
you're claiming they're doing. Joshua Foerster The time
has come for the fall of the Trump
fascist regime. The time has come. I want
to say that again. The time Joshua Foerster
Look at this guy. So, he went back
and forth between two spots and he's just
drilling in the first thing he read three
times now. I wanna make sure you under
the fall of the so what does that
mean? We're gonna kill them all.
Yeah. Could could mean that, or it could
mean they vote them out of power, or
it could mean that they impeach them, or
it could mean that they expose them, or
it could mean any number of things because
words have a lot. But but don't worry.
It's very serious and, you know, it's all
about this hype and the narrative and the
music and we're coming and they're gonna go
off your family and lefties hate you and
they wanna kill
you, which is what most of them are
saying right now. Time has come. That is
what left leaning organization on college campuses at
Georgia Tech are propagating to college students. So
when I walk To hate fascism.
Okay. So do you support fascism, or what
are you what are you arguing? Brown and
I ask students, do you condemn the murder
of Charlie Kirk? And they say no. Oh
my god.
You know what that sounds like, don't you?
Do you get down the moss?
Like, what are you talking about? Why are
you guys this this is so obviously
a, like,
intensive propaganda effort.
I'm not I don't mean everybody everywhere. I
mean, in this case, like, the idea that
I think people like this are just
unknowingly caught up in it. Do you condemn
Charlie Kirchmer?
What are you talking about, man? Like, what
does that even mean? So somebody doesn't care
about that? There's people don't even know who
he was. The you guys are forcing this,
like, adherence, this, like,
lionization.
Somebody in the congress just said he should
be the thirteenth apostle.
I mean, that's insanely stupid. I don't care
if it's insulting to you. That's insane. You
are taking somebody who is a normal person,
who is out there with a lot of
influence and many of the ideas I also
think were repugnant. Many of my support like
his stance on free speech.
There you go. The idea that you can
then turn that into some kind of domestic
terrorism is exactly the point. But do you
condemn what we what we don't want you
to like?
You guys are all the same. It's most
likely because of stuff like this. Those are
clearly incitement to violence. That is not that's
not political speech. Oh, yeah. It really is,
though, Harrison. I'm embarrassed for you because at
least for a moment, you seemed like you
were pushing back on someone. Nope. Sorry.
Insight. So you he's guys, these this is
the leading
Infowars has more reach than most mainstream platforms.
They're sitting there telling you from their desk
that words
are violence.
Can we please let that sink in? They
are the left or no? Just partisans.
Right? That's my point. Partisan
teams for politics.
Saying the fall of the Trump regime fascism
is now incitement to violence.
Well, thank you for making this so clear,
Harrison.
We'll come back to some some other points
and show you something a little bit interesting
here.
I'll skip this one for time. This is
a woman afterward.
It's only minute fourteen. Let me play this
one first.
Oh, look at this.
Here's a clip that might be relevant to
Harrison telling you the word fascism
is incitement to violence. And let's not forget,
by the way, look at the tweets and
what they're claiming it as.
Libs TikTok.
Oh, wait. This is oh, you know, you
know, I'm sorry. I've I was trying to
find the one. So the ones we played
in the last show.
You had two of them I showed you.
Where I believe it was Libs, I forget
which one it was, that simply pointed to
the clips of, I think it was Tim
Waltz and others calling him a fascist,
who played him on the show. And what
did they say? Remember?
Blood is on your hands.
The other one said something like, you were
responsible for this
because they said the word fascist. Now, it's
not missed on you. That's why these kind
of clips are going around Because guess what?
Everyone paying attention knows that Trump was calling
them fascist, that that was a pretty common
back and forth.
Do they not think we could look this
stuff up? This is always why I pause
and go, do they want us talking about
this? I just don't know how this makes
sense. But so it's incitement of violence to
call Trump a fascist.
Right? Keep that in mind.
Biden
American politics today is between these far left
fascists
led by Harris and her group. We have
a fascist person running
who's incompetent.
She's a Marxist, communist, fascist,
socialist.
She's not actually a socialist. She's gone past
that. Somebody's got to explain this woman. There's
a radical left Marxist communist fascist.
Okay.
So we're just gonna pretend that's not the
exact same thing?
I mean, literally the same word.
Like, do you not get how dumb this
is?
I'm sorry. If you're organizing and agitating
for very explicitly the overthrow
Ah. Of the country
Ah. Okay. That's not telling people to go
out and vote. That's how to get out
the vote drive. Okay. So now putting up
a sign that says
used to accept a fascist America, refused fascism.org.
Bob said we have seen all of the
Trump fascist regime. The time has come.
Right.
So, Harrison, are you gonna stand there and
look me in the eye and tell me
that you can argue that saying the fall
of the Trump regime means to overthrow them?
Yeah. It's one of the meanings you could
contort it into.
But or I mean, or or you could
argue that they would post a sign on
the wall that literally means let's commit a
crime.
Certainly possible. Right?
Also, pretty much in a court of law,
that would never hold up because you can't
prove that you know what their minds are
thinking. But overall, let's also point out that
that's something that you guys have pointed out
many times. Didn't you guys literally march to
overthrow the Biden administration? In some cases, yes.
That was the public conversation. I'll also be
the first to defend the larger group around
January 6, not the TeamSport politics that I
think were part of the larger manipulation.
But didn't you do that? Yes. You did.
Many of the Republicans out there from the
highest levels were calling for removing the Biden
administration.
I mean, guys, you just can't you gotta
laugh at how stupid this all is.
They don't care.
Now I'm I get the sense that Harrison
has, you know, been pulled back into the
team because of how much is going on,
and everyone else is drifting away and saying,
oh, Jones is a manipulative liar. But I
I think he, you know, maybe got a
raise. Who knows? I'm half kidding.
I mean, I really am. I'm not saying
I have any evidence of that. I'm just
pointing out that I think it's interesting to
see, you know, why somebody would choose to
do something. Like, you're you are choosing a
side that is against the truth at the
end of the day. You're turning you are
by the way, you're doing exactly what you
keep saying the left is doing.
That's that should be embarrassing for you guys.
But here is what Libs at TikTok is
pointing out and saying just days after he
was shot,
Randy Weingarten suggests Trump is an existential threat
to democracy and freedom.
Well, even if she had exactly said that,
even though they quoted it, which I don't
even believe is exactly what she said it,
that is what they keep saying about the
left. That is what they said about Biden.
That is what they said about Obama.
I mean, guys, you don't need to book
hard to recognize this.
So my point is always, if you actually
have principles, you say that's a
you could say what you want.
She goes, this is what's this is what
toning it down looks like? Toning what down?
Toning it down? Marty, why are you even
arguing that people should be censoring themselves because
you're angry?
God, these people are children.
And she says deranged. Well, I believe you
guys are. Here's what she has to say.
Listen for yourself, and you tell me this
is what they're making it into. November
elections
will determine
which path
we take
as a nation.
Progress
is indeed possible,
but so is the eradication
of the rights and freedoms we hold dear.
Historians like Timothy Snyder and Heather Cox Richardson,
who study threats to democracy and how fascists
come to Bauer That's what it was. Conclude
that it is seldom
a dramatic event or attack
that lets fascism in the door,
the violence
comes later
after
they are voted in.
Voting
is still our best defense
against tyranny and fascism,
and it's our best offense
to create the better future
we dream of and march for.
Progress is
possible
but not guaranteed.
When the history books
are written about this moment,
let them record
that we the people
united,
mobilized,
and voted
down this existential
threat to democracy and freedom,
that we continue the march for progress,
that we laid the foundation for our better
future, and that we sought to create
a more perfect union.
Progress is possible.
Keep marching.
I mean,
really?
I mean, guys, this I mean, I'm I'm
actually in I this to me, I have
to be very, very real. This is my
opinion.
This shows me that this person is willfully
deceiving you. Are you actually gonna pretend what
she just listed is a threat?
I mean, she's yes. They politically disagree. Yes.
You each call each other fascist. That seems
to be pretty common. The game of making
this into be some deranged political craziness. You
know, it's also really funny.
Lives of TikTok, this new media.
Just days after he was shot, Randy Weingarten
suggests Trump is an existential threat.
Is this not the exact same conversation?
I mean, I just don't understand. Why is
it different
because something happened?
You're so you're so you're suggesting that people
are supposed to not be honest after an
event?
I mean, guys, it's just I don't even
think they think about what they're doing.
I mean, I really, you know, at the
end of the day,
if you really take a step back and
look at the, at the consistency
of the two sides, it really becomes
impossible to tell the difference. I mean, if
you, if you kind of like made it
a political and just took away the identifiable
points and I just gave you I you
know, I should start doing that. I think
we should start doing a clip. Maybe Steven
will do it. Democrat or liberal Democrat or
Republican and give you like a blank quote
or statement on Twitter
and and have you good luck deciding. I
gotta I should write that down. Somebody write
me about that. Because I mean, you could
find these examples that are like, is that
is that a, you know, Republican in 2025
or is that a Democrat in 2020? Like,
it's I try it's just identical right now.
So another clip.
Here is
Tucker Carlson
telling you
the Trump administration is being fascist.
So does that mean now Tucker Carlson is
a radical left extremist?
Does that mean he's calling for the death
of Donald Trump? Weird how it doesn't apply
to Tucker when he makes the same point.
You get it. That's incorrect.
You hope that Charlie Kirk's death won't be
used by
a group we now call bad actors
to create a society that was the opposite
of the one he worked to build.
You hope that. You hope that a year
from now,
the turmoil we're seeing in the aftermath of
his murder won't be leveraged to bring hate
speech laws to this country.
And trust me, if it is, if that
does happen, there is never a more justified
moment for civil disobedience than that ever. And
they're never Look at that.
Now he says that I mean, that's I
agree completely.
But if it if if that was coming
out of the mouth of anybody that they're
pointing to right now, a lefty of any
kind, they would call that an incitement to
violence, and you damn well know it.
They may they may say it about him.
I think there's some of the Zionist out
there that are.
Will be. Because if they can tell you,
there is never a more justified moment for
civil disobedience than that ever, and there never
will be. Because if they can tell you
what to say,
they're telling you what to think. There is
nothing they can't do to you because they
don't consider you human. They don't believe you
have a soul. Now see, that's a little
bit much. Right? Now we're talking now see,
it's the same kind of thing in the
other way, which up until that point, like,
when I was watching this earlier,
I'm going, you know, okay. Like I like
I say with everybody, I genuinely hope that
he just somehow sees the bigger picture, you
know,
kind of bucks his CIA pass and his
family's pass. He just goes, you know what?
I'm gonna start calling it out. And look,
he has been doing calling things out about
Israel. He was the kinda catalyst around the
turning point USA thing at the stage.
I mean, I will never stop questioning these
people like you never cross never caught questioning
everybody. And it's gonna take a hell of
a long time for anybody like this to
ever convince me that they actually are doing
the right thing for the right reasons, and
I'll still question them anyway. My point though,
nonetheless, is that I'm watching things like this
and I'm going, I'm glad he's saying this.
And I just I'm hoping there's some kind
of more that it's not just him playing
a role to gain more clout for the
future, which we should also always consider.
But that last statement, they don't have a
soul. Like, so now you just brought it
back to a hyperbolic statement. You brought it
back to the idea that
the bot the Trump administration sees you as
a soulless maniac and lose which, look, there's
an argument made about the government side of
ever the government doing that. Yes.
But it's framed as sort of a partisan
back and forth. And I just I worry
about that kind of language in this. It
just drives the same thing in reverse, which
if you understand my larger point, that's all
that really matters.
It's not about one side against the it's
about creating a situation where you pick one
and you choose a side.
A human being with a soul, a free
man, has a right to say what he
believes. Not to hurt other people, but to
express his views. 100%
agree. 100%. I mean, with what he's saying
other than that little blip about the no.
You know, what the the other side kind
of point is that the idea being that
you could say whatever you want, and that's
a print that means anything.
You commit a crime,
then you can charge that crime. The only
way out of where this is going is
just is to aggressively lean to the principles,
guys.
You know, the very thing that your government
swears an oath to and then doesn't care
about.
Now here is an example on the other
side of this.
Secular talk, of course, says, if you're not
an antifascist, you're a fascist. Period. No, that's
really stupid. No, there's always gray era and
nuance, and you guys are all doing the
same thing. And so at moments like this
is when the partisans really show themselves, guys.
The team sport politics, some people that will
ignore their own principles to yell at the
other side. You know, this is
you can't say just because you don't want
them. Like, may maybe you're of the mind
that there's parts of fascism that can be
usable. Not like, I'm just saying, the idea
that we frame it as you're either with
us or against us, you're either fascist or
you're not, you're either left or you're right.
It's always the same point. It's used to
divide, and it's almost always built on hyperbolic
framing of either side. So this is just
the left doing the same thing. It's the
same game, guys.
Now interestingly, by the way,
Times of Israel came out with an article
as an
anomaly says Charlie Kirk was post humanously smeared
as an antisemite, a racist, a misogynist,
and a fascist
by the times of Israel.
Doesn't that seem confounding? Right? But it you
know, I think it starts to make sense
when you lean if you at least consider
the picture that we've been trying to paint.
I don't mean proving, but I mean the
data and the evidence, more than any other
thing I'm seeing, points in a very particular
direction. We'll talk about in a second.
The wrong kind of friend, Times of Israel,
rethinking Charlie Kirk's support for Israel. Now see,
as the story builds and it starts to
come out, this guy was not necessarily
on the right, you know, calling he wasn't
on the blind Israel support path, at least
in the last month.
That's the only way this makes sense to
me. Why would they ever do this when
they're building an entire momentum around the idea
that he loved Israel and you gotta support
him or else?
It says he did not deserve to be
murdered. And in a decent democratic society, no
one should be killed for their views, however
extreme. But we must ask, was his support
ever truly helpful to Israel? Now, I wanna
frame this as this statement and the last
one. Because if you do, you'll recognize that
if there's consistency in the argument that right
now, the US government will be calling out
Times of Israel. Right now, loads of TikTok
and the rest of these ridiculous fake pagers
will be calling out Israel or rather Times
of Israel. Why? Because, well, he did not
deserve to be heard.
Right? No one does.
But he was a fascist.
He was an extremist, racist, misogynist, fascist. That's
exactly what they just wrote. I don't even
agree with that. Not entirely. Not every one
of them. So here we are,
where Times of Israel is telling you that
Charlie Kirk is the very thing that they're
telling you is an assignment to violence. And
they're telling they're doing it the same way.
He doesn't deserve to die, but this is
what I think he is. Well, guess what?
That's a protected I mean, everyone has the
right to express their opinion.
All I'm showing you is that they're right
now making out people to be terrorists for
expressing the same view. Even a less less
far less serious view. Saying that, you know,
maybe maybe his actions brought up you know,
brought caused people to be upset or things
as benign as that. But it says, undeniably,
Kirk was an evil man, they wrote, who
just who dedicated his life to spreading hate.
It is doubtful that his devotion to Israel
stemmed from genuine solid solidarity
with Jewish history and Zionist ideology. Not the
same thing. We sought to find a safe
haven for the Jewish people. Incorrect. More likely,
it was rooted in the in evangelical belief
that the return of Jews to the land
of Israel
is a step toward a masonic end times
prophecy.
Wow. They're literally calling out what we're talking
about. And we get called crazy and racist
for pointing it out. They're telling you that
some people on the in the West, Christian
Zionists,
believe
that the
I mean, it's more more abstract. Let's just
say the is the Jewish population have to
be destroyed
before the end times come on and, you
know, whatever. That there's many different views. But
interestingly, the Jewish Zionist believe that the West
must collapse before the same thing happens.
So all they're saying is, yeah, they don't
really support us. They just support the they
want, you know, they want the same thing
we do. We're both pointing each other and
hoping they die first. It's a very, very
weird thing, guys. Either way, I'm someone pointing
out this more to get into for later.
The point here
is clearly that this is the same thing
you're being told is the worst thing in
the world, and it's coming from what supposedly
his chief ally that he support no matter
what. Very, very weird.
Mehdi Hasan,
you can't call someone you disagree with a
fascist, says Don Junior. Same Don Junior. The
Democrats will stop at nothing to push their
political agenda. The party of Antifa has gone
full fascist. Well, guess what? They're a fascist
group, if you understand the reality. But at
the same point, they she's just calling them
fascist, which is what you're telling us is
an assignment to violence.
Fascist Democrats like Cuomo are openly reverting to
their party. Okay. So you call them a
fascist. Are you a terrorist? Apparently, that's the
name right the narrative right now, but I
guess it's only when they do it. Typical
partisan b s. We all know that the
rhinos are secretly happy about the indictment, but
the fascist left won't. There you go. Over
and over and over. They're all such hypocrites.
But here's what he says. Anyone
who says political violence is a problem on
both sides and not just those from the
Democrat party,
not just leftist terrorists, but literally the Democrat
party. So it simply shows you that they
mean everybody.
That's how they're actually afraid. Some of them
are trying to be a little more nuanced
and say, but I mean the terrorists.
Not just normal people, but they're it's sort
of like, I mean Hamas, not every Palestinian,
but then they go on to kill every
Palestinian. It's kind of the same thing. Here's
what Don Junior was saying.
They realized they lost the debate entirely, so
they have to resort to violence. And contrary
to what we're seeing elsewhere and online, it
is not going both ways. It is going
one way. It's coming from I agree with
that. Partisan
team sport politics.
One group. Those aligned with the Democrat
party. The hate has been fomented
by those in the Democrat party, and you
can probably play hundreds of hours of those
clips. Just like you can on the other
side. Again, this is not some back and
forth thing. It just is the objective reality.
But, you know, if they this is why
they build narratives like this, to build a
wall so when somebody like me goes, look.
Look. Here. The the other side's doing it
too. Oh, now here are just the the
Democrat
trick. That's what they do. Both sides. Again,
that's not some cop out, guys. It is
an obvious reality that partisan team sport people
act the same way in varying degrees, but
it's the same idea.
It's coming from the media. You know, some
of them are doing a quick course correction
and probably scrub their social media feeds for
all the things I've said about Charlie, myself,
my father over the last few years, but
you can't Isn't that the point, though? So
now you're having people self censor because they're
afraid you're gonna go after them for words?
I mean, you're not making a good case
for yourself or anybody who's not a moron.
Call someone who you disagree with or simply
can't win an argument with a Nazi. Yeah.
You mean like you guys are doing right
now? A fascist, a dictator, a greatest threat
to democracy in the history of civilization.
All of which is protected speech, by the
way. But he doesn't care about the constitution,
apparently. But America first, though, guys. And then
pretend you had nothing to do with it
when the more radical wing, and there does
not seem to be all that much difference
to me these days. Oh, right. See, again,
they're all the same. Don't don't miss how
the he's not even trying to make a
decision. The Democrat party are terrorists is what
he's trying to sell you on. But so
because they said he's a dictator, a fascist,
and somebody acts out and shoots him that
you can't in any way prove was connected
back to that despite your best efforts,
that's their fault.
We all know.
Yeah. Very, very objective.
Takes up arms and and tries to kill
those they disagree with. It's not one way.
So So we've never seen a republican do
that? I mean, what world do they live
in, guys? It's not both ways. It is
simply one way. And, you know, anyone who's
saying otherwise,
you know, should be thrown off the air.
Oh, and there's the big kicker. More censorship.
Right? So let's just even say not about
the actions, but let's say you're a news
media personnel out there and you investigate and
you genuinely think it's the opposite.
But let's just even say you're wrong. Let's
say he's right and you act but you
but you that was that you have the
data. You bet you were manipulated by some
study. He's literally telling you that you should
be removed from the air because you have
a different opinion.
Pretty easy to see, guys. That's a court
that's a media platform. He's saying if you
say that and you're wrong in his mind,
you should be removed.
But not like the left in censorship on
ideas though because they're they're woke and all
that. But no, no, but real stuff because
ideas are bad. You know, it's just it's
comical how dumb this is, but I don't
think they even care at this point.
So here are some examples.
A smaller one, look at TikTok says, meet
Timothy Black, a psych a physics of, excuse
me, professor at UNC will Wilmington
who talks about the self control he has
to not verbally attack students who support president
Trump. Now what he means well, well, I'll
read it in a second.
Who he calls fascist morons.
Right. So his right on his personal account
to say what he thinks. Oh my god.
This idea they play where it's like, you
know, there are overlaps to where any context,
like as an employer is the real point.
That you can see somebody say something online
and say, hey, you know, I don't I
don't think it represents my business as a
personal employer. I don't wanna work. That's that's
the reality.
Not the government. And I'm not the government
pressuring schools and companies to remove people like
that or the president and the vice president
publicly saying if they do or and Bondi
that you should fire them. That's a whole
other ballgame, guys. But the reality is that
what we're talking about here is a teacher
who on his own post said something.
And so this is Libs trying to tell
you that he's not allowed to do that.
In what world is that the case?
Now again, if the teacher with a group,
the school wants to file, that's up to
them. But they're trying to make this happen
because they don't like he has his own
ideas. This is very alarming, they say, that
a professor who appears to so unstable,
oh, really, is teaching students, some of whom
are Republican, right, because you only care about
the one. Right? It says the university responded
to our request for comments saying that they're
aware of his post and support his freedom
to publicly write such comments.
How dare they support his right to free
speech? They're attacking the company now or the
school now because they support his right to
free speech. I mean, they're literally showing themselves
to be completely counter to the things they
claim they're fighting for because Democrat.
Here's what he said. This morning, I saw
a student sitting in the hallway of our
hat building wearing the MAGA hat. To my
great credit, I did not call her a
fascist moron in front of her friends, even
though that would have been completely warranted. Now,
even if this is exactly what happened, then
he actually means every part of it.
So he's saying, I didn't do anything. I
had thoughts
about people who have a political opinion. People
on both sides, left and right, who are
very, very radical and adamant about it. I
don't mean radical in the sense of the
bigger point, but just in your face. Left
is the best. Right is the best. You
know, like right in your face about it.
Something
flight felt like a bug at me. But,
the point
okay. I was gonna say, make sure if
you could see me in the show, I
might have looked we heard sounded weird, but
now you can see me on the screen.
For the podcast, I just felt something on
my neck. The point
is that this is just him saying what
he thought, and it feels like in a
way that's sort of meant to be a
humorous point. But you can decide, and that's
the reality is that you don't know.
And this is thoughtcrime, guys. They're literally going
after me for thoughtcrime.
And he says because to my great credit,
I did not call her that, even though
I would have been warranted. He says, because
I'm a grown up, I don't need to
tell every fascist moron I see that they're
fascist morons, especially because they are not physics
majors. And so I will never have to
encounter their fascist stupidity again unless Trump wins
and she is part of the group of
jack booted thugs sent off to sent to
carry me off, which again, I'm I'm not
partisan. I don't fight for either side. I
call out both.
What they're doing is driving in that exact
direction
for left and right. There's been major Trump
supporters who have been arrested unjustly, even people
who are American citizens, even people who are
here legally with green cards and visas, who
have been arrested, jailed, some even sent away.
You can't be this dishonest about what's happening,
especially when it's this serious.
But he says,
let's give a big shout out for me
and my profound discretion in charity. He's making
a joke, obviously, but let's just even say
he means every word of it.
This is what they're trying to do. Trying
to personally call him out, trying to get
him fired,
exactly what they would have been screeching about
when the left was doing it.
And for that statement, guys, these people deserve
ridicule. They're they're not just hypocrites. There's there's
gonna be a better word for that. Here's
Bennie Johnson. Know thy enemy.
I'm humbly asking all my friend nothing humble
about this guy. I'm humbly asking my friends
on the right to unite in this moment
against our common enemy. These guys, under a
smile, are literally driving in a civil war.
I'm not in the sense that I'm out
like a Tim Pool, Al Jones, like, hyping
the thing. Like, this is what they're actually
fomenting. I hope to God that doesn't happen.
He says the domestic terrorist threat from the
left the left is real.
Again, the left. He's saying the domestic
terrorist threat from the left.
The 50% of the political conversation
is real. They will keep killing unless we
stop them.
Oh, but that's not incitement.
Again, I don't need to make these points.
You're if you're watching
and you're not a completely law I mean,
this is regard again, remove Bennet Johnson's face.
I can't cover from this side.
But if you cover his face, you know,
from from whatever side you can see it,
you cover Betty Johnson's face and name and
you read that off.
You I mean, you would be hard pressed.
And, of course, you removed, like, left and,
you know, you read it out with the
removal of the identifiable points. You would not
know whether I'd argue most Republicans would be
like, that has to be a lefty.
Not today.
Even if they are what you think they
are, like the way you're doing this is
guaranteed
to cause people who are not involved with
whatever your claim is happening to get swept
up, arrested, hurt, whatever. And guess what, Benny?
That still wouldn't be your fault or rather
your legal responsibility
because I have principles.
Sure as hell would blame you for it
though. And as a society, you could be
shown people could sue you for your action,
but the government shouldn't censor you for it
because that would be unconstitutional.
Here are what they're doing regardless.
Mostly peaceful means seems to be just taking
this on as like a, like a religious
battle.
Good morning master chief Ben Cooper, it says
this is reportedly what he posted to Facebook.
He apparently believed Charlie Kirk was a fascist.
This is where we're going. Another radical leftist
senior leader of our military. Here's what he
said. Wild to find out so many people
care
about a guy that showed zero empathy in
regards to children getting shot in schools being
shot and killed.
Now first of all, it's been widely around
he he's made points over the years about
how empathy is a meaningless word. It's a
useless emotion. It shouldn't be he's made that
very clear. So whether it's about that very
point about whether he has empathy
or
it's just
simply
the
idea
that what he's doing is getting you know,
I don't agree with that. I'm I actually
I'm pretty much on the same stance when
it comes to what's going on with school
shootings and rights and second amendment. But what
he's but so he's just simply saying,
what what while to find out so many
people care about a guy that showed zero
empathy in regards to children getting shot in
schools being shot and killed. Whether wrong or
right, that's obviously protected. He's allowed to say
that. And it says, in addition to that,
he was a fascist racist. Now that point
right there is farther than the rest I've
seen. And I also, unless there's some data
I'm not aware of, think is not true.
And it says, pandering sociopath.
By the way, though, all of which now
here's my point. Charlie could have decided to
sue him for slander.
That's a very different conversation. You see, that's
how the world's supposed to work. Not screaming
for the government to shut down every left
organization and sue and arrest and go after
them for terrorists because somebody said a mean
word to me. That's what we used to
make fun of the left for. Remember that?
But racist, you could say that's you know,
you're accusing me of something I didn't do.
That's a crime from a personal suit suit
standpoint. Right? So it says, if you think
this means I condone him getting sniped,
you're wrong.
But from the cow from the crowd that
set likes to say f around and find
out so much,
how can they be surprised?
So there's he's just really you know why
that bothers so much? He's throwing it back
in their face.
Nothing about this is against the law. Nothing
about this is
I mean, it's protected constitutional speech.
Like, everything is, in my opinion, but this
is clearly not even in the the overlapping
fire in theater conversation.
It's just insane.
And they're getting a military personnel
fired.
Now I'm actually willing to bet you in
my in my opinion
that if they do this and find out
that it's a Republican, they don't do anything
about it because you could find them.
That I mean, I I but this seems
to be them really kinda patching this into
a clear narrative.
Either way, it's irrelevant, guys. These are people
that are saying things they're allowed to say
and insulting these people and they're censoring them.
Or rather they're getting them removed and fired,
not censoring them. And that is the contradictory
point. You're being the woke left. You are
literally getting people fired because of your opinions.
Meet private first class Yasmin Davis. She reportedly
posted to her Instagram calling Charlie Cook a
fascist and an oppressor.
K?
It says stop trying to shame people for
not mourning Charlie Kirk,
which by the way, nobody has demanded like
this is the same thing you called out
before again,
that you're required
to mourn and act and grieve the same
way we are. How dare you have an
opinion about somebody we're trying to lie in
eyes?
And now it goes the other way over
and over. I know it's redundant, but the
point is everywhere.
She says he wasn't just a conservative we
disagree with. He was a fascist organizer who
built his career spreading racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia,
Islamophobia, xenophobia, and anti immigrant hate actively harming
marginalized communities every single day. Now some of
those are very easy to prove. Even Times
of Israel called her most of those things.
So let's be objective about this and realize
that regardless of whether they make you upset,
she has a right to feel that way.
If you feel compelled to send his family
condolences, fine. That's your personal choice. I agree.
But don't turn around and scold others for
refusing to shed tears over a man who
dedicated his life to dehumanizing and endangering others.
Now whether you think he meant to do
that, what he did for a long time
around Gaza was exactly that. This doesn't and
she probably even means school shooting. I'm not.
I'm talking about Gaza. This doesn't make you
a better person.
And if you're a Christian, it doesn't make
you closer to have going to heaven. It
just shows you don't stand for anything. Where
where were your sympathy posts for those thousands
of oh, I forgot what it was about.
We've gone through over a lot of these
over over the last couple of days. Where
were your sympathy posts for the thousands of
Palestinians killed in Gaza?
Deaths Charlie Kirk celebrated and justified. Now celebrated
might be a bit harsh, but in some
cases, you could show him celebrating things that
might relate to that, so I would make
the same case. But, again, I haven't watched
every piece of his work. Where's your compassion
for the immigrants torn from their families by
eyes? Yes. And many cases, legally in the
country who are being violated in every possible
way.
And still people go, that's not true. They're
illegal. Nope.
Pretty much the majority of the whole conversation,
I've had people here legally who were not
breaking the law. Green card visa going to
the process also had no criminal record.
But partisans are gonna partisan. You know, they
just don't care.
It says, where's your energy for the trans
kids, the Muslims, the black and brown communities
he spent his career attacking? Whatever you think
about him. You know, the point is from
her perspective, that's how it felt. Empathy is
not owned owed to oppressors.
Mourning is not mandatory.
Pretending that civility in the face of fascism
makes you morally superior is nothing but cowardice.
That's her opinion.
And for them to then make this a
major issue to try or get her removed
from her job and calling a radical leftist
because she has an opinion you disagree with
is childish
and exactly what you pretend you're calling out
everywhere else.
But let's not forget, even Pam Bondi got
called out by Twitter
because she says, hate speech that crosses the
line into threats of violence is not protected
by the first amendment. Well, apparently, lives at
TikTok believes that. Apparently, that's what, hey, me,
mostly peaceful memes.
Funny, mostly peaceful. Isn't that funny?
Anyway, the point,
they clearly agree with that or they have
no principles. I think it's both.
I know that they understand the reality of
this because they make the case when it's
about the left, but they don't care now.
And even major right wing people have called
her out going Pam Bondi,
you know, that's that's not what we believe.
The point is you're saying the thing we're
not supposed to say out loud. It's everywhere
you look. For far too long, we've watched
the radical left normalized threat. See, it's she
all she did was say exactly what they're
doing. They're all calling for it. Right?
Don't use it. Don't use the word hate
speech,
and don't talk about the first amendment. Just
call them terrorists and shut them down, and
we'll all pretend we're virtuous and moral. That's
what's happening. And Twitter
called her out.
The US Constitution protects most violent speech. Supreme
I argue all of it, by the way.
Supreme Court ruled it legal to justify or
celebrate violence or advocate the truth of a
duty. See, even the Supreme Court ruled that
they can go, I'm glad he's dead.
These people are not who they pretend to
be.
Very simple. Or they're just too dumb to
know that they're not what they say they
are. I said even Twitter could acknowledge the
obvious. Take note of the manipulators and or
morons out there supporting the shockingly obvious unconstitutional
acts by the current
administration, just like the last one, you know
exactly who they are. They have no principles.
Pam Bondi threatened to prosecute private employee at
a home a office depot for not printing
Charlie. We already read that earlier, but just
adding it to the point now. What a
clown. She she really stepped in it with
that. Trump suggests FCC should consider revoking TV
licenses over negative coverage of him.
Oh, so we're moving on from Kirk now,
and now it's just about people attacking you
again?
Oh, you you you could've just made it
about Kirk, and it would've worked. You know,
the point is it doesn't matter. They're just
trying to censor who they don't like, guys.
They're using
it. Who cares about the constitution? They don't
care. They're they're not even trying.
They just made the same point about Charlie
Kirk Hunt, and his own son said remove
them from the air. It's not it's pretty
clear if you just have principles.
Like I said in the beginning,
South South Australian
police officer
being investigated
over social media posts celebrating Charlie Kirk's murder.
There's only really one way to see this,
guys. The idea this is spread across the
entire world is insane, and it shows you
that there's something driving this. And if you
recognize New Zealand and Australia and the and
it and The US kind of domination of
that, and then Israel through all of that,
you recognize where this really strives from. But
you could make it as simple as them
just bowing to whatever The US pushes.
Now, here is Suzy Wiles,
who, by the way, we just talked about.
Here's Max Blumenthal. He did a report on
this. You'd think it would be a big
a bigger scandal that Trump's chief of staff,
Suzy Wiles,
literally worked for Netanyahu and helped
Israel's Mossad manipulate Trump into bombing Iran. You
can watch the longer clip. It's very important.
The point is Suzy Wiles, like many have
told you, seems to be Trump's handler and
is directly tied through the Israeli administration.
Here she is making an important case about
civil speech,
showing you what this is really what they're
what they're doing. She said this on the
eleventh.
We'd be expecting
a policy reaction to all of this
akin to what we saw in this country
after nine eleven?
Wow. Many of the changes we made after
nine Even the insinuation that this is similar
to nine eleven,
they've lost their 11 are still in effect.
That's that's really when the change came about.
Yes. We've relaxed
some things.
So I don't I don't expect a nine
eleven type response. I I think it's as
much in hearts and minds as it is
in public safety.
We we believe in the first amendment in
this country, period. Full stop. And so,
making sure that all Americans can do that,
whether they agree or whether they don't,
is our priority.
And and I don't know exactly what Actually,
I wanna say one thing before I listen
to the last you hear the last part,
which is the main part. I wanna point
out again how often I make, you know,
the case where, you know, words are very
important, obviously.
And over the years, they've worked into a
position where
people have different meanings in their minds about
words.
So, like, free speech is one of them.
When they say free speech, they are of
the mind that there's limits.
Whether it's fire in a theater or all
the dumb stuff they've added to it over
the years, they are of the mind when
they say free speech, they don't mean entirely.
That's the very Orwellian world we live in
right now.
So she's saying free speech, period, stop, and
she's thinking
limits.
It's not a joke, and she'll make it
clear in a second. And on top of
that, they already know that they've stressed that.
Well, you can't threaten violence. Well, you can't
do this. You can't yell fire at a
theater. You can't whatever they add to the
next day. You can't yell things about
people that are you can't say racist statements
or you can't accuse some you can't celebrate
someone's death everywhere you look. So what they
believe is there's limits to your speech, but
they call it free speech. That's this is
my point. So when she says that, you
get people on the right who clip it
out and go, see, we support free speech,
but that's not even what she means. And
some of them know what she means and
go, yes. We agree. Limits. You know? It's
Orwellian and lost. And that's the point about
all you know, we regime change and, I
mean, so many words over the years. They
they change the definition of people's minds. So
when I say those words and we're both
nodding along, you're thinking about something else.
It's hard to fight that. Now listen to
what she says about it.
Even the first amendment in this country, period,
full stop.
And so,
making sure that all Americans could do that,
whether they agree or whether they don't,
is our priority.
And and I don't know exactly what form
it'll take yet. I just know we've redoubled
our commitment to being to to to free
and sort of civil speech. What?
That is that is protected in every way,
and that in that includes,
law enforcement if need be.
Which by the way, it's always so when
they make it out to be, like, the
government has free speech and so on, like,
it's always this bastardization of the reality.
But the point
is sort and civil
speech.
Well, that's a very clear addition and not
the reality.
Meaning that you can't insult people, you can't
use hate speech. That's what they're saying, guys.
And it's obviously on the policy, so it's
not really kind of some it's not hard
to see. But yet, they still use the
term free speech.
Why? Because they have to. Because there's no
way they could argue, well, we're putting limits
on it and say that literally, like Pam
Bondi coming out and saying what they're doing.
That's the same point because then you would
recognize it.
Well, let's get into some points about the
updates on the actual shooting. And if we
have I mean, if I decide to, let's
see.
Yeah. We'll do this pretty quick. We're gonna
wrap up here and talk about the updates
that I think are relevant
and some points about the Israel overlap.
And I think to start with this, I
think it's important to see.
Charlie Kirk, killer, suspect, not cooperating as we
told you before. But to hear again that
he did not confess. And now he he
just went through a court hearing. That's that
weird image you're getting with that what looks
like some kind of green vest. I'm not
even sure why they have him wearing that.
That's that's that's what they put on him
in the hearing the he was like a
video hearing, which is just so weird to
me. How this everything's Zoom now. Thanks COVID
nineteen illusion. You And yet we don't get
to hear this. We don't get access to
it unless they give it to you. They
can edit it. There used to be a
point where there was some kind of public
display. We get to that's not the case,
it seems. At least not what they want.
Unless they want that.
But
the whole point of this is that he
was arrested based on the idea that he
sent text messages that, like, gave up every
detail, which is really stupid at the end
of the day, but certainly possible.
And all we're told is that he turned
himself in.
But what if there's more to this story?
What if it's that he recognized that he
was innocent and decided to turn himself in
because he was gonna you know, the point
is he's not cooperating and has yet to
even confess, and he basically was in front
of the the Zoom thing for the hearing
and didn't say basically anything. His name, they
laid it out, but nothing happened. Now maybe
that's it's procedural. There's more to come, I
think. But my point here is that it
does not nothing is clear yet that this
is somebody going, I did this, and I'm
accepting responsibility,
which I'll show you more as we go
through briefly why I think that's so relevant
right now. First, just to hear from his
own from Cox's mouth that this is something
that hasn't happened yet. All we can, confirm
is that those conversations
that definitely were happening,
and, they they did not believe it was
actually him. It was it was all joking
until until he, you know, until he admitted
that it it it actually was him. And
and anything new on the investigation?
You say he admitted that confessed?
No. Not not again, he has he has
not confessed to, to authorities. He he is
he is, he is not cooperating,
but, but but all the people around him
are cooperating, and I I think that's, that's
that's very important.
There were reports, yesterday that that that, that
we can confirm that, that his roommate was
indeed a boyfriend,
who who is transitioning from,
from male to female.
That's that's information that the FBI had, had
mentioned yesterday.
We can confirm that as well and that
that, that he is cooperating with, with authorities
as well.
K. So everybody
except the person who did it.
Right? I mean okay. So at this point,
I mean, it it it's hard. You you
can we should be
disputing not because we know as a matter
of fact, but because it's just objective to
question what's being told when we can't prove
it,
every part of this.
So that doesn't mean it's all false. Understand
that. Because, you know, right now, we have
nothing else to go on. So as usual,
Occam's razor, you know, wherever you look at
it, before we know for sure, don't assume,
but that what we're looking at adds up
to largely what the narrative is. Save for
some very obvious anomalies we'll go through. My
point though is that
the trans overlap. It's very weird to me
that they somehow somehow somebody used Steven Crowder
to put on a point about the bullets
being engraved with trans ideology, which turned out
to be false. Even the other parts turned
out to be more about the hell divers
game. Okay. So now now you've got these
overlaps that weirdly relate to the fascist. But,
I mean, why the weird fixation on the
word fascist all of a sudden? Like, there's
something weird happening here. And overlapping that,
you have this event happen.
You were all we're told now
is that he sent this letter to the
person.
We got a narrative from other people. Now
there is the relation the fact that he
lived at the house, the pair I guess
the parents say that. But whether the relationship
and everything else I'm not like I said
in the beginning, I'm not disputing that necessarily.
Just the idea that it seems to fit
into a narrative, and that's why we should
ultimately question it. We scrutinize it. Right?
That so the that he puts out the
the text messages back and forth,
and that go it just I'll show it
to you. Just lists off the narrative,
and then that's the person who ends up,
like, continuing to support it. The the family
helps, and we haven't heard him confess. Like,
my point I'm making is that if all
of that right there, the secondary part of
it is not real,
or rather make it as clear as possible,
that is the only part of it that
makes this fit together. And that's the part
that we can't seem to verify and also
seems pretty flimsy.
Not to say it's false.
It's it'd be irresponsible to say that when
we don't know that, but it's still worth
considering.
She's here's how Shauna writes it out. The
government says Kirk's alleged assassin has not confessed
to the crime. That's true. The government says
the image they used to identify him was
AI generated. No. They said AI enhanced,
and and I I also find that very
suspicious. But what they said was that it
was fuzzy, and so we had to enhance
it. Well, how do we know that didn't
change it in some way? I also do
think that the image didn't look like the
person. You compare them. It does look different
to me, but just minorly.
And they they actually even suggested that might
be why. That feels really weird to me,
but maybe there I mean, maybe it's as
simple as it looks. The government says they
don't actually have the letter they claim they
used to prove his guilt. And that's even
more crazy because they said it was somehow
disposed of, but they then got it confirmed
by the other person. So then, oh, see
my point? All of it rests on this
weird anomalous situation that could be true,
but the note's not there. And so it's
all based on the allegations, the person they
claim is living with them that made these
statements.
I mean, if we wanna consider some larger
point of, like, a manipulation,
hypothetically speaking,
maybe the point is that person he lives
with is the person executing the agenda. Like,
I'm just saying, think about the different possibilities
in the way this doesn't add up.
And it says, the government has since put
him on suicide watch and says he won't
speak to anyone.
Now it's called
what they wrote here was simply placed on,
yeah, suspect suspect in Charlie Kirk's assassination placed
in a special jail unit awaiting formal charges,
where they claim that ultimately is related just
like, you know, potential suicide watch.
Very weird.
Now maybe it's because he
is happy with what he did. Maybe it's
because he feels like he's being railroaded. Maybe
it's not even true. Maybe it's a way
to set him up and kill him. Consider
all of it. But at the end of
the day, it does kinda feel strange.
Here's Max Blumenthal.
And that this to me is pretty over
the top.
Coming from CNN, by the way. So this
is a group that, you know, very partisan,
Fox and CNN.
CNN has created a graphic of supposed text
messages between Tyler Robinson and his roommate
based on Robinson's charging documents to make them
appear more convincingly real.
This is crazy.
But as it says, as in the charging
documents, there's no time stamps.
So CNN
because remember, it was basically a
rewritten
breakdown from, like, the discord chat.
CNN just makes it look like a text
message on a phone.
They no, no. I mean, that's that's very
dishonest, and it's also convincing people that they
got it from some provable thing. They were
like that that was, Max says.
No timestamps.
So very strange. Could mean that they made
it up. Could mean that it was on
a place they weren't. I mean, it just
it's all very fishy. And now that they've
made it look different, why would a journalist
do that? Why would a news organization
alter it to give you and not notate
that?
That's very strange.
This this person says, hey. Look. It's crazier
than I thought. Robinson, I shot Charlie Kirk.
Spouse, wow. Robinson, yeah. I did it because
you're trans. Spouse, thank you. Robinson, I've been
thinking about becoming Muslim. How do I become
Muslim? Spouse, maybe if you go to Muslim
church, enough of be enough of you could
become Muslim. Robinson, how do I join mosque?
I have a mosque guy you could talk
to. Robinson, I still can't believe obviously, it's
fake. Right? The point is they're making a
joke about how stupid this is. That basically,
the idea that they just listed off
every data point that was literally needed in,
like, a thirteen second conversation that they used
to get him.
This is just them going, wild satire. Many
of the comments appear to misunderstand that it's
real.
Oh my god. We're doomed.
But anyway but I mean, you know what's
actually funny to say, not even funny, that
because of how ridiculous
this this whatever this dimension that we're in,
it's hard to know sometimes when satire because
it's so similar to how broken the world
where everything politically is now that it's hard.
I I've been in that position where I'm
like, it seems like it's obviously fake, but
it's hard to tell these days. But to
the real the real point and it it
was already on the CNN one. I should've
read it first. I wanted you to I
wanted you to hear that thinking at first
that it might have been real. Right? You
could tell by comparing the two
right here. But I'll show you this in
a more
open shot here. So f oh, I'm sorry.
This is also a fake one.
Oh, did I not grab it this time
here? I'll go back to this first one.
These are both jokes. Same point.
So it you already saw this, by the
way. We went over this in the last
show.
I think I always thought I grabbed it,
though. Hold on.
I guess not.
I was going over a lot of different
things today that I decided to put off,
and I some follow ups I didn't get
to. The one I wanted to read it
for you. It's really we went over the
last show. It's exactly like the it's it's
we'll just read this part for start. It
says, drop what you're doing, look under my
keyboard, and it says, what? I'm still okay,
love. I'm just stuck in Orem for a
little while longer. It shouldn't be long. Oh,
and the point was,
threw me looked under the keyboard and found
a note that stated I had the opportunity
to take out Charlie Kirk, and I'm going
to take it. Weird.
What? You're joking. Right? I'm still okay. It
says shouldn't be long until I come home,
but just grab my rifle still.
To be honest, I had hoped to keep
this secret till I died of old age,
and I'm sorry to involve you. You weren't
the one who did it. Right? He says,
I am. I'm sorry. I thought they caught
the person. So at this point,
why would he be telling her
like, if the argument is I thought to
keep this secret.
Right? Why would your thing be to go
tell the person
before they know it's you?
And you don't see see how inconsistent that
is? Like, there's a lot of reasons this
just feels weird. Now here's an alternative theory
is that may you could argue that the
guy did shoot him and that they made
this up for some reason. You know? So
back to, like, the moon point. Right? Just
because you can prove one part is false
doesn't mean that that means exactly what you
might think that adds to. Right? That's always
important thinking about. But I'm just simply saying
that if you and like a lot of
very
objective people are pointing out that you read
this and it it just feels very I
I think even Max said insulting to your
intelligence from the FBI,
and it is pretty wild.
And this is just making fun of the
same. He says, FBI released more. And it
says, hello, roommate, lover, it's I, James Robinson.
Hello,
Tyler James Robinson. As a reminder, my pronouns
are shethey. It says, you've never going to
believe what I did. I was the one
who killed Kirk. What? Says, yes. I did.
Let me tell you about all the details
here in writing so that you know everything.
But you need to promise you'll never show
this chat to anyone, particularly the FBI. You
know, it doesn't it just it's the point
is well made.
Okay. Well, I started planning in earnest approximately
a week ago. You know? That's how this
thing feels.
Now, Thomas Paine, who you've seen before,
just completely what he stated and what he
put online. Now, the guy has background in
in in, you know, different points that I
think are relevant to this, but it says,
retired CIA, we asked to examine Tyler Robinson's
supposed texts. Conclusion,
they were likely written by a male between
the age of 50 and 65 with a
law enforcement background. That's
text on Twitter. Take it for what you
will. But it's interesting that he's claiming somebody's
opinion that he asked in regard to the
reference on this claims that, you know, which
is anomalous to the way that the writing
goes. Even the terms that were used, as
many pointed
out, weren't typical terms used by somebody from
his generation.
You just it screams of the typical kind
of broken propaganda we've gotten over the last
couple years.
He adds, my intel group invest invented spoof
calling and spoof texting twenty years ago. The
feds loved it so much they threatened to
shut us down. We compromised. Instead, we allowed
them to use the system to trick criminals.
Of course, they could also fabricate evidence, like
pretend you're Tyler Robinson, texting your roommate, and
confessing to the murder. Easy.
Here is another one where this is a
oh, that's this is the
which one was this?
Oh, right. That this is an important one.
So this is the the guy breaking down
the rifle.
So what have we heard? We've heard that
the guy literally took his rifle, somehow managed
to jump off the roof with it, and
then
broke it down instantaneously.
Or rather, what was it? And the the
timing of it is that ultimately, they found
it put together in the bush. Right? So
the claim is that he broke it down
in very quick succession and then put it
back together and then put it in the
bush, and they found it wrapped in a
towel. And I could just it's completely insane
from a perspective of people that know how
these things work. And here is an example
from somebody who knows about these things telling
you that that doesn't add up.
On this episode of You Might Be a
Dumb Motherfucker, this is my rifle. It takes
two different tools to take it apart. It
takes a Torx key and an Allen key.
Now if I take a shot and immediately
disassemble this, I have to remove the bolt,
remove the magazine, grab my Allen key, hit
the two bolts on the bottom, put those
away in the Allen key, grab my Torx
key, remove the scope, put everything in the
backpack, make sure I have everything, and make
my way downtown. Okay. Which is gonna take
a lot longer for him than it is
for me, especially because his fine tune motor
function, something as simple as grabbing an Allen
key to a little bolt is gonna be
extremely impaired due to a dump of adrenaline
throughout his bloodstream. An extreme elevated heart rate
is gonna make these fine tune skills extremely
difficult. I mean, just for him to think
and analyze of what needs to be done
to disassemble this rifle and get away would
be difficult. And we're not beginning to touch
the topic of him assembling the rifle on
top of the roof, which if you reassemble
a rifle and you take a cold dead
shot, it's not gonna be a 100% accurate.
Okay? Or the fact that he disassembled this
after taking a shot, which the rifle's gonna
be hot, and they found no gloves. Yeah.
Right. There's just so many inconsistencies. It just
makes zero sense. I mean, I'm still working
on this, and I have taken this rifle
apart a thousand times. And now he has
to put the pieces of the rifle into
a backpack. And this is a gigantic backpack.
Shout out Wolfpack, best backpacks on the fucking
planet. Anyways, as you can see, this barrel
broken down does not fit in this backpack.
And this is a big My god. Way
bigger than the one that he was carrying.
Okay? I put the rifle stock in here
and guess what? It doesn't fit. It sticks
out. Now let's just say for sake of
argument that he put these in his pant
leg when he was walking. These are still
so long broken down that he would not
be able to walk straight. He wouldn't be
able to bend his legs.
Doesn't make fucking sense.
It's showing him run across the roof. Right?
So if somebody says in the chat there
somebody's reporting they found a screwdriver on the
roof, you know, if it seems to make
it all make sense. But as the point
goes, then how did he reassemble it when
he got to the bush? You know? I
mean, guys, this is does not take so
my point is always,
this does not have to therefore mean
it's all fake, for example.
You can decide for yourself, but what we
have to acknowledge is that we're being misled
on certain points. I don't know how else
you make sense of this. Or, I guess,
third and alternative is that there is a
point that comes out tomorrow that suddenly makes
this all make sense. A second person being
involved, for example. See what I mean? You
gotta be objective about this. But, nonetheless,
right now, we're being misled.
I get this it's the same as always.
Don't play partisan games. Find the truth.
And right now, it matters that the team
that wants to call this out the most
is likely the one that was pulling the
punches.
And one last point on this, and we
you already saw this this video,
but check this out. Right? So this is
this is
right afterward.
There's no audio for some reason. I just
wanna show you this that so right afterward,
people are bustling around.
They're hiding. I'll just play it.
I just want you what it's the same
point we made last time, guys.
There's nobody trying to secure the scene. Nobody's
trying to worry about the evidence. There's no
security.
And then we the lot the other video
goes way in the other direction. So just
it seems as if nobody seemed to care,
and you can even see blood sitting there
when you get close enough.
You can decide for yourself whether or not.
K? And by the way, that's the very
chair that the guy who I guess has
been identified as their tech guy
grabbed the chair of the guy with that
Charlie Kirk was shot in, stripped on that
chair, and took down the camera that was
right behind him,
which is right here.
Can you see that camera?
You saw the I played the clip yesterday.
The guy took the chair, stuck up, stood
up, took the camera down. So what they're
telling us and by the way, I agree.
He did look like he was kinda looking
around, but who knows? They someone just got
shot. Right? So either way,
we damn well better see that footage if
they said they gave it to somebody. I
forget the reporting. I mean, it's all online,
so I can't confirm it's exactly the point
is that there was confirmation that the guy
was part of their team,
but where'd the video go? Are we gonna
see that? And why in the world would
somebody be able to take video footage from
the scene in any context? And why was
there no cops and no police and no
investigation and no data, no evidence? What is
going on?
I mean, on the scene here. Like, you
watch. There's videos. People were literally wandering through
there.
It just doesn't make any sense, guys.
Now Mel points out something that I can't
confirm, but as always, this is just a
data point if it becomes more relevant. But
hear me when I say that this is
not confirmed.
It's something that Mel is claiming somebody told
her. And even then, she's being honest enough
to tell you this is just what she's
being reported. So just consider this. But I
think it's interesting because of one,
the
overlap with the Israel part,
but also because of the kind of, like,
technological side of what's going on today. It
says, Scoop, got a tip last night that
I was able to verify with somebody inside
the admin that the NSA detected 12 Israeli
registered cell phones at the site of the
shooting.
Now you could easily argue this could be
dumped into the conversation even from a government
position in order to muddy the waters. So
consider that. When it says the NSA picked
the data up on handed over handed it
over to federal law enforcement officials who passed
it along to the White House. Now these
days, by the way, and I've seen this
before recently, why is the White House the
level that the data flows to? That's not
how this is supposed to work. The White
House is not supposed to be the one
dictating,
like, legal action. That's supposed to be the
supposed independent in you know,
even the DOJ.
The idea is that we're supposed to be
driving towards the outcome of the legal reality
not being dictated by the president and the
executive branch.
It just shows you where we are today.
It's all I'm pointing out. But it goes
on to say, the NSA picked up the
data, handed it off to the White House.
My source said those in the administration with
this info are really freaked out. Now think
about this and the bigger point about Charlie
and the claim of him being scared and
the claim of Trump being worried about what
Netanyahu might do, and the recent claim of
Netanyahu saying you all have a piece of
Israel in your pocket talking about all the
congressman's phones. I felt like that was a
threat. In any case,
freaked out would make sense if you realize
that what the argument is that somebody just
got taken out by in this some Israeli
overlap,
and this is some high level point that,
you know, ties back to the largest, the
highest levels of power right now. It says
and it's just hypothetical. It says, I don't
know. I've been putting getting multiple tips a
day for a day for a week, and
I've decided to start putting this out into
as soon as I can to verify any
part of it. Everyone knows there's something very
wrong going on here, and the public has
a right to know what is happening. Are
there possible alt explain explanations? She says yes.
And she'll go over some of them.
It says
And, yes, I checked for art schools on
this Utah Valley University has a center for
national security studies program. It's the largest national
security studies in the region. It says it's
possible that there's Israeli national studying there, like,
to make sense of why they were there.
There are Israeli nationals associated with one of
three synagogues located there. Yeah. But all Israeli
nationals and 12 of them, like like, literally
not just like, that if that is the
case, I would find that unlikely but possible.
It says, lastly, why give a scope a
scoop to me? Trust me, I was thinking
the same thing. It's because mainstream journalists and
most independent ones too are terrified of the
story and no one wants to touch it.
Yeah. Or it's not true. But I find
it interesting.
Here, did, diligent Denzian says confirmed high ranking
Turning Point officials states that the individual tampering
with the camera evidence oh, I I forgot.
I added it. It was behind Carly Kirk
and that after his assassination in is is
the head of tech for Charlie's shows. Why
is he disturbing the camera scene? And it
says, why is he looking around frantically as
if he's trying to be observed? According to
the Utah code, tampering with evidence is defined
as, you know, knowingly extreme crime. This applies
to crime scenes, including those involving homicides. Where's
the footage? So here it says, this is
the head of the tech for all the
Charlie's show. This is Tyler Bowden or Bauer.
All video is turned over immediately to investigators.
I wouldn't be doxxing or vandalizing good people.
Okay. So
if we never see that footage, either it's
a lie or they never got it, or
they don't want you to see it rather.
So lastly,
all of this I think is, you know,
this honestly, some of this probably could have
been should have been the earlier conversation today,
but I don't want this to be like,
this is very, very important, I think. But
all the rest of what we're talking about
is, like, immediately relevant to what the, like,
the political change taking place within this country.
And, I mean, immediately affecting our constitutional rights.
Netanyahu has been forced to yet again publicly
deny that he was behind the assassination. Now
even if he wasn't, that makes sense because
there's a lot of momentum behind the conversation.
But I think it's interesting that they even
give lip service to it or they even
usually, they ignore stuff like this. Here he
is. David Icke says, here he is again.
People will talk. Okay. We get it. Israel
didn't kill Charlie Kirk. Whether we believe you
or not is quite another thing.
He's just really stressing it in. On top
of that, this is just creepy as hell
to me. Rabbi Schmooly came out. He says,
I've spoken for my friend many times. I'm
in shock and praying for help for his
recovery.
Help protect Rabbi Schmooly.
And he said, oh, sorry. Hold on. It
says, I've spoken
for my friend, Charlie Kirk, many times. This
was on the tenth. So Charlie was not
he hadn't died yet.
So he's saying,
I Charlie Kirk. Charlie, he's talking about Charlie
Kirk. He's talking about what happened. He's using
Charlie Kirk and says, protect Rabbi Shmueli, and
gives you a link
to a GoFundMe
for Rabbi Shmueli.
Money
for him to protect himself and his work.
I'm not kidding. $500,000
goal, and everyone's like, are you kidding me?
Is this a joke? Don't make Charlie's death
without you.
$800.
I just am blown away how disgusting this
person is, and I say, look at that.
Just just everything about him. It's the way
he he just has a look of him
that is just, like,
anger, hatred,
vile stuff, not what a man of god
should be. And it's also backed up by
his statements, his words, and his actions, just
so that's clear. But it says, why exactly
is the is this Schmooley using Charlie's name
to promote a GoFundMe that is about raising
money for himself?
This is just a very clumsy example of
what far too many on the right are
doing right now, using Charlie for their own
agendas.
That's the point. Now we already went over
this on the twelfth. Was Israel involved with
Charlie Kirk's death? Let's look at the facts.
Please watch that because I think it's still
very relevant.
Here's another clip from
Tucker Carlson.
And this is important because now he's adding
his side of the story from what happened
with Charlie at Turning Point USA.
You just can't stop this. I mean, there
is a shocking amount of and I'm not
gonna call it proof
because, really, it's all subjective at this point.
But, nonetheless,
Tucker and Candace and numerous people who knew
him
and and others who have reported they saw
the same thing. And, I mean, just every
which way, you're getting very important data that
backs up the case that Charlie was changing
an opinion, and he was quite concerned about
Israel, afraid even.
I just it's and they're all they can
do is go, you're lying, and nobody has
anything to back it up. Here's Tucker's addition
to it.
For that
speech that I gave in July, we had
a com Turning Point USA when he was
on stage, Dave Smith and others as well,
different time, but he went up and he
gave a really important speech
calling out the problem that really upset the
right and Zionist Israel and Zionist right, and
they went after them like crazy. Conversation about
this
backstage,
right before I went on. And I Sorry.
I don't maybe he didn't say it, but
him and Charlie Kirk had that conversation. I
was fulminating and getting all red in the
face like I often do to my shame,
and I was mad thinking about this and
thinking about,
the effort by the neocons in The United
States to draw us in to another forever
war with Iran. Not a defense of Iran,
of course. It's merely an acknowledgment that we've
done this before.
This happened in Iraq, which, you know, we
we entered into,
at the behest of those same foreign policy
strategists,
and
and it didn't work. And so I was
going on at some length backstage with Charlie,
and I said,
you know, probably not gonna talk about that.
I'm not gonna torture you. I know your
donors hate this when I say that.
And also Epstein was in the news, and
it was clear to me that,
you know, Epstein's probably not like a Mossad
agent or something, but Epstein clearly had contact
with Israeli intelligence and American intelligence and French
intelligence. But
It's not that crazy. I mean, I I
it's object it's fair to say that we
don't know for a fact that he was
literally a Mossad agent, but let's be clear.
And as well and he did say intelligence.
It's not it's in every which way, there's
more than just one data point, including from
Acosta, that he was connected to not just
CIA, but also Mossad. Now it could be
he worked for both. He was also an
FBI informant, so it's not hard to wrap
your mind around just for that point alone.
But,
so it was one of the things he's
gonna say. Hate this when I say that.
And also Epstein was in the news. Oh,
oh, just to point that I do find
it worth pointing out that I know you
know, look. He's friends with him at the
time, you know, before he passed.
And just the idea that you would, like,
not say what you think on certain things,
I just find that weird. I don't I
just you know me. It's not what I
I'm not gay I'm just not gonna do
that. Now if it's not relevant to the
conversation, I'm not gonna insert it for no
reason. But this was a very relevant point.
Obviously, that's why they wanted it spoken about
because it was a pinnacle point of the
conversation. So the idea that he was willing
to not say these things,
I I just find that weird and dishonest,
quite frankly. But, you know, just wanna point
that out.
And it was clear to me that, you
know, Epstein's probably not like a massage agent
or something, but Epstein clearly had contact with
Israeli intelligence and American intelligence and French intelligence,
but the only one you're not allowed to
talk about is Israeli intelligence. But it's it
seemed true to me, and I had done,
some work on that. I knew a bunch
of people pretty close to that story. So
so I thought that, And I said that
to Charlie. And I said, but I'm not
gonna say that because I don't wanna make
your donors mad. I know. It's just gonna
be like an endless
flurry of text telling you to stop or
you're gonna
lose a bunch of funding. And he looked
at me, I'll never forget it,
and said, go all the way. Do it.
Go all the way. I said, man, I
you know, a lot of things I can
talk about. I don't need to talk about
that. And he said, do it.
So I did it. By the way, I
think that that conversation hit a mic on
and so did I. It probably exists somewhere
on somebody's server, but that's, I think, a
faithful rendition of what he said.
And by the way, I'm not trying to
blame him for my remarks. You can agree
or disagree with those remarks, but I I'm
saying this only because
I was
shocked and sickened by the reaction of the
ghoulish
and really repulsive reaction of the prime minister
of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, to Charlie's death.
Basically made it all about him and all
about his country immediately,
trying to
take the energy, the sadness, the grief that
people felt over Charlie's murder, and redirect it
towards support for whatever project he's involved in.
Yeah. Well, so too did the rest of
their major republican teams or politics. So did
Trump, so in advance, so did the vast
majority of them, to be very clear about
that. But you know why he wouldn't call
that out? That's just not in his interest.
But look, I I wanna be clear.
That statement, what he's been doing, you know,
largely I mean, like, even just the way
he's seems more measured and more reasonable.
That you said I've seen the I've seen
plenty of his work in the past. I've
been watching it my entire career. I I
think he's presenting himself a hell of a
lot better today, and I genuinely hope that
he is going in the direction of being
more objective and nonpartisan and just talking about
the reality. You
know? I did. Look, maybe I'm wrong about
everything, and he's always right. The point is,
my opinion is that I'm
liking that it seems more balanced.
Either way, the point is that he's adding
to the story and ultimately highlighting the fact
that Charlie Kirk
wanted him to say those things. Why would
you think that is?
Because things were changing, guys. And even he,
the ghoulish prime minister who made it all
about himself. Yes. Very clearly.
So here's the a couple more important points
to write. Now we already went over the
Israel part. 90% of what's important you got
in that last show, but there's your additional
points to add to it. So remember how
I I pointed out in the very last
show
that,
Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh and his team
were hosting the Charlie Kirk show. Not not
that they took over it entirely indefinitely. That
I mean, I get how that can be
take can be seen that way. And, you
know, but and, again, maybe that is what's
gonna happen. But as I can prove today,
it appears that they haven't officially done that.
But the fact that they immediately stepped in
this they were sitting there in this chair
using the audience to broadcast their message at
a point when just before this, Ben Shapiro
literally referred to him as a clown.
And, ultimately, we're calling him out because of
his allowing Tucker and the rest. And he
had a recent interview with him where Charlie
Kirk was asking about, you know, why maybe
we shouldn't blindly trust the com the mainstream
coverage of Israel. Ben Shapiro raised his eye.
We're like, what?
And had many other interviews the same. So
they were looking down on him. They were
calling him names.
And now he's the best hero ever. We're
gonna fight for his memory. Why? Because you
could frame it now going forward as everything
you think.
When he seems to he seemed to have
been changing. It says Ben Shapiro stepped in
as cohost of the Charlie Kirk show, and
and that's not that you can say that's
fair to say, but it it
just in this instance is what is what
I can prove right now. Alongside Matt Walsh
and Michael Knowles, all all of whom are
supporters of Israel,
his move comes just days after Charlie Kirk
assassination,
with Shapiro vowing as he did publicly to,
quote, pick up the blood stained microphone where
Charlie left it. He's also apparently publicly saying
he is gonna take over the campus part
of this. Now whether that's Turning Point USA
or not will be very, very telling.
It says, Kirk's chair and microphone remain empty.
Now, Turning Point, another point we talked about
is who would take over. Right? So at
they're now reporting as of today.
It'll be now Turning Point USA will be
taken over by Erica Kirk. That's the new
CEO and board. Now they're reporting that's what
Charlie had wanted, which makes sense to me.
But I just think it's important to think
about
how this goes forward because there's already been
some examples of this. We talked about the
funding. Right? And we talked about who controls
Turning Point USA. Those are very two important
things. If you believe there's some kind of
malicious action that got Charlie out of the
way because he was shifting opinion and he
was in control of a demographic
that was the most important battleground for Israel.
That's a provable fact. And if he was
starting to swift his opinion, that was a
very problematic thing for Israel. And they recently
tried to give him a lot of money.
Kirk refused Netanyahu funding, and he was frightened
by the forces before his death. And Bill
Ackman also
brought him to a kind of a come
you know, kind of an intervention
that Candace Owens can says she can verify.
And he basically felt like he was being
blackmailed.
Right? So all of this adds up to
a pretty damn clear picture.
But, again, some of the parts you can't
verify. My point is if she takes over
and all of a sudden, they get the
tons of Zionist funding that they had turned
down,
that would be very telling. If, let's say,
Ben Shapiro takes over turning point in USA,
that would be very telling. See my point?
So these are the developments here.
So now that she took over, I think
it is highly relevant. Businesses related organizations financially
supported Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA for years.
Turning Point USA was launched by Kirk and
grew donations from a range of benefactors. Actually,
you know what's funny?
I
knew this art this headline literally changed.
I thought I saw it earlier. I don't
know. I'm not gonna go back to the
point. It's the same here. It's just so
strange how these platforms see, it's clear so
the bottom line is they got funding
from a lot of new people.
One of them,
Ben Shapiro,
announces a million dollar donation to Turning Point
USA. Ben Shapiro is a very, very, very
diehard Zionist.
So my point is that you got funding
all of a sudden after it changes into
the hands of somebody else who's willing to
take the money that maybe he doesn't realize
Charlie was turning down,
or maybe not. I don't know. But I
think it's very telling that the funding does
start the moment that Charlie gets out of
the way. Now realize there was already lots
of funding going on, but the explicit turning
down of hundreds of like, a lot of
money from Netanyahu and Zionists,
I think is the most relevant part of
this.
And don't forget, here's Ben Shapiro. I would
gladly waive the Born in USA requirement for
a president BB. That's Ben Shapiro. That's Netanyahu
he's talking about. The giant the genocide committing
extremist
Zionist leader of a country that is being
called out by the world.
Here is
Charlie Kirk,
a Turning Point USA Israel focus group one
week before the Hampton struggle session with Bill
Ackman.
Just to show you, this is in the
moment by moment, I'm finding more of these
that show you he was very clearly asking
questions that were making Zionist
very uncomfortable.
It says,
Charlie Kirk's lieutenant,
Andrew Covet Covette
appears nervous as APAC comes up. Colvet defended
Ackman,
excuse me, this week and welcomed $1,000,000 via
Ben Shapiro.
Right? So the p he's moved out of
the way and people then accept the very
money that Ackman and the rest were trying
to offer.
We'll play this
next. This is wildly telling right here.
Do you guys think
when a lawmaker and a man I respect
like Ted Cruz
uses the bible to justify
aid to Israel, doesn't even know the verse,
Do you guys think that's, like, not the
best way to approach this? Even the point
being brought up,
people get called extremely called domestic terrorists for
saying things like that if you're not on
the right side or not, like, ardently pro
Israel up until then. If we talk about
even a fraction of that, we call racist
every day.
So you have to understand, the people in
this room, the people he was speaking to
were battleground
for Israel, for the influence of this country,
like, make or break. To your hand. Okay.
I think Ted Cruz is Genesis twelve three.
I think a lot of people see that
as off putting when you look at the
New Testament. Why? Because I think a lot
of people, they they look especially at the
writings of Paul where he talks about how
the the new flesh is not the same
as the people in the old covenant. The
new flesh is everybody. Everyone's in two talking
about Romans nine Yes. Nine six. Yeah. Are
you Catholic? Converting a Catholic from No. You
can tell. This is my next Oh, from
Judaism? Yes. Oh, wow. So so you And
that's not yeah. That's a big deal. Right?
So that that that's what Candace Owens is
trying to talk to Kirk about,
and he was flirting with. That's what that's
what she was telling us, a spiritual transition.
You're Jew you're ethnically Jewish. Ethnically There's no
such thing. Let's be honest about this, guys.
The reality is now I shouldn't say it
like that. There's a background we can get
into. The reality is today, there's the idea
that there you can be bored just because
like, the idea is that clearly your Judaism
is a religion.
And because Netanyahu decides to be like, they
claim Netanyahu is from what? Poland? You know,
the the game they play, that's another the
Jewish idea that there's an that what they're
trying to do is conflate
that with the idea that it that Israeli
is the same as being Jewish. That if
you live in Israel or the idea that
historically there's Jewish heritage in regard to the
nationality, not necessarily the religion,
it's it is a manipulation at the end
of the day. There's points to be made,
not to get into it today. But I
just wanna make sure that's clear again because
it's very, very important to understand that Zionism
is a political organization. Judaism is a religion.
And the conflation of the idea that you
are an Israeli, meaning you are Jewish is
not the reality.
And you have concerns about AIPAC? Yes. I
do. I'm told that by some people Mhmm.
That if I criticize AIPAC, I'm anti Semitic.
I think it's ridiculous. Yeah. I I feel
like it's great to have a concern for
your country. Do you think
that the that AIPAC represents,
Again, I'm not saying I believe this, but
I think this is what you're saying, that
it represents
a kind of cutting in line of prioritization
away from the American people. Yes. Would you
guys say that's a fair summary? Your focus.
Meaning that, like, okay. This is an Israel
an Israel focus group, guys.
And they all agree. Most of them, anyway.
We vote. We're citizens,
but a separate group gets higher priority
because of whatever reasons.
I realize what he's really framing that as
is Israeli
versus American.
Right? But I agree. And this is why
it's not as simple as making it only
about the religion
because it's much more nuanced than that. It's
much more, you know, complicated. It ultimately is
about the political organization, which actually overlaps with
a lot of different things.
Either way, even if you think I'm wrong,
the point is what he's saying right there
is a big deal. You're not supposed to
say those things, especially not to influential
battleground age people in this conversation.
Here, the next
clip is the same guy, Andrew Andrew excuse
me. Andrew Colvet
after this. So the point was you can
see him in this seemingly uncomfortable it's kinda
weird. I would always seem to have sorta,
like, a handler around
uncomfortable about this conversation. Now jump forward to
the September 16. Here he is welcoming in
the day daily
Ben Shapiro
and accepting new funding.
I think it's very relevant.
Come to the Charlie Kirk show.
I am Andrew Colvet, executive producer of this
show.
I am joined by some very dear friends
of Charlie.
And, of course, they need no introduction.
That would be
in no particular order from my right to
left, Matt Walsh,
Michael Knowles,
and Ben Shapiro.
In the moments that,
passed right after we got the news,
I was in a state of shock.
And one of the things that gave me
some solace and gave me some comfort in
those first,
few hours afterwards
was I actually happened to see a tweet
from Matt Walsh,
and I could feel the visceral anger that
was pouring out of his body onto
the post on And that's the good thing?
Right? The the the the anger?
I mean, that's a very weird way to
frame that. No particular order from my right.
In the moments that,
passed right after we got the news,
I
was in a state of shock.
And one of the things that gave me
some solace and Some solace?
Matt hating gave you solace?
I mean, am I am I overthinking that,
or is that pretty crazy? Gave me some
comfort in those first Comfort. Hate. Few hours
afterwards
was I actually happened to see a tweet
from Matt Walsh,
and I could feel the visceral anger that
was pouring out of his body onto
the post on x.
And I it's hard to explain
why that gave me so much comfort, but
I knew that there there was an army
rising up with righteous anger at what had
just happened. Is that I mean, maybe that's
why Alice Jones is selling holy war t
shirts. You get the same vibes?
It gave you solace and comfort that they
were angry and and and rising up as
an army. I mean, come on, guys. This
is over the top.
At the even if you think he's being
genuine, that's that's a little bit crazy. You're
talking about what made you feel better is
knowing that they're seething with anger and ready
for action. I mean, come on.
That just feels a little bit like you
know, the idea becomes you're talking about an
individual
the only way to frame it is about
political action against the other side.
Because that's my boss was not seething in
anger about getting the one guy. He was
seething in anger about the political party they
were framing as in responsible for it all.
They're building a war here, guys, and that's
not even hard to see. To my fault.
And and to be clear, it's not blaming
one side or the other. This is partisanship,
team sport politics, both you know, look at
it. Both sides, how long have we been
telling you this? They aim at the other
side with hyperbolic scream. They're gonna kill the
world with the with climate change. And what
does it do? It drives people to act
in crazy irrational ways because they believe the
world's gonna end tomorrow. If you say Trump's
gonna destroy the country, we have to do
something now, it's gonna drive people to act
in irrational ways. It's the same thing from
either side because it's the same agenda. It's
one government driving us against ourselves to take
advantage of the actions we do we actually
take
to put us in a position where we
can no longer fight back or we can
no longer speak up or we can know
that's where I think all of this is
actually driving with the technocratic overlap.
Friend into the host of this show.
And within minutes of that, I got a
call from the CEO of Daily Wire just
asking if there was anything he could do,
and I said, yes. Send send the team.
I'm gonna want them to guest host this
show. Right. Great. So immediately after he was
shot, let's get let's get Ben Shapiro on
this in the chair.
That's what he said. I mean, he's calling,
say, hey. What can we do? You know?
The way it went down makes a difference.
Maybe that narrows it. You know, I just
think that it's timing. It's weird. Why would
this be the immediate thing?
I'm not saying it's not I mean, make
sense? Just I'm just posing the questions for
you to ask yourself because when you add
it all up at the end of the
day, this does feel very strange.
But, But, you know, just the one point
by itself, yeah, I can see a world
in which this would happen in any case
where people wanna do the show and talk
about what happened. I get it. But the
money, the funding, the overlap, the the comments
before, like, are you not aware that Ben
Shapiro was just running was calling him a
clown, telling
shouldn't be doing this? Not everybody you know,
that not everyone's here to represent I mean,
we've gone over all of it. It was
because of Tucker Carlson. It was because of
what he allowed him to say, acting like
he was not worthy to be in front
of the party.
And now here he is.
And so I
asked, and they graciously
granted
the, the request, and here they are. We're
we're willing to provide, and we are providing
any level of material support, any level of
support on the program, boots on the ground,
helping you to do what Charlie would have
wanted to be done here. You know, we
couldn't be, frankly,
more honored to to join you guys as
much as we can in fight. Thank you
for that, and thank you for
donating, the Daily Wire a million dollars.
Right. Okay. So what it amounts to?
The funding, the shifting. Okay. But so at
the end of the day, let's say this
guy takes over, or let's say somebody else
does. Doesn't it seem pretty clear that through
this, you can see Ben Shapiro operating?
We're here. We're invested. We're all we are,
and we're going to
give you everything we can.
No. Yeah. Maybe they don't even recognize what's
happening. Like, you could just see the tendrils
of the, you know, the the Shapiro,
Zionists, the overlapping network very clearly working its
way through all of this. Now that doesn't
have to be nefarious. Maybe you think that's
crate you know, maybe you think I'm
lost in what that means, but you can't
deny that that's happening.
I just think that's very telling about what
happened before, what the narrative was, what Charlie
was doing, how he was changing, and all
of this right afterward. I just don't know
how you missed that.
Now, again,
read both of these. I think it's very
important to understand the the reporting that comes
from the White House, but it's it's an
honest source, so take it for what you
will. Charlie Kirk refused Netanyahu funding, was frightened
by pro Israel forces before his death. And
then you also have Harrison with a separate
source
claiming that that was what he was told
in August.
Billionaire Ackman convened stormy intervention with Charlie Kirk.
He felt like he was being blackmailed.
Now here is a report from the Washington
or the Wall Street Journal. We'll end with
this.
This is, Chris Metahan. He also does he
has his own report down here. You can
read that if you'd like. I'm gonna go
to the Wall The Wall Street Journal report.
That says why Trump privately fumes about Netanyahu
but gives him free rein. Now, yes, of
course, it could be inaccurate.
Of course, their rights gonna say it's Wall
Street Journal, therefore, we're gonna ignore it entirely.
The team sport, just like the left does
with anything they don't like, it's the same
game back and forth. When anybody who's honest
should read it and decide for themselves, show
discernment, know they try to lie to you,
and read it anyway and try to understand
what's happening. To me, this adds up exactly
with what I've seen happen, with what I
know is going on, with the way I've
seen Trump act, as well as how it
overlaps with this Charlie story.
Why Trump privately fumes? He's effing me, the
president said of the Israeli prime
minister. Doesn't that sound like what Charlie was
saying?
It says president Trump is frustrated with Israeli
prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The question is whether
he will ever be angry enough to do
something about it. Trump has told several aids
in recent weeks that Netanyahu prefers using military
force to compel Hamas'
surrender instead of the president's preferred method of
ceasefire,
which, you know, who knows if that's even
true or just him framing himself as the
one who wants the peace when you know,
either way, it's this case is about Trump
and not being on the same team or
the same side or they're not or rather
blindly rather the way to frame it is
Trump or any US president
choosing to still publicly support this administration or
this government committing a genocide
even as they secretly don't like them.
That speaks to one or a few very
clear possibilities, one of which is that they
are controlling him. Blackmail, whatever else. Because why
would he keep doing it if it's hurting
him and he doesn't like him?
You can decide.
And to be clear,
my reporting, my research, and my gut tells
me that this is the reality, that Trump
is going along with this because it's his
political interest
at the very least, and because old and
and and I think because he knows that
bad things could happen if he doesn't.
My opinion. But, again, I think it's based
on very clear, provable you know, the points
of how we've seen all presidents were interact
with Israel, what Trump has done so far,
what he's done the last administration,
his entire cabinet. I mean, just a lot
of points.
His frustration boiled over last week, their report,
hours after Israel attacked Hamas negotiators in Qatar,
an operation that threatened to derail fragile peace
talks. He's effing me, Trump said about Netanyahu
according to officials who heard the comment. Now
there's people in his administration, guys.
Of course, they could be lying.
Trump was in conversation with senior aids, including
secretary of state Mark Rubio, Marco Rubio,
about how to respond to the brazen strikes.
Trump's sometimes heated feelings about Netanyahu have puzzled
Washington.
Why is Trump, who prefers to keep the
upper hand in relationships, willing to let Netanyahu
continually operate in direct defiance of his wishes?
Yeah. Very good point.
It's slightly baffling and counterintuitive,
said Shalom Lichtner,
who served seven consecutive Israeli prime ministers in
their offices over the quarter century and is
now at the Atlantic Council.
Of course, he is. Right. So he an
Israeli prime minister aide who's done that for
seven consecutive
Israeli government administrations, is now with The US
Washington Atlantic think tank Atlantic Council.
Now I'm worried about that. Netanyahu moves to
prolong to have Netanyahu moves
Netanyahu's
moves have prolonged the Gaza war, created trouble
for Trump with other US allies in the
region, and made the expansion of the Abraham
Accords excruciatingly
difficult, like everything he claims he's trying to
accomplish. So either
he's okay with Netanyahu just screwing up what
he wants to happen or he doesn't have
a choice.
I'm mystified,
and so are many other Israelis, says Itmar
Rabinov
how do you say that? Rabinovitch,
a former Israeli ambassador to The US during
the Clinton administration.
Quote, he's under siege and makes mistakes. The
only thing that's really working for him is
Trump's support.
Trump's exasperate is exasperation
hasn't turned into any form of public pressure.
He is he says things, but not doesn't
ever push back. He has refused to leverage
America's last military and political support for Israel
as well as his warm personal rapport with
Netanyahu.
Rather, he has opted to stand by as
Israel launches a massive offensive into Gaza City
and watch his the prospects of his desired
peace, if that's what he really wants, slip
away.
White House declined to comment.
The senior Israeli official described the relationship between
Netanyahu and Trump as excellent and that reporting
to the contrary was fake news.
US and Israel interests and core values are
closely aligned, the official added. I believe that's
more close to the truth. But I also
do think that net debt Trump is you
know?
I think clearly that they have the same
agenda and they're working alongside each other and
that they are likely very, very similar. But
I do think that it's confounding that he'll
do things that does make Trump look stupid,
and you don't ever see anything put. No
pushback.
He embarrasses Trump all the time by like,
with the deals or with the bombing cutter
and plenty of examples like that with Iran.
Like, he does it it in in countless
ways, it shows you that he's the one
making these decisions and Trump follows suit. And
that I guarantee bothers Trump. My point, though,
is that I do still think that this
is more the reality. So all it shows
you is not the blind
ongoing relationship of the current power structure at
acquiescing to what Israel wants and that he's
willing to ignore things he never does for
this one person.
Amar Dastri, a former spokesperson for Netanyahu, described
ties between the two as very, very tight.
He said news reports of tension between the
two are planned media moves for strategic art
reasons. Now that makes more sense than anything.
Playing it out to where, you know, Jones
comes out and says, wait. They're broken. I
told you I knew it the whole time,
and that was what something fed to him
to get you to think that because that's
what they wanted. That's how they use people
like Jones. While democratic support for Israel has
plummeted in recent years, it remains high among
Republicans. A Gallup poll in July found two
thirds of Republicans have favorable views of Netanyahu.
That's not the same as Israel,
in contrast to nine for Democrats. It is
actually funny to me how watch The Wall
Street Journal is, like, deliberately conflating
support for Israel with support for Netanyahu even
though it's very public that
almost everybody.
The entirety of Israel
does not support Netanyahu. It's not hard to
find out that he's been he's very hated.
And, ultimately,
that you could see, like, in The US,
position, people everybody supports Israel in the politics.
Many of them don't support Netanyahu.
Just weird. I think it's
deliberate. Marjorie Tilly Green, a Republican from Georgia,
and Staunton's Trump ally in July accused Israel
of genocide.
Netanyahu also finds ways to integrate himself with
Trump's inner circle and flatter the president directly,
which I think works.
His hubris plays a huge factor. Everybody knows
that. On Saturday, Netanyahu alongside US ambassador to
Israel, Mike Huckabee,
participated in a cornerstone laying ceremony to name
a prominent promenade in the beachside city of
Bat Yam after Trump.
I guess that's all it takes. Here, Trump
Heights in illegally occupied land. It'll let you
do what you want. In effect, Netanyahu has
shaped a relationship where he can temporarily risk
Trump's ire knowing it won't last.
Netanyahu
has frequently referred to Trump as the best
friend Israel has ever had in the White
House.
Netanyahu said the country has long targeted
has long targeted on foreign soil people whom
it holds responsible for terrorist attacks on Israel.
This is the principle we established. It's not
a principle. It's a it's a, you know,
it's a I mean, what do you call
it? It's not a principle to break the
law to kill people that you wanna kill.
It's a principle we follow. It hasn't changed.
That's what they're saying. We we bomb, cut
or vomit. We can do whatever we want,
wherever we want. By the way, the same
thing the US government thinks. We can bomb
any country in the world if we claim
we're fine. It's the same as what they
did in the war on terror. How'd that
work out? They killed a lot of innocent
people. Israel was just using the same talking
points. It doesn't make it legal. It wasn't
legal when The US did it.
It says, ultimately, however, the biggest problem with
the cutter strike may have been that it
wasn't successful,
Said Michael Oren, former Israeli ambassador to US
under Netanyahu,
Israel targeted Hamas's top negotiators, but instead,
despite their lies about it, killed six lower
level representatives, the group said. The chances are
if our operation in Doha succeeded, Trump wouldn't
have condemned it. He would have taken credit
for it. Isn't that the truth? He likes
winners. The same logic may apply to Gaza.
Alright. These are opportunists, guys. I think that's
obvious. You don't you know as well as
I. If it was something everybody liked, he
would have been like, oh, I'm involved.
Clearly, he thought it was very problematic because
they assassinated an entire group of people with
no justification.
People that they invited there. So he acted
like he was unhappy about it. But what
did he do?
They stop funding them? No. Stop arming them?
No. They stop publicly supporting him? No. So
nothing happened except him going, no. We didn't
like that.
So overall,
the idea like, Trump and Netanyahu have said
that this was even Iran, like, the most
successful operation in the American history, Trump just
said. No. They they they just lie, guys,
because they just the politics politicians
across the board lie to you as a
matter of practice.
It says there has to be somebody standing
with an Israeli flag saying we won.
That's what the Israeli said. I think Bibi
understands this about Trump.
Think about what he just said. Think about
why we're seeing what we're seeing. There has
to be an Israeli with a flag saying
we won. I think Bibi understands this about
Trump.
It's very wild where we are, guys, and
it is very clear
if you're just choosing to pay attention.
A long one today, but thank you for
tuning in. I think it's important that we
continue to flesh this out, and I will.
I so I'm planning on doing a show
tomorrow, but I can't guarantee it based on
a few factors. But like I said before,
assuming my Internet doesn't go out for two
days again, I I'm gonna be hell bent
on getting as much out as I can.
And more coming in general. And in fact,
including some stuff that some new stuff. New
things I've been working on, side projects, things
that I don't wanna get into just yet
in case that doesn't necessarily develop. Another couple
an article from a new writer that I'm
probably gonna put up tomorrow that'll be very
important. Some more interviews coming out soon, new
panels with the IMA. Lots coming your way,
guys. So thank you for continuing to support
independent media and anybody out there who's objectively
covering things in a nonpartisan way just cares
about the truth.
They need your support today because they're the
minority out there despite that being what everyone
should be striving to be and everyone should
wanna watch. Because otherwise, all you want is
a narrative spun by people on a certain
side. You know, it should be about what
is the truth with nothing else.
That's what we're gonna bring to you guys.
So thank you for being here. Keep questioning
this stuff, guys. It just it's it's getting
harder and harder to not see how not
just flimsy it is, but how much the
partisan sides are imploding.
I I mean, I've said a long time.
Watch. Look.
I think right now
that the entire partisan model is breaking down.
I like a lot of stuff is, but
that's an important linchpin. That is the crux
of the issue. We need to keep breaking
that down, and I think that's why this
is getting so aggressive and so inverted. And
domestic terrorism left and right, it's it's kinda
blowing up.
Please keep pushing.
Be objective. Nonpartisan.
Don't be violent.
Go out there and inform people because you're
making a difference.
I love you all. As always, question everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
You're not real.
What? You are?
Is any of it real?
I mean, look at this.
Look at it.
A world built
on fantasy. Synthetic emotions in the form of
pills, psychological
warfare in the form of advertising, Mind altering
chemicals in the form
of food. Brainwashing
seminars in the form of media. Isolated
bubbles in the form of social networks.
Real?
You wanna talk about reality?
We haven't lived in anything remotely close to
it since the turn of the century.
We turned it off, forgot the batteries, snacked
on a bag of GMOs while we tossed
the remnants in the ever expanding
dumpster
up to human
branded houses, trademarked by corporations built on bipolar
numbers jumping up and down on digital displays,
hypnotizing us into the biggest slumber mankind has
ever seen. You have to dig pretty deep,
kiddo,
before you can find anything where you live
in a kingdom of bullshit.
Good news on the