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.
Welcome to the daily wrap up.
Monday, 02/23/2026.
Thank you for joining me today. More development
in the direction of Trump's globalist administration, it
seems, and almost every promise, including food dyes.
Even the small wins,
even for people like me that were going,
well, you know, that's a good thing. But
I'm can't stop looking at all these bad
things. But, yes, that was a good step.
And now here we are, where you're starting
to see the FDA roll those back. Or
as we get into it, you'll find that
it's a lot more dishonest than that. It
seems it was never even really there in
the begin with to to begin with, and
this is what we were always talking about
with a lot of this is the and
and whether that's RFK being involved in that
decision or whether it's him being played or
whether I'm wrong, it will go back to
the way you thought it was tomorrow. As
of right now, it's clear that we're just
being played or misled to make it objective.
Every single one of them. I mean, even
the bigger point to make about the, you
know, the fed conversation
and the obvious digital money direction, which which
is what we laid out beforehand. A lot
of pushback. Now it's here. You know, just
every single moment, we can see the problem
that Americans have been calling out that they've
been ignoring now being acknowledged in order to
usher us into the solution they've created, which
maintains the problem that they need.
It's just it's everywhere you look in every
single circumstance, and I it's that's why I
talk about the sort of transition that I
feel that we're in. Today, we're gonna talk
about
the apparently new WHO that Donald Trump is
is
discussing
bill you know, I guess,
creating
and it with a $2,000,000,000
price tag.
And and whatever you think about the idea,
really, the simple point is and there's a
whole lot of nuance into whether that might
even be a positive step to get away
from the global structure of the WHO. But
the point is what it really is what
they're currently doing and what it represents.
And if all you really wanted was not
that group,
the agenda doesn't matter, well, then then that's
a binary sort of team play. I care
about the outcome and the agenda. I don't
care whether Trump rolls it out or Klaus
Schwab rolls it out or Biden rolls it
out. I don't like any of that, and
the whole thing is a problem for me.
It's because it's about the principle of it,
not the team. And so that's what we're
seeing with all of this is if Trump's
board of peace is not a problem for
you or the way you know, it's it's
it's a globalist element just like the rest
of it. And whether maybe you don't even
care about the globalist side of it. Maybe
you don't think that's a problem. It's about
what those things are then leading to. To
put that aside, it's about the
direction of more control over our lives, the
idea of working, really, with the worst elements
of the world, the groups that are out
there committing the genocides and violating human rights.
The point is it's going in the wrong
direction. We're gonna talk about the WHO discussion
and how that funding is going forward, how
that builds out, what continues to seem to
you know, what I can see as sort
of the replication or rather the new normal
of the global order.
And it's very transparent, I think. We'll also
talk about some of the developments around the
glyphosate discussion as the RFK has come out
and endorsed
that problem.
The FDA walking back retreat as the Guardian
frames it, FDA retreats from the plan to
ban artificial colors in food, which should be
frustrating. You should feel, you know, manipulated if
you thought that was happening. We're gonna talk
a little bit about Epstein.
And just to keep you updated on some
of these alarming things that keep happening, but
you are very aware of what's going on
if you watch this show already and have
for a long time now. But I wanna
open it with a point that goes back
to Kavork Hallamasean's really great article about the
Epstein or as it was titled the, the
empire
above Epstein.
I'm gonna be joining him tomorrow at 10AM.
Part of in between. I'll be joining AA
and Wake Up tomorrow, and then I'll be
jumping on Kevork's show for a while and
then jumping back on AA and Wake Up.
So check that out. I'll be joining him
for that. But we'll be getting into the
global element of all of this, including the
Epstein part that him and Oliver,
Neil Oliver discuss.
We'll also talk
about some of the different larger global parts
of this while The US continues to pretend
like it's not there anymore, even though the
information came through them. And, of course, Mexico,
the cartels, and I mean, we've talked about
this a lot. Just recently, in fact, the
undeniable connections of the US government and Israel,
for that for that,
that matter,
connected to the cartels, the very cartels that
pretend often that they're fighting.
Now that's not to say that what it
looks like today is necessarily, you know, what
you might assume knowing that very well could
be something The US is involved in. It
could be Mexico doing it in response to
what The US is doing in Mexico. We'll
go into that, go through the information, and,
well, just really well document yet again wherever
you place this fact, and it is a
fact, that The US Government has been caught
numerous times working with the cartels.
It's just important to understand that for what
we're gonna see today and what this might
be developing into. And a poor and some,
part about ICE that I'll I'll mention at
the end whether we go in deep or
not, but if I have time, we might
push it off to the next the next,
discussion. Now one thing I wanted to, say
before we get started, somebody was recently pointing
out in the,
the Telegram channel the Telegram,
chat for TLav
that they signed up for the Substack channel
or the Substack account of TLav
for the daily wrap up show.
And so I I if you guys remember
how I set it up, my plan was
to I don't wanna just overwhelm it with
just the same show, you know, daily wrap
up and so on. It's just everything else,
sort of like the interviews, the written articles,
and sort of make that the focus for
the substack. Now the reason I'm bringing this
up is because even if just one of
you, as somebody mentioned, had signed up for
that and paid for the Substack with the
intention to get the daily wrap up through
Substack,
maybe I should put it there. So I
just wanna throw it out there. Let me
know what you think. Comment in the chat.
Some of the mods will bring it back
to me. Just let me know if you
guys think we should be posting the daily
wrap up or pretty much just all content
of TLav on the the Substack channel, but
then also on the website, which to me,
I mean, I guess some of it's redundant
regardless, but just let me know what you
think. Because my point was to make it
the best for you guys because maybe some
of you wanna focus more on the written
content and the interview discussions
as opposed to the longer, you know, investigatory
shows that we're doing and then have that
more so over here. I don't know. You
guys let me know what you think. It's
about making it easy. Because my well, I
guess the overarching point is that these shows,
I get it. They can be long, and
they can be overwhelming for some people, and
they'd like to focus on what they can
digest in one sitting. And so that was
the idea. So let me know what you
think. It's important to me that you guys
get what you want from this, and it's
all about the information. So let's get started
today
with,
shout out to a great interview I just
had. And then this is something I really
want you guys to think about and check
out. And, you know, as always, there none
of these things are are
simple. None of these conversations are, oh, that's
just you know, most solutions, especially with the
system we're in today, are gonna be complicated.
And maybe for all we know that this
is just not possible.
But the I the the resistance from some,
even in this community, to just to just
poo poo on anything that seems to challenge.
We should be open to these ideas even
if they're ultimately not possible because it opens
the mind to alternative ways of thinking.
I genuinely think this is possible. And I
had a great interview with Matthew Sands from
the Nations of Sanity project, which is called
the Nations of Sanity.
And it's really one main idea. I mean,
in fact, let me just do this real
quick. I'll just read exactly what I wrote
for the opening of this. Is, the founder,
Matthew Sands, of Nations of Sanity Project here
to discuss a potential path forward for those
seeking an end to government and the statist
society in which we are forced to exist?
Cause we're always talking about that. Derek, far
more than most, focusing on solutions, which is
why I'm proud to to work with him
at Lost American Bagbon and overlap with Conscious
Resistance.
But we also focus on solutions if where
we can, but it's something that is obviously
needed. And so this, to me, stood out
as not just a possible solution away from
government, but a solution for the two party
problem that we deal with. And that's just
about difference of perspectives. That can happen whether
there's government or not. I mean, it's clearly
the government's built and used, but I thought
this was an interesting idea. It it simply
revolves around the non aggression principle. What it
says I continue, I wrote, Matthew presents a
solution to the endless cycle of rulers to
which we are subjected,
a viable solution that is rife, however, with
government created educational roadblocks
and various challenges.
And that is primarily
the, the the the solution primarily the creation
of a peace agreement among free individuals establishing
a new governing structure. That doesn't mean government,
mind you. This structure has only one universal
guiding law, the non aggression principle.
Now what I'm the point I mean about
government is understand that governing government can mean
many things, but government in the sense of
what we discussed it as today. Just having
a a an agreement, a peace agreement or
structure.
Anarchism is a structure. That doesn't mean chaos.
It means no rulers, not no rules. It's
important to understand that. But the reason this
is important is because a lot of people
seem to quickly put something like this down
because it doesn't line up with what they
think is possible.
I very much think this is possible. And
if we understand a world in which this
could be the only guiding point, that doesn't
mean there's no challenges. I mean, think about
the insanity
of just in this country, the way that
we debate left right policies
that never seem to even conclude, that just
go on forever. We're still debating basic wedge
issues that are foundational to the constitution.
And then we bring something like this up
and the conversation is how would we ever
debate that? People are always gonna disagree. It's
like, well, that's where we're at now. At
least we would have some guidance on nonaggression.
The point is this would basically create a
world in which government would no longer even
be necessary.
That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be people
that can enforce police. These things would still
exist. It's worth watching the interview because he
talks about the idea of, you know, he's
not saying no violence. In fact, he's talking
about the nonaggression principle, which is different. It
means from a libertarian mindset, you can defend
yourself. And you can, in fact, in his
idea, with his mindset, enact violence in order
to protect those who are being attacked under
this principle. Meaning that the only valid point
in which you can initiate violence is when
somebody else is initiating violence on the peaceful.
It's interesting. Yeah. But again, maybe you think
it's impossible, maybe it is. Worth your time.
Check out his website. I do think that
this is something that even if we don't
do, it chain it opens our mind to
how these things might be possible. And maybe
somebody much smarter than me or all of
us will decide how this could actually be
functional.
Or maybe it's this.
Also, on that point, here is the substack.
Posted this as well on there, so you
guys can check that out. I'll include the
link there.
Now on the health side of this, just
an update quickly before we start with the
FDA point and just one well, basically, both.
The update's gonna be both about just knowing
this exists, but also about the glyphosate point
that Derek was highlighting as well recently.
This was about Gavi. Just don't forget that
because this includes the same conversation. Right? This
is the new bill that has that has
only gone through the house, by the way,
which is supported largely by Republicans,
is now in the senate. I tend to
think it's gonna pass, but it's been there
for a while.
New bill supported by the White House, though.
That was the important part. The White House
publicly came out and said, we endorse. We
support this bill. This bill, in addition to
deciding Israel 35 different times, you can ask
yourself why that makes sense in regard to
money and funding and what you can't do,
and you're not on a Palestinian can't have
this. If we don't do this for Israel,
why that has anything to do with American
interest, you should ask yourself.
But on top of that, it allows
the White House or basically bypassing HHS to
be able to fund Gavi.
The main thing they were so excited about,
like FoodDies, that we acknowledge was a win,
except here we are. Right?
To bypass HHS, to go through the state
department to fund Bill Gates' Gavi.
I mean, you tell me, how do you
possibly keep going forward with this?
Now it's not even that they do it.
It's that they they you know, let's just
say it stalls out right now. They still
wanted that to happen from Republicans' perspective, from
the White House perspective. Now in another spectacular
example of hashtag winning,
anger as Trump FDA retreats from plan to
ban artificial colors in food.
This came out on the twentieth. In a
further retreat from its pledge to the to
ban artificial dyes from food, Donald Trump's FDA
announced that it would loosen labeling requirements
to allow companies to state,
quote, no artificial colors
even though products may in fact contain some
dangerous substances such as titanium dioxide, which is
one of the primary problems for people in
the with the legitimate
Maha movement. Not the people out there pretending
that to win political points or to scream
Maha while supporting all these ridiculous things. But
the people, the Americans, not politicians, the Americans
who genuinely wanted to make America healthy again
and wrongly, at least right now, believe that
those people were doing that. So stop calling
this a false movement because it's not. The
whole point was that people in this movement
believe these things, and that's why it became
something of momentum.
The liars are the people in the mainstream
alternative media and the people in politics who
act like that's what they're doing. And then
there's a middle ground of people who are
being ridiculous about it, who are pretending like
maybe it'll all work out, being quiet, and
then showing they have no principles in some
cases. But, again, that to me is a
minority in the conversation of people who truly
wanna stop these things. That's why they pretended
to care about them. That's why they pretended
to align with Massey in the beginning, because
they wanted that support, guys. That's how it
works. People like Gathered apparently just don't have
the principles to stand up and acknowledge while
they're caught in the middle of it right
now. Anyway,
it says removing toxins from food is a
cornerstone
of the RFK Jr. MAHA movement, or at
least they said so. Kennedy is the secretary
of the of of HHS, which holds the
FDA,
and he or which which holds the FDA,
and he quickly zeroed in on dye upon
taking office last year. So remember, the f
d the FDA and pretty much every health
element is underneath
ARCA junior.
So what you have to understand is just
like everything else we're seeing, apparently, there's one
there's one element guiding most everything in this
in this government right now, and that's Trump.
Or at the very least, whoever's pulling his
strings. Because it seems like there whether it's
the f b the DOJ or the FBI,
entities that are supposed to be independent and
but are clearly not. Like, objectively,
embarrassingly not. So, here we are, whether RFK
is allowing this or not allowing you know,
whether he you know, the conversation's been around
blackmail, what's going on, but everyone can see
this is challenging very, very,
you know, hardcore things that he was fighting
for aggressively before.
And again, started very clearly pointing at this.
My first thought was like, okay. I actually
believe it's really important getting seed oils and
dye. I think that's huge for health in
this country in general. Huge in general.
But I still was like, okay. You know,
of all the things we're gonna tackle, that
seems to be lower on the scale, but
I still said it was a positive. And
so it just feels like they even they
they think ask yourself this. If this continues
this way, which I feel like it will,
why couldn't I mean, why wouldn't they just
let you have that? You know what I
mean? With all the things they're doing and
all the lies they're spinning and how many
times you're being lied to and contradicted, why
couldn't they just let this go to give
you that bone? They even have to circle
back and remove the things they feigned to
you.
I just think that speaks for itself.
The FDA agreed to what critics labeled a
handshake
with big food
to stop using the dyes. You know, the
very big food that RFK was telling you
for years were not to be trusted. We're
dishonest. We're captured. You know, basically, people that
were working, you know, industry hand in hand
with the institutions. Right?
So big food, hand in hand with FDA,
for example.
And so here they are making agreements where
they will take the word of these companies.
The very companies he told you would lie
about stuff like this, the very companies that
would manipulate studies to be able to give
you dangerous things, he's now taking their well,
it's a handshake agreement. We're gonna agree that
it's an understanding, it says. Some candy makers
still are refusing even with this understanding to
even stop using them.
So let's be clear. That means if that's
even possible, then there is no ban. They're
just they're going, we're gonna shake our heads
and all agree that we're doing this wink
wink and just everyone keep doing what they're
doing, or at the very least, that's possible.
That's am I missing something? That's not a
secret, guys, and this is what's so frustrating
about this is you'll get the liars out
there who will shout you down. Well, Ryan,
that's the only way it's even possible, and
that's the only step that could be made.
That's not true. That's a lie. If that
was true, I would still I mean, look.
The bottom line is like all the rest
of this, these things are bad for you.
They're dangerous. They've built this.
But if you simply said, ban on these
diets today. Boom. Just like that. Not allowed
in this country.
They would figure it out.
Yeah. Maybe they're gonna spend more money. Oh,
my god. People might even lose jobs somewhere.
But they would figure it out.
And then we would be exponentially healthier because
of this, but that's not what's happening. And
then you get the watered down small step
that doesn't really change anything, and then you
have to deal with manipulative people out there
that pretend they fight for these things to
then just go, well and maybe they actually
believe that because they're so broken down by
this ridiculous system that they'll take anything, even
the illusion of a movement.
Tell you you see it too. I know
you do. Thomas Gallien, principal scientist with the
Center for Science in the Public Interest,
has the next statement.
It's frustrating especially when the rhetoric suggests that
they're solving the problem.
But in practice, they're just letting industry do
what they want.
Now you realize guys, that means that's a
that means that's how little they think of
us.
That they're gonna go, just just say it
out loud.
They're too stupid to know. Just keep doing
it. And we'll lie to them. It'll all
work out.
It goes, Galland continued, adding that the rules
were already so loophole written, as we know,
as RFK told you, that there were other
ways that companies could deceive consumers. The most
effective measure to protect consumers is a ban,
he said. What they pretended to do. Kennedy
defended the move in a statement. So here
this is this is important to understand. Just
like with glyphosate, we're gonna get to next.
He comes out, let's just say before, his
entire career before this, screaming about how important
this was. And I'm not even overplaying that,
guys. Anybody who watched his work was I
mean, you could maybe say not just passionately
arguing why it was so important for a
really long time. In each one of these
cases. Seed oils, glyphosate, all of it.
And then they come out and they go,
we banned it. We did it. We're taking
it away. Okay. All the praise, everyone. See?
He's gonna do it.
So now he comes out and defends the
thing that challenges what he originally fought for,
for, what he told you already happened.
I don't even know how you make sense
of that. Is this a walk of shame?
He comes out and says, this is real
progress.
We are making it easier for companies to
move away
from these synthetic colors and not okay. Making
it easier for them? So now we're worried
about their company interests as opposed to immediate
health for Americans? Yeah. We'll take about six,
seventeen hundred years. We'll get there.
So we know we profits and company interests.
There's really no other way to understand this.
What are you making it easier for them?
Is it dangerous or not? Is it hurting
people or not? A ban is quite simple,
and they would certainly figure it out. But
because, oh, well, we have to make it
easy for the cup why does anybody even
absorb, like, accept that? Anybody other than people
like Trump who are focused on business and
that's it, or at the very least projecting
that.
I don't understand this, except we're being lied
to. It says this momentum advances our our
broader effort to help Americans eat real food.
That's a meaningless statement.
This momentum? What momentum? You mean the walking
back of your claims advances our broader effort
to make you healthy? That's a meaningless statement.
I'm just so frustrated by how clear all
of this is and how it seems certain
people who I thought better of are out
there still gaslighting people. But, truly, most people
I see, including even Republicans who were, you
know, are hardcore lost in the partisan divide
are starting to see this.
Because it's pretty damn simple. You either care
about these things or you don't. You don't
take these half this isn't even a half
step, guys. This is a fa fake step
in pretending that we're making progress. It says
consumer brands, a trade group for packaged foods,
applauded the move, of course, the companies. Right?
The Consumer Brands, a trade group for the
companies. That's big food.
Said, yay. Good job, guys. It's a positive
example of the FDA taking the lead on
ingredient safety and transparency by doing what? By
allowing you to do nothing out of the
guise of something changing? Yes. It's pretty clear
why those companies love that. Good job, RFK.
You're you're our hero. Among natural dyes used
in food that advocates find advocates
find most concerning
is specifically the one that we're now allowing.
At least one of them, titanium dioxide
nanoparticles.
Now, guys, I'm not gonna even get into
the potential overlap here, but we will.
I mean, remember, nanoparticles are simply just nano
sized particulates.
But it does and can overlap with actual
technology
in the sense of, like, actual you know,
you know I hate using the terms that
are clunky like a robot. It doesn't even
make sense with what we're talking about. Because
especially when you get into the weird biological
overlap of what they're doing with nanotech today.
But
just think about what we talked about in
the past, and I'm gonna come back to
this. I've got a whole segment I've been
working on with stuff that came out of
the WHO recently about nanotechnology in the world.
It's like it's people still act like this
is not even there. Anyway, just think about
that for those that know, and we'll come
back to it later in a different show.
But the point being, these things are dangerous
for you. Nanoparticles in and of themselves,
particulates. There's entire studies done from the NIH
about why nanoparticulates
in and of themselves are dangerous for the
body. It's just wild. Anyway, I've done I
did all this work back when we're going
through lipid nanoparticles,
but it goes
on. It's the among the natural dyes used
in foods that advocates find most concerning is
titanium dioxide, nanoparticles added to brighten whites, because
that's what we all care about. Right? Or
effectively,
serve as a primer for other colors. The
toxic substance is banned right now in European
Union for use in food, like a lot
of things our government allows for us and
gaslights us into thinking we're safe. Not a
joke.
Because regulators could not conclude
that it is
safe. Think about what that just said. Now
this I don't let's not pretend like Europe
is even infinitely better
in a lot of you know, in in
pretty much the same way. They're just as
problematic.
In some places, way worse or in some
places, slightly better. But the point is they're
pretty equal in my mind of where we're
all going. I think they're largely in lockstep
with this stuff. But think about what it
just said, at least pretending that. That just
because they couldn't prove that it was safe,
they banned it. Not that it was even
proven dangerous. You see, in this country, we
go through, like, I mean, at this point,
endless. They're still pretending glyphosate can't be proven
or that, you know, GMOs. Oh, well, we've
gone through with 75 studies that prove that,
And they can't prove that it's unequivocally safe.
They just claim you can't prove that it's
dangerous, and yet they no. We'll keep using
it in the meantime. Here are shots we
can prove are killing people. We'll keep using
them until we figure all that out. We
just lived through that.
I mean, guys, that's insane. It shows you
either these people are so shockingly,
shockingly corrupt that they're willing to do do
things, not just allow things they don't check,
but knowingly things that are actually dangerous
in order to benefit from them, control your
life, kill you, I don't know, or they're
just that shockingly
stupid and being used by something else, maybe
the food companies, but we know there's something
bigger than that.
And and this is the part that does
that
connect back with the endocrine endocrine
disrupting chemicals, which seems to be damn near
everything in the mainstream that they give to
you to these days. The toxic substance is
banned in Europe
because food regulators could not conclude that it
is safe and
raised concerns that it damages genes. And, guys,
if you remember the show we did on
that, it is almost overwhelming how many things
that they have just like this that they
allow everywhere from foods to cosmetic that are
quite literally in real time endocrine disrupting chemicals
and causing your body to alter its gene,
genetically change.
And we talked about that with the trans
conversation, and there is an provable scientific connection
to those the overuse of those things in
your body and people
having weird changes that they then associate with
whatever they tell you is the transgender movement.
It is a potential carcinogen that accumulates in
organs
and is linked to neurotoxicity,
intestinal inflammation,
reproductive
damage, you know, like everything they give you,
birth defects, and other health impacts. This is
what they want you to tell you is
a good thing, a positive step. If this
is real, which the science shows it is,
then what they should just ban it like
Europe does. But, no, we're gonna give a
little handshake deal with them.
And the the momentum for the broader movement
is making everybody make your hair America healthy
again. Okay.
You feel
better? Titanium dioxide is widely used across The
US food system.
The Environmental Working Group nonprofit has found nearly
2,000 products in which the chemical may be
used, though some estimates are as high as
11,000. Now, what's crazy is you pluck out
one small one example. This thing's bad. Look
at how crazy it's everywhere. Now if you
actually were able to even mentally consume at
the same time all of it, I we
would probably all have strokes.
That's one one ingredient.
Then you could bring in all of it,
PFAS and dioxins and glyphosate, all these things
that independently are doing all those same problems.
Reproductive issues, birth defects, inflammation,
cancers.
And they're all lined up next to each
other in the same fruit food you're eating,
the same water you're drinking, the same clothes
you're wearing. It's literally everywhere, and that's not
even hype that's not hyperbolic.
I'm not even here to scare anybody. We
just need to be real about what we're
actually dealing with, and they're just simply they
can't even give you one chemical. Just one
will say that's bad. Nope. All of it's
okay.
It just kills me. Yes. It's pretty clear
that I have a very low opinion of
who we're dealing with, but you tell me
why I'm wrong. Look at our track record.
Titanium dioxide is widely used.
It says
2,000 products, which the chemical may be used,
though some estimates are size 11,000. The largest
subgroups
included candy, cakes, cookies, desserts, dessert toppings,
tons of kids. The FDA so far has
ignored a petition
filed in 2023
by five major US public health advocacy groups
that asked it to withdraw its approval of
titanium dioxide for use in food.
You know, my gut tells me that there
is something more connected to that specific nanotech
overlap or, like, nanoparticulate
overlap, and they don't even necessarily mean technology.
Just some kind of conveyor some, you know,
some system of conveying something. And I think
there is more going on there like we
talked about in the past. And I shouldn't
even bring it up because this will scare
people away from things that we should be
addressing right here. But it may sound crazy
to you guys, but these are not false
statements, and this is scientific reality. You could
look at Charles Lieber and all the stuff
we constantly point out. It's been going on
for years. I know. I said I wasn't
gonna get back into it, but it it
jumps into my mind that I'm telling you,
it's it's there's something there.
Food companies will be able to state that
products that contain these ingredients
have, quote, no artificial flavors. So you see,
if you just let this go long enough,
maybe people don't get enough attention pointed at
this.
Well, a couple years from now, you're gonna
go, look. They we did it. We won.
It says no artificial flavors. Good job, RFK
Junior. And and I guess we'll just forget
that that never actually happened. They just allowed
them to not say that, or rather allowed
them to say that while it wasn't true.
Because that's where we're at right now. How
long until we just forget that part?
The EWG
cofounder Ken
Cook, he's one of the advocacy groups, said
the shift ultimately represented, quote, another broken promise
from Kennedy and Trump. Now realize, this isn't
this is somebody who's advocating for this to
happen. So what's their interest in saying it's
not you know? I I just need to
make those points because this is self you
could prove this for yourself, whatever political side
you think you're on. And it says they
pledged outright bans, because they did, on dangerous
foods and chemical additives to their make America
health a good healthy again base. Can you
can you please I mean, actually, genuine question,
in case I missed it.
Does anybody anywhere in this conversation, in the
chats, anywhere know of a a dangerous food
or chemical that they've effectively banned?
Genuine question. I might have missed it. I
don't know of any of them. How do
you make all these claims then not actually
do any of it? It's just insane where
we are.
Instead,
states are doing the hard work to protect
families. And you know how that tends to
work is that might happen where a state
does that and then Trump later points back
and says, yeah. See what we did? He
does that all the time. They all do.
So does Biden, or if he can't remember
his name.
While Kennedy settles for handshake deals with big
food and chemical companies,
agreements with no real accountability and no guarantee
they'll be honored, because that's a fact right
there. That's a fact. That's exactly what they've
done. Now you could argue maybe that's a
good step. Maybe a year from now, he'll
do more. I'll I would be happy to
see that. I'll still be questioning it as
we should.
But how are you genuinely gonna think it's
in any way a positive step to make
a agreement where there's no obligation with companies
that will sell sell their grandmother for a
nickel? I mean, that's where we are.
I think that's sad that anybody would pretend
like this is anything other than a sellout.
Now same point on the glyphosate conversation. That's
why I wanted to start with that one.
Yeah. I don't see any comments. I mean,
I could've missed it. I'm genuinely sir cons
I mean, I would I would be surprised
if they didn't have something. Like, why wouldn't
they? Take one small thing that they you
know? I don't know. It speaks for itself,
doesn't it, that they haven't even given you
some kind of small pieces to feel like
you're winning? No, that's what we just showed
you they pulled back on. But this was
from the twentieth Trump ignores Maha by ruling
glyphosate. National security imperative
despite
obvious health risks.
So here is what RFK Jr. Just said,
and then I'll read you what Derek wrote.
Gonna start with this statement which I find
frustrating.
Maybe I won't read the whole thing, but
it says, I will always tell the American
people the truth.
And it goes on to not do that.
Pesticides and herbicides are toxic by design,
engineered to kill living organisms. Now one thing
that's important to think about with this glyphosate
overlap that I got it's so funny to
see the pushback you get. Whenever there's a
very clearly
an important topic that the partisanship's trying to
manipulate and you jump in the middle of
it and give you something that kinda disrupts
the conversation for the left and the right,
it's amazing to watch how Twitter belts down.
And I don't even mean like the whole
platform. But you'll get like just bots thrown
at you like or just people that are
ridiculous that come at you with all the
narratives. And you've seen it. You get, like,
the same repeated response talking points because they're
all just following it's like dripping down from
the same 17 shows that are the mainstream
alternative media.
It's all the same thing. Oh, Blythe will
say, that's not true. No, it's not as
bad as they say. No, it can't prove
it with the studies. No, They don't actually
put it on those foods. Actually, you know,
they just lie and lie and lie, and
they're wrong about all of it. The point
is, guys, this is damn near everywhere. It's
been proven in a thousand different ways to
be dangerous as he told you, but now
you've got weird people on the MAGA side
of this
who are out there telling you weirdly enough
that this stuff is actually not dangerous because
suddenly it's it's it's like defending Trump. But
what's weird is that's not even what Trump
and his team are saying. So you get
this weird schism where they're so desperate to
defend Trump and his moves that you then
end up challenging sort of what he's claiming
he's doing. It's just such a weird breakdown.
It's just it's just pure dishonesty and self,
like, selfish,
self driven action based on only what benefits
you and your team.
So the point is, these things are dangerous,
clearly, and they do very much spray them
on all sorts of of of crops. And
it's funny how we seem to have forgotten
the Roundup Ready conversation, the Terminator seed, the
Monsanto overlap. The whole point of this, guys,
is that they sell farmers seeds that are
genetically altered so that they do not die
when they're drenched in ground up. That's glyphosate.
At least the leading dangerous active chemical, one
of them. So the and what's frustrating is
people cannot go, I'd like the the
wines in in Napa Valley. And I they
they wouldn't spray them on that. It would
kill it all. And I'm like, well, that's
yeah, man. That's the point. They do because
it's drenched. And then because they spray it
so ubiquitously,
it it basically drifts over into everything. That's
why you get the organic wines, whether it's
the soil, the air, the drip, whatever it
is, that all test positive for glyphosate. Wait.
That that one got went crazy online.
And it is true. There's a study. I
think moms moms,
moms for America, I'm forgetting their name. They
they are the ones that put the the
work in, paid for it, and they got
a very well done study that shows you
that. It's important.
But so on top of that, that they
try to act like it somehow is not
relevant for the food. But then, of course,
even RFK and even the rest of them
told you that they spray this both, like
I said, just drench this stuff to, you
know, fight off whatever they can, let it
grow, but it's altered so it doesn't die,
which has its own effects.
But then, as they already admitted, and his
old vite VP said, they drench this right
before they sell it or right before they
they pull it off the vine because it
helps it dry out.
And that gets tons more on there. So,
yes, as he says, they are toxic by
design, and there's no world in which we
should be okay with this being everywhere in
everything.
And he says, when we apply them across
millions of acres and allow them into our
food systems, we put Americans at risk. Yes.
We see we all agree on this. He
says chemical manufacturers have paid tens of billions
of dollars to settle the cancer claim. Okay.
Yes. It's dangerous. See, he's admitting that.
Unfortunately, which he shouldn't need to since he's
said it his entire life. Unfortunately,
our agricultural system
depends heavily on these chemicals. Oh, okay. Wait.
Let's just take stock of what you just
said.
So we will be hurt by this stuff.
Okay? They're designed to be killing organic things.
Right? And it does put us at risk
when it's in our food supply.
However,
because money and crops and agriculture and industry,
we have to do it. Sorry, guys.
Now look, same point.
Yes. There will be consequences. Yes. There may
be a food shortage. The point at the
end of the day is are we pretending
like we wouldn't figure that out?
Like, the argument is simply money, guys.
And this is not some collapsing system situation.
There are farmers around the world and country
that still actually farm organic. And, yeah, and
look, this would create a problem that they
have created. The answer is never
continue doing the same thing.
Continue the problem that will only make this
worse and more dangerous because, well, we're screwed
now. That's not the answer. The answer is
to deal with the problem and accept the
consequences
because that will, in the real sense, make
us healthier and actually increase our food supply.
You know, it's just he he knows this
because he's made these arguments before. Any real
person in the actual Maha movement already knows
this.
And he goes, The US represents 4% of
the world's population, yet we use roughly 25%
of the pesticides, which is why we all
have cancer.
One of the many reasons, by the way.
That is ridiculous to me. Now that's pesticide
and herbicide, you understand, because there is an
overlap. We talked about the pesticide conversation, the
spraying in New York, the you know, all
this the overlap with the the,
GMO mosquitoes and what you know, there are
all sort of weird overlaps to this stuff.
The point is that this is not safe.
They know
that. But they are telling you we overuse
it more than you in the world, and
yet we're still gonna keep it going because
our system's reliant on it. If these inputs
disappeared
overnight ah, I see. So, calm down, Ryan.
It's gonna be a slow lockdown. Do you
believe that? Do you actually think that's gonna
happen based on what they've already done so
far?
I don't.
If these inputs disappear overnight, crop yields would
fall. I happen to disagree, by the way.
That's also an important point. I've I think
you can clearly show that that the increased
yield is a a mirage.
In fact, just like the GMO push, we
all just pretend didn't happen. That was a
lie.
Gates, the rest, pushed it. They were they
after they did that, they were more food
insecure than before. And then we just allowed
them to GMO vaccines too. You know? But
this is I mean, look. I could be
wrong. I'm not an expert in every single
field. But the end of the day, based
on what I've researched,
I don't believe that the yield would just
collapse.
Also, because the reality would be that you
can grow regular crops.
You can do alter you can do things
that don't require glyphosate.
Now, if you stop using it right now,
for example, all they're really saying is we
don't spray that.
See, this is a trick. You understand? Because
I'm actually gonna make this very clear because
this point, I think, is just coming
you know, the idea that what they're saying
if we stop using the spray that they
use,
all they're saying is we wouldn't use this
spray
to treat these crops. It wouldn't mean all
of a sudden they'll just die. It means
that there would be bugs and other things
that would try to get at them, and
even that wouldn't it it just remove the
crops. Glyphosate does not increase the yield. That's
insane.
Now the reality being, they claim it does
because they claim it stops the bugs and
other things from getting at it. Right? But
you could
use anything else.
How about something organic and not dangerous or
at least less so, like cancer causing? Well,
yeah. Okay. Then maybe we'd lose a little
bit of this. And I would argue the
reality would be that you would actually increase
your crop yield. I could be wrong. But
either way, all we're really talking about is
simply not using this protective
spray.
That doesn't mean collapse of all the crops.
It's just a it's actually a really disingenuous
argument
coming from person somebody who's been trying to
fight this away from us our entire life.
And and it goes so it says, disappeared
overnight, crop yield would fall, prices would surge,
also not necessarily the case, and America would
experience a massive loss of farms. Why?
Even beyond what we're witnessing today. Why? You
wanna explain to me why in any way
that would make us lose farms? In fact,
I'd be willing to bet you you would
get a flood of people willing to farm
in in whether it's I mean, what industrial
farming is not the answer. I hate the
fact that we pretend that's the only way
to feed everybody. It's not.
Go back to organic individual farming. Let people
do what they want. But at the end
of the day,
there's no connection between just farms vanishing and
them stopping using glyphosate. In fact, that boxes
people out who are unable to deal with
this, who have to buy the Monsanto Bayer
seed in order to be able to use
it.
Did you realize that's watch Food Inc if
you wanna understand that more. Farmers were boxed
out of the situation. The individual farmers that
can meet their their com their county and
city demands were pushed out and bigger industrial
crops, monocrops, that that all rolled in.
It says, I support president no. Here's an
interesting point. It says the consequences will be
disastrous. You know what that sounds like to
me? Stardust solutions point.
This is an exam this is basically the
same model as stardust solutions. You're gonna push
us into the geoengineering, which, by the way,
they're already doing despite what anybody will tell
you, they're admitting it,
to a point to where then they are
required, their own statement, to do it for
hundreds of years
and possibly forever. Otherwise, it gets way worse.
You're being held ransom by geoengineering at that
point, and it's the same thing here. We
can't stop it. Otherwise, it all collapses. Well,
then we're being held hostage by your disgusting
dangerous chemical.
It's it's as I support president Trump's executive
order to bring agriculture chemical production back to
The US.
Now
make those two things make sense.
So even despite what I was saying before
about everything he just said, that why would
that mean we would so let's just even
say we have to keep using it. But
the argument is
if it disappeared overnight,
meaning the implication he's trying to get you
the implication is we're gonna slowly start rolling
it back.
Okay. Then what does slowly rolling it back
mean make the US government a hub of
production of glyphosate?
No.
Trump is not trying to walk anything back.
He's making this a focus.
So you think RFK Jr is being honest
with you when he tries to make it
sound like we can't just do it right
now?
Well, Trump's not even taking a step in
the back door. He's going forward.
Excuse me. He's increasing
the output.
So how does that make sense?
I feel like it's these things you're being
lied to, guys. It's right there. You all
know that. You're not stupid. You can see
it. He's macking me. You know, anyway. It's
just, you know, you wanna I wanna dwell
on these things sometimes because it's so it's
so pure. It's obvious. It's in it's right
in your face.
And he goes,
and and our near total reliance on adversarial
nation.
But, again,
this is how he tries to weasel us
into the America First mindset.
You don't need to rely on we if
we went back to completely organic natural stuff,
we wouldn't need any of that stuff.
But they don't want that, guys. It's industry.
The executive order protects two pillars of national
strength.
That's what he says. Our defense readiness and
our foot food supply. Oh, okay. So now
it's all about your war focus.
Defense, readiness, and food for the troops?
It's what they're framing it as. That's not
what we need to be, guys. We are
not an empire out in in seek of
conquering. That's what they want. Only children think
like that. That's not the reality of this.
This is the opposite of what is gonna
create what they claim they're fighting for. It
says when hostile actors control critical inputs, they
directly threaten the security of the American people.
Well, now see, now we're turning it into
somehow that if we don't use glyphosate,
China and Russia are gonna hurt us. It's
just it's the same cycle of manipulation.
The Trump administration will secure these supply chains
to eliminate that vulnerability. Yay. So
America first,
hashtag Maha because glyphosate. You know what I
mean? Like, they just and all of a
sudden, it it's sort of like turning,
nuclear power and oil into somehow being ESG
compliant. You see how each side does the
same thing? So Biden's administration is like, we're
fighting against the bad stuff, and then they
just bend it in to make, well, we
use those things to fight for freedom. So
so it's okay. But you can't drive your
car with gas, but we're gonna keep drilling
oil. You know, it's it's ridiculous.
Same thing here. Life was saved for freedom
all of a sudden.
President Trump did not build our current system
he inherited. Oh, I see. So it's not
his fault. So why even try to fix
it? Because Biden did it. Seems to be
their that might as well be their tagline
for the Trump administration. For decades, Washington designed
modern agriculture. Policymakers wrote foreign policy, directed research
dollars, structured subsidies, crop insurance, blah blah. Those
deliberate choices locked farmers into chemical yep. I
get it, man. So why don't we change
that? Is the answer to make the US
government and the US con as a as
a nation the leading locate to bring production
of glyphosate back to the country?
That's not what you're saying. That's not the
same thing. That's just simply dishonest.
We are now changing course. No, you're not.
Without destabilizing the food supply. Explain that for
me. Trump's making it a focus and you're
now
changing course? Well, yeah. You're, in fact, you're
changing course to be overly focused on glyphosate.
Alongside USA,
USDA secretary Rollins, we are accelerating the transition
to regenerative agriculture by expanding farming systems that
rebuilds our you know, I yeah. Great. Good.
Do it. I'm not I'm I'm I'm I'm
tired of going good, the great thing when
they're just yelling things on Twitter that never
seem to happen. In fact, they can do
something like food dies, but then they walk
back. So when they yell things out like
this and it's this grandiose idea what we're
all gonna fight for while they're literally enshrining
glyphosate, we should go, I call your bluff.
I mean, no way we should be going,
yeah. Great. Good stuff, while they're forcing glyphosate
down your throat.
We are also driving the rapid adoption of
next generation technology. Laser guide. Okay. Cool. Good.
Laser and stuff. Get it done. I wanna
stop killing us with chemicals.
The solutions are not theoretical. Farmers are already
putting them into you. Okay. I mean, I'm
I'm not good. I'm not even saying it's
bad. Increased yields with technology. But I think
at the end of the day, it shouldn't
be something. All of this creates a choke
point for industrial farming and boxing out individual
farmers. It's what it does. Not everybody can
afford these things. In fact, what they do,
mark my words, is make these kind of
things, whether it's the laser guided weed control,
thermometers,
you know, electronic systems and robotics,
Mandatory. They say, well, if you don't have
these, it's not safe. But you have to
have these certain tools because otherwise, then it's
not up to our standard while they're forcing
dangerous things in your throat. And all you
do is box out the organic individual farmer
because they can't even meet those demands. That's
how this tends to work. These solutions are
not theoretical farmers. They're already put in work.
I have met with hundreds of farmers and
agricultural leaders across the country. They understand pressures
firsthand. Yeah. From you. From you guys. From
the government rather. That's what they're dealing with.
Chemical inputs cut into margins.
And it's just weird how he's arguing points
that are countering what he's doing.
At HHS, I'm leading a coordinated effort grounded
in gold standard science. I mean, that's a
lie right there. They keep getting caught using
studies that don't have placebos. They just lie
lie lie. How you can't
ignore that guys.
Yeah. I mean it's just just rhetoric. President
Trump has opened the door to this debate
and backed meaningful change. Does anybody believe that?
Does anybody in Maha other than blind followers,
in any way believe that?
He's opened the door to this debate?
What? Glyphosate? He just quite literally enshrined it
as a national security imperative.
But yeah, meaningful change on the way. Guys,
I'm just insulted.
I have a very, very different opinion of
this person whether or not he's being blackmailed
than when I did before he joined this
administration.
Now, I don't I don't want you to
play it again. Here he is right here
in 2024 saying, glyphosate causes cancer or most
likely does.
Yeah. That is him. Or rather a month
ago, which very well yeah. Maybe it was
close to last year
with with Katie Miller. But now it's okay
because Trump.
As Jasmine Keith says, the economy would suffer
if we stop poisoning you. Sorry.
Telling you guys, people just aren't buying this.
Anybody honest is not okay with this stuff.
And I mean honest in the sense that
they actually believe in what they claim they're
fighting for in the min administration. I just
thought this was interesting. Help bot shared this
clip
about this, I think it was a French
documentary, if I remember correctly, where the guy
was trying to
oh, maybe it wasn't French. It was a
documentary they were working on about glyphosate, or
at least health in general. And they asked
to point the question about glyphosate to this,
what was he again? I've it's I remember
I played this a while ago in the
past. There there is a full, you know,
dot it is a real interview,
and there is a full version out there.
There's even been mainstream, like, reports about it
because of what happened. Basically, he gets called
out and says, well, drink it. It's glyphosate.
After saying it was completely harmless, and he
refuses to do it. There's a lot of
these kind of things. And as they write
here, the interview ends in twenty two seconds
because he refuses to drink the glyphosate that
he otherwise says was completely safe. Believe
that glyphosate in Argentina
is causing increases in cancer. You can drink
a whole quart of it, and it won't
hurt you. Yes. You want to drink some?
We have some here. I'd be happy to,
actually. Yeah. Not not really. But Not really?
I know it wouldn't hurt me. If if
if you say so, I have some glyphosate.
I'm not stupid.
Oh, okay. So you you you No. But
I know So it's dangerous. Right? I know
no. People try to commit suicide, but then
it would fail fairly regularly. Tell the truth.
It's not dangerous to humans. No. It's not.
So are you ready to drink one glass
of glasses? No. I'm not an idiot.
Interview me about golden rice. That's what I'm
talking about. Really. Okay. Then it's finished. Except
Then the interview is finished. Let's say that's
a good way to solve things. Yeah.
Here, complete jerk.
What was that interesting?
Because I because I'm not an idiot.
Well, okay. Well, I mean, you look. You
wanna try to be as honest as possible
or as objective as possible.
Okay. So
maybe he we the point would be the
only way to take that honestly is that
it's totally safe, but, you know, not really
safe. We just mean in the sense of
chemicals. Like, it's clearly it's a chemical. It's
clearly gonna have some effect, and I'm not
stupid. I'm not gonna drink it all. But
it's not dangerous the way that you're making
that to be. So clearly, they all clearly
they know that it's not safe
safe and effective. Right? It's the same point.
I just find it hilarious because he's just
angry because deep down, you know that you're
kinda lying right there. But maybe he even
thinks, well, you know, the the people act
claiming it's all cancer, they're the ones lying
too, So I'm lying in a lot a
lesser way because it's not as bad as
they claim. That's two party illusion stuff. Both
sides do that all the damn time where
they rationalize their dishonesty as somehow justifiable because
the other side's even more dishonest.
Tired of
it everywhere you look.
So,
here
oh, whoops. Hold on. Did I bring it
up twice? Here. Although, you know what? I
think that's what I did. I had the
link to the actual longer version in there.
I'll try to grab that before we get
done. But so I just thought this was
funny. So just on these general points, this
is what you get. This is what I
mean by all all flash, no substance. Trump
just post first on true social, we're winning
too much. It's just not fair.
That's it. And then how the White House
can't stop winning.
I mean, not only is that just weird,
like, what's what's the point of continually saying
that other than to force the
we're winning. We're winning. We're winning. Keep thinking
we're winning. You know? It's like, it's just
weird. Right? But the truth is, guys, that's
not even close to what's happening. He's losing
support all over the place. Epstein, I mean,
you can go down the list.
And even polls, which you know I don't
put a lot of stock in, are largely
showing him losing support in a lot of
ways. You got people like Tucker and and,
you know, Dave Smith, huge people, influential people
that are like, I've Trump's a liar.
I'm I'm I wish I never voted for
him.
We're winning. We just can't stop winning. It's
pretty embarrassing.
Now, just to really nail this one down,
guys.
After leaving WHO
remember, I mean, I should even grab that
one too.
Because this is important to understand. Just just
like they tried to do last time. Which
this is actually every day this gets more
relevant with what they're doing. Derek wrote this
back in 2020.
Vaccine bait and switch. As millions pulled from
WHO, Trump gives billions to Gates founded, Gavi.
Right. It's It's exactly the same game. And
if you didn't if you thought, oh, well,
that wasn't true, or they tricked you, or
he didn't see it, well, explain it again
now. Because where we're at now is another
variation of this. And that's on top of
the Gavi point I just showed you, where
he, yet again, is supporting the bill that
will circumvent HHS
and still fund GAVI directly from the State
Department.
On top of that, we have the Board
of Peace, literally
a new global
entity.
That's not that's how they're framing this. They
literally introduced this at Davos, guys.
Oh, there it is right there, the Gavi
bill. But remember, they went to Davos after
yelling, Goebbels, and who's dead, and then presented
at Davos their globalist
UN model.
I just think this is how really low
opinion they have of all of us. They
think we're just too stupid to see through
this.
Gaza's Board of Peace seeks to reimagine the
international order. Now maybe you agree with that.
Maybe he has the best of intentions. Hey.
I hope that's the case. But at the
end of the day, you still have to
recognize globalism for what it is. Despite the
ridiculous people out there who've always claimed to
fight it, who are now pointing at anything
else, and you know exactly who we're talking
about.
So after leaving WHO 2025,
this is yesterday, Trump officials were proposed
more expensive replacement to duplicate it. Now, again,
it's just being proposed. Right?
You know, I mean, whether point is you
have 75 examples of all of these same
things going in the same direction. This is
just one more even proposal that shows you
that this is the opposite of what all
Republicans told you they were fighting for and
what you if you would have asked them,
would Trump recreate the WHO for health surveillance,
they would have said, absolutely not. That's Democrats.
Here we are. HHS proposes spending $2,000,000,000
a year
to recreate systems The US accessed through the
WHO at a fraction of the cost. Now
I'm not a supporter of any pretty much
any of these, excuse me,
globalist
over in in the sense of global rather,
just a global, you know, like an entity,
like a UN point.
Now since we're in the the midst of
all this, sort of like the state of
society we live in versus an anarchist mindset,
which is what I'm talking about, we still
right now, the UN, for example, exists. I've
always talked I've been very clear my entire
career about my criticism
of every part of that. However, because it
exists and the things like what happened with
Israel, there are still elements out there, other
countries, who are able to use that mechanism
to expose those kind of things. So, So,
that doesn't mean we support the entity, but
rather you can acknowledge how it's functioning. That's
a very important thing to think about. So,
regardless of any of that,
what he's talking about is creating a similar
dynamic,
a dynamic of a global
entity that allows global engagement.
And this is this is about the border
peace point. It's basically a UN model. It's
exactly what it is. Now, you've got the
WHO point. And he is very clear about
this in regard to health surveillance
and also very clear about how it will
work with multiple countries.
How is that America first? Why would Americans
spend $2,000,000,000 on something that's gonna become a
global because this is the re this is
the reimagining
of all of this, in my opinion.
The Trump administration is proposing sending $2,000,000,000
a year to replicate the global disease surveillance
and outbreak functions.
The effort to build a US run alternative
would recreate systems such as laboratories,
data sharing networks, and rapid response systems. All
the stuff that we're all on guard about
right now.
The US
basically, systems The US abandoned when it announced
its withdrawal from the WHO last year and
dismantled the USAID agency. Another interesting point. Right?
Oh, we got rid of that thing, but
we're duplicating all the things they do in
other ways? Pretty much. I just told I
just showed you that bill they support, which
has funding for HIV prevention, condoms, and and
so and so to stop. It's exactly what
we were criticizing before.
Now climate change points.
Look at look look at the show I
did. I went down many different examples.
While Donald Trump's, while president Donald Trump accused
the WHO of demanding, quote, unfairly onerous payments,
the alternative
is considered that he administration is considering carries
a price tag about three times
what The US contributed annually. Now you could
argue it's worth the cost because it's our
own thing. But, you know, and again, it
may very well be what you think as
the solution. Like, that this is the recreate
maybe you think this is necessary, but you
just don't like the the global part of
it. Well, guess what? This is not a
unique a UN a U excuse me. A
US centric or US alone entity. This is
being built as exactly like the WHO.
So it still would basically just be the
same thing, but with Trump or rather the
US government, which will probably be Democrats at
some point, leading
that entity.
So think about that. And how does that
make sense if you were fighting all these
things?
And that you're now spending more for it.
But, again, my point was that you could
see a world in which you might think
this is the solution because the only problem
was the structure that was before. And now
you're building another sort of global thing for
a good purpose. Maybe you agree with that.
My point is simply to highlight that most
conservatives
were Al Jones, or it's not just that
kind of globalism, but it is bad as
an entity or as a concept. Right?
And yet here he is, supporting these things.
That's embarrassing.
And that's not even to say my opinion
first in anything. It's just acknowledging that that
is contradictory for them to be doing. My
opinion, as I've said it more many many
times, is that I don't agree with any
of these things. I don't like the idea
of, you know, like, truly from some like
a well, the the whole point would be
a sort of a I guess I guess
a nationalist mindset focusing on US interests, but
with
engagement.
Right? Like, not like the point being that
you have levels of charity from people who
want to, if you wanna help other play,
but nothing forced through the government.
You know, the idea simply being that we
have a point at which we are struggling
as a country, that there are very clearly
things that need to be focused on. But
even Trump's administration is not doing that. They
say those things, then they spend money on
wars and go you know, that's the idea.
I don't it's just it's just very clear
that there needs to be a focus here,
but that doesn't mean we should just absolutely
disregard anything that's going on in the world.
But my point would be that what they're
doing
is exactly what Biden was doing. It's exactly
what it's it's just the extension of the
larger game.
It says the, you the where was I
here? The wild,
oh, I've got that one. Sorry. Going down
further. It says during a briefing last month
with reporters, a senior HHS officials
said US led global health efforts going forward
will rely on the presence
that federal health agencies such as the Center
for Disease Control and Prevention and the National
Institutes of Health
and the FDA
already have in 63 countries and bilateral agreements
with hundreds of countries. So just in case
it wasn't anymore, you know, he's talking about
a WHO overlap with his UN overlap or
rather recreation
while already pointing to connections with 63 other
countries. So it's not a focus of only
The US. It's about monitoring health, disease,
pandemic surveillance in 63 countries around the world.
That's the whole point of what a WHO
represents.
Now it says, I just wanna stress the
point that we are not withdrawing
from being a leader on global health,
says the Trump official.
So that has to be very clear. Like,
even to the point where they're stating explicitly
global health, not just US surveillance to make
sure The US people are safe as a,
you know, America first naturalist mindset. No.
I wanna stress, he says, that we are
not withdrawing from being a leader on global
health. Trump is clearly just trying to build
this around himself.
He is apparently a globalist like all the
rest of it, just wants himself to be
in the middle of it. The new initiative
envisions expanding that footprint
to more than a 130
countries
according to the officials briefed on the proposal
from the Trump administration. So 63 that we
wanna expand to a 130 countries.
But America first, guys.
From the UN part, all of it. This
is recreating exactly what we've always been talking
about.
I just hope we can start calling it
out. Got that? You got the point?
Globalism yeah. I mean, I'll include all these
you can watch. This is what I think
is happening. The fake globalist resistance
ushering in the actual globalist plan.
The point about all of the technocrat, Zionist
overlap, as well as the network state part
of this, which is important.
Now, here's Trump recently.
Harry, he just says, the woke agenda is
practically gone. We have made sure it's out.
Okay. Woo hoo.
But you I call that stuff out like
anybody did. But does that is that what
we're actually fighting? That people can say work
pronouns and and talk about yeah. I mean,
the point at the end of the day,
guys, is all of the actual things that
those were being used to accomplish
are not only still happening, but they're
white years
ahead. So, yeah, good. We're not forcing world
pro which I think is stupid. But that
was never what they actually cared about. Like,
Trump went to Davos last night. It was
like, world pronouns are dumb and then supported
all the rest of their agenda. And they
were like, yeah. Tell them, Trump. It's just
you it's just blind.
It becomes the left right paradigm. All we
need to do is make Democrats are bad.
Everything else goes away.
As Dan writes very clearly, the woke agenda
was just rebranded
like the MK Ultra and every other government
propaganda program that gets caught. Now I don't
know whether he means Democrats alone. Maybe he
does. But I agree with the general point
if he means in in, like, any sense.
That right now, the woke part of this
is still it's like I said, it's the
same thing. Anti Semitism, whatever.
Cancel culture,
identity politics. It's exactly the same game with
a different slant. So, yes, it didn't go
away, as I've been saying the entire time.
I hope that's what damn means. It's just
continued with a
rebrand.
But, yeah, look, they're not even saying them
anymore. What do you mean? Do Democrats not
exist? They just don't care? I I mean,
well, you gotta pretend that they just stopped
doing their thing? I mean, we can't be
this simple. It's so obvious how this game
works, guys.
K? This is an interesting point. I'm only
gonna include it here because I'm not gonna
get into,
a larger part about this.
But this is really fascinating to me. Redline
News,
Republican,
says, so this oh, it's a video, by
the way. That's that's largely inaccurate.
The point is that there's no right now
in New York, there's not some as far
as I can tell, and I did look
into this, there's not some restriction that you
can't go outside without your papers and identification.
That appears to be inaccurate. Either way and
and maybe that my research shows turned out
to be wrong. You can look into it
as it develops. But it appears that there's
just massive snow and the reports are saying
just don't go out right now. And that's
being turned into sort of like a, you
know, look, the Democrats are locking you down.
We told you. Right? But check this out.
This is interesting. He writes, so Zohar Hamdani,
you know the guy that Trump basically said
was MAGA. It's not a joke. He was
right there in the Oval Office and said,
oh, this guy's good. He's good. He's working
with us. That's what he said.
So so Zohar Mamdani,
this guy writes in his video or says,
just issued a travel ban on New York
City shutting down bridges and tunnels. Now to
some degree, that is happening because they say
the weather, which you could call out. Debate.
That's not the point.
And in the tunnels, the streets saying, quote,
you better stay off stay your ass out
of out of in your house. I doubt
that's what they actually said. But basically saying,
you better stay inside. Weather. Okay. And who
knows? Maybe they have a different agenda. I
I don't trust any of these people. But
it says, if you do want to come
outside, you gotta bring your documentation, bring your
papers, piece of two, piece of ID, Social
Security card, and quotes. That's not true as
far as I can tell. But it says
the only way you can come outside is
if you're working for us. You're shoveling that
snow.
So it's interesting how socialism feels so much
like authoritarianism.
Okay? Have you caught on to what I'm
getting at yet?
But don't worry. You'll have the warmth of
collectivism to keep you comfy. Well, funny how
he says so much like authoritarianism seeing how
it's identical to what ICE is doing people
on the streets. And guess what? Socialism,
fascism, government, it's all the same thing if
we stop being children and acting like my
version's good and your version's bad. It all
means government control your lives. Let's stop being
stupid. The point, guys, is that he's literally
going, oh my god. Look at mom Donnie.
Even though it didn't even happen the way
he's claiming, which is what I think is
the case
based on my research.
But let's just say for sake of conversation,
that's what happened.
So you're all up in arms that mom
Donnie, a democrat, is
demanding that you give identification on the streets
for no reason? Oh my god. The horror.
I agree, by the way. That's unconstitutional.
But guess here, this is what I think
is so funny. He goes, New Yorkers are
so sick of Zoran. Not that I could
tell, actually. It seems like people are pretty
supportive of him, including Trump, by the way.
But this guy, the defiant l's, these ridiculous
one-sided blind partisan accounts on all sides of
the paradigm,
can't say we didn't warn them.
So do you care about ICE doing the
same thing or you just don't like it
when a Democrat does the thing, you completely
principle integrity free person?
We definitely tried.
So the thing again that's not actually happening,
you have an issue with because a Democrat
allegedly did it. While you literally have ICE
roaming the streets demanding you identify yourself or
go to jail. That's insane. On top of
the fact that we went through lockdowns from
left and right politicians all through COVID nineteen.
I'm just so tired of these ridiculous people,
guys. It's all a one-sided game. It's all
jumping at shadows
just to call it the other side while
literally ignoring what you claim to care about.
Now don't forget,
this this is actually news from 01/13/2026.
Trump has been secretly texting his favorite dim.
So it they're apparently, they're I mean, again,
reporting. This is a republican
platform, but,
you know, who knows? For all we know,
that's a completely made up story. My point
is you could prove that he was at
in their Oval Office with Maumdani, and and
he was on video. And he said, he's
a good guy. You know, he'll be he'll
be good for New York. He basically called
him a part of his team. That's what
he said. And so now, the reporting is
that he they're apparently texting in France. And
so here they are. We are going, oh
my god. Look at how bad he is.
It's like there's this disconnect between what they
think and what they're doing and then what
the what Trump is saying. It's like it's
just weird game. They that that you get
the different narratives from the the Alex Jones,
Nick Sorter, Vannie Johnson circles.
That's like the extreme
all out narrative for Trump, and then even
Trump will say things that are different than
that. And they just carry on with their
same narrative. It's very weird. But overall,
that's pretty ridiculous, isn't it? Seeing as how
that is happening all across the country right
now, and they only care about the allegation
that's not even true for Maub Dony. That's
the we're dealing with every single day, guys.
Now here's a great clip with Neil Oliver
and Kevork El Masian, who, again, I'll be
touch I'll be go jumping on a show
tomorrow. I don't know if it's live or
not.
And this is just assume I'm gonna play
the whole thing. It's about four minutes. We're
about five. And it's it's it's going over
this general point, which we also posted on
TLF, the empire above Epstein. It's very well
done.
Now this is simple. I I won't read
it all. You just let it play. The
clip is simple that, you know, it's obvious
to the bigger point of Epstein or the
the point of Epstein and what it shows
as he's highlighting. The the the network that
actually exists above it all. But Neil Oliver
goes into the overlap that I'm pointing at.
I don't know why that word gets stuck
in my head all the time. But the
he's highlighting
the connection between
Epstein,
the globalist
network that it represents, really, the blackmail network,
but also with what that's driving toward, which
I agree with, which is
a control grid.
Technocracy.
Exactly what Catherine and all of us in
INA, what we are all highlighting and trying
to get people to see. It's really I
mean, everyone seems to see it anyway, but
really to the extent that it's actually there,
especially in the partisanship.
And he agree and he thinks the same.
He thinks this is not about left or
right, but about driving us into this final
point.
I hope we can all be on guard
with this, guys, because I very strongly agree
with this.
Me, the overarching
project
is one world government.
The overarching
intent is the destruction
of 200
nation states around the world,
bringing down
any semblance of government,
taking from people any notion
of democracy.
Reimagining
the order.
Undermining
using religion and undermining religion simultaneously,
setting
one faith against another, one color against another,
one creed against another, one political ideology, one
sexuality,
one gender against another.
You know, all of these things are being
taken apart
with the intention that eventually people have no
faith in anything.
They have no so that they should have
no faith in family. They should have no
faith in their nationality,
their national heritage,
their religion,
their heads of state, their political parties,
governance as as they have understood it. And
then at that point, when all of that
has been has been brought down around their
ears,
the opportunity would finally present itself for the
for the star chamber,
the one world government to offer all of
the solutions.
And it's at that point it's at that
point when everything clicks into place
that that that we would all have we
would all find ourselves having been marched into
or having sleepwalked
into
the digital cage.
That's the that's the project.
Yes.
And also, do you see that
them
destroying
what defines us as humans?
Our identity, our heritage, our,
civilization's
history
is also part of the transhumanist
agenda, basically. Like, if you want to roll
out those transhumanist agenda, you need to destroy
the human in us. Right? What makes us
humans at the end of the day? Our
conscious, our dignity, our identity,
our heritage.
And probably, I'm saying this is also part
of the reason why they are showing us
this obscene files nowadays, emails, to normalize this
type of depravity,
which 180
degrees,
goes against our
human,
our our our values. Right? Our human values.
Yes. The it's absolutely anti human in every
way that you've just outlined. And I think,
yes, I think,
what we're being shown,
what we're being invited to look on at
via the the Epstein
revelations
is to leave people feeling, well, there is
nothing to believe in.
It's inviting people to think, well,
look at human nature.
Look at they they are debasing
to the to the lowest possible level
what it is to be human and alive.
And so with the Epstein files, they're looking
and they're they're showing people, inviting people to
look and see, here are your leaders.
Here here are the people who have reached
all levels of success
of
every sort, and look how they live.
This is your species.
This is this is humankind. That's what they're
endeavoring to make people think. They're undermining
people's sense of the value
of of the species itself.
Look at your elites.
This is who they are. This is what
they do.
You know? It's the whole thing from top
to bottom is anti human.
And, yes, the the the the transhumanist down.
I I put a lot of it then
ultimately to fear.
I think what we're dealing with in the
the psychopathic,
parasitic,
so called elite
are the most frightened people that have ever
lived and breathed.
And in the manner of
arachnophobes
who would stamp upon a tiny spider
without thinking about it simply because the the
very idea
of a spider terrifies them, though it though
it poses them no threat.
I think some of the same
anti human reaction is there in that psychopathic
parasitic class. They're terrified of the fellow human
beings.
Mhmm. They would they would rather the mass
of them were gone.
And if they can't make them gone, and
I don't really like the possibility that that
there's a massive
depopulation
agenda built into it as well. In fact,
I do think there's a massive anti a
depopulation
agenda built into it as well. But at
the very least, they need to get us
where they can see us. You know? And
to to
continue the the the metaphor of the spider,
they need to put us under a glass
Yes.
So that so that they don't have to
worry about us moving about where they can't
see.
And I think, ultimately, we're dealing with with
fear.
And it's it's not our fear of them.
It's their fear of us.
It's a very good point.
Now some people would argue that that's not
the case, you know, that that's more of
a you know, that just it's their
that, ultimately, it's it's not like, I when
I call them desperate, for example. Right? The
people go, oh, no. That's just how you
see it. They're they don't even care what
you think. And, you know, there's it's more
of a black pill perspective to see it
as, you know, it's they're just too powerful.
But I tend to think it's more in
this direction, if not somewhere in the middle.
And it's I mean, right now, especially.
If ever there's been a time where these
people are going, okay. I'm a little worried
where this may end up. It's right now.
At least in my experience.
It's just it's
clear to me that they're very worried about
what is changing and what people are seeing
and what they're choosing to call out. I
mean, I will get to Epstein now right
now. There's people in The UK being arrested
while The US acts like there's nothing to
see. It's it's a striking moment, guys. But
so that's a the point he's making, they're
both going back and forth around is that
that not only antihuman, which is very clear
to me, but that this and and the
transition of everything, but that there is a
technocratic
antihuman element to this that I think is
what, you know, that what we're seeing with
the black hole analogy with Epstein. It's the
outlines to whatever they've been doing to drive
this into reality. Now whatever you think about
it, I just acknowledge the facts. That's all
that I really wanna come down to. I
always give my opinion, but the facts at
hand
are that there are all these what we
just highlighted with the WHO and all the
rest, these they are movements you can see.
You can see the palantir element. You can
see the AI development. You can see the
ice and the biometrics and the surveillance and
all of it. You can't deny those things.
You can debate about the intent,
but they're there. We would have argued before
we even got here, ten ten or not,
that that would have never happened.
Republicans and Trump. And here we are, and
now we're already over the intent behind it.
Well, how about we just acknowledge that we're
already a step too far?
Now here's what, of course, Alex Jones is
doing, getting fact checked near every day because
they're just out there shamelessly lying to cover
for Donald Trump or whoever else they're fighting
for on their side. It's pathetic, and I'm
actually blown away that this keeps happening. Only
because I'm surprised I mean, Elon, I've watched
them manipulate these things on these platforms, but
yet, I guess, he doesn't get the benefit
of that. Epstein redact or this just at
first, I'm not gonna play his whole rant.
But he says, congress all in caps because
he's clearly, you know, emotionally maybe gaining all
that weight back and going off Ozempic. He's
getting
kidding. But the point is that he's clearly
emotional. Congress Massie, are you covering up the
redacted names? Okay. Guess what he's doing?
Accusing Massie of covering up names. They they're
doing the same game. They're going back to
the argument that somehow Massie had access to
these names that he's failing to give out.
Well, there's two things to point on that.
One was that was a largely a manipulation
of information he was claiming that hadn't been
released, that needed to be released by people.
There's also points of which there were names
that he did know. One of them, which
was Wecht the, Wechtner that he did force
him to unredact.
The point would be that you could argue,
and I don't know because I'm not sure
exactly what he does and doesn't know. The
argument would be that there if just like
what Trump was doing. They were tell oh,
Alex was telling you that's a process. It's
gotta be in the right way. We gotta
protect the victims. Okay. So now you want
massages to go yell things out at the
top of his lungs without a process? Isn't
it supposed to be done through the DOJ?
It's just a weird game they're playing to
absolutely deflect from the obvious responsibility
to the people he wants you to fight
for.
Well, in my opinion, the US government, but
specifically Trump and and
and Cash and Ponty and Noam.
They're drowning in this right now, and all
they can do is scream about how he's
fighting. You know? It goes on to say,
give us the names and the emails that
were involved in torture, beef jerky, pizza. What
are you talking about?
Like, why would you call out Massie
who has been the sole one of the
sole people fighting I shouldn't say that one
of the few people who's been fighting to
force this out? Whether you trust him or
not, I question all of them. But you're
out of all the people involved, you're gonna
call out Massie for not revealing the things
that Trump and his team are right now
continuing to hide and redact?
As it says here, Epstein redactions were done
by the DOJ and Bondi, not Massey. Massey
pushed unredactions.
I mean, he's being called out. And, look,
previously, Alex even praised Massey in this post.
What a complete ridiculous clown.
And this person said with this joke says,
why aren't you mad at the people who
redacted names?
Alex Jones running away. Why aren't you mad
at the very
clearly, anybody can see what's happening here.
Now it BBC News is reporting that lord
Peter Mandelson
was just arrested on suspicion of misconduct in
public office after the ex US ambassador had
been under investigation over allegations he shared market
sensitive government information with Epstein while as a
minister. He's resigned from the House of Lords
after they released the files and is reportedly
under arrest.
Here's the AP. Police in Britain arrest former
ambassador. You quite literally now have the UK
government
arresting
puts people in high positions that were at
least were previously people in the inner circle
for things that were released
by the Donald Trump administration. And, yes, credit
where it's due. Right? But you also have
to acknowledge they were forced like a screaming
child to release the things they did, and
then they lied and they altered and they
redacted.
Child predator names, they redacted. They redacted. I
mean, guys, they're caught.
And and even still, they're pretending like there's
nothing to be done. And here you have
people being arrested for it.
Prince Andrew was just recently arrested.
I mean, imagine being caught in this position,
guys. Here's the Atlantic. The Epstein files reveal
that plenty of powerful people tolerated or participated
in disgusting, shameful, and even criminal behavior. But
they also bolster the case that there were
there never was any grand conspiracy.
Of course, this says oh, and what's funny
is I think it was James Lee saying,
oh, well, funny how the Atlantic who's connected
to all the you know, Atlantic has wrapped
up with some of the articles that were
put out to try to cover this the
first place and lie and and has somebody
involved with the platform that is connected to
Epstein. Clearly, there's something going on. What what's
interesting
alternatively, Twitter says in their fact check, a
report from Reuters suggests the extensive
existence, excuse me, of a global criminal enterprise.
Funny how this is working out today, but
that's well, either way, this is the actual
report they're highlighting. Allegations in Epstein files may
amount to crimes against humanity.
A UN report.
This is actually getting so this is and
it's in, like, if this was a show,
this would be damn entertaining. That's real? It's
just terrifying.
The point is that now you've got UN,
United Nations experts who are saying the allegations
in the files that Donald Trump's administration put
out
may amount to crimes against humanity.
Arresting people in The UK, and you got
cash getting drunk at a hockey game, and
Donald Trump acting like we're moving on. This
is
embarrassing, but important.
Millions of files related to the sex offender
Jeffrey Epstein suggest an existence of a global
criminal enterprise that carried out acts meeting the
legal threshold of crimes against humanity. Interesting overlap
or connection rather with the global enterprise.
So you have the one group standing out
right now of the group covering this alleged
potential global enterprise up, and that's Trump's administration.
The same guy I'm highlighting is basically reimagining
the global enterprise. Think about that. And it
says, according to the panel of experts at
the United Nations Human Rights Council, the experts
said crimes outlined in documents released by the
United States government
against a backdrop of supremacist beliefs,
racism, corruption, extreme misogyny.
The crimes, they said, showed a commodification
and dehumanization
of women and girls.
Quote, so and what's funny to me is
the way they frame that. I could already
feel certain Republicans pushing back because it feels
like it's a left woke kinda thing, even
though they're the ones who are fighting to
largely to help these women who are in
fact dehumanized as women and girls because of
what they did. I just think it's so
interesting to watch, like, from a, like,
a observational point how the partisanship warped people's
minds and forces people who would otherwise be
somewhat principled to completely ignore their principles. I
think it's interesting.
Now continuing, so grave is the scale, nature,
systemic character,
and, systematic character and transnational reach of these
atrocities against women and girls that a number
of them may reasonably meet the legal threshold
of crimes against humanity. Now think about trying
to pretend that what Israel's doing is not
a genocide,
right, or crimes against humanity. Well, what we're
talking about here is this, you know, what
happened, which is horrifying, but in a scattered
way to these women. And you're over here
literally raping and bombing and torturing, and and
that's not. That doesn't mean it. That doesn't
meet the definition. And here they're telling you
this might I mean, just clear. And guess
what? All they're saying same people, same groups,
same connections, same governments.
The experts said the allegations contained in the
files require an independent, thorough, and impartial investigation.
The same exact thing that Trump is telling
you is not necessary.
And said inquiry should also be launched into
how it was possible for such crimes to
be committed for so long. Yes. Now, also,
let's not pretend or let's not. Let's consider
that the UN as an entity or the
people within that might very well be caught
up in this too. In fact, I argue
that's likely. So, alright, just like the Democrats
going, oh my god. Look at how corrupt
Trump is with the Epstein files while being
in those files. Right? Because they just that's
part of what everyone's doing right now. It's
a hot potato.
Unfortunately for Trump, he's the one stuck holding
it right now. But everyone else is you
know, I think that's probably why he's so
frustrated with all this. And maybe maybe because
he's not even necessarily the worst part of
it or even necessarily a crime committed in
there. I disagree based on the evidence, but
who could say for sure? Because right now,
the evidence clearly points, not proof, but evidence
that he was in some way connected, like
that affidavit in court that says he raped
a girl. You know, it's like you can't
that was under the threat of perjury, but
who knows what was actually proven or not?
That's what FBI would be doing if they
actually cared to follow-up.
But so this is interesting calling for the
investigation that they I mean, let's be clear.
Not just they don't want to or not
going to, but rather
are not right now. Bondi and Trump have
told you they're not gonna do this.
Doesn't mean they won't just get forced to
do it tomorrow, but right now, they're acting
like it's it. We're gone. No more files.
That's it.
Well, the rest of the world
calls their bluff. The US justice department did
not immediately respond for comment. A law approved
by congress with broad bipartisan support in November
requires all
all the files to be released. Massey's gonna
make a point about this, guys.
I I find it almost impossible to believe
that 3,000,000 pages, if that's all there actually
is, are all redactions.
I mean, let's put it this way, legally
allowed redactions.
Because there is a very clear outline from
from the transparency act of what they're allowed
to redact. They've already been caught breaking the
law. They withheld their own conversations. They withheld
a lot of stuff. The UN expert raised
concerns about serious compliance failures and botched redactions.
So this is this is global attention on
what they've done.
It continues. That exposed sensitive victim information. I
mean, guys, they literally put out pictures, nude
pictures of underage girls. I don't know how
you come back from that. More than 1,200
victims were identified in the documents that have
been released so far.
1,200, but we're gonna believe that there was
no nothing to act on. The reluctance to
fully disclose information or broaden investigations
has left many survivors feeling for retraumatized
and subjected to what they describe as institutional
gaslighting.
I mean, think about it from their perspective.
They were all behind this thinking everything was
gonna happen. It's all coming out, and now
they just don't exist.
They're not Trump, the media, they're just pushed
off to the side.
Trump and the rest of them are ignoring
them now. Body won't even talk to them
after using their plight for your own game.
There's nothing more disgusting to that. It's like
everybody it's what we talk about everywhere else.
Acting like you're the hero while in fact
being the villain is the worst of the
worst. The justice department release of documents has
revealed Epstein's ties to many prominent people in
politics, finance, academia, business.
Clearly not a global thing, both before and
after he pleaded guilty in 2008. Exactly.
He was found they claim he killed himself.
Not that I believe I don't believe that
happened.
Now who knows, you know, you can decide
what you think actually ultimately was the end
result, but clearly,
this was not some natural thing that happened
because he was upset. There was so much
involved.
Over or connected
with the Epstein point and the government connection,
which at this point, guys, I mean, before
the sub before where we're at now, it
was already provable that he worked for intelligence
or at least, you know, yeah, that's that's
a fair way to frame it. Work for
intelligence.
Not that he was an agent necessarily, which
is possible, but worked.
That's been clear for a long time. But
ever now with the new stuff, it's even
more obvious.
On top of that, DD Geo
Politics highlighting Al Jazeera's post, files reveal Epstein
was offered a chance to buy
US Pentagon FBI buildings.
I mean, guys,
this is why this is causing so much
chaos. This is not a joke.
Even I'm almost baffled by how clearly this
is the real conversation. It's the Pentagon offered
Jeffrey Epstein a $116,000,000
mission critical location
to operate next to them in the only
property in Arlington other than the Pentagon
with the ability to meet the needs of
the DOD.
That's what they they offered to sell it
to Epstein
and did it through Prince Andrew's
aid.
That's that's why he's all caught up in
this, obviously, like, being arrested. He's he is
a central player. In 2015,
he was offered the FBI field offices in
Richmond, in Baltimore,
making him the landlord
to the FBI.
Guys, this is so obvious.
And you can there there's so much of
this we'll go through. Here's an actual verifiable
thing for the documents
of them landing. Here here's the actual RT
shared this. Lolita Express lands at military bases.
Well, that certainly makes sense when you realize
that they were offering to give him a
building basically in the beside the Pentagon or
that he's basically
leasing FBI offices to them. Well, here's the
direct document from their files.
Here's what it says.
Joe Swayne of the Telegraph dug up an
old flight record show which, by the way,
think,
Elon Musk flight records, the effort to make
that doxy and cover things up. There's more
going on than you believe.
Dug up old flight records showing that in
11/02/2000,
Epstein's plane landed twice
at basically US airfields. Once in in,
in a couple different locations. His question is,
how did Epstein get permission to land in
military bases?
Did
anyone, namely prince Andrew, help him get permission?
Now I should say more, you know, the
I believe let me let me do that.
What was that again? Hold on.
That was
yeah, so UK rather. But the point was
still more of a centralized because we understand
that, like, as as Whitney would call it,
the, like, the trinational security state or, like,
the the blending of all these things.
So it's a it's a UK base.
And it says, his question, how did Epstein
get permission to land at military bases?
And this person responds, and it was
g Max, it was Maxwell,
saying, I think that's crap and not true.
You should say so.
Even though she knows well. Right? And then
it says and this is, again, respond this
is Epstein Jeffrey Epstein responding to Maxwell saying,
just spoke to Larry. It's true.
And she says, s h I t.
I mean, you is it does does anyone
need to explain to them?
So they caught us.
We you know, we we they caught us
doing that, and we're all s h I
t. Now now the the telegraph can now
prove that we were landing at military bases.
And and and you could confirm here's The
UK side. Here's The UK side. You have
the Israel side. Anybody confused?
There's really no denying all this, and this
is what we're dealing with. That's why there's
such an obvious effort. Now you can look
at it this way. This is an opinion,
but look at what's going on with The
UK and people being arrested. Look at what's
happening in other places in the world.
The most obvious location of basically no action
with the most evidence is in The United
States and Israel.
I think that speaks for itself.
Just security.
Speaking to Trump's connection here, FBI's
stand down directive to the NYPD
on Epstein's investigation.
This is put out today, 2026.
Just five days after Jeffrey Epstein's arrest in
the 2019,
authorities, quote, directed the New York Police Department
to, quote, stand down its investigations
related to Epstein.
New documents released by the Department of Justice
show.
So that's pretty simple.
The link's in here.
The idea being
Donald Trump's administration,
2019. Now you could argue it wasn't Trump
because that's not necessarily clear.
But, you know, I think at that point,
I think Acosta was actually already gone. Right?
So I was gonna say it might have
been him, but somebody there's lots of people
connected. But the Trump administration in 2019,
somebody or directed the new and the NYPD
to stand down
in his the investigation.
I mean, this was way past. He's already
clearly a pedophile,
sexual predator.
And now you and this is right before
he dies not or supposedly dies not long
after this. Just realize this was an effort
in Trump's administration
size somebody in his administration to stand down
the investigation
with all that we knew, and it clearly
did not hold.
That's powerful, guys. Now I'm not gonna pretend
that I know that's Trump. Maybe it's not.
Maybe it's people using him. Every day, I
feel more and more likely that people are
simply using Trump.
That doesn't mean you're get a pass for
what you're doing, but I just keep I
mean, god, I I feel more than ever
that he he I don't I don't see
him as a good person, quite frankly, but
I think he's being used by a lot
of these other entities and people that know
how to play his ego.
Epstein hid secret files in storage units across
The United States. Now I'm actually gonna skip
this,
just for it's it's longer. I was gonna
when I first went through this, I was
deciding whether I was gonna read it all
or not. And is it the important point
is it's, basically,
Epstein hid secret files and storage units across
The United States that they seem to have
known about and didn't investigate.
And that's just up in the air right
now. And the argument is that, basically, that
people that this might be extra you know,
seems to suggest this is the trove of
the real stuff.
I mean, it just says documents uncovered by
the newspaper show that he pedophile paid private
detectives to remove equipment from his Florida home
in an apparent attempt to prevent investigators from
finding it. The search warrants reviewed by the
Telegraph suggest US authorities
never raided the lockers, raised the possibility that
they may contain unseen evidence relating to his
associates. Now the more you read through this,
the point is it's from the US government's
perspective where they were supposed to be going
through this stuff.
They basically have these there's many examples of
this that you can see in videos and
other ports of that there were like, remember
the I'm trying to think of the example
when we saw the drone footage of when
they were at the island. Right? And you
saw the cores and the computers that were
taken. In most of these examples that there
were locations where there was clearly something that
was taken and moved. And it's apparently from
the UX,
Telegraph perspective, it was very obvious.
So it suggests to me that whether it
was actually the FBI itself or somebody else
that these things were moved and placed in
other secure locations.
Now, actually, I will I'll read this one
part.
The FBI had previously said there was no
evidence Epstein was storing compromising material.
Think about that.
Now I don't know if that's previously Trump's
last, Biden's last, or currently cash. I don't
know. But what it is is the US
government's FBI
is claiming there was no evidence that he
was storing compromising material. You realize that they
themselves just put out an image of an
underage naked girl. So come on. That's insane.
This, in my opinion, is even more example
that the FBI was involved with what I
just said.
So either way, the simple reality is that
this is The US knows that there is
because this is evidence already out there. This
is not new either. They're They're just coming
across more of examples and evidence showing that
there is potentially an entire trove of other
information that you can prove according to them
they haven't even looked through. Or and that
doesn't prove that it's not something damaging in
there, but it seems to suggest that they
haven't even actually done their due diligence to
find out if there is.
Maybe a nothing burger. Who knows? To me,
I think it suggests that there's this is
them scattering the playing field. There's clearly something
going on here, hiding information because they know
we're looking.
And here are even more examples, guys, that
have them, I mean, blatantly trying to deceive
you. Representative Comer says that he's not interested
in investigating Epstein co conspirator Wexner. Why?
Because DOJ has already investigated him. See, this
is the game they keep playing. They want
you to pretend that everything you're looking at
has already been fleshed out by the FBI.
You can prove that's not true with most
of it. You can prove, for example, that
they never followed up with the Zora Ranch
point.
She's right now screaming, the person in New
Mexico. She's saying, why has nobody investigated this?
I sent this in in 2019
when all those files of children being manipulated,
and I sent them.
It was sent to that radio host. It
got somehow got in her hands, and she
sent this to the FBI. Nobody investigated.
She brought this up again in 2026 and
said nobody's investigated Zorro Ranch. Now it's caused
that conversation,
but the point was they pretend everything they
gave you is not actionable. Pash Patel said
there's nothing there.
Right?
Well, here's Wexner in his recent,
deposition
where he says
basically, it wasn't just type. Basically, he says
that nobody spoke to him. Wexner clearly states
that no one from the FBI or the
DOJ had ever spoken to him about Epstein.
So is Comer lying or is Wexner lying?
You could decide.
I think it's pretty clear that this person
you know, right now, Wexner is probably
lying about something like that. He must know
is gonna cut somebody could prove it. Right?
So to me, it suggested that didn't happen,
and that makes more sense than anything because
why would they when you understand how this
works? Comer is either lied to or is
covering us up.
This goes all this goes clearly at high
levels, guys. Now here's Cash Patel again.
Just play it again, the little clip that
you've all heard. No credible information.
None. If there were, I would bring the
case yesterday
that he trafficked to other individuals. And the
in information we have again is limited. So
the answer is no one?
For the information that we have.
The fact that he said it like that,
guys, like, you're trying to play the dumb
card. Like, you know, so there may be
other information that we don't see. So the
point is you don't know.
And realize clearly, you could argue that somebody
like this, and it would probably make more
sense than anything, has no idea he's being
used. Maybe was given three pieces of paper
and is like, that's the whole story, and
he thinks he knows. I'm kind of joking.
But the point at the end of the
day is maybe he doesn't actually know. Maybe
he actually thinks what he's saying is true.
I don't believe that based on all other
other factors where you can see him getting
caught lying, but it's worth considering that. The
point is never again whether we know for
sure we'll put intent or not. But at
the end of the day, intent aside, you
can see that they're lying.
Maxwell, an example, in jail for that. And
it's not trafficking to Epstein. That doesn't even
make sense with the way that the evidence
shows. I mean, or the the point of
what they were involved with. It's just it's
lazy arguments.
But so that aside,
mccol,
Liam,
it was, yeah, McCollum, points out a a
post that is interesting and does connect to
this, which I actually found pretty alarming.
So he says, I mean, it's it isn't
it undeniable that Cash Patel purged himself here?
Or am I crazy? And he posts this.
Here's the actual link.
And here's what it says.
So this one is from
Epstein
to Masha,
Drokova.
And it says,
Kataya has a new law has a law
firm, corporate law.
She also understands blockchain regulations and ecosystem well.
Lisa is a film director. She's working on
human rights, VR movie. Alexandra is an actress
and art expert, has business ideas. All of
them are smart, high energy, and great.
This then Epstein responds, saying, your friend Aliza
told me about the project she was doing,
researching a really bad guy that gets children
for sex sent to his island.
She almost fainted when I told her that
person is me.
Now joke or not,
that seems like a pretty crazy thing to
say. What are you even talking about? How
could that be a joke in any sense?
Either way, it would be something you would
investigate, seeing as how we're talking about pe
children being sent to his island.
Just it's just and and and no actionable
evidence. I mean, you know, you get the
point. There's so much of this every day.
That's why I'm not making a focus on
just going through the files every day. There's
so much that I can show you, most
of which you already generally know.
But just to make the point about what
he is doing versus what he should be
doing, I'm sure you all saw this clip
of Kash Patel very childishly screaming with the
k ate the USA team.
Now look, like like a lot of people
have said, honestly, I wouldn't even care if
he was out there doing a great job,
if he was out there actually doing his
job instead of criticizing
the past administration
for using the jet like he literally keeps
doing.
You see what I mean? Like, that you
know, we we said if you remember, I'm
just saying FBI director Chris Wray doesn't need
a government funded at g five to go
on vacations. Maybe just get around $15,000
every time. And here he is.
And he's getting ripped apart for this by
his own team, by everybody. Because what what's
the why
he's just it's a guy that just is
glomming on to every thing around him, clearly
above his pay grade. You know what I
mean? That's what I see in this, that
he's just going, yeah. I get to be
a part of this. And maybe because he
sees it going away pretty soon. I don't
know. But it's just embarrassing, guys. With everything
that's going on,
it is. It's embarrassing. It's not because we're
piling on. That's embarrassing for a lot of
different reasons with what you're supposed to be
doing right now while you just criticize them
for doing all of the things you're doing.
Here's Elon Musk making a point that I
don't think he realizes calls himself out,
or he really exposes the real picture. But
see this, in my opinion, is him playing
on the partisan desires of the team he's
pointing it to. But this person posts a
meme that simply says, why isn't anyone protesting
the Epstein file? But they are, first of
all, just like every other point. You didn't
care about Iraq. Well, yeah, we did. And
there was protests, but you guys can just
recreate history all you like. There are tons
of people protesting Epstein files right now. You
can look it up. But the point is,
let's pretend they're not so we can make
this point for Twitter. Why isn't anybody protesting
Epstein files? And it says, because no one
is paying them to protest that.
Okay.
Well, we all I mean, that's not a
bombshell. Everybody in the world seems to know
that there are people paying those to protest
both for, you know, you, for example, Elon
Musk or Soros. You're both the same thing.
You both do the same things.
Okay. So it exists. Right? We all know
that. There's also people that get in you
know, donations are paid and aren't necessarily part
of some agenda. They get money from you
or other people that don't necessarily carry out
what you want. Blah blah blah. Protesting exists.
That's not illegal. Blah blah blah. I criticize
it too, and I think it's a problem.
What he's highlighting though,
right now, you can see there are Democrats
everywhere who are going,
I think, largely because it's Trump,
but still going Epstein files. Look at Trump's
guilty. Okay.
Then you've got Republicans,
far more of them, going Epstein files. What
are you doing about the Epstein files? Okay.
So we know that's the reality. Left and
right. Okay. So are you suggesting then that
the Republicans aren't protesting because they're not being
paid? I mean, there's no other way to
take that, guys, because we all see that
there's a huge portion of Republicans who are
very, very angry about how this is going.
So if you're suggesting they're not protesting because
they're not being paid, then
that makes my point that they all do
the same thing. But see, he's really just
lazily hoping you only take this as, well,
the Democrats, and that's it. Even though if
you're have two brain cells scrubbed together, you
can see plenty of Republicans who are up
in arms about this. You see how this
goes, though? It's just a it's just a
lowest hanging fruit effort to try to convince
you that it's all don't line your don't
trust your lying eyes. All the obscene things
of Democrat hoax, just stop paying attention, go
back to sleep, follow the Pied Piper of
technocracy.
It's very interesting to me. But let's be
clear again. We know that there are people
paying and manipulating protesters or, you know, that
happens all over the place. That doesn't invalidate
their protest, in case you forgot that.
But overall,
this is just to deflect from what they're
not allowing you know, what they're basically doing
and acting like if you just act you
know, suggest that the Democrats might trick you
by looking at the truth. So you know
what it is? The equivalent of saying, don't
look at what the Russia is sending during
the election because, like the Democrats were doing,
because they're trying to manipulate you, even though
what Russia is doing is the truth.
Same thing. Same thing they're doing now. Don't
look. Don't look. Democrats tricking you. Well, no.
It's clear the truth. And maybe they are,
but it's also the truth. Now,
this is connected to foreign policy, but I
just wanted to include it somewhere if we're
not gonna get into foreign policy today.
But really, I mean, this is just astounding
to me. Like everything else, like I keep
saying, it's
mind blowing that we're even in a place
where Trump is going, I put that guy
there,
Jelani,
and you can right now approve that he
was a terrorist.
A terrorist that the US government was trying
to you know, they claim they were trying
to find. And now he's going, I put
him there. He's doing a great job. I
mean, what we're this is a clown world.
How do you possibly
why is that not something the entire media
is freaking out about? Because they're all controlled
to some degree. How else do you understand
that? The point I wanna make today from
the Epstein files
is Jelani was responsible for systemic kidnappings,
rape,
forced marriages,
killing of US citizens and US troops.
But it's okay because Trump's doing a great
job. You know? But think about this. If
this is a person who ostensibly was largely
Israel but Trump put in place,
doesn't that then mean that you know, rather,
shouldn't you question whether there is more of
a global allowance of this kind of horrible
activity? And as long as they're on the
same team, same side, it doesn't matter?
Yeah. Maybe Maybe there's a connection, maybe not.
Either way, recognize Donald Trump is telling you
this guy is his guy,
this terrorist. Well, here's what he says. All
I can say is that the president of
Syria, who I essentially put there, is doing
a phenomenal job. He's a rough guy.
He's not a choir boy.
A choir boy. Couldn't do it, but Syria
is coming together, really coming together well.
I mean, I just don't even under this
is desperation. I don't know how else to
frame this, guys. They know we know who
he is. They know we know he was
a terrorist. They know we know that they
claimed they were fighting him the entire time,
and he comes out and goes, he's great?
I mean, how the only way to understand
that is that somebody else is going, we
have to say this, Trump. We need him,
so lie to everybody.
You know? Because this is my point about
Trump. He's a narcissistic,
petty, hubris driven person.
That's reality. And so why in the world
would he go out and go, like, what's
his interest in supporting this? Why wouldn't he
just go, that guy's a terrorist? It's probably
Russia's fault. And then do whatever he wants
to do. He would win points for that.
But, no, he has to come out and
go, he's the greatest guy in the world,
and we're all gonna go, what? I mean,
you call these people terrorists. You know? It
just shows you that in my mind,
literally, you could make it about Epstein. Somebody
has his leash.
I'm not saying I can prove that, but
at least give me an alternative. There there
probably are plenty of different alternatives. But what
else would you think explains why he would
do that? Just so it's clear, here
is the US government's post.
This is from Rewards for Justice. This is
a US government,
account. You can see the little gray check
right there. And it says, Mohammed Aljalani,
dollars 10,000,000
reward offer. Be on the lookout for this
almost re front terrorist leader.
That's him.
Okay. And there's when you got the the
release from the US Department of State, 2017,
reward for his head.
$10,000,000
right there.
Okay?
And now he's telling you he's a great
guy.
I mean, it's just pretty wild, isn't it?
The president of Syria who I essentially put
there, the Al Qaeda Hayatir al Sham leader
who killed US troops, allowed systematic kidnappings, rape,
and forced marriages,
and had a $10,000,000 bounty.
As Scott Horton points out,
same thing. He killed US troops in Iraq,
pledged allegiance to the butchers of the New
York City, and, yes, this his Syrian al
Qaeda regime is involved in exactly what I
just told you. But, you know, he hates
Iran and Hezbollah, so we're all on the
same side, apparently. America first?
No. Israel instead. Scott Horton.
Exactly.
Wake up, guys.
Show people.
But then again, maybe we all know. Maybe
we don't and here he is right there.
Maybe we all know this. And the only
people supporting this are the Jones, Benny, Johnson,
ridiculous people. And they act like it's everybody.
I mean, I don't know how else it's
possible. I mean, look. If if the majority
of people support this even though they know
he's lying about it, then I don't even
know what I'm doing here. I refuse to
believe that.
I just don't that will be being black
pilled even if it's true. I will not
allow that.
We see every day they pretend to care
about what we are. They wanna project goodness
and freedom. They that means we want that,
guys.
I just we this is a moment I've
never seen. They are on a knife's edge
if they're doing stuff like this. Again, unless
I'm missing something.
I'm genuinely curious if you think that. I
mean, what if that's the case, then please
tell me.
As Israel further occupies let's not forget, by
the way, as this is happening, Israel has
completely occupied Syria. There's bases. There's rollout. There's
people that are killing people on the ground,
ethnic cleansing, Alawites, Christians, all over the place.
And quite literally, ISIS patch wearing people, again,
I say it every time, you can check
this image for yourself. Save the image, go
to reverse image search, and you'll find this
as a reasonably new image from after they
took over Syria. And that is what you
found. ISIS patch wearing people driving around going,
Freedom. Guys, it's just insane.
Or a video of those ISIS patch wearing
people executing all the lights on the ground.
And they were like, He's doing a pretty
good job.
These are dangerously
bad people.
And again, like I said, you may you
could very well think that Trump doesn't even
know any of that. Maybe he thinks he
is a good guy. That it doesn't really
change the reality, does it? Now to end
with the cartel point of this, which really
does add to the bigger picture here, guys,
I mean, honestly,
I've talked about this so many times over
the years, and one pretty much recently
was more of another overview. But, you know,
this is not secret. This you know, what's
funny is these things come back around.
It's it's like the nine eleven topic, you
know, where people like Jane I can see
jay people like James Corbett rolling their eyes.
Like, here we go again going through this
old gem, this old chestnut, you know, where
you can see these things. You can prove
them over the years, then it just comes
back around. It just continues to happen. So
starting with what Miller is doing, and I
find it really telling.
Whenever this clear Israeli agent, and I'm kinda
being facetious, comes out and and just screams
a certain thing,
many cases, even Twitter will prove that he's
lying about it or get called out by
any number of ways.
When he does this, when he comes out
and starts going, this thing, cartels, Mexico, there's
something going on. Now remember, as we're gonna
highlight, there was recently,
this was basically day before yesterday into today,
all the way to today, there's been a
lot going on in Mexico. Interestingly, by the
way, I hope everyone's okay. It's not necessarily
right in the same location, but in Anacapulco.
I think they even moved it, so they
might even be closer, actually. But weird timing,
isn't it? Like last year, there was the
weird thing that happened. Who knows? It's pretty
weird, I guess. I argue that is interesting
timing.
Now, I hope Charlie and everyone's okay. I'm
sure Charlie and I I'll I'll make a
point to set up Charlie and I's, What
the Hell is Happening? Show for Rhett when
he gets back. We can talk about it.
But
Mexico sends thousands of soldiers to stop violence
after death of drug lord.
Now there's been a lot of misreporting about
this already. Claims I mean, even I basically,
people claiming like this didn't even happen or
maybe claiming that there's you know, The US
did it. There's all sorts of weirdness around
this. And we should be questioning this because
of the North American Union. Right?
I think I have the,
there it is. Just to give you the
image of what I'm talking about if you
don't remember this, the Tech Nate. Right?
Oh, this isn't the right one.
This is the show about it, though. As
Israel's global ambitions become clear, TeamSport Republicans endorsed
the North American Union. Jones being chief among
them. It but it was the here, I'll
just do this real quick. I'll include this
show. It's important to see this if you
haven't seen the tech name. I don't know
most of you have.
Oh, wait. Didn't that I forget which one
it was. I'll just look it up.
Right there. That's like the original. Right? So
what that shows you is what they're trying
to do. Greenland.
Right? Canada. Mexico.
So ridiculously obvious. And this is was outlined
as by what was it? Grand, Elon's what?
Grandfather? The original Technocracy Inc.
Was outlined as the seat of power, like
the seat of Technocracy that would eventually come
to pass. Here we are. I mean, I
I don't even I can't even believe it's
that clear if that's actually what's happening. But
the point is that Mexico
is important to this conversation, has even been
floated. Right? So we I'm wondering genuinely whether
or not this is about trying to achieve
that.
Justify
invading Mexico. Who knows? Right? But so first,
as that's happening,
this is today, Miller's saying the cartels control
all human smuggling
and trafficking into The United States. This is
simply not true, by the way. Every illegal
immigrant who crosses the border first pays the
cartels to smuggle them. I mean, that's I
mean, first of all, I just included Sal.
He said, no. They don't. If you actually
believe this, you don't belong in that position.
It's not true. I mean, it's there's so
many other elements involved. But realize that our
I mean, that means that they're allow and
this is our my one of my main
points here, guys, that that means that to
some level, the US government is allowing that
to be the case.
You realize that there's over there's,
cross border connection, like US government operations that
very much do overlap within New Mexico.
I mean, the talk this call has been
going on for years. An idea that they're
not in some ways the bottom line is
that if you take that at face value,
that means the US government is turning a
blind eye for this entire including Trump's last
administration. It's not what's
happening.
Now it also is not the reality because
you can quite literally prove that the US
government has been working with the cartels for
a long time.
First, in addition to Miller doing his thing,
there's another post he has down here where
he says, there are thousands of cartel operatives
in The United States. See you see how
they do this every time? There's Hamas operatives
all over the place. There's Muslim operatives everywhere
you look. What was the other one? What
they just do? Anytime there's a narrative they
want you to think, they go, no. That's
the thing. It's all over the place. Iran
has secret nuclear missile. Oh, okay. And they're
sniffing for nuclear bombs. Oh, no. Move on.
Now it's fog. Now it's a new thing
we're gonna hype for a day and then
move on and keep you distracted from what
they're not doing for you. Anyway,
there are thousands of cartel operatives in The
United States. And I agree with that, by
the way. My point is just to go
to the hyperbolic
sort of focal point when they need it.
Now, I don't agree that there's thousands of
Hamas operatives. Right? The point is simply that
they go to that when they want you
focusing, not even that they care about it.
Same thing here. I actually do think that
there are cartel operatives all over the place
because of how much they work alongside with
or for the United States government.
But my point is they don't care.
He's simply shoving you in that direction because
that's where the agenda goes right now. Not
that they're gonna stop it, sort of like
food does. It says DHS is the department
tasked with finding, arresting, and removing them. Democrats
have defunded DHS.
You know, this game they play where it's
we'll get into that in a second too.
Democrats have been trying to bring in these
cartel members. Well, maybe. The idea that first
of all, it's not
fundamentally
proven that they're going they're like, we want
cartel members. That's not what they claim. Certainly
could be the reality.
Simply argument the argument you guys make under
the circumstances is they want
all the immigrants
to vote for them. So then how does
that make sense with, oh, it's actually just
a bunch of cartel members that they want?
Or is it all or both or whatever?
You know, just interchange. It's like a revolving
door. Whatever narrative we wanna use that day,
we'll pretend that's the entire story. It's how
they work. But overall,
the point to say that they're doing they've
defunded the DHS look. How do we get
rid of government entirely? You know we support
all of that. But the idea that Democrats
are somehow doing this to allow cartels to
come in, they're painting a picture yet again
because of the current focus. The Democrats are
the bad guys. Democrats are the terrorists. They're
working with cartels.
But you can go back to their previous
administrations and show just as many feigned actions
against stopping and so on. You know, what
this will make much more sense if we
go through the 17 different articles that show
you how much they know they're working with
them, including Israel.
But this is what this guy puts out.
Listen up. Stephen Miller just dropped the hammer.
Thousands of cartel opport okay. Again, first of
all, he stated things online.
Why these children will take at face value
whatever this proven liar has to say.
Same with Biden or anybody else. Like, these
people have been caught lying. Government people all
over the place. Miller, hundreds of times since
this administration started.
And then he goes online, he goes, this
is something. And they all just go, oh
my God, look at that, Nick,
Eric Haugherty. They do the same thing every
time.
Bombshell,
he just dropped the mic. And it's something
that half the time turned out to not
even be true. It's sad.
Sinaloa Cartel, the, c what is it again?
I forget what the full name is. The
c g n or c j n g,
which apparently was one of the biggest.
Savages, fentanyl, crooks, human trafficker, stone killer. Yeah.
Most of which US government has allowed.
Not some border states, everyone.
Why? Because Miller stated that in a three
sentence post?
DEA's own threat assessment confirms it. These animals
have networked in your neighborhood. Okay. And they've
allowed it to happen for thirty years?
Oh, but Trump's taken it down. Ryan is
oh, is he? I'd love to see how
you mean that. What do you mean? Oh,
to get ready for them to be going
house to house through the country to get
rid of the cartel. We've moved on from
the ones they claim they were fighting. Oh,
trendy, Iraq, that was old news. We're focusing
on these guys. MS thirteen, where were you?
That's that's last year. We're focusing on this
cartel we claim is in your house. Now
we can kick your door in because we
told you we have administrative warrants.
Anybody see where this goes? Does anybody need
to prove any of this stuff anymore?
DHS exists for one lethal purpose right now,
to find them, arrest them, remove them. So
great. So you're basically you're basically a per
you're in to you're you're claiming the Department
of Homeland Security's only purpose is to basically
investigate everybody's everybody everywhere to make sure that
they're not secret cartels around the corner.
Find them, arrest them, remove them like the
vermin they are. The way he talks is
just this guy is embodying everything that they
claim he is.
And what the Democrats do, these treasonous,
power drunk psychopaths, as they're literally not the
ones in power, defend DHS in the middle
of a shutdown. They deliberately cause
every single one of them are terrorists, monster,
bad guys. And then Trump comes out and
goes, we're team unity.
Now in case you have missed this every
other part of the or you're new to
the show, they're all the same thing to
me. Democrats, Republicans, you're all the same. You're
doing the same things. You're doing the same.
You're lying about the same things. So do
not take this for somehow one side versus
the other if you just tuned in.
February 14, while the country was still reeling
from their last border bloodbath, they blocked every
clean funding bill. Right. See. And that's the
game.
The the funding bill the the game they
both play where they both stop it for
different reasons and point at each other, but
see now he's using it to say, see.
They did this, and that's why why everybody
died, which is not even necessarily the reality.
It's just lazy, emotional manipulation.
And by the way, this is a guy
pointing to what,
Miller was saying. Now TSA heroes, coast guard
warriors, that's not politics. That's psychological warfare. America's
soul, these Democrats aren't confused. They're all just
on and on and on, all built on
this post.
Thousands of operatives,
DHS,
finding them, Democrats, defunded
it. Wow. You really read into that, didn't
you? That's the feature. Stephen Merrill is calling
it exactly what it is. Democrats didn't negotiate
poorly blah blah
blah blah. Okay.
And guess what? Mister Poole comes out with
a very similar post and says, they didn't
just kill a drug lord. They killed a
deep state general.
Oh, okay.
At first, I was like, okay. Maybe this
guy's got some kinda take on this where
it was a a larger glow. Okay. You
know, maybe it's calling out everybody. Right?
El Mencho, who's the guy who was allegedly
killed, was untouchable for thirty years. He had
drones, armored vehicles, land mines. I don't know
why we would even pretend that mister Pool
knows any of this or just repeats what
he's told. But the the game of, you
know, the new experts, the people that show
up and three days later have 10,000,000 followers.
That's the game we're playing
today. But it says because he wasn't just
moving drugs, he
was moving children,
probably
with the US government. And on Sunday morning,
Trump's intelligence led Mexican forces straight to their
door.
Ah, okay. Now you see where it's going.
Well, there is a mention about his a
lot giving some level of information. We'll show
you in a second.
But now, apparently, it's Trump's operation according to
these blind partisans.
He died in the helicopter like a dog.
See how they talk? Like, it's just these
people are children.
$15,000,000
bounty collected. Oh, interesting. You mean, like, Jelani's
bounty? Funny. Why you why you go after
some and not others? Okay. And it goes
on right now, his soldiers are setting fire
to buses. They're pulling people over cars. They're
panicking. Good. Here's the point. Trump took out
their money with tariffs. Oh, it's a grand
plan. You see, Trump exposed their blackmail network
with the files of Epstein.
Oh, is that what he's doing? Exposing the
thing that he's hiding from you. Okay. And
now, Trump is taking out their muscle one
by one.
These are the ridiculous people that still grasp
onto the QN on
the theory.
The actual theory that is a lie. Not
a conspiracy theory because a conspiracy theory is
many cases turned out to be true. This
is a completely constructed,
like, immature version of something that I mean,
the reality of how often Q has been
shown to be false or it's been taken
over or you know, we've covered this since
it first started.
He says, this is not politics. It's war,
and the snakes are losing their heads. It's
all this ridiculous, weird cloak and dagger framing.
You guys are children, and I'm just so
tired of anybody pretending like this is something
anybody should take seriously. And let's also check
out the complete pairing of it in Spanish
because that's what you do when it's a
bilingual conversation, right? You literally highlight the exact
same thing. It's the exact same posting, word
for word
in Spanish.
By some other random account who's got 182,000
followers. It's the Mexican version of whatever that
Mr. Pool account is.
But the secret plan is Trump is set
all
this up to take down the guy. Is
that possible? Of course it's possible. Do Do
I think it's happening? No. Very much so,
no. Because the reality is, as I'm gonna
show you, that the even if this is
exactly what happened, which I'll I'll get into
my theories of what maybe if that is
the case, why that might be.
You can't deny that these are people that
they have allowed to exist.
This very well may be an effort to,
like, use this to keep you looking anywhere
else
from looking anywhere else and and pretend that
he's doing good things. Maybe because this is
a guy they can get rid of without
anybody getting mad about it. I don't know.
But there's more to
this. Here's Mike Lee doing the game they're
all doing. If you don't want to see
widespread drug cartel violence like these
images of the
landscape and smoke
Okay.
A burning building. Okay. You know? And he
goes, if you don't wanna see widespread cartel
violence, now I'm not suggesting there's not that.
It's just a funny way to frame this.
And he goes, you should stop interfering with
ICE.
Okay.
Now I get it. Right? Because we gotta
stop calling out their wildly illegal and constitutional
actions because otherwise,
Mexican cartels will burn your house down. Okay?
Perfectly makes sense to me. On top of
that, next order. Same thing. And it honestly
kinda bothers me that he's using Dan Dix's
footage
because Dan Dix
is an objective nonpartisan person, and this is
somebody who is Nick's order. That's Dix's word
sell. Hash the I mean, can you make
one post without a red light? Just one?
That says, Democrats have been fighting ruthlessly
for years to bring these cartel terrorists in
our country. I mean, that's my point from
before.
You have evidence of that?
You you the are you these guys just
go half half cocked on the general sentiment.
They all pretend it's factual without anything. Now
I'm not suggesting they're not. What I'm saying
is to claim that they have been not
just using, you know, immigration for votes, but
that they have been ruthlessly for years
trying to bring in cartel members.
For what?
For what? I mean, I mean, I'm not
even disagreeing, maybe. But for for what? What
is your point here? If you're gonna argue
that only Democrats brought in cartel members and
then the Republicans didn't have any clue, there's
a totally different government.
I mean, in what world do these people
get any respect? It's mind blowing to me.
This is exactly why ISIS mission is so
freaking central.
Same old thing. They all have got their
talking points and they all put the same
post out.
Now,
immigration wise,
especially from a full government perspective, I'd argue
that there is some kind of a network
or pipeline that overlaps with what this is.
And it's a not just a one government
thing,
but it's not the same as saying Democrats
are letting them in for their sole agenda.
It's the same that our government
as a whole is working with these transnational
entities like they were with Israel stuff, like
they are with any number of points you
could make.
But to just simply say they brought them
in, it's just a it's just a game
to play to say anything we now see
your point to is only Democrats, and I'm
just tired of it. It's bad.
So let's get into the reality of this.
The things that Nick Sorder and the rest
will run screaming from because it suggests that
we're dealing with a whole of government problem
and not, you know and doesn't support your
chosen hero of Donald Trump.
BBC.
Mexico sends thousands of soldiers to stop violence
after,
after death of drug lord. Now it says
and this is just one article. There's plenty
of mainstream reporting out there. We'll use this
to just set what they're framing it as
first. Mexico has deployed thousands of soldiers to
bolster security after a wave of violence erupted
following the death of a powerful drug lord,
the country's security minister has said.
Defense secretary Ricardo
Trevilla
said an extra said an extra 2,500
soldiers had been sent to Western Mexico on
Monday,
with reports suggesting at least 10,000 troops have
been deployed overall since Sunday. So if this
was, say, happening in The United States,
one of my considerations would be
this was in some way manufactured to justify
the rollout of military,
right, to justify the military state,
a state of emergency.
We should always consider that, whether US, UK,
Mexico, anywhere.
Every government, I argue, will be willing to
abuse situations like this, real or not, to
take more power. Every one of them, in
my opinion. But
that being said,
it it also could be a real effort
to take down something that they may see
as a threat from another government.
That's another possibility. Right? Because,
Shannenbaum,
the current president
yeah. You know, I was talking with Derek
about this earlier. There there's been pushback, like,
with their GMO corn conversation, but she's also,
in a lot of ways, let, you know,
let I mean, kind of worked back and
forth with the US government. So it's hard
to say. There's some parts adversarial, some parts
more amenable. It's hard to know to what
degree. There's real pushback. Right? Same thing with
AMLO before. Like, there was a lot of
pushback, but at the same time, he, in
a lot of ways, shown he was working
with it. Maybe it's because they don't have
the ability to push back. They know what
the US government will do. But in any
case,
if what I'm gonna show you, there's obvious
connection between the US government and the cartels.
And maybe, hypothetically, Scheinbaum has just decided to
be done with all this and is gonna
take down the actual network and Trump's just
taking credit for what she's doing to them.
Alternatively, you could argue that Trump gave them
information to be able to do this so
they could claim credit for it, which ultimately
isn't gonna stop what they're actually doing. I
mean, there's all different ways to look at
it.
Overall, I think it matters, just like the
point of Epstein, that they have been working
with these criminals their entire time.
And even if they actually just took him
out, like Osama Bin Laden, you can prove
that they worked with them up until that
point. And that's not a joke, by the
way. You can show the Washington Post or
no. Excuse me. I think it was the
Washington Times calling him
a warrior of peace, Osama bin Laden, well
before they got to that point. Same with
the some Saddam Hussein was an ally until
he wasn't.
Kind of a consistent track record, don't you
think? So continuing,
at least 20 states have seen unrest
since,
how do you say that? Namatio, Osiguera,
Cervantes, better known as El Mencho, was the
name everyone's referring to, died in custody on
Sunday shortly after being captured by Mexican special
forces. Now did he?
See what I mean? Like, may maybe he
was whisked away to some US
in some Israel
resort. You know? Who knows?
That's right. I mean, the point would be
that this very well could be a number
of things. I don't know why in any
sense we would trust the narratives from any
government. Question at all. The Jalisco the Jalisco
new generation cartel or the CJNG
is one of Mexico's most feared criminal organizations,
and its leader was the country's most wanted
man. At least 25 members of Mexico's National
Guard have died in in, Jalisco state since
the violence erupted, the country's security minister said.
El Mencho was captured after forces tracked down
a romantic partner he was meeting, according to
the defense secretary.
The drug lord was a was seriously injured
in a firefight between his bodyguards and the
military commandos deployed to capture him, And he
died while the military was transporting him from
the town of, to Pop,
to Palpa to the capital,
Mexico City. Mexico's president, Claudia Scheidenbaum,
has praised the army's operation that led to
his death and said her priority is to
guarantee peace and security across the country. However,
dozens of banks and local businesses have been
damaged after they were set alight by the
cartel members. So it's interesting. Right? So
it's hard to know how you could look
at this a lot of different ways. The
fact that they're burning, you know, banks and
everything, like, after it, you could see that
being a normal response. But part of me
wonders whether this is if this is, let's
say, a US network or maybe a globalist
network that they're a part of, and Cheinbaum
is breaking it down for own purposes,
maybe that's them using their entities to cause
chaos in a country that's not a lie.
It's what they do in Iran. Right? Iran
doesn't want what they they do is they
cause protests and chaos and burn buildings down.
It's the same thing. That doesn't mean that's
what this is, though. But consider that that's
one of those possibilities.
Now it says the US State Department has
offered $15,000,000
for information leading to El Necho. Well, yeah.
We just showed you how they offered $10,000,000
for the arrest of Jelani, and now he's
doing a great job in Syria. So it
doesn't really speak strongly enough to just because
you have a bounty, therefore he's your adversary.
Not how this works. The Mexican Ministry of
Defense said that the raid aimed at capturing
him had been carried out by the Mexican
army with support from the country's National Guard
and Air Force.
Now it says the complimentary information.
Interesting way to frame that. Cheynebaum
said that,
you The US
gave complimentary information,
but Mexico confirmed on Monday that no US
forces were involved in his killing.
So to me, that feels weird.
You'd feel like there'd be if they weren't
working together on this or in any way,
we that they would give them more to
me, that's more like we have to make
that statement. Otherwise, they're gonna be unhappy. But
that's my reading on it. Take for what
you will. But then it affirmed that US
was not involved, but they gave us complimentary
information. You know, that just seems weird, doesn't
it? Especially with the involvement. Maybe this was
them
causing this for some reason.
So that's the mainstream.
So here, first of all, we're gonna I
guess, Spanish with those other articles.
This is just one a couple of these
are just people's per opinions.
Huizar, does that he pronounce that. Just his
opinion. He says, Claudia Sheinbaum's government has eliminated
the CIA's top man in Mexico. And there's
a lot of arguments about him being involved
with the CIA. But so too, with a
lot of these kind of kingpins and entities,
right? That doesn't necessarily mean that the executive
branch
is knowingly working with them. The CIA and
groups like this guys are countries in and
of themselves today.
But it's likely
CIA is the US government, right? And I
think that is the case personally.
But you could argue that that could be
the case and he not even be aware
of it. He says the truth is that
the cartel we're discussing, the CJNG,
operates less as some rogue criminal enterprise and
more as a paramilitary instrument of the deep
state. And I'm gonna show you some of
these pictures going around, which you can see.
You can easily look up. The this is
an armed military state.
They are dressed exactly like the US government.
It says trained and armed by The US
and Israel, which by the way, is actually
easily proven.
And I'm gonna get to those, going back
to the 1989.
But
aside from all of it, right now is
the question. So, maybe you argue they were
doing that up there, you know, up until
Biden's administration and Trump stopped it, you know,
whatever. The point, nonetheless, is you could prove
that they did in fact train and arm
them. Train and arm them.
So the question is whether or not this
is an extension of the deep state apparatus
or something that is pushing back against, you
know, I guess, the state of Mexico alone
or just anybody, including The United States.
So here is another individual opinion.
Not familiar with this person. He says, El
Mencho want went to The US. And and
this is actually very this is true. I
found this interesting. You can see just like
a lot of these entities where they basically
go to The US, in some cases past
examples, they're like go to US schools and
then go back and like become a terrorist.
It's just
it feels very weird. It's certainly possible but
it makes you really go, okay, was that
just a trained operative? Right? So I meant
Al Mencho went to The United States, served
time, and returned to Mexico. And when he
did, became the boss. Now that even would
make sense, would, you know, serve time and
sort of, you know, that but it could
be the other way around too. But it
says the most basic CIA script of planting
an asset, and I do agree with that.
The Almencia was, was,
evacuated to US
to seal loopholes in his involvement of the
trafficking of children of Epstein.
So So we heard the other guy claiming
he's involved in the trafficking of children. Right?
Trump's going after it. But where else is
he actually doing that? I hear a lot
of narrative and talk and Kasparov claiming things,
but at the end of the day, you
guys are covering up the most obvious example
of that in the world right now. So
maybe the example of them saying Trump's doing
this and he's brought down the deep state,
which is not actually happening, is them covering
up the fact that he's actually hiding this.
You can decide.
But here's what I found actually really revealing,
or rather just I'm surprised.
This is the Ron Paul Institute.
I greatly respect Ron Paul and everything we're
doing. And he they posted this. What's really
behind Mexico's cartel wars today and the Liberty
Report? Look at what he shares.
C J N G I ISIS A Azov
CIA.
That's not a he's very clearly insinuating that
all of those are the CIA. I agree.
In fact, I probably literally can prove that
if you understand the way these connect. But
I think it has weight for people that
Ron Paul is the one suggesting that.
You know, Ryan's a crazy conspiracy theorist, but
here's Ron Paul. Shouldn't, that shouldn't be I'm
not. But the point is nonetheless, that's somehow
people view it, but, or how some people
view it. Just I think that's important.
I mean, on that same note, you know,
for example,
that we've been talking about the Azov movement
and the literal connection to the CIA going
back to 1948.
That you can have CIA documents that literally
prove they were training the fascist elements in
Ukraine to be used against the Soviets.
It goes back as far as you wanna
look, guys. They've been arming, training, and working
with terrorists their entire lives.
Or I guess rather, entire
existence.
So here's Alex Ek and with one of
these clips. And this is them. This is
the the Jalisco new generation cartel. Look at
them.
That's high-tech, guys. And and the argument you
could you could still argue Mexico is involved.
That is what a lot of people assume.
But there's a much more nuanced position here.
And, frankly,
it makes far more sense to me that
this be something being collaborated with by something,
like, by a US government entity or Israeli
entity, which you could prove going back in
history, but today is the question.
Versus a a Mexico element
that at the very least, they will be
working like, Mexico has always been manipulated by
the outside forces. Today, it's changed a little
bit. The question is, who is allowing them
to be armed this way?
And Alex Zach says, looks a lot like
they're government funded or supplied to me. Now,
the question is, who are they being funded
by?
Spero says, could the chaos in Mexico be
a deliberate setup to justify direct US intervention?
That's my first thought. Not that I'm assuming
that, and I'm not even sure if I
think it's the most likely.
But it certainly makes sense with the past
actions of the US government and what they've
what they've already suggested. Trump has recently suggested
Mexico being take, some kind of military action.
Here we are. It is the tech date,
so it would make sense. And he says,
don't forget.
US Special Forces are officially in Mexico right
now training elite units.
Intel agencies run the drug and gun and
drug trade. Boots on the ground equal training
today, intervention tomorrow.
Now Now, this is not a joke by
the way. I'm gonna show you this in
the next, it goes back as far as,
I mean, Israel has been caught training them.
Going back a long way, like literally caught
by, I think it was, I'll get to
it in two seconds.
Training them, cartel members, and that doesn't matter
apparently. The US government's been caught running drugs
for them, working with the DEA, doesn't matter.
I agree with him. I think right now,
this is most likely some kind of problem
reaction solution creation because of the whole global
system being exposed.
What it feels like to me, at least
part of it. Like, we're finally seeing probably
a fraction of the real picture. Not even
the whole picture, not even close, but we're
actually starting to see the outline of the
real picture. And I think, like Neil Oliver
said, I think they're actually scared about that,
or rather just concerned.
Derek writes, Part of my motivation for living
in Mexico is that it's a developing nation
with a certain level of corruption.
I am grateful the average cop takes bribes
and will look the other way in certain
situations. I would never it would never happen
in The United States. At the same time,
obviously, cartels and organized crime benefit from this
corruption as well. I want I want the
cartel violence to end in general because they
are violent, murderous thugs who commit crimes with
impunity, much like the governments they compete with,
if that's the case.
But, he says, I would hate to see
the erosion of cartel power turn Mexico into
just another vassal state for The United States.
That's where it seems to be going. There's
a sweet spot where nations can be developing,
but not so developed that they become fully
technocratic, and the state rules with an iron
fist. That's what I want. Now some people
might take issue with this statement. But think
of it. If you understand you have to
understand, first of all, if you don't already
know that we're from a a a we're
not statists.
You know? Personally speaking for myself, I you
know, I'm somewhere between you know, I don't
even know. I hate labels on it because
my my opinions tend to fluctuate largely between
the kind of anarchistic libertarian views, and some
of them even dance around the some levels
of the statist aspect only because I'm trying
my best to engage with the way the
world is. If I had my way, I
would not I'd be running screaming from anything
close to that. But the point is that
in a world where we don't want government
or realize that authority
is not something handed down by, you know,
because you have a badge and a gun,
that the idea is he's grateful that cops
will allow that because you're not bound by
some kind of government mandate that is not
consistent with humanity.
But you may disagree. But I thought that
was important to include. Now, lastly on this,
we'll get into some of these to finish.
Our, Arturo Dominguez says, and this is another
example. This is a real video. These are
these are cartel members. Might as well be
in the DEA. Might as well be ice
on the streets right now. I don't even
think Mexico has like, it's just crazy to
look at the level of tech they're wearing.
He says, y'all didn't know? We in The
US have been outfitting them for decades and
sending them all kinds of weapons. I've covered
this many times. The last one was about
weapons flooding into The Caribbean, primarily from Georgia,
Florida, Texas. And I'll include his post right
here. And we'll finish with all of the
many examples.
2025.
US weapons flood The Caribbean arming gangs and
cartels. Now, this is his personal article. Read
it. But there is a lot of source
material, so I appreciate it. But this is
in 2025.
So here, let's start with 2025
and go backward.
Or rather,
yeah, back in time.
So first, this is from Sean, Claudia Chaima.
This is the current president,
and and this is from February 13. So
it's ten days ago. Mexican president blasts
US for harboring
drug cartels.
Think about the timing of this, guys. You've
got me Clyde or shot Claudia Sheinbaum, the
president of Mexico, saying ten days ago that
the US government is harboring drug cartels.
And then all of this happens?
I kinda find it hard to believe. Either
this was set up this way to justify
this or so, or maybe this accusation came
out and Trump was like here, and that's
what the,
system whatever they said. The the information he
gave. And then did it on their own.
Either way, I find the timing pretty insane.
Twenty twenty five, February thirteenth. Mexico's president has
accused The US of harboring drug cartels and
American citizens of working with organized crime groups
in Mexico.
Basically, accusing it of being the reverse situation
where you've got The US abusing all this
and have even US citizens operating within Mexico
to basically run drugs in The United States.
It's where you have Trump's administration or all
of them, Biden and the rest, blaming it
on Mexico, which out of the mind, it
is both, really. But it goes on to
say
in a in a response to Donald Trump's
allegation of an intolerable alliance between traffickers and
her government,
Quote, there is also organized crime in The
United States, and there are American people who
come to Mexico with these illegal activities.
That's what she said.
Otherwise,
who would distribute fentanyl in the cities of
The United States?
The Mexican president's comments follow a report published
on Monday, which slowed
excuse me, showed the arrests of US citizens
for offenses related to organized crime had increased
by more than 450%
during the tenure of her predecessor,
AMLO, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Now, I felt
personally just my feeling, he felt like he
was much more in line with the kind
of pushing back against the global technocratic dynamic,
but
it's it's hard to say between them. You
know, either way, it's even that I have
questions. But the point is that that that
under his administration,
they
they the arrest of American citizens for involvement
in cartel and drug went up 450%.
Now it's hard to know what that means.
If it was, you know, one and it
went up to whatever, that'd be 10 or
whatever it is or five, then that wouldn't
be a whole lot. Right? But nonetheless, it
simply shows an increase in that happening. I
never we don't get any reports about The
US citizens being caught. Why is that? Now
Scheinbaum called on Washington not just to to
help crack down on cartels in Mexico, but
for The United States to, quote, do its
job in The United States
to make the arrests that need to be
made in order to halt the trafficking of
drugs in its own country. Oh, okay. Well,
now you can see this going possibly another
direction where she then becomes an advocate for
the very thing happening to our country.
You know,
people always tell us funny how you get
such pushback.
When I when I go over these, I
think it's important
to flush out different possibilities.
And as always, we're very clear if you
are regular on the show about fact versus
having a conversation about what's possible. But I
always think it's funny how people just people
just today in in the partisanship more than
ever, that's why they tend to not come
in. They want absolutism.
They want you to be like, this is
them, we know it, and Trump's saving the
world. Everyone's winning. Yay.
Facts don't matter. You know, it's like or
or the same thing in reverse on the
other side. That's just frustrating, you know? But
my point is it's important that we flush
these things out, even if it's, you know,
a 5% possibility.
I don't know. You tell me. I think
that thing's important. Maybe maybe you feel like
it derails from the conversation. Genuinely care about
your opinion. But I'm gonna do what I
think either way, because that's what we're here
for. I it's important. Right? If you allow
your audience to dictate what you do, you
get audience captured, and that gets abused. Either
way.
AMLO,
arresting American citizens.
How this all went down. You know, it's
hard to have to feel that there's some
kind of
a a change here, you know, even with
the with Shinebaum, even though pushing back on
GMO.
Now it says Jack Riley, former head of
the Chicago office of of of the of
the DEA,
Riley noted that American citizens have become increasingly
involved in smuggling drugs across the border.
Quote, anybody that has dual citizenship.
Now he means clearly Mexico,
US, but still an interesting point.
Can be influenced and corrupted by the cartels.
Almost all of that occurs on the border.
Checkpoints and vehicles. It's not the guy with
the backpacks when they cross the Rio Grande,
Rio Grande, whatever. No. So they they point
to
that immigrants coming across the border fleeing with
their families. Oh, that's you know, but here,
what they're pointing to is more of an
organized reality that's going through their proper channels.
So when's the last time you heard about
US citizens being caught trafficking drugs across the
border in a car, you know, in but,
like, for the cartel in some kind of
an organized high-tech? You don't. Not as far
as I can tell. So what's interesting is
we're being told all of these innocent people
being, you know, fleeing from US violence into
South America. Oh, they're all evil. I'm sure
there's
some of them. There's, like, any any group
that are gonna be bad. But the reality
seems to be the actual problem. Just like,
you know what? Take a step back. Everything
we're talking about, the big picture. They're pointing
to the problem, which is, you know, illegal
immigration, drugs in the country,
and they have no intention to solve that.
They point to that problem to get you
to be able to to be, like, to
accept their ICE solution,
which is not aimed at solving that problem,
but you feel like it is. So you're
basically calling for your own subjugation. That's how
this always works, in my opinion.
So I think what I'm highlighting here is
the reality of this network, the reality of
this trafficking, and it has not much to
do with random people coming across the backpacks.
It has to do with US government entities
working with the cartels.
Possibly.
Timing is interesting, isn't it? Now, here's Ron
Paul, January 6, pointing out something that we've
talked about. The fact that you can prove
that the US government
lied,
manufactured an entire cartel to rationalize their actions,
and then admitted it didn't exist.
How do you keep going forward with a
group like this?
As Ron Paul said, the case against Nicolas
Maduro hinged on the Trump administration's
designation
of cartel de la Souls. Remember all the
talk we heard from all of the mainstream
alternative media people? All the usual suspects
as a terrorist organization,
drug organization,
with Maduro in charge. Now the administration has
now admitted that there is no such cartel.
Well, they got Maduro out of the way,
so who cares? Lie exposed. Go back to
bed. Shut up. We don't care what you
think. Right? They moved him out. The person
there is letting all The US banks come
in, letting them take oil. You know, no
one's even talking about it now, right? The
new vassal state, that's always what they wanted.
Now it's Cuban next. Now it's wherever. We
live with murderers and maniacs, guys.
Ron Paul is not one of them. And
he's saying, no. Administration's admitted that the cartel
that they manufactured
to do this doesn't even exist. The operation
looks like not much more than a big
payoff to Trump's donors, including vulture capitalists like
Paul Singer, who stands to make billions from
the operation.
It'd be great if people could actually, you
know
anyway,
it is frustrating, guys.
This is even the zero edge. Trump DOJ
admits Venezuela's cartel cartel de la soles isn't
an actual organization.
And that guess what? That didn't change anything.
That didn't change anything that they've used
that to justify.
Didn't change didn't they didn't pull back any
agendas. They didn't let people go that they
claim were a part of it. They just
no. They just we lied. Move forward.
And not the courts, not the government, not
congress, nobody. You know, there's a lot of
feigned outrage, but nothing actually happened. No allegations,
no impeachment, doesn't matter because none of them
really care.
So if you need any more evidence of
that, starting for 2025 again,
this is from the DEA for Forbes reported
in 2025, the wiretap. The DEA laundered $19,000,000
of cartel drug money
into cash and crypto. I read through this
in-depth the last time or the time before
last we covered it. That's 2025.
That doesn't matter, apparently.
Don't forget that in 2025 in May, Donald
Trump
brought in 17 family members of notorious cartel
leaders. Funny the timing of that, isn't it?
17 family members of notorious cartel leaders enter
The United States in a deal with Trump's
administration.
But the worst of the worst are going
out, guys. Don't forget about that.
Okay? Even though they're killing family members of
anybody even three generations connected to anybody in
Palestine. But no. No. These guys are good
people, though. Right? Cartel family members entered The
US after a deal with Trump. That's Fox
News.
Okay. Let's go to twenty twenty five, May
twenty ninth.
Mexican president demands
US explain deals
with terrorist cartel figures amid extradition push for
El Minie Lick. This is May.
Right? So she's over here going, I'm accusing
you of working with cartels. Then months later,
she accuses The US under Trump's administration
for making deals with these terrorists.
How do we how we can't pretend like
this is not happening. That's she could be
lying. That's certainly possible.
I don't think she is based on what
we can see, But think of that and
now with what we're dealing
with. Twenty twenty five February. Remember going back?
US border guard allegedly in violent Mexican drug
cartel.
Weird.
The very people meant to be stopping it
turns out to be working with them? Oh,
yes. See, that's the inside. That's the crack
in the door. That's the real picture.
The very that's the that's the what we
were just highlighting. Not the random woman with
her children coming across the river. No. The
people that are supposed to be guarding it,
letting the cars come through because they're supposed
to. Or however you see that working. But
this is a one example point. US border
guard allegedly in violent Mexican drug cartel.
The 2023.
We've read this recently actually from, Yakoven. The
US government is complicit in the drug cartel's
crimes. And this one's really well done. I
read through this pretty well, pretty in-depth.
It's undeniable, guys. Some levels of our government
are being caught all over the place working
with these criminals.
Here's Haratz from the Israel side. How Israeli
firearms fall into the hands of Mexican drug
cartels.
This one's from '26 '24 2006, 2018, and
it was almost 300,000.
2018,
how Israel armed the drug cartels, part one.
This is 2016.
Feds helped hide investigation into big banks' money
laundering for drug cartels. That was back from
Kerry Wedler, 2016.
Here's the actual article from The Guardian. It
says, had The US right here.
Had The US authorities
decided to press criminal charges,
HSBC would almost certainly have lost its banking
license in The US. The future of the
institution would have been under threat, and the
entire banking system would have been destabilized.
So we just ignored the fact that they
work with cartels. That's crazy. Right? Brower was
pressed on why US authorities had agreed to
a deferred prosecution deal for the bank. He
dismissed accusations that prosecutors had not been hard
enough and said that the justice department
had looked at collateral consequences
to prosecuting HSBC
or taking away its US banking license. Such
a move could have cost thousands of jobs.
You know, we can't stop glyphosate.
It'll hurt the business.
Okay. We can't actually stop you know, actually
hold them accountable for work with the cartels
because we do too, because it would cost
them jobs.
Anybody starting to get a pattern here? The
reality is they choose to ignore it because
whatever they rationalize it with. But what they
don't ever do is go after the cartels,
it seems.
Here is 2012.
Fast and Furious scandal. New details emerge on
how the US government armed Mexican drug cartels.
That's ABC News. You can read through it.
It's pretty damn obvious.
Here's one from 1989.
Tape shows Israelis
training cartel's killers. Well, look, you can go
all the way back to just recently to
find out that there are elite US entities
training them now.
Experienced Israeli instructors trained private paramilitary units whose
members included a leader of the Medellin drug
cartels death squads blamed in the killings of
this month for four judges and nine court
workers according to videotape prepared by
Israelis themselves.
So this gets broken down by the Los
Angeles Times in twenty nineteen eighty nine that
not only is the Israel training the Medellin
cartel, that's Pablo Escobar,
all the horror stories were told from our
government. Israel's literally training their worst people. Makes
a video of it themselves.
Think about what we're talking about here. And
and in this month, they killed four judges
and nine court workers.
You know what happened? Nothing.
Just like always.
A secret report prepared for a government security
agent also disclosed that the trainees in the
film had been recruited at the behest of
Pablo Escobar and Gonzales Rodriguez Gotcha, two leaders
of the Medellin cartel.
Mazza said in an interview with two American
reporters that the film,
prepared by Israelis,
captured in a raid on the house of
an alleged recruiter for the death squads,
quote, is undeniable evidence that the Israelis have
trained the drug cartel's forces.
And according to Mazza, Vladimir, who's a person
who was involved,
has told interrogators that his instructors were Israelis.
And it says he said that at least
11 British instructors on top of the Israelis,
11 British
instructors also had trained paramilitary units for the
Cali drug cartel.
But he made it clear that the Israeli
trainers were his targets.
Quote, with his with this videotape, everything is
proved, and in this country, everything has to
be proved.
It says, but Masa said some British mercenaries
remain in Colombia
and that there are several schools
operated by the cartels to train their private
armies.
So this is not a union. This is
nineteen eighty nine, guys. And if this has
never actually been called out to this day,
think about how large this is today
and why they look like the US military.
Probably because this is more connected to something
we don't even realize.
The mission is complete.
He said in Hebrew as an Israeli identified,
the basically, as the Israeli identified only as
this, Teddy translated it and with his accent
in Spanish, but in Hebrew.
In the video prepared by the Israelis who
are on record training these worst people, you
know, the mission's complete. What's the mission?
You imagine having all of this to go
back as far and and just lying about
it. They've always just been like, that's not
true. We're not doing that.
Here we are.
Before we even finish, guys, you know,
the that you could even argue that despite
all of that, that today, it's different. Trump's
different. Okay. It's possible. Right?
Clearly, based on a thousand other examples, I
disagree. But even with this cartel point, what's
happening in Nexco right now? Like I said,
I mean, you could argue this is about
manufacturing a distractionary
kind of just chaotic moment of to stop,
obviously, they're falling apart situation.
But But I'm also kind of considering that
this is more of a larger, you know,
that maybe a deal was made.
Right? He throws her a bone. She takes
this person out. It's even even though it's
somebody that they're essentially working with, and that
creates some kind of momentum that they use
to carry out whatever they're gonna do.
But something that, you know, based on the
CIA connections, based on the idea of the
history and what Scheinbaum's done so far, what
I'm leaning toward, but it's, you know, not
that, you know, 60%
of my mind. What I'm leaning toward is
more that Scheinbaum
took action here because this is something she
recognized was undermining her agenda in Mexico.
And that it's clearly connected to The US,
that's why she called him out a month
before we got here or ten days before
this even happened, saying you're supporting the cartels.
Right? And so ultimately then
took something maybe he inadvertently gave her and
took this person down.
And now this is causing chaos in their
networks and what they're trying to accomplish. It's
hard to tell. I'm sure I we're gonna
get more as this goes forward in the
next month probably and see what this affects.
Or maybe it was all a big distraction.
It didn't even happen. I don't think that.
I'm seeing these are all possible. But like
I said, I'm leaning towards the likelihood based
on the CIA obvious connections there that this
is something that is her you know, like,
you could see think about, like, the USAID
and the way they use these and what
Israel's doing. And maybe she recognizes that this
represents that influence in her country.
That's kinda what makes sense to me.
But I'll end with these
old article
back 2017.
And it's far more than just this. This
is just to make a point. It was
it was entitled the five cartels that rule
America and the world.
The international banking cartel,
the medical establishment cartel,
the energy industry cartel, the agricultural chemical producers
cartel, and the information industrial complex cartel.
Now clearly, like I said, there's tons more
than that, but the reality being is that
we don't think of it this way, do
we? Right? We think of the, they call
it the cartel because the way, well, I
mean, yes, as Derek would point out, there's
plenty of corruption.
But when, you know, it's objectively, when you
look at what they're doing in the world,
look what Israel is doing. Look what The
US has done all around the world for
centuries, for decades rather.
Then it's kinda hard to argue that there's,
you know, at the very least, they're basically
one in the same. The point is that
we should consider how a lot of these
other groups that basically operate under the auspices
of somehow, you know, legitimate government operations that
are, if not as bad, far, far worse.
Now I'm gonna get to this next show
not that many to get to but I'm
going to point this out to finish
which is simply a report.
Courts have ruled.
4,400
times
that ICE jail people illegally.
And it hasn't stopped still to this day.
As representative Mike here saying Levin, regardless of
your opinion about left and right politics and
what he believes, who knows, probably dishonest. The
information is still the reality.
That this this is I mean, I've been
covering these intermittently.
400, four zero zero, 400
judges, federal judges have ruled that they're breaking
the law.
Many, I mean, it's I mean, it looks
like it's right down the middle, but many
of which are Republican judges or at least
appointed by Republican presidents.
So you can't pretend it's some judicial coup
or it's a they're active activist judges. They're
saying that, but you it's it's embarrassing to
make the argument where you can prove that
there's plenty of Republican judges who are going,
that's a criminal act. It's in the article.
So we can prove they're breaking the law.
The courts are saying they're breaking the law
440
4,400
times.
Really make sense of that. And yet not
only are they still doing it, but there
are people they've claimed were illegally held that
they basically didn't that they held
long times after they were told to release
them. These are criminals.
This is a broken reality. This is not
about America first. This is about the new
normal, just like with COVID nineteen. There it's
happening right in front of you. And I
will go through this in-depth. The probably the
next show, probably tomorrow. This this is important.
Kristi Noem repeatedly claimed ICE deported cannibal.
Guess what? It was literally, completely, entirely made
up.
Like, almost
almost I'm gonna go and say the majority
of what they're putting forward. I keep seeing
these things. Pam Bondi has now admitted, yeah,
they do have a domestic terrorist list. Sorry.
We lied to you. Lyons lied in front
of Congress. He He should be held accountable
for that. Now this is not just a
general list. It's a list on top of
what they've been doing. And, yes, it is
happening through ICE.
Maybe I'll just finish with this. We'll wrap
it up today.
It's a clip
from an ice whistleblower Swore an oath.
Oops. An ice whistleblower telling you that they
have
chosen, like deliberately manipulated the training program in
order to do what they're doing. You know
this, guys. We've proven this ourselves.
It's just sad how many people will choose
partisanship
over what they actually claim they're fighting for.
It's so it's it's brainwashing as far as
I can tell. It's it's social engineering. You
have people who are acting against their own
interest. Remember we talked about that with neuroscience
and Catherine Catherine Austin Fitts?
It's worth considering that we're involved in that
in some way because people are quite literally
acting against their own outcome. Like what they
have like like RFK Jr. You fight your
entire career against these points, then you just
turn and fight again. I just don't understand
it. Don't understand it.
But we'll fight it. Because what else are
we gonna do? And the last thing I'm
gonna do is just sit back and go,
oh, well,
You know, we're we are gonna stand up
and fight this tooth and nail as long
as we can because it matters. Because we
care about our health, and we care about
our children's future, and the world that we're
leaving behind. Of course, we do. The people
who are drenching us with glyphosate and dioxins
and PFAS,
they do
not. So keep fighting, guys.
This is just
it's weird how clear it is that we're
in you know, like, just in my experience
for how long we've been doing this decade
more.
This is unique, what we're dealing with. At
least in my experience, it really is. Now
that may mean we're at a different phase
where it it hopefully, it means that we
something's changing.
Now these moments of change can be abused
by the very same structure. So that's why
it's important that we, at first,
acknowledge that we're dealing with this. We see
the problem. State out loud. Acknowledge. Discuss it
with people. Then, do our best to solve
that. Not just sit back and allow them
to keep taking advantage and keep rolling it
back around over and over. The hamster wheel
continues
because we can change this, and I believe
that. Thank you for tuning in.
Share the work. Make the clips.
Thank you for being here. I love you
all. As always, question
everything.
Come to your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.
Uphold the constitution.
I swore an oath to uphold the constitution
when I joined ICE on 08/01/2021
as an assistant chief counsel.
I followed that oath for four and a
half years,
working side by side with ICE officers.
And I followed it when I resigned
on 02/13/2026,
a little over a week ago, so that
I could speak to you today. For the
last five months, I watched ICE dismantle the
training program,
cutting two hundred and forty hours
of vital classes from a 584
program.
Classes that teach the constitution,
our legal
system, firearms training,
the use of force,
lawful arrests,
proper detention,
and the limits of officers' authority. I